CAR_Public/160309.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 9, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 49


                            Headlines


ACCURATE SAFETY: Faces "Gafford" Wage and Hour Suit
ADVANCED ARTHRITIS: "Lauhar" Suit Alleges Medical Malpractice
AK STEEL: OPEB Obligations Transferred to VEBA Trust
ALCOA INC: "Lavoie" Lawsuit Remains Suspended
ALCOA INC: Discovery in "Barnett" Case Remains Suspended

ALLSTATE CORP: Defending 2 Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
ALLSTATE CORP: Defending Misclassification Class Suit in NY
ALLSTATE CORP: Plaintiff Dismissed Florida Class Action
ALLSTATE CORP: Romero Cases Reassigned to New Judge
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defending Marcus Class Action

AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Fairness Hearing Held in "Kaufman" Case
AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Defend Against Pension Fund Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Defend Against "Houssain" Class Action
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oct. 17 Final Approval Hearing in "Lopez" Case
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Trial Begins in Caremark Litigation

ANGELS ALL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Meriweather" Suit Says
ANSARA RESTAURANT: "Bourne" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
APOLLO EDUCATION: Selling Itself Too Cheaply, Suit Claims
ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Party to Cases Related to Syngenta
ASD ESTATES: Faces "Delfin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

ASSET RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
ATLAS RAILROAD: "Herrera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
AUDIENCE INC: April 29 Final Settlement Hearing in IPO Case
AUDIENCE INC: July 2016 Settlement Hearing in Acquisition Suit
AVAILABLE MOVERS: "Wallace" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

B&G FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in "Walker" Mislabeling Suit
BANGKOK THAI: Faces "Egeland" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: 6th Cir. Flips Lower Court Order
BENCO DENTAL: Faces "Johnnidis" Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly
BF WESTON: Faces "Downie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages

BLUE SHIELD: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 3
BOSE CORP: "Keegan" Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Data
BREAD PARTNERS: "Ayerdis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces "Nixon" Suit in Del. Over Plavix Design
BUENO INC: "Rumbaut" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay, Damages

BULLSEYE GLASS: Faces Class Suit Over Release of Toxic Chemicals
C1 FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Merger Suit
CALIFORNIA: Escheat Laws May Merit Review in Future Cases
CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Denies Supplemental Complaint
CBE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lambright" Suit Claims

CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Koroman" Suit Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Leaseholders File Antitrust Class Suit
CLEVELAND, OH: Ruling in "Lycan" Affirmed in Part
CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Workplace Violence Claims May Proceed
CROSCILL HOME: Faces "Russell" Suit in New Jersey

CVS HEALTH: Suit Alleges Consumer Protection Acts Violation
CVS PHARMACY: Court Preliminarily Approves "Reyes" Settlement
DA CROSSING: Faces "Rud" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DAIRY FARMERS: 2015 Settlement Deal Has Preliminarily Approval
DALMAR ROOFING: "Guest" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

DEL TACO LLC: "Torez" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
DOLAN COMPANY: 8th Cir. Revives Parts of Rand-Heart Suit
EF INTERCULTURAL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Vacation Wages
ELI LILLY: Takeda Evaluating Actos Claims
ELI LILLY: Company and Takeda Still Face Actos Cases in Canada

ELI LILLY: Faces 510 Byetta Product Liability Cases
ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Saavedra" Case
ELI LILLY: Defending 140 Suits Related to Cymbalta(R)
ELI LILLY: Defending 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Cases
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hayes" Suit Claims

EVENTBRITE INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
FACEBOOK INC: Software Engineer Testifies in Privacy Suit
FEDERATED MUTUAL: "Easterday" Suit Remanded to State Court
FERROGLOBE PLC: Delaware Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit
FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Lubbers" Suit

FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss
FOUR SEASON HEALTHCARE: "Alcaraz" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Pay
FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
G'S FOOD MART: Violated FLSA, "Destine" Suit Says
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violations

GENERAl CHEMICAL: Sacramento City Sues Over Overpriced Alum
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Milwaukee Suit Over LAS-price Fixing
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Hackettstown Suit Over LAS-price Fixing
GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Southerland" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Thomas" Suit Claims

GORDMANS INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hunsinger" Suit Says
GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over RICO Violation
GREENSIDE CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
IHEARTMEDIA: Sued in New York Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
IMAGE HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Menichiello" Suit Says

INTERSTATE AMUSEMENTS: Dropped From H-2B Workers' Wage Suit
IRSA INVERSIONES: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
J BRAND: Jeans Not Made in California, Suit Claims
J.W. LUBE: "Watts" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
KJ & J FRUIT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Marte" Suit Says

KML LAW: Faces "Porch" Suit Over Foreclosure Fees
LA FE FOODS: Doesn't Pay Overtime, "Isalgue" Suit Says
LAND OF LINCOLN: Sued Over Health Insurance Provider Networks
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: May 11 Fairness Hearing in Sykes v. Mel Harris
LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Approves Dismissal of Haverhill Case

LITHOGRAPHIX INC: "Pineda" Suit Seeks Payment of Wages & OT
LMS INTELLIBOUND: Retaliated Against Employee, "Hamilton" Says
LTD FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
LUCILE SALTER: Faces "Torrento" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "DeVillier" Suit Over Chinese Flooring

M&T BANK: Motion to Stay Securities Litigation Pending
MANNA MADISON: Faces "Bajrami" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
MARVEL & MALONEY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
MASTERPIECE ALPINE: "Vega" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
MEDTRONIC INC: Appeals Ruling in "Merenstein" Shareholder Suit

MICHIGAN: Sued Over Lead Content in Flint's Water Supply
MICROSOFT CORP: Law Firm Seeks High Court Review of Class Action
MILANEZZA LLC: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Pay
MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: NBA Fans Sue Over Paperless Tickets
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Tosses Suit Filed by Ex-Players

NEFAB PACKAGING: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Amended Suit
NEW YORK: Faces Class Suit Over Tampon Tax
NEWARK, CA: Court Trims Claims in "Henneberry" Suit
NOKIAN TYRES: Helsinki Law Firm Urges Customers to Join Suit
NORTHWELL HEALTH: "Park" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages

NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Must Face "Wishnev" Suit
NPSZ VALET: "Garcia" Suit to Recover OT, Minimum Pay
OUTERWALL INC: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
PALESTINIAN BROADCASTING: Israeli Lawfare Group Mulls Class Suit
PANDA EXPRESS: "Tapia" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime

PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
PINNACLE WEST: 9th Cir. Heard Oral Argument in Power Outage Suit
PROLOGIX DISTRIBUTION: Sued in California Over Failure to Pay OT
PROSPEROUS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over "Maple" Oatmeal Product

RABOBANK: Seeks Dismissal of Libor Manipulation Class Action
RAC ACCEPTANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Caldera" Suit Says
RADIOLOGY REGIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action
RANOR INC: Discovery in "Caron" Suit Due Dec. 20
RAPID CAPITAL: Faces "Melingonis" Over Unsolicited Phone Calls

RECKITT BENCKISER: Stays Mum on Nurofen Pain Drug Class Action
RED DIRT OILFIELD: Violated FLSA, "Carbajal" Suit Says
ROBINSON PHARMA: Suit for Breach of Express & Implied Warranties
ROCKWATER ENERGY: "Estraca" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
SABRE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of New York Consumer Action

SABRE CORP: 2 Class Actions Pending in Texas Courts
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: "Baker" Suit Alleges Torts to Land
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sold Defective Gear S2, "Whiteman" Suit Says
SCOTCH INC: "Cortes" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SCRANTON, PA: Rental Registration Fee Class Action Can Proceed

SEMPRA ENERGY: "Tetalman" Suit Alleges Overbilling
SENTRY CREDIT: "Gordon" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Asks Court to Stay Guevoura Fund Suit
SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces "Rosenthal" Suit Over Vacuum Products
SHUTTERFLY: Faces Class Suit Over Continuing Monthly Fee

SKYRISE CONSTRUCTION: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SLATER & GORDON: Woodsford to Underwrite Shareholder Class Action
SOLARWINDS WORLDWIDE: "Thurston" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Song" Suit Over Aliso Canyon Gas Leak
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Bhardwaj" Suit over Aliso Gas Leak

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: "Saab" Suit Alleges Negligence
STATE STREET: ERISA Class Actions Pending in Boston
STEIN MART: Faces "Riggins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
STELLAR RECOVERY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over TCPA Violation
STERLING SELF: Faces "Chamorro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

STRIPE-A-ZONE: "Adams" Labor Suit Moved from E.D to N.D. Texas
SUNEDISON INC: "French" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: "Johnson" Labor Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
SUNWATER: Maddens Lawyers Drops Callide Dam Class Action
SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Salas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

SYNGENTA AG: "Fischer FLP" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2591
SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Crone" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2591 Kansas
SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Vermeer" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2591
TACONIC: Water Test Shows High Level of Toxic Chemical at Plant
TAKATA CORP: Faces Midway Auto Over Defective Airbags

TARGET CORP: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
TED WIENS: Sued Over Uniform Cleaning Fee, Unpaid Overtime Wages
TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Murdoch" Suit Alleges Fraudulent VoIP Ads
TERRACE MANAGEMENT: "Shaw" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
TGI FRIDAYS: Faces "Calabrese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

TIME INC: Michigan Court Dismissed "Fox" Class Action
TLC MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Landlords and Tenants Rights Summary
TRANSUNION: Objecting Counsel Files Interlocutory Appeal
TRANSUNION: "Patel" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Spokeo
TRAVELERS HOME: "Tkachyk" Suit Removed to D. Montana

TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Illinois Suits Related to ET Plus
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Canada Suits Related to ET Plus Pending
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Wisconsin Suit Over ET Plus Pending
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Missouri Action Related to ET Plus
TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Nemky and Isolde Cases Consolidated

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Challenges Lead Plaintiff's Bid to Withdraw
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Adzhemyan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Aquino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
UBERX: Jefferson Parish Taxicab Drivers File Class Action
ULTRAMAR LTD: Still Defends Price-Fixing Claims in Canada

ULTRAMAR LTD: Still Defends "Thouin" Class Action
UNITED DEV'T: K&T Says Investors to Recover More Via Arbitration
UNITED KINGDOM: NHS Faces Class Action Over PMS Funding Cuts
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Weighs Sanctions Against Lawyers
UNITED STATES: Army Wants Fort Detrick Contamination Suit Tossed

UNITED STATES: Court Partially Grants Class Cert. in "Steele"
UNITED STATES NAVY: Court Finds Plaintiffs' Claims as Time-Barred
URBAN FULFILLMENT SERVICES: "Ragano" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
VHU EXPRESS: Faces "Benjamin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Chevrolet Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672

VONS COMPANIES: "Moreno" Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
VSTYLES INC: Faces "Navarro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese
WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Parmesan Cheese, Suit Claims
WALT DISNEY: Studios Sued Over Tobacco Products in Movies

WASTEWATER SPECIALTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
WAYNE FARMS: "Avery" Suit Moved from Circuit Ct. to E.D. Ark.
WELLS FARGO: CA Affirms Approval of Class Action Settlement
WESTERN LAND: "Falk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
WESTERN LAND: "Falk" 2nd Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

WESTSIDE AG: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages
WESTSIDE AG: Faces "Cardenas" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
WILSHIRE CONSUMER: Motion to Deny TCPA Class Certification OK'd
WISCONSIN HORMEL: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Ruling Upheld


                            *********


ACCURATE SAFETY: Faces "Gafford" Wage and Hour Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Drake Gafford, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Accurate Safety Compliance, Defendants,
Case 2:16-cv-00580 (W.D. Okla., January 29, 2016), seeks actual
damages in the amount of overtime wages, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest and reasonable attorneys'
fees, expert fees and other costs, and such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gafford worked as an oilfield worker monitoring lower explosive
levels and testing at the Marcellus Shale location. As a result of
his being misclassified as contractors, he is not paid overtime
compensation for hours in excess of 40 hours per workweek and was
not given all the mandatory benefits.

Accurate is a full service safety company based in Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Patricia Anne Podolec, Esq.
      FOSHEE & YAFFE
      P.O. Box 890420
      Oklahoma City, OK 73189
      Tel: (405) 632-6668
      Fax: (405) 632-3036
      E-mail: ppodolec@fosheeyaffe.com


ADVANCED ARTHRITIS: "Lauhar" Suit Alleges Medical Malpractice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Roopdai Lauhar, and all others similarly-situated v. Yelena
Sokolova, M.D. and Advanced Arthritis Care Center, Case No.
700848/2016 (N.Y. Sup., January 24, 2016), seeks damages for
Defendants' alleged medical malpractice and negligence.

Advanced Arthritis Care Center is a group practice with one
location. Currently, Advanced Arthritis Care Center specializes in
Rheumatology and Allergy with two physicians.

Yelena Sokolova is a practicing Rheumatology doctor in Brooklyn,
N.Y.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Julio E. Portilla, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JULIO E. PORTILLA, P.C.
      350 Broadway, Suite 400
      New York, NY 10013
      Tel: (212) 365-0292


AK STEEL: OPEB Obligations Transferred to VEBA Trust
----------------------------------------------------
Effective January 1, 2016, AK Steel Holding Corporation
transferred to the VEBA trust all Pension and Other Postretirement
Employee Benefit obligations owed to class members and have no
further liability for OPEB benefits after December 31, 2015, the
Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

In December 2012, the Company reached a final settlement agreement
(the "Zanesville Retiree Settlement") of a class action filed on
behalf of certain retirees from its Zanesville Works for its OPEB
obligations to such retirees.

The Company said, "We agreed to continue to provide company-paid
health and life insurance to class members through December 31,
2015, and to make combined lump sum payments totaling $10.6
million to a VEBA trust and to plaintiffs' counsel over three
years. We made the final payment to the Zanesville VEBA trust of
$3.1 million in 2015. Effective January 1, 2016, we transferred to
the VEBA trust all OPEB obligations owed to the class members
under our applicable health and welfare plans and have no further
liability for OPEB benefits after December 31, 2015."

AK Steel Holding Corporation ("AK Holding") is a corporation
formed under the laws of Delaware in 1993 and is an integrated
producer of flat-rolled carbon, stainless and electrical steels
and tubular products through its wholly-owned subsidiary, AK Steel
Corporation ("AK Steel").


ALCOA INC: "Lavoie" Lawsuit Remains Suspended
---------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the class action lawsuit by Dany
Lavoie remains suspended and no further schedule has been set.

In August 2005, Dany Lavoie, a resident of Baie Comeau in the
Canadian Province of Quebec, filed a Motion for Authorization to
Institute a Class Action and for Designation of a Class
Representative against Alcoa Canada Ltd., Alcoa Limitee, Societe
Canadienne de Metaux Reynolds Limitee and Canadian British
Aluminum in the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Baie
Comeau. Plaintiff seeks to institute the class action on behalf of
a putative class consisting of all past, present and future
owners, tenants and residents of Baie Comeau's St. Georges
neighborhood. He alleges that defendants, as the present and past
owners and operators of an aluminum smelter in Baie Comeau, have
negligently allowed the emission of certain contaminants from the
smelter, specifically Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons or "PAHs,"
that have been deposited on the lands and houses of the St.
Georges neighborhood and its environs causing damage to the
property of the putative class and causing health concerns for
those who inhabit that neighborhood. Plaintiff originally moved to
certify a class action, sought to compel additional remediation to
be conducted by the defendants beyond that already undertaken by
them voluntarily, sought an injunction against further emissions
in excess of a limit to be determined by the court in consultation
with an independent expert, and sought money damages on behalf of
all class members.

In May 2007, the court authorized a class action suit to include
only people who suffered property damage or personal injury
damages caused by the emission of PAHs from the smelter. In
September 2007, plaintiffs filed the claim against the original
defendants, which the court had authorized in May. Alcoa has filed
its Statement of Defense and plaintiffs filed an Answer to that
Statement. Alcoa also filed a Motion for Particulars with respect
to certain paragraphs of plaintiffs' Answer and a Motion to Strike
with respect to certain paragraphs of plaintiffs' Answer.

In late 2010, the court denied these motions. The Soderberg
smelting process that plaintiffs allege to be the source of
emissions of concern has ceased operations and has been
dismantled. No further formal court proceedings or discovery has
occurred, while technical advisors nominated by agreement of the
parties confer on potential health impacts of prior emissions.
This protocol has been agreed to by the parties who have also
advised the court regarding the process. Plaintiffs have filed a
motion seeking appointment of an expert to advise the court on
matters of sampling of homes and standards for interior home
remediation. Alcoa has announced its opposition to that motion.

Although initially setting a schedule for briefing, during January
2016, the court notified the parties that it was suspending that
schedule until further notice. No further schedule has been set.

Further proceedings in the case will await resolution of the
motion. At this stage of the proceeding, the Company is unable to
reasonably predict an outcome or to estimate a range of reasonably
possible loss.

Alcoa is a global leader in lightweight metals engineering and
manufacturing.


ALCOA INC: Discovery in "Barnett" Case Remains Suspended
--------------------------------------------------------
Alcoa Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that discovery in the "Barnett" lawsuit
remains stayed.

In October 2006, in Barnett, et al. v. Alcoa and Alcoa Fuels,
Inc., Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick, Indiana; 87-C01-
0601-PL-499, forty-one plaintiffs sued Alcoa Inc. and a
subsidiary, asserting claims similar to those asserted in Musgrave
v. Alcoa, et al., Warrick Circuit Court, County of Warrick,
Indiana; 87-C01-0601-CT-006.

In November 2007, Alcoa Inc. and its subsidiary filed a motion to
dismiss the Barnett cases. In October 2008, the Warrick County
Circuit Court granted Alcoa's motions to dismiss, dismissing all
claims arising out of alleged occupational exposure to wastes at
the Squaw Creek Mine, but in November 2008, the trial court
clarified its ruling, indicating that the order does not dispose
of plaintiffs' personal injury claims based upon alleged
"recreational" or non-occupational exposure. Plaintiffs also filed
a "second amended complaint" in response to the court's orders
granting Alcoa's motion to dismiss.

On July 7, 2010, the court granted the parties' joint motions for
a general continuance of trial settings. Discovery in this matter
remains stayed.

The Company is unable to reasonably predict an outcome or to
estimate a range of reasonably possible loss because plaintiffs
have merely alleged that their medical condition is attributable
to exposure to materials at the Squaw Creek Mine but no further
information is available due to the discovery stay.

Alcoa is a global leader in lightweight metals engineering and
manufacturing.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defending 2 Wage-and-Hour Class Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
litigating two class action cases in California in which the
plaintiffs allege off-the-clock wage and hour claims.

One case, involving two classes, is pending in Los Angeles
Superior Court and was filed in December 2007. In this case, one
class includes auto field physical damage adjusters employed in
the state of California from January 1, 2005 to the date of final
judgment, to the extent the Company failed to pay for off-the-
clock work to those adjusters who performed certain duties prior
to their first assignments. The other class includes all non-
exempt employees in California from December 19, 2006 until
January 2010 who received pay statements from Allstate which
allegedly did not comply with California law.

The other case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California in September 2010. In April 2012,
the trial court certified the class, and Allstate appealed to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. On September 3, 2014, the Ninth
Circuit affirmed the trial court's decision to certify the class,
and Allstate filed a motion for rehearing en banc. Allstate's
motion for rehearing en banc was denied and on January 27, 2015,
Allstate filed a petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S.
Supreme Court.

