CAR_Public/160301.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 1, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 43


                            Headlines


AAA PLATING: "Magana" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
AAM HOLDING: "Martins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AARGON AGENCY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
ABUNDANT LIFE: Faces "Malamphy" Suit Seeking Unpaid OT Wages
AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces "Travis" Securities Class Suit

AIRBNB INC: "Plazza" Suit Alleges Unlawful Business Practices
ALLVALLEY BATTERY: "Kaishchyan" Suit Claims Labor Code Violations
AMC THEATERS: Sued for Discrimination Against Blind
AMERICAN TOBACCO: Attorney Sues Scott Law to Get Compensation
APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Error 53 in iOS of iPhone Models

ASIA TASTE: "Liu" Suit Alleges FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violations
BARNIV MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Kwiakowski" Claims
BLUE CROSS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Alabama
BOEING INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of "Program Accounting"
BRAND VENTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Vazquez" Suit Claims

BUBBLES BAKERIES: "Dominguez" Suit Seeks OT, Missed Breaks Pay
CANADA: Koskie Minsky Seeks Approval of CPRI Settlement
CANADA: Military Vets to Fight for Long-Term Benefits
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CHICAGO, IL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Red-Light Camera Program Suit

CHILDREN'S PLACE: Gives Phantom Discounts, "Rael" Suit Alleges
CNOVA N.V.: Faces "Lee" Suit over Share Price Drop
COLORADO: Sued Over Maltreatment of Homeless & Mentally Ill
CONTINENTAL CAS: Court Dismisses LTC Insurance Rate Class Action
COOK MEDICAL: Faces Two Class Actions Over Blood-Clot Filters

CROMWELL SOHO: "Chen" Suit Claims Violation of FLSA, NY Labor Law
CVS PHARMACY: Misrepresents Algal-900 DHA, "Aliano" Suit Says
DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY HEALTH: Workers Drop Retirement Funds Suit
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
DUKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Nuclear Costs

ERIN ENERGY: Bylaws Violate Del. Corporation Law, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: "Brickman" Says B-Day Announcements Violate TCPA
FEDERATION OF MEDICAL: Must Compensate Over Cancelled Surgeries
FIFTH STREET: Faces Class Action, March 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
FITBIT INC: March 11 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids

FITBIT INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
FITBIT INC: Southern California Woman Files Class Action
FOUNDATIONS GROUP: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FRED'S STORES: Faces "Bryant" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FRONT PORCH: "Pulido" Suit Seeks Pay for OT, Missed Breaks

GAP INC: Judge Rejects False Advertising Class Action
GENERAL AUDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wandel" Suit Claims
GETTY IMAGES: Models Sue Over Unauthorized Image Licensing
GOLD'S GYM: Operator Faces "Jones" Labor Suit in Calif.
HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Sued in Conn. Over Insurance Claims

HIGH END: "Kel-Mar" Lawsuit Alleges Breach of Contract
INDIANA: Robs Metally Ill Patients of Voting Rights, Suit Claims
IOOF: Sues Law Firm Over Docs from Four Whistleblowers
IZZY'S STEAKS: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
J & J AIR: Faces "Zurlo" Suit Over Waiting Time Penalties

JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Invokana
JC CHRISTENSEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gutierrez" Suit Says
JEFFRY PICOWER: Madoff Bankruptcy Judge Rejects "Goldman" Suit
JP MORGAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shore" Action Claims
LA HUERTA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Espinoza" Suit Says

LIFE'S TOUCH: Faces "Davis" Lawsuit Seeking Overtime Payment
LYFT: Seeks Uber Protection Order
MARATHON OIL: "D'Aponti" Suit Alleges Employee Misclassification
MASONITE CORP: "Byrd" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to E.D. Cal.
MAVERICK OIL: "Campos" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

MDL 2591: "Richardson" Suit Transferred from N.D. Alabama
MDL 2591: "Fischer" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to N.D. Okla.
MDL 2591: "Crone" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to M.D. Pa.
MDL 2591: "Welsh" Suit v. Syngenta Transferred from E.D. Ky.
MDL 2591: "Dreibodt" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to W.D. Tex.

MDL 2591: "Anderson" Suit v. Syngenta Moved to Kansas
MDL 2591: "Vermeer" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to N.D. Iowa
MDL 2591: VJW Farm Suit Transferred from S.D. Indiana
MDL 2657: "Jones" Suit v. GlaxoSmithKline Consolidated
MDL 2672: 50 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred

MEDICAL MUTUAL: Judge Dismisses RICO Class Action
MERCEDEZ-BENZ: Car Owner Sues Over Emissions Scandal
MOL GLOBAL: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Action
NATERA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Oggi's Pizza Sues for Alleged Antitrust Acts

NAVIENT CORP: Faces "Menold" Securities Lawsuit in Delaware
NAVIENT CORP: April 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
NEW YORK: Judge Permits Unsealing of NYPD Summonses
NEW YORK & CO: Gives Phantom Discounts, "Rael" Suit Alleges
NEXTEL: Must Compensate Consumers for Poor Service, Charges

NFL ENTERPRISES: T-3 Restaurants Suit Moved to C.D. California
NOBILIS HEALTH: March 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
NYC MARATHON: Responds to Illegal Lottery Class Action
PASADENA UNIFIED: Sued Over Violation of Student Rights
PATTERSON COS: "Winter" Suit Claims Antitrust Act Violation

PIECH DECORATING: Violates Ill. Labor Laws, "Sanchez" Suit Says
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dier" Suit Claims
RE & FA LLC: "Concepcion" Lawsuit Alleges FLSA Violation
RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: May 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
RYS RESTAURANT: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Taints Groundwater, N.Y. Suit Says
SHAPIRO & DENARDO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ume" Suit Claims
SIOUX CITY, IA: Council OKs Higher Costs Related to Class Action
SONY PICTURES: Production Assistants Sue Over Working Conditions
SOUTHERN WASTE SYSTEMS: Mendez Fuel Sues over Extra Fees

SPOTIFY: Ricky Spicer Files Class Action Over Pre-1972 Licenses
SPRINT CORP: Must Face Class Claims Over Background Checks
STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Australian Lawsuit for $143 Million
STETSON DESERT: Dancer Claims Violation of FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Patel" Suit Removed to N.D. California

TERRAFORM POWER: "Fraser" Suit Removed to N.D. California
THEMIE LLC: "Brownell" Alleges Violation of FLSA, R.I. Wage Act
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Jackson County Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Judge Tosses "Rosen" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Says Background Checks No Guarantee of Safety

UNITED PACIFIC WASTE: "Soto" Suit Seeks OT, Missed Breaks Pay
VEROS AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mata" Action Claims
WABASHA COUNTY, MN: Faces Class Action Over Safe Driving Program
WASHINGTON: Rest Break, Bonuses Remain in Dispute
YADKIN VALLEY: Employees File WARN Act Class Action

* Bennett Jones Issues 2016 Predictions in Canadian Class Actions
* German Law Authorizing Privacy "Class Actions" Takes Effect
* McKenzie Lake Lawyers File IVC Filter Class Action
* Scalia's Death Likely Unfavorable for Companies' Interests
* Siskinds LLP Launches IVC Filter Class Action


                            *********


AAA PLATING: "Magana" Suit Alleges Calif. Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Magana, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. AAA Plating & Inspection, Inc., a California
corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, Inclusive, Case No: BC610206
(Cal. Super., County Of Los Angeles - Central District, February
11, 2016), seeks overtime and minimum wages, premium wages for
missed meal and rest periods, penalties, interest and reasonable
attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor Code and
California Code of Regulations.

AAA Plating &Inspection, Inc., a California corporation, offers a
wide variety of plating and processing services, including
anodizing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, CA 90211
     Tel: (310) 553-3600
     Fax: (310) 553-3603


AAM HOLDING: "Martins" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
VICENTE MARTINS v. AAM HOLDING CORP. d/b/a PRIVATE EYES
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, JAY-JAY CABARET, INC. d/b/a FLASHDANCERS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB 59 MURRAY ENTERPRISES, INC. d/b/a NEW YORK DOLLS
GENTLEMEN'S CLUB, and BARRY LIPSITZ, Case 1:16-cv-01078 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 11, 2016), alleges, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, that he and the FLSA Collective Plaintiffs are entitled to
recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid overtime, (2) unpaid minimum
wages, (3) liquidated damages and (4) attorneys' fees and costs;
and pursuant to the New York Labor Law, he and the FLSA Collective
Plaintiffs are entitled to recover from Defendants: (1) unpaid
overtime, (2) unpaid minimum wages, (3) unpaid spread of hours
premium, (4) liquidated damages and statutory penalties and (5)
attorneys' fees and costs.

The Corporate Defendants and Defendant LIPSITZ jointly own and
operate "Private Eyes", "Flashdancers" and "New York Dolls" as a
single integrated enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AARGON AGENCY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Kassing-Bradley, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Aargon Agency Inc., Case No. 9:16-cv-00165-
PMD (D.S.C., January 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Aargon Agency Inc. offers billing, collection and tenant screening
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Holly Elizabeth Dowd, Esq.
      WEISBERG AND MEYERS
      5025 N Central Avenue, #602
      Phoenix, AZ 85012
      Telephone: (888) 595-9111
      E-mail: hollyedowd@yahoo.com


ABUNDANT LIFE: Faces "Malamphy" Suit Seeking Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
MARCIE MALAMPHY AND OTHERS, SIMILARLY SITUATED v. ABUNDANT LIFE
HOME HEALTH AGENCY, INC., Case 8:16-cv-00327-EAK-TGW (M.D. Fla.,
February 11, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
overtime wages owed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Abundant Life Home Health Agency, Inc. operates a closely held
private nursing agency in Pinellas County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Constantine W. Papas, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF CONSTANTINE W. PAPAS, P.A.
     1277 N. Semoran Blvd. Suite 106
     Orlando, FL 32807
     Tel: (407) 347-6502
     Fax: (407) 206-3655
     E-mail: cwp@deanpapaslaw.com


AEROJET ROCKETDYNE: Faces "Travis" Securities Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
JULIANN TRAVIS v. AEROJET ROCKETDYNE HOLDINGS, INC., EILEEN P.
DRAKE, KATHLEEN E. REDD, AND SCOTT J. SEYMOUR, Case 2:16-cv-00961
(C.D.Cal., February 11, 2016), is a federal securities class
action on behalf of all persons and entities, other than
defendants, who purchased the securities of Aerojet during the
period of October 15, 2013 through February 1, 2016, inclusive.

Aerojet designs, develops, manufactures, and sells aerospace and
defense products and systems along with a real estate segment that
includes activities related to the re-zoning, entitlement, sale,
and leasing of the Company's excess real estate assets. Aerojet
develops and manufactures propulsion systems for defense and space
applications, and armaments for precision tactical and long-range
weapon systems applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AIRBNB INC: "Plazza" Suit Alleges Unlawful Business Practices
-------------------------------------------------------------
FRANCESCO PLAZZA and SYLVIE NAUDE v. AIRBNB, INC., Case 1:16-cv-
01085 (S.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), seeks damages for alleged
violations of the New York Real Property Law (NYRPL) and the New
York General Business Law (GBL); and for fraud, and unjust
enrichment against Airbnb for its conduct and actions as an
unlicensed "real estate broker."

Through its website, www.airbnb.com, Airbnb created and maintains
an operation that lists, advertises, and takes fees and/or
commissions for property rentals it facilitates, controls, and
processes payments for.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
     Lucas A. Ferrara, Esq.
     Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
     NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
     1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
     New York, NY 10001
     Tel: (212) 619-5400
     Fax: (212) 619-3090
     E-mail: lferrara@nfllp.com
             jnorton@nfllp.com

        - and -

     Kent L. Gubrud, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF KENT GUBRUD P.C.
     11 Broadway, Suite 568
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212) 968-8818
     Fax: (212) 504-8225
     E-mail: law@depose.net


ALLVALLEY BATTERY: "Kaishchyan" Suit Claims Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Khachik Kaishchyan, an individual, v. Allvalley Battery Service,
Inc., a corporation; Ammari Auto Center, an entity of unknown
form; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No: BC 610183 (Cal.
Super., County of Los Angeles, February 11, 2016), alleges failure
to pay wages and overtime, meal-period liability, rest-break
liability.

Defendants specialize in providing vehicle service and repair.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Yeremian, Esq.
     Michele Jackson, Esq.
     DAVIDYEREMIAN & ASSOCIATES, INC.
     535 N. Brand Blvd., Suite 705
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (818) 230-8380
     Fax: (818) 230-0308
     E-mail: david@yeremianlaw.com
             michele@yeremianlaw.com


AMC THEATERS: Sued for Discrimination Against Blind
---------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bryant, writing for Variety, reports that AMC Theatres is
being sued for discrimination against blind people.

Several blind individuals, the California Council of the Blind and
the LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired have filed a
nationwide class action lawsuit against AMC Theatres. The lawsuit
alleges that AMC is violating the Americans with Disabilities Act
and are failing to provide properly functioning audio description
technology.

"I was so excited to take my sighted sons to see their first
theater movie -- 'The Good Dinosaur,'" plaintiff Scott Blanks
said. "Unfortunately, my excitement quickly turned into
disappointment once the movie started and the audio description
track kept starting and stopping and then stopped playing
altogether. Because the equipment failed, I could not fully enjoy
my first moviegoing experience with my children."

AMC claims to provide audio description services at many of its
theaters though, according to the involved parties, it regularly
fails to ensure the devices are properly functioning. The audio
description devices have been reported to not play audio at all or
play audio description for the wrong movie.

Plaintiffs are asking that the court issue a permanent injunction
under the ADA requiring AMC to take the steps to provide properly
functioning audio description equipment and services.

"Millions of individuals go to AMC theaters each year to enjoy
movies, but AMC fails to make this experience accessible to people
who are blind or low vision because AMC does not provide properly
functioning audio description technology that would allow these
moviegoers to fully access movies," Jeff Thom, President of CCB
said. "Millions of Americans are blind or low vision. This is the
first class action lawsuit of its kind to address audio
description in theaters on a nationwide basis."


AMERICAN TOBACCO: Attorney Sues Scott Law to Get Compensation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hoang Tran, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that an attorney
is requesting the court's assistance in declaring that he was part
of a suit against the American Tobacco Co. and is deserving of
compensation.

Donald J. Bernard filed a lawsuit Feb. 16 in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana against The Scott
Litigation Group over claims that the defendant breached its
contractual and fiduciary obligations to him.

Mr. Bernard asserts that he was the attorney and representative
for several clients in a lawsuit titled Ryan J. Bernard, et al. v.
The American Tobacco Co. on May 5, 1994.  His clients allegedly
included Gloria Scott, Ryan M. Bernard, Peter C. Bernard and
others.  On June 1, 1994, members of the Castano Plaintiff's
Litigation Committee (Castano PLC) allegedly agreed to take in
some of Bernard's clients, including Gloria Scott, and represent
them in a proposed class-action suit Diane Castano, et al, v. The
American Tobacco Co. if Mr. Bernard were to drop his case. The
Castano group allegedly also agreed that Mr. Bernard would
participate in the litigation case.

The plaintiff allegedly executed a promissory note in the sum of
$100,000 in favor of the Castano group and the group allegedly
designated Bernard as a member of the litigation committee and
issued him a PLC identification card.  Mr. Bernard alleges he
began attending the meetings and hearings and performing
professional legal service for the Castano suit as a member of the
litigation group.  He claims that at no time was he not considered
part of the suit nor did anyone of the legal committee advise him
otherwise.

The Castano suit was allegedly dismissed by the court on May 23,
1996.  On May 24, 1996, the suit states, members of the Scott
Group, which consisted of several members of the Castano PLC,
filed a lawsuit in Civil District Court for the Parish of Orleans
entitled Gloria Scott, et al. v. The American Tobacco Co., et al.,
Case number 96-8461 (Scott Litigation).  Mr. Bernard asserts that
his original client, Gloria Scott, was named as one of the two
putative class representatives in that litigation.

The court ruled in favor of the Scott Litigation in 2011 and the
tobacco companies paid out $278,720,790.55, the suit states.
Bernard asserts that he was part of the class counsel as a joint
venturer and is entitled to a share of the profits.  He attests
that Gloria Scott was his client and that the Scott Litigation
utilized her as its representative in the class-action suit.

He is now asking the court to award him monetary damages in the
amount of an equal share proportionate to the distribution to the
Scott Group, including interest; reward him a pro rata share of
the attorney fees, damages, and costs; alternatively, declare that
the Scott Group is liable to him under the doctrine of unjust
enrichment. He is seeking a trial by jury and is represented by
John M. Robin in Covington.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-cv-1314


APPLE INC: Faces Suit Over Error 53 in iOS of iPhone Models
-----------------------------------------------------------
NICHOLAS LUSSON, BRYANT KUSHMICK, ALEXANDER SAENZ, JOHN DENOMA,
and NORA PENNER v. APPLE, INC., Case 3:16-cv-00705 (N.D. Cal.,
February 11, 2016), was brought over Error 53 is the result of an
imbedded function within iOS, Apple's operating system, that
affects iPhone 6, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6s, and iPhone 6s Plus
smartphones. The code has allegedly rendered thousands of the
Affected Models completely disabled or "bricked" after its users
updated iOS or restored the device from a backup.

Apple manufactures one of the most popular smartphones in the
world, the iPhone.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Darrell L. Cochran, Esq.
     Jason P. Amala, Esq.
     Loren A. Cochran, Esq.
     Kevin M. Hastings, Esq.
     Christopher E. Love, Esq.
     PFAU COCHRAN VERTETIS AMALA PLLC
     911 Pacific Ave., Suite 200
     Tacoma, WA 98402
     Tel: (253) 777-0799
     E-mail: Darrell@Pcvalaw.Com
             jamala@pcvalaw.com
             loren@pcvalaw.com
             kevin@pcvalaw.com
             chris@pcvalaw.com

        - and -

     Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TIMOTHY A. SCOTT, APC
     1350 Columbia Street, Suite 600
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 652-9970
     E-mail: tscott@timscottlaw.com


ASIA TASTE: "Liu" Suit Alleges FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law Violations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Feng Liu v. Asia Taste Rest., Inc. d/b/a Asia Taste, Xing Hua
Chen, Peter Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case 2:16-cv-00742-
SJF-AKT (E.D.N.Y., February 11, 2016), alleges violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act, and the New York Labor Law, arising from
Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

Asia Taste Rest., Inc. owns and operates a restaurant in
Hauppauge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BARNIV MAINTENANCE: Fails to Pay OT Wages, "Kwiakowski" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zdisla W. Kwiakowski, Bolesla W Pirog, Robert Redlinski, Jan
Wysinski and Zdisla W Zatorksi, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, v. Barniv Maintenance LLC and Jack
Weinreb, Case no: 501943/2016 (N.Y.Sup., County of Kings, February
11, 2016), seeks class-wide redress against the Defendants for
alleged failure to provide overtime wages in violation of the New
York Labor Law.

Barniv Maintenance is a construction company located at
292 Madison Avenue, New York, New York 10022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony Portesy, Esq.
     SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
     445 Broad Hollow Road, Suite 334
     Melville, NY 11747
     Tel: (631) 420-9300


BLUE CROSS: Faces Antitrust Class Action in Alabama
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Sege, writing for Law360, reports that a plumbing company hit
the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association and dozens of affiliated
regional insurers with an antitrust class action in Alabama
federal court on Feb. 22, saying the companies have limited
competition and facilitated price increases by dividing markets up
geographically.

Pettus Plumbing and Piping Inc., which enrolls employees in a
health insurance plan offered by Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Alabama, accuses dozens of insurers across the country affiliated
with BCBS of colluding to prevent competition and of exploiting
their market dominance by charging high premiums.

Pettus Plumbing, a company employing about 185 people, claims
regional health insurance companies over several decades turned
would-be competitors into collaborating companies under the BCBS
umbrella, saying the arrangement was facilitated through the Blue
Cross Blue Shield Association trade group.  It alleges these
insurers -- known in the suit as Individual Blue Plans -- have
created agreements protecting a separate market for each one.

"BCBSA and the Individual Blue Plans have agreed to divide and
allocate the geographic markets for the sale of commercial health
insurance into a series of exclusive areas for each of the thirty-
six BCBSA members," Pettus Plumbing claims in its 97-page
complaint.

These agreements stifle competition by reducing competition that
each company has to face, the complaint says.  As a result, many
BCBS companies hold significant market shares; BCBS licensees are
the largest insurers in most states, according to the suit.

In Alabama in 2008, for instance, more than 93 percent of
residents with full-service commercial health insurance were BCBS-
AL subscribers.

"There was and is a dangerous possibility that BCBS-AL will
succeed in its attempt to monopolize the relevant markets because
BCBS-AL controls a large percentage of those markets already, and
further success by BCBS-AL in excluding competitors from those
markets will confer a monopoly on BCBS-AL," Pettus Plumbing
writes.

Facing little competition, BCBS companies such as BCBS-AL have
increased costs dramatically, the suit claims.

"As the dominant player in Alabama, BCBS-AL has led the way in
causing premiums to be increased each year," according to the
complaint.  "In 2010, BCBS-AL raised some premiums by as much as
17 percent and others by as much as 21 percent."

Pettus Plumbing alleges the BCBS units have violated sections 1
and 2 of the Sherman Act, and it is seeking an injunction blocking
the alleged market division agreements between BCBS units.  The
company is also seeking treble damages for itself and for a class
of Alabama subscribers.

The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association did not immediately respond
to a request for comment on Feb. 23.  Attorneys for the plaintiff
did not immediately respond to a request for additional details
about their client's claims.

The plaintiffs are represented by Robert G. Methvin Jr., Phillip
W. McCallum, and James M. Terrell of McCallum, Methvin & Terrell
PC, and by Jeffrey L. Bowling of Bedford, Rogers & Bowling PC.

Counsel information for the defendants was not immediately
available.

The case is Pettus Plumbing & Piping Inc. v. Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Alabama et al., case number 3:16-cv-00297, in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama.


BOEING INC: Faces Class Action Over Use of "Program Accounting"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Holland, writing for Cook County Record, reports that on the
heels of stock prices that slipped following recent reports that
federal investigators will investigate its accounting, Boeing has
been targeted by a federal class action alleging the aerospace
manufacturer misled investors using alleged accounting tricks to
hide potential losses.

Boeing shareholder Tribhuwan K. Bisht alleged Boeing violated
federal securities law. Also named as defendants are Dennis
Muilenberg, the Boeing CEO who the company has announced will
become chairman March 1; Gregory D. Smith, Boeing's chief
financial officer; and W. James McNerney Jr., who was CEO from
July 2005 to July 2015. He is retiring as chairman at the end of
the month.

In the lawsuit filed on Feb. 22 in Chicago federal court,
Mr. Bisht asked the court to approve a class of investors to
include anyone who purchased Boeing stock between Feb. 9, 2012,
and Feb. 11, 2016, saying that in that period Boeing issued
"materially false and misleading statements regarding the
company's business, operational and compliance policies."

The complaint centered on Boeing's use of "program accounting," a
method that allows companies like aircraft manufacturers to spread
costs over the entire cost of a particular product program.

Per the complaint, Boeing's commercial airplanes division had used
program accounting since 2003, "in which the company does not
attribute costs for producing a unit to that same unit, but rather
divides those costs over an entire jetliner program, essentially
allowing Boeing to average out costs and anticipated profits over
the duration of the 'program' for a specific jet, a period that
can last decades and encompass hundreds or even thousands of
aircraft."

Particularly, the complaint took aim at Boeing's financial
reporting for the programs producing its 787 Dreamliner and 747
jumbo jets, saying the company's use of the method had caused its
quarterly and annual financial reports covering the years 2011-
2015 to include "false and misleading statements" which relied on
"inflated sales forecasts" and "understated estimates of
production costs."

The accounting method was also at the heart of a report published
by Bloomberg News indicating the federal Securities and Exchange
Commission was "investigating whether Boeing properly accounted
for the costs and expected sales of its 787 Dreamliner and 747
jumbo aircraft."

The article quoted JPMorgan Chase analyst Seth Seifman, who said
"any impact on our 787 cash flow forecasts for the coming years"
could be a significant detrimental factor on the value of Boeing
stock.

According to the Bloomberg report, the SEC investigation was
launched after a "tipster" provided the federal agency with
internal Boeing accounting documents and data.

Mr. Bisht cited dozens of Boeing quarterly financial reports from
the period in question to bolster his claim the company made
intentionally misleading statements.  Annual reports for the
period in question, for instance, showed Boeing's net income had
increased from $4 billion in 2011 to nearly $5.2 billion in 2015,
and total revenue had jumped from $68.74 billion to more than $96
billion.

The complaint contended the use of overly optimistic forecasts and
potentially inaccurate estimates of declining production costs
incited a "precipitous decline in the market value" of Boeing
stock following news of the pending SEC investigation.

On Feb. 11, the date of the Bloomberg report, Boeing shares fell
6.8 percent, or $7.92, closing at $108.44.  Boeing stock has since
recovered, trading near $118 a share on Feb. 23.  But it is well
off the $145-$149 per share price the stock fetched in late 2015.

The complaint said the class might include hundreds or thousands
of members.

In addition to class certification and a jury trial, Mr. Bisht
asked the court to award unspecified damages with interest, and
legal fees.

Mr. Bisht and the putative class are represented in the action by
attorneys from the firm of Pomerantz LLP, with offices in Chicago
and New York.


BRAND VENTURES: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Vazquez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Vazquez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Brand Ventures, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00020-WCO (N.D.
Ga., January 21, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.

Brand Ventures, Inc. develops and builds specialized solutions in
the Lead Generation and Consumer Content Verticals where the focus
is building owned and operated sites that convert and provide
offers that generate the highest profits and best quality for our
advertisers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Caplan, Esq.
      Timothy Brandon Waddell, Esq.
      CAPLAN COBB LLP
      Suite 2750
      75 Fourteenth Street, NE
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 596-5610
      Facsimile: (404) 596-5604
      E-mail: mcaplan@caplancobb.com
              bwaddell@caplancobb.com

         - and -

      Peter Bricks, Esq.
      PETER BRICKS, P.C.
      Suite 502, 1200 Ashwood Parkway
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 696-4577
      Facsimile: (678) 791-4788


BUBBLES BAKERIES: "Dominguez" Suit Seeks OT, Missed Breaks Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Austreberto Gomez Dominguez, an individual, Plaintiff, v. Bubbles
Bakeries, Inc., a California Corporation, and Does 1-50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case BC607277 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
County, January 15, 2016), seeks damages or equitable relief with
respect to overtime wages and rest and meal periods, preliminary
and permanent injunction, accrued interest and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Bubbles is a California Corporation that owns and operates
bakeries in Los Angeles.

Plaintiff claim that he did not enjoy meal/rest breaks, did not
receive wage statements and worked over 40 hours a week without
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      A. Jacob Nalbandyan, Esq.
      Harry Nalbandyan, Esq.
      EMPLOYEES' LEGAL ADVOCATES, LLP
      811 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 800
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 232-4848
      Fax: (213) 232-4849
      Email: jnalbandyan@employeesla.com
             hnalbandyan@employeesla.com


CANADA: Koskie Minsky Seeks Approval of CPRI Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------
Debora Van Brenk, writing for The London Free Press, reports that
a London facility that had an international reputation for helping
vulnerable kids is at the centre of a lawsuit alleging abuse of
some of its developmentally disabled and troubled residents.

The Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky is seeking court approval for a
$200-million class-action lawsuit against the province for harm
alleged to have taken place at the Children's Psychiatric Research
Institute (the "old" CPRI) between 1963 and 2011.

