CAR_Public/160307.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Monday, March 7, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 47


                            Headlines


694 ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Panton" Suit Says
ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
ADECCO USA: Case Management Conference Moved to April 21
ADECCO USA: March 10 Hearing on Arbitration Bid in "Shepardson"
ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va.

ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maximov" Suit Claims
ALWAYS TRAVEL: Sued in Florida Over Public Offering Statement
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Macolino" Suit Moved to Columbia Dist. Ct.
AMSPEC SERVICES: "Atanassov" Suit Tranaferred to S.D. Tex.
ANDY ARVANS: Faces "Demarco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ANTHEM INC: "Roberts" Suit Moved from Minnesota to N.D. Cal.
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in iPhone 4S Suit
ARIZONA PUBLIC: 9th Cir. Declines to Revive Suit Over Blackout
AWARD ENTERTAINMENT: "Rohlsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
BENCO DENTAL: Faces Evolution Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly

BLUE CROSS: Faces "Goodman" Suit Over Market Allocation Agreement
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA: "Smith" Suit Moved to C.D. California
BOULDER BRANDS: Oklahoma Police Pension Named as Lead Plaintiff
BP PLC: Denial of Class Certification in Oil Spill Suit Upheld
CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

COLLECTION SERVICE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moore" Suit Claims
COMMUNITY BANK: Urban et al. Can't Intervene in "Brennan" Suit
CONSOLIDATED TELECOM: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
CONSUMER CREDIT: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal.
COUCH DISTRIBUTING: "Madrigal" Suit Moved to N.D. California

CR BARD INC: "Bures" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona
CR BARD INC: "Ricker" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona
DATA SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "French" Suit Claims
DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cohen" Suit Claims
EAGLE ATLANTIC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act

EARLY WARNING: "Muir" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA
EAST COMMUNICATION: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
EDWARD YASKOWITZ: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
EXPRESS ENERGY: "Cornell" Labor Suit Moved to S.D. Tex. Court
FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Minn. Court Dismisses "Zean" TCPA Suit

FAMA ENTERTAINMENT: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
FARMERS SERVICES: $600,000 Settlement in "Ribot" Has Final OK
FIRST TENNESSEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tyacke" Suit Claims
FISHER PRINTING: "Diaz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct.to C.D. Cal.
FLORIDA INSURANCE: "Merced" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

FLUIDMASTER INC: "Smith" Suit Moved, Consolidated in MDL 2575
FRITO-LAY INC: Pretrial Conf., Trial Date in "Sanchez" Pushed Back
GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Failure to Issue Settlement Check
GHANSHAYAM ENTERPRISE: "Abbas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
GARDA CL: Faces "D'Aguino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fresno Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
GJI INC: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Girard Keese Loses Avandia MDL Fee Bid
GOLDEN STATE FC: "Parson" Labor Suit Moved to N. D. California
GOOGLE INC: Faces "Ha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

GOTCHA FLOWBACK: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
GREATER OMAHA PACKING: "Baglio" Suit to Recover OT, Missed Breaks
HOME HEALTH: "Jasper" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ivy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
JC CHRISTENSEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

KHANNA ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
KOBE GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lin" Suit Claims
LANDRY'S INC: "Craig" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
LPC TRANSPORTATION: "Riley" Suit Seeks to Recovery Unpaid OT
LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct.

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: E.D. La. Has Jurisdiction of "Loehn" Suit
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: July 19 Final Approval Hrng in "Chavez" Suit
LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct.
MARYLAND CASUALTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims
MCCORMICK & CO: "Gerstnecker" Suit Transferred to Wash. D.C.

MDL 1827: Rust Consulting to Be Paid 74,000
METLIFE: "Martin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. California
MITCHELL CELAYA: 9th Cir. Rejects UC Berkeley Protesters' Claim
MKTG4U LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, California Suit Claims
MONETARY MANAGEMENT: April 21 Fairness Hearing Set in "Rodas"

MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Saroza" Action Claims
NEW JERSEY: "Slaughter" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
NWP SERVICES: "Brown" Suit Moved from Judicial Ct. to M.D. Fla.
OPORTUN INC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
PERFORMANT RECOVERY: "McPherson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation

POINT LOMA CREDIT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
PROSPECT FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
PROVIDENT FUNDING: Dismissal Bid Reply in "Steinberg" Due Mar 18
RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SALES RAIN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mills" Suit Claims

SALINAS CA: Injunction Bid Over Ordinance 2564 Denied
SANJEL (USA): "Keller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SCOTT ROTHSTEIN: Gibraltar Bank Fined Over Role in Ponzi Scheme
SCRIPPS NP OPERATING: "Fogarty" Suit Moved to C.D. California
SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted

SECURITY NATIONAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
SMART UTILITY: "Marinucci" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hamra" Suit Claims
STANFORD: Chadbourne & Parke Agrees to Settle Ponzi Scheme Claims
SYNENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims

TF FINAL: "Gates" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
TRICAN WELL: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Reimbursement
VIGILANT CANINE: Sued Over Failure to Timely Pay Separation Pay
WAL-MART: No Spoliation of Evidence in Crib Death Suit

WAL-MART STORES: Must Produce Docs to PGERS, Court Says
WEST VIRGINIA: Detainees' Class Certification Bid Denied
WONDERFUL CITRUS: Court Trims Claims in "Peralta" Complaint
XBIOTECH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Named Lead Counsel in "Tran" Suit

* Judges Split Over FLSA, NYLL Liquidated Damages Issue





                            *********


694 ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Panton" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Panton, individually, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jacob Ben Moha, 694 Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Roxy
Diner, Case No. 1:16-cv-00880 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate Roxy Diner restaurant in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lizabeth Schalet, Esq.
      MIRER MAZZOCCHI SCHALET & JULIEN, PLLC
      150 Broadway, Suite 1200
      New York, NY  10038
      Telephone: (212) 231-2235
      E-mail: Lschalet@mmsjlaw.com


ACCURATE BACKGROUND: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Evans, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Accurate Background, LLC, Case No. 8:16-cv-00188 (C.D.
Cal., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Accurate Background, LLC is a provider of comprehensive employee
screening and human resource support services.

Donald Evans is a pro se plaintiff.


ADECCO USA: Case Management Conference Moved to April 21
--------------------------------------------------------
The Case Management Conference scheduled for March 3, 2016, in the
case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), has been continued and set
to take place on April 21, 2016, at 9:30 a.m./p.m.  Joint CMC
statement is due April 14, 2016, according to District Judge
Edward M. Chen in a March 1, 2016 Stipulation and Order available
at http://is.gd/l3r3QMfrom Leagle.com.

Kaitlyn Shepardson is represented by:

     Matthew Righetti, Esq.
     John Glugoski, Esq.
     Michael C. Righetti, Esq.
     RIGHETTI GLUGOSKI, P.C.
     456 Montgomery St Suite 1400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: 415-983-0900

Adecco USA, Inc., is represented by:

     Julie Erin Patterson, Esq.
     Julie Westcott O'Dell, Esq.
     BRYAN CAVE LLP
     3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1500
     Irvine, CA  92612-4414
     Tel: 949 223-7144
     E-mail: jepatterson@bryancave.com
             julie.odell@bryancave.com


ADECCO USA: March 10 Hearing on Arbitration Bid in "Shepardson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, KAITLYN SHEPARDSON, individually, and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. ADECCO USA, INC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 3:15-cv-05102-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Adecco filed a Motion to
Compel Arbitration on February 2, 2016, seeking an order from the
Court to compel arbitration of Plaintiff's individual claims and
to stay litigation pending the completion of arbitration.  The
hearing on the Motion to Compel Arbitration is scheduled for
March 10, 2016.


ALLIANCE SECURITY: "Chester" Suit Moved from Minn. to N.D. W. Va.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chester v. Alliance Security Inc.,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04231, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of West Virginia (Clarksburg). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00010-IMK-MJA to
the proceeding.

Alliance Security provides security services. The Company provides
burglar, fire, and medical protection, as well as provides home
automation services. The Company is based in Warwick, Rhode
Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seyed Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP APC
          245 Fischer Avenue, Suite D1
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (800) 400 6808
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ak@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Patrick J Helwig, Esq.
          Peter F Barry, Esq.
          BARRY & HELWIG, LLC
          2701 University Avenue SE, Suite 209
          Minneapolis, MN 55414
          Telephone: (612) 379 8800
          Facsimile: (612) 379 8810
          E-mail: phelwig@lawpoint.com
                  pbarry@lawpoint.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Barbara P Berens, Esq.
          Erin K Fogarty Lisle, Esq.
          BERENS & MILLER, PA
          80 S 8th St Ste 3720
          Mpls, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349 6171
          Facsimile: (612) 349 6416
          E-mail: bberens@berensmiller.com
                  elisle@berensmiller.com


ALLIED INTERSTATE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Maximov" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maxim Maximov, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Allied Interstate LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00561-MKB-MDG (E.D.N.Y., February 3, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Allied Interstate LLC operates a collection agency that is
attempting to collect a debt.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Igor B. Litvak, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF IGOR LITVAK
      1701 Ave P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Telephone: (646) 796-4905
      Facsimile: (718) 408-9570
      E-mail: igorblitvak@gmail.com


ALWAYS TRAVEL: Sued in Florida Over Public Offering Statement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Diane M. DeGeorge and Michael K. DeGeorge, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Always Travel With Us,
Inc. d/b/a Vacation Village Voyages, Case No. 37056616 (Fla. 17th
Ct., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to submit a public offering statement for the Vacation
Club to the Division for approval.

Always Travel With Us, Inc. owns and operates a travel agency
located at 3015 N Ocean Blvd # 119, Fort Lauderdale, FL 33308.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jared H. Beck, Esq.
      Elizabeth Lee Beck, Esq.
      BECK & LEE TRAIL LAWYERS
      Corporate Park at Kendall
      12485 SW 137th Ave., Suite 205
      Miami, FL 33186
      Telephone: (305) 234-2060
      Facsimile: (786) 664-3334
      E-mail: jared@beckandlee.com
              elizabeth@beckandlee.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Macolino" Suit Moved to Columbia Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Macolino v. American Airlines
Group Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-08494, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00132-
CKK to the proceeding.

The antitrust class action arose out of an alleged conspiracy
among the Defendants to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and/or
stabilize the price of domestic airfare in the United States.

Delta Air Lines is a Delaware corporation with its principal place
of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more than
5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries. American
Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal places of
business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the largest
airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per day to
339 locations in 54 countries. Southwest Airlines is a Texas
corporation with its principal place of business located in
Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates more than 3,600 flights per day
to 94 locations in the United States and six additional countries.
United Airlines is Delaware corporations with its principal places
of business located in Chicago, Illinois. United offers service to
more destinations than any other airline in the world, operating
more than 5,300 flights per day to 369 locations across six
continents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
          William Peck, Esq.
          Mark Morris, Esq.
          CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
          811 Sixteenth Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          Facsimile: (732) 894 9647

               - and -

          Allan Kanner, Esq.
          Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
          KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
          701 Camp Street
          New Orleans, LA 70130
          Telephone: (504) 524 5777
          Facsimile: (504) 524 5763
          E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
                  c.stamant@kanner-law.com


AMSPEC SERVICES: "Atanassov" Suit Tranaferred to S.D. Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JIVKO ATANASSOV, et al., individually and on
behalf of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
AMSPEC SERVICES, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company
Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-3628 (FLW)(LHG) (D.N.J.), Judge
Freda L. Wolfson denied Amspec Services, LLC's motion to dismiss
under the first-filed rule, but transferred the case to the United
States District Court for the Southern District of Texas pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a).

On May 29, 2015, a collective-action lawsuit was filed against
Amspec in the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey on behalf of Amspec's inspectors, alleging violations of
the overtime and anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

On July 24, 2015, Amspec moved to dismiss based on the first-filed
rule or, in the alternative, to transfer the matter to the
Southern District of Texas.

Judge Wolfson held that the first-filed rule does not apply
because the prior Texas action and the present New Jersey action
are not "truly duplicative."  Unlike the New Jersey action, the
Texas action asserted claims against Amspec on behalf of
inspectors and dispatchers for failure to pay overtime and failure
to pay the minimum wage.

However, Judge Wolfson granted the motion to transfer the case to
the Southern District of Texas upon finding that both public and
private interests and the interests of justice weigh in favor of
the transfer.

A full-text copy of Judge Wolfson's February 24, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/LPHvRxfrom Leagle.com.

JIVKO ATANASSOV, Plaintiff, represented by PATRICIA A. BARASCH,
SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC & RICHARD M. SCHALL, SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC.

AMSPEC SERVICES, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by PATRICK W.
MCGOVERN -- pmcgovern@genovaburns.com -- GENOVA BURNS LLC & ANGELO
JOSEPH GENOVA -- agenova@genovaburns.com -- Genova Burns LLC.


ANDY ARVANS: Faces "Demarco" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Marie Demarco and Lauren Bohn, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Andy Arvans Restaurant Corp., et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00543 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Andy Arvans Restaurant Corp. owns and operates a restaurant
located at 100 Broadhollow Rd in Melville, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garrett D. Kaske, Esq.
      Marijana F. Matura, Esq.
      Troy L. Kessler, Esq.
      SHULMAN KESSLER LLP
      534 Broadhollow Road, Suite 275
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 499-9100
      Facsimile: (631) 499-9120
      E-mail: gkaske@shulmankessler.com
              mm@shulmankessler.com
              tk@shulmankessler.com


ANTHEM INC: "Roberts" Suit Moved from Minnesota to N.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roberts et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et
al., Case No. 0:15-cv-04592, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose). The
Calif. Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-
00339-LHK to the proceeding.

Anthem, Inc., through its subsidiaries, operates as a health
benefits company in the United States. It operates through three
segments: Commercial and Specialty Business, Government Business,
and Other. The company offers a spectrum of network-based managed
care health benefit plans to large and small employer, individual,
Medicaid, and Medicare markets. The Company is headquartered at
Indianapolis, Indiana.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kate M. Baxter-Kauf, Esq.
          Karen Hanson Riebel, Esq.
          LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN
          100 Washington Avenue, S, Ste. 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55401
          Telephone: (612) 339 6900
          Facsimile: (612) 339 0981
          E-mail: khriebel@locklaw.com


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Claims in iPhone 4S Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: IPHONE 4S CONSUMER LITIGATION, FRANK
M. FAZIO; CARLISA S. HAMAGAKI; DANIEL M. BALASONNE; BENJAMIN
SWARTZMANN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. APPLE, INC., a California
Corporation, Defendant-Appellee, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order granting Apple's Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),
California False Advertising Law ("FAL"), California Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), and intentional and negligent
misrepresentation claims.

An amended consolidated class action complaint was filed alleging
that Apple's advertising campaign misrepresented the functionality
of the Siri feature of the iPhone 4S and deceived customers.  The
district court held that the complaint failed to plead fraud with
particularity as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b)
and failed to plead plausible claims under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 8(a).

On appeal, the 9th Circuit held that merely pointing to product
demonstrations of Siri in Apple's general advertising campaign,
without defining what level of consistency was expected from these
representations and how often Siri actually performed as
requested, is insufficient to show that Apple fraudulently misled
the plaintiffs into believing Siri would perform consistently.
The 9th Circuit thus concluded that the district court did not err
in holding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the pleading
requirements of Rule 9(b).

Further, the 9th Circuit also agreed with the district court in
holding that the complaint failed to meet the pleading
requirements of Rule 8(a).  The appellate court explained that
because the plaintiffs did not articulate what level of consistent
performance Apple fraudulently represented, they similarly failed
to define the level of consistency a reasonable consumer would
expect.

A full-text copy of the 9th Circuit's February 25, 2016 memorandum
is available at http://is.gd/q202tzfrom Leagle.com.


ARIZONA PUBLIC: 9th Cir. Declines to Revive Suit Over Blackout
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs brought a putative class action on behalf of "[a]ll
individuals and business entities located within the State[] of
California who incurred economic damages" from a 2011 blackout
that started in Arizona and spread to parts of California and
Mexico. They alleged that Arizona Public Service Company, an
Arizona-based electric utility, violated federal electricity-
reliability standards, 16 U.S.C. Sec. 824o, which caused the
ensuing cascading blackout, and that APS is thus negligent per se
under Arizona law.  The district court determined that California
law, not Arizona law, applied and dismissed the case under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 12(b)(6) because the plaintiffs failed to state a claim
under California law.  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit affirmed in a March 2 Memorandum, saying plaintiffs did
not state a claim under either California law or Arizona law, and
that the district court correctly concluded that amendment of the
plaintiffs' complaint would be futile, as neither state's law
provides for tort liability under the circumstances of this case.
A copy of the Ninth Circuit's decision is available at
http://is.gd/Vkcxzbfrom Leagle.com.