On June 15, 2015, the Supreme Court denied Allstate's petition for
a writ of certiorari. The case is scheduled for trial on September
27, 2016.

In addition to off-the-clock claims, the plaintiffs in this case
allege other California Labor Code violations resulting from
purported unpaid overtime. The class in this case includes all
adjusters in the state of California, except auto field adjusters,
from September 29, 2006 to final judgment. Plaintiffs in both
cases seek recovery of unpaid compensation, liquidated damages,
penalties, and attorneys' fees and costs.

The Allstate Corporation is the largest publicly held personal
lines insurer in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Defending Misclassification Class Suit in NY
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a case was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging that no-fault claim adjusters have been improperly
classified as exempt employees under New York Labor Law and the
Fair Labor Standards Act. The case was filed in April 2011, and
the plaintiffs are seeking unpaid wages, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and
attorneys' fees.

On September 16, 2014, the court certified a class of no-fault
adjusters under New York Labor Law and refused to decertify a Fair
Labor Standards Act class of no-fault adjusters. Notice to the
class was issued in December 2015. The class members will have
sixty days from the date of mailing to opt out of the class. In
the Company's judgment a loss is not probable.

The Allstate Corporation is the largest publicly held personal
lines insurer in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Plaintiff Dismissed Florida Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in a
Florida class action lawsuit has dismissed its case.

The Florida personal injury protection statute permits insurers to
pay personal injury protection benefits for reasonable medical
expenses based on certain benefit reimbursement limitations which
are authorized by the personal injury protection statute
(generally referred to as "fee schedules") resulting from
automobile accidents.

The Company is litigating one class action case in federal court
in Illinois in which the plaintiffs allege that Allstate's
personal injury protection policies failed to include sufficient
language providing notice of Allstate's election to apply the fee
schedules. This case is brought on behalf of health care providers
and insureds who submitted claims for no-fault benefits under
personal injury protection policies which were in effect from 2008
through 2012, and were reimbursed based on the fee schedules. They
seek a declaratory judgment that Allstate could not properly apply
the fee schedules and seek damages for the difference between what
they allege are the reasonable medical expenses payable under the
personal injury protection coverage and the fee schedule amounts
Allstate actually paid. They also seek recovery of attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to Florida statutes.

In a Florida class action case, the court granted summary judgment
in favor of Allstate on February 13, 2015, holding that Allstate's
language provided sufficient notice of an election to apply the
fee schedules. Plaintiff appealed that ruling to the 11th Circuit
Court of Appeals. Plaintiff's brief was due November 8, 2015.
Instead of filing a brief, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the
case.

The Illinois class action case has been stayed by the Illinois
federal court pending the outcome of several Florida state court
appeals.

This fee schedule issue has been the subject of thousands of
individual lawsuits filed against Allstate in Florida county
courts. Four of those matters are on appeal to the Florida
District Courts of Appeals. On March 18, 2015, the District Court
of Appeal for the First District unanimously reversed a summary
judgment that had been entered against Allstate, holding that
Allstate's language was clear and unambiguous and provided
adequate notice of its intent to use the fee schedules. The
plaintiff's appeal to the Florida Supreme Court was stayed.

On August 19, 2015, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth
District issued a divided decision (three separate opinions, two
against Allstate and one dissenting opinion deeming Allstate's
language sufficient), holding that Allstate's language was not
sufficient. The District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District
has certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the
District Court of Appeal for the First District's decision.
Allstate's motion for rehearing of the District Court of Appeal
for the Fourth District's decision was denied. Allstate's notice
to the Florida Supreme Court seeking to invoke the discretionary
jurisdiction of that court was accepted on January 20, 2016.
Briefing has just commenced in this case. In the District Court of
Appeal for the Second District, the court heard oral argument on
September 22, 2015, and has taken the matter under advisement. In
the District Court of Appeal for the Third District, the court
heard oral argument on February 3, 2016, and has taken the matter
under advisement. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not
probable.

The Allstate Corporation is the largest publicly held personal
lines insurer in the United States.


ALLSTATE CORP: Romero Cases Reassigned to New Judge
---------------------------------------------------
The Allstate Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is
defending certain matters in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania relating to the Company's agency
program reorganization announced in 1999.

The current focus in these matters relates to a release of claims
signed by the vast majority of the former agents whose employment
contracts were terminated in the reorganization program.

These matters include the following:

Romero I:

In 2001, approximately 32 former employee agents, on behalf of a
putative class of approximately 6,300 former employee agents,
filed a putative class action alleging claims for age
discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act
("ADEA"), interference with benefits under ERISA, breach of
contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiffs also assert a
claim for a declaratory judgment that the release of claims
constitutes unlawful retaliation and should be set aside.
Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole relief,"
including back pay, compensatory and punitive damages, liquidated
damages, lost investment capital, attorneys' fees and costs, and
equitable relief, including reinstatement to employee agent status
with all attendant benefits.

Romero II:

A putative nationwide class action was also filed in 2001 by
former employee agents alleging various violations of ERISA
("Romero II"). This action has been consolidated with Romero I.
The Romero II plaintiffs, most of whom are also plaintiffs in
Romero I, are challenging certain amendments to the Agents Pension
Plan and seek to have service as exclusive agent independent
contractors count toward eligibility for benefits under the Agents
Pension Plan. Plaintiffs seek broad but unspecified "make whole"
or other equitable relief, including loss of benefits as a result
of their conversion to exclusive agent independent contractor
status or retirement from the Company between November 1, 1999 and
December 31, 2000. They also seek repeal of the challenged
amendments to the Agents Pension Plan with all attendant benefits
revised and recalculated for thousands of former employee agents,
and attorneys' fees and costs. The court granted the Company's
initial motion to dismiss the complaint. The Third Circuit Court
of Appeals reversed that dismissal and remanded for further
proceedings.

Romero I and II consolidated proceedings:

In 2004, the court ruled that the release was voidable and
certified classes of agents, including a mandatory class of agents
who had signed the release, for purposes of effectuating the
court's declaratory judgment that the release was voidable. In
2007, the court vacated its ruling and granted the Company's
motion for summary judgment on all claims. Plaintiffs appealed and
in July 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
vacated the trial court's entry of summary judgment in the
Company's favor, remanded the case to the trial court for
additional discovery, and instructed the trial court to first
address the validity of the release after additional discovery.
Following the completion of discovery limited to the validity of
the release, the parties filed cross motions for summary judgment
with respect to the validity of the release. On February 28, 2014,
the trial court denied plaintiffs' and the Company's motions for
summary judgment, concluding that the question of whether the
releases were knowingly and voluntarily signed under a totality of
circumstances test raised disputed issues of fact to be resolved
at trial. Among other things, the court also held that the
release, if valid, would bar all claims in Romero I and II.

On May 23, 2014, plaintiffs moved to certify a class as to certain
issues relating to the validity of the release. The court denied
plaintiffs' class certification motion on October 6, 2014,
stating, among other things, that individual factors and
circumstances must be considered to determine whether each release
signer entered into the release knowingly and voluntarily. The
court entered an order on December 11, 2014, (a) stating that the
court's October 6, 2014 denial of class certification as to
release-related issues did not resolve whether issues relating to
the merits of plaintiffs' claims may be subject to class
certification at a later time, and (b) holding that the court's
October 6, 2014 order restarted the running of the statute of
limitation for any former employee agent who wished to challenge
the validity of the release.

In an order entered January 7, 2015, the court denied
reconsideration of its December 11, 2014 order and clarified that
all statutes of limitations to challenge the release would resume
running on March 2, 2015. Since the Court's January 7, 2015 order,
a total of 459 additional individual plaintiffs have filed
separate lawsuits similar to Romero I or sought to intervene in
the Romero I action. Trial proceedings have commenced to determine
the question of whether the releases of the original named
plaintiffs in Romero I and II were knowingly and voluntarily
signed. Additionally, plaintiffs asserted two equitable defenses
to the release which were to be determined by the court and not
the jury. As to the first trial proceeding involving ten
plaintiffs, the jury reached verdicts on June 17, 2015 finding
that two plaintiffs signed their releases knowingly and
voluntarily and eight plaintiffs did not sign their releases
knowingly and voluntarily.

On January 28, 2016, the court entered its opinion and judgment
finding in Allstate's favor as to all ten plaintiffs on the two
equitable defenses to the release. The trial result is not yet
final and may be subject to further proceedings.

The remaining two trials for the original Romero I and II
plaintiffs were scheduled to commence in the fourth quarter of
2015; however, these trials have been postponed. No new trial
dates have been set and no other trials are currently scheduled.
The Court has not yet addressed a schedule for deciding the
validity of the release signed by the new plaintiffs.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, the Court granted defendants'
motions for partial dismissal and dismissed plaintiffs' state law
claims and federal retaliation claims. Plaintiffs' other claims
under the ADEA and ERISA remain. The Court's orders are subject to
further proceedings.

On February 1, 2016, these cases were reassigned to a new judge.

Based on the trial court's February 28, 2014 order in Romero I and
II, if the validity of the release is decided in favor of the
Company for any plaintiff, that would preclude any damages or
other relief being awarded to that plaintiff. If the validity of
the release is decided in favor of a plaintiff, further
proceedings with respect to the merits of that plaintiff's claims
relating to the reorganization would have to occur before there
could be any determination of liability or award of damages in
either Romero I or Romero II. The final resolution of these
matters is subject to various uncertainties and complexities
including how individual trials, post trial motions and possible
appeals with respect to the validity of the release will be
resolved. Depending upon how these issues are resolved, the
Company may or may not have to address the merits of plaintiffs'
claims relating to the reorganization and amendments to the Agents
Pension Plan. In the Company's judgment, a loss is not probable.

The Allstate Corporation is the largest publicly held personal
lines insurer in the United States.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defending Marcus Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the class action by The Marcus Corporation
after the court denied final approval of the settlement.

In 2010, the Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General
from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its
claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against the Company,
MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa, Inc., alleging a
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act (the "DOJ
case"). The complaint included allegations that provisions in the
Company's merchant agreements prohibiting merchants from steering
a customer to use another network's card or another type of
general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non-discrimination"
contractual provisions) violate the antitrust laws.

"The complaint sought a judgment permanently enjoining us from
enforcing our non-discrimination contractual provisions. The
complaint did not seek monetary damages," the Company said.

"Following a non-jury trial in the DOJ case, the trial court found
that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and on April
30, 2015, the court issued a final judgment entering a permanent
injunction. Following our appeal of this judgment, on December 18,
2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit stayed the trial
court's judgment as well as related matters before the trial court
pending the issuance of its appellate decision.

"In addition to the DOJ case, individual merchant cases and a
putative class action, collectively captioned In re: American
Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending
in the Eastern District of New York against us alleging that our
anti-steering provisions in merchant card acceptance agreements
violate U.S. antitrust laws. The individual merchant cases seek
damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief. These
matters, including a trial previously scheduled in the individual
merchant cases, have been stayed pending resolution of the appeal
in the DOJ case.

"Individual merchants have initiated arbitration proceedings
raising similar claims concerning the anti-steering provisions in
our card acceptance agreements and seeking damages. We are
vigorously defending against those claims.

"In July 2004, we were named as a defendant in another putative
class action filed in the Southern District of New York and
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et
al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of our charge cards and credit cards
in violation of various state and federal laws. The plaintiffs in
this action seek injunctive relief and an unspecified amount of
damages.

"In December 2013, we announced a proposed settlement of the
Marcus case and the putative class action challenging our anti-
steering provisions. The settlement, which provides for certain
injunctive relief for the proposed classes, received preliminary
approval in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of New York.

"On August 4, 2015, the court denied final approval of the
settlement; further proceedings are anticipated after resolution
of the appeal in the DOJ case.

American Express Company, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, is a global services company.  Its principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card products
and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses
around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Final Fairness Hearing Held in "Kaufman" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final fairness
hearing to consider approval of a class-wide settlement in the
"Kaufman" lawsuit occurred on January 22, 2016.

"We are a defendant in a class action captioned Kaufman v.
American Express Travel Related Services, which was filed on
February 14, 2007, and is pending in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois," the Company said.
"Plaintiffs' principal allegation is that our gift cards violated
consumer protection statutes because consumers allegedly had
difficulty spending small residual amounts on the gift cards prior
to the imposition of monthly service fees."

The Court preliminarily certified a settlement class consisting of
(with some exceptions) "all purchasers, recipients and holders of
all gift cards issued by American Express from January 1, 2002
through the date of preliminary approval of the settlement."

A final fairness hearing to consider approval of a class-wide
settlement occurred on January 22, 2016.

American Express Company, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, is a global services company.  Its principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card products
and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses
around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Defend Against Pension Fund Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against the claims filed by Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund.

On July 30, 2015, plaintiff Plumbers and Steamfitters Local 137
Pension Fund, on behalf of themselves and other purchasers of
American Express stock, filed a suit, captioned Plumbers and
Steamfitters Local 137 Pension Fund v. American Express Co.,
Kenneth I. Chenault and Jeffrey C. Campbell, for violation of
federal securities law, alleging that the Company deliberately
issued false and misleading statements to, and omitted important
information from, the public relating to the financial importance
of the Costco cobrand relationship to the Company, including, but
not limited to, the decision to accelerate negotiations to renew
the cobrand agreement. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive
relief.

American Express Company, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, is a global services company.  Its principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card products
and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses
around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: To Defend Against "Houssain" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends
to vigorously defend against the "Houssain" class action lawsuit.

On October 16, 2015, a putative class action, captioned Houssain
v. American Express Company, et al., was filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against the Company and certain officers of the Company under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") relating
to disclosures of the Costco cobrand relationship. The complaint
alleges that the defendants violated certain ERISA obligations by:
allowing the investment of American Express Retirement Savings
Plan ("Plan") assets in American Express common stock when
American Express common stock was not a prudent investment;
misrepresenting and failing to disclose material facts to Plan
participants in connection with the administration of the Plan;
and breaching certain fiduciary obligations. The suit seeks, among
other remedies, an unspecified amount of damages.

American Express Company, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, is a global services company.  Its principal
products and services are charge and credit payment card products
and travel-related services offered to consumers and businesses
around the world.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Oct. 17 Final Approval Hearing in "Lopez" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that final approval
hearing is scheduled for October 17, 2016, in the "Lopes" class
action lawsuit related to U.S. card services matters.

In October 2009, a putative class action, captioned Lopez, et al.
v. American Express Bank, FSB and American Express Centurion Bank,
was filed in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The amended complaint sought to certify a
class of California American Express Card Members whose interest
rates were changed from fixed to variable in or around August 2009
or otherwise increased.

On August 20, 2014, plaintiffs filed an amended nationwide
complaint and an unopposed motion for preliminary approval of a
settlement of the claims alleged in that complaint. The settlement
provides for certain relief to class members, attorneys' fees and
costs of up to $6 million. The court granted preliminary approval
of the settlement on February 3, 2016. The final approval hearing
is scheduled for October 17, 2016.

American Express Company, together with its consolidated
subsidiaries, is a global services company that provides customers
with access to products, insights and experiences that enrich
lives and build business success.  Its principal products and
services are charge and credit payment card products and travel-
related services offered to consumers and businesses around the
world.


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Trial Begins in Caremark Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
American International Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that trial was
expected to commence on February 22, 2016, in the litigation
related to Caremark.

AIG and certain of its subsidiaries have been named defendants in
two putative class actions in state court in Alabama that arise
out of the 1999 settlement of class and derivative litigation
involving Caremark Rx, Inc. (Caremark). The plaintiffs in the
second-filed action intervened in the first-filed action, and the
second-filed action was dismissed. An excess policy issued by a
subsidiary of AIG with respect to the 1999 litigation was
expressly stated to be without limit of liability. In the current
actions, plaintiffs allege that the judge approving the 1999
settlement was misled as to the extent of available insurance
coverage and would not have approved the settlement had he known
of the existence and/or unlimited nature of the excess policy.
They further allege that AIG, its subsidiaries, and Caremark are
liable for fraud and suppression for misrepresenting and/or
concealing the nature and extent of coverage.

The complaints filed by the plaintiffs and the intervenors request
compensatory damages for the 1999 class in the amount of $3.2
billion, plus punitive damages. Plaintiffs have now reduced the
amount of compensatory damages they are seeking at trial to $1.1
billion. AIG and its subsidiaries deny the allegations of fraud
and suppression, assert that information concerning the excess
policy was publicly disclosed months prior to the approval of the
settlement, that the claims are barred by the statute of
limitations, and that the statute cannot be tolled in light of the
public disclosure of the excess coverage. The plaintiffs and
intervenors, in turn, have asserted that the disclosure was
insufficient to inform them of the nature of the coverage and did
not start the running of the statute of limitations.

On August 15, 2012, the trial court entered an order granting
plaintiffs' motion for class certification, and on September 12,
2014, the Alabama Supreme Court affirmed that order. AIG and the
other defendants' petition for rehearing of that decision was
denied on February 27, 2015. The matter has been remanded to the
trial court for general discovery and adjudication of the merits.

On November 24, 2015, the trial court ruled that the defendants
had a duty to disclose the amount of insurance available at the
settlement approval hearings and that the defendants breached that
duty. AIG intends to appeal this ruling in the event of an adverse
judgment at trial. Trial was expected to commence on February 22,
2016.

"In 2015, we accrued our current estimate of loss with respect to
this litigation," the Company said.

American International Group, Inc. (AIG) is a global insurance
organization.


ANGELS ALL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "Meriweather" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charmaine Meriweather and Quiona Jackson, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Angels All Around Home
Care Services Inc., a/k/a Angels all Around, Inc. and Bambi
Kimmes, Case No. 2:16-cv-00027-WCO (N.D. Ga., February 8, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants operate a website providing personal car and
domestic services for individuals who are aged, disabled, or
request personal care and domestic services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Stephen Mixon, Esq.
      Alex R. Roberson, Esq.
      MILLAR & MIXON, LLC
      1691 Phoenix Boulevard, Suite 150
      Atlanra, GA 30349
      Telephone: (770) 955-0100
      Facsimile: (678) 999-5039


ANSARA RESTAURANT: "Bourne" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Bourne, and all others similarly-situated v. Ansara
Restaurant Group, Inc. dba Red Robin of Michigan, Clinton Robin,
Inc., and Victor L. Ansara, Case No. 2:16-cv-10332 (E.D. Mich.,
February 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to pay minimum wage in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate at least 22 Red Robin restaurants
throughout Michigan and Northwest Ohio. According to their
website, Defendants have been in the grocery and restaurant
industries since 1961.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


APOLLO EDUCATION: Selling Itself Too Cheaply, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Apollo Education Group, corporate parent of profit-seeking
Phoenix College, faces a shareholder class action in Phoenix
accusing it of selling itself too cheaply to a buyout group.

Apollo directors agreed on Feb. 7 to sell the company to AP VIII
Queso Holdings LP for $9.50 a share, lead plaintiff Robert J.
Casey II says in the Feb. 25 lawsuit in Maricopa County Court.

Phoenix College is the nation's largest profit-seeking college
chain. It has been fined repeatedly for admissions and bookkeeping
transgressions, including a $10 million fine to the U.S.
Department of Education for recruiting violations in 2004, another
$145 million in 2008 for misleading investors, and $1.9 million to
settle a discrimination class action that year.

The Federal Trade Commission sued Apollo and Phoenix again in
January this year, demanding information about its finances.