The residential centre -- not the same operation as the present-
day Child and Parent Resource Institute that runs several mental-
health programs at the same west London site -- was a ground-
breaker when it opened in 1960 as a place where troubled,
traumatized or delayed kids could find refuge and support.

But lawyer Jody Brown -- jbrown@kmlaw.ca -- of the Toronto firm
Koskie Minsky said for some children who lived there, it was
instead a nightmare place where violence against the young
residents remains a traumatic memory.

Ms. Brown said the allegations include "a range of harm: at the
lower end, it's verbal abuse, demeaning behavior.  At the higher
end, it's sexual assault and physical assault."

The suit says some young residents were hit with paddles, while
others were locked in their rooms or experienced or witnessed
sexual abuse.

When residents told staff, Ms. Brown alleges, "the staff member
would say, 'It doesn't matter. Go away.'"

The law firm maintains the province -- as operator, manager,
administrator and supervisor of the centre -- knew or should have
known the abuses were taking place.

The allegations haven't been proven in court.

The province declined to comment on the case beyond a generic
email emphasizing its commitment to providing effective and safe
services to children who need them.

The law firm has filed a request that a judge certify this as a
class-action suit, which would mean the firm would represent all
the claimants collectively.  No court date has been set for those
arguments.

Koskie Minsky is the same firm that reached settlements with the
province in connection with 15 Ontario developmental centres where
abuse took place.

In those cases, the province has issued apologies and cut cheques
worth millions of dollars in compensation for those residents who
suffered harm at regional centres.

This proposed suit was to have been part of a case that eventually
resulted in a settlement with former residents of 12 other
provincially run developmental centres.

It was removed from that collective, though, in part because
residents of the then-CPRI usually stayed there only a maximum of
one year and only to a maximum age of 18.

The representative plaintiff in this case was 16 when he was a
resident, Ms. Brown said, and "the experience still haunts him to
this day."

He no longer lives in the London area.

This action applies to those who were CPRI residents between 1963
and 2011 -- perhaps as many as 5,000 people -- but does not
include those in day programs.

Nor does it include those who attend the current Child and Parent
Resource Institute, the resource that runs there now under the
same initials but with a different mandate and structure.

Opened in 1960, it represented a departure from what were then the
norms of warehousing children who had mental illness or had
developmental disabilities.

Some of its top administrators were at the forefront of the
international movement to ensure children received the therapy
they needed and to equip their parents to raise their children at
home as much as possible.

The American Psychiatric Association in the late 1960s named CPRI
the most comprehensive child psychiatric mental health service in
North America.

But there were dark spots, too, including a lawsuit launched in
2012 that alleged the province failed to protect the complainant
in the 1980s from sex abuse by a staffer.  The status of that
lawsuit was unclear on Feb. 23.

Children's Psychiatric Research Institute

Opened in 1960 to treat children (under 18) with developmental,
behavioural and psychiatric issues.

Had a residential component as well as respite and day programs at
its picturesque location in west London.

Operated as a Schedule 1 facility, meaning it was run by the
province, until 2011.

Operating out of some of the same buildings, but no longer a
government-run facility, the site is now called the Child and
Parent Resource Institute.  It provides specialized mental-health
and development services for kids and their families.  Though it
has the same initials as the provincially run institute, the work
of the Child and Parent Resource Institute is not part of the
lawsuit.

The lawsuit

$200-million action alleges the province failed to protect
children in its care while they were residents there.

Toronto law firm Koskie Minsky is asking the courts to certify
this as a class-action suit: that is, that it be the one firm
representing all former residents who claim abuse.  No court date
has been set for the certification hearing.

Rather than alleging specific staffers or residents harmed kids,
the law firm says provincial policies and practices failed the
children and led to abuse.

The application refers to children who were residents, not those
involved in day programs.

Even if certified as a class action and claims are contested,
resolution of the case would be at least five years away.

Specific questions can be directed to lawyer Jody Brown at
kmlaw.ca or jborwn@kmlaw.ca

Ministry statement

"We are committed to supporting and providing effective services
and supports for children and youth, including those receiving
residential treatment.  The ministry is also committed to the
safety and care of children, and we take these matters very
seriously.  As this case is before the courts, we can't comment
further."


CANADA: Military Vets to Fight for Long-Term Benefits
-----------------------------------------------------
Alison Auld, writing for The Canadian Press, reports that some
military veterans who say they are so disabled by PTSD that they
haven't worked since being released from the Forces was set to
take their fight for long-term benefits to court on Feb. 24 to
argue they were wrongly shut out of support payments from Ottawa.

Stephane Hebert, who served in the military for 21 years before
being medically released in 2007, is one of about a dozen veterans
who have come forward so far as part of the proposed class action
suit against the federal government.

Mr. Hebert, who served in Yugoslavia in 1992 and was later
diagnosed with severe PTSD, said he didn't apply for disability
payments because he was told wrongly that he would not be entitled
to them.

He claims that when he eventually learned otherwise, federal
officials told him he had missed a 120-day deadline.

"I was told I was not entitled to that, so in bouts of anger I
just said, 'Yeah, I'll just leave it at that,'" the 48-year-old
father said in an interview as he travelled from his home in
New Brunswick to Halifax for the certification hearing in Federal
Court.

"I had no choice today but to push for this class action for
members who have been misled."

Dan Wallace, the lawyer handling the case, said the Forces's
insurer led his client and others to believe they would not
receive any payments based on calculations that used a formula
that takes salary and pensions into account.

But Mr. Wallace argues that a previous court ruling in another
matter involving veterans' benefits found the formula was flawed
and should be overturned, meaning the class should apply for and
receive payments.

A spokesperson for the Department of National Defence said in an
emailed statement that the federal government will oppose
certification of the lawsuit.

"The Crown will submit that the common issues as presented cannot
be determined on a basis which is in fact common to all members of
the class," wrote communications advisor Laura McIntyre-Grills.
"In other words, the facts of this case does not meet the test for
certification of a class."

Fernand Kenney, a veteran who is named in the proposed suit,
launched the case last year after he was similarly rejected for
disability payments related to post-traumatic stress disorder and
his service in Bosnia in 1993.

Mr. Kenney claims in a four-page application filed in Federal
Court that he was given the wrong information by the insurance
provider and, as a result, did not go through a lengthy and costly
process of applying for the benefits.

When he did, Mr. Kenney was also told he had missed the deadline
for applications, even though he was initially told he wouldn't
receive any money and shouldn't bother applying.

Wallace said it doesn't make sense that a veteran pays premiums
for his full military career and isn't able to collect on them
because incorrect information was used from an insurance provider.

"If you know you're going to get zero dollars a month, of course
you're not going to go through all the hoops and expenses of
filling out all the forms," he said.

"They served for an extended period of time and paid into an
insurance benefit and when they needed that benefit, it wasn't
there for them."

A Department of Defence spokeswoman was not able to comment on the
matter.

Wallace says Mr. Kenney, now 57 and living in Quebec, is severely
disabled and has not worked since he was involuntarily released
from the Forces in 2005. Hebert also says he hasn't worked since
his release due to PTSD and physical injuries related to his
service.

Wallace didn't know the dollar value of the case, but estimates
Kenney and Hebert would stand to receive about $50,000 each.

This latest battle comes after Ottawa settled with about 7,500
claimants in a $887.8-million class-action lawsuit in 2013 over
their clawed back pension benefits.

Dennis Manuge launched the suit for veterans whose long-term
disability benefits were reduced by the amount of the monthly
Veterans Affairs disability pensions they received.  The Federal
Court said it was unfair of the federal government to treat pain
and suffering awards as income.


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: April 12 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
------------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Cardiovascular
Systems, Inc. (Nasdaq:CSII) ("Cardiovascular Systems" or the
"Company") securities during the period between September 12, 2011
and January 21, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
with losses in excess of $100,000 who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until April 12, 2016 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in Cardiovascular
Systems' securities purchased on or after September 12, 2011 and
held through the revelation of negative information during and/or
at the end of the Class Period, as described below, and would like
to learn more about this lawsuit and your ability to participate
as a lead plaintiff, without cost or obligation to you, please
visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html. You may
also request more information by contacting Brower Piven either by
email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at (410) 415-
6616.  No class has yet been certified in the above action.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company securities during the Class Period.  Brower
Piven also encourages anyone with information regarding the
Company's conduct during the period in question to contact the
firm, including whistleblowers, former employees, shareholders and
others.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that the Company
distributed illegal kickbacks to health care providers, engaged in
the off-label promotion of its medical devices and violated the
Food and Drug Administration's laws and regulations in connection
with its medical devices.

As more fully detailed in the complaint, on May 9, 2014,
Cardiovascular Systems disclosed that it had received a letter
from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Western District of North
Carolina reporting that the U.S. Attorney was investigating
whether the Company had violated the False Claims Act.  Then, on
October 7, 2015, Cardiovascular Systems reported disappointing
First Quarter 2016 financial results, "due to the continued
reformation of its sales force, which was a materialization of the
Company's receipt of the letter from the U.S. Attorney's Office."
Finally, on January 21, 2016, Cardiovascular Systems reported
disappointing Second Quarter 2016 financial results, again, "due
to the continued reformation of its sales force, which was a
materialization of the Company's receipt of the letter from the
U.S. Attorney's Office."

According to the complaint, when the true details entered the
market, the value of Cardiovascular Systems' shares declined
significantly.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


CHICAGO, IL: Loses Bid to Dismiss Red-Light Camera Program Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Cook County judge has denied a
request from the city of Chicago to dismiss a lawsuit claiming it
denied due process to motorists ticketed under its red-light
camera program.

The Chicago Sun-Times reports that Judge Kathleen Kennedy's
Feb. 26 ruling declares the tickets void and keeps alive a lawsuit
seeking to have the city refund hundreds of millions of dollars to
motorists ticketed since 2003.

Plaintiffs' attorney Jacie Zolna can now move forward with a
request for class-action status.  The lawsuit, filed on behalf of
three named plaintiffs, argued the city violated a requirement to
issue a second notice of violation before a determination of
liability was issued against motorists.

City Law Department spokesman Bill McCaffrey says the city
believes the plaintiffs aren't entitled to "any recovery, let
alone any refunds."


CHILDREN'S PLACE: Gives Phantom Discounts, "Rael" Suit Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
MONICA RAEL v. THE CHILDREN'S PLACE, INC., a DELAWARE corporation,
and DOES 1- 50, inclusive, Case 3:16-cv-00370-GPC-JMA (S.D. Cal.,
February 11, 2016), alleges false and misleading advertisement of
"market" prices, and corresponding phantom "savings" on children's
apparel, accessories, footwear and other items sold in its
"Retail" and "Outlet" stores.

Defendant operates Children's Place retail and outlet stores as
well as the childrensplace.com website, and advertises, markets,
distributes, and/or sells children's apparel, accessories,
footwear and other items in California and throughout the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 347-3517
     Fax: (619) 756-6990
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
     Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com


CNOVA N.V.: Faces "Lee" Suit over Share Price Drop
--------------------------------------------------
Drew Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cnova N.V., Vitor Faga De Almeida, German
Pasquale Quiroga Vilardo, Emmanuel Grenier, Jean-Charles Naouri,
L¡bano Miranda Barroso, Eleazar De Carvalho Filho, Didier L‚vˆque,
Ronaldo Iabrudi Dos Santos Pereira, Arnaud Strasser, Fernando
Tracanella, Nicolas Woussen, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan
Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., HSBC Securities
(USA) INC., Natixis Securities Americas LLC, and SG Americas
Securities, LLC, Defendants, Case 150395 (N.Y. Sup., New York
County, January 14, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, pre-
judgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and any other relief as the Court in violation of the Securities
Act of 1933.

Cnova is a corporation headquartered in Schiphol, Netherlands and
incorporated in the Netherlands, with operations in Europe, Latin
America, Asia, and Africa. It allegedly registered with the NASDAQ
using false statements and omissions of material facts concerning
Cnova operations and financial health and prospects during its
IPO, specifically failed to disclose that the Company's operations
were in the midst of a serious slowdown and that its Brazil
operations lacked sufficient controls.

Plaintiff purchased Cnova shares during its IPO and lost
substantially.

Almeida, Quiroga, Grenier, Naouri, Barroso, Filho, L‚vˆque,
Pereira, Strasser, Tracanella and Woussen are members of the Board
of Cnova.

Morgan Stanley, J.P. Morgan, Merrill Lynch, Credit Suisse,
Deutsche Bank, BNP Paribas, HSBC, and SG Americas are underwriters
of the IPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas L. Laughlin, Esq.
      Scott R. Jacobsen, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS
      The Chrysler Building
      405 Lexington A venue, 40th Floor
      New York, NY 10174
      Tel: (212) 223-6444
      Fax: (212) 223-6334
      Email: tlaughlin@scott-scott.com
             sjacobsen@scott-scott.com

- and -

      DAVID R. SCOTT, Esq.
      SCOTT+SCOTT, ATTORNEYS
      156 South Main Street
      P.O. Box 192
      Colchester, CT 06415
      Tel: (860) 537-5537
      Fax: (860) 537-4432
      Email: drscott@scott-scott.com

             - and -

      Michael Goldberg, Esq.
      Brian Schall, Esq.
      GOLDBERG LAW PC
      13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404
      Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
      Telephone: 800-977-7401
      Fax: 800-536-0065
      Email: michael@goldberglawpc.com
             brian@goldberglawpc.com


COLORADO: Sued Over Maltreatment of Homeless & Mentally Ill
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Denver claims that Colorado illegally warehouses the homeless,
mentally ill and addicted in jails and prisons rather than
treating them.


CONTINENTAL CAS: Court Dismisses LTC Insurance Rate Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dentons, in an article for Lexology, reports that on February 12,
2016, in Toulon v. Continental Cas. Co., an Illinois federal court
dismissed with prejudice the latest class action suit against a
long-term care (LTC) insurance company challenging the propriety
of premium rate increases.  The plaintiff's core theory has been
raised in numerous prior cases.  Specifically, insurers have been
accused of making allegedly fraudulent misrepresentations and
omissions as part of a "bait and switch" or "low-ball pricing"
scheme to deceive customers into buying LTC insurance policies
that had intentionally been priced at artificially low rates using
unreasonable "lapse rate" assumptions, only to later increase
those rates dramatically.

Although that theory has had little success in recent years
despite numerous cases filed, here the plaintiff presented a new
twist on that theory, focusing on allegedly false and misleading
statements in the NAIC Long Term Care Insurance Personal Worksheet
and a related Notice to Applicant that allegedly primed the
insured to expect only modest rate increases.  Nonetheless, the
Court held that policyholders cannot claim to have been misled
about the possibility, frequency or magnitude of future rate
increases when the insurer has disclosed its contractual right to
increase premiums without limitation.

Plaintiff Sophie Toulon purchased an LTC policy in 2002. In 2013,
the insurer increased Ms. Toulon's premiums by 76.50% following
regulatory approval.  Ms. Toulon's First Amended Complaint,
brought on behalf of a putative nationwide class of LTC
policyholders, principally alleged that the insurer made
fraudulent statements and omissions in its Long Term Care
Insurance Personal Worksheet that applicants completed at time of
sale for suitability purposes.  At issue were a series of
statements allegedly designed to lull policyholders into expecting
limited, affordable rate increases in the area of 20%:

   -- The company has a right to increase premiums in the future;

   -- The company has sold long term care insurance since 1965 and
has sold this policy since 1998;

   -- The company has not raised its rates for this policy;

   -- However, the company did raise rates by 15% in 1995 on long
term care policies sold seven to 12 years ago that provided
essentially similar coverage; and

Have you considered whether you could afford to keep this policy
if the premiums were raised, for example, by 20%?

Ms. Toulon argued that the insurer disseminated these alleged
false and misleading statements as part of a scheme to use
unreasonable lapse rate assumptions to generate artificially low
and unsustainable premiums that the insurer "knew" would increase
by far more than 20%.

The insurer moved to dismiss Toulon's First Amended Complaint, and
on August 18, 2015 the court granted the dismissal, but did so
without prejudice. Toulon v. Continental Cas. Co., No. 15 CV 138,
2015 WL 4932255 (N.D. Ill. Aug. 18, 2015).

In finding no fraud had occurred, the court held that none of the
statements identified by Ms. Toulon were actually false,
especially given that the insurer prominently "advised plaintiff
that it had the ability to raise premiums" and did so "without any
qualification," and made no representation to the contrary. Id. at
*2.  Furthermore, noting that the hypothetical of a 20% increase
came from an Illinois Department of Insurance regulation which
mandates the content of the Worksheet, the court rejected Ms.
Toulon's arguments that "by mentioning any figure at all,
defendant committed itself to premium increases in that ballpark
alone." Id.  The court held that even if the Worksheet could
plausibly be read to contain a false statement about the potential
magnitude of a rate increase, there could be no justifiable
reliance on such a statement in light of the disclaimers in the
Worksheet and elsewhere. Id.

The court disposed of the fraudulent omission claim by finding
that the insurer had no duty to disclose its rate increase plans.
Id. at *3. Because no fiduciary or special relationship existed as
a matter of law between insurer and insured under Illinois law,
Toulon argued that a duty to disclose stemmed from the insurer's
position of influence and superiority over its elderly and
inexperienced policyholders. Id.  But, the court rejected this
argument, holding that it would lead to fiduciary/special
relationship being created "anytime an established insurer sold a
policy to an elderly person who was not sophisticated in the ways
of insurance and that insurer complied with Illinois's
'suitability' requirements." Id. at *3. In addition, the court
found there had been no misleading "half-truth" statements,
because none of the insurer's communications could be read as a
comprehensive explanation of how it prices premiums. Id.

The court dismissed Ms. Toulon's claim under the Illinois Consumer
Fraud Act for largely the same reason it dismissed Toulon's
fraudulent misrepresentation claim: "An act will not said to be
deceptive when the plaintiff is explicitly alerted to the
complained of result." Id. at *5.

Following the dismissal without prejudice of the First Amended
Complaint, Ms. Toulon subsequently filed a Second Amended
Complaint. The insurer again moved to dismiss, and on February 12,
2016, the court dismissed the Second Amended Complaint -- this
time, with prejudice. Toulon, 2016 WL 561909 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 12,
2016).

Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint added allegedly fraudulent
misrepresentations made in the Notice to Applicant that
accompanied the Worksheet.  But, the Court again found that none
of the challenged statements were actually false. Id. at *3-4.  In
an attempt to bolster her Complaint, Ms. Toulon pointed to
additional language in her Policy -- including a statement that
the insurer "may" (as opposed to "will") change premium rates --
and argued that "by presenting the possibility of an increase in
her premium, [the insurer] misled her as to both the probability
and magnitude of such an increase." Id. at *3 (emphasis added).
Not mincing words, the court held that Toulon's theory "requires
an unreasonable logical leap and cannot be the basis for a
fraudulent misrepresentation claim." Id.

It remains to be seen whether Ms. Toulon and other recent
decisions will ultimately dissuade plaintiffs from bringing class
action challenges to LTC rate increases.  For now, it is clear
that the battle over LTC rate increases is far from over.  As rate
increase challenges continue to be dismissed from the courts,
policyholders are becoming increasingly active on the
administrative front, making efforts to sway regulators to preempt
or limit rate increase approvals, and filing grievances with
regulators to protest approved rate increases through the
administrative hearing process.


COOK MEDICAL: Faces Two Class Actions Over Blood-Clot Filters
-------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reports that two class-action lawsuits have been
launched by Canadians against the U.S. manufacturer of a device
designed to block potentially deadly bloods clots.

The plaintiffs allege the apparatuses have broken apart and become
trapped inside their bodies, and left them dealing with the
painful consequences.

In August 2013, a Cook Medical inferior vena cava filter was
implanted inside Wendy Kopeck of Red Deer, Alta.

The device was supposed to save her from a potential embolism
should the blood clot in her leg travel towards her lungs or
heart.

The thin, wire-apparatus is implanted into the inferior vena cava
-- which is the largest vein in the body that runs along the spine
towards the heart -- and works by capturing a blockage and
allowing the blood to flow around it, using the body's natural
anticoagulants to break it down.  The devices are often used
temporarily until a patient can be placed on blood thinners.
But when Kopeck went to have it removed in October, doctors
determined it was too risky to proceed.  A PET scan a few weeks
afterwards revealed the filter had broken, with one leg piercing
her internal jugular vein and the rest of the device migrating
into her small intestines.

Ms. Kopeck says doctors told her it was too dangerous to remove
the device and she would have to stay on blood thinners for the
rest of her life.

And now, Ms. Kopeck is worried the filter is a "ticking time
bomb."

"I'm very afraid that someday I may move just the wrong way, or it
may just fail on its own, which is what is happening, and the
(device's) leg will break and the filter will travel to my heart
and kill me," Ms. Kopeck told CTV News.

In response to the ordeal, Ms. Kopeck and her husband filed a
$200-million class-action lawsuit against Cook Medical in January,
alleging she was never warned of the potential risks.

"The science is showing there is all sorts of problems with
retrieving them. They can break off, migrate, puncture the lungs
and cause serious injuries that people are not properly warned
of," said Ms. Kopeck's lawyer Matthew Baer.

And the Kopecks aren't the only Canadians to launch a lawsuit
against the U.S. company.

On Feb. 22, Arie Kuiper of Courtice, Ont., filed a similar
lawsuit, asking for $500,000 for each person implanted with a Cook
Medical IVC filter, as well as $20 million in damages.

Mr. Kuiper says doctors have since made two unsuccessful attempts
to remove the device and have been told it is likely they will not
be able to extract it.  He was scheduled to undergo a third
attempt on Feb. 22.

In his claim, Mr. Kuiper alleges he has experienced dizzy spells
and has been told it's possible his filter is becoming clogged and
is blocking his blood flow.

In a statement sent to CTV News, Cook Medical said "all medical
devices and procedures have benefits and risks associated with
them."

"Each patient is unique, with different anatomy and risk factors
for (pulmonary embolism), that's why it's critical for patients
and physicians to have a consultation to make sure filters are the
right treatment for them," said Moriah Sowders, content specialist
for Cook Medical, in the statement.

Lawsuits in the U.S. have been launched against a similar filter,
the G2 by Bard, which is also sold in Canada.

In U.S., between 350,000 and 600,000 people each year are affected
by blood clots, and as many as 180,000 will die because the
blockages travel to their lungs.

In response, doctors have been implanting IVC filters in roughly
250,000 patients across the continent every year to catch these
clots before they can do serious damage.

The FDA recommended these retrievable filters be removed within 29
to 54 days.

A 2014 study involving researchers from the University of Ottawa
and the Ottawa Hospital Research institute found that IVC filters
were "associated with a substantial rate of complications,"
including those relating to blood clots.

The study looked at 338 patients over a median of more than 16
months.  In most patients, the devices were safe and worked as
designed, with 20 per cent having one or more "filter-related
complications."

The devices save lives. Without them, blood clots may travel to
the lungs and be fatal.

"I think it's important to make sure that we limit the use of the
filters only for when patients absolutely need them," said one of
the paper's authors, Dr. Lisa Duffett of the Ottawa Hospital
Research Institute.

Another paper published in last September looked at 88 clinical
studies and 112 reports, and found the filters had pierced the
inferior vena cave in 19 per cent of cases. It concluded caval
penetration is "frequent but clinically under-recognized."

Health Canada told CTV News it has received 12 unique incident
reports relating to IVC filters by Bard and Cook from Jan. 1, 2008
to February 1, 2016, including: six incidents of perforation or
penetration; five of migration; and three relating to an inability
or difficulty in removing the devices.

Each incident report "may include more than one reported issue,"
the agency said.

It said it has not received any reports of death relating to the
devices.

Last December, the society of Interventional Radiologists, Society
for Vascular Surgery and blood-clot filter manufacturers also
launched a five-year study involving 2,100 patients to look at the
safety and effectiveness of the devices.  The massive study was
also organized with the help of the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration.

One doctor in California has created a clinic that specializes in
the removal of these devices.  He's been treating Canadian
patients as well.

"Every year, we receive hundreds of consultations from around the
country and around the world, and our center accepts the most
complex cases that cannot be managed elsewhere," Dr. William Kuo
said.

"We are routinely consulted to treat patients from Canada
suffering from filter-related complications," he added.


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS PHARMACY: Misrepresents Algal-900 DHA, "Aliano" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
MARIO ALIANO v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., 2016CH02021 (Ill. Cir., Cook
County, February 11, 2016), alleges that the Defendant ignored
scientific evidence and misrepresented to consumers that Algal-900
DHA can improve brain and memory function, and that DHA has been
clinically proven to do so, in order to induce consumers to
reasonably rely on those misrepresentations and purchase
Defendant's product.

The Defendant owns and operates over 7,000 CVS stores in the
United States and over 270 stores in the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re, Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312) 440-0020
     Fax: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: maebetty@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             tom@attorneyzim.com
             amy@attorneyzim.com
             jordan@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com


DAUGHTERS OF CHARITY HEALTH: Workers Drop Retirement Funds Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Oakland, Calif. dismissed without prejudice a
proposed class action that claimed one of the Bay Area's oldest
hospital chains "betrayed" workers by shorting them for $229
million in erroneously classified retirement funds.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria signed the voluntary dismissal
of Lynn Morris et al. v. Daughters of Charity Health System et al.

The proposed class of 8,800 hospital nurses, housekeepers and
technicians claimed the hospital chain was short $229 million in
funds needed for promised retirement benefits, which it
"erroneously" classified as a "church plan" exempt from the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Daughters of Charity was created in 2002 when its six member
hospitals spun off from nonparty Catholic Healthcare West, a
multi-hospital health system, which is not a church.

The plaintiffs claimed the chain bled financially for years while
underfunding their plans, and did not filed annual reports with
the Labor Department.  According to the complaint: "In every year
since at least 2002, the health system has failed to file an
annual report with respect to the plan with the Secretary of Labor
in compliance with ERISA Sec. 103, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1023, or a Form
5500 and associated schedules and attachments which the Secretary
has approved as an alternative method of compliance with ERISA
Sec. 103, 29 U.S.C. 21 Sec. 1023."

Nonparty suitors Prime Healthcare Services and Prime Healthcare
Foundation aimed to purchase the hospital chain in 2014 for $843
million, before pulling out of the deal amid concerns over
requirements of Attorney General Kamala Harris.
The plaintiffs said their "financially distressed" plan was among
the liabilities that Daughters of Charity were to transfer as part
of the sale, and that Prime "raised the possibility of putting the
health system into bankruptcy, which would further endanger the
pensions of plaintiffs and the other plan participants."

The "betrayed" plaintiffs sought declaration that the plan was
subject to ERISA protections and an order removing the health
system and its executives as plan fiduciaries.

Los Altos Hills-based Daughters of Charity, now known as Verity
Health System, agreed to a separate $260 million deal with New
York City-based hedge fund BlueMountain Capital Management in
December 2015.

That deal was the largest nonprofit hospital transaction in state
history.

"Verity will proudly continue the mission of care begun by the
Daughters of Charity more than 150 years ago," Verity Health
System CEO Mitchell Creem said in a statement. "I am extremely
pleased and grateful for the opportunity to carry on this
tradition of excellence, with new leadership and significant
investments."

Plaintiffs' counsel, Catha Worthman with Feinberg, Jackson,
Worthman & Wasow of Oakland, celebrated an agreement to fund the
plan without further disclosing specifics.

"We are pleased that the plan has become an ERISA plan and is
being funded as required under ERISA at this point," Northman told
Courthouse News on Feb. 23.

Verity and BlueMountain representatives did not immediately
respond to requests for comment.

Starla Rollins, a former billing coordinator of nonparty Dignity
Health, filed a separate class action against the insurer in 2013,
claiming its pension benefits plan was underfunded, in violation
of ERISA.