The appellate case is, ROBERT WALDON, an individual, and SIR
WALDON, INC., a California Business Entity, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, DBA Oggi's Pizza,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, an
Arizona Corporation; et al., Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-55076
(9th Cir.).


AWARD ENTERTAINMENT: "Rohlsen" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexa Rohlsen, and all others similarly-situated v. Award
Entertainment, Inc. dba Baby Dolls, Case No. 8:16-cv-00236 (M.D.
Fla., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated
damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant operates a strip club in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      W. John Gadd, Esq.
      Bank of America Building
      2727 Ulmerton Rd. Ste. 250
      Clearwater, FL 33762
      Tel: (727) 524-6300
      E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


BENCO DENTAL: Faces Evolution Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evolution Dental Science, LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein,
Inc., and Patterson Companies, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00596
(E.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), arises out of the Defendants'
unlawful conspiracy to monopolize the Dental Supplies market in
the United States through group boycotting.

The Defendants are the three principal providers of dental
supplies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott A. Martin, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      33 Whitehall Street, 14th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (646) 357-1100
      Facsimile: (212) 202-4322
      E-mail: smartin@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Brent W. Landau, Esq.
      Gary I. Smith Jr., Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      325 Chestnut St., Suite 325
      Philadelphia, PA 19106
      Telephone: (215) 985-3270
      Facsimile: (215) 985-3271
      E-mail: blandau@hausfeld.com
              gsmith@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Melinda R. Coolidge, Esq.
      HAUSFELD LLP
      1700 K Street, NW
      Washington, DC 20006
      Telephone: (202)-540-7200
      Facsimile: (202)-540-7201
      E-mail: mcoolidge@hausfeld.com

         - and -

      Arthur N. Bailey, Esq.
      Marco Cercone, Esq.
      Robert C. Singer, Esq.
      RUPP BAASE PFALZGRAF CUNNINGHAM LLC
      1600 Liberty Building, 424 Main Street
      Buffalo, NY 14202
      Telephone: (716) 854-3400
      Facsimile: (716) 332-0336
      E-mail: bailey@ruppbaase.com
              cercone@ruppbaase.com
              singer@ruppbaase.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Goodman" Suit Over Market Allocation Agreement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tom A. Goodman and Jason Goodman v. Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Alabama, Case No. 4:16-cv-00007-BMM (D. Mont., February 4, 2016),
is an action for damages as result of anticompetitive conduct the
Defendants have taken in their illegal efforts to establish and
maintain monopoly power through market allocation agreements
between and among BCBS-MT, the Individual Blue Plans, and Blue
Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA).

Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama is the health insurance plan
operating under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and
trade names in the state of Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monte D. Beck, Esq.
      Anthony F. Jackson, Esq.
      BECK & AMSDEN, PLLC
      1946 Stadium Dr., Ste. 1
      Bozeman, MT 59715


BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA: "Smith" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Shannon Smith v. Blue Shield of
California Life and Health Insurance Company et al., Case No. 30-
02015-00826278-CU-MC-CXC, was removed from the Orange County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00108-CJC-KES to
the proceeding.

Blue Shield of California Life & Health Insurance Company provides
group and individual term life, accidental death and
dismemberment, vision, and stop loss insurance products in
California. The company offers group term life, group vision,
individual short-term health, disability, and individual term life
insurance products. The Company is based in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles L Sweeris, Esq.
          50 Beale Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 229 5107
          Facsimile: (415) 229 5343

               - and -

          Jay T Ramsey, Esq.
          Valerie Elizabeth Alter, Esq.
          Fred R Puglisi, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-6055
          Telephone: (310) 228 3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228 3701
          E-mail: jramsey@sheppardmullin.com
                  valter@sheppardmullin.com
                  fpuglisi@sheppardmullin.com


BOULDER BRANDS: Oklahoma Police Pension Named as Lead Plaintiff
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Marcia S. Krieger granted the request of the
Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System to consolidate these
two cases:

     -- Ronald LoRusso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Boulder Brands, Inc.; Stephen B.
Hughes; James B. Leighton; and Christine Sacco, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-cv-00679-MSK-KMT (D. Colo.), and

     -- Insider Asset Management, LLC v. Boulder Brands, Inc.,
D.C. Colo. Civ. Case No. 15-cv-01043-CBS.

The Court also appointed OPPRS as Lead Plaintiff and directed it
to file a consolidated complaint.  The Court declined to
affirmatively appoint or approve any particular "lead counsel,"
but said OPPRS is entitled to select, retain, and, if appropriate,
terminate counsel qualified to litigate this case.

This is a securities class action brought by shareholders of
Defendant Boulder Brands, Inc. alleging that the Company and its
officers made material misrepresentations about its anticipated
earnings and related matters in 2014.  Mr. LoRusso, a shareholder,
commenced this action alleging securities fraud and control person
claims under the Securities Act of 1934. Separately, a shareholder
named Insider Asset Management, LLC, commenced another action in
this Court, making essentially the same allegations against the
same Defendants.

No party or other person opposes OPPRS' motion.

Donna Johnson, another shareholder, also moved to consolidate the
two cases and to have herself appointed Lead Plaintiff. Ms.
Johnson's motion was denied on procedural grounds, and Ms. Johnson
did not refile it. Thereafter, Ms. Johnson indicated that she does
not oppose OPPRS' motion.

A copy of the Court's March 2 Opinion and Order is available at
http://is.gd/GWebb9from Leagle.com.

Insider Asset Management, LLC, Consol Plaintiff, represented by
Kip Brian Shuman, The Shuman Law Firm.

Boulder Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth,
Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster,
LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP.

Stephen B. Hughes, Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth,
Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster,
LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP.

James B. Leighton, Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth,
Morrison & Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster,
LLP & Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP.

Christine Sacco, Defendant, represented by Jordan D. Eth, Morrison
& Foerster, LLP, Nicole K. Serfoss, Morrison & Foerster, LLP &
Steven M. Kaufmann, Morrison & Foerster, LLP.

Donna Johnson, Movant, represented by Robert Vincent Prongay,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP, Jack Reise,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP & Robert Jeffrey Robbins,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP.


BP PLC: Denial of Class Certification in Oil Spill Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert L. Hickok and Gay Parks Rainville, writing for The Legal
Intelligencer, report that last fall, the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit upheld a district court order denying class
certification to a group of BP plc shareholders in the securities
litigation, Ludlow v. BP plc, 800 F.3d 674 (5th Cir. 2015).  The
proposed class of investors purchased BP securities before the
April 20, 2010, catastrophic blowout of the Deepwater Horizon oil
rig that resulted in more than 5 million barrels of oil spilling
into the Gulf of Mexico.  These "pre-spill" investors alleged
that, for several years before the spill, BP, which had leased the
rig and co-owned the well site where the explosion occurred, made
material misrepresentations overstating the strength of BP's
safety processes and procedures and understating the risk of
catastrophe in violation of Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.

Both the district court and the Fifth Circuit held that the pre-
spill plaintiffs failed to satisfy the U.S. Supreme Court's
"common damages burden," recently set forth in an antitrust case,
Comcast v. Behrend, 133 S. Ct. 1426 (2013).  Under Comcast, a
plaintiff seeking class certification must present a damages
methodology that is both consistent with the plaintiff's theory of
liability and capable of measuring damages across the entire
proposed class. (The district court certified, and the Fifth
Circuit affirmed, a "post-spill" class of investors who alleged
that BP misrepresented the company's internal estimates of the
flow rate of the oil spill, which lasted 87 days.  Those decisions
are beyond the scope of this article.) The Fifth Circuit denied
the pre-spill plaintiffs a rehearing en banc.  On Jan. 25, the
plaintiffs filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, asking that
the U.S. Supreme Court determine whether Comcast's common damages
burden applies to securities fraud class actions invoking the
fraud-on-the-market presumption and to "clarify the scope of
inquiry into the merits of a damage model at class certification."

The Fifth Circuit's Decision

As described in the Fifth Circuit's opinion, the pre-spill
plaintiffs claimed that, prior to the spill, BP made statements
"suggesting that [it] had made safety and process improvements
that [it] had not actually implemented," and that such assurances
"lulled the market into believing that BP was a safer company than
it actually was."  Relying on a "materialization-of-the-risk"
damages theory, the plaintiffs alleged that "BP had understated
the risk of catastrophe, and when that risk materialized, [the
plaintiffs] could recover its resulting damages."  The plaintiffs
argued that "the economic effects of the spill, as captured by the
fall in BP's stock price after the spill occurred, were the
'foreseeable consequences of the materialized misstated risk.'"
Accordingly, the plaintiffs sought recovery of "the entire fall in
stock price caused by materialization of the risk of the spill."
Because the parties did not dispute that the proposed pre-spill
class met the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a) for class certification, the court focused only on Rule
23(b)(3), which requires "that the questions of law or fact common
to class members predominate over any questions affecting only
individual members, and that a class action is superior to other
available methods for fairly and efficiently adjudicating the
controversy."

Specifically, the court assessed whether, as required under
Comcast, the plaintiffs' damages methodology was "'susceptible of
measurement across the entire class for purposes of Rule
23(b)(3).'"  The Fifth Circuit concluded that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in holding that the plaintiffs'
damages model was not capable of classwide measurement.  As the
court explained: "[Plaintiffs'] theory hinges on a determination
that each plaintiff would not have bought BP stock at all were it
not for the alleged misrepresentations - a determination not
derivable as a common question, but rather one requiring
individualized inquiry."

The court illustrated its reasoning with a comparison between two
hypothetical investors: a low-risk pension fund that does not
invest in companies where the risk of a catastrophic event is
greater than 1 percent, and a high-risk fund whose risk threshold
is over 2 percent.  In the court's hypothetical, the low-risk fund
"would not have bought BP stock at all had it known the true risk
of catastrophe. This is the type of plaintiff the materialization-
of-the-risk theory is designed to compensate."

The high-risk fund, however, "still might have purchased the
stock, even had it known the 'true' risk, though presumably at a
lower price that accounted for the increased risk."  Importantly,
"for the second type of plaintiff, full materialization-of-the-
risk damages would prove a windfall."  And because the plaintiffs'
damages methodology "did not provide any mechanism for separating
these two classes of plaintiffs," the court concluded that the
model "cannot provide an adequate measure of class-wide damages
under Comcast."

In reaching this decision, the court rejected the plaintiffs'
argument that, because they had met their burden of establishing a
fraud-on-the-market presumption of reliance allowed underBasic v.
Levinson, 485 U.S. 224 (1988), they were entitled to a presumption
that BP's alleged misrepresentations were a cause-in-fact of their
losses.  As the court explained: "The fraud-on-the-market theory
does not provide any presumptions with regard to loss causation. .
. . And here, where the economic loss depends on the posture of
the plaintiff vis-Ö-vis risk tolerance, that loss causation, and
thus damage, cannot be presumed nor can it be found class-wide."
Indeed, as the court further opined, the plaintiffs' own damages
model, which asserted that the plaintiffs "relied on something
other than price: risk" -may have, in effect, rebutted the fraud-
on-the-market presumption.

Plaintiffs' Petition For Supreme Court Review

In their petition, the plaintiffs ask that the Supreme Court
review the following questions presented:

   "1. Whether a classwide flaw in a damage model defeats
predominance and precludes class certification under Comcast v.
Behrend when damages are nonetheless capable of measurement on a
classwide basis.

   2. Whether Comcast applies to securities fraud class actions
invoking the fraud-on-the-market presumption."

The plaintiffs argue in their petition that the Fifth Circuit
inappropriately examined the merits of their proposed damages
model and that such approach was "particularly erroneous" in this
case since the plaintiffs had invoked the fraud-on-the-market
presumption of reliance allowed under Basic.  According to the
plaintiffs: "When the Basic presumption applies, damages will
always be formulaic.  Using the wrong formula at the class
certification stage does not undermine the truth that a correct,
classwide formula exists."  The plaintiffs further contend that,
by focusing on the correctness of their damages model, the Fifth
Circuit improperly "reintroduce[d] questions of loss causation
into class certification."  As their petition explains: "One
cannot evaluate the correctness of a damage model without
evaluating what losses were caused by the defendant.  For this
reason, reading Comcast to require examination of a classwide
damage model invites courts to evaluate loss causation at the
stage of class certification."

The plaintiffs acknowledge in their petition that the Fifth
Circuit's interpretation of Comcast as imposing a "common damages
burden" on all parties seeking class certification joins the D.C.
Circuit's decision in In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust
Litigation, MDL No. 1869, 725 F.3d 244 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (holding
that Comcast requires proof of injury on a classwide basis before
certification).  But they also point out that the Third, Sixth and
Seventh circuits have declined to apply the Comcast standard in
non-antitrust cases.  None of those decisions involved securities
fraud claims, however.  Moreover, the Third Circuit cited an
earlier Fifth Circuit class certification opinion, In re Deepwater
Horizon, 739 F.3d 790, 815 & n.104 (5th Cir. 2014), in support of
its decision not to apply the Comcast standard in Neale v. Volvo
Cars of North America LLC, 794 F.3d 353, 374-75 (3d Cir. 2015),
which involved consumer claims against Volvo for a uniform design
defect.  As the Fifth Circuit itself explained in Ludlow, its
prior decision in Deepwater Horizon, a nonsecurities case,
"applies only to classes where predominance was based on the
commonality of liability, not, as here, liability and damages,
where we ask whether in operation the commonality is undone by the
damages theory."

Unless and until the Supreme Court decides the questions presented
by the plaintiffs' petition in Ludlow, lower courts will continue
to grapple with whether the Comcast common damages burden applies
in securities fraud cases.  Given this current state of
uncertainty, plaintiffs should be prepared to present at the class
certification stage a damages model that meets the Comcast
standard.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jona Feder, Hanna Feder, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated consumers v. Central Credit Services LLC f/k/a
Veldos, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00549 (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Central Credit Services LLC is a provider of accounts receivable,
customer relations and revenue cycle management solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COLLECTION SERVICE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Moore" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael G. Moore, an individual obo himself and all others
similarly situated v. Collection Service of Nevada, Inc. d/b/a
CSN, Case No. 3:16-cv-00049-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev., February 2, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Collection Service of Nevada, Inc. is a licensed and bonded
collection agency in Reno, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Murphy, Esq.
      1212 SE 2nd Avenue
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Telephone: (954) 763-8660
      Facsimile: (954) 763-8607

         - and -

      Michael C. Lehners, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL LEHNERS
      429 Marsh Ave
      Reno, NV 89509
      Telephone: (775) 786-1695
      Facsimile: (775) 786-0799
      E-mail: michaellehners@yahoo.com


COMMUNITY BANK: Urban et al. Can't Intervene in "Brennan" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CAROL A. BRENNAN, ANTHONY COLINO, and
COURTNEY BELLAMO, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNITY BANK, N.A.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:13-2939 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Malachy
E. Mannion denied a motion to intervene submitted on behalf of
Nicole Urban, Eleanor Sickler, Jacob Laird, and Donald Lenherr.

A class action was commenced against Community Bank, N.A. relating
to alleged deficiencies in notices that the bank provided to
borrowers whose vehicles were repossessed after default.

On September 12, 2015, after the court granted preliminary
approval of an amended class action settlement, Urban filed a
motion to intervene on her and the other intervenors' behalf,
because they believe the plaintiffs are entering into "an
unfavorable settlement" and that intervention would allow them "to
better protect their interests," by allowing them to engage in
discovery and file motions with the court.

Judge Mannion held that the Intervenors cannot intervene either as
a matter of right or by permissive intervention.  The judge found
that Intervenors' motion to be untimely and their delay in filing
unjustified, considering that the Intervenors have been aware of
the action and had the ability to file a motion for intervention
for over a year already.  Judge Mannion explained that "Granting
intervention in this case will add additional unnecessary
complexities that would prolong and delay the resolution of the
case."

Further, Judge Mannion found that each of the deficiencies noted
by the Intervenors is simply an objection to a provision or
element of the settlement agreement which cannot provide a basis
for granting intervention as of right.  The judge went on to state
that the Intervenors' concerns can be voiced before the court
during the final approval hearing and may be appealed to the Third
Circuit if the settlement is approved.

A full-text copy of Judge Mannion's February 24, 2016 memorandum
is available at http://is.gd/0iUMJzfrom Leagle.com.