Apollo stocks traded at $28.66 per share on Feb. 24, 2015, and the
company reported third quarter revenue of $680 million that year.
It reported revenue of about $600 million in the fourth quarter of
2015.

Lead plaintiff Casey says in the lawsuit that the buyout offer is
"far below the 52-week high of the company's stock price."

"The consideration to be paid plaintiff and the class in the
proposed transaction is unfair and inadequate because, among other
things, the intrinsic value of the company is materially in excess
of the amount offered in the proposed transaction," he says in the
complaint.

He also calls the 2.75 percent termination fee unfair, should
Apollo back out.

"As a result of the proposed transaction, Apollo shareholders have
been shut out of reaping the benefits of and participating in the
company's future success and prospects," according to the
complaint.

Casey seeks class certification, an injunction, and damages for
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting.

His lead counsel is Michael McKay -- mmckay@schneiderwallace.com
-- with of Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky & Wotkyns, in
Scottsdale.


ARCHER-DANIELS-MIDLAND: Party to Cases Related to Syngenta
----------------------------------------------------------
Archer-Daniels-Midland Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is a
party to numerous lawsuits pending in various U.S. state and
federal courts arising out of Syngenta Corporation's (Syngenta)
marketing and distribution of genetically modified corn products,
Agrisure Viptera and Agrisure Duracade, in the U.S.

First, the Company brought a state court action in Louisiana
against Syngenta in 2014, alleging that Syngenta was negligent in
commercializing its products before the products were approved in
certain non-U.S. markets. Second, the Company is a putative class
member in a number of purported class actions filed beginning in
2013 by farmers and other parties against Syngenta in federal
courts and consolidated for pretrial proceedings in a
multidistrict litigation proceeding in federal court in Kansas
City, Missouri, again alleging that Syngenta was negligent in
commercializing its products.

In the fourth quarter of 2015, Syngenta has in turn filed third-
party claims against the Company and other grain companies seeking
contribution in the event that Syngenta is held liable in these
lawsuits.

Third, the Company has been named as a defendant in approximately
130 suits filed by farmers and other parties beginning in the
fourth quarter of 2015, alleging that the Company and other grain
companies were negligent in failing to screen for genetically
modified corn.

The Company denies liability in all of the actions in which it has
been named as a third-party defendant or defendant. All of these
actions are in pretrial proceedings, and it is premature at this
time to estimate a range of potential liability.

Archer-Daniels-Midland Company is one of the world's largest
processors of oilseeds, corn, wheat, and other agricultural
commodities and is a leading manufacturer of protein meal,
vegetable oil, corn sweeteners, flour, biodiesel, ethanol, and
other value-added food and feed ingredients.


ASD ESTATES: Faces "Delfin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Delfin, Joselito Vicerra, Amelia Surio, Marilyn Reyes,
Rodelito Perez, Alexander Manansala, and Josephine Quiba v.
ASD Estates, Inc., Rubi Obrien, Anthony Diaz and Shiela Diaz and
Does 1- 5, inclusive, Case No. CV537203 (Cal. Super. Ct., February
2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate nursing facilities with multiple
locations in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arlo Garcia Uriarte, Esq.
      Un Kei Wu, Esq.
      Ernesto Sanchez, Esq.
      Brent A. Robinson, Esq.
      LIBERATION LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2760 Mission Street
      San Francisco, CA 94110
      Telephone: (415) 695- 1000
      Facsimile: (415) 695- 1006
      E-mail: arlo@liberationlawgroup.com


ASSET RECOVERY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Orly Konyo, on behalf of herself and all other similarly situated
v. Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00673-KSH-CLW
(D.N.J., February 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC operates an asset recovery
management company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LAWRENCE HERSH
      17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102B
      Rutherford, NJ 07070
      Telephone: (201) 507-6300
      Facsimile: (201) 507-6311
      E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


ATLAS RAILROAD: "Herrera" Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Gerardo Ojeda Herrera, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Atlas Railroad Construction, LLC,
Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00166-WWC (M.D.Pa, January 29, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, prejudgment interest, litigation
costs, expenses and attorney's fees.

Defendant provides railroad construction and maintenance services
at projects located throughout the United States including
Mississippi, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Tennessee, Illinois,
Wisconsin and North Carolina. It is located in Allegheny County,
Bridgeville, PA, where Plaintiff works as a railroad worker.

Plaintiffs claim overtime pay for their travel time to and from
work.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Winebrake, Esq.
      R. Andrew Santillo, Esq.
      Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq.
      Winebrake & Santillo, LLC
      715 Twining Road, Suite 211
      Dresher, PA 19025
      Tel: (215) 884-2491
      Fax: (215) 884-2492
      Email: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


AUDIENCE INC: April 29 Final Settlement Hearing in IPO Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a final settlement
approval hearing is scheduled for April 29, 2016, in the Audience
IPO-Related Litigation.

On September 13, 2012, a purported shareholder filed a class
action complaint in the Superior Court of the State of California
for Santa Clara County against Audience, Inc., the members of its
board of directors, two of its executive officers and the
underwriters of Audience's initial public offering ("IPO"). An
amended complaint was filed on February 25, 2013, which purported
to be brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Audience's
common stock issued in or traceable to the IPO.

On April 3, 2013, the outside members of the board of directors of
Audience and the underwriters were dismissed without prejudice.
The amended complaint added additional shareholder plaintiffs and
contains claims under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act.
The complaint seeks, among other things, compensatory damages,
rescission and attorney's fees and costs.

On March 1, 2013, defendants responded to the amended complaint by
filing a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on the
grounds that the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. The
court overruled that demurrer. On March 27, 2013, defendants filed
a demurrer moving to dismiss the amended complaint on other
grounds. The court denied the demurrer on September 4, 2013.

On January 16, 2015, the court granted plaintiff's motion to
certify a class. A trial had been scheduled for January 25, 2016
however, on July 23, 2015, an agreement in principle to settle the
action was reached, subject to approval of the court.

On October 19, 2015, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement. The settlement is subject to approval by the court and
members of the class may opt out of, or object to, the settlement.
A final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for April 29,
2016.

If the court approves the settlement, Audience's insurance
carriers will pay $6.0 million to the class in exchange for
releases. There can be no assurance that the court will approve
the settlement or that class members will not opt out of the
settlement and file individual actions.

Knowles is a global supplier of advanced micro-acoustic, audio
processing and specialty component solutions, serving the mobile
consumer electronics, communications, medical, military, aerospace
and industrial markets.


AUDIENCE INC: July 2016 Settlement Hearing in Acquisition Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Knowles Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court is expected to
hold a final settlement hearing by July 2016 in the Audience
Acquisition-Related Litigation.

Between May 15 and May 29, 2015, five substantially similar class
action lawsuits challenging the proposed acquisition of Audience,
Inc. were filed in the Superior Court of California, Santa Clara
County, against the members of Audience's board of directors and
the Company, among others. The lawsuits were subsequently
consolidated into a single action. The complaints allege that the
members of Audience's board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties to Audience shareholders in connection with the proposed
acquisition and that the Company aided and abetted these alleged
violations. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the acquisition, as well
as, among other things, compensatory damages and attorney's fees
and costs.

In June 2015, the parties reached an agreement-in-principle
providing for the settlement of the litigation on the terms and
conditions set forth in a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU").
Pursuant to the terms of the MOU, without agreeing that any of the
claims in the litigation have merit or that any supplemental
disclosure was required under any applicable statute, rule,
regulation or law, Audience agreed to make certain supplemental
and amended disclosures in its statement in support of the
acquisition filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Final settlement documents have been filed with the court which
are subject to court approval. The settlement is subject to
approval by the court and members of the class may opt out of, or
object to, the settlement. Notices summarizing the terms of the
settlement have been circulated to Audience shareholders and the
court is expected to hold a final settlement hearing by July 2016.
There can be no assurance that the court will approve the
settlement or that class members will not opt out of the
settlement and file individual actions. As of December 31, 2015,
we have accrued $0.5 million to cover any fees or expenses
associated with this matter.

Knowles is a global supplier of advanced micro-acoustic, audio
processing and specialty component solutions, serving the mobile
consumer electronics, communications, medical, military, aerospace
and industrial markets.


AVAILABLE MOVERS: "Wallace" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Wallace, Jerry Walker, Robert Gilmore, and all others
similarly-situated v. Available Movers & Storage Inc., Last Minute
Relocation Inc., and/or Roadway Moving and Storage, Inc., Shlomo
Bitton and Raz Sapir, Case No. 650368/2016 (N.Y. Sup., January 22,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, overtime
compensation and "spread of hours" compensation pursuant to the
New York Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate moving companies in New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad Street, 7 th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


B&G FOODS: Court Narrows Claims in "Walker" Mislabeling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, TROY WALKER, Plaintiff,
v. B&G FOODS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-03772-JST
(N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Troy Walker brings the suit challenging Defendants B&G
Foods, Inc.'s and B&G Foods North America, Inc.'s marketing and
sales of taco shells that contain partially hydrogenated oils
(PHOs). Plaintiff "repeatedly purchased" Defendant's taco shell
for many years, most recently in January or February, 2015.
Plaintiff allegedly "suffered physical injury when he repeatedly
consumed Defendants' taco shells because consuming artificial
trans fat," which is a component of PHOs, "in any quantity
inflames and damages vital organs and increases the risk of heart
disease, diabetes, cancer, and death."

Plaintiff filed the putative class action on August 18, 2015,
asserting seven claims: (1) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, "Unlawful
Prong"; (2) violation of California's Unfair Competition Law,
"Fraudulent Prong"; (3) violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law, "Unfair Prong"; (4) violation of California's
False Advertising Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17500; (5)
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Cal. Civ.
Code Sec. 1750; (6) Breach of Express Warranty; and (7) Breach of
Implied Warranty of Merchantability.

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiff's mislabeling
claims are preempted by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
(FDCA), as amended by the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act and
that Plaintiff lacks standing to bring these claims because he
"does not allege that he has suffered from any physical injury"
and "has not alleged causation."

In his Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/NIYfvqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tigar held that
Plaintiff's state law mislabeling claims are expressly preempted
by 21 U.S.C. Sec. 343-1(a)(5) and dismissed Plaintiff's Claims I,
II, IV, V, and VI. The Court concluded that Plaintiff has standing
to pursue injunctive relief related to his use claims because
Defendants merely appear to be in the process of removing PHOs
from their taco shells and denies Defendants' motion to dismiss as
to Plaintiff's claims III and VII.

The Court stayed these claims pending the FDA's determination of
the food additive status of trans fats. Within 14 days of the
FDA's determination of any petition, the parties shall file a
joint statement on Plaintiff's remaining claims and recommending a
further schedule.
Troy Walker is represented by:

     Gregory Weston, Esq.
     David Elliot, Esq.
     THE WESTON FIRM
     1405 Morena Blvd Suite 201
     San Diego, CA 92110
     Tel: (619)798-2006

Defendants are represented by Jonas Noah Hagey, Esq. --
hagey@braunhagey.com -- Alfredo William Amoedo, Esq. --
amoedo@braunhagey.com -- Matthew Brooks Borden, Esq. --
aborden@braunhagey.com -- & Rebecca Bain Cross, Esq. --
rcross@braunhagey.com -- BRAUNHAGEY & BORDEN, LLP


BANGKOK THAI: Faces "Egeland" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Egeland, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Bangkok Thai Enterprises, d/b/a Boda, Green
Elephant, Inc. d/b/a Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro, and
Nattasak Wongsaichua, Case No. 2:16-cv-00070-JAW (D. Me., February
8, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Portland, Maine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Schmidt, Esq.
      Peter Mancuso, Esq.
      ANDREW SCHMIDT LAW, PLLC
      97 India St.
      Portland, ME 04101
      E-mail: andy@maineworkerjustice.com


BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE: 6th Cir. Flips Lower Court Order
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals, Sixth District, reversed a district court
ruling and remanded for further proceedings in the case captioned,
SUZANNE C. CLARKE; CONISE DILLARD, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, and KEITH M. IVY; ELIZABETH
MASON, Intervenors-Appellants, v. BAPTIST MEMORIAL HEALTHCARE
CORPORATION; METHODIST HEALTHCARE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No.
14-5906 (6th Cir.).

In 2006, two registered nurses, Suzanne Clarke and Conise Dillard,
filed a suit against Baptist Memorial Healthcare Corporation and
Methodist Healthcare of Memphis, Tennessee, on behalf of
themselves and "all persons employed by any defendant or co-
conspirator to work in a hospital in the Memphis metropolitan area
as an RN at any time from June 20, 2002, until the present." In
their complaint, Clarke and Dillard alleged that the defendants
violated the Sherman Act by conspiring with other Memphis-area
hospitals to depress the wages of RNs below competitive market
levels and to share compensation information. Anna Bachelder then
filed a motion to intervene for the purpose of acting as a class
representative, which the district court denied as untimely.
On remand, Baptist and Methodist moved the district court to order
Clarke and Dillard to participate in mediation, as required in a
prior scheduling order. Dillard opposed this motion, stating that
she intended to "litigate her claim to judgment, following which
she would appeal the denial of class certification." Clarke then
voluntarily dismissed her individual claims, and the court ordered
mediation. In June 2013, the district court noted on the docket
that Dillard and the defendants had reached a tentative settlement
on all remaining claims. In August 2013, a joint stipulation of
dismissal was filed, and the district court subsequently entered
an order of dismissal and a final judgment.

Keith Ivy and Elizabeth Mason appeal from the district court's
order denying their motions to intervene for the purpose of
appealing the denial of class certification.

In his Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/uiyt59from Leagle.com, Senior Circuit Judge Eugene
Edward Siler, Jr., who wrote the decision, reversed the district
court's determination that Mason's and Ivy's motions to intervene
were untimely and remanded for further proceedings consistent with
the opinion. The Court held that because Mason and Ivy never
became parties to the case, the Court lack jurisdiction to review
any decision except the denial of intervention. The Court found
that the district court erred in its treatment of the action. And
because the district court's decision rested only on the issue of
timeliness, the Court leave it to the court to examine the
remainder of Rule 24's requirements in the first instance.


BENCO DENTAL: Faces "Johnnidis" Suit Over Dental Supply Monopoly
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Nicholas Johnnidis, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated v. Benco Dental Supply Co., Henry Schein, Inc.,
and Patterson Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00906 (E.D.N.Y.,
February 23, 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:

      Brian Murray, Esq.
      Lee Albert, Esq.
      Thomas J. Kennedy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
      New York, NY 10168
      Telephone: (212) 682-5340
      Facsimile: (212) 884-0988
      E-mail: bmurray@glancylaw.com
              lalbert@glancylaw.com
              tkennedy@glancylaw.com

         - and -

      Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
      768 Plandome Road
      Manhasset, NY  11030
      Telephone: (516) 426-6870
      E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com


BF WESTON: Faces "Downie" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Downie, on her own behalf and others similarly situated v.
BF Weston, LLC, d/b/a Burgerfi, and 2800 BFI, LLC, d/b/a Burgerfi,
Case No. 0:16-cv-60348-WJZ (S.D. Fla., February 23, 2015) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Weston, Broward
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Camar R. Jones, Esq.
      Shavitz Law Group, PA
      1515 S. Federal Hwy., Suite 404
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (516) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (516) 447-8831
      E-mail: cjones@shavitzlaw.com


BLUE SHIELD: Case Management Conference Set for Aug. 3
------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Rhianda Lynn Gonzalves, Plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Blue Shield of
California Life and Health Insurance Company, et al., Defendants,
Case No. CGC 16 550741 (Cal. Super., March 2, 2016), a Case
Management Conference has been scheduled for August 3, 2016 at
10:30 a.m., in the case, and the Case Management Statement is due
on July 11, 2016.  Proof of Service due on May 2, 2016.


BOSE CORP: "Keegan" Sues Over Disclosure of Personal Data
---------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Keegan, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Bose Corporation, Defendant, Case 3:16-cv-
00232-BEN-MDD (S.D. Cal., January 29, 2016), seeks preliminary and
permanent enjoinment, award of attorney's fees pursuant to
California Civil Code Sec. 1021.5, prejudgment interest, and other
relief for violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act.

Plaintiff was shopping at a Bose retail store at 5630 Paseo Del
Norte, Suite 140, Carlsbad, California. He purchased merchandise
using his personal credit card and was required to present
personal identification information in the form of his driver's
license, address and telephone number in violation of California
Civil Code Sec. 1747.08.

Bose is a Delaware corporation with its corporate headquarters and
principal place of business located at The Mountain 6B1,
Framingham, MA 01701. It sells speakers and speaker systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Elliot Adler, Esq.
      Brittany S. Zummer, Esq.
      Amanda J. Wiesner, Esq.
      ADLER LAW GROUP, APLC
      402 W. Broadway, Suite 860
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 531-8700
      Email: eadler@theadlerfirm.com
             bzummer@theadlerfirm.com
             awiesner@theadlerfirm.com


BREAD PARTNERS: "Ayerdis" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elietta Ayerdis, and others similarly situated v. Bread Partners
21, Inc. d/b/a Au Bon Pain, Case No. 1:16-cv-20641-RNS (S.D. Fla.,
February 23, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages,
liquidated damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Bread Partners 21, Inc. owns and operate retail bakeries in Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel T. Feld, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL T. FELD, P.A.
      20801 Biscayne Blvd., Suite 403
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (786) 923-5899
      E-mail: DanielFeld.Esq@gmail.com

         - and -

      Isaac Mamane, Esq.
      MAMANE LAW LLC
      1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
      Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
      Telephone: (305) 773-6661
      E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


BRISTOL-MYERS: Faces "Nixon" Suit in Del. Over Plavix Design
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Nixon and Leann Nixon v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, et
al., Case No. N16C-02-037 PLX (Del. Super. Ct., February 3, 2016),
is an action for damages as a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants' negligence and wrongful conduct in connection with the
design,  development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting,
marketing, distribution, labeling and sale of Plavix.

Bristol-Myers Squibb Company operates a biopharmaceutical company
located at 345 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10145
0037.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James D. Heisman, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK & ASSOCIATES PLLC
      919 North Market Street, Suite 1801
      Wilmington, DE 19801
      Telephone: (302) 330-8025


BUENO INC: "Rumbaut" Suit to Recover Minimum Pay, Damages
---------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Leon Rumbaut on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Bueno Incorporated, Defendant,
Case 36813959 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade County, January 21, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
pursuant to Florida Minimum Wage Amendment.

Bueno sells vacation packages and maintains telephone salespersons
at their location in 2930 Biscayne Boulevard in Miami, Florida
where Plaintiff works as a call center agent. She claims to be
paid less than the required minimum wage that was subjected to
illegal deductions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose J. Rodriguez, Esq.
      Kelley & Uustal, PLC
      700 S. E. 3rd Avenue, Suite 300
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
      Tel: (954) 522-6601
      Fax: (954) 522-6608
      Email: jjr@kulaw.com


BULLSEYE GLASS: Faces Class Suit Over Release of Toxic Chemicals
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nick McCann, writing for Courthouse News Services, reported that
high levels of airborne arsenic, cadmium and chromium in Southeast
Portland spurred residents to file a class action in Portland,
Ore. accusing a glassmaking company of poisoning the residential
neighborhood.

Bullseye Glass Co. has made Southeast Portland a hot spot of toxic
chemicals, lead plaintiff Alyssa Isenstein Krueger says in the
March 3 complaint in Multnomah County Court.