Dignity, formerly Catholic Healthcare West, claimed that its plan
was a "church plan" that need not conform to ERISA standards.

U.S. District Judge Thelton Henderson found in 2014 that Dignity
did not have statutory authority to establish its own plan and
must follow ERISA.

Catholic Healthcare West was founded in 1986 by the Sisters of
Mercy, which Catholic women founded as a religious institute in
Dublin, Ireland, in 1831.

BlueMountain, as part of the Daughters of Charity acquisition,
must maintain the embattled system's essential services for at
least 10 years.

The hedge fund is also obligated to continue operating the
hospitals as nonprofit health centers for three years before
exercising an option to convert them to for-profit centers.

The case captioned, LYNN MORRIS, et al., Plaintiffs, DAUGHTERS OF
CHARITY HEALTH SYSTEM, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:14-cv-04681-
VC (N.D. Cal.).


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Tejada, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Consultants, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00605
(S.D.N.Y., January 27, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DUKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Nuclear Costs
--------------------------------------------------
Tony Pipitone, writing for NBC6, reports that a Seattle law firm
that specializes in class-action lawsuits has set its eyes on
Florida's two biggest utilities -- and, if their lawsuit is
successful, it could cost the companies a bundle.

The targets: Duke Energy and Florida Power and Light, who together
have 6.4 million customers in Florida.

The allegation: the utilities are illegally billing ratepayers for
improvements and additions to nuclear infrastructure that may
never be completed.

Duke Energy, for instance, in 2013 abandoned plans to upgrade one
nuclear plant and is shutting it down, but not before charging
customers hundreds of millions of dollars.

Now, FPL wants to put two new nuclear reactors at its Turkey Point
plant on Biscayne Bay.  The planning and licensing costs passed
along to ratepayers have reached about $250 million, the lawsuit
says.

Filed on behalf of one customer of each utility, it seeks to be
certified as a class action -- meaning anyone who pays bill to the
utilities since 2008 could join the class and benefit, if the
utilities lose the lawsuit.

In a statement to NBC6, FPL called the suit "egregious . . .
frivolous and without merit.  It's exactly this type of
politically motivated litigation that will ultimately cost our
taxpayers and our customers, and put a heavy burden on state
government."

FPL notes the state has approved the process that allows it to
charge ratepayers for reasonable and prudent costs associated the
nuclear upgrades and expansions.

But letting the state oversee that process, the suit claims, is
one reason it is unconstitutional.  The suit claims only federal
law can govern nuclear energy production.

A Duke Energy spokeswoman said the lawsuit should be dismissed.
"Four other lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of
Florida's Nuclear Cost Recovery statute have been found to be
without merit and rejected by Florida courts," she said.  The
lawsuit, she added, was inaccurate in saying Duke Energy had
abandoned its plans for two reactors in Levy County.  "While we've
made the decision to retire our Crystal River nuclear plant, we
continue to pursue the license for the proposed Levy County
nuclear project," she said.

For its part, FPL says no one is being billed for work that has
not been done.

As it seeks "required licenses and approvals needed to construct
and operate" new reactors at Turkey Point, FPL said, it is "not
pre-collecting money for construction.  The funds being collected
are associated with specific expenditures required by federal,
state and local governments to complete the licensing process and
are used only to reimburse FPL for money already spent. "

But the lawsuit, filed in the Southern District of Florida, claims
that by passing along nuclear costs to ratepayers -- who are on
the hook even if the plants never get built -- "Duke and FPL have
been wrongfully enriched at the expense of their ratepayers
arising from the improperly inflated electrical rate."

The law firm behind the suit, Hagens Berman, of Seattle, has in
the last six months filed class action complaints naming nearly 20
deep-pocketed defendants, including Mercedes-Benz, Apple, Nestle
and Volkswagen.


ERIN ENERGY: Bylaws Violate Del. Corporation Law, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Johnston, v. Kase L. Lawal, Lee P. Brown, William J.
Campbell, Dudu Hlatshwayo, John Hofmeister, Ira Wayne Mcconnell,
Hazel R. O'Leary, and Erin Energy Corporation, Case No. 11985
(Del. Ch., February 11, 2016), alleges that a certain provision of
the Company's Amended and Restated Bylaws, is in violation of
Section 141(k) of the Delaware General Corporation Law,
specifically, Article III, Section 3.6 of the Bylaws that states,
in part, that any Erin Energy director "may be removed, but only
for cause."

The Defendants are members of the Erin Energy board of directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Carl L. Stine, Esq.
     Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
     WOLF POPPER LLP
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 759-4600


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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

          - and -

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


FEDERATION OF MEDICAL: Must Compensate Over Cancelled Surgeries
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that patients who missed surgeries in 2002 and
2003 because of pressure tactics by medical specialists are
entitled to compensation of about $450.

About 3,360 people are entitled to the money as a result of a
class-action lawsuit launched by Quebec's Council for the
Protection of Patients.

The class-action suit was filed in 2006, and a judge ruled in
favor of the patients in 2010.  The Federation of Medical
Specialists of Quebec appealed the decision and lost.

To be eligible for the money, patients must register on this
website if they missed an operation on any of the following dates:

   -- Nov. 13, 2002
   -- Dec. 2, 2002
   -- Jan. 16, 2003

On those dates, medical specialists cancelled their appointments
as a pressure tactic in their conflict with the province over
wages.

Family members of eligible patients who have since died are
entitled to the compensation as inheritors.

"The verification is very easy.  We are in communication with the
Ministry of Health so that we can confirm that they were
effectively patients who were due to get medical intervention and
they did not get it," said Paul Brunet, head of the Council for
the Protection of Patients.

"Doctors thought they were above the law when they decided to not
offer services to patients and did deliver services for which they
were sworn and hired," Brunet added.

The law firm Roy Larochelle is handling the claims.


FIFTH STREET: Faces Class Action, March 7 Lead Plaintiff Deadline
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on Feb. 23 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Fifth Street Asset Management Inc. ("Fifth
Street" or the "Company").  Investors who purchased pursuant to
Fifth Street's October 30, 2014 initial public offering (the
"IPO"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the March
7, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, we advise you to contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall,
of Goldberg Law PC, 13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 708, Marina Del
Rey, CA 90292, at 800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without
cost to you.  You can also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney.  If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that:
(1) Fifth Street had $4.2 billion in assets under management from
an affiliated company, Fifth Street Finance Corp. ("FSC"), as of
June 30, 2014, when in fact a material portion of FSC's portfolio
was impaired and should have been placed on non-accrual prior to
the IPO; and (2) the Company's "strong growth in assets under
management" and "outstanding investor performance" was fueled in
part by delaying the write down of impaired investments in Fifth
Street's portfolio.

Goldberg Law PC represents shareholders around the world and
specializes in securities class actions and shareholder rights
litigation.


FITBIT INC: March 11 Deadline for Lead Plaintiff Bids
-----------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on Feb. 22
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Fitbit Inc. securities from June 18, 2015 through
January 6, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  The lawsuit
seeks to recover damages for Fitbit investors under the federal
securities laws.

To join the Fitbit class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-811.htmlor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll-free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for information on the
class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued materially false and misleading statements to investors
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Fitbit's heart rate monitoring
technology was inaccurate and did not consistently deliver
accurate heart rate readings during exercise; (2) the inaccuracy
of Fitbit's heart rate monitoring technology posed serious health
risks to users of Fitbit's products; and (3) as a result,
defendants' statements about Fitbit's business, operations, and
prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable
basis.  When the true details entered the market, the lawsuit
claims that investors suffered damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed.  If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
March 11, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-811.htmlor to discuss your rights or
interests regarding this class action, please contact Phillip Kim,
Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-
3653 or via e-mail at pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm -- http://www.rosenlegal.com-- represents
investors throughout the globe, concentrating its practice in
securities class actions and shareholder derivative litigation.


FITBIT INC: Johnson & Weaver Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Johnson & Weaver, LLP announces that a class action complaint was
filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on behalf of purchasers of Fitbit Inc.
(NYSE:FIT) securities during the period between June 18, 2015 and
January 6, 2016 (the "Class Period").

Fitbit manufactures and provides wearable fitness-tracking devices
worldwide. Fitbit makes both wrist bands and clip-on devices that
monitor a user's fitness activity by tracking the calories burned
or distance covered.

The lawsuit centers on whether the Company and its executives
violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose that
Fitbit's heart rate monitoring technology was inaccurate and
failed to consistently provide accurate heart rate readings during
exercises, posing serious health risks to its customers.

On January 5, 2016, a consumer class action lawsuit was filed
against Fitbit, alleging that the heart rate monitoring systems on
the Company's Charge HR and Surge devices were dangerously
inaccurate and posed serious health risks.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Fitbit securities during the Class Period (the "Class"). If you
wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later
than March 11, 2016.

If you have any questions concerning this notice, or your rights
or interests, please contact lead analyst Jim Baker
(jimb@johnsonandweaver.com) at 619-814-4471. If you email, please
include your phone number.

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

            About Johnson & Weaver, LLP:

Johnson & Weaver, LLP is a nationally recognized shareholder
rights law firm with offices in California, New York and Georgia.
The firm represents individual and institutional investors in
shareholder derivative and securities class action lawsuits. For
more information about the firm and its attorneys, please visit
http://www.johnsonandweaver.com.Attorney advertising. Past
results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Contacts
Johnson & Weaver, LLP
Jim Baker, 619-814-4471
jimb@johnsonandweaver.com


FITBIT INC: Southern California Woman Files Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
CBSLA.com reports that a Southern California woman who is part of
a class-action against Fitbit Inc. is sharing her concern over the
fitness tracker she alleges failed to accurately measure her heart
rate.

"Don't tell people that every beat counts because it's not
counting every beat," said fitness enthusiast Kate McLellan from
Murrieta.

She spent $150 on a Fitbit Charge HR, a model that costs $50 more
than other Fitbit devices, but includes an additional feature to
monitor the user's heart rate.

"The important thing with calculating calories is to know what
your heart rate is because that's a big component and if your
heart rate is off, then your calories are off and that can really
make or break you if you're being very specific about your fitness
goals," she said.

And she is.

That's why she noticed something was off with her Fitbit's
results.

"So, I was doing cardio one day and I was looking at my Fitbit and
it said my heart rate was 125, which was kind of low for how hard
I was working," she said.  "And so I grabbed the heart rate
sensors, the handles on the stair machine, and it said my heart
rate was 165, which there is a huge difference between 125 and
165."

Ms. McLellan says she put the device to the test several times
before contacting Fitbit's customer service but says that she was
denied a refund.

"They tried to put the blame on me, that I didn't know how to wear
it, and then, 'Well, it's not our fault.  It's not meant to be
accurate,'" she said.  "Then what's it meant to do?"

More importantly, she wants to know, what if she had relied on the
heart monitor for a health condition?

"Had I had a heart problem or a history of an aneurysm or a stroke
or something like that, that would be very, very dangerous," she
said.

Since Ms. McLellan first came forward, so have others around the
country.

Today, they are plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit alleging the
Fitbit HR and Fitbit Surge fail to accurately measure user heart
rates.

"They claim that they can make every beat count, but of course, it
doesn't count every beat," said Attorney Kevin Budner.  "And when
you say a product will do something that it doesn't do, that's
classic fraud."

Dissatisfied Fitbit customers are also learning they signed their
legal rights away when they originally registered their Fitbit
device online, a necessary step to initiate the Fitbit tracking
system.

"I just wanted to get my device to sync to my phone and I just
wanted to be able to start using it as quickly as possible so you
just kinda, click click click, 'Done.  Thank you very much and
Here's your activation code,'" she said.

Fitbit told CBS2 News in a statement:

"Fitbit is committed to making the best clip and wrist-based
activity trackers on the market.  Our team performs a rigorous set
of internal studies to test our products.  Fitbit trackers are
designed to provide meaningful data to our users to help them
reach their health and fitness goals, and are not intended to be
scientific or medical devices.  Overall, the success of Fitbit
products comes from empowering people to see their overall health
and fitness trends over time -- it's these trends that matter most
in achieving their goals."

Fitbit goes on to say:

"While the Consumer Reports analysis of our heart rate tracking
technology was conducted independently of Fitbit, we're happy to
see that Consumer Reports gives an 'excellent' rating to Fitbit
Charge HR and Fitbit Surge with PurePulse heart rate tracking.

"Also, please find a link to Fitbit's warranty and return policy.

"Finally, while these are not medical devices, I'd also like to
offer a few very real examples of just how powerful the trend data
from our devices can be:

"An 18 year old UK woman was studying for her exams at her
university residence when her tracker revealed that her resting
heart rate had increased from 84 bpm to 210 bpm.  She was rushed
into hospital, where tests revealed she had an undetected heart
condition involving a 'misfiring chamber.' Medics said if the
Southport teen hadn't called for help, she could have died.

"We saw a similar story that made national news in Australia,
where a gentleman noticed the readings on his Fitbit showed his
heart lurching between 47 beats per minute and a staggering 218
beats per minute.  He was rushed to the hospital where he was
diagnosed with a life-threatening arrhythmia.

"Lastly, you may have seen the Reddit story a couple weeks ago
about the couple who happily learned they were expecting because
the woman's Fitbit detected an elevated resting heart rate."

As for Ms. McLellan, she no longer relies on her Fitbit HR and
says the only thing it's measuring is the darkness inside the
kitchen drawer.

"It doesn't track your heart rate, so don't tell people that it
tracks your heart rate," she said.


FOUNDATIONS GROUP: Faces "Harris" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Harris, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Foundations Group I, Inc. d/b/a Foundations Group, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-00579 (S.D.N.Y., January 26, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Foundations Group I, Inc. is a New York City-based building &
construction management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Harris
      PRO SE


FRED'S STORES: Faces "Bryant" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Bryant, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00032-CWR-FKB (S.D. Miss., January 21, 2016) is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Fred's Stores of Tennessee, Inc. owns and operates a chain of
discount retail stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      One Jackson Place, Suite 777
      188 East Capitol Street
      Jackson, MS 39201
      Telephone: (601) 718-2087
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      E-mail: cespy@forthepeople.com


FRONT PORCH: "Pulido" Suit Seeks Pay for OT, Missed Breaks
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Pulido, as an individual, and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees Plaintiff v. Front Porch Communities and
Services, Front Porch Enterprises, Inc., Front Porch Development
Co, Inc., Front Porch Operating Group, LLC, Front Porch
Communities and Services-Casa De Manana, LLC, Front Porch
Communities and Services-Claremont Manor, LLC, Front Porch
Communities and Services-Frederick Manor, LLC, Front Porch
Communities and Services-Kingsley Manor, LLC, Residents
Association Of Carlsbad By The Sea, Inc., Sunny View Luthern
Communities and Services, Villa Gardens - A Front Porch Community,
Vista Del Monte Retirement Community - A Front Porch Community,
Walnut Village - A Front Porch Community, and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case BC607175 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles
County, January 14, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief and
restitution for failure to pay wages including overtime, failure
to provide meal periods, failure to provide rest periods, failure
to keep accurate payroll records, unfair competition under
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq. and in violation
of Labor Code Sec. 2698 et seq.

The Front Porch Communities Consortium is engaged in the business
of providing managed care and assisted living to patients.

Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant required her to work off the
clock and through her meal and break periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Catherine J. Odenbreit, Esq.
      Morgan Glynn, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 590-5550
      Fax: (562) 590-8400


GAP INC: Judge Rejects False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, Daniel Siegal and Jonathan Randles, writing for
Law360, report that a California judge on Feb. 23 tossed a
putative class action accusing Gap Inc. of fashion fraud by
misleading shoppers into believing clothing sold at its outlet
stores matched the quality of items at its traditional stores,
saying consumers hadn't pointed to any actionable
misrepresentations.

In his Feb. 23 ruling, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Kenneth R.
Freeman said he was dismissing Linda Rubenstein's second amended
complaint against Gap because the plaintiff had not provided the
court with any misleading representations the retailer made about
the products sold at its "factory stores," thus, her fraud claim
under the state's unfair competition law failed.

"The mere fact that products are sold at the factory stores does
not, as a matter of law, constitute any representation about the
quality or attributes of those goods," Judge Freeman wrote in a
tentative ruling that he made final at the conclusion of the
Feb. 23 hearing.  "There is no objective statement allegedly made
by defendant about the items which is actionable.  At best, any
alleged representation about the defendant's products, under the
allegations of the [second amended complaint], could only be
interpreted as non-actionable puffery."

Ms. Rubenstein's attorney, Behram Parekh --
bvp@kirtlandpackard.com -- of Kirtland & Packard LLP, told the
court on Feb. 23 that consumers have a "reasonable expectation" of
the quality of clothing they should be able to expect when they go
to one of Gap's stores, which also include Old Navy.

"Your Honor, we believe that when a company represents that it
sells a certain quality of products by reputation and acknowledges
that it has multiple lines of products such as Banana Republic,
Gap and Old Navy, consumers have a reasonable expectation that the
quality of products that they're getting are that line of
products," Mr. Parekh said.  "A factory store implies to consumers
that products they're getting are the same quality they would get
at the same retailer, just at a different price."

Ms. Rubenstein's suit, filed in August 2014, alleges that Gap
labels its factory store clothing with a tag hidden on the inside
of the garment that has an undefined design with three consecutive
squares, signaling the clothing is made for the factory stores at
a lesser quality.  There are no other indicators, at the store or
in the garment, to let shoppers know that the factory store items
were never made to be sold at the traditional Banana Republic or
Gap stores, she claimed.

While Ms. Rubenstein argued that Gap's lack of disclosure about
the meaning of the three-square label was actionable because the
products were of a lower quality and were never actually sold at
traditional Gap or Banana Republic stores, the judge said he found
the argument of "omission" unpersuasive as a matter of law.

The judge cited the 2006 California appellate court decision in
Bardin v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., which rejected the consumer
plaintiffs' false advertising claims over the auto manufacturers'
use of tubular steel in certain models instead of more durable and
more expensive cast iron because the company didn't say it would
use the more expensive metal.

"Like Bardin, there is no allegation that defendant Gap made any
representations regarding the quality or attributes of clothing
and other items sold at the factory stores," Judge Freeman said in
his ruling.

Even assuming Ms. Rubenstein's allegations were true about the
clothing sold at the factory stores being made of less expensive
or lesser-quality materials, "absent any representation about the
quality of those materials, would not be actionable as a matter of
law," the judge said.

Ms. Rubenstein claimed that Gap's factory-store strategy exploited
the expectations of outlet mall shopping because the retailer
dupes shoppers who are looking for discounts on the exact clothing
they thought was once sold at traditional Gap and Banana Republic
stores.

Her complaint alleged violations of California's False Advertising
Law, Unfair Competition Law and Consumers Legal Remedies Act on
behalf of a putative California class of consumers who had
purchased clothing at one of the Gap factory stores in California
from 2009 to 2014.

The plaintiff contended her claims were backed by the fact that
Gap uses the names of its traditional stores for its factory
stores, locates the factory stores at outlet malls, where shoppers
believe retail store products are available at discounted prices,
and includes the "Gap" and "Banana Republic" names on the main
labels on its factory store products.

The claims failed because "the mere labeling of the defendant's
stores as the 'Gap Factory Store' or 'Banana Republic Factory
Store' does not constitute any actionable misrepresentation about
the quality or attributes of the products sold at those stores,"
Judge Freeman said, and Rubenstein's allegations didn't show that
Gap otherwise misrepresented the goods.

The judge sustained Gap's demurrer to the entire complaint,
without leave to amend.

"While this is the first time defendant has demurred to the
complaint (plaintiff voluntarily amended twice previously), there
is not a reasonable possibility that plaintiff can amend to state
a viable UCL, FAL or CLRA cause of action, under the central
theory of the case," he wrote.

Joseph Duffy -- jduffy@morganlewis.com -- of Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP, representing Gap, told the court on Feb. 23 he agreed
with the ruling's reasoning.

"This isn't an issue where we made a misrepresentation or a
partial misrepresentation," he said.  "It's just not a false
advertising case."

Ms. Rubenstein's suit came after a group of congressional
Democrats urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate the
allegedly deceptive marketing of retail outlets.  In a January
2014 letter to FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, the lawmakers said
they were concerned that the surging popularity of outlet malls
"may have fueled some deceptive marketing practices."

The plaintiffs are represented by Michael Louis Kelly, Behram V.
Parekh and Heather M. Baker of Kirtland & Packard LLP.

Gap is represented by Esther Ro -- ero@morganlewis.com -- and
Joseph Duffy of Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP.

The case is Linda Rubenstein v. The Gap Inc., case number
BC555010, in the Superior Court of the State of California for the
County of Los Angeles.


GENERAL AUDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Wandel" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Lora Lynn Wandel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. General Audit Corp., d/b/a Keybridge Medical Revenue
CareCase No. 1:16-cv-00051-JTN-ESC (W.D. Mich., January 21, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

General Audit Corp. operates an adjustment and collection service
headquartered in Lima, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian P. Parker, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN P. PARKER, P.C.
      2000 Town Center, Ste. 1900
      Southfield, MI 48075
      Telephone: (248) 642-6268
      E-mail: brianparker@collectionstopper.com


GETTY IMAGES: Models Sue Over Unauthorized Image Licensing
----------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Olivo, writing for Law360, reports that Getty Images and
photographer Bill Diodato are licensing models' photographs
without their permission, causing the models to lose professional
fees and prospective business relationships, according to a
proposed class action filed on Feb. 22 in a New York federal
court.

Fashion model Elodie Passelaigue claims Diodato had her sign a
fraudulent model release on photos he took, which Getty then
licensed to Botox for an ad campaign.  Ms. Passelaigue says she's
not alone -- many models like her have lost professional fees they
would have been paid if they had been properly hired as models by
Getty's customers, as well as usage fees from authorized
licensing, according to the complaint.

"Getty and photographer Bill Diodato have systematically violated
the privacy and publicity rights of Ms. Passelaigue and a class of
professional models," Tom Canova, an attorney representing the
proposed class, told Law360 on Feb. 23.  "We intend to vindicate
those rights."

Ms. Passelaigue claims that Mr. Diodato fraudulently obtained a
release from her during a 2004 photoshoot for a Clinique makeup
advertising campaign.  Ms. Passelaigue allowed Mr. Diodato to use
the test shots he took "as a professional courtesy," because he
said he would only use them for his portfolio and website, the
complaint said.

In August 2014, Ms. Passelaigue said she learned that images of
her were being used in an advertising campaign for Botox, a
medicine manufactured by pharmaceutical giant Allergan that is
injected into the muscles to temporarily improve the appearance of
crow's-feet and frown lines.

Ms. Passelaigue, who said she had never modeled for Botox or used
the product, traced the images back to Getty.

According to the complaint, Mr. Diodato had provided Getty with a
fraudulent release containing images from Ms. Passelaigue's
Clinique campaign.  The release also had Diodato's photos of
Passelaigue from a 2009 shoot with women's clothing and accessory
company Spiegel, though Ms. Passleiague said she had never signed
anything concerning those photos.

The complaint claims that the Getty release also contained
photoshoot dates and descriptions that were not in
Ms. Passelaigue's handwriting, as well as a fraudulent witness
signature.

Ms. Passelaigue was "quite concerned" about the Botox ads.  Her
image was being used by a company that had never hired her or
otherwise paid for her modeling services and -- depending on the
circumstances -- such use might violate contracts she had with
actual clients, the complaint said.

"It is generally understood in the industry that Allergan
regularly advertises Botox with models who have used Botox, while
other companies maintain policies or practices precluding the
hiring of models who are believed to have used synthetic beauty
products like Botox," the complaint said.

The complaint claims that "in order to better conceal this type of
fraud," Mr. Diodato is advertising his photos on Getty through the
pseudonym "Adrianna Williams," an amalgamation of the names of his
daughter, Adrianna, and his son, William.

Despite being advised expressly that Mr. Diodato's purported model
release for Ms. Passelaigue is fraudulent, Getty continues to
license her image to Allergan and publicize her Clinique and
Spiegel shoots on its website, the complaint said.

In response to the allegations, Mr. Diodato told Law360 on
Feb. 23, "I assure you that all of the images that have been
licensed by my corporation have received proper, signed model
releases."

A representative for Getty declined to comment.

Ms. Passelaigue is represented by Jack Fitzgerald and Tom Canova
of The Law Office of Jack Fitzgerald PC.

Counsel information for the defendants couldn't immediately be
determined.

The case is Passelaigue v. Getty Images (US), Inc. et al, case
number 1:16-cv-01362, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.


GOLD'S GYM: Operator Faces "Jones" Labor Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Steven Jones, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated aggrieved employees, v. Simi Valley Corporate Fitness,
Inc., Gold's Gym Socal Group, Gold's Gym Management Services,
Inc., and DOES 1 through 50, Case no: BC610 048 (Cal. Super.,
County of Los Angeles, February 11, 2016), was filed on behalf of
all individuals who were employed by Gold's Gym (Personal Trainer,
Fitness Consultant, Fitness Manager, Group Exercise Instructor,
Front Desk Associate, Sales Associate, Sales Manager, Operations
Manager, Maintenance Associate, Housekeeping Associate, Kid's Club
Associate, and Child Care Associate) in the State of California
and who, during the applicable statute of limitations, allegedly
suffered one or more Labor Code violations.

Simi Valley Corporate Fitness Inc. is a small health & fitness
club in Northridge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James F. Clapp, Esq.
     CLAPP LEGAL APC
     701 Palomar Airport Road, Suite 300
     Carlsbad, CA 92011
     Tel: 760-209-6565 ext. 101
     Fax: 760-209-6565
     E-mail: jclapp@clapplegal.com


HARLEYSVILLE PREFERRED: Sued in Conn. Over Insurance Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael and Joyce Halloran, Kenneth and Victoria Masciovecchio,
Steven and Patricia Brozek, and Michael Dyer, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Harleysville Preferred
Insurance Co., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00133-VA (D. Conn.,
January 29, 2016) is brought on behalf of all homeowners in
Manchester, Ellington, Andover and Stafford Springs, Connecticut
who have basement walls that are irreversibly deteriorating and
failing due to defective concrete and have claims that have been
denied or will be denied by  the Defendant Insurance Companies.

Harleysville Preferred Insurance Co. operates an insurance company
incorporated in Pennsylvania and its principal place of business
is in the State of Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan P. Barry, Esq.
      Anthony Spinella Jr., Esq.
      BARRY & BARALL, LLC
      202 West Center Street
      Manchester, CT  06040
      Telephone: (860) 649-4400
      Facsimile: (860) 645-7900
      E-mail: rbarry@barryandbarall.com
              aspinella@barryandbarall.com


HIGH END: "Kel-Mar" Lawsuit Alleges Breach of Contract
------------------------------------------------------
Kel-Mar Interiors, Inc., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated as Lien Law Trust Beneficiaries of the Trust
which HIGH END NEW YORK, INC. is a Trustee, v. High End New York,
Inc. d/b/a "High End Electrical Contracting Corporation" and Mark
Ramdeen, Case No: 650702/2016 (N.Y. Sup., County of New York,
February 11, 2016), alleges breach of contract, violation of New
York Lien Law, and unjust enrichment.

High End New York, Inc. offers repair and related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Albert Rizzo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ALBERT RIZZO,P.C.
     830 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 679-5799


INDIANA: Robs Metally Ill Patients of Voting Rights, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Wells, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that an
Indiana law robs people who live at mental health facilities of
their right to vote, residents claim in a federal class action in
New Albany, Indiana.

The 13-page class action lawsuit claims that Indiana Code Sec.3-5-
5-17 denies residents who are committed to mental health
facilities their right to vote by not allowing them to claim
residency where the facilities are located.  Filed against Indiana
Secretary of State Connie Lawson, Indiana Election Commission
members, the Jefferson County Clerk and the state itself, the
lawsuit claims that the law is unconstitutional and violates
federal disability law.

The Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission,
represented by the Indiana Chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union (ACLU), and lead plaintiff Patricia Featherston sued on
behalf of a proposed class of all adults who cannot vote in the
same precinct as their mental health institution because of the
state law.  Featherston lives in Jefferson County at the Madison
State Hospital, a place she has called home since 2006, and has
been deemed mentally ill.

The complaint claims that, alongside another 20 residents from the
Madison State Hospital, Featherston has voted in past elections
and used the hospital as her address because she has no other
family in the state.  She may not be able to continue to do so, as
the Feb. 25 complaint claims that the Jefferson County Clerk has
stated that, in accordance with state law, the hospital cannot be
claimed as their voting residence.

Specifically, the Indiana Code in question states, "A person who
is: adjudged mentally ill; and committed to an institution for
individuals with a mental illness; does not gain residency in the
precinct in which the institution is located."  Featherston claims
the law is a form of discrimination because similar restrictions
do not apply to college students and those who live in a veterans
home, who are allowed by law to vote in those precincts.  The
residents of those facilities, like the Jefferson County hospital
where Featherston lives, have often been committed for many years
and have no other homes where they could claim residency to vote.

"Some of [Indiana Protection and Advocacy Services Commission's]
clients are not able to claim residency anywhere in Indiana.
Others reasonably view the state institution for mental illness
where they have been confined for long periods of time as their
homes and wish to participate in elections in their homes and to
vote on issues of concern in their communities," the lawsuit
states.  The complaint claims that the voting law affects more
than 600 mentally ill residents, and could affect up to 850 given
the maximum occupancy of the five state hospitals that house such
residents.

The residents seek a court declaration that Indiana Code Sec.3-5-
5-17 is unconstitutional. They are represented by Kenneth Falk and
Gavin Rose of the ACLU of Indiana, and Melissa Keyes, Thomas
Crishon and Grant Helms of the Indiana Protection and Advocacy
Services Commission.


IOOF: Sues Law Firm Over Docs from Four Whistleblowers
------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Danckert, writing for The Sidney Morning Herald, reports
that embattled financial services group IOOF is suing class action
law firm Maurice Blackburn for the return of the company's
allegedly confidential documents.

If successful, IOOF's action could damage the class action being
prepared against the company by Maurice Blackburn after
revelations by a company whistleblower.

According to court documents, IOOF alleges at least four former
employees are responsible for handing over to Maurice Blackburn
company documents that IOOF believes are confidential.

One of the unnamed whistleblowers, referred to as employee A in
court documents, is accused of "misuse" of IOOF's documents.

An investigation by Fairfax Media last year unearthed a cache of
internal documents and explosive whistleblower testimony regarding
allegations of serious misconduct, insider trading, front running,
cheating by senior staff and the misrepresentation of performance
numbers for its funds.

Fairfax Media also revealed serious failings with IOOF's research
department, including the plagiarising of research reports and a
litany of breaches in IOOF's fund management unit.

IOOF's share price fell over 20 per cent in a single trading day
after the publication of the media investigation. The company's
shares closed on February 19 at $7.63, well below the $10.66 it
was trading at before Fairfax Media's expose.

Unlike Maurice Blackburn, Fairfax Media and the whistleblower have
not been added to IOOF's legal action.

At a hearing, the lawyer for Maurice Blackburn, Richard Attiwill,
QC, described IOOF's request for discovery of the IOOF documents
that may or may not be in Maurice Blackburn's possession as a
"fishing exercise".

"They're bringing this proceeding obviously to obtain, they say,
their confidential information but it's just a fishing exercise
about what other things are out there," Mr Attiwill said.

"The plaintiff [IOOF] has cast quite a broad net about what is
confidential and our submission to you is that not only does this
request go well beyond the pleadings, it goes well beyond the case
of confidential information," Mr Attiwill told Justice Kim
Hargrave.

Justice Hargrave joked it was likely IOOF would tell Maurice
Blackburn "anything that's important to you is confidential".
IOOF has asked for Maurice Blackburn to disclose whether it has
information regarding the internal operations and affairs of the
research division, the employment of former head of IOOF research
division Peter Hilton and the share trading activities of a
customer of IOOF.

"We'd just like a yes or no answer [regarding the possession of
certain documents]. If they force us to bring in a pre-action
discovery application we'll have to do it," IOOF lawyer James
Peters, QC, said.

"Maurice Blackburn tells us they don't have any such class of
documents. We don't know if they got something from [employee] B,
[employee] C and [employee] D but we're starting to have a feeling
about it, if I can put it that way," Mr Peters said.

Justice Hargrave ordered IOOF to more clearly detail which
documents it was seeking by revising its pleading by end of
February.

A spokeswoman for IOOF said the company did not comment on legal
actions.


IZZY'S STEAKS: Faces "Gonzalez" Lawsuit for FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Alejandro Gonzalez, v. Izzy's Steaks and Chops San Carlos, Inc.;
Sam Duvall; DOES 1- 10; Case GIV537349 (Cal. Super., County of San
Mateo, February 11, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, of California Labor Code and the California Unfair
Trade Practices Act under Business and Professions Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert David Barer, Esq.
     ROBERT DAVID BAKER, INC.
     80 South White Road
     San Jose, CA 95127
     Tel: (408) 251- 3400
     Fax: (408) 251- 3401
     E-mail: rbaker@rdblaw.net


J & J AIR: Faces "Zurlo" Suit Over Waiting Time Penalties
---------------------------------------------------------
AARON ZURLO and MATTHEW SHEARER v. J & J AIR CONDITIONING, INC.
and GERALD I. HURWITZ, Case 5:16-cv-00723 (N.D. Cal., February 11,
2016), brings claims for waiting time penalties and penalties for
wage stub violations under the California Labor Code; and for
attorneys' fees, costs, and pre-judgment interest, also pursuant
to the California Labor Code.

J. & J. Air Conditioning Inc. is a California corporation licensed
with the California State Contractor Licensing Board, and provides
service and repair plumbing and HVAC services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Tomas E. Margain, Esq.
     JUSTICE AT WORK LAW GROUP
     84 W. Santa Clara St., Suite 790
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Tel: (408) 317-1100
     Fax: (408) 351-0105
     E-mail: Tomas@Jawlawgroup.com


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Class Action Over Invokana
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that the
headlines have been screaming of late, and not just from the
United States, but around the world in Europe and Canada:
"Invokana Linked with Cardiovascular Injuries and Kidney Failure."
Just this month a new lawsuit was filed in the United States, and
the European Medicines Agency issued two safety warnings to
Invokana patients and the entire European medical community.

And in Canada, late last summer, an Ontario resident filed a
class-action Invokana lawsuit alleging that Invokana manufacturer
Janssen Pharmaceuticals, a division of Johnson & Johnson, knew
about the potential for Invokana adverse events but failed to
properly warn consumers and the medical community, and that labels
were inadequate -- or so it is alleged.

In the United States, the most recent Invokana lawsuit alleging
Invokana side effects was filed by Charles Maddox, who filed his
lawsuit in Louisiana on February 10 (Charles Maddox v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al, case No. 2:2016-cv-01189 at US
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana).

Mr. Maddox, according to court records, began his brief journey
with Invokana in July 2014 for treatment of type 2 diabetes.  The
plaintiff continued using Invokana until February of last year.
Not long after stopping Invokana, Maddox began to suffer diabetic
ketoacidosis (DKA) -- a serious and potentially life-threatening
condition associated with the buildup of acid within the blood -
and severe kidney damage.

A similar story is told by Rosalba Joudry, a Canadian plaintiff
who -- like Maddox -- started with Invokana soon after it was
approved in Canada (Canadian approval followed on the heels of
approval by the US Food and Drug Administration, or FDA, in the
United States). A type 2 diabetic, Joudry was prescribed Invokana
to manage her blood glucose levels.

However, she alleges in her Invokana class-action lawsuit that she
got much more than she bargained for.

Ms. Joudry had been taking Invokana for about eight months when,
in June 2015, she caught a news report about the risk for kidney
failure and DKA associated with the use of Invokana.  Ms. Joudry
immediately consulted her doctor, who ordered tests and confirmed
that Ms. Joudry was in the early stages of kidney failure after
only eight months on the medication.

Needless to say, Ms. Joudry was blindsided by the revelation.  The
plaintiff states in her Invokana lawsuit that she was never
alerted as to the risks associated with Invokana by her
prescribing physician.  She also alleges in her class action that
warnings on the Canadian label for Invokana were inadequate and
downplayed the medication's potential Invokana side effects.

Ms. Joudry states emphatically that she never would have taken
Invokana had she known about the potential for Invokana adverse
events involving DKA and the kidney.

Within its first year on the US market, Invokana was associated
with no fewer than 457 reports of adverse events -- this,
according to the Institute for Safe Medications Practices.

The FDA issued a safety warning with regard to Invokana and DKA in
May of last year.

Ms. Joudry is seeking combined damages of C$1 billion on behalf of
herself and those similarly situated in her Invokana class-action
lawsuit.


JC CHRISTENSEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gutierrez" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Norma Gutierrez, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00428-WJM-MF (D.N.J., January 26, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. operates an agency that
collects debt on behalf of creditors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFRY PICOWER: Madoff Bankruptcy Judge Rejects "Goldman" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Izzy Kapnick, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
bankruptcy judge in New York on Feb. 17 rejected a putative class
action that Plaintiff Pamela Goldman et al. had filed against the
estate of Jeffry Picower, a longtime associate of swindler Bernie
Madoff, in their bid to collect securities fraud damages.  The
judge determined that the Goldman plaintiffs' claims were barred
since they were duplicative of claims brought by the Madoff
bankruptcy trustee. The judge pointed to the Picower estate's $7.2
billion settlement with the trustee, which included an injunction
that disallowed such derivative or duplicate claims.

It was Pamela Goldman's third failed attempt to pursue a federal
class action in the matter, according to court documents. All of
the actions were dismissed on the grounds that they repeated the
already-settled claims of the bankruptcy trustee.

The litigation has "caused enormous expense" to the trustee, the
judge ruled.  He stopped short of enjoining Goldman from
continuing to sue the Picower defendants.

"The [court's] gatekeeping function has been expensive and time-
consuming, but the court is confident that the Goldman Parties
will not cause any further needless expenditure of resources or
time. The Trustee or the Picower Parties, or both, may seek
appropriate sanctions if they do," he wrote.

                           *     *     *

The report also says the JPB Foundation, a non-profit organization
that supports medical research and poverty relief, is facing a
lawsuit by Pamela Goldman et al., alleging that it harbors tainted
money from the estate of attorney Jeff Picower, who purportedly
made billions of dollars in Madoff's historic Ponzi scheme.

Plaintiff Pamela Goldman, along with A&G Goldman Partnership,
claims that Picower helped prop up Madoff's fraudulent wealth-
management fund and stole roughly 40 percent of the $18 billion
that Madoff had amassed from investors over the years.  Picower
died in a pool outside his Palm Beach home in 2009 after suffering
from what the coroner deemed to be cardiac distress.  Since then,
more than two billion dollars was funneled out of his estate, to
the JPB Foundation, according to the lawsuit.  Executed under the
direction of the estate's attorney, this massive transfer of funds
was meant in part to give Picower's estate and his widow Barbara
the appearance of insolvency so that they could sidestep liability
for claims filed by Madoff investors including the Goldman
plaintiffs, the lawsuit alleges.

According to the complaint, defendant April Freilich, Picower's
former assistant, is receiving a $577,000 "salary" as the director
of the JPB Foundation.  She allegedly was set to receive $10
million under Picower's will.

The trustee overseeing the Madoff bankruptcy linked Freilich to
the Madoff fund's fraudulent backdating of trades for Picower.
According to the trustee's allegations, Freilich would send a
request to book capital gains in Picower's account for certain
time ranges, and the Madoff fund would respond with backdated
financial statements to match those requests.

When Courthouse News contacted the JPB Foundation for an
interview, the foundation's agent claimed it has no public-
relations outlet and hung up mid-conversation.

The Picower estate in 2010 had entered into a $7.2 billion
settlement with the Madoff bankruptcy trustee and the Manhattan
U.S. Attorney, who called it "the largest single forfeiture
recovery in U.S. history."

The U.S. attorney proclaimed: "Today's truly historic settlement
with the estate of Jeffry Picower is a game-changer for Madoff's
victims. By returning every penny of the $7.2 billion her late
husband received from [the Madoff fund] to help those who have
suffered most, Barbara Picower has done the right thing."

But the Goldman plaintiffs argue that the estate should be held
liable for damages beyond that sum, on the grounds that Jeffry
Picower actively participated in the Ponzi scheme and was a
"control person" responsible for securities fraud under the
Exchange Act.

Picower "controlled the viability of the Ponzi scheme," acted as a
counterparty for phony options trades in the Madoff fund and
helped orchestrate fraudulent activity on Madoff's balance sheets,
the plaintiffs claim.  Their allegations that Picower knew about
the scheme are apparently supported by statements from Madoff
himself.

In a 2012 deposition during which he discussed investor
restitution, Madoff said that Picower had been one of his biggest
investors since the 1980s, and was "complicit" in the scheme.

"The best thing I could for my clients was to - to get the money
back from the people that were complicit in the crime, namely
Picower, [Carl] Shapiro, [Norman] Levy," Madoff purportedly stated
in the deposition, describing his past interactions with federal
prosecutors.

According to the deposition transcript, Madoff said these parties
were complicit "because they had violated tax laws based upon what
I discussed with them and other things that I knew that they were
doing with people in my firm, bookkeepers, who are all now under
investigation."

Madoff, already imprisoned at the time of the deposition, said he
was surprised to hear on the news that Picower had a $9 billion
estate. He maintained throughout the deposition that he had first
initiated "the whole cycle" of fraud because he took a huge loss
on Picower's behalf in a series of botched hedging deals thirty
years ago.

The fraudulent transfer case was filed in Palm Beach County court
on Feb. 12, five days before the bankruptcy court decision. It was
made public late, upon its assignment to a circuit division in
West Palm Beach.  The listed defendants are the JPB Foundation,
Barbara Picower, April Freilich, Picower estate attorney William
Zabel and foundation executive Gerald McNamara.

Pamela Goldman's counsel at the law firm of Beasley Kramer did not
respond to a request for comment regarding whether the fraudulent
transfer case will be dropped in light of the bankruptcy judge's
recent decision.

A primary beneficiary of the JPB Foundation is the Picower
Institute for Learning and Memory at the Massachusetts Institute
of Technology.

The Picower Institute studies neuroscience and brain disorders
including Parkinson's disease, an affliction from which Picower
reportedly suffered. The institute received its name when the
Picowers' previous non-profit organization gave it a large grant
in 2002, long before the Madoff Ponzi scheme came to light.

Barbara Picower has professed that her husband never participated
in the scheme, claiming she is "absolutely confident that . . .
Jeffry was in no way complicit in Madoff's fraud."


JP MORGAN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shore" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael D. Shore, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A., et al., Case No. 0:16-cv-
60125-JIC (S.D. Fla., January 20, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

JP Morgan Chase Bank N.A. is a leading global financial services
firm and one of the largest banking institutions in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher W. Legg, Esq.
      CHRISTOPHER LEGG, P.A.
      3837 Hollywood Blvd., Ste. B
      Hollywood, FL 33021
      Telephone: (954) 962-2333
     Facsimile: (954) 927-2451
     E-mail: ChrisLeggLaw@gmail.com

        - and -

     Jack Dennis Card Jr., Esq.
     HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A.
     3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
     Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
     Telephone: (561) 683-2300
     Facsimile: (561) 697-3852
     E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

        - and -

      James Lawrence Kauffman, Esq.
      BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP
      1054 31st Street, NW, Suite 230
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 463-2101
      Facsimile: (202) 463-2103
      E-mail: jkauffman@baileyglasser.com


LA HUERTA: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Espinoza" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Manuel Espinoza v. La Huerta Grocery, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01498 (N.D. Ill., January 28, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all time worked in
excess of 40 hours in a workweek.

La Huerta Grocery, Inc. owns and operates a butcher shop located
at 396 W Lake St., Addison, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neil Kelley, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE, P.C.
      53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LYFT: Seeks Uber Protection Order
---------------------------------
Shaun Nichols, writing for The Register, reports that Lyft has
asked a judge to block taxi app rival Uber from using the courts
to cunningly extract information about its operations.

In a filing to the Northern California District Court, Lyft asks
that Uber be stopped from getting any further internal memos and
other details using subpoenas.

Uber filed the subpoenas while defending itself against a class-
action lawsuit brought after names and license plates for 50,000
of its drivers were leaked online. That class-action suit, which
was dismissed last October but is still open for an amended
complaint, accused Uber of failing to properly secure a database.

During an investigation into its security cockup, Uber turned its
focus to Lyft and the possibility that an employee at its rival
had improperly accessed the Uber database and lifted its records.

"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," a spokesperson for Lyft told the news
agency.

However, this investigation is where Lyft takes issue with Uber.
The company claims that Uber's lawyers have used the probe as an
excuse to pry into Lyft's inner workings by submitting 11
subpoenas and asking for potentially sensitive information that
Lyft considers trade secrets.

"Uber's discovery is not focused on the data breach; it is
directed at (and targets information about) an employee of its
main competitor, Lyft," the filing reads.

"Uber's discovery is sweeping in scope and time and seeks
information far beyond the alleged May 12, 2014 data breach (or
this litigation); and Uber seeks unrestricted access to X's
computers, emails, and chat messages (including confidential Lyft
information). And to avoid having to explain its invasive efforts,
Uber has flatly refused to meet and confer with Lyft in any way on
its discovery requests -- despite explicitly seeking Lyft's
confidential materials."

Lyft also accuses Uber of stringing along the appeals process of
the dismissal so that it can continue to dig into Lyft for more
information, stating that "Uber's recalcitrance -- and its efforts
to use this lawsuit to further its own interests -- have left Lyft
with no choice but to file this motion."

Lyft is asking for a March 24 hearing to have the court consider
its motion, and in the meantime wants the court to prevent Uber
from moving forward with any further attempts to extract
information from Lyft and its employees.


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MASONITE CORP: "Byrd" Suit Moved from Super Ct. to E.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Derrick Byrd v. Masonite
Corporation et al., Case No. RIC1513557, was removed from the
Riverside Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California (Riverside). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00035-JGB-KK to the proceeding.

Masonite Corporation manufactures interior doors and entry door
systems. The company provides doors in a portfolio of styles,
designs, textures, components, glass options, applications, and
materials. It offers glass, French, or closet doors; glass,
fiberglass, or steel entry doors; patio doors; decorative glass
products; and additional products, such as bolection doors,
sliding door hardware, steel frame jamb system, stain kits, and
commercial/architectural flush doors. The company serves builders,
professional remodelers, architects, interior designer, and
homeowners through a network of local dealers and home centers.
The Company is headquartered at Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          Lawyers for Justice PC
          410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail: edwin@lfjpc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carlos Jimenez, Esq.
          Littler Mendelson PC
          633 West 5th Street 63rd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 443 4300
          Facsimile: (213) 443 4299
          E-mail: cajimenez@littler.com


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

Defendants offer hole completion and other oilfield services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Tel: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204
     Web site: http://www.siegellawgroup.biz

        - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Tel: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010
     Web site: http://www.overtimelawyer.com


MDL 2591: "Richardson" Suit Transferred from N.D. Alabama
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Richardson et al v. Syngenta AG et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-02272, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Alabama, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02014-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam P. Plant, Esq.
          Robert E. Battle, Esq.
          BATTLE & WINN LLP
          2901 2nd Avenue South, Suite 220
          Birmingham, AL 35233
          Telephone: (205) 397-8160
          E-mail: aplant@battlewinn.com
                  rbattle@battlewinn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John E. Goodman, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
          One Federal Place
          1819 Fifth Avenue, North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521 8000
          Facsimile: (205) 521 8800

               - and -

          Meredith Riley Phillips, Esq.
          BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS
          1819 Fifth Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521 8685
          Facsimile: (205) 488 6685


MDL 2591: "Fischer" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to N.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Allan and Carolyn Fischer FLP et
al. v. Syngenta AG et al., Case No. CJ-15-04252, was removed from
the Tulsa County Dist. Ct., to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00011-TCK-TLW to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Fischer case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re:
Syngenta AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Alston Waller, Esq.
          SNEED LANG
          1 W 3RD ST STE 1700
          TULSA, OK 74103-3522
          Telephone: (918) 583 3145
          Facsimile: (918) 588 1314
          E-mail: mwaller@sneedlang.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Franklin Smith, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT (TULSA)
          1717 S. Boulder Ste 900
          TULSA, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 587 0000
          Facsimile: (918) 599 9317
          E-mail: michael.smith@mcafeetaft.com

               - and -

          Timothy James Bomhoff, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          211 N. Robinson 10TH Floor
          OKLAHOMA CITY, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 9621
          Facsimile: (405) 228 7339
          E-mail: tim.bomhoff@mcafeetaft.com


MDL 2591: "Crone" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to M.D. Pa.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Crone v. Syngenta Seeds et al.,
Case No. number CV-15-2216, was removed from Northumberland County
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania (Williamsport). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 4:16-cv-00005-MWB to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Crone case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re: Syngenta
AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather K. D'Onofrio, Esq.
          Louis F. D'Onofrio o, Esq.
          THE D'ONOFRIO FIRM, LLC
          2nd Floor
          303 Chestnut Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19106
          Telephone: (215) 923 1056

The Defendants are represented by:

          John B. Dempsey, Esq.
          MYERS, BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342-6100
          E-mail: jdempsey@mbklaw.com

               - and -

          Devin A DeBacker, Esq.
          Jeffery Nye, Esq.
          Jessica M Pettit, Esq.
          Sarah J Schultes, Esq.
          Steve Hagenbuch, Esq.
          William Patrick J Kimmitt, Esq.
          Zachary W Byer, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP
          655 Fifteenth Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879 5000
          E-mail: devin.debacker@kirkland.com
                  jeff.nye@kirkland.com
                  jessica.pettit@kirkland.com
                  sarah.schultes@kirkland.com
                  steve.hagenbuch@kirkland.com
                  william.kimmitt@kirkland.com
                  zachary.byer@kirkland.com

               - and -

          Regina Murphy, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG, LLP
          1000 North West Street, Suite 1500
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 300-3475
          E-mail: gigi.murphy@btlaw.com


MDL 2591: "Welsh" Suit v. Syngenta Transferred from E.D. Ky.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Welsh v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et
al., Case No. 2:15-cv-00208, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of. Kansas (Kansas City). The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02006-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Welsh case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re: Syngenta
AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew P. George, Esq.
          1160 East Main
          Box 36
          Lebanon, OH 45036
          Telephone: (513) 228 4137
          Facsimile: (513) 228 4138

The Defendants are represented by:

          John L. Tate, Esq.
          STITES & HARBISON, PLLC
          400 W. Market Street, Suite 1800
          Louisville, KY 40202-3352
          Telephone: (502) 587 3400
          Facsimile: (502) 587 6391

               - and -

          Chad R. Ziepfel, Esq.
          Ryan Christian Edwards, Esq.
          TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP
          425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800, Firstar Tower
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 381 2838
          Facsimile: (513) 581 0205

               - and -

          Carl Norman Frazier, Esq.
          Christopher E. Schaefer, Esq.
          David T. Royse, Esq.
          Stoll Keenon Ogden, PLLC
          300 W. Vine Street, Suite 2100
          Lexington, KY 40507
          Telephone: (859) 231 3968
          Facsimile: (859) 253 1093


MDL 2591: "Dreibodt" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to W.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled David Dreibodt, et al. v. Syngenta
Seeds, Inc., et al., Case No. 15-02322-CV, was removed from the
25th Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Texas (San Antonio). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00011-FB to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Dreibodt case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re:
Syngenta AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          J. Michael Moore, Esq.
          THE MOORE LAW FIRM
          4900 North 10th Street, Ste. E-2
          McAllen, TX 78504
          Telephone: (956) 631 0745
          Facsimile: (888) 266 0971

The Defendants are represented by:

          Mark R. Trachtenberg, Esq.
          HAYNES AND BOONE, LLP
          1221 McKinney Street, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77010-2007
          Telephone: (713) 547 2000
          Facsimile: (713) 547 2600
          E-mail: mark.trachtenberg@haynesboone.com

               - and -

          Stephen E. Walraven, Esq.
          LANGLEY & BANACK, INC.
          Trinity Plaza II
          745 East Mulberry, Ninth Floor
          San Antonio, TX 78212-3166
          Telephone: (210) 736 6600
          Facsimile: (210) 735 6889
          E-mail: swalraven@langleybanack.com

               - and -

          Thomas G. Haskins Jr., Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP
          2100 McKinney Avenue
          Suite 1250
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 258 4111
          Facsimile: (214) 258 4199
          E-mail: thaskins@btlaw.com


MDL 2591: "Anderson" Suit v. Syngenta Moved to Kansas
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anderson v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc.
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02655, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The Kansas
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02005-JWL-JPO to
the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Anderson case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re:
Syngenta AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Dale Green, Esq.
          ROBERT D. GREEN & ASSOCIATES, PC
          440 Louisiana Street, Suite 1930
          Houston, TX 77002-1636
          Telephone: (713) 654 9222
          Facsimile: (713) 654 2155

The Defendants are represented by:

          David S. Chipman, Esq.
          Casa of Shawnee County
          400 SW Oakley
          Topeka, KS 66606
          Telephone: (303) 578 7580
          Facsimile: (303) 578 7590

               - and -

          Andrew Michael Unthank, Esq.
          Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP
          370 17th Street, Suite 4500
          Denver, CO 80202-5647
          Telephone: (303) 244 1897
          Facsimile: (303) 244 1879

               - and -

          Sean D. Baker, Esq.
          CRUX LEGAL LLC
          1899 Wynkoop Street, Suite 225
          Denver, CO 80202
          Telephone: (303) 618 3584


MDL 2591: "Vermeer" Suit v. Syngenta Removed to N.D. Iowa
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vermeer v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et
al., Case No. LACV025775, was removed from the Sioux County
District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa (Western Division). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-04003-MWB to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The Vermeer case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re:
Syngenta AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jenny L Winterfeld, Esq.
          DEJONG, HALVERSON & WINTERFELD
          Sioux Center, IA 51250
          20 3rd Street NE
          Telephone: (712) 722-3210

The Defendant is represented by:

          Randall D Armentrout, Esq.
          Ryan Gene Koopmans, Esq.
          NYEMASTER, GOODE, WEST, HANSELL & O'BRIEN
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50309-3899
          Telephone: (515) 283 3100
          Facsimile: (515) 283 8045
          E-mail: rdarmentrout@nyemaster.com
                  rkoopmans@nyemaster.com

               - and -

          Danielle M Shelton, Esq.
          Mark E Weinhardt, Esq.
          Todd Michael Lantz, Esq.
          WEINHARDT & LOGAN, PC
          2600 Grand Avenue, Suite 450
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 244 3100
          Facsimile: (515) 288 0407
          E-mail: dshelton@weinhardtlogan.com
                  mweinhardt@weinhardtlogan.com
                  tlantz@weinhardtlogan.com


MDL 2591: VJW Farm Suit Transferred from S.D. Indiana
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled VJW Farm, Inc. et al. v. Syngenta
Seeds, Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01953, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City).
The Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02013-
JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

Syngenta produces crop protection products and seeds. The company
produces herbicides, insecticides, and fungicides, and seeds for
field crops, vegetables, and flowers. The company is based in
Basil, Switzerland.