Carol A. Brennan, represented by Cary L. Flitter, Flitter Milz,
P.C..,M. Scott Barrett, Barrett Wylie, LLC, Theodore E. Lorenz,
Flitter Lorenz, P.C.,Andrew M. Milz, Flitter Milz, P.C. & Timothy
P. Polishan -- tpolishan@kpwslaw.com --  Kelley, Polishan &
Solfanelli, LLC.

Anthony Colino, Courtney Bellomo, represented by Cary L. Flitter,
Flitter Milz, P.C..,Eugene C. Kelley, Kelley, Polishan &
Solfanelli, LLC, M. Scott Barrett, Barrett Wylie, LLC & Timothy P.
Polishan, Kelley, Polishan & Solfanelli, LLC.

Community Bank, N.A., represented by Jane T. Smedley --
jsmedley@hkqlaw.com -- Hourigan Kluger & Quinn, PC, Jonathan B.
Fellows -- jfellows@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck & King, LLP,Joseph
E. Kluger -- jkluger@hkqlaw.com -- Hourigan, Kluger, and Quinn,
P.C. & Suzanne O. Galbato -- sgalbato@bsk.com -- Bond, Schoeneck &
King PLLC.

Nicole Urban, represented by Howard A. Rothenberg, Herlands
Rothenberg & Levine & Richard Shenkan, Shenkan Injury Lawyers LLC.


CONSOLIDATED TELECOM: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Earl Hicks v. Consolidated Telecom Services, Inc., Case No. 4:16-
cv-00363 (S.D. Tex., February 10, 2016) arises under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees owed to the
Plaintiff and all similarly situated employees employed by the
Defendant.

Consolidated Telecom Services, Inc., is a telecom Texas
corporation that employed the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONSUMER CREDIT: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sahakian v. Consumer Credit
Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta, Inc. et al., Case No. 37-
02015-00042715-CU, was removed from the Superior Court of
California, County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of California (San Diego). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00219-BTM-JMA to the
proceeding.

Consumer Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta provides
budget, debt, and housing advice services through phone, Internet,
and via face-to-face counseling. It offers bankruptcy education,
housing program, budget and credit counseling, debt management
program, student loan counseling, education seminar, and military
reconnect, as well as Checkwise, a program that helps prepare
young consumers, underbanked populations, or those who are
rehabilitating their credit for the responsibility of managing a
checking account. The company was founded in 1964 and is based in
Atlanta, Georgia with branch office locations in Fresno, Glendale,
Granada Hills, Lakewood, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. The Consumer
Credit Counseling Service of Greater Atlanta, Inc. is doing
business as ClearPoint Credit Counseling Solutions a Georgia
Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad R. Fuller, Esq.
          TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP-CA
          11682 El Camino Real
          San Diego, CA 92130, Suite 400
          Telephone: (858) 509 6056
          Facsimile: (858) 509 6040
          E-mail: chad.fuller@troutmansanders.com


COUCH DISTRIBUTING: "Madrigal" Suit Moved to N.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Madrigal, et al. v. Couch
Distributing Company, Inc., Case No. 15CV00439, was removed from
the Santa Cruz 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-00401-NC to the proceeding.

Couch Distributing Company, a California corporation, distributes
beverage. It offers beer, ale, porter, and other malt beverages.
Couch Distributing Company serves customers in the United States.
The Company is based in Watsonville, California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 North Central Avenue, Suite 2500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259
          E-mail: dhan@justicelawcorp.com
          statavos@justicelawcorp.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Fraser Angus McAlpine, Esq.
          Stephanie TaiHsin Yang, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS P.C.
          50 California Street, 9th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4615
          Telephone: (415) 394 9400
          Facsimile: (415) 394 9401
          E-mail: fraser.mcalpine@jacksonlewis.com
                  stephanie.yang@jacksonlewis.com


CR BARD INC: "Bures" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bures v. C R Bard Incorporated et
al., Case No. 3:15-cv-02420, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix
Division). The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-00137-DGC to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs' claims for damages all
relate to Bard's design, manufacture, sale, testing, marketing,
labeling, advertising, promotion, and/or distribution of Bard IVC
Filters.

C. R. Bard, Inc. designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and
sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices. The
Company sells a broad range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities and
alternate site facilities. Bard markets vascular, urological,
oncological, and surgical specialties products. The Company is
based in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

The Bures case is being consolidated with MDL 2641 in re: Bard IVC
Filters Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on September 17, 2015. All actions involve common
factual questions arising from allegations that defects in the
design of Bard's retrievable inferior vena cava filters ("IVC
filters") make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt, or
perforate the inferior vena cava, causing injury. In its September
17, 2015, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
District of Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. At oral argument, plaintiffs argued that they will
seek to reopen discovery in all cases to seek information relating
to a recent warning letter issued to Bard by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), while Bard argued that the letter is largely
irrelevant to the pending actions and that it will produce its
communications with the FDA. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon.
David G. Campbell, United States District Judge. The lead case is
Lead case: 2:15-md-02641-DGC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carrie R Capouellez, Esq.
          Michael S Katz, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP - PHILADELPHIA, PA
          1123 Admiral Peary Way,
          Philadelphia, PA 19112
          Telephone: (215) 952 6910
          E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com


CR BARD INC: "Ricker" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2641 in Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ricker v. C R Bard Incorporated et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-02453, was transferred from the the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona (Phoenix
Division). The Arizona District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-00130-DGC to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought this suit for personal injuries damages
suffered as a direct and proximate result of being implanted with
a defective and unreasonably dangerous Inferior Vena Cava ("IVC")
filter medical device manufactured by Bard.

C. R. Bard, Inc. designs, manufactures, packages, distributes, and
sells medical, surgical, diagnostic, and patient care devices. The
Company sells a broad range of products worldwide to hospitals,
individual healthcare professionals, extended care facilities and
alternate site facilities. Bard markets vascular, urological,
oncological, and surgical specialties products. The Company is
based in Murray Hill, New Jersey.

The Ricker case is being consolidated with MDL 2641 in re: Bard
IVC Filters Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by
Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on September 17, 2015. All actions involve common
factual questions arising from allegations that defects in the
design of Bard's retrievable inferior vena cava filters ("IVC
filters") make them more likely to fracture, migrate, tilt, or
perforate the inferior vena cava, causing injury. In its September
17, 2015, the MDL Panel found that the actions in this litigation
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the
District of Arizona will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. At oral argument, plaintiffs argued that they will
seek to reopen discovery in all cases to seek information relating
to a recent warning letter issued to Bard by the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA), while Bard argued that the letter is largely
irrelevant to the pending actions and that it will produce its
communications with the FDA. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon.
David G. Campbell, United States District Judge. The lead case is
Lead case: 2:15-md-02641-DGC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Carrie R Capouellez, Esq.
          Michael S Katz, Esq.
          LOPEZ MCHUGH LLP - PHILADELPHIA, PA
          1123 Admiral Peary Way,
          Philadelphia, PA 19112
          Telephone: (215) 952 6910
          E-mail: ccapouellez@lopezmchugh.com


DATA SOFTWARE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "French" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Norene French, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Data Software Services, LLC d/b/a Elead1one, et al., Case No.
7:16-cv-00870 (S.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016) seeks to stop the
Defendants practice of making unsolicited calls.

Data Software Services, LLC operates a computer programming and IT
consulting in New York.

Norene French is a pro se plaintiff.


DYNAMIC RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Cohen" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Dynamic Recovery Solutions, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00576-AET-DEA (D.N.J., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Dynamic Recovery Solutions operates a full service debt collection
agency in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EAGLE ATLANTIC: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
-------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Aldana, on his own behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Eagle Atlantic Financial Services, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-00038-GBL-TCB (E.D. Va., January 12, 2016) accuses the
Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Eagle Atlantic Financial Services is a financial advisory firm in
Salt Lake City, Utah.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424-7572
          Facsimile: (703) 591-1067
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


EARLY WARNING: "Muir" Suit Seeks Damages Under FCRA
---------------------------------------------------
Steve-Ann Muir, and all others Similarly-situated v. Early Warning
Services, LLC, Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Bank of America, National
Association, First Advantage Background Services Corp., and John
Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00521 (D.N.J., January 29, 2016),
seeks statutory, actual, treble and punitive damages, injunctive
and declaratory relief, attorney's fees and costs under the Fair
Credit Reporting Act and Sherman Antitrust Act.

Early Warning Services, LLC is a joint venture owned by the
following entities, or their affiliates: Bank of America
Corporation; Wells Fargo & Company; JP Morgan Chase & Co.; BB&T
Corporation; and Capital One Financial Corporation. EWS is a
consumer reporting agency.

First Advantage Background Services Corp. is a consumer reporting
agency.

Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. is a national banking association, with its
principal offices located at 101 N. Phillips Avenue Sioux Falls,
South Dakota, 57104. Wells Fargo is the principal subsidiary of
Wells Fargo & Company.

Bank of America, National Association is a nationally chartered
banking association, with its principal offices located at 100 N.
Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina, 28202. Bank of America is
a subsidiary of Bank of America Corporation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Ari H. Marcus, Esq.
      MARCUS & ZELMAN , LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue - Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Tel: (732) 695-3282
      E-mail: ari@MarcusZelman.com

          - and -

      Gabriel Posner, Esq.
      POSNER LAW PLLC
      270 Madison Avenue, Suite 1203
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (646) 546-5022
      E-mail: gabe@PosnerLawPLLC.com


EAST COMMUNICATION: Faces "Medina" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ely Medina, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. East Communication Inc. d/b/a East Communication Inc.,
James Park, and Luis G. Yo, Case No. 1:16-cv-00869-CM (S.D.N.Y.,
February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own, operate, and control a mobile phone store
located at 1452 East Avenue, Bronx, New York 10462 under the name
"East Communication Inc."

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


EDWARD YASKOWITZ: Doesn't Properly Pay Employees, Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Klayko, Betsi Pittman, Sarah Bartes, Nicole Vlaiku, and
Khyli Roberts, on behalf of themselves and all other persons
similarly situated v. Edward Yaskowitz, Wingit, LLC, and ECY,
Inc., d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 1:16-cv-00268 (N.D. Ohio,
February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay the Plaintiffs and other similarly-situated tipped
employees all earned minimum wages.

The Defendants own and operate franchised Buffalo Wild Wings
restaurants in Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Drew Legando, Esq.
      Jack Landskroner, Esq.
      LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN LLC
      1360 West 9th Street, Suite 200
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 522-9000
      Facsimile: (216) 522-9007
      E-mail: drew@lgmlegal.com
              jack@lgmlegal.com

         - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Zachary C. Floweree, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 West Washington, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              zflowerree@flsalaw.com


EXPRESS ENERGY: "Cornell" Labor Suit Moved to S.D. Tex. Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Cornell et al v. Express Energy
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-01261, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas
(Houston). The Southern District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-00191 to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought the class
action to recover all back wages, liquidated damages, attorney
fees, and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act,
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act, Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards
Act, Ohio Prompt Pay Act, North Dakota Century Code, and North
Dakota Minimum Wage and Work Conditions Order.

Express Energy Services is a diversified oilfield services
company. The Company provides wellsite services that include well
testing, plug and abandonment, coil tubing, snubbing, cranes,
fluid hauling and frac tanks, thru-tubing motors, H2S safety
equipment and services, pressure testing, pump trucks and water
transfer. The Company is based in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
          GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
          3634 California Ave
          Pittsburgh, PA 15212
          Telephone: (412) 766 1455
          Facsimile: (412) 766 0300

               - and -

          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
          Michael A Josephson, Esq.
          Richard J Burch, Esq.
          FIBICH LEEBRON COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
                  rburch@brucknerburch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Christopher K. Ramsey, Esq.
          Stefanie R Moll, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS
          301 Grant Street
          One Oxford Centre, Suite 3200
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219-6401
          Telephone: (412) 560 3300
          E-mail: smoll@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Michael Patrick Jones, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1000 Louisiana St, Suite 4000
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 890 5116
          Facsimile: (713) 890 5001
          E-mail: michael.jones@morganlewis.com


FAIRVIEW HEALTH: Minn. Court Dismisses "Zean" TCPA Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Samuel Zean, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fairview Health Services
d/b/a Fairview Home Medical Equipment, Defendant, Civ. No. 15-3217
(PAM/HB) (D. Minn.), Judge Paul A. Magnuson granted Fairview
Health Services' motion to dismiss Samuel Zean's claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").

Zean brought the putative class action on behalf of all persons
"who received one or more unauthorized automated or pre-recorded
phone calls or voicemail messages from or on behalf of Fairview or
any of its subsidiaries or affiliates."

Fairview argued that the calls were not "telemarketing" calls, and
that if they were, Zean authorized the calls by signing a written
consent form and by providing a cellular telephone number as the
number where he could be reached.

Judge Magnuson determined that Zean gave Fairview his cellular
phone number when he wrote it on the questionnaire and that Zean
signed a consent form authorizing Fairview to contact him in
regard to his services and accounts.  As such, the judge concluded
that Zean consented to receiving cellular phone calls from
Fairview in relation to his purchase of medical equipment. Judge
Magnuson thus held that Zean failed to establish a prima facie
TCPA claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Magnuson's February 24, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at http://is.gd/6Iocelfrom Leagle.com.

Samuel Zean, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher D Jozwiak,
Baillon Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP, Patricia A Bloodgood, Baillon
Thome Jozwiak & Wanta LLP & Shawn J Wanta, Baillon Thome Jozwiak &
Wanta LLP.

Fairview Health Services, Defendant, represented by Bryant D
Tchida -- bryant.tchida@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP,
Todd A Noteboom -- todd.noteboom@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard
Street LLP & Calvin P Hoffman -- calvin.hoffman@stinson.com --
Stinson Leonard Street LLP.


FAMA ENTERTAINMENT: "Butler" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold W. Butler, Germaine Brisbane, and all others Similarly-
situated v. Fama Entertainment LLC, dba Boone’s Bar, and Ahmed F.
Hassan, Case No. 2:16-cv-00293 (D.S.C., January 29, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Boone's Bar restaurant, which
serves alcohol beverages along with burgers, wings, salads and
appetizers in Charleston, South Carolina.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


FARMERS SERVICES: $600,000 Settlement in "Ribot" Has Final OK
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID RIBOT, PERRY HALL, JR., DEBORAH MILLS,
ANTHONY BUTLER, JENNIFER BUTLER, Assigned to JONATHAN LUNA, RITA
DUNKEN, and LOIS BARNES, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FARMERS SERVICES, LLC., FARMERS
INSURANCE EXCHANGE, and 21ST CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY Defendants,
Case No. 2:11-cv-02404-DDP-JCx (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D.
Pregerson granted the motion filed by plaintiffs for final
approval of a class and collective action settlement, as well as
their motion for attorney's fee, reimbursement of expenses and
incentive awards to the lead plaintiffs.  Both motions were
unopposed.

Judge Pregerson found that the terms and conditions contained in
the Class Action Settlement Agreement, which provided for a
settlement amount of $600,000, are fair, reasonable, and adequate.
The judge also found that the notice sent to all class members was
valid, due, sufficient, and fully complied with applicable law.

Judge Pregerson also approved the class counsel's requested fees
award of $200,000, the class counsel's request for recovery of
$146,000 in actual costs and expenses, the payment of the total
incentive award of $24,000 with $3,000 payable to each of the lead
plaintiffs, the payment of $29,986 to Rust Consulting as the
appointed Settlement Administrator, and the distribution of the
settlement payments to class members in the manner specified in
the settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's February 23, 2016 order and
judgment is available at http://is.gd/5e3IBIfrom Leagle.com.

David Ribot, Perry Hall, Jr, Deborah Mills, Anthony Butler,
Jennifer Butler, Jonathan Luna, Lois Barnes, Plaintiffs,
represented by Chandra Holmes Ray, Zelbst Holmes and Butler, John
D Sloan, Jr., Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry Law Firm, John P
Zelbst, Zelbst Holmes and Butler, Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm of
Joseph H Low IV, Justin A Smith, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry
Law Firm & Laureen Bagley, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry.

Rita Dunken, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm
of Joseph H Low IV & Justin A Smith, Sloan Bagley Hatcher and
Perry Law Firm.

April Carson, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm
of Joseph H Low IV.

Denise Keaton, Cherie Michelle Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joseph H Low, IV, Law Firm of Joseph H Low IV & Laureen Bagley,
Sloan Bagley Hatcher and Perry.

Farmers Insurance Exchange, 21st Century Insurance Company,
Farmers Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Dean A Martoccia
-- dmartoccia@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, Christopher A
Crosman -- ccrosman@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, George E
Preonas, Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Daniel C Whang, Russ August and
Kabat.