Since Bullseye opened its factory in 1974, Krueger says, "the
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality ('DEQ') measured
arsenic in Southeast Portland at over 159 times state-established
safety levels, and cadmium at 49 times safety levels. Bullseye
knew or should have known that it is and has been emitting
significant amounts of toxic materials."

As proof, Krueger says, "Bullseye privately lobbied the United
States Environmental Protection Agency to create an exemption in
Clean Air Act regulations so that it would not need to treat or
filter the emissions from its smokestacks. As a result, Bullseye
has contaminated homes, businesses, and families."

Cadmium exposure can cause kidney damage, arsenic is used as rat
poison, and hexavalent chromium is carcinogenic.

To trace the pollutants, the U.S. Forest Service began collecting
moss samples throughout Portland in 2012, because moss lacks
roots, so it absorbs and stores its nutrients and water from the
air. The study produced maps that showed "that there was something
terribly wrong taking place in Southeast Portland," Krueger says
in the complaint.

"Those maps show dangerously high levels of cadmium and other
heavy metals in the air, with a proverbial 'bullseye' at the
center. That bullseye, in fact, centers on defendant Bullseye's
glass production facility in Southeast Portland."

Krueger and three other family-plaintiffs claim that since 1974,
"Bullseye has been using the neighborhood's air and backyards as a
dumping ground for the arsenic, cadmium, hexavalent chromium, and
other toxins it sends up its smokestacks. Notwithstanding the fact
that Bullseye uses thousands of pounds each year of these toxic
heavy metals in its glass furnaces, it has decided not to install
any pollution control technology to capture these pollutants; it
freely sends waste from its furnaces into the air of Southeast
Portland. Once Bullseye emits this toxic pollution, children
inhale it, it lands on skin, in yards, and on playgrounds. It is
taken up by the vegetables in backyard gardens, and it comes into
homes on the soles of people's feet, on pets' fur, and by other
routes. Once inside homes and bodies, these toxins create profound
health risks for people, particularly children and those with
medical sensitivities."

The families seek class certification, an injunction ordering
Bullseye to stop using arsenic, cadmium and chromium in its
glassmaking unless and until it installs adequate emission
controls, and to remove "all particulate matter" from their
properties, and medical monitoring for everyone who lives within a
mile and a half of the factory.

Each plaintiff family has at least one child.

Alyssa and Robert Krueger, who live less than a mile from the
factory, say the emissions have made them hold off on planting
their spring vegetable garden.

"The Kruegers worry about the effects on their family from eating
the produce and eggs produced on their land for years, and they do
not know if they will ever be able to raise chickens or grow
produce there again without a costly remediation of the soil,"
they say in the complaint.

They are represented by Daniel Mensher --
dmensher@kellerrohrback.com -- with Keller Rohrback in Seattle,
and Karl Anuta in Portland.  Mr. Anuta may be reached at:

     Karl Anuta
     LAW OFFICE OF KARL G. ANUTA, P.C.
     735 SW First Avenue, 2nd Floor
     Portland, OR  97204
     Tel: (503) 827-0320
     Fax: (503) 228-6551

State officials say another Portland glass company, Uroboros Glass
Studio, emitted cadmium from its facilities.

Both Bullseye and Uroboros have agreed to stop using arsenic,
hexavalent chromium and cadmium, according to a release by the
state's Department of Environmental Quality.

Bullseye did not respond to a request for comment.


C1 FINANCIAL: Amended Complaint Filed in Merger Suit
----------------------------------------------------
C1 Financial, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff in the
class action related to the Company's merger with Bank of the
Ozaks, Inc., have filed an amended complaint.

On November 9, 2015, C1 Financial and its wholly owned bank
subsidiary, C1 Bank, entered into a definitive agreement and plan
of merger ("Agreement") with Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. ("OZRK") and
its wholly owned bank subsidiary, Bank of the Ozarks ("Ozarks
Bank"), whereby, subject to the terms and conditions of the
Agreement, C1 Financial will merge with and into OZRK with OZRK
surviving the merger, in an all-stock transaction valued at
approximately $402.5 million, or approximately $25.00 per share of
C1 Financial common stock, subject to potential adjustments as
described in the Agreement.

Following the announcement of the merger with OZRK, a putative
class action complaint challenging the merger was filed in the
Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit In and For Pinellas
County, Florida. The complaint is captioned Mariani v. C1
Financial et al., Case No. 15-007726. The complaint names C1
Financial, OZRK, and the individual members of the C1 Financial
board as defendants. The complaint generally alleges, among other
things, that members of the C1 Financial board breached their
fiduciary duties to C1 Financial's shareholders by agreeing to
sell C1 Financial for an inadequate price and agreeing to
inappropriate deal protection provisions in the merger agreement
that may preclude C1 Financial from soliciting any potential
acquirers and limit the ability of the C1 Financial board to act
with respect to investigating and pursuing superior proposals and
alternatives. The complaint also alleges that C1 Financial and
OZRK have aided and abetted the C1 Financial board members'
breaches of their fiduciary duties. The complaint seeks
certification by the court as a shareholders' class action,
approval of the plaintiff as a proper plaintiff class
representative, injunctive relief enjoining the companies from
consummating the merger at the agreed upon price unless and/or
until the defendants cure their breaches of fiduciary duty (or, in
the event the merger is consummated, rescinding the merger or
awarding rescissory damages). The complaint also seeks to recover
costs and disbursement from the defendants, including attorneys'
fees and experts' fees.

On January 22, 2016, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint
adding, among other things, details about the merger sales process
and proposed transaction and allegations of material
misrepresentations and omissions concerning the content of the
preliminary Registration Statement on Form S-4 filed by OZRK on
January 5, 2016. The defendants believe these allegations are
without merit and intend to defend vigorously against these
allegations.

C1 Financial is based in St. Petersburg, Florida and operates from
32 banking centers and one loan production office on the West
Coast of Florida and in Miami-Dade, Broward and Orange Counties.


CALIFORNIA: Escheat Laws May Merit Review in Future Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Leonard, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a challenge to California's unclaimed-property law may not be
ready for primetime, but two Supreme Court justices said Feb. 28
another case will fare better.

Lead plaintiff Chris Taylor filed the class action in Washington
at issue back in 2001, taking aim at California's Unclaimed
Property Law, which provides for the conditional transfer to the
state of unclaimed property such as savings accounts or shares of
stock.  Taylor accused state controller Betty Yee of violating
due-process rights by transferring property to the state without
providing the potential owners adequate notice.

During the intervening years, the challenge brought several
amendments to the law's notice procedures. Chief among them,
California now notifies potential owners before the state
transfers the unclaimed property, not after.  In addition to
mailing notice to potential owners at their homes, the state
publishes another notice in a generally circulated newspaper
deemed most likely to reach the owners.  Those newspaper notices
direct potential owners to a searchable website where they can
perform a search to determine whether they may own any unclaimed
property.

Though Taylor still claimed that the controller could take
additional steps to locate the owners prior to transfer, the trial
court shot Taylor down and the Ninth Circuit affirmed in 2015.

The U.S. Supreme Court likewise rejected Taylor's petition for a
writ of certiorari Feb. 28, but two justices stated that "the
constitutionality of current state escheat laws is a question that
may merit review in a future case."  Taylor is out of luck,
though, because "the convoluted history of this case makes it a
poor vehicle for reviewing the important question it presents,"
Justice Samuel Alito wrote in a concurring opinion, joined by
Justice Clarence Thomas.

The three-pager notes that the challenge comes at a time when
states are shortening "the periods during which property must lie
dormant before being labeled abandoned and subject to seizure."

New York, Michigan, Indiana, New Jersey and Arizona, specifically,
shortened their dormancy periods from as long as 15 years to
merely 3, Alito noted, citing a 2013 paper by T. Conrad Bower in
the Ohio State Law Journal.

Delaware, meanwhile, still relies only on blanket newspaper
notices, a notification Alito condemned as "decidedly old-
fashioned . . . [and] unlikely to be effective."

"This trend -- combining shortened escheat periods with minimal
notification procedures -- raises important due process concerns,"
Alito wrote. "As advances in technology make it easier and easier
to identify and locate property owners, many states appear to be
doing less and less to meet their constitutional obligation to
provide adequate notice before escheating private property. Cash-
strapped states undoubtedly have a real interest in taking
advantage of truly abandoned property to shore up state budgets.
But they also have an obligation to return property when its owner
can be located. To do that, states must employ notification
procedures designed to provide the pre-escheat notice the
Constitution requires."

The Ninth Circuit had called California's pretransfer procedures
sufficient to locate potential owners.

"Appellants' suggested requirement that the controller utilize
additional governmental databases may, of course, lead to more
claims being filed, but it exceeds the minimum due process
requirements," the court's ruling said.

The case captioned Chris Lusby Taylor, et al. v. Betty Yee,
Individually And In Her Official Capacity As State Controller Of
The State Of California, et al., 577 U.S. ____ (2016)


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Denies Supplemental Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
Bankruptcy Judge James J. Robinson of the United States Bankruptcy
Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied motions for
supplemental complaint and pending certification in the case
captioned, CARLA WILLIAMS FINLEY, Individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON
MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, Defendant, AP No. 08-00192-JJR (Bankr.
N.D. Ala.).

Carla Williams Finley, the plaintiff and putative class
representative in the AP, has filed three successive chapter 13
cases in this court. Her first was filed on April 9, 2008, and was
dismissed for failure to make plan payments on March 19, 2012. The
second case was filed the next day, and it too was dismissed for
the same reason on November 21, 2014. The third case was filed on
March 25, 2015 and remains pending.

On July 29, 2008, during Finley's first case (In Re: CARLA
WILLIAMS FINLEY, Debtor, Case No. 08-01674-TBB-13), she commenced
the adversary proceeding by filing a Complaint for Damages,
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against her home-mortgage
servicer, Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC. The AP was filed as a
class action pursuant to Rule 7023 of the Federal Rules of
Bankruptcy Procedure, but no class has been certified.

On October 27, 2008, before Carrington responded to the original
AP Complaint, Finley filed an Amended Complaint. The First Amended
Complaint alleged Carrington assessed various unauthorized and
unapproved fees and charges against Finley's residential mortgage
account. Finley claimed the alleged assessments (i) violated the
automatic stay imposed by sections 362(a)(3), (5) and (6) of the
Bankruptcy Code; (ii) required that Carrington be held in contempt
for violations of Code Sections 105, 362, 502 and 506, and Rule
2016; (iii) entitled her to equitable relief for unjust enrichment
and disgorgement; (iv) violated Rules 2016 and 3001; and (v) were
grounds for an objection to Carrington's proof of claim. Finley
claimed she was entitled to recover actual, compensatory and
punitive damages, her legal fees and costs, and injunctive relief.
In the motion, Finley filed a Motion to Supplement Complaint along
with her proposed Supplemental Complaint attached as an exhibit to
further amend the AP complaint for a third time, and add claims
against Carrington based on alleged violations of the automatic
stay, and for contempt and injunctive relief, and for violations
of Rule 2016 and Rule 3002.1. And in the class certification,
Finley seeks to represent the proposed class.

In the Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 9, 2016
available at http://is.gd/Yb7M8Wfrom Leagle.com, Judge Robinson
found that Finley is not a member of the putative class she seeks
to represent, and, therefore, is not an adequate class
representative -- her claims are not typical of, or common to the
class as defined, falling entirely outside the class as defined.
The district-wide certification is not warranted even after the
latest amendment to the class definition because Finley fails to
meet the typicality and commonality requirements, while the class
as defined fails to meet the numerosity requirement.

The Court scheduled a conference on February 23, 2016 at 10:10
a.m.

Carla Williams Finley is represented by:

     Lange Clark, Esq.
     Robert C. Keller, Esq.
     RUSSO, WHITE & KELLER
     315 Gadsden Hwy # D,
     Birmingham, AL 35235
     Tel: (205)833-2589

Carrington Mortgages Services, LLC is represented by Robert Ryan
Daugherty, Esq. --- rdaughterty@sirote.com -- Thomas Benjamin
Humphries, Esq. -- thumphries@sirote.com -- & Stephen B.
Porterfield, Esq. --- sporterfield@sirote.com -- SIROTE & PERMUTT
PC


CBE GROUP: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Lambright" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Terra Lambright, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. CBE Group Incorporated, Case No. 1:16-cv-00354-ODE
(N.D. Ga., February 5, 2016), seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

CBE Group Incorporated provides accounts receivable management and
debt collection services for clients in the education, financial,
and healthcare sector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
      SHAMP SPEED JORDAN WOODWARD, LLC
      Suite 660, 1718 Peachtree Street
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 893-9400
      Facsimile: (404) 872-3745
      E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com


CERTIFIED CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Koroman" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dusanka Koroman, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Certified Credit & Collection Bureau, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00663-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., February 5, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Certified Credit & Collection Bureau operates a credit reporting
agency located at 69 Readington Rd, Branchburg, NJ 08876.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Leaseholders File Antitrust Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
David Lee, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Chesapeake Energy leaseholders sued the company March 3 in a
federal antitrust class action in Oklahoma City, two days after
its former CEO Aubrey McClendon was charged with rigging bids and
the day after he died in a fiery single-car crash.

Brian Thieme sued Chesapeake, SandRidge Energy, and former
SandRidge CEO Tom L. Ward, seeking treble damages for oil and gas
leaseholders. The complaint cites the March 1 indictment charging
McClendon with of conspiring to rig bids in violation of the
Sherman Act.

"The combination and conspiracy affected not only the interests
and properties that defendants Chesapeake and SandRidge Energy
purchased, but also the overall market," the 14-page complaint
states. "Thus, sellers of leasehold interests and producing
properties to entities other than defendants Chesapeake and
SandRidge Energy received less value than they would have in a
competitive market, despite the fact that they did not sell to
Chesapeake and SandRidge Energy."

Thieme says the class could include thousands of royalty owners in
the Anadarko Basin Region in northwest Oklahoma. Leaseholders have
sued Chesapeake more than 800 times in the past three years,
claiming it shorted them on royalties from their oil and gas
leases.

Attorney Warren Burns -- wburns@burnscharest.com -- with Burns
Charest in Dallas, said the lawsuit "is about cleaning up the oil
patch" and seeks "to promote legal competition" in the industry.

"In a rush to reap illegal profits, the defendants violated the
trust and confidence of these royalty owners," Burns said in a
statement March 3. "Their actions demonstrate that they were
willing to betray my clients and violate the law."

McClendon's estate is not a party to the lawsuit.

Facing up to 10 years in federal prison and a $1 million fine if
convicted, McClendon "pretty much drove straight" into a highway
overpass Wednesday morning and died, according to Oklahoma City
police.

Chesapeake, founded by McClendon in Oklahoma City in 1989, is the
second-largest natural gas producer in the country. It expanded
its business through hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in major
domestic shale formations, including the Marcellus Shale, spanning
from West Virginia to New York, and the Barnett Shale in North
Texas.

Hours before Thiele's lawsuit was filed, federal prosecutors filed
a motion to dismiss the criminal indictment against McClendon
because of his death. The Justice Department's antitrust division
said March 2, it was "saddened" to hear of McClendon's death and
offered condolences to his family.

Chesapeake spokesman Gordon Pennoyer declined to comment on the
lawsuit March 3 evening.

The company said March 2 it was "deeply saddened by the news" of
McClendon's death. His new company, American Energy Partners, said
it would "continue to work hard to live up to the unmatched
standards he set for excellence and integrity."

The plaintiffs seek damages for violations of the Sherman Act.
They are also represented by:

     Douglas Wilguess, Esq.
     Wilguess & Garrett
     211 N Robinson Ave
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Tel: 405-235-0200


CLEVELAND, OH: Ruling in "Lycan" Affirmed in Part
-------------------------------------------------
Justice Judith L. French of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed
class certification and appointment of named plaintiffs and
vacated the Eighth District's ruling based on the doctrine of res
judicata in the case captioned, Lycan et al., Appellees, v. The
City of Cleveland, Appellant, Case No. 2016-Ohio-422 (Ohio).
Lycan filed a class-action complaint on February 26, 2009, in
Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas challenging Cleveland's
imposition of fines against vehicle lessees under former CCO
413.031. An amended class-action complaint, filed on May 28, 2009,
added Pavlish, Task, Charna, Fogle, and Murphy as named
plaintiffs. The amended complaint alleged that each of the
plaintiffs received a notice of liability from Cleveland stating
that an automated traffic camera had identified the vehicle
described and pictured in the notice as the vehicle being driven
during the commission of a red-light or speeding offense.
Plaintiffs alleged that they had leased the vehicles identified in
the notices of liability but were never the vehicles' registered
owners.
In their complaint, plaintiffs contended that Cleveland had no
authority under the former version of CCO 413.031 to collect fines
from plaintiffs as vehicle lessees. As relief, plaintiffs sought
the following: (1) disgorgement, under an unjust-enrichment
theory, of fines paid to the city, (2) an injunction preventing
Cleveland from enforcing the ordinance against vehicle lessees,
and (3) declaratory relief. Plaintiffs also filed a motion for
class certification.

On November 24, 2009, the trial court granted Cleveland's motion
for judgment on the pleadings, finding that plaintiffs had waived
the right to pursue judicial remedies by paying their fines and
failing to appeal their citations as permitted by CCO 413.0319(k).
In the same order, the trial court denied plaintiffs' class-
certification motion.

Defendant-appellant, the city of Cleveland, appealed the decision
of the Eighth District Court of Appeals, which affirmed the trial
court's class-certification order and the appointment of
plaintiffs-appellees, Janine Lycan, Thomas Pavlish, Jeanne Task,
Lindsey Charna, Ken Fogle, and John T. Murphy, as named
plaintiffs. Cleveland also appealed the Eighth District's ruling,
based on the doctrine of res judicata, that appellees' failure to
appeal their traffic violations through Cleveland's administrative
process did not bar them from pursuing equitable and declaratory
relief in the trial court.
In the Decision dated February 9, 2016, available at
http://is.gd/kXJ9R9from Leagle.com, Judge French affirmed the
Eighth District's class-certification order and the appointment of
plaintiffs-appellees because Cleveland has raised no arguments
regarding class certification. The Court held that the Eighth
District erred in addressing res judicata because the trial court
did not decide that question in its class-certification order and
that the Eighth District improperly ruled on that issue in the
first instance.

The Court remanded the matter to the trial court for further
proceedings.

Plaintiffs are represented by Blake A. Dickson, Esq. -
blakedickson@thedicksonfirm.com -- THE DICKSON FIRM, L.L.C.

          - and -

     W. Craig Bashein, Esq.
     BASHEIN & BASHEIN CO., L.P.A.
     50 Public Square #3500
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216)539-8437

          - and -

     Paul W. Flowers, Esq.
     Justin D. Care, Esq.
     PAUL W. FLOWERS CO., L.P.A.
     Terminal Tower, 50 Public Square
     Suite 3500
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (216)298-1152

The City of Cleveland is represented by:

     Barbara A. Langhenry, Esq.
     CLEVELAND DIRECTOR OF LAW
     601 Lakeside Ave., Room 106
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: (216)664-2800

          - and -

     Gary S. Singletary, Esq.
     ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAW
     601 Lakeside Ave., Room 106
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: (216)664-2800


CONCORD AUTOMOBILE: Workplace Violence Claims May Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco dismissed some but not all
claims in a class action accusing a California Lexus dealership of
payroll fraud, death threats and workplace violence.