The VJW Farm case is being consolidated with MDL 2591 in re:
Syngenta AG Mir162 Corn Litigation. The MDL was created by Order
of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on
December 11, 2014. These cases concern the Syngenta defendants'
decision to commercialize corn seeds containing a genetically
modified trait, known as "MIR162" that reportedly controls certain
insects. Corn with this trait has entered U.S. corn stocks but has
not been approved for import by the Chinese government, which has
imposed a complete ban on U.S. corn with this trait. In its
December 11, 2014 Order, the MDL Panel found that it involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District
of Kansas will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. John W. Lungstrum, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 2:14-md-02591-JWL-JPO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert Thomas Dassow, Esq.
          HOVDE DASSOW & DEETS LLC
          Meridian Tower, Suite 500
          201 West 103rd Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46290
          Telephone: (317) 818 3100
          Facsimile: (317) 818 3111

The Defendants are represented by:

          Andrew W. Hull, Esq.
          HOOVER HULL BAKER & HEATH LLP
          111 Monument Circle-Ste. 4400
          Indianapolis, IN 46244-0989
          Telephone: (317) 822 4400
          Facsimile: (317) 822 0234
          E-mail: awhull@hooverhull.com

               - and -

          Tammara Danielle Porter, Esq.
          TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP
          One Indiana Square, Suite 3500
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 713 3469
          Facsimile: (317) 713 3699

               - and -

          Andrew J. Detherage, Esq.
          Kathleen L. Matsoukas, Esq.
          BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis)
          11 South Meridian Street
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 231 7717
          Facsimile: (317) 231 7433


MDL 2657: "Jones" Suit v. GlaxoSmithKline Consolidated
------------------------------------------------------
The lawsuit titled Jones et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
3:15-cv-00213, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of Mississippi, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston). The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10010-FDS to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs seek compensatory and
punitive damages and equitable relief arising from the injuries
suffered by the daughter of the Plaintiffs as a result of exposure
from drug Zofran, also known as Ondersetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients who were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable
-- that suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation
treatments in cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware corporation, and is based in
Wilmington, Delaware. The company, through its division Cerenex
Pharmaceuticals, authored original package insert and labeling for
Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant to its use.

The Jones case is being consolidated with MDL 2657 in re: Zofran
(Ondansetron) Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on November 13, 2015. It consists of factual questions
arising from allegations that Zofran and its generic equivalent, a
prescription medication for the treatment of nausea, causes birth
defects in children when their mothers ingest the drug while
pregnant. In its November 13, 2015 Order, the MDL Panel found that
the actions in this litigation involve common questions of fact,
and that centralization in the District of Massachusetts will
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the
just and efficient conduct of the litigation. Presiding Judge in
the MDL is Hon. F. Dennis Saylor IV, United States District Judge.
The lead case is Lead case: 1:15-md-02657-FDS.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Charles C. Edwards, Esq.
          Marc L. Boutwell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF MARC BOUTWELL, PLLC
          103 West China Street
          Lexington, MS 39095
          Telephone: (662) 834 9029
          Facsimile: (662) 834 3117
          E-mail: edwardcc@bellsouth.net
                  boutwel1@bellsouth.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alyson B. Jones, Esq.
          Christy D. Jones, Esq.
          BUTLER SNOW LLP
          P. O. Box 6010
          Ridgeland, MS 39158-6010
          Telephone: (601) 948 5711
          E-mail: alyson.jones@butlersnow.com
                  christy.jones@butlersnow.com


MDL 2672: 50 Class Suits v. Volkswagen et al. Transferred
---------------------------------------------------------
Fifty 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
   ---------------------------------
Robert Fonte, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06140 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New York Southern, 1:15-cv-07561

          Counsel to Plaintiff Robert Fonte:

               Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
               ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
               299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
               New York, NY 10017
               Telephone: (212) 894-7200
               Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
               E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

                              - and -

               Robert N. Cappucci, Esq.
               ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI, LLP
               400 Park Ave., 16th Floor
               New York, NY 10022-4406
               Telephone: (212) 894-7200
               Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
               E-mail: rcappucci@entwistle-law.com

                              - and -

               Vincent Roger Cappucci, Esq.
               ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
               280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
               New York, NY 10017
               Telephone: (212) 894-7200
               Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
               E-mail: vcappucci@entwistle-law.com

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Brian Willingham and Jeremy
          Empol:

               Frederic Scott Fox, Sr., Esq.
               KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
               850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
               New York, NY 10022
               Telephone: (212) 687-1980
               Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
               E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

                              - and -

               Laurence David King, Esq.
               Mario Man-Lung Choi, Esq.
               KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
               350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
               San Francisco, CA 94104
               Telephone: (415) 772-4700
               Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
               E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                       mchoi@kaplanfox.com

          Counsel to Plaintiff Matthew Gee:

               Seth Levethal Cardeli, Esq.
               JANET JENNER AND SUGGS LLC
               1777 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 165
               Baltimore, MD 21208
               Telephone: (410) 653-3200
               Facsimile: (410) 653-6903
               E-mail: scardeli@myadvocates.com

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

               Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
               Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
               HERZFELD AND RUBIN
               125 Broad Street
               New York, NY 10004
               Telephone: (212) 471-8500
               Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
               E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com
                       mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com

                              - and -

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway, Suite 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

Steele v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06179 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07086

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Adam M. Slater, Esq.
               David A. Mazie, Esq.
               Matthew Ross Mendelsohn, Esq.
               MAZIE SLATER KATZ & FREEMAN
               103 Eisenhower Parkway
               Roseland, NJ 07068
               Telephone: (973) 228-9898
               Facsimile: (973) 228-0303
               E-mail: aslater@mskf.net
                       dmazie@mskf.net
                       mmendelsohn@mskf.net

Jason Malig v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06130 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 8:15-cv-01554

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alex Martin Outwater, Esq.
               John H. Donboli, Esq.
               DEL MAR LAW GROUP LLP
               12250 El Camino Real, Suite 120
               San Diego, CA 92130
               Telephone: (858) 793-6244
               Facsimile: (858) 793-6605
               E-mail: aoutwater@delmarlawgroup.com
                       jdonboli@delmarlawgroup.com

          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

Armstrong, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06178 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07085

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Bryan L. Clobes, Esq.
               CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
               1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
               Philadelphia, PA 19107
               Telephone: (215) 864-2800
               Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
               E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com

Jon McMillen, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06096 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07615

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               David W. Mitchell, Esq.
               Rachel L. Jensen, Esq.
               ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
               655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
               San Diego, CA 92101
               Telephone: (619) 231-1058
               Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
               E-mail: davidm@rgrdlaw.com
                       rjensen@rgrdlaw.com

                              - and -

               Stuart Furman, Esq.
               SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LEGAL CENTER INC.
               9150 Vista Aleta
               Valley Center, CA 92082
               Telephone: (760) 749-2926
               Facsimile: (760) 749-2926

          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

Sensenig v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06189 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Florida Middle, 8:15-cv-02236

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Esq.
               Neil Duane Overholtz, Esq.
               Stephen Herre Echsner, Esq.
               AYLSTOCK, WITKI, KREIS AND OVERHOTLZ
               17 East Main Street, Suite 200
               Pensacola, FL 32502
               Telephone: (850) 202-1010
               Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
               E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
                       noverholtz@awkolaw.com
                       sechsner@awkolaw.com

                              - and -

               Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
               Justin Graem Witkin, Esq.
               AYLSTOCK, WITKIN & SASSER, PLC
               4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 58
               Pensacola, FL 32503
               Telephone: (850) 916-7450
               Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
               E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                       jwitkin@aws-law.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
               Michael D. Begey, Esq.
               RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
               300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1400
               P.O. Box 1873
               Orlando, FL
               Telephone: (407) 841-2133
               Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
               E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com
                       mbegey@rumberger.com

Scafury v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06159 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New York Southern, 1:15-cv-07757

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
               Jeffrey L. Haberman, Esq.
               Jonathan R. Gdanski, Esq.
               SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES, P.A.
               1212 SE Third Avenue
               Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316
               Telephone: 954-320-9507
               Facsimile: 954-320-9509
               E-mail: scott@schlesingerlaw.com
                       jhaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
                       jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
               Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
               HERZFELD AND RUBIN
               125 Broad Street
               New York, NY 10004
               Telephone: (212) 471-8500
               Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
               E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com
                       mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com

                              - and -

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway, Suite 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

          Counsel to Interested Party Robert Fonte:

               Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
               ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
               280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
               New York, NY 10017
               Telephone: (212) 894-7200
               Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
               E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

Bonner v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06190 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Florida Northern, 1:15-cv-00225

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Steven L. Nicholas, Esq.
               William Earl Bonner, Esq.
               CUNNINGHAM, BOUNDS, LLC
               P.O. Box 66705
               Mobile, AL 36660
               Telephone: (251) 471-6191
               Facsimile: (251) 479-1031
               E-mail: sln@cunninghambounds.com
                       web@cunninghambounds.com

Brier v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06263 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07297

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Kevin Peter Roddy, Esq.
               WILENTZ GOLDMAN & SPITZER, PA
               90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
               P. Box 10
               Woodbridge, NJ 07095
               Telephone: (732) 636-8000
               Facsimile: (732) 726-4735
               E-mail: mmcguckin@wilentz.com

Mario Signore, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06095 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-07564

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Mark P. Pifko, Esq.
               Pablo Orozco, Esq.
               Roland K. Tellis, Esq.
               BARON AND BUDD PC
               15910 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1600
               Encino, CA 91436
               Telephone: (818) 839-2333
               Facsimile: (818) 986-9698
               E-mail: MPifko@baronbudd.com
                       porozco@baronbudd.com
                       rtellis@baronbudd.com

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

               Matthew Henry Marmolejo, Esq.
               MAYER BROWN ROWE MAW LLP
               350 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor
               Los Angeles, CA 90071
               Telephone: (213) 621-9483
               E-mail: mmarmolejo@mayerbrown.com

Heidi Walas, et al. v. Volkswagen Group America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06126 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08832

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Frank M. Pitre, Esq.
               Joseph Winters Cotchett, Esq.
               Nancy Leavitt Fineman, Esq.
               COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
               San Francisco Airport Office Center
               840 Malcolm Road
               Burlingame, CA 94010
               Telephone: (650) 697-6000
               Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
               E-mail: fpitre@cpmlegal.com
                       jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                       nfineman@cpmlegal.com

                              - and -

               Joanna W. LiCalsi, Esq.
               Robert B. Hutchinson, Esq.
               COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
               2716 Ocean Park Boulevard, Suite 3025
               Santa Monica, CA 90405
               Telephone: (310) 392-2008
               Facsimile: (310) 392-0111
               E-mail: jlicalsi@cpmlegal.com
                       rhutchinson@sbcglobal.net

                              - and -

               Joseph Charles Wilson, Esq.
               CURIALE WILSON LLP
               One Maritime Plaza, Suite 1000
               San Francisco, CA 94111
               Telephone: (415) 420-4009
               Facsimile: (415) 796-0875
               E-mail: jwilson@curialewilson.com

Krieger, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06150 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Oklahoma Western, 5:15-cv-01064

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               John E. Wiggins, Esq.
               WIGGINS SEWELL & OGLETREE
               210 Park Ave., Suite 3100
               Oklahoma City, OK 73102
               Telephone: (405) 232-1211
               Facsimile: (405) 235-7025
               E-mail: jwiggins@wsolaw.net

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Colin H. Tucker, Esq.
               John H. Tucker, Esq.
               RHODES HIERONYMUS JONES TUCKER & GABLE
               PO Box 21100
               Tulsa, OK 74121-1100
               Telephone: (918) 582-1173
               Facsimile: (918) 592-3390
               E-mail: chtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com
                       jtuckercourts@rhodesokla.com

Gee v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06192 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New York Southern, 1:15-cv-08628

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Steven Jay German, Esq.
               GERMAN RUBENSTEIN, LLP
               19 West 44th Street, Suite 1500
               New York, NY 10036
               Telephone: (212) 704-2020
               Facsimile: (212) 704-2020
               E-mail: sgerman@germanrubenstein.com

                              - and -

               Seth Levethal Cardeli, Esq.
               JANET JENNER AND SUGGS LLC
               1777 Reisterstown Rd., Suite 165
               Baltimore, MD 21208
               Telephone: (410) 653-3200
               Facsimile: (410) 653-6903
               E-mail: scardeli@myadvocates.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway, Suite 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

Broadbent v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06160 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01493

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Bernard Joseph DiMuro, Esq.
               Harvey B. Cohen, 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
                       hcohen@dimuro.com

                              - and -

               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: astever@steverlaw.com
                       smacrae@,steverlaw.com
                       imanning@.steverlaw.com

          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

          Counsel to Porsche Cars North America, Inc.:

               Marianne Roach Casserly, Esq.
               ALSTON & BIRD LLP
               950 F Street NW
               Washington, DC 20004
               Telephone: (202) 756-3300
               Facsimile: (202) 654-4989
               E-mail: marianne.casserly@alston.com

Chen, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06279 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07596

          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

Chechik v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06086 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Missouri Eastern, 4:15-cv-01561

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               John C. Kress, Esq.
               THE KRESS LAW FIRM, LLC
               4247 S. Grand Blvd.
               St. Louis, MO 63111
               Telephone: (314) 631-3883
               Facsimile: (314) 332-1534

                              - and -

               Jonathan E. Fortman, Esq.
               LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
               10 Strecker Rd., Suite 1150
               Ellisville, MO 63011
               Telephone: (314) 522-2312
               Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
               E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.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

G.T. Leasing, Inc. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06269 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07394

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Alexander H. Schmidt, Esq.
               WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
               270 Madison Avenue
               New York, NY 10016
               Telephone: (212) 545-4600
               Facsimile: (212) 545-4677
               E-mail: schmidt@whafh.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Patricia Rodriguez Britton, Esq.
               NELSON MULLINS RILEY SCARBOROUGH LLP
               201 17th Street NW, Suite 1700
               Atlanta, GA 30363
               Telephone: (404) 322-6112
               E-mail: patricia.britton@nelsonmullins.com

Mutari, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06271 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07408

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Robert A. Magnanini, Esq.
               David S. Stone, Esq.
               STONE & MAGNANINI LLP
               100 Connell Drive, Suite 2200
               Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922
               Telephone: (973) 218-1111
               E-mail: magnanini@stonemagnalaw.com
                       dstone@stonemagnalaw.com

O'Brien, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06163 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01468

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               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

Brilla v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06253 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07122

          Plaintiff's 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

Scott Weiss v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06110 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: California Central, 2:15-cv-08126

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Edward H. Takashima, Esq.
               David L. Zifkin, Esq.
               BOIES SCHILLER AND FLEXNER LLP
               401 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
               Santa Monica, CA 90401
               Telephone: (310) 752-2408
               Facsimile: (310) 752-2490
               E-mail: etakashima@bsfllp.com
                       dzifkin@bsfllp.com

Willingham, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06148 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New York Southern, 1:15-cv-07633

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Laurence David King, Esq.
               Mario Man-Lung Choi, Esq.
               KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
               350 Sansome Street, Suite 400
               San Francisco, CA 94104
               Telephone: (415) 772-4700
               Facsimile: (415) 772-4707
               E-mail: lking@kaplanfox.com
                       mchoi@kaplanfox.com

                              - and -

               Frederic Scott Fox, Sr., Esq.
               KAPLAN FOX & KILSHEIMER LLP
               850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
               New York, NY 10022
               Telephone: (212) 687-1980
               Facsimile: (212) 687-7714
               E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Jeffrey L. Chase, Esq.
               Michael B. Gallub, Esq.
               HERZFELD AND RUBIN
               125 Broad Street
               New York, NY 10004
               Telephone: (212) 471-8500
               Facsimile: (212) 344-3333
               E-mail: jchase@herzfeld-rubin.com
                       mgallub@herzfeld-rubin.com

                              - and -

               Natalie Marie Lefkowitz, Esq.
               CHASE KURSHAN HERZFELD & RUBIN LLC
               354 Eisenhower Pkway Ste 1100
               Livingston, NJ 07039
               E-mail: nlefkowitz@herzfeld-rubin.com

          Counsel to Interested Party Robert Fonte:

               Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
               ENTWISTLE & CAPPUCCI LLP
               299 Park Avenue, 20th Floor
               New York, NY 10017
               Telephone: (212) 894-7200
               Facsimile: (212) 894-7272
               E-mail: aentwistle@entwistle-law.com

O'Brien v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06162 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01408

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

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

Firman, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06180 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07106

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Christopher Brendan Healy, Esq.
               BATHGATE WEGENER & WOLF PC
               One Airport Road
               Lakewood, NJ 08701
               Telephone: (732) 363-0666
               E-mail: chealy@bathweg.com

Heppard v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06259 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07140

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Carlo Scaramella, Esq.
               LAW OFFICES OF CARLO SCARAMELLA, LLC
               One Greentree Centre, Suite 201
               10000 Lincoln Drive East
               Marlton, NJ 08053
               Telephone: (856) 914-0114
               Facsimile: (856) 914-0117
               E-mail: lawofcs@comcast.net

Clyman v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06158 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Florida Southern, 1:15-cv-23715

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Bryan Frederick Aylstock, Esq.
               Neil Duane Overholtz, Esq.
               Ephraim Samuel Geisler, Esq.
               Justin G. Witkin, Esq.
               Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
               Stephen H. Echsner, Esq.
               AYLSTOCK, WITKI, KREIS AND OVERHOTLZ
               17 East Main Street, Suite 200
               Pensacola, FL 32502
               Telephone: (850) 202-1010
               Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
               E-mail: baylstock@awkolaw.com
                       noverholtz@awkolaw.com
                       sgeisler@awkolaw.com
                       jwitkin@awkolaw.com
                       dkreis@awkolaw.com
                       sechsner@awkolaw.com

                              - and -

               Douglass A. Kreis, Esq.
               Justin Graem Witkin, Esq.
               AYLSTOCK, WITKIN & SASSER, PLC
               4400 Bayou Blvd., Suite 58
               Pensacola, FL 32503
               Telephone: (850) 916-7450
               Facsimile: (850) 916-7449
               E-mail: dkreis@awkolaw.com
                       jwitkin@aws-law.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Larry Martin Roth, Esq.
               Michael D. Begey, Esq.
               RUMBERGER, KIRK & CALDWELL, PA
               300 S Orange Ave., Suite 1400
               P.O. Box 1873
               Orlando, FL
               Telephone: (407) 841-2133
               Facsimile: (407) 841-2133
               E-mail: lroth@rumberger.com
                       mbegey@rumberger.com

Deehl v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06153 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Florida Southern, 1:15-cv-23605

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Lewis Shelton Eidson, Jr., Esq.
               COLSON HICKS EIDSON
               255 Alhambra Circle, Penthouse
               Coral Gables, FL 33134
               Telephone: (305) 476-7400
               E-mail: mike@colson.com

Pomerantz, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06200 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01425

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

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

O'Brien v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06199 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01398

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               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

Clark, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06194 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Minnesota, 0:15-cv-03924

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Francis J. Rondoni, Esq.
               Jeffrey D. Bores, Esq.
               Bryan L. Bleichner, Esq.
               CHESTNUT CAMBRONNE, PA
               17 Washington Avenue North, Suite 300
               Minneapolis, MN 55401
               Telephone: (612) 339-7300
               Facsimile: (612) 336-2940
               E-mail: frondoni@chestnutcambronne.com
                       jbores@chestnutcambronne.com
                       bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Kent B. Hanson, Esq.
               Mary E. Bolkcom, Esq.
               Mickey W. Greene, Esq.
               HANSON BOLKCOM LAW GROUP, LTD.
               527 Marquette Ave., Suite 2300
               Minneapolis, MN 55402
               Telephone: (612) 342-2880
               Facsimile: (612) 342-2899
               E-mail: khanson@hblawgroup.com
                       mbolkcom@hblawgroup.com
                       mgreene@hblawgroup.com

Brady v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06204 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01592

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               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

Hendricks, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06188 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-06384

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Sol H. Weiss, Esq.
               ANAPOL SCHWARTZ WEISS COHAN FELDMAN & SMALLEY P.C.
               1900 Delancey Place
               Philadelphia, PA 19103-6690
               Telephone: (215) 735-1130
               Facsimile: (215) 735-2211
               E-mail: sweiss@anapolweiss.com

Brown v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06214 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Michigan Eastern, 2:15-cv-13373

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               James Dunn, Esq.
               Courthouse Square Building
               200 SE 6th Street, Suite 402
               Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
               Telephone: (734) 395-7644
               E-mail: James@AttorneyJamesDunn.com

                              - and -

               Aaron D. Cox, Esq.
               Andrew T. Strahan, Esq.
               THE LAW OFFICES OF AARON D. COX
               23380 Goddard Rd.
               Taylor, MI 48180
               Telephone: (734) 287-3664
               E-mail: aaron@aaroncoxlaw.com
                       andrew@aaroncoxlaw.com

Goldman, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06262 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07155

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Gary S. Graifman, Esq.
               KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
               210 Summit Avenue
               Montvale, NJ 07645
               Telephone: (201) 391-7000
               Facsimile: (201) 307-1086
               E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com

Louis Favela, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06151 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Texas Western, 5:15-cv-00873

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Russell S. Briggs, Esq.
               FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON LLP
               1150 Bissonnet
               Houston, TX 77005
               Telephone: (713) 751-0025
               Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
               E-mail: rbriggs@fibichlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Esq.
               HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
               8750 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1600
               Dallas, TX 75231
               Telephone: (214) 346-3700
               Facsimile: (214) 267-4200
               E-mail: hartline@flash.net

                              - and -

               Burgain Garfield Hayes, Esq.
               THE LAW OFFICE OF BURGAIN G. HAYES
               P.O. Box 10447
               Austin, TX 78766
               Telephone: (512) 472-2193
               Facsimile: (512) 371-0989
               E-mail: bh@bhayes-law.com

                              - and -

               John C. Dacus, Esq.
               HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
               6688 N Central Expwy,Suite 1000
               Dallas, TX 75206
               Telephone: (214) 369-2100
               E-mail: jdacus@hdbdlaw.com

Morgan v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06274 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07506

          Plaintiff's 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

Ghezzi v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06172 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07035

          Plaintiff's 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

Montano v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06261 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07142

          Plaintiff's 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

Peterson, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06248 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07110

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Bruce Daniel Greenberg, Esq.
               Joseph J. DePalma, Esq.
               LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG LLC
               Two Gateway Center, 12th Floor
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 623-3000
               Facsimile: (973) 623-0858
               E-mail: bgreenberg@litedepalma.com
                       jdepalma@litedepalma.com

                              - and -

               Mayra Velez Tarantino, Esq.
               LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
               570 Broad Street, Suite 1201
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 623-3000
               E-mail: mtarantino@patunaslaw.com

Clark, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06277 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07581

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Lane Lanier Vines, Esq.
               Russell D. Paul, Esq.
               BERGER MONTAGUE, P.C.
               1622 Locust Street
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
               Telephone: (215) 875-3000
               E-mail: lvines@bm.net
                       rpaul@bm.net

Kim, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06201 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01483

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               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

Travalio, et al. v. Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06168 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07157

          Counsel to Plaintiffs Gregory Travalio and Barbara
          Travalio:

               Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
               James S. Notis, Esq.
               Jennifer Sarnelli, Esq.
               GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
               560 Sylvan Avenue, Suite 3085
               Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
               Telephone: (201) 567-7377
               Facsimile: (207) 567-7337
               E-mail: mgardy@gardylaw.com
                       jnotis@gardylaw.com
                       jsarnelli@gardylaw.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 Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Michael R. McDonald, Esq.
               Samuel Isaac Portnoy, Esq.
               Thomas R. Valen, Esq.
               GIBBONS PC
               One Gateway Center
               Newark, NJ 07102
               Telephone: (973) 596-4500
               E-mail: mmcdonald@gibbonslaw.com
                       sportnoy@gibbonslaw.com
                       tvalen@gibbonslaw.com

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

               Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
               COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN AND KNOPF, LLP
               Park 80 Plaza West One
               250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
               Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
               Telephone: (201) 845-9600
               E-mail: psp@njlawfirm.com

          Counsel to Movant Arkansas State Highway Employees
          Retirement System:

               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

Weitzman, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06184 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-05588

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
               Michael J. Boni, Esq.
               John E. Sindoni, Esq.
               BONI & ZACK LLC
               15 Saint Asaphs Road
               Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
               Telephone: (610) 822-0200
               E-mail: jsnyder@bonizack.com
                       mboni@bonizack.com
                       jsindoni@bonizack.com

                              - and -

               Edward A. Diver, Esq.
               Howard I. Langer, Esq.
               Peter E. Leckman, Esq.
               LANGER GROGAN & DIVER PC
               Three Logan Square
               1717 Arch St., Suite 4130
               Philadelphia, PA 19103
               Telephone: (215) 320-5660
               Facsimile: (215) 320-5703
               E-mail: ndiver@langergrogan.com
                       hlanger@langergrogan.com
                       pleckman@langergrogan.com

Bixler, et al. v. Volkswagen Group, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06198 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Texas Western, 1:15-cv-00892

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Guy Michael Hohmann, Esq.
               Jesse Zachary Weiss, Esq.
               Ryan T. Shelton, Esq.
               HOHMANN, BROPHY AND SHELTON, PLLC
               210 Barton Springs Rd., Suite 250
               Austin, TX 78704
               Telephone: (512) 596-3622
               Facsimile: (512) 596-3622
               E-mail: guyh@hbslawyers.com
                       jesse@hbslawyers.com
                       ryans@hbslawyers.com

                              - and -

               William B. Federman, Esq.
               FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
               10205 N. Pennsylvania
               Oklahoma City, OK 73120
               Telephone: (405) 235-1560
               Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
               E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               Burgain Garfield Hayes, Esq.
               THE LAW OFFICE OF BURGAIN G. HAYES
               P.O. Box 10447
               Austin, TX 78766
               Telephone: (512) 472-2193
               Facsimile: (512) 371-0989
               E-mail: bh@bhayes-law.com

                              - and -

               C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Esq.
               HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
               8750 N. Central Expwy., Suite 1600
               Dallas, TX 75231
               Telephone: (214) 346-3700
               Facsimile: (214) 267-4200
               E-mail: hartline@flash.net

                              - and -

               John C. Dacus, Esq.
               HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
               6688 N Central Expwy., Suite 1000
               Dallas, TX 75206
               Telephone: (214) 369-2100
               E-mail: jdacus@hdbdlaw.com

Rope v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06273 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07495

          Plaintiff's 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

Henry v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06182 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Texas Eastern, 4:15-cv-00691

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Jarrett Lee Ellzey, Jr., Esq.
               William Craft Hughes, Esq.
               HUGHES ELLZEY LLP
               2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
               Houston, TX 77056
               Telephone: (713) 554-2377
               Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
               E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com
                       craft@hughesellzey.com

                              - and -

               Kenneth T. Fibich, Esq.
               FIBICH HAMPTON & LEEBRON, LLP
               1401 McKinney, Suite 1800
               Houston, TX 77010
               Telephone: (713) 751-0025
               Facsimile: (713) 751-0030

          Counsel to Volkswagen Group of America Inc.:

               C. Vernon Hartline, Jr., Esq.
               HARTLINE DACUS BARGER DREYER LLP
               8750 N. Central Expwy., Suite 1600
               Dallas, TX 75231
               Telephone: (214) 346-3700
               Facsimile: (214) 267-4200
               E-mail: hartline@flash.net

Singh, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06183 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Pennsylvania Eastern, 2:15-cv-06061

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               Alan Carl Milstein, Esq.
               SHERMAN SILVERSTEIN KOHL ROSE AND PODOLSKY, P.A.
               308 Harper Dr., Suite 200
               Moorestown, NJ 08057
               Telephone: (856) 662-0700
               E-mail: amilstein@shermansilverstein.com

O'Leary v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06268 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: New Jersey, 2:15-cv-07377

          Plaintiff's 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

City of St. Clair Shores Police and Fire Retirement System v.
Volkswagen AG, et al.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06167 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01228

          Plaintiff's Counsel:

               Craig Crandall Reilly, Esq.
               RICHARDS MCGETTIGAN REILLY & WEST
               1725 Duke Street, Suite 600
               Alexandria, VA 22314
               Telephone: (703) 549-5353
               Facsimile: (703) 549-2604
               E-mail: craig.reilly@ccreillylaw.com

                              - and -

               Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
               ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
               Post Montgomery Center
               One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
               San Francisco, CA 94104
               Telephone: (415) 288-4545
               Facsimile: (415) 288-4534
               E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com

                              - and -

               Christopher M. Wood, Esq.
               ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
               414 Union Street, Suite 900
               Nashville, TN 37219
               Telephone: (615) 244-2203
               Facsimile: (615) 252-3798
               E-mail: cwood@rgrdlaw.com

                              - and -

               Thomas C. Michaud, Esq.
               VANOVERBEKE MICHAUD & TIMMONY, P.C.
               79 Alfred Street
               Detroit, MI 48201
               Telephone: (313) 578-1200
               Facsimile: (313) 578-1201
               E-mail: tmichaud@vmtlaw.com

Struck, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Docket No. 3:15-cv-06202 (N.D. Cal., December 29, 2015)
Case in other court: Virginia Eastern, 1:15-cv-01516

          Plaintiffs' Counsel:

               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


MEDICAL MUTUAL: Judge Dismisses RICO Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Whitney Taylor, writing for Injury Lawyer News, reports that in
the middle of growing litigation against the manufacturers of
testosterone therapies, a RICO class action suit filed by an
insurance company has been dismissed.