FIRST TENNESSEE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Tyacke" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Tyacke, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First Tennessee Bank NA, Case No. 5:16-cv-00228-JGB-SP
(C.D. Cal., February 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants
practice of making unsolicited calls.

First Tennessee Bank NA operates a financial services company that
provides financial solutions, including checking, savings,
lending, and business banking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Michael Logan, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      329 Bryant Street
      San Francisco, CA 94107
      Telephone: (415) 234-5260
      Facsimile: (415) 373-9495
      E-mail: tlogan@edelson.com


FISHER PRINTING: "Diaz" Suit Moved from Super. Ct.to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Esteban Diaz v. Fisher Printing
Inc. et al., Case No. 30-02015-00813102, was removed from the
Orange County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00081-DOC-DFM
to the proceeding.

Fisher Printing, an Illinois corporation, provides printing
services. The Company offers commercial printing and the
lithographic process, digital solutions, email marketing, and
other related services. Fisher Printing serves customers in the
United States. The Company is based Bridgeview, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Isandra Y Fernandez, Esq.
          James R Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: isandra@jameshawkinsaplc.com
                  james@jameshawkinsaplc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Brandon L Sylvia, Esq.
          James L Morris, Esq.
          RUTAN AND TUCKER LLP
          611 Anton Boulevard Suite 1400
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626-1931
          Telephone: (714) 541 6100
          Facsimile: (714) 546 9035
          E-mail: bsylvia@rutan.com
                  jmorris@rutan.com


FLORIDA INSURANCE: "Merced" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Suzanne Merced, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Florida Insurance Specialist, LLC, Case No. 6:16-cv-00167-CEM-
TBS (M.D. Fla., February 2, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Florida Insurance Specialist, LLC operates a home insurance
company in Lake Mary, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      Post Office Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 420-5956
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


FLUIDMASTER INC: "Smith" Suit Moved, Consolidated in MDL 2575
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Kevin Smith v. Fluidmaster Inc.,
Case No. 8:15-cv-02173, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California, to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Chicago). The
Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00932 to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover, all
costs associated with repairing, removing and/or replacing the
water supply lines, as well as the costs of repairing any damage
to property caused by the failure of Fluidmaster "NO-BURST"
braided stainless steel supply lines to perform as represented and
warranted.

Fluidmaster offers toilet repair products. The Company provides
toilet repair, water supply connectors, water flushing technology,
flappers, and access panel products. Fluidmaster serves customers
worldwide. The Company is based in Juan Capistrano, California.

The Smith case is being consolidated with MDL 2575 in re:
Fluidmaster, Inc., Water Connector Components Products Liability
Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 11, 2014.
The cases in this in litigation involve alleged defects in
Fluidmaster's NO-BURST water supply lines, which are used
to connect a wall water supply to a household device, such as a
toilet or dishwasher, that feature acetal plastic coupling nuts
and/or stainless braided steel supply lines. In its December 11,
2014, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of Illinois 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. Robert M. Dow, Jr.,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 1:14-cv-10250.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elaine T. Byszewski, Esq.
          Christopher R. Pitoun, Esq.
          Anthony D. Shapiro, Esq.
          Jeniphr Breckenridge, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          301 N. Lake Avenue, Suite 203
          Pasadena, CA 91101
          Telephone: (213) 330 7150
          Facsimile: (213) 330 7152
          E-mail: elaine@hbsslaw.com
          christopherp@hbsslaw.com
          tony@hbsslaw.com
          Jeniphr@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph J Tabacco Jr, Esq.
          Todd A Seaver, Esq.
          BERMAN DEVALERIO
          One California Street Suite 900
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 433 3200
          Facsimile: (415) 433 6382
          E-mail: jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com
                  tseaver@bermandevalerio.com

               - and -

          Gregory F Coleman, Esq.
          Lisa Anne White, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          Facsimile: (865) 522 0049
          E-mail: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
                  lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          Ria Momblanco, Esq.
          Fine, Kaplan And Black
          1 South Broad Street, 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          E-mail: rmomblanco@finekaplan.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James Chang, Esq.
          Kimberly L Buffington, Esq.
          Mark D Litvack, Esq.
          Sarkis Armenovich Khachatryan, Esq.
          PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2800
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 488 7100
          Facsimile: (213) 629 1033
          E-mail: james.chang@pillsburylaw.com
                  kbuffington@pillsburylaw.com
                  mark.litvack@pillsburylaw.com
                  sarkis.khachatryan@pillsburylaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Christopher Carroll, Esq.
          CARROLL AND CARROLL PC
          18101 Von Karman Suite 330
          Irvine, CA 92612
          Telephone: (949) 340 7375
          Facsimile: (949) 340 7379
          E-mail: mcarroll@carrollpc.com


FRITO-LAY INC: Pretrial Conf., Trial Date in "Sanchez" Pushed Back
------------------------------------------------------------------
The trial date and pretrial conference dates and deadlines in the
case, ELIAZAR SANCHEZ, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FRITO-LAY, INC.; and DOES 1 to
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-00797-DAD-MJS (E.D.
Cal.), are continued for a period of six months.  The new Pretrial
Conference date shall be November 7, 2016, at 3:30 p.m.  The new
Jury Trial date shall be January 4, 2017, at 8:30 a.m.

A copy of the Stipulation signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd
on February 29, 2016, is available at http://is.gd/yzM5kDfrom
Leagle.com.

Eliazar Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Brian D. Chase, Esq.
     Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
     Bisnar Chase, LLP
     1301 Dove Street, Suite 120
     Newport Beach, CA 92660
     Tel: 949-752-2999
     E-mail: bchase@bisnarchase.com
             jbeligan@bisnarchase.com

Frito-Lay, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Samantha D. Hardy, Esq.
     Ashley Teiko Hirano, Esq
     Daniel Francisco De La Cruz, Esq.
     Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP
     501 W Broadway # 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: 619-338-650
     E-mail: shardy@sheppardmullin.com
             ahirano@sheppardmullin.com
             ddelacruz@sheppardmullin.com


GALLAGHER BASSETT: Sued Over Failure to Issue Settlement Check
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ward Kifarkis, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc., Case No. 2016CH01170
(Ill. Ch. Ct., February 4, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
persons in Illinois, who were involved in a personal injury,
property damage,  wrongful death or tort action involving a claim
for money damages in which there is a known third party right of
recovery or subrogation, and tendered written confirmation of a
settlement and an executed release to the Defendant and the
Defendant failed to issue a settlement check to the Plaintiff and
the Class within 30 days of their tender of the executed release.

Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc. is a property/casualty third
party administrator handling claims, risk and information
management and medical cost containment for their clients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry D. Drury, Esq.
      LARRY D. DRURY, LTD.
      100 North LaSalle Street Suite 2200
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 346-7950


GHANSHAYAM ENTERPRISE: "Abbas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Ali Abbas, Jessica Curtis, and all others similarly situated
plaintiffs, v. Nilkanth Narayan, LLC, Ghanshayam Enterprise, LLC,
Shreeji Marajh Enterprise, LLC, Hiren Jashvantbhai Patel and Smita
Hiren Patel, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00258 (S.D. Tex., Houston
Division, January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated damages,
attorney's fees, all costs of the action and post-judgment
interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201,
et seq.

Plaintiffs claim that they worked over 40 hours a week without
overtime compensation. Daniels and Young worked as a driver and a
helper respectively.

Nilkanth Narayan, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
operating as Bammel Food Mart located at 10131 Old Bammel N.
Houston Road, Houston, Texas 77086.

Ghanshayam Enterprise, LLC operates a Texaco branded gasoline
station and convenience store located at 15303 Ella Boulevard,
Houston, Texas 77090.

Hiren Jashvantbhai Patel and Smita Hiren Patel own and operate
these companies.

Abbas and Curtis work as a store clerks at Bammel Food Mart. Abbas
says he was required to work 65-84 hours a week during each
workweek without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
      Houston, Texas 77074
      Tel: (713) 223-1300
      Fax: (713) 255-0013
      Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com





GARDA CL: Faces "D'Aguino" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis L. D'Aguino, Barry S. Dubrow, and Donald F. Hess,
individually and on behalf of all others similar situated v. Garda
CL Atlantic, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00641 (E.D.N.Y., February 6,
2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Garda CL Atlantic, Inc. is a Canada-based security firm providing
armored car and cash handling services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven J. Moser, Esq.
      STEVEN J. MOSER, P.C.
      Three School Street, Suite 207B
      Glen Cove, NY 11542
      Telephone: (516) 671-1150
      Facsimile: (516) 882-5420
      E-mail: jmoser@moseremploymentlaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Fresno Suit Alleges Sherman Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of Fresno, California, and all others Similarly-situated v.
General Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC, Gentek Inc., Chemtrade Logistics Inc., and Frank A.
Reichl, Case No. 2:16-cv-00527 (D.N.J., January 29, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy to
artificially fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the prices of alum
in the U.S. in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason L. Lichtman, Esq.
      LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN &
      BERNSTEIN, LLP
      250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
      New York, NY 10013-1413
      Tel: (212) 355-9500
      Fax: (212) 355-9592
      E-mail: jlichtman@lchb.com


GJI INC: Faces "Vazquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Zarate Vazquez, Jose De Jesus Nande, Guadalupe E.
Vidalesvillalobos, Alberto Vazquezhernandez, Juan Manuel Pacheco-
Cruz v. G.J.I., Inc., d/b/a Cravings Restaurant, and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC608561 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
January 27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

G.J.I., Inc. does business as a restaurant and eatery in the City
of West Hollywood, County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
      3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213)738-5225


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Girard Keese Loses Avandia MDL Fee Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the U.S. Supreme Court has refused to take up Girardi Keese's
fight against turning over more than $10 million in proceeds from
a 2012 settlement to the lead attorneys in multidistrict
litigation involving the diabetes drug Avandia.

Plaintiffs firm Girardi Keese filed more than 4,000 cases against
GlaxoSmithKline PLC alleging that Avandia increased the
plaintiffs' risk of heart failure.  Most were in California state
court, but 25 were in the multidistrict litigation, which is
pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

In 2014, a federal judge overseeing the MDL ordered
GlaxoSmithKline to hold back 7 percent of the proceeds that
Girardi Keese obtained from the settlement of all its cases,
including those in state court, which the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit affirmed on July 2.  The holdback money is
designed to go to a fund that lead attorneys used to finance the
costs of the MDL, such as depositions and discovery, which in turn
provides a "common benefit" for all plaintiffs lawyers with
Avandia cases.

On Feb. 29, the Supreme Court denied Girardi Keese's petition to
review that decision.

"We needed Scalia," said Thomas Girardi, a partner at Girardi
Keese, referring to Justice Antonin Scalia, who died Feb. 13.
"Because Scalia's pretty good on states' rights."

Mr. Girardi was represented by Paul Clement, a partner at Bancroft
in Washington.

R. Jason Richards, an attorney for the plaintiffs advisory
committee in the MDL, wrote in an email: "Obviously, we are very
pleased with the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari on Feb. 29.
We never believed this issue, which essentially concerns a breach
of contract, was worthy of the Supreme Court's time."

Fights among plaintiffs attorneys over MDL fees have become more
common, arising recently in litigation against Zimmer Biomet
Holdings Inc. over its Durom Cup hip implants and against Bayer
CropScience L.P. over genetically modified rice claims.  Last
year, the Supreme Court denied a petition to review an Eighth
Circuit decision involving challenged fees in the modified-rice
case.

In the Girardi Keese case, the Third Circuit found that U.S.
District Judge Cynthia Rufe had authority to enforce a contract
between the MDL's lead attorneys and Girardi Keese attorney Keith
Griffin in 2009 in which the firm agreed to a holdback of 4
percent of its fees and 3 percent of the client's recovery.

In its Nov. 24 petition, Girardi Keese said the Third Circuit
broke with precedent by inappropriately applying federal court
jurisdiction on state court plaintiffs.

"In our cases, our firm put out $18 million in costs -- the MDL
didn't do any of that -- so it was really somewhat inequitable,"
Mr. Girardi said.  "If you have state court cases and you do all
the work, all the experts, you do all that effort, then you should
have a state court judge say what your fees are, not a federal
judge who has nothing to do with the cases."

In a Dec. 28 response, Mr. Richards, a partner at Aylstock,
Witkin, Kreis & Overholtz in Pensacola, Florida, representing the
plaintiffs advisory committee, argued that the Third Circuit's
decision wasn't precedential and that the case involved "a single
law firm's refusal to pay common benefit assessments in the
Avandia multidistrict litigation (MDL) despite agreeing to do so."


GOLDEN STATE FC: "Parson" Labor Suit Moved to N. D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Parson et al v. Golden State FC,
LLC et al., Case No. RG15797524, was removed from Alameda County
Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00405-MEJ to the proceeding.

Golden State FC is a Telephone Communication Company located in
Moreno Valley, California.

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sacha Marie Steenhoek, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1267
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces "Ha" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tymuoi Ha, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Google Inc. and Urban Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-
cv-29087 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 4, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the California Labor Code.

Google Inc. operates a technology company specializing in
Internet-related services and products.

Urban Technologies, Inc. operates a staffing agency located at 341
Cobalt Way # 208, Sunnyvale, California 94085.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Sanford, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
      1666 Connecticut Avenue, N.W., Suite 300
      Washington, D.C. 20009
      Telephone: (202) 499-5201
      Facsimile: (202) 499-5119
      E-mail: dsanford@sanfordheisler.com

         - and -

      Felicia Medina, Esq.
      Xinying Valerian, Esq.
      Yonina Alexander, Esq.
      SANFORD HEISLER KIMPEL, LLP
      111 Sutter Street, Suite 975
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 795-2020
      Facsimile: (415) 795-2021 1
      E-mail: fmedina@sanfordheisler.com
              xvalerian@sanfordheisler.com
              yalexander@sanfordheisler.com


GOTCHA FLOWBACK: "Patterson" Suit Seeks to Recover Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Patterson, and all others similarly-situated v. Gotcha
Flowback LLC and Kelly Tucker, Case No. 7:16-cv-00031 (W.D. Tex.,
January 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages and
liquidated damages equal in amount to the unpaid compensation
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants specialize in providing a range of oil and gas
support services to various oilfield installations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, LLP
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


GREATER OMAHA PACKING: "Baglio" Suit to Recover OT, Missed Breaks
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Frederick L. Baglio, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc.,
Defendant, Case 8:16-cv-00055-LSC-FG3 (D. Neb., January 29, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
attorneys' fees and costs.

Greater Omaha Packing Co., Inc., is a company in the meat
processing, packing and wholesale industry located at 3001 L
Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68107 where Baglio worked as a licensed
boiler room operator. He regularly works in excess of 40 hours per
workweek without overtime premium and often misses his meal
period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert W. Cowan
      BAILEY PEAVY BAILEY PLLC
      440 Louisiana Street, Suite 2100
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 425-7100
      Fax: (713) 425-7101
      Email: rcowan@bpblaw.com


HOME HEALTH: "Jasper" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Jenny Jasper, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated individuals, asks the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio to:

   (a) conditionally certify a proposed Fair Labor Standards Act
       class;

   (b) require the Defendant Home Health Connection, Inc. to
       identify potential opt-in plaintiffs by promptly
       responding to the Plaintiff's First Interrogatories
       Directed to Defendant; and

   (c) implement a procedure whereby Court-approved Notice of
       Plaintiff's FLSA claim can be promptly sent to all
       potential opt-in plaintiffs (and posted in workplaces).