Robert Brock Jr., six other employees and two of their wives sued
Concord Automobile Dealership and Lexus of Concord in April 2014.
Also sued were dealership owner Hank Torian, general sales manager
Patrick Miliano and general manager Greg James.

The plaintiffs claimed that Miliano filed false bonus forms in
their names, then pocketed the extra cash, stealing from them and
increasing their tax liabilities.  They claimed Miliano used
racial slurs in profusion, brought deadly weapons to work and
threatened them with violence.

Brock claimed that after he told the general manager about the
payroll fraud, Miliano threatened to kill him and his family.

On March 3, U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam Jr. dismissed the
fraud claims against Miliano, finding the complaint does not
allege that any of the plaintiffs relied on a statement "made by
Miliano" to their detriment, but he let those claims stand against
the dealerships.

Gilliam refused to dismiss conversion claims against the
dealership, and refused to dismiss the conversion claims against
Miliano with respect to three plaintiffs.  He found the assault
claim against Miliano barred by the two-year statute of
limitations, and dismissed the claim on those grounds.

But Gilliam allowed most of the workplace violence claims to
proceed, finding that much of Miliano's alleged behavior was
claimed to stem from race and gender discrimination.  Gilliam
dismissed one plaintiff's claim of intentional infliction of
emotional distress as time-barred, but let that claim stand for
plaintiff Christopher Montoya, who alleged that Miliano threatened
him with death, told him about deadly weapons he owned and taunted
him with racist insults "on a daily basis for six months."

The parties will reconvene for a case management conference on
March 15.

Neither side's lead counsel immediately responded to an email
requesting comment on March 4.

The case captioned, ROBERT E. BROCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
CONCORD AUTOMOBILE DEALERSHIP LLC, et al., Defendants.,
Case No. 14-cv-01889-HSG (N.D. Cal.).


CROSCILL HOME: Faces "Russell" Suit in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------
Ryan Russell, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Croscill Home LLC, Defendant, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01190-PGS-LHG (D. N.J., March 2, 20116) is brought against the
Defendant over contract disputes.

Croscill Home LLC sells traditional luxury bedding, bath, and
window & home decor collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Clark, Eq.
      CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
      811 Sixteenth Avenue
      Belmar, NJ 07719
      Tel: (732) 443-0333
      Fax: (732) 894-9647
      Email: gclark@clarklawnj.com


CVS HEALTH: Suit Alleges Consumer Protection Acts Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 20 Welfare and Benefit Fund and
Indiana Carpernters Welfare Fund, and all others similarly-
situated v. CVS Health Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-00046
(D.R.I., February 1, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages,
injunctive relief, and other remedies for Defendant's violations
of the State Consumer Protection Acts, negligent misrepresentation
and unjust enrichment.

CVS is a nationwide retail pharmacy chain with more than 7,866
pharmacies operating under the trade names CVS Pharmacy and Longs
Drugs throughout the U.S., the District of Columbia, and Puerto
Rico, including numerous locations in this District.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Stephen M. Prignano, Esq.
      MCINTYRE TATE LLP
      321 South Main Street, Suite 400
      Providence, RI 02903
      Tel: (401) 351-7700 ext. 227
      Fax: (401) 331-6095
      E-mail: smp@mtlesq.com

          - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Tel: (206) 623-7292
      Fax: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Tel: (708) 628-4949
      Fax: (708) 628-4950
      E-mail: beth@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      William Riley, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT, LLC
      Hammond Block Building
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 633-5270
      Fax: (317) 426-3348


CVS PHARMACY: Court Preliminarily Approves "Reyes" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Seng of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California preliminarily
approved class action settlement in the case captioned, FRANCISCO
NIEVES REYES, Plaintiff, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-00964-MJS (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Francisco Nieves Reyes, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated filed the action in Stanislaus County Superior
Court on January 30, 2013. Plaintiff asserts claims for violations
of the California Labor Code, including failure to pay vacation
wages owed upon termination, failure to pay all wages owed upon
termination, and failure to pay final wages timely upon
termination; and unfair competition under the California Business
and Professions Code. These claims arise from Plaintiff's
allegations that Defendants (1) calculate the amount of employees'
accrued vacation on a monthly basis and (2) do not pay accrued but
unused holiday pay timely upon termination.

The parties' settlement agreement requires the filing of a first
amended complaint. The proposed complaint differs from the
operative complaint in several important respects. First, it
defines the class as "all persons who worked for CVS at the La
Habra or Patterson Distribution Centers in the state of
California, who were subject to collective bargaining agreements,"
whose employment with CVS ended at any time since January 30, 2009
or January 30, 2010, who accrued vacation benefits and/or did not
use all accrued floating holiday benefits during their employment
with CVS. The proposed complaint also includes a new allegation
that Defendants have a policy requiring unused floating holiday
pay to be forfeited upon termination.

Under the terms of the proposed settlement agreement, Defendants
agree to pay $400,000 to resolve the claims of any participating
class members.
On October 30, 2015, Plaintiff Francisco Nieves Reyes filed a
motion for preliminary approval of a class action settlement.

In his Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/EyT6vofrom Leagle.com, Judge Seng found that the
settlement agreement is within the range of possible approval and
request requested appear reasonable.

Francisco Nieves Reyes is represented by:

     Gregory N. Karasik, Esq.
     KARASIK LAW FIRM
     555 West 5th Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90013
     Tel: (213)623-9200

Defendants are represented by Douglas Roger Hart, Esq. --
dhart@sidley.com -- Jennifer B. Zargarof, Esq. --
jzargarof@sidley.com -- & Francis S. Lam, Esq. -- flam@sidley.com
-- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


DA CROSSING: Faces "Rud" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------
Christopher Rud, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. DA Crossing, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
16.0700D (Mass. Super., March 2, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for various violations of the Massachusetts Wage Act
including failure to pay wages and failure to pay minimum wages.

DA Crossing, LLC operates several restaurants and bars including
JM Curley and Bogie's Place.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
     100 TradeCenter, Suite G-700
     Woburn, MA 01801
     Tel: (617) 600-7520
     Email: Joshua@GarickLaw.com

          - and -

     Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
     LEONARD LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 329-1295
     Email: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com


DAIRY FARMERS: 2015 Settlement Deal Has Preliminarily Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Christina Reiss of the United States District
Court for the District of Vermont preliminarily approved the 2015
Settlement Agreement between the DFA/DMS and Non-DFA/DMS Subclass,
and Defendants Dairy Farmers of America, Inc. and Dairy Marketing
Services, LLC in the case captioned, ALICE H. ALLEN, LAURANCE E.
ALLEN, d/b/a Al-lens Farm, GARRET SITTS, RALPH SITTS, JONATHAN
HAAR, CLAUDIA HAAR, RICHARD SWANTAK, PETER SOUTHWAY, MARILYN
SOUTHWAY, REYNARD HUNT, ROBERT FULPER, STEPHEN H. TAYLOR, and
DARREL J. AUBERTINE, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DAIRY FARMERS OF AMERICA, INC.
and DAIRY MARKETING SERVICES, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 5:09-CV-
230 (D. Vt.).

The class action arises out of Plaintiffs' allegations that
Defendants DFA and DMS engaged in a wide-ranging conspiracy to
control the supply of raw Grade A milk in Order 1, which had the
effect of suppressing certain premiums paid to dairy farmers for
their milk. The court has certified a class consisting of all
dairy farmers, whether individuals, entities, or members of
cooperatives, who produced and pooled raw Grade A milk in Order 1
during any time from January 1, 2002 to the present. The class is
comprised of two certified Subclasses.

After an adjudication of Defendants' motion for summary judgment,
which the court granted in part and denied in part, the parties
reached a settlement agreement on July 1, 2014. On March 31, 2015,
the court denied final approval of the 2014 Settlement. The
parties subsequently continued negotiations, which have resulted
in the 2015 Settlement Agreement presently before the court. The
2015 Settlement Agreement proposes injunctive relief that is more
extensive than the injunctive relief proposed in the parties' 2014
Settlement and contemplates monetary relief in the form of a
settlement payment of $50 million. Subclass Counsel has requested
an attorney's fees award of approximately $16.6 million, plus
expenses, to be deducted from the settlement payment. The 2015
Settlement Agreement requests incentive payments to Subclass
Representatives. Subclass Counsel proposes to request up to
$20,000 in incentive payments for each Subclass Representative
dairy farm.
In the motion, Dairy Farmer Subclasses moved for preliminary
approval of December 2015 Settlement with Defendants Dairy Farmers
of America, Inc. (DFA) and Dairy Marketing Services, LLC.
In her Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/F6OJMwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reiss found that the
2015 Settlement Agreement was reached as a result of non-
collusive, arms-length negotiations that involved experienced
attorneys and thirteen Subclass Representatives, all of whom are
familiar with the facts and legal theories at issue in this
complex litigation. The Court appointed Rust Consulting, Inc. as
Claims Administrator and JPMorgan Chase Bank as escrow agent.

Final approval is subject to proper notice and a Fairness Hearing
on May 13, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. where any objections will be heard.

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrew D. Manitsky, Esq. -
amanitsky@lynnlawvt.com -- LYNN, LYNN, BLACKMAN & MANITSKY, P.C.,
Brent W. Johnson, Esq. --- Bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- & Kit A.
Pierson, Esq. --- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN
SELLERS & TOLL PLLC, Robert G. Abrams, Esq. --
jabrams@bakerlaw.com -- Danyll W. Foix, Esq. -- dfoix@bakerlaw.com
-- & Gregory J. Commins, Jr., Esq. -- gcommins@bakerlaw.com --
BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP, Emily J. Joselson, Esq. --
ejoselson@langrock.com -- & Lisa B. Shelkrot, Esq. --
lshelkrot@langrock.com -- LANGROCK SPERRY & WOOL, LLP

Defendants are represented by Carl R. Metz, Esq. --- cmetz@wc.com,
Jonathan B. Pitt, Esq. --- jpitt@wc.com -- Kevin Hardy, Esq. ---
khardy@wc.com -- Lauren Collogan, Esq. --- lcollogan@wc.com -- &
Steven R. Kuney, Esq. --- skuney@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY
LLP, R. Jeffrey Behm, Esq. -- jbehm@sheeheyvt.com -- & Ian P.
Carleton, Esq. -- icarleton@sheeheyvt.com -- SHEEHEY FURLONG &
BEHM P.C.


DALMAR ROOFING: "Guest" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Guest v. Dalmar Roofing Industries, Inc. and Dale E.
Martin, Case No. 6:16-cv-00206-ACC-KRS (M.D. Fla., February 5,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The Defendants offer roofing services for both residential and
commercial properties in Florida.
The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Angeli Murthy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Ste. 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 424-8317
      E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


DEL TACO LLC: "Torez" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Karolina Torrez, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Del Taco LLC, et al., Defendants,
Case No. BC612437 (Cal. Super., March 2, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants acted pursuant to, and in furtherance of, their
policies and practices of not paying Plaintiff and Class Members
all wages earned and due, through methods and schemes which
include, but are not limited to, failing to pay overtime premiums;
failing to provide rest and meal period; failing to properly
maintain records; failing to provide accurate itemized statements
for each pay period; failing to properly compensate Plaintiff and
Class Members for necessary expenditures; and requiring,
permitting or suffering the employees to work off the clock, in
violation of the California Labor Code and the applicable Welfare
Commission ("IWC") Orders.

Del Taco is an American quick service restaurant chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Matthew W. Gordon, Esq.
     Amanda S. Naoufal, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Tel: (310) 531-1900
     Fax: (310) 531-1901


DOLAN COMPANY: 8th Cir. Revives Parts of Rand-Heart Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Duane Benton of the Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded for
proceedings in the case captioned, Rand-Heart of New York, Inc.;
Michael Rodolico; Ian Henderson; Antonino Floridia; Matthew
Dudevoir; David Hall; Tammy Hall, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. James P.
Dolan; Vicki J. Duncomb, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-1838
(8th Cir.).

Rand-Heart brought a class action suit alleging Dolan made
material misrepresentations and omissions about DiscoverReady's
financial stability. He brought a putative class action on behalf
of purchasers of Dolan Company's securities between August 1, 2013
and January 2, 2014, under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

The district court granted Dolan's motion to dismiss both the Sec.
10(b) and Sec. 20(a) claims. It found that Rand-Heart failed to
allege scienter under Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5, thereby
precluding secondary liability under the control-person theory of
Sec. 20(a). It further held Rand-Heart failed to establish loss-
causation for the period between November 12, 2013 and January 2,
2014. The district court also denied Rand-Heart's motion to amend
the complaint.
On appeal, Rand-Heart argues the district court erred in finding
inadequate allegations of scienter. Rand-Heart maintains it
adequately pled scienter by alleging that Dolan had been severely
reckless. He further argues that the district court erred in
finding no loss-causation for the period between November 12, 2013
and January 2, 2014.
In his Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/1QNeBpfrom Leagle.com, Judge Benton found that the
district court erred in dismissing the Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
claim for failure to state a claim, and thus also erred in
dismissing secondary liability claim under Sec. 20(a) but it did
not err in finding no loss-causation for the period between
November 12 and January 2.


EF INTERCULTURAL: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Pay Vacation Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Teresa Mcpherson, Donna Heimann, and Linda Brenden v. EF
Intercultural Foundation, Inc., Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case
No. BC609090 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 3, 2016) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay vacation wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

EF Intercultural Foundation, Inc. operates an education company
offering study abroad, language learning, cultural exchange and
academic programs around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      LAW OFFICES OF COURTNEY M. COATES
      Courtney M. Coates, Esq.
      43537 Ridge Park Dr., Suite 100
      Temecula, CA 92590
      Telephone: (951)595-8118
      Facsimile: (951)296-2186
      E-mail: ccoateslaw@gmail.com


ELI LILLY: Takeda Evaluating Actos Claims
-----------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the Actos(R) Product
Liability Litigation, Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., is now
evaluating the submissions by eligible claimants to determine
whether they satisfy various criteria specified under the terms of
the resolution program.

The Company said, "We have been named along with Takeda Chemical
Industries, Ltd., and Takeda affiliates (collectively, Takeda) as
a defendant in approximately 6,500 product liability cases in the
U.S. related to the diabetes medication Actos, which we co-
promoted with Takeda in the U.S. from 1999 until 2006. In general,
plaintiffs in these actions allege that Actos caused or
contributed to their bladder cancer. Almost all of the active
cases have been consolidated in federal multi-district litigation
(MDL) in the Western District of Louisiana or are pending in a
coordinated state court proceeding in California or a coordinated
state court proceeding in Illinois."

"In April 2015, Takeda announced they will pay approximately $2.4
billion to resolve the vast majority of the U.S. product liability
lawsuits involving Actos, including the case of Allen, et al. v.
Takeda Pharmaceuticals, et al., no. 6:12-md-00064, in which a
judgment of approximately $28 million was entered against Takeda
and a judgment of approximately $9 million was entered against us.

"In September 2015, Takeda announced that more than 96 percent of
eligible claimants have opted into the resolution program that was
announced in April 2015.

"Takeda is now evaluating the submissions to determine whether
they satisfy various criteria specified under the terms of the
resolution program. Takeda expects the resolution program to
become effective upon completion of that review.

"Although the vast majority of U.S. product liability lawsuits
involving Actos are included in the resolution program announced
in April 2015, there may be additional cases pending against
Takeda and us following completion of the resolution program. Our
agreement with Takeda calls for Takeda to defend and indemnify us
against our losses and expenses with respect to the U.S.
litigation arising out of the manufacture, use, or sale of Actos
and other related expenses in accordance with the terms of the
agreement. We believe we are entitled to full indemnification of
our losses and expenses in the U.S. cases; however, there can be
no guarantee we will ultimately be successful in obtaining full
indemnification."

Eli Lilly and Company was incorporated in 1901 in Indiana to
succeed to the drug manufacturing business founded in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1876 by Colonel Eli Lilly.  The Company
discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets products in two
business segments -- human pharmaceutical products and animal
health products.


ELI LILLY: Company and Takeda Still Face Actos Cases in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is named
along with Takeda Chemical Industries, Ltd., as a defendant in
four purported product liability class actions in Canada related
to Actos, including two in Ontario (Casseres et al. v. Takeda
Pharmaceutical North America, Inc., et al. and Carrier et al. v.
Eli Lilly et al.), one in Quebec (Whyte et al. v. Eli Lilly et
al.), and one in Alberta (Epp v. Takeda Canada et al.).

"We promoted Actos in Canada until 2009," the Company said.

"We believe these lawsuits are without merit, and we and Takeda
are prepared to defend against them vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company was incorporated in 1901 in Indiana to
succeed to the drug manufacturing business founded in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1876 by Colonel Eli Lilly.  The Company
discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets products in two
business segments -- human pharmaceutical products and animal
health products.


ELI LILLY: Faces 510 Byetta Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is named as
a defendant in approximately 510 Byetta product liability lawsuits
in the U.S. involving approximately 1,035 plaintiffs.

Approximately 110 of these lawsuits, covering about 630
plaintiffs, are filed in California state court and coordinated in
a Los Angeles Superior Court. Approximately 395 lawsuits, covering
about 400 plaintiffs, are filed in federal court, the majority of
which are coordinated in a MDL in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California. The remaining approximately five
lawsuits, representing about five plaintiffs, are in various state
courts. Approximately 450 of the lawsuits, involving approximately
690 plaintiffs, contain allegations that Byetta caused or
contributed to the plaintiffs' cancer (primarily pancreatic cancer
or thyroid cancer).

"The federal and state trial courts granted summary judgment in
favor of us and co-defendants on the claims alleging pancreatic
cancer; those rulings are being appealed by the plaintiffs," the
Company said.

"We are aware of approximately 10 additional claimants who have
not yet filed suit. These additional claims allege damages for
pancreatic cancer or thyroid cancer. We believe these lawsuits and
claims are without merit and are prepared to defend against them
vigorously."

Eli Lilly and Company was incorporated in 1901 in Indiana to
succeed to the drug manufacturing business founded in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1876 by Colonel Eli Lilly.  The Company
discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets products in two
business segments -- human pharmaceutical products and animal
health products.


ELI LILLY: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of "Saavedra" Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in the
Cymbalta(R) Product Liability Litigation are appealing dismissal
of their case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"In October 2012, we were named as a defendant in a purported
class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California (Saavedra et al v. Eli Lilly and Company)
involving Cymbalta," the Company said.

The plaintiffs, purporting to represent a class of all persons
within the U.S. who purchased and/or paid for Cymbalta, asserted
claims under the consumer protection statutes of four states,
California, Massachusetts, Missouri, and New York, and sought
declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief for various alleged
economic injuries arising from discontinuing treatment with
Cymbalta.

In December 2014, the district court denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification. Plaintiffs filed a petition with the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit requesting permission to
file an interlocutory appeal of the denial of class certification,
which was denied.

Plaintiffs filed a second motion for certification under the
consumer protection acts of New York and Massachusetts. The
district court denied that motion for class certification in July
2015. The district court dismissed the suit and plaintiffs are
appealing to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Eli Lilly and Company was incorporated in 1901 in Indiana to
succeed to the drug manufacturing business founded in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1876 by Colonel Eli Lilly.  The Company
discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets products in two
business segments -- human pharmaceutical products and animal
health products.


ELI LILLY: Defending 140 Suits Related to Cymbalta(R)
-----------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is named in
approximately 140 lawsuits involving approximately 1,300
plaintiffs filed in various federal and state courts alleging
injuries arising from discontinuation of treatment with Cymbalta.