The claim brought by an Ohio-based insurance provider was tossed
by the judge overseeing testosterone litigation, due to lack of
specifics presented in the complaint. Individual claims filed by
men that have been injured by the testosterone products continues
to move forward, however.

Fraud alleged in RICO class action

Medical Mutual of Ohio (MMO) filed their lawsuit in federal court
in November 2014, claiming testosterone manufacturers like Abbvie,
GlaxoSmithKline and Eli Lilly devised fraudulent marketing schemes
to convince aging men of their need for testosterone therapy.
They also allegedly deceived patients and the medical community
about the safety and effectiveness of their products in treating
certain conditions "off label" with testosterone therapy.  The
insurance company further alleged that these practices led the
insurance provider to reimburse patients for "medically
inappropriate" testosterone prescription.

Testosterone drugs have been approved by the FDA to treat
"classical hypogonadism," a medical condition in which the body
does not produce sufficient amounts of testosterone to support
bodily functions.  However, the drug companies have encouraged the
medical community to prescribe their products for off-label
treatment of what has become known as "low-T" or decreased
testosterone levels that normally occur during the natural aging
process.

MMO filed a complaint against the companies, stating in their
complaint, "These TRT drugs were marketed as part of a decade-long
deceptive marketing scheme to transform the male aging process
into a curable disease state."  The class action lawsuit included
the following testosterone drugs; AndroGel, Testim, Testopel,
Axiron, Androderm, and Foresta Gel.  The companies responsible for
these drugs include Abbvie, Abbott Laboratories, Solvay, Eli
Lilly, Auxilium, Actavis, and many of their subsidiaries.

MMO alleges the defendants in their class action suit also failed
to provide adequate warnings about the risks associated with their
drugs when used for "low-T."  Reports of heart attacks and strokes
have prompted the FDA to issue a safety communication in March
2015, alerting men and medical providers of this risk.

The agency also advised physicians to limit their prescriptions of
these drugs to men with medical conditions leading to low
testosterone that has been verified through laboratory tests.

Motion filed to dismiss lawsuit

The defendants in the RICO class action filed a motion, stating
MMO's complaint was not filed in a timely fashion and provided no
specifics of doctors prescribing or patients demanding
reimbursement for testosterone therapy drugs based solely on the
marketing claims of the manufacturers.  The judge overseeing
coordinated litigation involving testosterone drugs, U.S. District
Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, granted the motion, agreeing that the
class action lacked the specifics necessary to move forward.

Judge Kennelly did state, however, that the manufacturers did
target their marketing of testosterone drugs to insurers as well
as patients and medical providers.  The judge also noted that
these marketing efforts led to insurance companies including the
drugs on their formularies so that the costs of the drugs could be
reimbursed to members.  The judge noted that those prescription
costs led to an economic injury in which insurance companies could
hold manufacturers liable.

In the meantime, coordinated litigation of individual Androgel
lawsuits and other testosterone therapies continues to move
forward in federal court in Illinois where Judge Kennelly is also
presiding.  Early trials for the multidistrict litigation have
been slated to begin in early 2017.  Known as bellwether trials,
these cases will provide insight into how juries will respond to
evidence and testimony and possibly pave the way for settlement
negotiations between plaintiffs and the drug manufacturers.


MERCEDEZ-BENZ: Car Owner Sues Over Emissions Scandal
----------------------------------------------------
Horia Ungureanu, writing for Tech Times, reports that a Mercedes-
Benz BlueTEC owner sued the carmaker in the United States, arguing
that Clean Diesel vehicles are pre-programmed to emit higher
levels of nitrogen oxide than the law allows.

The man filed the class-action lawsuit against Mercedes in New
Jersey, adding more fuel to the global diesel scandal.

The class-action lawsuit resembles accusations that befell German
automaker Volkswagen AG last year. The plaintiff claims that
BlueTec cars from Mercedes contain a device that shuts off a
nitrogen oxide-reducing mechanism in its exhaust.

"All our vehicles comply with regulatory frameworks," Joerg Howe,
parent company Daimler AG's spokesman, responds.

He goes on to add that all Daimler vehicles, Mercedes included,
respect the pollution laws.

Global Diesel Scandal

The lawsuit takes place only five months after Volkswagen conceded
that it tampered with the software in its diesel engine vehicles
in order to cheat emission testing.

The scandal rippled throughout the car industry, causing diesel
engine manufacturers to be looked upon with suspicion. One of the
main selling points of diesel engines used to be their
environmental friendliness, but the Volkswagen scandal threw a
shadow of doubt on the matter.

In January, it was found that the stocks of Renault SA took a dive
as a result of sudden investigations from French anti-fraud
authorities. Following the investigation, the company recalled
15,000 of its cars to make sure these comply with emissions
regulations.

The New Jersey complaint underlines that the gizmo installed in
Mercedes's clean diesel models kills pollution controls when the
temperatures go under below 50 degrees Fahrenheit (10 degrees
Celsius). This permits the cars to break emissions standards.

Allegedly, Mercedes affirms that the shut-off is intentional and
has the purpose of protecting the engine in cold temperatures.

Dutch Independent Testing

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP is the law firm that took the
American case against Mercedes. The firm already gathered
expertise in similar cases against Volkswagen AG.

Hagens Berman quotes research by independent testing agency TNO,
at the commission of the Dutch Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment. Its results show that Mercedes C-Class 220 cars
exhaust significantly more nitrogen oxide in real-life conditions
than in laboratory testing.

"Mercedes never disclosed that, when the temperature drops below
50 degrees, it prioritizes engine power and profits over people,"
reads the complaint, as cited by Bloomberg.

This means that, in reality, Mercedes's BlueTEC diesels have two
modes of functioning: a "clean" one when it is warm outside, and a
"dirty" one when it gets chilly.

"It's normal that emissions can be higher but not in the range
they are now," says Monique de Geus, a spokeswoman for TNO.

She notes that Mercedes's BlueTEC models were among the tested
vehicles.

On one hand, the suit asks for a court order that would force
Mercedes to call back the affected models or offer their owners a
replacement. On the other hand, there are undisclosed damages that
the law firm wants to get from the automaker.

Hagens Berman wants to take the class lawsuit to national scale.
This means including all United States-based citizens and
enterprises that purchased or leased one of the afflicted car
models. Among the autos affected are the GLE crossovers, the ML320
and the 350 SUVs, the S-Class and E-Class models.

Should you be curious to learn more about the evolution of the
class action lawsuit, the case is Lynevych v. Mercedes-Benz USA,
U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey.


MOL GLOBAL: Settles Consolidated Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
MOL Global, Inc., an e-payment enabler for online goods and
services in emerging and developed markets, on Feb. 24 announced
that an agreement has been reached to settle the consolidated
class action lawsuit against MOL, certain of its current and
former officers and directors, and underwriters which was
initially filed in November 2014.  The settlement does not require
any reserve and will be covered by insurance.

The litigation, In re MOL Global, Inc. Securities Litigation,
pending in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York, asserted class action claims under federal
securities laws based on allegations of misstatements and
omissions by MOL and certain of its current and former officers
and directors.  The final settlement of this lawsuit is
conditional upon completion of appropriate documentation and
approval by the Court.  If approved by the Court, the settlement
will lead to dismissal of the lawsuit.

                     About MOL Global, Inc.

MOL Global, Inc. (Nasdaq:MOLG) is an -payment enabler for online
goods and services in emerging and developed markets.  MOL
operates a payments platform that connects consumers with digital
content providers, telecommunications service providers and online
merchants by providing a vast network of distribution channels
that accepts cash and online payment methods.  Its physical
distribution network comprises more than 970,000 locations in 13
countries across 4 continents. The Company also has mobile payment
channels, electronic distribution channels that accept major
credit cards and online banking from more than 100 banks.


NATERA INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on Feb. 23
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Mateo.  The
complaint alleges that officers and directors of Natera, Inc.
violated the Securities Act of 1933 in connection with the
company's July 2, 2015 initial public offering ("IPO") by issuing
a Registration and Prospectus that misleadingly represented the
state of Natera's business.  Natera is a genetic testing company
that develops and commercializes non-invasive methods for
analyzing DNA in the United States and Europe.  Its primary
product is Panorama, a non-invasive prenatal test ("NIPT") which
the company claims is "the most accurate NIPT commercially
available in the United States."

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

Natera Accused of Misleading Investors About the State of its
Business

According to the complaint, Natera attributed its commercial
success and future growth prospects to its independent direct
sales force, which at the time of the IPO, Natera stated it was
continuing to expand.  It also stated that the percentage of its
overall accessioned tests generated through the higher margin U.S.
direct sales force increased from about 25% in 2013 to about 44%
in 2014, and approximately 60% for the three months ended March
31, 2015.  Natera used the number of tests accessioned -- or tests
that Natera enters into its system and routes to the appropriate
sample flow -- as a key indicator to assess its business.
Notably, before going public, none of Natera's directors were
compensated for service as a member of the board, but after the
IPO, the directors were eligible to receive compensation and an
annual stock option grant of 11,169 shares.

On July 2, 2015, Natera conducted its IPO, selling 10.9 million
shares at $18 per share, raising approximately $178.5 million in
proceeds.  Natera's Registration Statement portrayed the company
as a "rapidly growing diagnostics company" with huge year-over-
year increases in revenues.  Natera stated that these revenue
increases were due to increased sales of Panorama. However, the
complaint alleges that the offering materials failed to disclose
that Natera had experienced a nearly $20 million net loss in the
company's second quarter 2015, which had ended before the IPO, and
which exceeded any other quarterly loss the company had suffered
by as much as 3700% since at least the second quarter 2013 when
Panorama was released.  Further, Natera had actually experienced a
second quarter 2015 revenue decline, which was the second quarter
in a row of declining revenue.  Additionally, the percent of
Panorama tests accessioned in which revenue was recognized in the
same quarter had declined to a mere 47%, as third-party payers
were refusing to adequately reimburse patients for Panorama and
doctors were not recommending it.  On
February 22, 2016, Natera stock closed at $7.48 per share, less
than half of the IPO price.

Natera Shareholders Have Legal Options

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

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


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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


NAVIENT CORP: Faces "Menold" Securities Lawsuit in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
GEORGE A. MENOLD v. NAVIENT CORPORATION, JOHN F. REMONDI, and
SOMSAK CHIVAVIBUL, Case 1:16-cv-00075-UNA (D. Del., February 11,
2016), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all persons
other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired Navient
securities between May 9, 2014 and February 5, 2016, both dates
inclusive.  The Plaintiff seeks to recover damages caused by
defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities laws and
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act.

Navient provides financial products and services in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

     Peter B. Andrews, Esq.
     Craig J. Springer, Esq.
     David M. Sborz, Esq.
     ANDREWS & SPRINGER, LLC
     3801 Kennett Pike
     Building C, Suite 305
     Wilmington, DE 19807
     Tel: (302) 504-4957
     Fax: (302) 397-2681
     Email: pandrews@andrewsspringer.com
            cspringer@andrewssrpringer.com
            dsborz@andrewsspringer.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
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Tel: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


NAVIENT CORP: April 11 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline
--------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a leading national securities law firm,
reminds investors in Navient Corporation ("Navient" or the
"Company") (NASDAQ: NAVI) of the April 11, 2016 deadline to seek
the role of lead plaintiff in a federal securities class action
lawsuit filed against the Company and certain officers.

Lawsuits have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Delaware on behalf of all those who purchased or
otherwise acquired Navient securities between April 17, 2014 and
February 5, 2016 (the "Class Period"). An initial complaint,
Menold v. Navient Corporation, et al., No. 1:16-cv-00075 ("Menold
Complaint") was filed on February 11, 2016 and has been assigned
to Judge Gregory M. Sleet.

The Menold Complaint focuses on whether the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
that it was providing loan servicing practices which were not in
compliance with applicable federal regulations and that this non-
compliance may subject Navient to claims for restitution, civil
monetary penalties, and corrective actions from federal
authorities.

Specifically, the Menold Complaint alleges that on August 1, 2014,
Navient disclosed that the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
("CFPB") was investigating the student loan servicer's handling of
disclosures and assessment of late fees.

Then, on August 24, 2015, the Company announced that on August 19,
2015, Navient Solutions, Inc. ("NSI"), a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Navient, received a letter from the CFPB notifying NSI that it
is considering taking legal action against the subsidiary related
to the previously disclosed CFPB investigation, and might seek
restitution, civil monetary penalties, and corrective action
against NSI.

After the announcement, Navient's share price fell from $13.06 on
August 24, 2015 to a closing price of $12.04 on August 25, 2015 --
a $1.02 or a 7.8% drop.

The Menold Complaint also alleges that on February 6, 2016, U.S.
presidential candidate Hillary Clinton directed public attention
to the subject of the CFPB's investigation of Navient during a
speech at New England College in Henniker, New Hampshire.
On this news, Navient's share price fell from $9.51 on February 5,
2016 to a closing price of $8.94 on the following trading day,
February 8, 2016 -- a $0.57 or a 5.99% drop.

Request more information now by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/NAVI. There is no cost or obligation to you.
Take Action

If you invested in Navient securities between April 17, 2014 and
February 5, 2016 and would like to discuss your legal rights,
visit www.faruqilaw.com/NAVI. You can also contact us by calling
Richard Gonnello toll free at 877-247-4292 or at 212-983-9330 or
by sending an e-mail to rgonnello@faruqilaw.com. Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP also encourages anyone with information regarding Navient's
conduct to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

The court-appointed lead plaintiff is the investor with the
largest financial interest in the relief sought by the class that
is adequate and typical of class members who directs and oversees
the litigation on behalf of the putative class. Any member of the
putative class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff
through counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member. Your ability to share in any
recovery is not affected by the decision of whether or not to
serve as a lead plaintiff.

CONTACT INFORMATION
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 Third Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017

Attn: Richard Gonnello, Esq.
Email contact

Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330


NEW YORK: Judge Permits Unsealing of NYPD Summonses
---------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
New York City's number-crunchers can analyze roughly 850,000
sealed summonses, as long as the identifying information contained
in them is obscured, a federal judge in Manhattan ruled on Feb.
24.

The city hopes that the trove of summonses will help build their
case in a six-year-old class action accusing the NYPD of running
an unconstitutional quota system in the Bronx.

East Harlem resident Sharif Stinson brought the class action on
behalf of hundreds of thousands of black New Yorkers in 2010,
accusing the New York City Police Department of pushing officers
to issue phony summonses to meet so-called "productivity goals."

Late last year, U.S. District Judge Robert Sweet rejected the
city's first attempt to unseal the records of everyone who
received criminal summonses between May 1, 2007 and the present,
to protect New Yorkers' privacy.  City lawyers urged him to
reconsider that decision to help allow them to perform statistical
analysis for their defense at trial.

New York City Public Law typically treats the records of closed
criminal cases as confidential unless one has ended in a
conviction.  Citing an exception to this rule, the city pointed to
the landmark stop-and-frisk case Floyd v. City of New York. Both
of the parties in this case rummaged through the forms that police
fill out during street stops for their experts to scrutinize what
role racial profiling played in the NYPD's controversial program.
New York's expert ultimately lost in that case, and the city is
now two years into federal monitoring to reform the stop-and-frisk
program.

On Feb. 24, Sweet allowed the city to attempt a similar
statistical study to the one used in Floyd.

"There exists a possibility that experts can aggregate the written
narratives and produce probative evidence," he wrote in a 10-page
opinion. "Unsealing is therefore permissible for that purpose."

A New York City Law Department spokesman said he is "pleased" with
the ruling.  "Having the officers' versions of events will help
the city defend against allegations that summonses were served
without probable cause," he added.

Stinson's lawyer Elinor Sutton noted in a phone interview that the
second part of the ruling ordered the identifying information of
the officers and their targets redacted.  "Plaintiffs are pleased
that the court has narrowly tailored discovery and protected the
privacy rights of hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who we
believe had their constitutional rights violated by the NYPD," she
said.

"Access to this narrowly tailored information will help plaintiffs
prove liability in this matter," she added.

The case captioned, SHARIF STINSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF
NEW YORK et al., Defendants., Case 1:10-cv- 04228-RWS (S.D.N.Y.)


NEW YORK & CO: Gives Phantom Discounts, "Rael" Suit Alleges
-----------------------------------------------------------
MONICA RAEL v. NEW YORK & COMPANY, INC., a DELAWARE corporation,
NEW YORK & COMPANY STORES, INC., a NEW YORK corporation, and DOES
1- 50, inclusive, Case 3:16-cv-00369-BAS-JMA (S.D. Cal., February
11, 2016), alleges false and misleading advertisement of "market"
prices, and corresponding phantom "savings" on clothing,
accessories, and fashion apparel sold in their retail stand-alone
and retail stores.

Defendants operate New York & Company outlet stores as well as the
nyandcompany.com website, and advertise, market, distribute,
and/or sell clothing and clothing accessories in California and
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 347-3517
     Fax: (619) 756-6990
     E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

        - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela
     Gary F. Lynch
     CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
     1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412) 322-9243
     Fax: (412) 231-0246
     E-mail: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com


NEXTEL: Must Compensate Consumers for Poor Service, Charges
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dave Graham and Tomas Sarmiento, writing for Reuters, report that
Mexico's federal consumer protection agency said on Feb. 23 a
local court had ruled that the domestic business of wireless
provider Nextel will have to compensate consumers for poor service
and improper charges between 2012 and 2014.

The agency, known as Profeco, said more than 3 million users could
benefit from the ruling in the class action suit.  A spokeswoman
for Profeco could not immediately say how much compensation was at
stake.

AT&T Inc acquired Nextel's Mexico operation from NII Holdings Inc
in 2015 as it expanded into Mexico.  The Profeco spokeswoman could
not immediately say whether the current or previous owner of
Nextel in Mexico would be liable.

AT&T spokespeople in Mexico could not immediately be reached for
comment on the ruling.

Compensation for improper charges would be subject to a 9 percent
annual interest rate, and those owed damages would be granted
their losses plus 20 percent, Profeco said.


NFL ENTERPRISES: T-3 Restaurants Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled T-3 Restaurants, Inc. v. NFL
Enterprises LLC et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09443, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California (Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:16-cv-00029-BRO-JEM to the proceeding.

NFL and its Teams allegedly engaged in a contract, combination, or
conspiracy to reduce output and/or fix, raise, maintain or
stabilize prices of live video presentations of regular season NFL
games by agreeing that all video presentations would be licensed
exclusively by the NFL.

NFL Properties was founded in 2003. The company's line of business
includes operating and promoting professional and semiprofessional
athletic clubs and events.

The Company is a limited liability company with its principal
place of business in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert J Larocca, Esq.
          Craig W. Hillwig, Esq.
          KOHN SWIFT AND GRAF PC
          One South Broad Street Suite 2100
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 238 1700
          Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
          E-mail: rlarocca@kohnswift.com
                  chillwig@kohnswift.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Boni, Esq.
          Joshua D. Snyder, Esq.
          John E. Sindoni, Esq.
          BONI & ZACK LLC
          15 St. Asaphs Road
          Bala Cynwyd, PA 19004
          Telephone: (610) 822 0200
          Facsimile: (610) 822 0206
          E-mail: mboni@bonizack.com
                  jsnyder@bonizack.com
                  jsindoni@bonizack.com


NOBILIS HEALTH: March 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on Feb. 23 announced the
filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of investors who
purchased Nobilis Health Corp. ("Nobilis" or the "Company") (HLTH)
securities between April 2, 2015 and January 6, 2016, inclusive
(the "Class Period").  Injured investors are encouraged to contact
Lesley Portnoy of GPM at 310-201-9150 to discuss their legal
rights.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Nobilis
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: (1) Nobilis's financial statements
contained numerous errors concerning the Company's classification
of warrants and options, business combination accounting, share-
based compensation, and other financial and operating results; (2)
Nobilis had overstated its net income for the year ended December
31, 2014 by more than $4 million; (3) Nobilis had overstated its
net income for the quarter ended March 31, 2015 by more than $3.27
million; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Nobilis's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

Nobilis investors have until March 21, 2016 to move the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  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, 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.


NYC MARATHON: Responds to Illegal Lottery Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
organization that runs the New York City Marathon, in a response
to a class action lawsuit that alleges the method used to select
participants amounts to an illegal lottery, is defending its
practices.

New York Road Runners is facing a class action lawsuit filed
recently by two Utah men in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  They claim NYRR's processing fee that it
charges applicants is a lottery.

"Here's what we have to say at this time," said Chris Weiller,
Vice President of Media and Public Relations for NYRR. "Our entry
process for the marathon is compliant with the law.

"The $11 processing fee, which supports our mission as a not-for-
profit community-based running organization, is charged to
everyone who registers for the marathon regardless of whether they
participate in the drawing or receive a guaranteed entry."

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit seek more than $5 million
in compensatory and/or statutory damages, injunctive relief,
attorney fees and other costs of the suit.

The NYRR was founded in 1958 and has a stated mission "to help and
inspire people through running."

The New York City Marathon is not the only NYRR event.  NYRR
activities in New York City's five boroughs include races,
community events, youth running initiatives, school programs and a
number of training resources.

The New York City Marathon, which attracts about 50,000
participants. At issue is NYRR's way of selecting participants for
the limited number of runner spots who may run the annual race
through the city's five boroughs.

Similar to previous years, those who wish to participate in the
marathon Nov. 6 had until 11:59 p.m. EST on Feb. 21 to apply for a
running spot.

Applicants are informed they will be charged "a non-refundable
processing fee of $11.00."  Those whose applications are accepted
for the event are charged a $255 entry fee. The word "lottery"
occurs nowhere on the online application form.

However, the class action lawsuit filed by Charles Konopa of Salt
Lake County and Matthew Clark of Utah County claim this
application process is a lottery, in part, because of the
processing fee.  The suit claims would-be participants "have a
chance to win a prize, namely, the right of entry into the
marathon," the lawsuit said.

This is a violation of Acticle I, Section 9 of the New York State
Constitution, which prohibits "lottery or sale of lottery tickets,
pool-selling, book-making, or any other kind of gambling, except
lotteries operated by the state," according to the lawsuit.

It isn't clear how many plaintiffs there could be under the class
action provisions of the lawsuit.

"Plaintiffs believe that there are tens of thousands of members in
the proposed Class who are geographically dispersed throughout the
United States," the lawsuit said.

Mr. Konopa applied to run in the 2014 New York City Marathon,
while Clark applied in 2011 and 2015, the lawsuit said.  Neither
man's application resulted in a place to run in those events,
according to the lawsuit.


PASADENA UNIFIED: Sued Over Violation of Student Rights
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Henry, writing for San Gabriel Valley tribune, reports that
a disability rights group has filed a class-action lawsuit against
the Pasadena Unified School District alleging the school
discriminates against students with behavioral issues by removing
them from their local schools.

Disability Rights California claims the district has violated the
students' rights by sending them to Focus Point Academy, a
separate school with roughly 80 students with behavior
disabilities. Those students get a lesser experience, with fewer
extracurricular activities and electives, according to the
lawsuit.

"Although Pasadena USD considers Focus Point a 'therapeutic
setting,' it is far from being therapeutic," wrote Candis Bowles,
Disability Rights California's attorney. "Placement at Focus Point
is more likely to exacerbate a child's mental health condition
than improve it. Academic expectations are low and students make
little academic progress there."

Focus Point Academy is a "small highly structured special
educational program" for students from grades 1 to 12 diagnosed
with emotional disturbances and specific learning disabilities,
according to PUSD's website. The school has a maximum of eight
students per class and offers group therapy, social skills
programs and behavioral support systems, the website states.

PUSD acknowledged the lawsuit but declined to comment on it.

"PUSD's legal counsel is beginning to review the matter," wrote
Mercy Santoro, PUSD's associate superintendent of school support
services.

The lawsuits alleges that Focus Point Academy's students faced
"dangerous physical restraints, inappropriate forced isolation,
threatened and repeated arrests, and suspensions for minor
offenses."

"The rate of dropouts and their overall success really hinges on
their school experience," said Attorney Candis Bowles. "We would
like for these kids to be served in their neighborhood schools
with school-based behavioral services."

The lawsuit on behalf of six students between 13 and 17 years old
alleges that those at Focus Point Academy do not have the same
access to academics, sports, socialization and other activities.
Bowles said the practice violates the Americans with Disabilities
Act and hurts children that could "be educated successfully in
classrooms with students without disabilities" by adding
behavioral services to each school site.

The lawsuit states that the separate school is akin to
segregation.

Bowles said she believes the class-action lawsuit covers every
student at Focus Point.


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

Defendant Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest
distributor of Dental Supplies in the United States.  Defendant
Henry Schein, Inc. is the largest distributor of Dental Supplies
in the United States.  Benco Dental Supply Co. Inc. is the third
largest distributor of Dental Supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


PIECH DECORATING: Violates Ill. Labor Laws, "Sanchez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramiro Sanchez and Mauricio Sanchez v. Piech Decorating, Inc.,
Maris National Services, Tony Piech, individually, and Bill
Mataragas, individually, Case: 1:16-cv-02154 (N.D. Ill., February
11, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged willful
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law, for Defendants' failure to pay Plaintiffs and
other similarly situated employees overtime wages for hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a week.

Piech Decorating Inc. provides painting solution for any size
commercial project, from single retail build-out to distribution
warehouse facilities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Raisa Alicea, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
     6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
     Chicago, IL 60646
     Tel: (312) 800-1017
     E-mail: ralicea@yourclg.com


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Dier" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Avrohom Dier, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00432 (E.D.N.Y., January 27, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C. is in the business of
acquiring non-performing consumer debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


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

Re & FA LLC is a non-classifiable establishment located in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

        - and -

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


RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL: May 24 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE RESIDENTIAL CAPITAL, LLC, et al.,

Debtors.
Case No. 12-12020 (MG)

Chapter 11

Jointly Administered
SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION;
(II) PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND PLAN OF ALLOCATION;
(III) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING; AND (IV) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION EXPENSES

TO:     All residential mortgage loan borrowers whose loans were
serviced by GMAC Mortgage, LLC ("GMACM") and from whose payments
GMACM recouped or recovered, in whole or part, charges for lender-
placed hazard insurance on residential real property ("Lender-
Placed Insurance"), including, without limitation, any borrowers
whose payments were applied, in whole or part, to charges for
Lender-Placed Insurance, at any time from February 3, 2004 through
October 2, 2013 (the "Class Period").