In her complaint, the Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
unlawfully failed to pay appropriate overtime compensation to
employees, who were non-exempt under the FLSA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J.P. Coffman, Esq.
          COFFMAN LEGAL, LLC
          1457 S. High St.
          Columbus, OH 43207
          Telephone: (614) 949-1181
          Facsimile: (614) 386-9964
          E-mail: mcoffman@mcoffmanlegal.com

               - and -

          Daniel I. Bryant, Esq.
          BRYANT LEGAL LLC
          629 N. High St., 4th Floor
          Columbus, OH 43215
          Telephone: (614) 704-0546
          Facsimile: (614) 573-9826
          E-mail: dbryant@bryantlegalllc.com


INTEC COMMUNICATIONS: Faces "Ivy" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Ivy, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Intec Communications, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00337-SCJ
(N.D. Ga., February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Intec Communications, LLC is a full service provider of
residential and commercial installation to broadband cable and
telecommunications industries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin D. Miller, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      191 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite
      4200 Post Office Box 57007
      Atlanta, GA 3033-1007
      Telephone: (404) 965-8811
      Facsimile: (404) 496-7405
      E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


JC CHRISTENSEN: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anisa Bernal f/k/a Larson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01876 (N.D. Ill., February 2, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. operates a collection agency
headquartered at 200 14th Ave E, Sartell, MN 56377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David J. Philipps, Esq.
      Angie K. Robertson, Esq.
      Mary Elizabeth Philipps, Esq.
      PHILIPPS & PHILIPPS, LTD.
      9760 S. Roberts Road, Suite One
      Palos Hills, IL 60465
      Telephone: (708) 974-2900
      E-mail: davephilipps@aol.com
              angie@philippslegal.com
              mephilipps@aol.com


KHANNA ENTERPRISES: Faces Suit Over Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Anita Harris, and all others similarly-situated v. Khanna
Enterprises General Partnership dba Custom Hotel, Khanna
Enterprises, Ltd., Khana Enterprises - II Limited Partnership,
Khanna Holdings LLC, Khanna Enterprises, Inc., Khanna Enterprises,
Ltd., a Limited Partnership, Khanna Enterprises, Ltd. - iii, LP
and Does 1 through 50, Case No. BC607861 (Cal. Super., January 21,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for violations of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Roseerans Avenue, Ste 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Tel: (310) 531-1900
      Fax: (310) 531-1901


KOBE GRILL: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Lin" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheng Jian Lin, Sheng Hui Lin and Chao Di Chen, on their own
behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated employees v.
Kobe Grill, Corp. d/b/a Wasabi Modern Japanese Cuisine & Lounge,
Li Zhong Chen a.k.a "Leon Chen", Heng Qian Lin, Da Hui Ye, John
Doe and Jane Does # 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00184 (D. Conn.,
February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay overtime wages for work performed over 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate Wasabi Modern Japanese Cuisine &
Lounge located at 1155 Tolland Turnpike, Manchester, CT 06042.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LANDRY'S INC: "Craig" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Withheld Tips
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsey Craig and Kyle Lehan on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Landry's, Inc. and McCormick &
Schmick Restaurant Corp., Case 1:16-cv-00277 (S.D. Ohio, Eastern
Division, January 27, 2016), seeks minimum wages due, statutory
damages, enjoinment, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs as well
as such other and further relief for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Ohio Minimum Fair Wage Standards Act.

Landry's is a Delaware Corporation that owns and operates
restaurants under the trade names of McCormick & Schmick's Seafood
& Steaks, McCormick & Schmick's -  Harborside, Jake's Grill,
Rainforest Cafe, Charley's Crab and others. McCormick has been
owned and operated by Landry's as its subsidiary.

McCormick is a restaurant chain with locations throughout the
State of Ohio with locations at 21 East 5th Street, Cincinnati,
Ohio 45202, 3965 New Bond Street, Columbus, Ohio 43219 and 4429
Cedar Park Drive, Beavercreek, Ohio 45440.

According to the complaint, Plaintiffs worked as servers for these
restaurants. They worked in excess of 40 hours per week and did
not receive overtime compensation. They were also deducted 1.5%
from their tips for credit card payments but were told to report
the full amount in their tax returns.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert E. DeRose, Esq.
      Trent R. Taylor, Esq.
      Robi J. Baishnab, Esq.
      BARKAN MEIZLISH HANDELMAN GOODIN DEROSE WENTZ, LLP
      250 East Broad Street, 10th Floor
      Columbus, Ohio 43215
      Tel: (614) 221-4221
      Fax: (614) 744-2300
      Email: bderose@barkanmeizlish.com
             ttaylor@barkanmeizlish.com
             rbaishnab@barkanmeizlish.com


LPC TRANSPORTATION: "Riley" Suit Seeks to Recovery Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Riley, and all others similarly-situated v. LPC
Transportation Services, Inc. and Lawrence Janowitz, Case No.
CACE-16-001130 (Fla. Cir., January 21, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime and minimum wages, an additional equal amount as
liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants offer transportation and limousine services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason S. Remer, Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      44 West Flagler, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Tel: (305) 416-5000
      Fax: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Liberty
Mutual Insurance, Case No. 15-027927-CA, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20271-DPG to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff seek to recover from Defendant, reimbursement of all
sums on a fee-for-service basis that Plaintiff's assignor
Medicare Advantage Plan was billed for medical care and treatment

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance products and
services. It offers property and casualty insurance products;
auto, home, and life, as well as personal liability insurance
products; and claim services. The company's products include car,
motorcycle, other specialty vehicles, and umbrella insurance;
homeowners, renters, condominium, landlord, umbrella, flood, and
mobile home insurance; and life insurance. It serves clients in
agriculture/farm, building maintenance, construction, education,
energy, financial services, food and beverages manufacturing,
healthcare, hospitality (hotels), manufacturing, printing and
publishing, real estate, religious organizations, and restaurants.
The Company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
          5000 SW 75th Ave #400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 479-0828
          E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com

                - and -

          Christine Marie Lugo, Esq.
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: cclugo002@fiu.edu

               - and -

          Eric Michael Fresco, Esq.
          2921 SW 132 Avenue
          Miami, FL 33175
          Telephone: (786) 314 4106
          E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com

               - and -

          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
          Timothy J Van Name, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582 0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com
                  tvanname@att.net

               - and -

          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          LA LEY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A.
          4182 SW 74 Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com
                  rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Barry Krouk, Esq.
          Matthew John Lavisky, Esq.
          BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
          400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 281 1900
          Facsimile: (813) 281 0900
          E-mail: dkrouk@butler.legal
                  mlavisky@butler.legal


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: E.D. La. Has Jurisdiction of "Loehn" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eldon E. Fallon denied the motion filed by Thomas and Rachel
Loehn to remand the case captioned THOMAS E. AND RACHEL M. LOEHN,
v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., AND LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Civil Action No. 15-01088 (E.D. La.) to state court.

The Loehns filed an action for redhibition and damages on January
5, 2015 against Lumber Liquidators, Inc. ("LLI") and Liberty
Mutual Insurance Company ("Liberty Mutual") in the First Parish
Court for the Parish of Jefferson, State of Louisiana.  The
plaintiffs later filed a First Supplemental and Amended Petition
for Damages asserting, for the first time, class action
allegations.  On April 7, 2015, the suit was removed by LLI to the
Eastern District of Louisiana based on the Class Action Fairness
Act ("CAFA").

On June 23, 2015, the case was transferred to the Eastern District
of Virginia to be included in the National Class Multidistrict
Litigation.  However, the products utilized by the Loehns were not
included in the listing of LLI's products that was to be included
in the items to be considered by the Multidistrict Litigation
Panel.  The Loehns dismissed their class action allegations
against LLI and filed a motion to remand.  The Eastern District of
Virginia denied the motion, but because the Loehns' claims were no
longer within the scope of the multidistrict litigation, their
case was remanded to the Eastern District of Louisiana.

The Loehns contended that since the matter is not part of the
multidistrict litigation and all allegations regarding a class
action have been dismissed, there was never any basis for removal
to federal court, and remand to the First Parish Court for the
Parish of Jefferson is appropriate.

Denying the Loehn's motion to remand, Judge Fallon held that the
post-removal event wherein the Loehns dismissed their class claims
does not deprive the district court of jurisdiction, which was
properly established at the time of removal under CAFA.

A full-text copy of Judge Fallon's February 24, 2016 order and
reasons is available at http://is.gd/UYxexYfrom Leagle.com.

Thomas E. Loehn, Rachel M. Loehn, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas
Edward Loehn, Boggs, Loehn & Rodrigue.

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by H.
Minor Pipes, III -- mpipes@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin,
Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC, Catherine Fornias Giarrusso
cgiarrusso@barrassousdin.com -- Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman
& Sarver, LLC & Erica A. Therio -- etherio@barrassousdin.com --
Barrasso,Usdin, Kupperman, Freeman & Sarver, LLC.

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, represented by George John
Nalley, Jr. -- george@gnalley.com -- Nalley & Dew, APLC, Andrew
James Miner -- andrew@gnalley.com --  Nalley & Dew, APLC & Bridget
D. Nalley -- bridget@gnalley.com -- Nalley & Dew, APLC.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: July 19 Final Approval Hrng in "Chavez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Claudia Wilken grants preliminary approval of the
class action settlement in the case, CRELENCIO CHAVEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. LUMBER LIQUIDATORS, INC., Defendant, No. C 09-4812
CW (N.D. Cal.).

The Court finds that the plan for distribution as outlined in the
Settlement is a reasonable method calculated to reach all
individuals who would be bound by the Settlement.

Class Members have 60 calendar days from the date on which the
Settlement documents are mailed to opt out of the Settlement. An
opt-out request must be postmarked on or before 60 calendar days
from the date the Settlement documents are mailed. Alternatively,
Class Members have 60 calendar days from the date of mailing the
Settlement documents to object to the Settlement.

CPT Group serves as Claims Administrator.

The final approval hearing is scheduled for July 19, 2016, at 2:30
p.m. in Courtroom 2 of the Ronald V. Dellums Federal Building &
United States Courthouse, United States District Court, Northern
District of California, located at 1301 Clay Street, Oakland CA
94612.  Within 15 calendar days of the Effective Date, the
Defendant must pay the amount of money necessary to fund the
Settlement into the settlement fund.

A copy of the Court's March 1, 2016 Order is available at
http://is.gd/dR5Klsfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Jose Zaldivar is represented by:

     David Augustus Garcia, Esq.
     Robert Tafoya, Esq.
     TAFOYA & GARCIA LLP
     316 W 2nd St #1000
     Los Angeles, CA 90012
     Tel: 213-261-8813

Lumber Liquidators, Inc., is represented by:

     Eric Meckley, Esq.
     Jennifer P. Svanfeldt,
     Katherine Hyang Wol Dick, Esq.
     Sacha Marie Steenhoek, Esq.
     MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
     One Market, Spear Street Tower
     San Francisco, CA 94105-1596
     Tel: 415-442-1013
     Fax: 415-442-1001
     E-mail: emeckley@morganlewis.com
             jsvanfeldt@morganlewis.com
             ssteenhoek@morganlewis.com


LIBERTY MUTUAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Florida Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Liberty
Mutual Insurance, Case No. 15-027927-CA, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20271-DPG to the
proceeding.

Plaintiff seek to recover from Defendant, reimbursement of all
sums on a fee-for-service basis that Plaintiff's assignor
Medicare Advantage Plan was billed for medical care and treatment

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company provides insurance products and
services. It offers property and casualty insurance products;
auto, home, and life, as well as personal liability insurance
products; and claim services. The company's products include car,
motorcycle, other specialty vehicles, and umbrella insurance;
homeowners, renters, condominium, landlord, umbrella, flood, and
mobile home insurance; and life insurance. It serves clients in
agriculture/farm, building maintenance, construction, education,
energy, financial services, food and beverages manufacturing,
healthcare, hospitality (hotels), manufacturing, printing and
publishing, real estate, religious organizations, and restaurants.
The Company is based in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
          5000 SW 75th Ave #400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 479-0828
          E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com

                - and -

          Christine Marie Lugo, Esq.
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: cclugo002@fiu.edu

               - and -

          Eric Michael Fresco, Esq.
          2921 SW 132 Avenue
          Miami, FL 33175
          Telephone: (786) 314 4106
          E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com

               - and -

          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
          Timothy J Van Name, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582 0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com
                  tvanname@att.net

               - and -

          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          LA LEY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A.
          4182 SW 74 Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com
                  rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David Barry Krouk, Esq.
          Matthew John Lavisky, Esq.
          BUTLER WEIHMULLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
          400 North Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 281 1900
          Facsimile: (813) 281 0900
          E-mail: dkrouk@butler.legal
                  mlavisky@butler.legal


MARYLAND CASUALTY: Has Sent Unsolicited Fax Messages, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert A. Dalzell, Inc., individually and as the representative of
a certified class v. Maryland Casualty Company, Case No. 2016-CH-
01188 (Ill. Ch. Ct., January 27, 2016) seeks to put an end on the
Defendant's practice of sending telephone facsimile messages of
material advertising the commercial availability of any property,
goods, or services.

Maryland Casualty Company operates an Illinois insurance company
with its principal place of business in Cook County, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Philip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 1 000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      David M. Oppenheim, Esq.
      ANDERSON+ WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              doppenheim@andersonwanca.com


MCCORMICK & CO: "Gerstnecker" Suit Transferred to Wash. D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gerstnecker v. McCormick & Co.,
INC., Case No. 2:15-cv-01671, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Washington, DC).
The Columbia District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00128-
ESH to the proceeding.

McCormick manufactures, markets, and distributes spices, seasoning
mixes, condiments, and other flavorful products to the food
industry worldwide. It operates through two segments, Consumer and
Industrial. The company is based in Sparks, Maryland.


MDL 1827: Rust Consulting to Be Paid 74,000
-------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Illston approved the cost of claims
administration invoiced by Rust Consulting for $74,625.41 in the
case, IN RE TFT-LCD (FLAT PANEL) ANTITRUST LITIGATION, Case No.
3:07-MD-1827 SI (N.D. Cal.) (This Document Relates to: All
Indirect-Purchaser Actions; State of Missouri, et al. v. AU
Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3619; State of
Florida v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case No. 10-cv-3517;
and State of New York v. AU Optronics Corporation, et al., Case
No. 11-cv-0711.).

The Judge said these amounts may be deducted from each Settling
Defendant's Settlement Fund to pay the costs of claims
administration:

     Chimei                 $7,605.15
     Chunghwa                 $365.87
     Epson                    $196.55
     HannStar               $1,768.99
     Hitachi                $2,688.12
     Samsung               $16,551.92
     Sharp                  $7,965.61
     AUO                   $11,138.06
     LG                    $24,896.85
     Toshiba                $1,448.29
                         ------------
     TOTAL                 $74,625.41

A copy of the Court's Feb. 26 Order is available at
http://is.gd/2M4pZjfrom Leagle.com.


METLIFE: "Martin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Martin et al. v. Metropolitan Life
(MetLife) Insurance Company, Case No. C15-02281, was removed from
the Superior Court of California, Contra Costa County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (Oakland).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00484-KAW to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that MetLife
engaged in the unlawful practice of charging compound interest on
life insurance policy and/or premium loan balances without a prior
written agreement signed by the borrower in violation of
California's Usury Law and the Unfair Competition Law (UCL). The
Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory relief, violations of the
UCL, violations of the Usury Law, and money had and received and
unjust enrichment.

MetLife, together with its subsidiaries, provides life insurance,
annuities, employee benefits, and asset management services in the
United States. It operates through three segments: Retail; Group,
Voluntary & Worksite Benefits; and Corporate Benefit Funding. The
Retail segment offers variable, universal, term, and whole life
insurance products; disability products; and various mutual funds
and other securities products, as well as variable and fixed
annuities. The Company is based in New York, New York.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carol Lynn Thompson, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104-1715
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: cthompson@sidley.com

               - and -

          Susan A. Stone, Esq.
          Joel S. Feldman, Esq.
          Lisa E. Schwartz, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          One South Dearborn Street
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 853 7000
          Facsimile: (312) 853 7036
          E-mail: sstone@sidley.com
                  jfeldman@sidley.com
                  lschwartz@sidley.com


MITCHELL CELAYA: 9th Cir. Rejects UC Berkeley Protesters' Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CALLIE MAIDHOF, ZACHARY SOLOMON MILLER,
JOSHUA CLOVER, LUZILDA CARILLO, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MITCHELL
CELAYA, Defendant-Appellant, No. 13-16800 (9th Cir.), the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the decision of
the district court on the issue of qualified immunity and remanded
with instructions to dismiss the claim against Mitchell Celaya.

A putative class action was brought on behalf of approximately 60
individuals who were arrested on December 11, 2009 on misdemeanor
trespass charges while occupying Wheeler Hall, a classroom
building on the University of California, Berkeley campus, to
protest budget cuts.

The plaintiffs claimed that Celaya, the former Chief of the
University of California Police Department, departed from a plan
calling for field citations and directed that the arrestees be
transported to the Santa Rita County Jail for booking and citation
in retaliation for their protected First Amendment activities.

For his part, Celaya testified that he decided to transport the
arrestees to Santa Rita in order to avoid dispruptive or possibly
violent confrontations with protesters who were gathering outside
of Wheeler Hall.

The district court denied Celaya's motion for summary judgment on
his qualified immunity defense.

On appeal, however, the Ninth Circuit found that while Celaya
offered a non-retaliatory justification for his decision to
conduct booking and citation off-site, the plaintiffs' evidence of
retaliatory intent was weak.  The appellate court thus concluded
that the plaintiffs have not presented sufficient evidence that
would permit a reasonable jury to conclude that a desire to chill
protected speech was a "but-for" cause of Celaya's conduct.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's February 25, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/NFJvBefrom Leagle.com.