"Counsel for plaintiffs in the federal court proceedings filed a
petition seeking to have then-filed cases and an unspecified
number of future cases coordinated into a federal MDL in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California," the
Company said. "In December 2014, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) denied the plaintiffs' petition
for creation of an MDL. Plaintiffs' counsel subsequently filed a
second petition seeking MDL consolidation, which petition was
denied by the JPML in October 2015. There have been approximately
35 individual and multi-plaintiff cases filed in California state
court.  Most of those cases have been centralized in a California
Judicial Counsel Coordination Proceeding pending in Los Angeles.
The first individual product liability cases were tried in August
2015 and resulted in defense verdicts against four plaintiffs. Two
of those plaintiffs are appealing the verdicts against them."

"We believe all these Cymbalta lawsuits and claims are without
merit and are prepared to defend against them vigorously," the
Company said.

Eli Lilly and Company was incorporated in 1901 in Indiana to
succeed to the drug manufacturing business founded in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1876 by Colonel Eli Lilly.  The Company
discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets products in two
business segments -- human pharmaceutical products and animal
health products.


ELI LILLY: Defending 10 Prozac(R) Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------
Eli Lilly and Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is named as
a defendant in approximately 10 U.S. lawsuits primarily related to
allegations that the antidepressant Prozac caused or contributed
to birth defects in the children of women who ingested the drug
during pregnancy.

"We are aware of approximately 515 additional claims related to
birth defects, which have not yet been filed. We believe these
lawsuits and claims are without merit and are prepared to defend
against them vigorously," the Company said.

Eli Lilly and Company was incorporated in 1901 in Indiana to
succeed to the drug manufacturing business founded in
Indianapolis, Indiana, in 1876 by Colonel Eli Lilly.  The Company
discovers, develops, manufactures, and markets products in two
business segments -- human pharmaceutical products and animal
health products.


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hayes" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Hayes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., et al., Case No.
2:16-cv-00610-JHS (E.D. Pa., February 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. operates a collection agency,
which is headquartered in Olathe, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


EVENTBRITE INC: Has Sent Unsolicited Text Messages, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Blake Dugger, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eventbrite Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00242-JAM-EFB (E.D.
Cal., February 8, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited text messages to the Plaintiff's cellular
telephone via an automatic telephone dialing system.

Eventbrite Inc. operates a self-service ticketing platform.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FACEBOOK INC: Software Engineer Testifies in Privacy Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that facing claims that it violates users' privacy by storing
biometric face-recognition data, Facebook called one of its
software engineers to the witness stand on March 2 in San
Francisco Federal Court.

In a 2015 class action, lead plaintiff Carlo Licata accused
Facebook of holding the largest privately held stash of such data
in the world, in violation of the Illinois Biometric Information
Privacy Act of 2008.

At March 2, evidentiary hearing, Facebook called on software
engineer Joachim De Lombaert to testify about the source code for
the site's registration process, in which users agree to
Facebook's terms and conditions.

Facebook argues that its biometric practices do not stray beyond
those terms and conditions.

De Lombaert said that he reproduced about 150 pages of code for
the registration pages that the plaintiffs would have used when
they signed up for Facebook in 2005 and 2008, taking screenshots
of the "accurate representations" of what the sign-up pages would
have looked like at those times.  On the reproduced pages, he
said, users must have clicked the box asserting that they had read
and agreed to Facebook's terms and conditions in order to create
their Facebook accounts.

U.S. District James Donato asked whether users who registered from
cellphones were required to check such a box, and De Lombaert said
they were not.  Other questions brought by the plaintiffs'
attorney Shawn Williams included whether the type of browser would
make a difference in the registration pages' appearance and how
accurate the appearance of De Lombaert's page reconstructions
were.  De Lombaert said that he did not know if he recreated the
exact pixels the plaintiffs would have seen, but the structure,
styles, colors and sizes were accurate.

Williams is with Robbins Geller in San Francisco.

Facebook is represented by John Nadolenco --
jnadolenco@mayerbrown.com -- with Mayer Brown in Los Angeles.


FEDERATED MUTUAL: "Easterday" Suit Remanded to State Court
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence Stengel of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted Plaintiffs'
motion to remand the action to the Court of Common Pleas of
Philadelphia County in the case captioned, TERRY EASTERDAY, et
al., Plaintiffs, v. THE FEDERATED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 14-1415 (E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs Terry and Linda Easterday are married couple living in
Denver, Pennsylvania. Defendant Federated Mutual Insurance Company
is a Minnesota corporation conducting business in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, including Philadelphia. Mr. Easterday was an
employee of the defendant and drove a company vehicle during all
relevant periods in this action. On May 3, 2010, Jason Brubaker,
an underinsured motorist, failed to stop his car and drove it into
the rear of the company vehicle Mr. Easterday was driving. The
defendant owned the car and insured it under a business auto
policy. On August 18, 2011, Mr. Easterday was involved in a second
rear-end collision with Maria Lopez, another underinsured driver,
in Bristol Township, Pennsylvania. Mr. Easterday was again driving
a company-owned vehicle insured under the business auto policy.

Both accidents allegedly resulted in "serious and permanent
injuries" to Mr. Easterday. The coverage provided by the defendant
was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Pennsylvania
Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. C.S.A. Sec.
1701, et seq. The policy contained at least $1,000,000.00 in
liability coverage. The defendant denied the claim on the basis
that the policy did not provide coverage for underinsured motorist
benefits.

On February 11, 2014, the Easterdays filed the Class Action
Complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County. ,
and within thirty days, the defendant removed it here. In Count I,
the Easterdays seek declaratory relief requesting that the court
enter an Order declaring, among other things, that the Policy "is
required to provide underinsured motorist coverage to the
plaintiffs, Terry and Linda Easterday, in connection with injuries
sustained in the motor vehicle accident."  In Count II, the
plaintiffs bring a breach of contract claim, alleging that the
defendant breached the insurance policy in failing to make payment
of underinsured motorist benefits to the plaintiffs in connection
with the injuries sustained in the May 30, 2010 and the August 18,
2011 motor vehicle accidents. In Count III, the plaintiffs allege
that the defendant acted in bad faith in denying coverage, and
seek compensatory and punitive damages. Within thirty days of its
filing, the defendant removed the case.
In the motion, plaintiffs moved to remand the action to the Court
of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County.
In his Memorandum dated February 9, 2016, available at
http://is.gd/clBEkDfrom Leagle.com, Judge Stengel declined
jurisdiction finding that the Easterdays are, in essence, seeking
a declaration that they are entitled to underinsured motorist
benefits under the defendant's business policy. The dispute over
the scope of coverage of the insurance contract is purely a matter
of state law and there are no federal interests at stake.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James D. Hagelgans, Esq.
     HAGELGANS AND VERONIS
     2550 Kingston Road
     Suite 121A
     York, PA 17402
     Tel: (717)854-6688

          - and -

     James C. Haggerty, Esq.
     Suzanne Tighe, Esq.
     HAGGERTY, GOLDBERG, SCHLEIFER & KUPERSMITH
     326 W. Cedar Street, Suite 3
     Kennett Square, PA 19348
     Tel: (610) 285-1825

The Federated Mutual Insurance Company is represented by Charles
E. Spevacek, Esq. --- cspevacek@meagher.com -- & Tiffany M. Brown,
Esq. --- tbrown@meagher.com -- MEAGHER & GEER PLLP & Anthony L.
Miscioscia, Esq. & Gale White, Esq. -- whiteg@whiteandwilliams.com
-- WHITE & WILLIAMS


FERROGLOBE PLC: Delaware Court Approves Settlement in Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferroglobe PLC said in its Form F-1 Registration Statement Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19,
2016, that the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware has
approved the proposed settlement in the litigation related to the
business combination of Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., and
FerroAtlantica.

On March 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed on
behalf of Globe's shareholders ("Globe Shareholders") in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware. The action, captioned Fraser
v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10823-VCG, named
as defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, Grupo
VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company. The complaint
alleged, among other things, that the Globe directors breached
their fiduciary duties by failing to obtain the best price
possible for Globe Shareholders, that the proposed merger
consideration to be received by Globe Shareholders is inadequate
and significantly undervalued Globe, that the Globe directors
failed to adequately protect against conflicts of interest in
approving the transaction, and that the Business Combination
Agreement unfairly deters competitive offers. The complaint also
alleged that Globe, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the
Company aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The action
sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, damages, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 1, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned City of Providence v. Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10865-VCG, named as
defendants Globe, the members of its board of directors, its Chief
Executive Officer, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the
Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Globe's
board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted
by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached
their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination
for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the
Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential
alternative transaction. The complaint further alleged, among
other things, that Globe's Executive Chairman and Chief Executive
Officer, aided and abetted by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub
and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties by negotiating
the Business Combination Agreement, and, in the case of the
Executive Chairman, by entering into a voting agreement in favor
of the Business Combination Agreement, out of self-interest. The
action sought to enjoin the Business Combination, to order the
board of directors to obtain an alternate transaction, damages,
and attorneys' fees and costs.

On April 10, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned Int'l Union of Operating Engineers
Local 478 Pension Fund v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al.,
C.A. No. 10899-VCG, named as defendants Globe, the members of its
board of directors, its Chief Executive Officer, Grupo VM,
FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company. The complaint made
identical allegations and sought the same relief sought in City of
Providence v. Globe Specialty Metals, Inc., et al., C.A. No.
10865-VCG.

On April 21, 2015, a purported Globe Shareholder filed a putative
class action lawsuit on behalf of Globe Shareholders challenging
the Business Combination in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware. The action, captioned Cirillo v. Globe Specialty Metals,
Inc., et al., C.A. No. 10929-VCG, named as defendants Globe, its
board of directors, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the
Company. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Globe's
directors, aided and abetted by Globe, Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica,
Merger Sub and the Company, breached their fiduciary duties in
agreeing to the Business Combination for inadequate consideration
and that certain provisions in the Business Combination Agreement
unfairly deterred a potential alternative transaction. The action
sought to enjoin or rescind the Business Combination, disclosure
of information, damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

On May 4, 2015, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
consolidated these four actions under the caption In re Globe
Specialty Metals, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A.
No. 10865-VCG (the "Action"). The Court further designated the
complaint filed in C.A. No. 10865-VCG as the operative complaint
in the consolidated action.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to
enjoin Globe from convening a special meeting of Globe
Shareholders to vote on the proposal to adopt the Business
Combination Agreement or consummating the Business Combination. In
addition, Plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited proceedings, and
supporting brief, in which they requested that the Court schedule
a trial in this action before the Globe Shareholders vote on the
Business Combination.

Defendants, including Globe, filed an opposition brief in which
they objected to Plaintiffs' motion for expedited proceedings to
the extent it seeks expansive discovery and an expedited trial on
the merits in lieu of a preliminary injunction hearing.
Subsequently, the parties reached agreement on the scope of
expedited discovery.

On June 15, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated class
action complaint, realleging, among other things, that Globe's
board of directors and Chief Executive Officer, aided and abetted
by Grupo VM, FerroAtlantica, Merger Sub and the Company, breached
their fiduciary duties by entering into the Business Combination
for inadequate consideration and that certain provisions in the
Business Combination Agreement unfairly deterred a potential
alternative transaction. The amended complaint further alleged
that, among other things, Globe's preliminary proxy
statement/prospectus filed with the SEC on May 6, 2015, was
materially misleading and incomplete, and that Globe's board of
directors and Chief Executive Officer breached their fiduciary
duties by failing to disclose purportedly material information to
Globe Shareholders in connection with the Business Combination.
The amended complaint sought, among other relief, an order
enjoining the Defendants from consummating the proposed Business
Combination; a declaration that the disclosures contained in the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus are deficient; damages; and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 26, 2015, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction.

On September 10, 2015, the parties to the Action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU"), which outlined the terms
of an agreement in principle to settle the Action. Based on the
terms of the MOU, the parties to the Action entered into a formal
stipulation of settlement (the "Stipulation") on October 30, 2015.
The Stipulation provided that the settlement would be subject to
certain conditions, including final court approval of the
settlement, final certification of a settlement class, and closing
of the Business Combination. Upon satisfaction of these
conditions, a $32.5 million aggregate cash payment will be paid
after the closing of the Business Combination by the combined
companies on a pro rata basis to the holders of shares of Globe
common stock (other than the defendants in the Action and certain
related persons) as of the close of business on the business day
immediately prior to completion of the Business Combination. The
Stipulation also provided that the Defendants would implement
governance amendments for the benefit of Globe's shareholders
following completion of the Business Combination.

Defendants have agreed to pay or cause to be paid such attorneys'
fees and expenses as may be awarded by the Court to Plaintiffs'
Counsel for their efforts in prosecuting the Action, as well as
the costs of administering the settlement. The Stipulation
includes a release of all claims against the Defendants and their
advisors relating to or arising from the Action.

On December 23, 2015, the parties to the Business Combination
Agreement completed the Business Combination. On February 10,
2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware held a
hearing on Plaintiffs' motion to approve the proposed settlement,
including final certification of the settlement class, and
Plaintiffs' application for an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses. The Court approved the settlement, including final
certification of the settlement class, and awarded Plaintiffs'
Counsel $9,989,376.73 in attorneys' fees and expenses. Defendants
anticipate that a portion of the attorneys' fee and expense award
will be paid or reimbursed by insurance.

The Company is a global leader in the fast-growing silicon and
specialty metals industry with an expanded geographical reach,
building on Globe's footprint in North America and
FerroAtlantica's footprint in Europe.


FLAGSTAR BANCORP: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Lubbers" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Bernard A. Friedman of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, JUSTIN G.
LUBBERS, Plaintiff(s), v. FLAGSTAR BANCORP, INC., ALESSANDRO P.
DINELLO, and PAUL D. BORJA, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-13459 (E.D.
Mich.).
Plaintiff brings the federal securities class action against
Flagstar Bancorp., Inc. and two of its officers, Alessandro P.
DiNello, Chief Executive Officer, and Paul D. Borja, former Chief
Financial Officer and current Senior Deputy General Counsel on
behalf of all persons and entities that purchased shares of
Flagstar common stock during the period from October 22, 2013, to
August 26, 2014. Plaintiff alleges that during the class period,
Flagstar omitted material information and included misleading
statements in its public disclosures in violation of Sec. 10(b) of
the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Further, plaintiff asserts that defendants DiNello and Borja, as
controlling persons of Flagstar, are liable under Sec. 20(a) of
the Securities Act for Flagstar's Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
violations.
In the amended complaint, Count I asserts a violation of Sec.
10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder by
the SEC against all defendants. Count II asserts a violation of
Sec. 20(a) of the Securities Act against DiNello and Borja.

In the motion, Defendants move for dismissal of all claims.
In his Opinion and Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/475Af9from Leagle.com, Judge Friedman concluded that
plaintiff has failed to meet his burden in pleading an actionable,
material omission. Because plaintiff cannot satisfy the first
element of his Sec. 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim, Count I of the
amended complaint must be dismissed and a discussion regarding the
remaining elements of the Sec. 10(b) claim is unnecessary.
Further, because plaintiff has failed to plead an actionable and
material underlying omission to serve as the predicate for Sec.
20(a) liability, Count II against the individual defendants Borja
and DiNello must also be dismissed.

Justin G. Lubbers is represented by Patrick E. Cafferty, Esq. --
pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com -- CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER &
SPRENGEL LLP & Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq. -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com
-- POMERANTZ LLP &JEREMY A LIEBERMAN, POMERANTZ LLP

Defendants are represented by Jeffrey Alan Crapko, Esq. --
crapko@millercanfield.com -- Matthew P. Allen, Esq. --
allen@millercanfield.com -- Thomas W. Cranmer, Esq. --
cranmer@millercanfield.com -- & Todd A. Holleman, Esq. --
holleman@millercanfield.com -- MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK AND
STONE, PLC


FLUIDMASTER INC: Court Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part
Defendant Fluidmaster's motion to dismiss in the case captioned,
IN RE: FLUIDMASTER, INC., WATER CONNECTOR COMPONENTS PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 1:14-CV-05696 (N.D. Ill.).

The multi-district litigation relates to an allegedly faulty
plumbing product designed and manufactured by Defendant
Fluidmaster, Inc., a California company. Plaintiffs allege two
faults in these NO-BURST water supply lines: (1) that poor
material selection and a defective design cause many of the supply
lines to burst, resulting in flooding, and (2) that a plastic
coupling nut used on a particular type of water supply line is
uniformly defective in its design and labeling, causing the
coupling nut to fracture, resulting in flooding.
Plaintiffs bring Counts One (CLRA) and Two (UCL) on behalf of (1)
a nationwide class and, alternatively, (2) a California subclass.
Plaintiffs Rensel and Kirsch are the only Plaintiffs who raised
CLRA and UCL claims in their underlying complaint. In other words,
if Plaintiffs' consolidated complaint were a fully accurate
reflection of the claims in the underlying complaints, the CLRA
and UCL claims would still be present, but only Plaintiffs Rensel
and Kirsch would bring those claims on behalf of the putative
nationwide class.

Defendant moved under Rule 12(b)(1) to dismiss all of Plaintiffs'
claims for injunctive relief, arguing that Plaintiffs have not
pled any threat of injury sufficient to establish Article III
standing for such claims. Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiffs'
twelfth claim brought by Plaintiffs Rensel and Wyble on behalf of
the Arizona subclass arguing that there was no sale or transaction
between Fluidmaster and Rensel or Wyble and Plaintiffs' unjust
enrichment claim brought under California law, arguing that
California does not recognize a cause of action for unjust
enrichment.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 3, 2016
available at http://is.gd/3RCCiEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dow, Jr.
granted dismissal as to the nineteenth cause of action, GUDTPA,
AEMLD, UCL, CLRA and IUDTPA claims because Plaintiff has failed to
allege facts that he is likely to sustain damage by Defendant's
deceptive trade practices. The Court denied the motion to dismiss
as to the ACFA claim because the Defendant failed to prove any on-
point authority and modification of Plaintiff's unfair and
fraudulent practices because the statement is part of the
introduction to the complaint and not a part of any of the 19
causes of action.


Plaintiffs are represented by Adam Arthur Edwards, Esq. --
adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Gregory F. Coleman, Esq. --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- & Lisa Anne White, Esq. --
lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- GREG COLEMAN LAW PC, Amy Elisabeth
Keller, Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- & Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
-- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP, Glen L. Abramson,
Esq. -- gabramson@bm.net -- Lawrence Deutsch, Esq. --
ldeutsch@bm.net -- & Shanon J. Carson, Esq. -- scarson@bm.net --
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

Fluidmaster, Inc. is represented by James Chang, Esq. --
james.chang@pillsburylaw.com -- Kimberly L. Buffington, Esq. --
kbuffington@pillsburylaw.com -- Roger R. Wise, Esq. --
roger.wise@pillsburylaw.com -- & Sarkis Armenovich Khachatryan,
Esq. -- sarkis.khachatryan@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY WINTHROP
SHAW PITTMAN LLP


FOUR SEASON HEALTHCARE: "Alcaraz" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie ALcaraz and Stephanie Bautista, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
the general public and all similarly aggrieved employees v. Four
Seasons Healthcare & Wellness Center, LP, et al., Defendants, Case
No. BC612483 (Cal. Super., March 2, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to furnish its employees uninterrupted meal
and rest breaks, failure to pay its employees for at least 30
minutes of daily overtime, and failure to pay employees upon
termination all earned wages pursuant to California Labor Code.