THIS NOTICE WAS AUTHORIZED BY THE BANKRUPTCY COURT.  IT IS NOT A
LAWYER SOLICITATION.  PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY AND IN ITS
ENTIRETY, YOUR RIGHTS MAY BE AFFECTED BY A CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT
THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED IN THE ABOVE-CAPTIONED BANKRUPTCY BEFORE
THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 7023 and 9019 of the
Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure and an Order of the United
States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, (i)
that Bankruptcy Proof of Claim No. 4074 (the "Bankruptcy Proof of
Claim") in the above-captioned bankruptcy has been preliminarily
certified as a Class Proof of Claim on behalf of a class of all
residential mortgage loan borrowers whose loans were serviced by
GMACM and from whose payments GMACM recouped or recovered, in
whole or in part, charges for Lender-Placed Insurance, including,
without limitation, any borrowers whose payments were applied, in
whole or part, to charges for Lenders-Placed Insurance, at any
time during the Class Period (the "Settlement Class"), except for
certain persons and entities who are excluded from the Settlement
Class, as defined  in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
With Rothstein Plaintiffs (the "Stipulation"); and (ii) that the
Court-Appointed Class Representatives, as defined in the
Stipulation, have reached an agreement to settle the Bankruptcy
Proofs of Claim for an allowed unsecured claim not subject to
subordination in the amount of $13 million against GMAC only (the
"Allowed Claim").  The Allowed Claim will be an "Allowed Borrower
Claim" in Class GS-5, as set forth in the Chapter 11 Plan.

A hearing will be held on May 24, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. before the
Honorable Martin Glenn at the United States Bankruptcy Court for
the Southern District of New York, One Bowling Green, New York, NY
10004-1408, to determine, among other things: (i) whether the
proposed settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable and
adequate; (ii) whether the Bankruptcy Proof of Claim should be
dismissed on the merits and with prejudice against all the
Settling Defendants, and whether the releases specified and
described in the Stipulation should be granted; (iii) whether the
proposed Plan of Allocation should be approved as fair and
reasonable; and (iv) whether Lead Class Counsel's application for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses should
be approved.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be
affected by the Proceeding and the settlement, and you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement Fund.  If you have not yet
received the Summary Direct U.S. Mail Postcard Notice that refers
to, among others, the full printed Notice of (I) Pendency of Class
Action; (II) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation, (III)
Settlement Fairness Hearing, and (IV) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Notice"), copies of the full printed Notice can be downloaded
from the website maintained by the Claims Administrator at
www.GMACMortgageLenderPlacedInsuranceClassActionSettlement.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and you wish to
participate in the settlement and receive the benefits to which
you are entitled, you do not need to do anything.  By
participating in the settlement, you will be bound by the release
provisions and other provisions of the proposed settlement
including any judgments or orders entered by the Court.

However, if you are a member of the Settlement Class and do not
wish to participate in the settlement and do not wish to be bound
by the release provisions and other provisions of the proposed
settlement, you must submit a request for exclusion from the
Settlement Class such that it is received no later than May 10,
2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.
If you properly and timely exclude yourself from the Settlement
Class, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered by
the Court in the Proceeding and you will not be eligible to share
in the proceeds of the settlement.  Please note however, that you
will be otherwise enjoined from commencing any such lawsuit,
arbitration or other proceeding by the Chapter 11 Plan and orders
of the Bankruptcy Court.

Any objections to any aspect of the proposed settlement, the
proposed Plan of Allocation or Lead Class Counsel's application
for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses must
be filed with the Court and delivered to designated representative
Lead Class Counsel and counsel for the Settling Defendants such
that they are received no later than May 10, 2016, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE BANKRUPTCY COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE
REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  Inquiries, other than requests for the
Notice, may be made to Class Counsel:

Mark A. Strauss, Esq.
Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.
KIRBY McINERNEY LLP
825 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10022
(212) 371-6600

Dated:  February 23, 2016
By Order of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Southern District of New York


RYS RESTAURANT: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jian Chen, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Rys Restaurant Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00417-JLL-JAD
(D.N.J., January 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standard Act.

Rys Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      136-18 39th Avenue, #1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Taints Groundwater, N.Y. Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Marlene Kennedy, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that an industrial chemical discovered in the public water system
and private wells has ruined home values and the quality of life
in a quiet upstate village, a class action filed in Albany, N.Y.
by four residents claims.

In a complaint filed in Albany Federal Court Feb. 24, the
residents claim Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics and Honeywell
International, two industrial giants contaminated groundwater with
perfluorooctanoic acid, known as PFOA, in the village of Hoosick
Falls, N.Y.

State officials earlier this month identified the two companies
are the parties responsible for the contamination.

Saint-Gobain operates a manufacturing plant in a facility in the
village that once housed Allied Signal, which now does business as
Honeywell. Both companies used PFOA to produce water- and stain-
resistant fabric at the plant, according to the complaint.

PFOA, also a key component in non-stick Teflon, "has been
identified as an emerging contaminant of concern," the residents
say.

The four -- Michele Baker, Angela Corbett, Michelle O'Leary and
Daniel Schuttig -- claim their homes have lost value since the
PFOA contamination was disclosed. O'Leary also says she worries
about future health effects on her two children.  The complaint
says animal studies linked PFOA to increased risk of certain
tumors of the liver, testicles, mammary glands and pancreas. In
humans, workplace exposure to PFOA showed higher risks of bladder
and kidney cancer.

Lead plaintiff Baker, who draws her water from a well, says she
was trying to refinance her mortgage when she learned in late
January that the bank would no longer provide the financing.  The
complaint says banks have indicated an unwillingness to write
mortgages to purchase or refinance homes in the village because
access to potable water is required for loans to be approved.

Testing last summer found PFOA in the village's municipal water
system and in some private wells, the complaint states.  The
plaintiffs say the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
recommended in November and again in December that alternate water
sources for drinking and cooking be found.  They claim the EPA
acknowledged at a public meeting in January that New York's
request to have the village designated as a federal Superfund site
"would adversely impact the property values of the village."

There also are plans to designate the Saint-Gobain plant a state
Superfund site.

Hoosick Falls, 45 minutes northeast of Albany, lies adjacent to
the Hoosic River and not far from the Vermont border. The
village's website describes it as a picturesque community of 3,600
residents with "graceful Victorian dwellings" along tree-lined
streets and nearby "spectacular" trout fishing.

Saint-Gobain's plant, on the southern end of the village, employs
190 people. The company, a Paris-based multinational, is one of
the 100 largest industrial firms in the world and a leading
producer of high-performance polymer products for the aeronautics,
automotive, food processing and energy fields, according to the
complaint.

Honeywell, a Fortune 100 company, was acquired by Allied Signal in
1999. The combined company kept the Honeywell name.

Saint-Gobain took over the Hoosick Falls plant around 1999. It had
operated since 1955 under several owners, including Allied Signal
from 1986 to 1997.

The complaint says PFOA had been used at the plant from the late
1960s until Saint-Gobain phased it out around 2004.  It describes
a manufacturing process used by several plant owners that had
workers add liquid PFOA to trays of fabric, then recover any
remaining solution before washing out the trays at the end of
their shift. The runoff went into floor drains, resulting "in the
discharge of PFOA into the soil and, in turn, into the aquifer."

PFOA also remained as a "sticky residue" on the interior stacks of
industrial ovens, which periodically had to be cleaned in large
sinks. That also created a waste water discharge that wound up in
soil and the aquifer, according to the complaint.

The plaintiffs say the village drilled a new supply well for the
municipal water system in 2007 that was some 500 yards from the
Saint-Gobain plant.

Late last year, Saint-Gobain began providing free bottled water to
village residents. It also agreed to underwrite the installation
of a granulated activated carbon filter system for the municipal
water system to remove the PFOA.

Water started to be pumped through the system this week, according
to a news release from village officials.

The officials said sampling of the treated water by the state
Department of Health had not yet occurred to see whether PFOA was
being reduced to safe levels. Residents were advised to keep using
bottled water for drinking and cooking.

The complaint seeks to have two subclasses of plaintiffs
designated, those who use the municipal system and those who use
private wells.  The named plaintiffs, two municipal water users
and two private well users, want the same kind of testing and
permanent filtration systems for affected private wells as for the
municipal system. They also seek remediation of the aquifer that
everyone relies on for drinking water.

"Defendants' manufacturing processes and negligent, reckless
and/or intentional handling of PFOA solution constituted an
abnormally dangerous activity for which defendants are strictly
liable," the plaintiffs say.

They seek monetary damages for costs related to remediating their
property, compensation for the lost value and enjoyment of their
homes, and punitive damages. They also want consequential damages
sufficient to fund a medical monitoring program to assess the
risks of PFOA exposure.

Ellen Relkin of Weitz & Luxenberg in Manhattan represents the
plaintiffs.  Weitz, the big personal-injury law firm, organized a
town hall-style meeting in late January with potential Hoosick
Falls litigants that featured well-known environmental activist
Ellen Brockovich.

Weitz and Brockovich, who consults for the firm, has announced
that they would expand their PFOA investigation to include the
community of Petersburgh, about 15 minutes south of Hoosick Falls,
where the municipal system also appeared tainted by the chemical.

Reacting to the lawsuit, a spokeswoman for Saint-Gobain told
Albany media outlets that the company had acted quickly on the
problem but respected "the right of individuals to pursue their
claims in a court of law."


SHAPIRO & DENARDO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Ume" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Esther I. Ume, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Shapiro & Denardo, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00381-RMB-AMD
(D.N.J., January 21, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Shapiro & Denardo, LLC operates a law firm in Mount Laurel, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Leyland Gentile, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF GUS MICHAEL FARINELLA PC
      110 Jericho Turnpike-Suite 100
      Floral Park, NY 11001
      Telephone: (201) 873-7675
      E-mail: rlg@lawgmf.com


SIOUX CITY, IA: Council OKs Higher Costs Related to Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kirby Kaufman, writing for Sioux City Journal, reports that in a
3-2 vote on Feb. 22, the City Council approved higher-than-
expected costs for court-ordered administrative services related
to a class-action lawsuit involving overpayments of franchise fees
for utility bills.

Council members Rhonda Capron, Dan Moore and Pete Groetken
supported a city staff recommendation to approve a payment of up
to $351,590 to an outside firm, Rust Consulting Inc.  Mayor Bob
Scott and Councilman Keith Radig dissented.

After the meeting, Mr. Radig said he voted no because he felt the
consultant had too much influence over the costs, which "he didn't
like."  Mr. Scott left the Feb. 22 meeting early and was not
immediately available for comment.

As a result of a class-action lawsuit, filed in 2006 and settled
in 2014, the city was required to refund nearly $6.5 million in
utility franchise fees to city residents and businesses.

Minneapolis-based Rust Consulting was appointed by the courts to
notify eligible utility customers and send payments to those who
requested them.

Donna Forker, the city's budget and finance director, said the
consultant costs exceeded estimates because more utility customers
than expected had filed for refunds.

Initially, the city estimated the work would not exceed $200,000
and approved a resolution to allow payment.  In 2014, the council
voted to raise the payment cap to $251,170.

Last October, after city staff asked the council to approve an
increase to up to $386,749, the council deferred the decision
until it could get more information about the money owed to Rust
Consulting.

According to city documents, Rust Consulting estimated its fee
based on an average for similar-sized municipalities. Sioux City
exceeded the average by 69 percent.

Sioux City will use its general fund to pay the bill.  The city
plans to ask the court to have the consultant reimburse Sioux City
payments out of unclaimed lawsuit settlements.

In other action Feb. 22, the council:

   -- Voted 5-0, as part of its consent agenda, to amend an
agreement with American Federation of State, County and Municipal
Employees Local 212, the city's largest workers union.

The change extends the collective bargaining contract and salary
schedule by one year for AFSCME general governmental employees.

-- Viewed plans for the nine-hole disc golf course at Grandview
Park scheduled to open in spring.

Jordan Brummond, of Sioux City, who planned the course, told the
council it will be geared toward beginners.  The Mayor's Youth
Commission raised $4,500 to construct the course.


SONY PICTURES: Production Assistants Sue Over Working Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
production assistants who worked on several blockbusters were
forced to relieve themselves in cups and buckets kept in their
cars during filming, they claim in five separate class actions in
Manhattan filed just days before the Oscars.

The lawsuits, representing at least 10 non-unionized parking
production assistants, are the most recent batch of similar
complaints filed by attorney James Vagnini of Valli Kane & Vagnini
in Garden City, N.Y.

     James Vagnini, Esq.
     VALLI KANE & VAGNINI, LLP
     600 Old Country Rd #519
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Tel: 516-203-7180

He began suing on behalf of production assistants working on
television sets last year. He is now going after movie houses,
estimating that, in all, he represents hundreds of PAs in the
industry, and expects to represent hundreds more.  Being non-union
put his clients at the mercy of the production companies, he said.

"If they rocked the boat too much, it was as simple to not call
them or text them and then they would be out a paycheck," Vagnini
said Feb. 24, during a telephone interview after announcing the
lawsuits during a media conference outside the storied but now-
shuttered Ziegfeld Theater in Manhattan.

The workers were paid up to $160 to work a 12-hour shift to keep
pedestrians and motorists off the set at tapings around the city,
according to the complaints.

"Defendants' regular failure to pay plaintiffs for all hours
worked over forty hours in a workweek violates the Fair Labor
Standards Act," one of the lawsuits claims.

"Defendants violate these laws by engaging in a systematic scheme"
to doctor workers' paychecks and cheat them out of overtime pay,
the lawsuits states.

The workers say they also weren't allowed to enjoy the fare from
craft services, wouldn't get a paycheck if they didn't put down at
least four hours a day, and were all but chained to their vehicles
during their shifts.

The lowly PAs would then have to do their business in their cars
or pay local business to use their restrooms, they claim.

"Plaintiffs are only provided restroom privileges when and if the
productions are in the midst of filming. Otherwise, plaintiffs are
forced to go to the bathroom in their cars or pay local businesses
in order to use their restroom facilities," one complaint states.
"Due to limitations on their ability to leave their assigned
locations, many of the plaintiffs are forced to urinate and
defecate into bottles and buckets in their vehicles."

In the first case, plaintiffs Corey Morgan and Christian Pellot
sued Sony Pictures Entertainment Inc., Annapurna Productions LLC,
Atlas Entertainment Inc., Marvel Studios LLC, ARAD Productions
Inc. and Matt Tolmach for their work on such films as "American
Hustle," the "Spider-Man" franchise, "Eat Pray Love" and "Men in
Black 3."

In the second lawsuit, Miguel Morel and Garnett Morgan took on
Lions Gate Entertainment, 87 Eleven Productions LLC, Palmstar
Media Capital LLC and Thunder Road Productions LLC for their work
on "John Wick 2," "They Came Together" and "Draft Day."

Carol Forrest and Ferdie Headlam are the named plaintiffs in the
third lawsuit against Ratpac-Dune Entertainment, Dune
Entertainment Partners LLC, Zaftig Productions Inc., Energy
Entertainment Inc. and Vertigo Entertainment Inc. They worked on
such movies like "Focus," "Run All Night," "Jersey Boys," Mr.
Popper's Penguins" and "Winter's Tale," among others.

The fourth suit pits William June against NBCUniversal Media LLC,
Bluegrass Films, Fuzzy Door Productions Inc. and Media Rights
Capital II LP for his work on "Ted 2," "Get Him to the Greek,"
"Tower Heist" and "The Bourne Legacy," among others.

The final PA lawsuit was filed by Garnett Morgan, William Smaw and
Johnathan Tucker against Warner Brothers Pictures, Village
Roadshow Productions, Weed Road Pictures, Four Seasons
Partnership, GK Films, Malpaso Productions, Ratpac Entertainment,
Ratpac-Dune Entertainment, 21 Laps Entertainment and Spring Creek
Productions. Those plaintiffs worked on "Annie," "Jersey Boys," "A
Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas," "Extremely Loud & Incredibly
Close," and "42," to name a few.

Several similar lawsuits -- focusing mostly on the television
industry -- were filed last year in the same court. Defendants in
those cases include NBC Universal, Warner Bros., CBS Corp.; HBO,
Paramount Pictures and Nickelodeon Movies Inc., among others.

The PA lawsuits were filed just days before the Academy of Motion
Picture Arts and Sciences gives out the film industry's biggest
prize on Feb. 21.


SOUTHERN WASTE SYSTEMS: Mendez Fuel Sues over Extra Fees
--------------------------------------------------------
Mendez Fuel Holdings 3, LLC, Plaintiff, v. Southern Waste Systems,
LLC d/b/a Sun Disposal, Southern Waste Systems, Ltd., and Southern
Waste Systems Holdings, LP, Defendants, Case 36559401 (Fla. Cir.,
January 14, 2016), seeks refunds, interest and attorneys' fees and
costs over alleged violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act.

Southern Waste Systems, LLC and Southern Waste Systems Holdings,
LP are waste disposal companies that provide waste removal
services to Mendez Fuel Holdings. Defendants charge a fuel
surcharge and a fuel/environmental fee which allegedly have no
relation to fuel and environmental related expenses.

Mendez Fuel Holdings 3, LLC is a Florida limited liability
corporation that does business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Javier Lopez, Esq.
      Tal J. Lifshitz, Esq.
      KOZYAK, TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor
      Miami, Florida 33134
      Tel: (305) 372-1800
      Fax: (305) 372-3508
      Email: jal@kttlaw.com
             tjl@kttlavv.com

- and -

      Lance A. Harke, Esq.
      Howard M. Bushman, Esq.
      HARKE CLASBY & BUSHMAN, L.L.P.
      9699 NE Second Avenue
      Miami Shores, FL 33138


SPOTIFY: Ricky Spicer Files Class Action Over Pre-1972 Licenses
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Flanagan, writing for Billboard, reports that the fight
over older music continues.

Ricky Spicer, a singer who joined a pair of singing twins in 1970
to form the Jackson Five-esque group The Ponderosa Twins Plus One
(Spicer being that suffixed "one"), has filed a suit seeking class
action status against and damages from a large cross-section of
the digital music landscape -- Spotify, Apple, Google, SoundCloud,
iHeartMedia, Pandora and Sony Computer Entertainment -- over
royalties related to pre-1972 recordings.  Mr. Spicer's action
directly relates to several other ongoing cases, all related to
the same complex issues of copyright ownership and music
licensing.

The case centers around these various tech giants publicly
performing (through streams) recordings that were created before
those recordings came under the protection of federal copyright
law, which went into effect Feb. 15, 1972.  That law left those
copyrights' fates to be decided state-by-state, thus leaving
streaming companies which have secured federal, statutory licenses
hanging in the breeze, as it were.  Mr. Spicer claims none of the
defendants have received "a valid license to . . . distribute the
intellectual property owned by Ricky Spicer" and the other members
of the Twins.

The new action most closely resembles a suit brought almost
exactly a year ago over recordings from Hot Tuna and the Flying
Burrito Brothers, among others.  That case was dismissed shortly
after being filed.

Notably, the filing says the various defendants may have thought
they had licensed his album.  In the filing Spicer makes the
allegation that a "phantom party . . . used back channels and
private under-the-table dealings to transfer licenses that
ultimately wound up in the hands of Defendants."

Mr. Spicer's difficult childhood, outlined briefly in his
document, led him from an orphanage to a high school talent
competition to joining the Ponderosa Twins, eventually becoming
best known for the song "Bound," which was recently sampled by
Kanye West (royalties for which Spicer sued over) in his song
"Bound 2."  The group eventually disbanded in 1975 after seeing
little to no payment from touring or recording, Spicer's filing
claims.

Previous suits over pre-1972 recordings have led to sizable
settlements from Pandora, which paid $90 million to the major
record labels, and SiriusXM, whose own fight led to the company
paying $210 million with several labels that included the three
majors (Sony Music, Universal Music Group and Warner Music Group).

Pandora addressed the new action, saying it "can't speak to this
latest suit, but settled this issue with the major labels in order
to focus on developing greater partnerships within the industry.
Though there is no existing federal sound recording copyright,
Pandora has repeatedly voiced our support for full federalization
of pre-1972 sound recordings."

Spotify had no comment on the new filing.  A person close to the
situation claims Apple pays for pre-1972 recordings.

iHeartMedia, Google, Sony Computer Entertainment and SoundCloud
did not respond to a request for comment at press time.


SPRINT CORP: Must Face Class Claims Over Background Checks
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Corso, writing for Law360, reports that Sprint cannot
escape a putative class action accusing the phone carrier of
violating the Fair Credit Reporting Act by asking prospective
employees to waive an array of privacy rights, with an Illinois
federal judge ruling that failure to prove actual harm does not
defeat the lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Matthew Kennelly said that lead plaintiff
Roberto Rodriguez didn't have to prove his information was used
for nefarious purposes in order to move forward with claims.

The case is Rodriguez, Jr. v. Sprint Corporation et al., Case No.
1:15-cv-10641 (N.D. Ill.).  The case was filed November 25, 2015.


STANDARD & POOR'S: Settles Australian Lawsuit for $143 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Wardell, writing for Reuters, reports that a substantial
settlement has been reached in a landmark A$200 million ($143
million) class action brought against ratings agency Standard &
Poor's, according to the law firm for the local governments,
churches and charities bringing the suit.

London-based law firm Squire Patton Boggs said that the
settlement, which is subject to court approval, is likely to have
widespread international ramifications for similar actions against
Standard & Poor's (S&P) due to the number of products it rates
throughout the world.

Financial terms of the settlement were confidential, Squire Patton
Boggs said. Litigation funder IMF Bentham said it would generate
revenue of about A$52 million and a pretax profit after
capitalized overheads of around A$47 million as a result of the
settlement.

The Federal Court lawsuit was brought by 92 Australian groups who
had bought synthetic collateralized debt obligations issued by
Lehman Brothers Australia between 2005 and 2007.

The applicants alleged Standard & Poor's engaged in misleading and
deceptive conduct by assigning AA and AAA credit ratings to the
Lehman Brothers products.

S&P denied the allegations. It could not immediately be reached
for comment on the settlement.

"The outcome of this case has highlighted that organizations such
as Standard & Poor's require transparency and accountability in
the formulation of the credit ratings that they assign to
financial products such as SCDOs," said Amanda Banton, a partner
at Squire Patton Boggs.

Mick Wainwright, the leader of one of the local councils who took
part in the class action, said the confidential settlement was "a
welcome end to the monumental David and Goliath style action."

Wainwright said the agreement vindicated the lengthy international
pursuit to recover funds.

The Federal Court found three years ago that Lehman Brothers
Australia had engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct,
breached fiduciary duties, breached contracts and acted in
negligence toward plaintiffs.

The finalization of that matter enabled the launch of the class
action against Standard & Poor's in 2013.


STETSON DESERT: Dancer Claims Violation of FLSA, Ariz. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Roe Dancer v. Stetson Desert Project, LLC, an Arizona LLC
d/b/a Le Girls Cabaret; Cory Anderson and Jane Roe Spouse 1,
husband and wife; Cary Anderson and Jane Roe Spouse 2, husband and
wife; and Doe Club Owners 1-10, Case 2:16-cv-00408-DLR (D. Ariz.,
February 12, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act, the Arizona Minimum Wage Act and Arizona common law.

Defendants own and operate Le Girls Gentlemen's Club, a strip club
located in Phoenix, Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     P. Andrew Sterling, Esq.
     RUSING LOPEZ & LIZARDI, P.L.L.C.
     6363 North Swan Road, Suite 151
     Tucson, Arizona 85718
     Tel: (520) 792-4800
     Fax: (520) 529-4262
     E-mail: (asterling@rllaz.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Patel" Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Mitesh Patel v. Terraform Global,
Inc. et al., Case No. 536788, was removed from the San Mateo
County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00073-BLF to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
from Defendants' alleged violations of the Securities Act of 1933.

TerraForm Global owns and operates contracted power generation
assets. The Company offers wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, and
hybrid energy solutions. The company is based in Bethesda,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq.
          Norman J. Blears, Esq.
          Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  bartlett@sidley.com
                  nblears@sidley.com
                  shemmendinger@sidley.com

               - and -

          Jonah Platt Ross, Esq.
          Lisa Marie Hathaway, Esq.
          Patrick David Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
          SHEARMAN AND STERLING LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 616 1129
          E-mail: jonah.ross@shearman.com
                  lisa.hathaway@shearman.com
                  probbins@shearman.com
                  shibbard@shearman.com


TERRAFORM POWER: "Fraser" Suit Removed to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Fraser v. Wuebbels et al., Case
No. CIV535963, was removed from the Superior Court County of San
Mateo, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Jose). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:15-cv-06326-WHO to the proceeding.

Brian A. Wuebbels has been the Chief Executive Officer and
President of TerraForm Power, Inc., since November 23, 2015. Mr.
Wuebbels has been the Chief Executive Officer of TerraForm Global,
Inc., since November 23, 2015 and has been its President since
November 2015.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ex Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: esams@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Lesley F Portnoy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2722
          Telephone: (310) 201 9150
          Facsimile: (310) 201 9160
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com
                  lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com
                  shemmendinger@sidley.com

               - and -

          Stephen D. Hibbard, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 616 1100
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: shibbard@shearman.com


THEMIE LLC: "Brownell" Alleges Violation of FLSA, R.I. Wage Act
---------------------------------------------------------------
DARCY BROWNELL On behalf of herself and on behalf Of all other
similarly situated persons v. THEMIE, LLC, Case 1:16-cv-00062
(D.R.I., February 12, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Rhode Island Minimum Wage Act, and the Rhode
Island Payment of Wages Act.

The Defendant operates numerous Dunkin Donuts franchise locations
in both the State of Rhode Island and Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
     395 Smith Street
     Providence, RI 02908
     Tel: (401) 864-5877
     E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Jackson County Suit Moved to W.D. Missouri
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Jackson County Missouri v. Trinity
Industries, Inc. et al., Case No. 1516-cv23684, as removed from
the Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00004-FJG to
the proceeding.

Trinity Industries owns a variety of businesses which provide
product and services to the industrial, energy, transportation and
construction sectors, and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack Thomas Hyde, Esq.
          Mallory Vandyke, Esq.
          Thomas L. Wagstaff, Esq.
          WAGSTAFF & CARTMELL
          4740 Grand Avenue, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 701 1100
          Facsimile: (816) 531 2372
          E-mail: jhyde@wcllp.com
                  mvandyke@wcllp.com
                  t.l.wagstaff@wcllp.com

               - and -

          John J. Schirger, Esq.
          Matthew W. Lytle, Esq.
          MILLER SCHIRGER, LLC
          4520 Main St., Ste. 1570
          Kansas City, MO 64111
          Telephone: (816) 561 6500
          Facsimile: (816) 561 6501
          E-mail: jschirger@millerschirger.com
                  mlytle@millerschirger.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth D Scott, Esq.
          Michelle A Reed, Esq.
          1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 1400
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969 2800
          E-mail: edscott@akingump.com
                  mreed@akingump.com

               - and -

          Mark A Beatty, Esq.
          THOMPSON COBURN LLP
          One US Bank Plaza, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63101-1686
          Telephone: (314) 552 6177
          Facsimile: (314) 552 7177
          E-mail: mbeatty@thompsoncoburn.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Calif. Judge Tosses "Rosen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Julie Baker-Dennis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge on Feb. 23 tossed a class action in San
Francisco, Calif. that claimed Uber's network of drivers violates
national transportation rules.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar found jurisdiction was lacking in
regard to the plaintiffs' claims the Uber flouts California Public
Utilities Commission regulations and found others related to
supposed lost driver revenues purely speculative.