MKTG4U LLC: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, California Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristina Escalante Molina, an individual, Tomasa Chavez-Navarro,
an individual v. MKTG4U, LLC, a California Limited Liability
Corporation, Jerry L. Lanier, D.D.S., Inc., a California
Corporation, d.b.a. Kids Dental Kare, and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC609627 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 9, 2016),
is brought for the Defendants' alleged failure to pay all wages
due, to provide rest periods, and to pay overtime wages.

The Defendants are doing business as a dental office in the city
of Los Angeles.  The two corporate entities, MKTG4U, LLC and Jerry
L. Lanier, D.D.S., Inc., conducted business as a single employer,
controlling workers that provide referral and marketing to that
certain "Kids Dental Kare" office and services, products, and
dental care to referred patients.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jack D. Josephson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JACK D. JOSEPHSON, APC
          3580 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1260
          Los Angeles, CA 90010
          Telephone: (213)738-5225


MONETARY MANAGEMENT: April 21 Fairness Hearing Set in "Rodas"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TITA RODAS, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated Plaintiff, v. MONETARY MANAGEMENT OF
CALIFORNIA, INC., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-01389-TLN-AC (E.D. Cal.), Judge
Troy L. Nunley issued an order granting preliminary approval of a
class action settlement, conditionally certifying a settlement
class, approving the form of notice to the class, and setting the
hearing on the final approval of the settlement.

The parties to the case have agreed to settle pursuant to the
terms and conditions set forth in a Preliminary Settlement
Agreement.

Judge Nunley preliminarily approved the settlement upon finding
that the requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and other applicable rules have been satisfied.  Judge
Nunley thus conditionally certified solely for settlement purposes
the class defined in the agreement, appointed Tita Rodas as class
representative, and appointed Gaines & Gaines, APLC as attorneys
for the class.

Judge Nunley also approved as to form and content, and manner of
distribution, the Class Notice and the Request for Exclusion Form
attached to the settlement agreement.  The judge also approved the
selection of Rust Consulting, Inc. as the Settlement
Administrator.

The Final Fairness and Approval Hearing was set to April 21, 2016
at 2:00 p.m. before Judge Nunley, in Courtroom 2 of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's February 24, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/RFWu7nfrom Leagle.com.

Tita Rodas, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Paul Katofsky --
alex@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC & Daniel Franklin
Gaines -- daniel@gaineslawfirm.com -- Gaines & Gaines, APLC.

Monetary Management of California, Inc., Defendant, represented by
C Griffith Towle -- gtowle@bzbm.com -- Bartko Zankel Bunzel and
Miller, Simon Richard Goodfellow -- sgoodfellow@bzbm.com --
Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller & Sony B. Barari --
sbarari@bzbm.com -- Bartko, Zankel, Bunzel & Miller.


MRS BPO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Saroza" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Nestor Saroza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. MRS BPO, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00635-WHW-CLW (D.N.J.,
February 4, 2016) seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

MRS BPO, LLC offers 1st and 3rd party collections, accounts
receivable management, and back office management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NEW JERSEY: "Slaughter" Suit Can't Proceed as Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles S. Slaughter and 39 other plaintiffs -- individuals
confined by the State of New Jersey -- bring a civil action,
asserting claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.  The case is, CHARLES
S. SLAUGHTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CHRISTOPHER J. CHRISTIE, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-8327 (MAS)(D.N.J.).

On Feb. 26, 2016, the Court denied the Plaintiffs' request to
proceed as a class action.  A copy of the Court's Memorandum and
Order is available at http://is.gd/aKR8tffrom Leagle.com.

District Judge Michael A. Shipp oversees the case.


NWP SERVICES: "Brown" Suit Moved from Judicial Ct. to M.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Brown v. NWP Services Corporation
et al., Case No. 16-2015-CA-007977-XXXX-MA, was removed from
Fourth Judicial Circuit in and for Duval County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida
(Jacksonville). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-
cv-00081-BJD-JRK to the proceeding.

NWP Services Corporation provides utility management, energy
management, electronic payment, sub metering, and back office
solutions. It offers utility management solutions, including
resident billing, utility expense management, advanced analytics
and reporting, sub metering and maintenance, and regulatory
compliance; sub metering systems; e-Pay, a payment processing
portal for residents; and back office solutions, such as
accounting, utility review and management, information technology,
help desk, and acquisition support. The company serves portfolio
owner manager, fee manager, affordable housing, student housing,
and mixed use segments. NWP Services Corporation was founded in
1995 and is based in Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian W. Warwick, Esq.
          Janet R. Varnell, Esq.
          Steven Thomas Simmons Jr., Esq.
          Varnell & Warwick, PA
          P.O. Box 1870
          Lady Lake, FL 32158
          Telephone: (352) 753 8600
          Facsimile: (352) 753 8606
          E-mail: bwarwick@varnellandwarwick.com
                  jvarnell@varnellandwarwick.com
                  ssimmons@varnellandwarwick.com

               - and -

          James Anthony Kowalski Jr., Esq.
          Jeffrey Graham Haynie, Esq.
          JACKSONVILLE AREA LEGAL AID, INC.
          V126 W Adams St
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 356 8371
          Facsimile: (904) 244 1587
          E-mail: Kowalski.law@mac.com
                  jeff.haynie@jaxlegalaid.org

The Defendant is represented by:

          Monica L. Irel, Esq.
          DENTONS US LLP
          10700 N Kendall Dr, Ste 303
          Miami, FL 33175
          Telephone: (305) 670 4843
          Facsimile: (305) 670 4846
          E-mail: Monica.Irel@dentons.com

               - and -

          Pamela St. John Lynde, Esq.
          MARSHALL, DENNEHEY, WARNER, COLEMAN & GOGGIN
          200 W Forsyth St, Suite 1400
          Jacksonville, FL 32202-3427
          Telephone: (904) 358 4200
          Facsimile: (904) 355 0019
          E-mail: pslynde@mdwcg.com


OPORTUN INC: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
----------------------------------------------------
Kenyard Edwards, and all others Similarly-situated v. Oportun,
Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00519 (N.D. Calif., January 29, 2016),
seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that between December 10, 2015 and December
28, 2015, Defendant Oportun, Inc. made 9 telephone calls to
Plaintiff, Kenyard Edwards, on his cellular telephone to collect a
debt owed by someone named Javier. These calls were made using an
autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Mr. Edwards
did not give Oportun prior express written consent to make these
calls.

Oportun, formerly Progreso Financiero, was founded in 2005 with
the goal of providing credit-building, affordable loans to the
approximately 25 million financially-underserved Hispanics in the
US, many of whom have limited or no credit history.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 300-4455
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com


PERFORMANT RECOVERY: "McPherson" Suit Alleges TCPA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Shakima McPherson, and all others Similarly-situated v. Performant
Recovery, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00520 (N.D. Calif., January 29,
2016), seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the
Defendant's violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that between October 27, 2015 and December
29, 2015, the Defendant made 14 telephone calls to Plaintiff on
her cellular telephone to collect a debt. These calls were made
using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice. Mr.
McPherson did not give Performant prior express written consent to
make these calls.

Performant Recovery works with government and private
organizations that outsource the identification of overpayments
and underpayments to agencies whose core competencies are in the
efficient and thorough examination and resolution of healthcare
related assets.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 300-4455
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com


POINT LOMA CREDIT: "Hernandez" Suit Moved to S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hernandez v. Point Loma Credit
Union et al., Case No. 37-02013-00053519-CU-BT-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court, San Diego County, Central Division, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
(San Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
00146-LAB-MDD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff challenges the
Defendant's overdraft program. Point Loma has allegedly breached
its contracts and otherwise has unlawfully and unfairly collected
overdraft fees from its members.

Point Loma Credit Union was founded in 1948. The company's line of
business includes the cooperative thrift and loan associations
(accepting deposits) organized under Federal charter to finance
credit needs of their members. The Company is based in San Diego,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stuart M. Richter, Esq.
          Gregory S. Korman, Esq.
          Andrew J. Demko, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788 4400
          Facsimile: (310) 788 4471
          E-mail: stuart.richter@kattenlaw.com
                  greg.korman@kattenlaw.com
                  andrew.demko@kattenlaw.com


PROSPECT FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie Winters, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Prospect Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-00289-L-MDD (S.D. Cal., February 3, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants practice of making unsolicited calls.

Prospect Financial Group, Inc. operates a loan agency located at
948 Garnet Ave, San Diego, CA 92109.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (877) 206-4741
      Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
      E-mail: tfriedman@AttorneysForConsumers.com


PROVIDENT FUNDING: Dismissal Bid Reply in "Steinberg" Due Mar 18
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar gave his stamp of approval on a
stipulation extending the briefing schedule, and continuing the
hearing and case management conference in the case, ROBERT L.
STEINBERG and SONIA STEINBERG, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. PROVIDENT FUNDING
ASSOCIATES, L.P., Defendant, Case No. 3:15-CV-03743-JST (N.D.
Cal.).

The Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Class Action
Complaint on February 19, 2016.  Under Civil L.R. 7-3, Plaintiffs'
response to the Motion was due on March 4, 2016, and Defendant's
reply to the Motion is currently due on March 11, 2016.  The
motion hearing is currently set for March 31, 2016; and the case
management conference is currently scheduled for April 6, 2016.

In light of prior commitments and other scheduling issues of
counsel, the parties agreed to an extension of the briefing
schedule, a continuation of the motion hearing, and a continuation
of the case management conference:

     1. the due date for Plaintiff's response to the Motion is
extended to March 18, 2016;

     2. the due date for Defendant's reply to the Motion is
extended to April 1, 2016;

     3. the motion hearing is continued to April 21, 2016; and

     4. the case management conference is continued to June 1,
2016.

A copy of the Stipulation dated Feb. 26, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/UrTIIofrom Leagle.com.

The Steinbergs are represented by George Haksoo Kim, David A.
Chandler, and Douglas D. von Oiste, at Karst & von Oiste, LLP; and
Katrina Carroll -- kcarroll@litedepalma.com -- and Kyle A.
Shamberg -- kshamberg@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg,
LLC.

Provident Funding Associates, L.P., is represented by J.
Christopher Mitchell -- chris.mitchell@hoganlovells.com -- Neil
Richard O'Hanlon, Robert B. Hawk -- robert.hawk@hoganlovells.com -
- and Stacy R. Hovan -- stacy.hovan@hoganlovells.com -- Hogan
Lovells US LLP.


RESTAURANT ORGANIZATION: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Hernandez, and Maria Quiroga, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated v. Restaurant Organization, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00028 (S.D. Tex., February 6, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Restaurant Organization, LLC is a foreign limited liability
company registered in the State of Texas and is engaged in the
business of restaurant operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James M. Loren, Esq.
      GOLDBERG & LOREN, P.A.
      3102 Maple Avenue -Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (954) 585-4878
      Facsimile: (954) 585-4886
      E-mail: JLoren@Lorenlaw.co


SALES RAIN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Mills" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Mills, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Sales Rain, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00301-H-BLM
(S.D. Cal., February 5, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Sales Rain, Inc. provides sales and marketing services catering to
an international clientele.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samantha Alane Smith, Esq.
      THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
      Irvine, CA 92604
      Telephone: (949) 724-9200
      Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
      E-mail: samantha@cooper-firm.com


SALINAS CA: Injunction Bid Over Ordinance 2564 Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh denies, as moot, the request filed by a
group of homeless individuals living in the City of Salinas,
California, for preliminary injunction to bar the City from
enforcing Ordinance 2564, specifically, by seizing, storing and/or
immediately and/or subsequently destroying personal property
including so-called "bulky items" belonging to homeless
individuals living without shelter in the City.

The Court on Nov. 25, 2015, denied Plaintiffs' ex parte
application for a temporary restraining order without prejudice.

In a Feb. 29, 2016 Order, Judge Koh finds the matter suitable for
decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b)
and thus vacates the motion hearing set for March 3, 2016, at 1:30
p.m.  The case management conference, scheduled for March 3, 2016,
at 1:30 p.m., remained as set.

The case is, RITA ACOSTA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF SALINAS,
Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-05415-LHK (N.D. Cal.).  A copy of the
Court's Feb. 29, 2016 Order is available at http://is.gd/DuA2Cu
from Leagle.com.

Rita Acosta and the other Plaintiffs are represented by Bradley S.
Phillips -- Brad.Phillips@mto.com -- Munger Tolles & Olson LLP,
Alisa L Hartz, Public Counsel, Anne Kendrick Richardson, Public
Counsel, John B. Major, Munger, Tolles Olson LLP, Joshua S.
Meltzer, Munger, Tolles and Olson LLP & Anthony David Prince, Law
Officces of Anthony D. Prince.

City of Salinas, Defendant, is represented by:

     Nathaniel Le Roi Dunn, Esq.
     Rachel Rose Ostrander, Esq.
     Ryan M. Thompson, Esq.
     Vincent P. Hurley, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF VINCENT P. HURLEY
     38 Seascape Resort Dr
     Aptos, CA 95003
     Tel: 831-661-4800


SANJEL (USA): "Keller" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Keller, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees v. Sanjel (USA) Inc., Case No. 1:16-
cv-00271 (D. Colo., February 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sanjel (USA) Inc. operates an energy services company providing
pumping and completions services to oil and gas companies
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
      Udyogi A. Hangawatte
      KENNEDY HODGES LLP
      711 W. Alabama Street
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com
              uhangawatte@kennedyhodges.com


SCOTT ROTHSTEIN: Gibraltar Bank Fined Over Role in Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Kay, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that federal
regulators fined Gibraltar Private Bank & Trust Co. a combined
$6.5 million for willfully violating federal anti-money laundering
laws as part of disbarred attorney Scott Rothstein's Ponzi scheme.

The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network,
which ordered a $4 million fine, faulted the Coral Gables-based
bank for handling nearly $558 million in suspect transactions from
2009 to 2013.

Simultaneously, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency,
which previously placed Gibraltar under a consent order, issued a
$2.5 million fine.

FinCEN charged the bank failed to act on red flags in Mr.
Rothstein's $1.2 billion settlement financing fraud.
Mr. Rothstein bought a stake in the bank while running the scheme
from his former Fort Lauderdale law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt
Adler.  He is serving a 50-year prison sentence, and about two
dozen others were convicted for crimes involving the fraud and the
money that flowed into it.

Gibraltar and TD Bank were Mr. Rothstein's two primary banks
handling his illicit funds.

"We are pleased that the consent agreements bring to closure an
open regulatory issue," Gibraltar chairman and CEO Adolfo
Henriques said in a statement.  "The civil penalties imposed by
the OCC and FinCEN have been fully reserved."

FinCEN charged substantial deficiencies led to Gibraltar's failure
to timely file at least 120 suspicious activity reports on
improper money moves.

"We may never know how that scheme might have been disrupted had
Gibraltar more rigorously complied with its obligations under the
law," FinCEN director Jennifer Shasky Calvery said in a statement.
"This bank's failure to implement and maintain an effective AML
program exposed its customers, its banking peers and our financial
system to significant abuse."

Gibraltar's transaction monitoring system contained incomplete and
inaccurate account opening information and customer risk profiles,
which hindered its compliance staff from adequately spotting
unusual activity, according to the agency.  Additionally, the bank
failed to sufficiently address an automated monitoring system that
generated an unmanageable number of alerts, including large
numbers of false positives.

Gibraltar also failed to properly train its compliance staff and
develop and implement an adequate customer identification program
under the Bank Secrecy Act, FinCEN alleges.

FinCEN coordinated its action with the OCC.  The case will be
closed with an immediate payment of $1.5 million to the Treasury
Department and a $2.5 million payment to OCC, the agencies stated.

The bank disclosed last April that it was the subject of a Justice
Department investigation into alleged money laundering.
The penalties were announced just days after former Gibraltar CEO
Steven Hayworth sued the bank, alleging fraud and breach of
contract and seeking $40 million in damages.  He founded the bank
in 1994 and was replaced by Henriques, a former chairman, in 2012.

Mr. Hayworth's lawsuit filed in Miami federal court alleges he was
used as a scapegoat by the bank's board of directors and pressured
into leaving shortly after Gibraltar settled several Rothstein-
related lawsuits.  A $15 million settlement was approved in the
bankruptcy case of Mr. Rothstein's law firm, which collapsed weeks
after the fraud in 2009.



SCRIPPS NP OPERATING: "Fogarty" Suit Moved to C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Paul J. Fogarty v. Scripps NP
Operating, LLC et al., Case No. 56-02015-00475642-CU-CE-VTA, was
removed from the Ventura County Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 2:16-cv-00454-FMO-E to the proceeding.