Defendant Four Seasons Healthcare is a limited partnership
organized under the laws of the State of California and authorized
to conduct business in the State of California. Defendant Four
Seasons Healthcare maintains offices and facilities and conducts
business and engages in illegal payroll practices or policies in
North Hollywood, in the County of Los Angeles, State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph M. Hekmat, Esq.
     HEKMAT LAW GROUP
     11111 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 1700
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: 424-888-0848
     Fax: 424-270-0242
     Email: jhekmat@hekmatlaw.com

- and --

     Fern S. Nisen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF FERN S. NISEN, INC.
     11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1700
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: 310-473-9200
     Fax: 310-473-9208
     Email: fern.nisen@nisenlaw.com


FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------
Rafael Dominguez, Cesar Grullon, and all others similarly-situated
v. Future Technologies, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00144 (D. Conn.,
February 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act and the Connecticut State Law.

Future Technologies, LLC is engaged in the business of providing
cable television installation for Cox Communications in Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and other states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Morneau, Esq.
      CONNOR , MORNEAU & OLIN , LLP
      273 State Street
      Springfield, MA 01103
      Tel: (413) 455-1730
      Fax: (413) 455-1594
      E-mail: jmorneau@cmolawyers.com


G'S FOOD MART: Violated FLSA, "Destine" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------
Ambroise Destine and other similarly situated cashiers, Plaintiff,
v. G'S Food Mart, Inc., dba Valero G'S Food and Patricia Fabien,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 2016-004476-CA-01, (Fla. Cir.,
February 24, 2016), asks the Court to award the Plaintiff actual
damages in the amount shown to be due for unpaid minimum wage and
overtime compensation for hours worked in excess of 40 weekly,
with interest.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, P L LC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305)416-5005
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Suit Over Antitrust Violations
------------------------------------------------------
City of Sacramento, and all others similarly-situated v. General
Chemical Corporation, General Chemical Performance Products, LLC,
Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation,
Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Gentek, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc.,
Frank A. Reichl, and John Does 1-50, Case No. 2:16-at-00086 (E.D.
Calif., January 29, 2016), seeks treble damages, costs of suit,
and other relief against the Defendants for alleged conspiracy and
agreement to fix, raise, inflate, maintain or stabilize prices of
Alum, rig bids and allocate customers for Alum supplied to
municipalities, pulp and paper companies, agricultural companies
and all other direct purchasers in the U.S. in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton
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:

      Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
      Jacob Richards, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 463-3900
      Fax: (510) 463-3901
      E-mail: jlewis@kellerrohrback.com
              jrichards@kellerrorhback.com

          - and -

      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      E-mail: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
              dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
              rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
              dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


GENERAl CHEMICAL: Sacramento City Sues Over Overpriced Alum
-----------------------------------------------------------
City of Sacramento, Plaintiff, v. General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc.,
Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation,
Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Kemira Chemicals, Inc., Frank A.
Reichl and John Does 1-50, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00187-KJM-
EFB (E.D. Cal., Sacramento Division, January 29, 2016), seeks to
permanently enjoin further violation of antitrust laws, and seeks
treble damages, penalties and other monetary relief and reasonable
attorney fees, for violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act 15
U.S.C. and Sections 4 and 6 of the Clayton Act 15 U.S.C.

City of Sacramento directly purchased liquid aluminum sulfate from
one or more of the Defendants at supra-competitive price.

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

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario. Reichl was the General
Manager of Water Chemicals for General Chemical Group, Inc.

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

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

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

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

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

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with
its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite
500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies
specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment,
mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North
America and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jacob Richards, Esq.
      Jeffrey Lewis, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
      300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000
      Oakland, California 94612
      Tel: (510) 463-3900
      Fax: (510) 463-3901
      Email: jrichards@kellerrohrback.com
             jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

           - and -

      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
      Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
      Daniel P. Mensher, Esq.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
             dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
             rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com
             dmensher@kellerrohrback.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Milwaukee Suit Over LAS-price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
City of Milwaukee, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. General Chemical Corporation, et al., Case
No. 2:16-cv-00212-RTR (E.D. Wis., February 23, 2016), arises from
the Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination,
agreement and conspiracy to circumvent competitive bidding and
independent pricing for liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS) contracts
and to submit artificially inflated bids.

General Chemical Corporation maintains Alum manufacturing and
distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a
leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles N. Nauen, Esq.
      W. Joseph Bruckner, Esq.
      Heidi M. Silton, Esq.
      Elizabeth R. Odette, Esq.
      Brian D. Clark, Esq.
      Rachel Kitze Collins, Esq.
      LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P
      100 Washington Avenue South, Suite 2200
      Minneapolis, MN 55401
      Telephone: (612) 339-6900
      Facsimile: (612) 339-0981
      E-mail: wjbruckner@locklaw.com
              cnnauen@locklaw.com
              hmsilton@locklaw.com
              erodette@locklaw.com
              bdclark@locklaw.com
              rakitzecollins@locklaw.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Faces Hackettstown Suit Over LAS-price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Hackettstown Municipal Utilities Authority, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. General Chemical
Corporation, et al., Case No. 3:16-cv-01022-FLW-TJB (D.N.Y.,
February 23, 2016), arises from the Defendants' and others'
alleged unlawful combination, agreement and conspiracy to
circumvent competitive bidding and independent pricing for liquid
aluminum sulfate contracts and to submit artificially inflated
bids.

General Chemical Corporation maintains Alum manufacturing and
distribution facilities throughout the United States and was a
leading manufacturer and supplier of water treatment chemicals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael D. Fitzgerald, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D. FITZGERALD
      800 Old Bridge Road
      Brielle, NJ 08730
      Telephone: (732) 223-2200
      E-mail: mdfitz@briellelaw.com

         - and -

      Kevin Landau, Esq.
      TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
      80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
      New York, NY 10038
      Telephone: (646) 873-7654
      E-mail: klandau@tcllaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE: Faces "Southerland" Suit Over Zofran(R) Drugs
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Southerland and Jason Alberts, both individually and on
behalf of B.A., their minor child v. Glaxosmithkline LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-10197 (D. Mass., February 5, 2016), is an action for
damages as a result of his prenatal exposures to the generic
bioequivalent form of the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known
as ondansetron.

Zofran is a prescription drug that is used to treat patients who
were afflicted with the most severe nausea imaginable -- that
suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company located at 5
Crescent Dr., Philadelphia, PA 19112.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
      Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      31 St. James Ave., Suite 365
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 933-1265
      Facsimile: (410) 653-9030


GLOBAL CREDIT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Thomas" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Erica K. Thomas, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated
v. Global Credit & Collection Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-
00672-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., February 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Global Credit & Collection Corp. operates an accounts receivable
management company in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GORDMANS INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Hunsinger" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Hunsinger, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
v. Gordmans, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00162-DDN (E.D. Mo., February
8, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of
making unsolicited calls.

Gordmans, Inc. operates a chain of off-price department stores
founded and headquartered in Omaha, Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan E. Fortman Esq
      LAW OFFICE OF JONATHAN E. FORTMAN, LLC
      250 Saint Catherine Street
      Florissant, MO 63031
      Telephone: (314) 522-2312
      Facsimile: (314) 524-1519
      E-mail: jef@fortmanlaw.com


GOSPEL FOR ASIA: Faces "Dickson" Suit Over RICO Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Dickson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Gospel for Asia, Inc., et al., Case No.
5:16-cv-05027-PKH (W.D. Ark., February 8, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for violation of the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

Gospel for Asia, Inc. is a Christian missionary focused on
spreading the Gospel to India and Asian countries through the use
of national missionaries.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Woody Bassett, Esq.
      BASSETT LAW FIRM
      221 North College Avenue
      Fayetteville, AR 72701
      Telephone: (479) 521-9996
      Facsimile: (479) 521-9600
      E-mail: wbassett@bassettlawfirm.com


GREENSIDE CORPORATION: Faces Suit Over FLSA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Mario Ramirez, Amancio Almanzo Soriano, Danny Garrido, Luis Rosas
Xohua, Miguel Angel Jimenez, Antonio Miguel Tellez, Jose Rabi
Hernandez, Emilio Sarmiento, Genaro Chino Castillo, Juan Vera,
Onelio Eric Ramirez, Agapito  Sanchez, and all others similarly-
situated v. Greenside Corporation, Kel-Tech  Construction, Inc.,
Philip Kelleher and Vincent Kelleher, Case No. 1:16-cv-00726
(S.D.N.Y., February 1, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Law.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Brett M. Schatz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF BRETT M. SCHATZ, P.C.
      1345 Avenue of the Americas, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10105
      Tel: (212) 631-7463
      Fax: (646) 786-3325
      E-mail: bschatz@bmsfirm.com


IHEARTMEDIA: Sued in New York Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ponderosa Twins Plus One, Ricky Spicer, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. iHeartmedia, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00953 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016) is an action
for damages as a result of the Defendants' copyright infringement
stemming from the Defendants' unauthorized and unlawful use of the
Plaintiffs' and putative class members' sound recordings.

iHeartmedia, Inc. is a mass media company headquartered in San
Antonio, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brittany Weiner, Esq.
      IMBESI LAW P.C.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 1408
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 736-0007
      E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

         - and -

      Paul Napoli, Esq.
      NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
      1301 Avenue of the Americas, Floor 10
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 397-1000
      E-mail: pnapoli@napolilaw.com


IMAGE HOME: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Menichiello" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Denise Menichiello, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Image Home Design Inc. and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-00203-DOC-KES (C.D.
Cal., February 5, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Image Home Design Inc. is an interior design company located in
Woodland Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERSTATE AMUSEMENTS: Dropped From H-2B Workers' Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Armeen Mistry, Esq. -- amistry@cozen.com -- of Cozen O'Connor, in
an article for Lexology, reports that plaintiffs from a proposed
class action involving H-2B visa guest workers voluntarily
dismissed a Florida amusement park company from the pending
litigation.  The case involves the prevailing wage rate offered to
guest workers.

This proposed class action involves the guest workers' ability to
receive supplemental prevailing wages.  The prevailing wage rate
involves two government agencies: the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL).  The DHS
issues H-2B visas for foreign workers coming to the United States
to perform non-agricultural labor.  The DOL requires that
employers pay these workers at least the prevailing wage.

In November 2015, Pablo Gonzales-Aviles and Heleodoro Pena-
Gonzalez filed a complaint on behalf of H-2B guest workers against
the DOL and 79 identified employers.  The potential class could
exceed 1,500 workers -- all the workers in the 79 companies'
employ.  The complaint alleges that the guest workers on H-2B
visas have yet to receive payment for work performed in 2013
because the DOL allowed the employers to challenge a wage
increase.  The complaint further alleges the wages were required
pursuant to Supplemental Prevailing Wage Determinations (SPWDs)
that the DOL issued to H-2B employers in accordance with a court
order in Comite de Apoyo a los Trabajadores Agricolas v. Solis,
933 F.Supp.2d 700 (E.D. Pa. 2013) and the DOL's Interim Final Rule
published on April 24, 2013, in response to the order. 78 Fed.
Reg. 24,047 (Apr. 24, 2013). Due to the employers' challenge to
the DOL, the plaintiffs allege, the employers kept the lower wages
throughout 2013.

On February 17, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed one of the 79
named companies, Interstate Amusements of America, Inc., a
Florida-based amusement park company.  This dismissal follows the
February 1 filing of a motion to dismiss for failure to state a
claim and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  Several of the
companies jointly filed this motion to dismiss, stating the
workers lack legal standing to bring this lawsuit.  On
February 18, the plaintiffs filed a response to the motion to
dismiss, stating the DOL's policy on paying the prevailing wage
gives the workers the necessary "injury-in-fact" to establish
constitutional standing.

The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District
Maryland, Case No. 1:15-CV-03463-MJG.


IRSA INVERSIONES: Sued in Cal. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Butts, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Irsa Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima,
et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01234 (C.D. Cal., February 23, 2015),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Irsa Inversiones Y Representaciones Sociedad Anonima is a real
estate company that engages in a range of diversified real
estates-related activities in Argentina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


J BRAND: Jeans Not Made in California, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that J Brand blue jeans are not
"Made in California, USA," as advertised, a class action claims in
Los Angeles Superior Court.


J.W. LUBE: "Watts" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Lyle Watts, Kia Myers and Jesse Reynolds, III, Plaintiffs v. J.W.
Lube, Inc., T/A Jiffy Lube #722, et al., Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00604-RDB (D. Md., March 2, 2016), seeks payment of unpaid
wages and overtime pay in excess of 40 hours worked pursuant to
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants engage in the business of maintaining and servicing
automobiles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     George E. Swegman, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Tel: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com


KJ & J FRUIT: Fails to Pay Overtime Wages, "Marte" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose A. Marte, individually and On behalf of those individuals
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KJ & J Fruit Market Inc., and
Jinso Kim, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00926-JMA-ARL, (E.D.N.C,
February 24, 2016), alleges denial of overtime compensation.

The case is assigned to Judge Joan M. Azrack.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
     ZABELL & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
     Bohemia, NY 11716
     Tel: (631) 589-7242
     Fax: (631) 563-7475
     Email: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


KML LAW: Faces "Porch" Suit Over Foreclosure Fees
-------------------------------------------------
Clarence J. Porch and Darlene D. Porch, individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated former and current homeowners in
Pennsylvania, Plaintiffs, v. KML Law Group, P.C.; Manufacturers
and Traders Trust Company, aka M&T Bank Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00890-JD, (E.D. Pa., February 24, 2016),
challenges the Defendants' systemic practices of demanding
foreclosure-related attorneys' fees that are not authorized by the
Homeowners' mortgage contracts and/or that are not permitted under
corresponding federal FHA regulations and state statutory law.

Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company aka M&T Bank Corporation,
is a bank holding company.

KML is a professional corporation with a law office located at 700
Market Street, Suite 5000, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As debt
collecting counsel, KML filed a Foreclosure Complaint against the
Porches.

The case is assigned to Honorable Jan E. Dubois.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael P. Malakoff, Esq.
     Jonathan R. Burns, Esq.
     Suite 200, the Frick Building
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Tel: (412) 281-4217
     Fax: (412) 281-3262
     Email: malakoff@mpmalakoff.com
            jburns@mpmalakoff.com


LA FE FOODS: Doesn't Pay Overtime, "Isalgue" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Jose Isalgue, and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff,
v. La Fe Foods, Inc., a Foreign Profit Corporation; and Carlos J.
Pena, individually, Defendants, Case No. 2016-004473-CA-01, (Fla.
Cir., February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid minimum wage compensation, an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, as amended and Article X, Section 24 of the Florida
Constitution, and the Florida Minimum Wage Act.  Plaintiff demands
trial by jury of all issues triable as of right by jury.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, P L LC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305)416-5005
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


LAND OF LINCOLN: Sued Over Health Insurance Provider Networks
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Blumenthal and Michael L. HARTZMARK, for themselves, and
for others similarly situated v. Land of Lincoln Mutual Health
Insurance Compmany, d/b/a Land of Lincoln Health, Inc., Case No.
2016-CH-01508 (Ill. Ch. Ct., February 2, 2016) arises from the
Defendant's marketing and sale of health insurance policies
offering specific provider networks, but thereafter terminating
those providers' in-network status during the term purchased.

Land of Lincoln Mutual Health Insurance Company is an Illinois
domestic mutual insurance company with its principal place of
business in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton A. Krislov
      Christopher M. Hack
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD
      20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 606-0500
      E-mail: clint@krislovlaw.com
              chris@krislovlaw.com


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: May 11 Fairness Hearing in Sykes v. Mel Harris
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a fairness
hearing is set for May 11, 2016, on the settlement in the case,
Sykes v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC.

The Company said, "We and certain of our subsidiaries and officers
are named as defendants in a consumer class action captioned Sykes
v. Mel Harris & Associates, LLC, et al., 9 Civ. 8486 (DC), in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York.  The named defendants also include the Mel Harris law firm,
certain individuals and members associated with the law firm, and
a process server, Samserv, Inc. and certain of its employees.  The
complaint alleges that default judgments obtained by the law firm
against approximately 124,000 individuals in New York courts with
respect to consumer debt purchased by our subsidiaries violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, the Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act, the New York General Business Law
and the New York Judiciary Law (alleged only as to the law firm).
The complaint seeks injunctive relief, declaratory relief and
damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs and others similarly
situated.  We asserted that we were an investor with respect to
the subject purchased consumer debt and were regularly informed of
the amounts received from debt collections, but otherwise had no
involvement in any alleged illegal debt collection activities."

"On December 29, 2010, the District Court denied defendants'
motions to dismiss in part (including as to the claims made
against us and our subsidiaries) and granted them in part
(including as to certain of the claims made against our officers).
On March 28, 2013, the Court certified a Rule 23(b)(2) class and a
Rule 23(b)(3) class.  On February 10, 2015, the Second Circuit
affirmed the certification of these classes.  None of these
decisions addresses the ultimate merits of the case.

"On March 18, 2015, we and plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement that provided additional detail regarding the terms of a
settlement set out in a December 14, 2014 binding term sheet
pursuant to which we have previously accrued approximately $50
million.  On November 12, 2015, plaintiffs executed a settlement
agreement with the other defendants in the case, and we and
plaintiffs executed a first amendment to our settlement agreement
to modify the agreement to reflect that settlement of all claims
as to all parties had been reached. Both our settlement agreement
and that of the other defendants were submitted to the Court on
November 12, 2015. On November 16, 2015, the Court entered an
order that, among other things, preliminarily approved the
settlement agreements, authorized the parties to send notice to
the settlement class members and set a fairness hearing for May
11, 2016.

Leucadia National Corporation is a diversified holding company.
Its financial services businesses include Jefferies (investment
banking and capital markets), Leucadia Asset Management (asset
management), Berkadia (commercial mortgage banking and servicing),
FXCM (a publicly traded company providing online foreign exchange
trading), HomeFed Corporation ("HomeFed") (a publicly traded real
estate company) and Foursight Capital and Chrome Capital (vehicle
finance).  It also owns and has investments in a diverse array of
other businesses, including National Beef (beef processing), HRG
Group ("HRG") (a publicly traded diversified holding company),
Vitesse Energy and Juneau Energy (oil and gas exploration and
development), Garcadia (automobile dealerships), Linkem (fixed
wireless broadband services in Italy), Conwed Plastics and Idaho
Timber (manufacturing), and Golden Queen (a gold and silver mining
project).


LEUCADIA NATIONAL: Court Approves Dismissal of Haverhill Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leucadia National Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has
approed the stipulation and proposed dismissal of the case,
Haverhill Retirement System v. Asali, et al.

On May 2, 2014, plaintiff Haverhill Retirement System
("Haverhill")  filed an amended putative class action and
derivative lawsuit (the "Complaint") entitled Haverhill Retirement
System v. Asali, et al. in the Court of Chancery of the State of
Delaware (the "Court of Chancery") against Harbinger Capital
Partners LLC, Harbinger Capital Partners Master Fund I, Ltd.,
Global Opportunities Breakaway Ltd., Harbinger Capital Partners
Special Situations Fund, L.P. (collectively, the "Harbinger
Funds"), the members of the board of directors of Harbinger Group,
Inc. ("Harbinger"), nominal defendant Harbinger, as well as
Leucadia. The Complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Harbinger breached their fiduciary duties in
connection with Leucadia's March 2014 purchase of preferred
securities of subsidiaries of the Harbinger Funds that were
exchangeable into Harbinger common stock owned by the Harbinger
Funds, certain flaws in the process employed by the special
committee of directors appointed by the Harbinger board in
connection therewith, and that Leucadia aided and abetted the
Harbinger board's breaches of fiduciary, as well as a claim of
unjust enrichment against Leucadia.