In August 2015, taxicab owner Stewart Rosen sued Uber
Technologies, Rasier LLC and Rasier-CA LLC for taking business
away from him and other taxicab drivers by operating as a direct
competitor without following the same rules.  Rosen claimed Uber
allowed its drivers to make thousands of trips to airports without
permits which had a direct impact on his revenue.  He also alleged
many Uber drivers did not have proof of insurance or valid
driver's licenses, all of which violated California law.

Rosen also claimed he lost money after Uber used its website to
disparage taxicab services with statements like "No more waiting
alone on a dark street hoping you can hail a taxi" while
advertising that it provided the "safest rides on the road."  In
addition, Uber's website also touts its commitment to safety by
providing an explanation for charging a $1 safe rides fee that
partially stated, "The Safe Rides Fee supports continued efforts
to ensure the safest possible platform for Uber riders and
driver."

The information was posted until March 2015, the complaint said.

In his decision, Judge Tigar found the commission has jurisdiction
over all the transportation compliance issues Rosen presented and
writes, "granting any relief on these claims would interfere with
a broad and continuing supervisory or regulatory program."

"By asking the Court to decide whether Uber has failed to follow
CPUC regulations, [Rosen] therefore asks the court to hinder or
interfere with a broad and continuing CPUC program."

In October 2010, the commission issued Uber a cease and desist
order for its operation and advertising as a charter-party
carrier.

It later suspended the order and agreed to evaluate all Uber-like
services until it reached a decision to allow the ride service to
operate as a "transportation network company." That decision came
in September 2013, with the caveat that it would only remain apply
so long as Uber complied with all state regulations.

As for Rosen's claim that Uber's operating activities directly
interfered with his profitability, Judge Tigar found the taxicab
driver had not proven that his "property" was taken by the ride
service's drivers.

"Plaintiff's argument relies on the assumption that all potential
customers would either use Uber's services or a taxicab and
therefore that taxicabs would obtain additional profits 'but for'
Uber's fraudulent statements inducing customers to use its
services instead," the ruling says. "In truth, customers obviously
have numerous other alternatives to both Uber and taxicabs, such
as another similar service like Lyft, public transportation, or
not using any kind of transportation service at all."

Tigar said Rosen can amend his intentional interference and
negligent interference claims within 14 days if they rely on
Uber's safe ride fees rather than any state law-based claims.

The case captioned, STEWART ROSEN, Plaintiff, v. UBER
TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants,  Case No. 15-cv-03866- JST
(N.D. Cal.).


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Says Background Checks No Guarantee of Safety
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lee VanAmeyde, writing for WZZM, reports that because the suspect
in the Kalamazoo shootings was an Uber driver, some are now asking
just how safe is the ride-sharing service.

Uber executives insist that background checks in most cases keep
riders safe.  But they say no matter how extensive the background
checks are, there is no guarantee it can predict acts like we saw
in Kalamazoo.

The suspect, Jason Dalton just started driving for Uber in
January.  Customers gave him 4.73 out of 5.  Uber officials say
they had no significant complaints about Dalton prior to one the
night of the shootings. He passed Uber's background checks.  That
includes gathering personal information like social security
number, vehicle registrations and any criminal record.  The
information is gathered and then sent to a third party background
check company.

Drivers can be disqualified for any number of issues like drunk
driving, violent crimes and theft.  Again, Uber security officials
say there were no red flags in Mr. Dalton's background.

He did, however, have a gun in his car when he surrendered to
police on Feb. 20.  That's a clear violation of Uber policy. Just
recently, an Uber rider in Chicago made a complaint that she saw a
driver with a holstered gun.  Uber officials say it prohibits
possessing firearms of any kind in a vehicle.  In this case, Uber
says the driver is no longer with them.

WZZM checked with the Better Business Bureau, where Uber is given
an "F."  Nationwide, the company had more than 910 complaints --
98 of which have not been responded to.  The BBB says that's
primarily why it has a failing grade.

Most of the complaints appear to deal with billings and
promotions.  Complaints about drivers appear to center on poor and
reckless driving and rude behavior.

Two weeks ago, Uber agreed to pay $28.5 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit that took issue with the company's claims that its
driver background checks were "industry leading."  Uber is now
required to pay roughly 25 million riders across the United States
and to reword the language around the fee that the company charges
for each ride.  Uber will rename the fee, called the "safe ride
fee," to a "booking fee."

Uber released a statement saying that, "No means of transportation
can ever be 100 percent safe.  Accidents and incidents do happen."


UNITED PACIFIC WASTE: "Soto" Suit Seeks OT, Missed Breaks Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kerry Soto as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees Plaintiff, v. United Pacific Waste dba UPW
Waste and Recycling Services and Does I through 50, inclusive,
Case BC607277 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, January 15, 2016),
seeks nominal and compensatory damages, restitution, waiting time
penalties pursuant to California Labor Code Sec. 203, penalties
pursuant to Labor Code Sec. 226, 226(e), 226.7, 512 and 1194,
interest accrued, injunctive and declaratory relief, all wages and
overtime compensation as well as attorney's fees and costs as a
result of the Defendant's violation of California Labor Law.

United Pacific Waste is a California Corporation engaged in the
business of recycling.

Plaintiff did not enjoy meal/rest breaks, did not receive wage
statements and worked over 40 hours a week without overtime
compensation. Defendant also failed to reimburse the Plaintiff
business related expenses and pay last wages upon termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Katherine Odenbreit, Esq.
      Sean M. Blakely, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814, Long Beach, CA 90802
      Tel: (562) 590-5550
      Fax: (562) 590-8400
      Email: sblakely@mahonev-lavv.net
             kmahonev@mahonev-law.net
             kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net


VEROS AUTO: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mata" Action Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Mata, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Veros Auto Credit, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00098-DOC-
JCG (C.D. Cal., January 22, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Veros Auto Credit, Inc. provides auto financing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kira Meshawn Rubel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M RUBEL
      555 West Beech Street Suite 230
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (800) 836-6531
      E-mail: krubel@kmrlawfirm.com


WABASHA COUNTY, MN: Faces Class Action Over Safe Driving Program
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Stewart, writing for ABC 6 News, reports that a lawsuit
filed against Wabasha County and some individual cities is looking
to reimburse the thousands of drivers who participated in the
county's Safe Driving Program from 2003 to 2014.

The program, run by the Wabasha County Sheriff's Office, offered
drivers a cheaper alternative to paying a traffic ticket.  But
state auditor Rebecca Otto says counties that ran the classes and
pocketed the money instead of giving the state a cut like other
traffic fines were in violation of the law.

In 2014, a court agreed and forced Wabasha County to shut the
program down.  Erick Kaardal -- kaardal@mklaw.com -- of Mohrman,
Kaardal & Erickson Law Firm says the drivers who participated in
the program should get their money back.

"We need to be concerned statewide when law enforcement officers
violate the law," Mr. Kaardal said.

A Wabasha County judge ruled the class action lawsuit could
proceed.  The lawsuit claims the driving program generated more
than $430,000 for the Wabasha County Sheriff's Office, as well as
the cities that also participated, including Wabasha, Lake City
and Plainview.

Mr. Kaardal says the lawsuit is seeking to have the 3,000
participants each reimbursed about $125.  He says the matter may
show up in court again in a few months.

Wabasha County issued a statement to KAAL-TV on Feb. 23 about the
recent uling:

"Wabasha County is obviously disappointed by the decision, but we
are now prepared to vigorously defend the suit moving forward.

"Pursuant to the Court's Order, one of the items we get to explore
is the benefit received by the Plaintiffs from attending the Safe
Driving class.  This benefit will be weighed against the cost the
plaintiffs paid to attend the Safe Driving class.  In the end, the
County believes the benefit received by the Plaintiffs will
outweigh the cost they paid to attend the class."


WASHINGTON: Rest Break, Bonuses Remain in Dispute
-------------------------------------------------
Dan Wheat, writing for Capital Press, reports that the state
Department of Labor & Industries is resolving issues of rest-break
and bonus pay for piece-rate farmworkers though guidance policies
that amount to back-door rule making, labor attorneys say.

Adam Belzberg and Sarah Wixson, labor attorneys from Seattle and
Yakima, respectively, spoke at the annual labor conference of
WAFLA, formerly the Washington Farm Labor Association, at Central
Washington University in Ellensburg, Feb. 18.

Belzberg defended Sakuma Brothers Farm, a Burlington berry farm,
in a class-action lawsuit that established that employers have to
pay workers for rest breaks regardless if they are paid hourly or
piece rate.

Piece rate is the practice of paying workers by quantity of work,
such as number of bins of apples picked, and often results in more
money than hourly pay for fast workers.

Unresolved is whether workers receiving piece-rate can be paid
minimum wage for rest breaks. The attorney general saying they
can't because that's a disincentive for workers to take a break,
Belzberg said.

"To us that makes no sense at all," he said. "We believe you can
pay a lower rate for nonproductive time."

L&I is siding with the AG and plans to issue final guidelines the
first week of April, he said.

"The department is clearly on a path to making back-door rules
through the guise of policy guidance," he said.

Growers often pay bonuses at the end of harvest as incentive to
keep pickers with them through harvest. Some are now replacing
piece-rate pay with hourly pay, plus end-of-season bonuses.

L&I says such expected or non-discretionary bonuses trigger more
rest-break pay, Wixson said. Spontaneous or discretionary bonuses
don't have to include rest-break pay, she said.

That could result in "countless class-action lawsuits," Belzberg
said.

Wage and hour issues "are low-hanging fruit" for farmworker
attorneys because they get double damages and attorney fees if
they win, Belzberg said. "So you can get $1 for your client and
get all your fees paid," Wixson said.

They recommended employers enforce 10-minute, paid rest breaks for
every four hours of work. To eliminate a rest break for five
minutes less than four hours, risks violation, they said.

It's rather ironic, Belzberg said, that while farmworker attorneys
insist on the changes, many farmworkers who were switched to an
hourly rate plus a bonus last season would rather go back to piece
rate.

"Columbia Legal Services is educating workers that they are
entitled to rest breaks. So it's a huge education curve on both
sides and there will be a lot of scrutiny for a number of years if
not forever," Wixson said.

Employers must pay at least minimum wage for orientation, training
and travel between fields, they said. They advised against
stacking rest breaks together into one, 20-minute break between
eight hours of work and said breaks must be separate from unpaid
meal breaks.

"What do you do when workers don't want to take breaks or meals?"
one grower asked.

"What do you do when they don't want to wear protective equipment?
This is on you. It's your money. Be the boss, be the boss, be the
boss," Wixson replied. "Drill these things into the heads of your
crew leads. If they don't enforce them, you won't know until you
are sued."


YADKIN VALLEY: Employees File WARN Act Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Richard Craver, writing for Winston-Salem Journal, reports that
the former operator of the closed Yadkin Valley Community Hospital
is fighting a request for class-action status of an employees'
lawsuit pursuing salaries and benefits tied to the WARN Act.

The Yadkinville hospital was shut down May 22 by CAH Acquisition
10 LLC. CAH remained in the hospital until the county took
possession through a court agreement July 15.

The employees -- Carrie Hutson, Jeanna Simmons and Jenifer Swanner
-- filed their complaint in the Middle District of N.C. in
September.

Ms. Huston worked at the hospital for more than three years, while
Simmons worked eight years and Ms. Swanner more than 13 years.

Their class-action lawsuit could cover most of the 150 affected
employees.

They are suing CAH, HMC/CAH Consolidated Inc., which held the
hospital license, and parent company Rural Community Hospitals of
America LLC.

CAH filed a dismissal request Oct. 6 and its response to the
class-action request on Feb. 26.

The Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act was enacted
in 1989.

It was intended to prevent situations where rank-and-file
employees would show up for work only to discover that their
employer has shut down without notice.

The act requires companies that are planning large job cuts --
defined as more than 50 employees -- to notify their state and
local governments, as well as affected workers, at least 60 days
in advance.

No WARN Act notice has been filed with the Yadkinville mayor's
office and N.C. Commerce Department.

The federal Labor Department has no authority to enforce WARN Act
regulations, hear employee complaints, investigate potential
wrongdoing or file lawsuits representing employees.  Employees
must file a lawsuit in federal court to assert WARN rights.

The employees accuse CAH of not meeting the act's requirements,
such as 60 days of pay and benefit contributions if the closing is
immediate, as well as access to COBRA insurance benefits for 60
days.

When a company presents a WARN notice to Commerce, the state
responds by sending employment officials to help with job
placement and job skills.

CAH said it gave a WARN notice to employees on Feb. 27, 2015, that
it planned to close the hospital April 30.

CAH and Yadkin officials reached an agreement April 2 for CAH to
continue to provide services through July 31 to give Yadkin
officials more time to negotiate for a new hospital operator.

Plaintiffs said CAH officials told department heads to tell
employees on Feb. 28 to disregard the notice out of concern that
key employees would pursue employment elsewhere.

CAH denied making that statement.

"What one plaintiff was told may not necessarily apply to another
plaintiff, let alone members of the unnamed purported class," CAH
said.

It asks the court to defer any class-action ruling until the
discovery process is complete.

Even though the Feb. 27 notice apparently never went beyond
employees, CAH contends that it fulfilled its WARN obligations.
Edward Powell, attorney for Yadkin County, said on Feb. 23 that
"all we ever had was a draft that they threatened to send out if a
lease amendment wasn't approved prior to the end of February."

CAH also claims the three plaintiffs are not typical or adequate
class representatives.

CAH says Shawn Bright, its top executive at Yadkin Valley, kept
employees up to date on negotiations, including as late as nine
days before the hospital was shut down.

According to the plaintiffs' lawsuit, employees were told that if
they had left early, it could accelerate the closing of the
hospital.

CAH Acquisition said it began to lose hospital personnel after
issuing the WARN notice to employees, as well as after Yadkin
officials said they had no interest in extending the lease beyond
July 31.

An attorney for the plaintiffs, Michael Kornbluth of Taibi
Kornbluth Law Group PA of Durham, has said that one purpose of a
WARN notice is to allow employees to begin job searches before the
60-day period ends, "thus employers should expect to lose
employees during that process."


* Bennett Jones Issues 2016 Predictions in Canadian Class Actions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bennett Jones LLP, in an article for JDSupra, reports that the
last few years have been active for class actions in Canada, and
the activity did not slow down in 2015.

"This past year, Bennett Jones was involved with some of the most
important class actions in the country.  Our active and growing
class actions practice group continued to earn its reputation as a
leader in the Canadian legal market.  By leveraging our practical
experience, litigation expertise, and unparalleled knowledge of
procedure, we helped clients achieve meaningful results that
aligned with their business objectives.  What follows is our
discussion and analysis of trends in Canadian class actions in
2015 and likely developments we anticipate seeing in 2016,"
Bennett Jones said.

"In 2015, we saw the reversal of certain trends that had
previously been shifting in a plaintiff-friendly direction. For
instance, lower courts had previously articulated a relatively low
threshold for granting leave to plaintiffs to commence statutory
securities class actions.  In 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada
increased that threshold, resulting in a more rigorous test for
leave.  Similarly, while many product liability class actions were
previously certified as "quintessential" class actions, several
product liability class actions were denied certification in
2015."

Bennett Jones said "We predict this coming year will see:

   -- more certainty in class actions under the Securities Act,
particularly as it relates to the leave test for the commencement
of statutory secondary market misrepresentation claims;

   -- greater judicial scrutiny of product liability class actions
at the certification stage and an intensified focus by defendants
in resisting certification in such actions;

   -- judicial guidance on competition class actions and, in
particular, on the viability of class actions involving tort
claims based on breaches of the Competition Act;

   -- greater judicial reluctance to certify global class actions,
as well as greater judicial reluctance to certify parallel class
actions if a national class action has been certified;

   -- Supreme Court of Canada clarification on whether provincial
judges may sit on national class actions outside of their home
province;

   -- greater judicial scrutiny of expert evidence filed at the
certification stage;

   -- an increased focus on non-party productions, particularly in
relation to evidence in regulatory proceedings;

   -- increased scrutiny of counsel fee arrangements to ensure
fairness to class members; and

   -- more certainty regarding the individual phase of class
actions (following the common issues stage).

A complete copy of the article is available at:

                     http://is.gd/seE88B


* German Law Authorizing Privacy "Class Actions" Takes Effect
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christoph Ritzer, Esq. --christoph.ritzer@nortonrosefulbright.com
-- and Sven Jacobs, Esq. -- sven.jacobs@nortonrosefulbright.com  -
- of Norton Rose Fulbright, report that a new German law, which
grants authority to the country's consumer and business
associations to enforce compliance with data protection laws, was
set to take force on February 24, 2016.  A representative of the
German Ministry of Justice pointed out that the new enforcement
powers are specifically aimed at foreign companies having their
headquarters or operating from outside Germany, including the U.S.

Currently, consumer and business protection associations in
Germany often pursue violations of individuals' consumer rights
under the country's consumer protection legislation and unfair
competition laws.  The associations act as a type of a class
representative by bringing actions on behalf of groups of German
consumers and businesses.  This mechanism could best be described
as the German judicial system's version of a U.S. class action.

The new law expands the associations' "class action" authority to
enforcing organizations' violations of the country's data
protection laws.  The new powers include issuing cease-and-desist
letters (which is a recommended step prior to initiating
litigation) and seeking interim injunctions for alleged data
protection violations such as collecting, processing or using
consumer personal data without a valid consent of the individuals
or another legal basis under German data protection laws
(including those implementing the EU Data Protection Directive
95/46/EC), or having a non-compliant (e.g., overly broad) privacy
notice.

Remarkably, with regard to the transfer of personal data to third
countries, the law prevents consumer and business protection
associations from bringing infringement claims relying on the
invalidated Safe Harbor agreement until the end of the day of
September 30, 2016 to the extent the transfer of personal data was
based on the Safe Harbor Framework until October 6, 2015.

The expanded competences are designed to complement the
supervisory role currently carried out by the country's data
protection authorities (DPAs).  The DPAs would also play a role in
the "class actions" by being allowed to articulate their views and
analysis of the alleged data protection law violations in court.

From the technical perspective, the bill is a proposed amendment
to the Injunctions Act (UKlaG), allowing both data protection and
consumer protection laws to come within the meaning of section 2,
paragraph 2 UKlaG.

Norton Rose Fulbright says the new law does result in an
additional risk of enforcement in Germany for companies whose
privacy practices are inconsistent with the country's data
protection laws.  Companies offering services and goods to
consumers in Germany should begin reviewing their privacy
practices, including notices and consents, to ensure they are
compliant with the country's laws.  In the past, DPAs often lacked
the resources to enforce data protection laws against a large
number of companies. With the new law, we expect consumer
organizations to take an active role in privacy enforcement.


* McKenzie Lake Lawyers File IVC Filter Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
McKenzie Lake Lawyers, LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that it has filed
a class action lawsuit with respect to IVC Filters.

IVC Filters are devices used to prevent blood clots form
travelling to the lungs.  Use of retrievable IVC Filters has been
linked to an increased risk of fracture, migration, and/or
perforation, which can lead to a variety of life threatening
conditions, even death.  Furthermore, it is alleged that
retrievable IVC Filters create these serious increased risks while
providing little or no proven efficacy.

The claim alleges that the Defendants knew or should have known of
the serious risks associated with their filters and failed to warn
the public.  The lawsuit also claims the Defendants aggressively
marketed and sold retrievable IVC Filters through carefully
planned, multifaceted marketing campaigns and strategies, offering
misleading expectations with respect to both the utility and
safety of retrievable IVC Filters.

Matthew Baer -- baer@mckenzielake.com -- of McKenzie Lake Lawyers
explains: "We believe that through this action, the Defendants
will be required to explain to Canadians what it knew about the
risks and efficacy associated with using retrievable IVC Filters
and when it first became aware of those risks.  We are concerned
about whether Canadians and their doctors were adequately warned
of the known risks and efficacy associated with using these
products."

It is too early to quantify the value of class member claims, but
it is anticipated that the amounts are significant.  Canadians who
suffered complications after having received an IVC Filter are
encouraged to visit: www.mckenzielake.com or call 1-844-672-5666
for more information.


* Scalia's Death Likely Unfavorable for Companies' Interests
------------------------------------------------------------
David McCann, writing for CFO.com, reports that the death of
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia triggered more than the
brouhaha over who should appoint his successor, a story that's
been vying with the presidential primaries for headlines since his
Feb. 13 passing.

There are also implications for a number of cases currently before
the court.  Among key ones whose fates are now cloudier than
before are several related to class actions in which businesses
have clear rooting interests.

For insights on these cases CFO went to Evan Young, a partner and
chairman of the litigation department in the Austin, Texas office
of international law firm Baker Botts.

Why Young? A 2004 graduate of Yale Law School, he clerked for
Scalia for a year in 2005 and 2006; he has argued cases before the
Supreme Court; and last summer he was named a member of the
Supreme Court Advisory Committee, which helps the court review and
develop administrative and procedural rules for Texas courts.

Among a number of class-action cases that could now wind up
deadlocked 4-4 while the Supreme Court awaits its new justice, the
one with perhaps the greatest potential impact on companies is
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo.  In the case, workers in an Iowa
slaughterhouse sued Tyson for allegedly not keeping complete
records of overtime hours worked and thereby shorting them on
overtime pay.

The case is a test of whether the court can approve a Rule 23
class action, in which damage claims are determined by statistical
modeling rather than each class member's individual damages.
Statistical modeling makes it easier and less expensive for
plaintiffs to bring class actions against companies and easier to
win a judgment, according to Mr. Young.

"The problem is that it allows for a vast group of people to all
be compensated based on whatever level of sampling the court
approves," says Mr. Young, who represents companies and should be
expected to take their side.  "It runs various risks of
manipulation or inaccuracy. Damages are a highly individualized
thing."

Many court observers had believed that the case would be decided
5-4 in favor of banning Rule 23 case approvals.  Without Justice
Scalia's presumed vote with the majority, the vote could be 4-4,
and a tie vote is tantamount to the court not making any ruling at
all.

Instead, Mr. Young notes, it appears that the Supreme Court may
opt to decide the case based on the narrower issue of what proof
is needed to support claims related to overtime pay.  But that
doesn't mean the court won't eventually decide the bigger issue
relating to Rule 23 class actions.

"It's a hugely laborious process to take a case from a trial court
to the court of appeals [and then the Supreme Court], for both
plaintiffs' lawyers and the courts," says Mr. Young.  "It's not
really in anyone's interest to resolve cases 4-4, because it's
usually only another year or two until the next case comes along
that squarely presents the issue and there's no dodge available."

The Supreme Court also can decide to hold onto deadlocked cases
until the Senate confirms a ninth justice.  "I think it would be
respectful of the system, the litigants, and the court itself to
consider exercising its discretion to save a case for a new
justice rather than let it go 4-4 and be done with it," Mr. Young
says.

Another class action with significant potential ramifications for
companies is Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.  The case involves the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), which is frequently the subject of
class actions.

Spokeo is a people-search website that aggregates data from online
and offline sources; companies often use it to evaluate job
candidates or people involved in potential transactions. In the
case, Thomas Robins, a Virginia man, claims Spokeo published
inaccurate information about him.

The question before the court is whether Robins, and others like
him, are entitled to bring a lawsuit claiming damages, even if
they suffered no actual harm, when a company does not adhere to
the letter of a law (in this case, the FCRA).

"The Constitution says, as the Supreme Court has understood it,
that for a private person to bring a lawsuit he or she has to have
an actual injury," says Mr. Young.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had ruled that it's not harmful
for a person to be portrayed as more educated than he is, or as
married when he's not, or as making more money than he actually
does, Mr. Young notes.

Before his death, Justice Scalia had suggested during oral
arguments that based on Robins' interpretation, the failure by a
credit reporting agency to include a 1-800 number on its
application form, for example, would allow anyone to sue, even if
the omission didn't affect them at all.

Comments by justices in oral arguments suggested they had a number
of divergent opinions on the question, but Young says the case
very likely would have been decided 5-4 against the plaintiffs.
And, he notes, the case is relevant to many companies, not just
credit reporting agencies.

Such cases have the potential to cost companies a lot of money,
according to Mr. Young.  For example, he says, referring to the
Spokeo case, FCRA violations can result in a company being charged
up to $1,000 per credit application.  "At $1,000 a pop, it could
add up to something that could bankrupt a lot of businesses."

The Supreme Court could base its ruling not on the substance of
the case but on whether it is proper, under Article III of the
Constitution, for the court to hear it at all.  "In cases that
involve a question of whether courts should be able to hear a
certain kind of claim, the justices who are conservative have more
often been hesitant than the liberal justices," Young says.

A third case Mr. Young points to involves a group of Xbox 360
users who sued Microsoft, claiming that the game's console had a
faulty optical disk drive.  The issue the court will decide is
whether plaintiffs can challenge a lower court's decision to deny
their request for certification as a class.

Meanwhile, Mr. Young notes that while there are only eight Supreme
Court justices, the court might agree to hear fewer cases that
could prove helpful to companies.

That's because four justices' votes are required for the court to
take a case.  So on occasions when, for example, Justice Anthony
Kennedy, who's frequently a swing voter in Supreme Court
decisions, sides with the liberal justices, there will not be
enough conservatives on the court to get some cases heard.

Also, Mr. Young points out that depending on who replaces Justice
Scalia, one area of law that's of interest to companies may be
interpreted less conservatively, despite the departure of the
famously conservative jurist.

Justice Scalia has consistently held that the Supreme Court has no
authority to review punitive damages awarded by lower courts. In
so doing, he and Justice Kennedy both typically have sided with
the high court's more liberal members.  "There aren't any Supreme
Court cases at all in this area of the law that matters greatly to
businesses," Mr. Young says.  "In this area, Scalia brought the
court to the left and was the best friend of plaintiffs' lawyers."

Significant cases in which plaintiffs received "bonanza" awards
that the Supreme Court declined to review have included BMW of
North America, Inc. v. Gore and State Farm Mutual Automobile
Insurance Co. v. Campbell, Mr. Young notes.
* Siskinds LLP Launches IVC Filter Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
The law firm, Siskinds LLP on Feb. 23 disclosed that it has
launched a class action regarding IVC filters.

IVC (inferior vena cava) filters are small metal medical devices
designed to trap blood clots passing through the IVC.  The IVC is
a large vein that returns blood from the lower body to the heart.
IVC filters are implanted in persons at risk of developing blood
clots.  Most IVC filters are intended to be retrievable, meaning a
physician will remove the device after the risk of developing
blood clots has subsided.

IVC filters have caused serious injuries, including death. Reports
to the FDA indicate that the filters can migrate to the heart,
lungs, or fracture and perforate the IVC, or another vein or
organ.  Further, it may be difficult or impossible to remove the
filter.

Jill McCartney, a lawyer with Siskinds LLP, states, "In commencing
the class action, Siskinds is seeking recovery for Canadians who
were implanted with certain IVC filters and were not warned of the
risks of suffering serious injuries, including death and injury to
the inferior vena cava as well as other veins or organs."  She
further states, "As a matter of safety, patients and their health
care providers need to be informed of the risks associated with
using a particular medical device."

Canadians who believe they might be affected by this class action
are encouraged to email IVCfilters@siskinds.com or call 1-800-461-
6166 ext. 2278 for English enquiries or ext. 2409 for French
enquiries.

                      About Siskinds LLP

Siskinds LLP -- http://wwww.siskinds.com-- is a full-service law
firm with offices in Toronto and London, and affiliate offices in
Montreal and Quebec City.


                            *********

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  * * *