Scripps NP Operating is as Foreign Limited Liability Company,
engaged in visual art services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Cesar H Nava, Esq.
          Stanley J Hodson, Esq.
          NAVA LAW FIRM
          326 South A Street Suite 2
          Oxnard, CA 93030
          Telephone: (805) 483 2465
          Facsimile: (805) 483 0860
          E-mail: cnava@NG-Law.com
                  sjhodson@ng-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Ashley Jane Brick, Esq.
          Elizabeth Staggs Wilson, Esq.
          Shannon R Boyce, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON PC
          2049 Century Park East Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (310) 553 0308
          Facsimile: (310) 553 5583
          E-mail: abrick@littler.com
                  estaggs-wilson@littler.com
                  sboyce@littler.com


SECURITAS SECURITY: Bid for Conditional Class Cert. Granted
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL DEATRICK, Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS
SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-05016-JST
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted a motion for provisional
certification of a proposed California opt-out class, but denied a
motion for preliminary approval of a class settlement.

Michael Deatrick filed the case on his own behalf and on behalf of
a putative class of current and former security employees of
Securitas, who were subject to its "Vacation Pay Plan."  The
complaint asserted a claim under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"), alleging that Securitas failed to pay them full overtime
compensation because Securitas failed to take into account in the
overtime calculation the payments that security guards received in
connection with the Plan.  The court certified the FLSA nationwide
class on November 4, 2014.

The plaintiffs later requested for preliminary approval of a class
settlement reached by the parties that provides for a total
payment of $2,500,000 by Securitas.  The plaintiffs also requested
conditional certification of an additional California opt-out
class for settlement purposes.

Judge Tigar found that the proposed class is adequately defined
and ascertainable, and that there is a dominant legal question in
the case which satisfies the numerosity and commonality
requirements for class certification.  The judge also found that
the typicality requirement is satisfied because Deatrick's and the
proposed class' claims both rely on the same policies of
Securitas.  Judge Tigar also concluded that Deatrick and his
counsel will adequately represent the proposed class.  Finally,
Judge Tigar found that the dominant legal issue of how to
interpret Securitas' vacation pay policy predominates over any
questions that could affect only individual class members, and
that a class action is a superior method for fairly and
efficiently adjudicating those and other questions.

Judge Tiglar, however, found deficiencies with the proposed notice
procedure and claim form procedure of the class settlement.  The
judge explained that a statement that "reasonable" steps will be
taken to ensure delivery lacks enough specificity for the court to
determine whether the notice process is sufficient.  Judge Tiglar
also concluded that the claim form requirement puts unnecessary
impediments in the path of plaintiffs receiving their due
compensation for their injuries under the proposed settlement.

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's February 24, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/VCa2GSfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Deatrick, Plaintiff, represented by John R. Hurley,
Prometheus Partners L.L.P., Daniel Chris Quintero, Prometheur
Partners L.L.P., Eduardo Gregory Roy, Prometheus Partners L.L.P. &
Jill Dessalines, Prometheus Partners L.L.P..

Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Sherry Beth Shavit -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- Tharpe &
Howell, LLP, John Kevin Lilly -- klilly@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson PC & Stuart Edward Cohen -- scohen@tharpe-howell.com --
Tharpe and Howell, LLP.


SECURITY NATIONAL: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Security
National Insurance Company, Case No. 15-028181-CA-01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20328-
RNS to the proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is the assignee of Florida
Healthcare Plus, a Medicare Advantage Organization that had
contracted with the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid.

General Security National Insurance Co. provides property and
casualty reinsurance services. The company was formerly known as
Sorema North America Reinsurance Co. and changed its name in
January 2002. General Security National Insurance Co. was founded
in 1980 and is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
          5000 SW 75th Ave #400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 479-0828
          E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Christine Marie Lugo, Esq.
          5000 S.W. 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: cclugo002@fiu.edu

               - and -

          Eric Michael Fresco, Esq.
          2921 SW 132 Avenue
          Miami, FL 33175
          Telephone: (786) 314 4106
          E-mail: fresco.eric@gmail.com

               - and -

          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
          Timothy J Van Name, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582 0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com
                  tvanname@att.net

               - and -

          Gino Moreno, Esq.
          LA LEY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: gmoreno@msprecovery.com

               - and -

          Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          JOHN H. RUIZ, P.A.
          4182 SW 74 Court
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          E-mail: glosa@lawofficeslaley.com
                  rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Valerie B. Greenberg, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          1 SE 3rd Avenue, 25th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131-1714
          Telephone: (305) 374 5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374 5095
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  valerie.greenberg@akerman.com


SMART UTILITY: "Marinucci" Suit Alleges Labor Code Violations
-------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marinucci, and all others similarly-situated v. Smart
Utility Systems, LLC and Does 1 through 10, Case No. 16-CV-290374
(Cal. Super., January 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
failure to pay overtime in violation of the California Labor Code.

Smart Utility Systems LLC provides products and services for the
energy and utility sector. The company offers solutions for mobile
platforms, customer services, and workforce management.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth S. Gaines, Esq.
      GAINES & GAINES, APLC
      27200 Agoura Road, Ste. 101
      Calabasas, CA 91301
      Tel: (818) 703-8985
      Fax: (818) 703-8984


SQUARETWO FINANCIAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hamra" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yaffa Hamra, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Squaretwo Financial Corporation d/b/a Fresh View
Solutions, Case No. 1:16-cv-00568-AMD-RML (E.D.N.Y., February 3,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Squaretwo Financial Corporation provides business and financial
information, as well as governance, filings, and reports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STANFORD: Chadbourne & Parke Agrees to Settle Ponzi Scheme Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Triedman, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that
Chadbourne & Parke has agreed to a confidential settlement with
aggrieved investors in R. Allen Stanford $7 billion Ponzi scheme,
ending the firm's involvement in more than six years of litigation
related to a former partner's role advising the disgraced
financier.

Lawyers for the firm informed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit of the deal on Feb. 26.  That leaves Proskauer Rose
and Stanford's former lawyer, Thomas Sjoblom, the former co-chair
of the securities litigation and enforcement practice at
Proskauer, as the two remaining defendants facing investor class
claims of up to $5 billion in the suit.

Mr. Sjoblom joined Proskauer in 2006 after leaving Chadbourne.

Separate proposed class actions are also moving ahead against two
other firms -- Greenberg Traurig and Hunton & Williams -- that
once served Sanford's business interests.  Investors filed their
class certification briefs in the parallel cases on Feb. 26. Adams
and Reese, meanwhile, agreed to pay $1 million in May 2015 to
settle similar investor claims stemming from its work for
Stanford-related entities.

In a letter to the Fifth Circuit describing the Chadbourne
agreement, the firm's lawyers at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison -- led by litigation partner Daniel Beller --
dbeller@paulweiss.com -- in New York -- wrote that the settlement
still requires approval by U.S. District Judge David Godbey in
Dallas, "and we do not anticipate that the district court will be
in a position to rule upon the proposed settlement for several
months."

The class action, filed in late 2009, arose from Mr. Sjoblom's
work as Mr. Stanford's main corporate counsel.  Investors accuse
Mr. Sjoblom -- and his former firms by extension -- of aiding
Stanford's massive fraud by obstructing a U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission investigation into Stanford Financial Group
and 140 other Stanford-affiliated companies around the world.
The Chadbourne settlement is the latest twist in a case that has
already been litigated up to the U.S. Supreme Court.  The nation's
top court ruled in 2014 that the investor suit wasn't barred under
the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 because
the certificates of deposit weren't covered by SLUSA.  Last year,
Judge Godbey ruled that the claims against Stanford's former
lawyers could proceed.

Proskauer and Chadbourne were both scheduled to give oral
arguments on Feb. 29 in a repeat round of interlocutory appeals to
the Fifth Circuit.  Now, Proskauer's lawyer, Davis Polk &
Wardwell's head of litigation James Rouhandeh, will be arguing
alone.

Proskauer, which has taken the lead in all the appeals, takes
issue with the investors' argument that Mr. Sjoblom and the law
firms can be sued for damages under a "fraud exception" to
attorney immunity.  The Davis Polk team has argued that a decision
by the Texas Supreme Court in another recent case makes Judge
Godbey's decision last February green-lighting investor claims
ripe for reconsideration.  The Texas high court's decision on
qualified attorney immunity, which Davis Polk argues applies to
Proskauer and Stanford, found that attorneys can only be sued by
former clients, not by nonclients.

The Stanford investors, represented by Edward Valdespino, a former
partner at Strasburger & Price in San Antonio, argue in their
response briefs that the interlocutory appeal itself shouldn't be
before the appeals court because conditions for the emergency
appeal have not been met.

Proskauer must be hoping that this trip to the Fifth Circuit's
seat in New Orleans will go better than the last time the firm
appeared before the court on a Stanford-related issue in 2012.  In
that earlier appeal, the Fifth Circuit reversed a decision by
Judge Godbey to dismiss the investor suits under SLUSA.

Mr. Sjoblom's attorney, Dentons partner Joshua Hochberg in
Washington, D.C., isn't expected to give oral arguments.

Mr. Sjoblom, who now has his own firm, filed for personal
bankruptcy protection in the nation's capital in May 2014.  More
recently, a bankruptcy judge confirmed Mr. Sjoblom's plan to pay a
minimum of $1,500 a month to creditors, including tax authorities,
as well as Stanford investors.  It remains unclear how much Mr.
Sjoblom's professional liability policy is worth.

The current slate of Stanford suits is the second against law
firms that represented the convicted Ponzi schemer, who was
brutally beaten in jail before his 2012 trial.  A federal judge
dismissed in 2014 an earlier malpractice suit filed against
Chadbourne and Proskauer by a court-appointed receiver
representing Stanford victims.

Other professional services firms have also faced litigation,
including Stanford's main accounting firm, BDO USA, which agreed
to pay $40 million in May 2015 to settle investor claims.  Judge
Godbey, as noted by sibling publication Texas Lawyer, approved
that deal in September.

As for Stanford, Mr. Sjoblom's former client, he is currently
nearly four years into a 110-year prison sentence handed down in
2012 for his role directing an Antigua-based scheme involving
bogus certificates of deposit.


SYNENBERG & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce W. Cooperman, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Synenberg & Associates, LLC, et al., Case
No. 3:16-cv-00580 (D.N.J., February 2, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Synenberg & Associates, LLC operates a law firm located at 55
Public Square #1331, Cleveland, OH 44113.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TF FINAL: "Gates" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Gates, on behalf of himself and those similarly v.        TF
Final Mile, LLC, f/k/a Dynamex Operations East, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-00341-RWS (February 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, unpaid minimum wages, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TF Final Mile, LLC operates a transportation management solutions
company which services customers throughout the country by
providing outsourced delivery/courier services, among other
transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A. 20
      N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


TRICAN WELL: Faces "Hall" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Hall, on behalf of himself and all others similarly v.
Trican Well Service, LP, Case No. 5:16-cv-00125-OLG (W.D. Tex.,
February 4, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Trican Well Service, LP provides products and services in and for
the oil and gas industry throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carlos A. Solis, Esq.
      SOLIS & SMITH P.C.
      310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Telephone: (210) 446-5000
      Facsimile: (210) 446-5001
      E-mail: csolis@hilley-solis.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Sued Over Failure to Provide Reimbursement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saizhang Guan and Longbin Li, on behalf of themselves and the
Class v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00598-PKC-CLP
(E.D.N.Y., February 4, 2016), is an action for damages as a result
of the Defendants' failure to provide 100% toll reimbursement to
Uber drivers.

Uber Technologies, Inc. provides car services through a smartphone
application, which enables users to arrange and schedule
transportation and logistics services with drivers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com


VIGILANT CANINE: Sued Over Failure to Timely Pay Separation Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alastair McGuire, Daniel McAlister, Darren Goodall, George Fort,
and Rosy Jones, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Vigilant Canine Services International, LLC, et al.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00206-TLN-CKD (E.D. Cal., February 2, 2016), is
brought against the Defendant for failure to timely pay all wages
due and owing to the Plaintiffs upon separation of employment.

Vigilant Canine Services International, LLC owns and operates a K-
9 company that provides services to law enforcement in the United
States and contracts for service internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
      Joshua D. Buck, Esq.
      Leah L. Jones, Esq.
      7287 Lakeside Drive
      Reno, CA 89511
      Telephone: (775) 284-1500
      Facsimile: (775) 703-5027
      E-mail: mark@thuermanbuck.com
              josh@thuermanbuck.com
              leah@thuermanbuck.com


WAL-MART: No Spoliation of Evidence in Crib Death Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
parents who claim their infant son died in his crib after
suffocating because of an allegedly defective bumper pad had no
duty to preserve the other items in the crib at the time, a
federal judge ruled in finding there was no spoliation of
evidence.

The defendants in Micjan v. Wal-Mart Stores wanted the most severe
sanction for what it claimed was spoliation of evidence, but U.S.
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied their request for summary judgment.

After their three-month-old son Dylan Micjan died in March 2012
from asphyxia, Travis and Stefanie Micjan sued Wal-Mart, which
sold the bumper pad; Garan Services Corp., which licensed the
product; and Triboro Quilt Manufacturing, which made the bumper
pad.  The three defendants argued the couple failed to preserve
key evidence, including the crib, crib mattress, two blankets, a
stuffed animal and a pillow, that were all in the crib at the time
of their son's death.

The defendants said Dylan could have died from suffocating on any
of those other items and their inability to examine those items
prohibited them from preparing a full defense.

Mitchell questioned, however, just how the issue even rose to
spoliation.  He said traditional products liability cases deal
with spoliation in the context of the allegedly defective item
being destroyed.  And spoliation is often asserted when documents
are destroyed, Judge Mitchell said.  He said neither of those
issues were present in the Micjans' case.

The closest precedent Mitchell could find to this case, he said,
were those cases involving fires where the source of the fire is
unknown and the plaintiffs preserve only the item they think was
the culprit.

In one such case, Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Emerson
Electric, the Pennsylvania Superior Court found in favor of the
plaintiff that had preserved only the item it had been informed
was the most likely cause of the fire.

"In this case, the coroner independently concluded that the cause
of death was most likely asphyxiation on the crib bumper pad and
she did not base this conclusion on the report of Mr. Micjan about
the position in which he found Dylan," Judge Mitchell said.

"Rather . . . she found a line on the baby's face which was
consistent with being compressed against the crib bumper pad and
not consistent with the other items in the crib."

Mitchell determined the Micjans had no duty to retain the other
items in the crib. He further went on to note the defendants did
not meet the standards to show spoliation occurred.  The
defendants didn't just have to show that the items were in the
Micjans' control and that they could be relevant to the case, but
that the Micjans acted in bad faith in not retaining the items.
Judge Mitchell said there was no evidence the Micjans acted to
impede the defense and that most of the items were lost during two
moves the Micjans made between Pennsylvania and Virginia.

"Moreover, defendants have not explained how the 'duty to preserve
the evidence was reasonably foreseeable to' [the Micjans], lay
persons who would have had no reason to anticipate that the
blanket, mattress and other items could be part of some future
defense in a lawsuit they had not filed," Judge Mitchell said.

When other courts have found a duty to preserve, Judge Mitchell
noted, it was typically when lawyers were involved or they failed
to tell their clients to put litigation holds on the evidence.

Judge Mitchell also determined that the defendants were not
prejudiced by the lack of the other items in the crib.

"There is no suggestion, for example, that these items would
contain physical evidence that Dylan had asphyxiated on them,"
Mitchell said. "The loss of the particular items in the crib does
not cause prejudice because defendants can obtain other examples
of such items and present them as part of their defense."

Judge Mitchell said the defendants could also question the Micjans
and the medical examiner at trial about the other items in the
crib.


WAL-MART STORES: Must Produce Docs to PGERS, Court Says
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned WAL-MART STORES, INC., and MICHAEL T. DUKE,
Petitioners, v. CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Respondent. CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT
SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. WAL-MART STORES, INC., and MICHAEL T. DUKE,
Defendants, Misc. No. 15-242-SLR, Civ. No. 12-5162 (SOH) (W.D.
Ark.), Judge Sue L. Robinson granted in part and denied in part
the motion to quash filed by Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and Michael T.
Duke.

Wal-Mart and Duke moved to quash two subpoenas issued by the
United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas,
at the request of City of Pontiac General Employees Retirement
System ("PGERS"), and directed to Grant & Eisenhofer P.A. ("G&E")
and Indiana Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund ("IBEW").  The
subpoenas requested the production of documents related to the
litigation between IBEW and Wal-Mart, for use in PGERS' current
securities action against Wal-Mart and Duke.  Wal-Mart objected to
the subpoenas on the basis that they demanded privileged
documents.

In the IBEW litigation, the Court of Chancery ordered Wal-Mart to
produce certain responsive documents to IBEW, including those
protected under attorney-client privilege pursuant to the Garner
doctrine, which provides that a corporation may not be fully
protected by claims of privilege in a suit brought by the
corporation's shareholders.  However, in its final order, the
Court of Chancery specified that its ruling on the application of
the Garner doctrine or exceptions to attorney work-product
protection is not intended to extend to any other documents of
Wal-Mart, or to result in a waiver of any of Wal-Mart's applicable
privileges.

Judge Robinson concluded that Wal-Mart's previous disclosure does
not amount to a waiver of its ability to assert applicable
privileges, and that it retains its ability to assert a claim of
privilege with respect to the information requested under the
subpoenas.  Accordingly, Judge Robinson granted Wal-Mart's motion
to quash in this regard.

However, Judge Robinson found that Wal-Mart has failed to assert a
valid claim of privilege with respect to the documents requested
by PGERS because Wal-Mart did not produce a privilege log that
would allow the court to assess its claim of privilege.  Thus,
Wal-Mart's motion to quash was denied in this regard.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's February 24, 2016 memorandum
is available at http://is.gd/BMsLnifrom Leagle.com.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Michael T. Duke, Petitioners, represented
by Donald J. Wolfe, Jr. -- dwolfe@potteranderson.com -- Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP, Stephen C. Norman --
snorman@potteranderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP &
Tyler J. Leavengood -- tleavengood@potteranderson.com -- Potter
Anderson & Corroon, LLP.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System, Respondent,
represented by Joel E. Friedlander --
jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com -- Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. &
Christopher M. Foulds -- cfoulds@friedlandergorris.com --
Friedlander & Gorris, P.A..


WEST VIRGINIA: Detainees' Class Certification Bid Denied
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert C. Chambers adopted and incorporated the proposed
findings of fact and recommendations of United States Magistrate
Judge Cheryl A. Eifert in the  case captioned JEREMY A. JOHNSON,
DUANE MAYNARD, NORMAN DILLON, ALTON TRIBBLE, TIMOTHY S. JACKSON,
WILLILAM WRAY, STEVEN DAVIS, WILLIE SLOCUM, Plaintiffs, v. SRT
DIRECTOR AUSTIN BURKE; WEST VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL AND
CORRECTIONAL FACILITY AUTHORITY; WESTERN REGIONAL JAIL; and CABELL
COUNTY, Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:14-26429 (S.D.W. Va.), and
denied Alton Tribble's objections thereto.

The action was filed by eight pro se individuals who were pretrial
detainees at the Western Regional Jail at the time the complaint
was filed, alleging that they were subjected to "barbaric"
lockdown conditions for 13 days while held at the regional jail.

The Magistrate Judge previously issued her First Proposed Findings
and Recommendations on May 15, 2015 and her Second Proposed
Findings and Recommendations on September 25, 2015.  Plaintiff
Alton Tribble filed various documents which were construed as
objections to the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate
Judge.

Judge Chambers found that the objections filed by Tribble were
untimely.  Objections to the First Proposed Findings and
Recommendations were due to the court on June 8, 2015, but Tribble
did not file his objections until September 17, 2015.  Also, the
deadline for filing objections to the Second Proposed Findings and
Recommendations was on October 13, 2015, but Tribble did not mail
his objections until October 14, 2015 and they were not filed with
the court until October 16, 2015.

In addition, Judge Chambers found no clear error in both Proposed
Findings and Recommendations, and found no merit to Tribble's
arguments.

Thus, Judge Chambers adopted and incorporated the Magistrate
Judge's findings and recommendations as follows:

     -- dismissing with prejudice the defendants the West
        Virginia Regional Jail and Correctional Facility
        Authority, the Western Regional Jail, and Cabell County;

     -- dismissing without prejudice the plaintiffs' claim for
        prospective injunctive relief;

     -- denying without prejudice defendant Austin Burke's Motion
        to Dismiss for Insufficient Service of Process

     -- denying plaintiff Tribble's Motion to Certify a Class
        Action and Desinate[sic] this as a Multidistrict HQ

     -- denying plaintiff Tribble's Motion to Strike, Overrule,
        and/or to Reserve Burke; and

     -- dismissing without prejudice plaintiffs Jeremy A.
        Johnson, Duane Maynard, William Wray, Steven Davis, and
        Willie Slocum.

A full-text copy of Judge Chambers' February 24, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/mqCQgsfrom Leagle.com.

SRT Director Austin Burke, Defendant, represented by Julie Meeks
Greco -- jmeeks@pffwv.com -- PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE &
Katie L. Hicklin, PULLIN FOWLER FLANAGAN BROWN & POE.

WONDERFUL CITRUS: Court Trims Claims in "Peralta" Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARCELINA PERALTA and RIGOBERTO MONJARAZ,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WONDERFUL CITRUS PACKING LLC and DOES 1-10,
Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-00263-TLN-JLT (E.D. Cal.), Judge Troy L.
Nunley denied Wonder Citrus Packing LLC's motion to strike but
granted its motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action to the
extent that it includes a claim under California Labor Code
Section 202.

A class action complaint was filed by seasonal workers who
harvested citrus grown at various locations in Kern County for
Wonderful Citrus.  The complaint alleged, among other causes of
action, that Wonderful Citrus violated California Labor Code
Sections 201 and 202 by its willful failure to pay at the time of
the plaintiff's termination, all wages earned by and unpaid to the
plaintiffs prior to the time of their termination, although
Wonderful Citrus had the ability to do so.

Wonderful Citrus moved to dismiss the fifth cause of action under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to the extent that the plaintiffs asserted
such a claim under Labor Code Section 202.  Alternatively,
Wonderful Citrus moved to strike references to Labor Code Section
202 in the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(f).  Wonderful Citrus
contended that the two named plaintiffs, Marcelina Peralta and
Rigoberto Monjaraz, do not have standing to assert claims under
that statute because violations of Labor Code Section 202 can only
be asserted by individuals who quit their position.  Peralta and
Monjaraz have admitted that they were "laid off."

Judge Nunley rejected Wonderful Citrus' motion to strike as
improper because it is based solely on the named plaintiffs' lack
of standing to assert the claim, and does not involve striking an
insufficient defense or a redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or
scandalous matter as listed in Rule 12(f).

Judge Nunley, however, agreed with Wonderful Citrus that a claim
made under Labor Code Section 202 may only be asserted by
individuals who quit.  Since Peralta and Monjaraz admitted they
were "laid off," Judge Nunley concluded that they therefore lacked
standing to assert a claim under this provision.

A full-text copy of Judge Nunley's February 23, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/zRcIrcfrom Leagle.com.

Marcelina Peralta, Rigoberto Monjaraz, Plaintiffs, represented by
Gregory N. Karasik, Karasik Law Firm & Santos Gomez, Law Offices
of Santos Gomez.

Paramount Citrus Cooperative, Defendant, represented by Azadeh
Allayee, Roll Law Group P.C., Brooke S. Hammond, Roll Law Group
P.C., James Paul Pecht, Roll Law Group P.C. & Kristina Maria Diaz,
Roll Law Group, PC.

Wonderful Citrus Packing LLC, Defendant, represented by Azadeh
Allayee, Roll Law Group P.C..


XBIOTECH INC: Bronstein Gewirtz Named Lead Counsel in "Tran" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Sam Sparks appointed Kresimir Corak as lead plaintiff,
Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC as lead counsel, and Abraham,
Watkins, Nichol, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend as liaison counsel for
the class in the case captioned LINH TRAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON
BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiff, v. XBIOTECH
INC., JOHN SIMARD, AND QUENNA HAN, Defendants, Cause No. A-15-CA-
01083-SS (W.D. Tex.).

The securities fraud class action was brought under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of all persons who acquired stock
in Xbiotech Inc. from April 15, 2015 to November 23, 2015.  The
complaint alleged that the putative class suffered losses by
purchasing XBiotech's stock at prices artificially inflated by the
company's materially misleading statements about its business,
operations, and prospects, which was then followed by a
precipitous loss in investment value once the misleading
statements were revealed.

Matthew Solis and Kresimir Corak filed separate motions seeking
appointment as lead plaintiff and approval of their selection of
lead counsel and liaison counsel.

Judge Sparks determined that Corak, who suffered a loss of
approximately $735,864, has the largest financial interest in the
relief sought by the class.  Solis' claimed a financial loss of
only $8,109.  Judge Sparks also found that Corak's claims satisfy
the typicality and adequacy requirements of Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 23.

Judge Sparks was also satisfied that Corak's selected counsels,
namely: Bronstein Gewirtz & Grossman LLC as lead counsel and
Abraham, Watkins, Nichol, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend as liaison
counsel, are sufficiently qualified to represent the class.

A full-text copy of Judge Spark's February 23, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/xsQyuofrom Leagle.com.

Linh Tran, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Peretz
Bronstein -- peretz@bgandg.com -- Bronstein Gerwitz & Grossman,
Phillip Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Ronald Dean Gresham, Gresham PC & Andrew L. Payne --
andy@paynemitchell.com -- Payne Mitchell Law Group, L.L.P..

Aaron Le, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew L. Payne, Payne
Mitchell Law Group, L.L.P., Laurence Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A., Phillip Kim, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Ronald Dean Gresham,
Gresham PC.

Matthew Solis, Plaintiff, represented by Jamie Jean McKey --
jmckey@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group & Joe Kendall --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- Kendall Law Group, LLP.

Mehul Rastogi, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas E. Bilek, The
Bilek Law Firm, LLP.

Kresimir Corak, Plaintiff, represented by Peretz Bronstein,
Bronstein Gerwitz & Grossman & Sammy Ford, IV, Abraham, Watkins,
Nichols, Sorrels, Agosto & Friend.

XBiotech Inc., John Simard, Quenna Han, Defendants, represented by
Gerard G. Pecht -- gerard.pecht@nortonrosefulbright.com --
Fulbright & Jaworski & Peter Andrew Stokes --
peter.stokes@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Fulbright & Jaworski, LLP.


* Judges Split Over FLSA, NYLL Liquidated Damages Issue
-------------------------------------------------------
Glenn S. Grindlinger, Esq. -- ggrindlinger@foxrothschild.com --
and Alexander W. Leonard, Esq. -- aleonard@foxrothschild.com -- of
Fox Rotschild, LLP, in an article for New York Law Journal, report
that generally, in New York state, in wage and hours suits,
plaintiffs allege violations of the federal Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).  Both statutes permit
prevailing plaintiffs to recover compensatory damages (usually
back wages), their reasonable attorney fees and costs and
liquidated damages. Whether a successful plaintiff can recover
liquidated damages simultaneously under the FLSA and NYLL is an
open issue in New York.

In 2010, the legislature passed and the governor signed into law,
the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act (WTPA).  Effective
April 9, 2011, the WTPA increased liquidated damages that may be
awarded in wage and hour cases for violations of the NYLL from 25
percent of the underlying back wages owed to 100 percent of the
back wages owed and made liquidated damages virtually automatic
unless the defendant could prove that it acted in good faith
compliance with the law.  In other words, after the enactment of
the WTPA, for every dollar in back pay owed to a successful
plaintiff for violations of the NYLL, the defendant would also
likely have to pay the plaintiff an additional dollar in
liquidated damages under New York law.

Under the FLSA, successful plaintiffs can also recover liquidated
damages equal to 100 percent of the back pay owed and like the
NYLL, the burden is on the defendant to prove that it acted in
good faith compliance with the FLSA to avoid liquidated damages.
Thus, after the enactment of the WTPA, for the first time, the
liquidated damage provision under the NYLL appeared to mirror the
liquidated damage provision under the FLSA.  As most wage and hour
practitioners in New York are acutely aware, the plaintiffs' bar
has naturally championed applying both sets of liquidated damages
to violations covered by both statutes.  This permits successful
plaintiffs to potentially recover treble damages (i.e., up to 200
percent liquidated damages in addition to any underlying wage
liability) in wage and hour litigations, thereby multiplying the
recovery available for even relatively minor, technical violations
of the NYLL and FLSA.

At the time the WTPA was enacted, practitioners and commentators
forecasted these arguments, warning potential "double recovery"
theories would be advocated by the plaintiffs' bar, in addition to
the robust remedies already available, such as attorney fees that
may be awarded to a prevailing plaintiff.

There was certainly a reasonable argument for such cumulative
liquidated damages, as federal and state court decisions prior to
the enactment of the WTPA (when liquidated damages were only 25
percent under the NYLL) often permitted the recovery of liquidated
damages under both statutes (i.e., 125 percent liquidated
damages).  The theory used by such courts was that liquidated
damages under the FLSA were "compensatory" in nature (i.e., meant
to compensate the employee for the time he or she was without his
or her wages) whereas liquidated damages under the NYLL were
"punitive" (i.e., meant to punish and deter employers from
engaging in future wage violations).  After the enactment of the
WTPA, it was assumed that these theories concerning the nature of
liquidated damages under both statutes would continue and treble
damages might be awarded, thus providing a windfall for successful
plaintiffs and further promoting the increase in wage and hour
litigation that has occurred over the past decade.

Yet, since the enactment of the WTPA, a split of authority has
developed in New York federal and state courts concerning the
award of liquidated damages under the FLSA and NYLL.  Initially,
many courts appeared to allow the simultaneous application of both
FLSA and NYLL liquidated damages, thus resulting in the
application of 200 percent liquidated damages.  These courts
reasoned that, under existing case law, both statutes still served
differing purposes, and noted that nothing had fundamentally
changed regarding either statute other than simply increasing the
liquidated damages recovery available under the NYLL.

However, even in 2011, seeds of dissent were already sprouting
given the obvious windfall this handed to plaintiffs.  Some courts
aptly noted that since liquidated damages under the NYLL now
mirrored the FLSA, both sets of liquidated damages effectively
"serve the same purpose and have the same practical effect of
deterring wage violations and compensating underpaid workers."
This "practical effect" argument lingered as some judges, then in
the minority,8 refused to allow double liquidated damages.  These
judges found that the purported distinction between liquidated
damages under the NYLL and FLSA was illusory since both remedies
were identical.

Despite this split of authority, no appellate court has yet to
weigh in and settle whether both forms of liquidated damages may
be recovered simultaneously.  Thus, over the past several years,
the courts have reversed course from the initial bevy of federal
and state court decisions applying 200 percent liquidated damages.
Countless applications seeking 200 percent liquidated damages have
since been denied by numerous judges who find such recoveries to
be duplicative and unnecessary.  These courts continue to reason
that "[b]oth forms of damages seek to deter wage-and-hour
violations in a manner calculated to compensate the [plaintiff]."
Even judges that still apply both NYLL and FLSA liquidated damages
together have noted the recent trend away from granting 200
percent liquidated damages.12

In fact, in some instances judges have begun abrogating their own
precedent, and now embrace the view that double liquidated damages
under both the NYLL and FLSA are inappropriate given the
similarities between both statutes.  Today, the prevailing view
appears to be that applying liquidated damages remedies under both
the NYLL and FLSA results in "a windfall that neither the state
nor the federal legislature appears explicitly to have intended."
Some courts have gone even further and held that applying pre-
judgment interest pursuant to N.Y. C.P.L.R. S5004 is inappropriate
as well since such interest serves an identical purpose to the
FLSA. Therefore, pre-judgment interest cannot be awarded where
FLSA liquidated damages are also available.15

It is certainly difficult to speculate as to the impetus for this
sudden reversal by the courts. Perhaps the Second Circuit's recent
increased scrutiny of wage and hour cases in the seminal Cheeks v.
Freeport Pancake House in 2015 sparked this trend.16
Alternatively, perhaps this trend is a backlash to the record-
breaking filings of wage and hour cases in recent years that have
clogged federal dockets.  Regardless of the reason, there are
strong trends within the judiciary to oppose 200 percent
liquidated damages for prevailing plaintiffs in FLSA and NYLL
litigations.

While much remains to be seen as to how the split among the lower
court judges will be resolved over the next few years, and/or if
an appellate court will weigh in on the subject, as of now it is
clear that a multitude of judges reject treble damages for wage
and hour violations in New York.  Indeed some plaintiffs'
attorneys have begun forgoing such cumulative claims altogether
given this recent trend.  Now that the initial proliferation of
duplicative damages under the NYLL and FLSA has been
counterbalanced, practitioners can also expect the defense bar to
increasingly reject redundant liquidated damages claims.  This is
especially true now that some judges who have previously approved
both forms of liquidated damages are more recently rejecting such
windfall recoveries.


                            *********

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  * * *