On April 1, 2014, the Chancery Court denied Haverhill's motion for
expedited proceedings associated with the complaint originally
filed by Haverhill on March 26, 2014.  Haverhill filed an amended
complaint on May 2, 2014.  On July 2, 2014, the defendants moved
to dismiss the amended complaint.  On August 12, 2014, Plaintiffs
filed another amended complaint. The amended complaint dropped
Plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim against Leucadia. With respect
to remedies sought, the amended complaint no longer sought an
injunction against installing Leucadia designees as Board members
and no longer sought rescission of Leucadia's right to select the
director class to which one of its designees would be appointed.

A term sheet reflecting a settlement among the parties, that did
not provide for any payment by the Company, was signed on October
15, 2014.  On December 19, 2014, final settlement papers were
submitted to the Court. On June 8, 2015, a settlement hearing took
place, at which the Court rejected the settlement.

The parties then negotiated a stipulation under which the case
will be dismissed. The court approved the stipulation and proposed
dismissal on January 7, 2016. Following notice to Harbinger's
stockholders of the proposed dismissal, Harbinger will notify the
court that the notice has been provided and we expect that the
case will be dismissed.

Leucadia National Corporation is a diversified holding company.
Its financial services businesses include Jefferies (investment
banking and capital markets), Leucadia Asset Management (asset
management), Berkadia (commercial mortgage banking and servicing),
FXCM (a publicly traded company providing online foreign exchange
trading), HomeFed Corporation ("HomeFed") (a publicly traded real
estate company) and Foursight Capital and Chrome Capital (vehicle
finance).  It also owns and has investments in a diverse array of
other businesses, including National Beef (beef processing), HRG
Group ("HRG") (a publicly traded diversified holding company),
Vitesse Energy and Juneau Energy (oil and gas exploration and
development), Garcadia (automobile dealerships), Linkem (fixed
wireless broadband services in Italy), Conwed Plastics and Idaho
Timber (manufacturing), and Golden Queen (a gold and silver mining
project).


LITHOGRAPHIX INC: "Pineda" Suit Seeks Payment of Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Joel Pineda, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Lithographix, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. BC612372 (Cal. Super., March 2, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide meal period, failure to
authorized and permitted rest period, failure to pay overtime
compensation, failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements
and maintain required records and failure to timely pay all wage
upon termination of employment pursuant to California Labor Code.

Lithographix is the premier offset and grand format printer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

    Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
    RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
    22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 200
    Torrance, CA 90505
    Tel.: (310) 961-9600
    Fax: (310) 961-9094
    Email: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


LMS INTELLIBOUND: Retaliated Against Employee, "Hamilton" Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Levar Hamilton, and other similarly situated employees, Plaintiff,
v. LMS Intellibound, LLC, Foreign Limited Liability Company, and
Capstone Logistics, LLC, a Domestic Limited Liability Company,
Defendants, Case No. 2016-004524-CA-01, (Fla. Cir., February 24,
2016), alleges that the Plaintiff was terminated from employment
because he complained about unpaid wages.  The Plaintiff says he
was not paid the required overtime rate for regular hours worked.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jason S. Remer, Esq.
     Brody M. Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, P L LC
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305)416-5005
     Email: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


LTD FINANCIAL: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. LTD Financial Services, LP, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00651 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

LTD Financial Services, LP is a collection agency, which is
headquartered in Houston, Texas.

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


LUCILE SALTER: Faces "Torrento" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fabiola Torrento, an individual, on behalf of herself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. Lucile Salter Packard
Children's Hospital at Stanford and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive,
Case No. 16cv291035 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 2, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Lucile Salter Packard Children's Hospital at Stanford is dedicated
to offering pediatric and obstetric care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
      Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq.
      Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
      Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
      BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
      2255 Calle Clara
      La Jolla, CA 92037
      Telephone: (858)551-1223
      Facsimile: (858) 551-1232


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces "DeVillier" Suit Over Chinese Flooring
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa DeVillier and Earl and Shirley Wells, Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly  situated v.
Lumber Liquidators, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00139-JWD-
EWD (M.D. La., March 2, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to comply with relevant and applicable formaldehyde
standards related to their Chinese Flooring products.

Lumber Liquidators is one of the largest specialty retailers of
hardwood flooring in the United States selling primarily to
homeowners directly or to contractors on behalf of homeowners
through its extensive network of retail stores nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin Klibert, Esq.
     Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
     Matthew B.Moreland, Esq.
     BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O. Drawer H
     Reserve, LA 70084
     Tel: 985-536-1186
     Fax: 985-536-6446
     Email: kklibert@becnellaw.com
            schristina@becnellaw.com
            mmoreland@becnellaw.com

- and --

      Morris Bart, Esq.
      Mekel Alvarez, Esq.
      MORRIS BART, LLC
      909 Poydras Street, 20th Fl.
      New Orleans, LA 70112
      Tel: 504-599-3318
      Fax: 504-599-3392


M&T BANK: Motion to Stay Securities Litigation Pending
------------------------------------------------------
M&T Bank Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to stay the
case, In Re Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation (U.S. District
Court, District of Delaware, Case No. 10-CV-0990-SLR), remains
pending before the Court.

Beginning on November 18, 2010, a series of parties, purporting to
be class representatives, commenced a putative class action
lawsuit against Wilmington Trust Corporation, alleging that
Wilmington Trust Corporation's financial reporting and securities
filings were in violation of securities laws. The cases were
consolidated and Wilmington Trust Corporation moved to dismiss.
The Court issued an order denying Wilmington Trust Corporation's
motion to dismiss on March 20, 2014. A motion to stay the case is
currently pending before the Court.

M&T Bank Corporation is a New York business corporation which is
registered as a financial holding company under the Bank Holding
Company Act of 1956, as amended ("BHCA") and as a bank holding
company ("BHC") under Article III-A of the New York Banking Law
("Banking Law").  At December 31, 2015, M&T had two wholly owned
bank subsidiaries: M&T Bank and Wilmington Trust, National
Association.


MANNA MADISON: Faces "Bajrami" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bertan Bajrami, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
v. Manna Madison Avenue LLC d/b/a Gina La Fornarina, et al., Case
No. 1:16-cv-00943-AJN (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Manna Madison Avenue LLC operates four Gina La Fornarina
restaurants in Manhattan, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
      Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
      JOSEPH & KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
      32 Broadway, Suite 601
      New York, NY 10004
      Telephone: (212) 688-5640
      Facsimile: (212) 688-2548
      E-mail: maimon@jhllp.com
              jnussbaum@jhllp.com


MARVEL & MALONEY: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Maurice Jacobovits, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Law Office of Marvel & Maloney, P.C., et
al., Case No. 3:16-cv-00664-AET-DEA (D.N.J., February 8, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Law Office of Marvel & Maloney, P.C. operates a law firm 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


MASTERPIECE ALPINE: "Vega" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Vega, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Masterpiece Alpine Sports Inc.,
Masterpiece Alpine Sports Three Inc., and Hyen Won, jointly and
severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00921-ENV-SMG, (E.D.N.Y.,
February 24, 2016), seeks payment of wages from the Defendants for
overtime work as well as back wages for overtime work for which
they did not receive overtime premium pay.

The case is assigned to Judge Eric N. Vitaliano.

Masterpiece Alpine Sports Inc., is a retailer of sports and
outdoor apparel and other goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas Lipsky, Esq.
     630 Third Avenue, Fifth Floor
     New York, NY 10017-6705
     Tel: (212) 392-4772
     Fax: (212) 444-1030
     Email: dl@bronsonlipsky.com

          - and -

     Jeffrey M. Gottlieb, Esq.
     Dana L. Gottlieb, Esq.
     GOTTLIEB & ASSOCIATES
     150 East 18th Street, Suite PHR
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: 212-228-9795
     Fax: 212-982-6284
     Email: nyjg@aol.com
            danalgottlieb@aol.com


MEDTRONIC INC: Appeals Ruling in "Merenstein" Shareholder Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Medtronic, Inc. on Feb. 24, 2016, filed an appeal before the
Supreme Court of Minnesota from an appellate court decision in the
case, In re Medtronic, Inc. Shareholder Litigation.

The originating case is, Lewis Merenstein, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated vs Medtronic Inc, Richard H
Anderson, Scott C Donnelly, Victor J Dzau, Omar Ishrak et. al.,
Case No. 27-CV-14-11452, Hennepin County District Court, Civil
Division.

Lawyers at Faegre Baker Daniels wrote that on January 25, 2016,
the Minnesota Court of Appeals decided In re Medtronic, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, holding that a shareholder's claim is
properly characterized as a direct claim, not a derivative claim,
even where all shareholders share the same injury, so long as the
shareholders would receive the benefit of the recovery or remedy,
and the injury is not suffered by the corporation.

Beginning in March 2014, executives of Covidien, an Irish company,
contacted executives at Medtronic, then a Minnesota company, to
discuss a potential merger between the companies. The companies
ultimately determined that Medtronic would acquire Covidien
through an "inversion" -- in which Medtronic would change its
place of incorporation to Ireland so that Medtronic's future
earnings would not be subject to U.S. federal income taxes. To
deter such transactions, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
imposes certain excise (or capital gains) taxes on shareholders of
companies that execute inversions. But as part of the merger,
Medtronic provided senior executives with tax "gross-up" payments
of more than $60 million as reimbursement for these taxes.
Medtronic and Covidien publicly announced the merger agreement on
June 15, 2014.

On July 2, 2014, Medtronic shareholder Lewis Merenstein filed a
class-action complaint against Medtronic, generally alleging that
the decision to structure the acquisition as an inversion harmed
him by forcing him to pay excise taxes and by diluting the value
of his shares. He pleaded numerous counts under the Minnesota
Business Corporation Act (MBCA), as well as claims against the
Board of Directors for self-dealing and breach of fiduciary duty.
In pertinent part, the district court granted Medtronic's motion
to dismiss, concluding that the self-dealing, breach-of-fiduciary
duty and MBCA claims were derivative claims that failed because
Merenstein had not followed the procedures required by Minnesota
Rule of Civil Procedure 23.09 for derivative claims.

A three-judge panel of the Minnesota Court of Appeals reversed.
The principal issue it considered -- and upon which the parties
disagreed -- was whether a claim can be characterized as "direct"
in these circumstances if it injures all shareholders in the same
way. Relying upon Delaware law, the court held that all
shareholders of a Minnesota corporation may bring a direct claim
even if (1) all shareholders share the same injury, as long as (2)
the shareholders would receive the benefit of the recovery or
remedy; and (3) the injury is not suffered by the corporation.
These requirements, the court reasoned, were consistent with the
purposes behind shareholder derivative claims -- i.e., to preserve
a corporation's claims to itself.

Applying that standard, the court held that all but one of the
self-dealing, breach-of-fiduciary duty, and MBCA claims were
direct: all Medtronic shareholders alleged they were injured when
the inversion diluted their stock and imposed additional taxes;
shareholders would receive the benefit of a recovery; and that
injury was not suffered by Medtronic. The one exception was a
claim seeking to void the tax gross-up payments: that was a
derivative claim because if the plaintiff prevailed, the money
would be returned to Medtronic, not shareholders. And because
Merenstein had not followed the requirements of Rule 23.09 for
derivative claims, that count was dismissed.

The opinion is noteworthy for having imported its standard from
Delaware law, which was a departure from some past decisions in
this area. See, e.g., Reimel v. MacFarlane, 9 F. Supp. 2d 1062,
1067 n.7 (D. Minn. 1998) ("The Court will not adhere to the test
articulated by the Delaware courts because, at least in [the
shareholder derivative] context, that approach would be at odds
with general principles of Minnesota law."). It remains to be seen
how future courts will apply this new guidance regarding "direct"
v. "derivative" claims, and whether either party will petition for
further review in the Minnesota Supreme Court.

The article's authors are:

     Wendy J. Wildung
     Matthew Kilby
     Justin P. Krypel
     Jeffrey P. Justman
     FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS
     E-mail: wendy.wildung@FaegreBD.com
             matthew.kilby@FaegreBD.com
             justin.krypel@FaegreBD.com
             jeff.justman@FaegreBD.com

A copy of the article is available at http://is.gd/LEkysz

The case before the state Supreme Court is In re Medtronic, Inc.
Shareholder Litigation, Case#: A15-0858 (Minn.).


MICHIGAN: Sued Over Lead Content in Flint's Water Supply
--------------------------------------------------------
Luke Waid and Michelle Rodriguez, individually and as next friends
of one minor child, Sophia Rodriguez-Waid v. Governor Richard Dale
Snyder, in his official capacity, and the State of Michigan for
prospective relief only; Daniel Wyant, Liane Shekter Smith, Adam
Rosenthal, Stephen Busch, Patrick Cook, Michael Prysby, Bradley
Wurfel all in their individual capacities; Darnell Earley, Gerald
Ambrose, Dayne Walling, Howard Croft, Michael Glasgow and
Daugherty Johnson in their individual and official capacities, and
the City of Flint, a municipal corporation, jointly and severally,
Case No. 5:16-cv-10444-JCO-MKM (E.D. Mich., February 8, 2016)
alleges violation of the Safe Drinking Water Act.

The Plaintiffs seek recovery from the Defendants for alleged
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs as a
result of exposure to the introduction of lead and other toxic
substances from the Defendants' ownership, use, management,
supervision, storage, maintenance, disposal and release of highly
corrosive water from the Flint River into the drinking water of
Flint, Michigan.

Richard Dale Snyder is sued in his official capacity as Governor
of the state of Michigan. The state of Michigan is sued in its
capacity of operating the Michigan Department of Environmental
Quality.  Daniel Wyant is sued in his official capacity as
Director of MDEQ.

Liane Shekter Smith is sued in her official capacity as Chief of
the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance for MDEQ.
Adam Rosenthal is sued in his official capacity as a Water Quality
Analyst assigned to the Lansing District Office of the MDEQ.
Stephen Busch is sued in his official capacity as District
Supervisor assigned to the Lansing District Office of the MDEQ.
Patrick Cook is sued in his official capacity as a Water Treatment
Specialist assigned to the Lansing Community Drinking Water Unit
of the MDEQ. Michael Prysby is sued in his official capacity as
the Engineer assigned to District 11 (Genesee County) of the MDEQ.
Bradley Wurfel is sued in his official capacity as Director of
Communications for MDEQ.  Darnell Earley and Gerald Ambrose are
sued in their official capacity as the Emergency Financial
Managers.

The City of Flint is sued as the owner and operator of the public
water system that provides potable water to the residents of
Flint.  Dayne Walling is sued in his official capacity as the
Mayor of Flint.  Howard Croft is sued in his official capacity as
Director of Public Works for the City of Flint.  Michael Glasgow
and Daugherty Johnson are sued in their official capacity as
Utilities Administrators for the City of Flint.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, Tenth Floor
          New York, NY, 10019
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          E-mail: pnapoli@napolilaw.com
                  hunter@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Brian J. McKeen, Esq.
          MCKEEN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          Penobscot Building
          645 Griswold Street
          Detroit, MI, 48226
          Telephone: (313) 447-0634
          E-mail: bjmckeen@mckeenassociates.com

               - and -

          Adam P. Slater, Esq.
          Jonathan E. Schulman, Esq.
          SLATER SLATER SCHULMAN LLP
          909 Third Avenue, 28th Floor
          New York, NY, 10022
          Telephone: (212) 922-0906
          E-mail: aslater@sssfirm.com
                  jschulman@sssfirm.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Law Firm Seeks High Court Review of Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a major
plaintiffs law firm known for its prosecution of class action
lawsuits wants the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on a federal
appeals court's decision to vacate a lower court's denial of a
motion for class certification in a malpractice lawsuit filed
against the firm.

Attorneys for Milberg LLP and various other law firms and lawyers
filed a petition for a writ of certiorari Dec. 4.

In a Jan. 21 letter filed with Judge Frank Zapata in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona, attorneys for the law
firm explained that in exercising appellate jurisdiction over
Lance Laber's appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit cited a prior Ninth Circuit panel decision in Baker v.
Microsoft Corp.

In January, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to address the
jurisdictional issue presented in Microsoft.

"Given this new development, the parties have agreed, subject to
the Court's approval, to extend the briefing schedule on
Mr. Laber's motion to intervene until after the Supreme Court
rules on Milberg's petition for certiorari," attorneys for Milberg
wrote in the two-page letter to Judge Zapata.

Mr. Laber's response, along with the firm's reply, was filed with
the nation's highest court in February.  According to the Supreme
Court docket, the case is set for conference March 18.

"At that time, the parties will have a clearer sense as to the
next steps in the appellate stage of this litigation, and have
discussed the possibility of agreeing to a stay of further
proceedings before this Court if certiorari is granted," Milberg's
attorneys wrote.  "While no agreement has been reached on these
matters, the parties believe that awaiting the Supreme Court's
disposition of the certiorari petition will crystallize the
parties' respective positions."

In September, the Ninth Circuit held that the district court erred
in holding that the law of each class member's home state governed
his or her individual claim, rather than the law of Arizona where
the alleged malpractice occurred.

Intervenor-plaintiff Laber appealed the district court's denial of
the motion for class certification brought by named plaintiffs
Philip Bobbitt and John Sampson in their malpractice lawsuit
against Milberg and the other law firms.

In 2001, Milberg, a national law firm specializing in class
actions, filed a lawsuit in Arizona district court against
Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company Inc., or VALIC, for
alleged securities law violations.

In January 2004, the district court certified a class of
plaintiffs.

But -- according to the Ninth Circuit's opinion -- things went
downhill for Milberg and the class.

Milberg failed to meet certain mandatory disclosure deadlines, and
in August 2004, the district court struck the plaintiffs' expert
testimony and witness list as a sanction.

Milberg could not prove class-wide damages without witnesses, so
the court vacated class certification.

And, because Milberg could not, without witnesses, establish
causation and damages for the named plaintiffs, the court entered
judgment for VALIC, ending the case.

Milberg did not alert any of the absent class members to the
certification or decertification of the class or the dismissal of
the action, nor did it otherwise attempt to preserve the class'
claims.

Plaintiffs in the appeal at issue then sued Milberg for
malpractice for failing to meet the discovery requirements in the
VALIC class action.

They named as defendants four law firms as well as various lawyers
who worked for them.  The firms are located in New York,
Washington D.C., and Arizona.  The lawyer defendants are residents
of Florida, New York, Washington D.C., Virginia, New Jersey and
Arizona.

The two lead plaintiffs are Texas residents.

After some litigation, the plaintiffs moved for class
certification. The defendants opposed on various grounds, arguing
the plaintiffs could not meet the requirements of Rule 23(a) and
(b)(3).

The district court denied the motion for class certification,
ruling that plaintiffs had failed to meet the predominance
requirement of Rule 23(b)(3).  The court held that individual
questions predominated over common questions, because the law
applicable to each unnamed class member's claim was the law of
that member's domicile state.

Because the laws of up to 50 states were implicated and the
plaintiffs had failed to meet their burden to show that conflicts
between the 50 states' laws did not defeat the predominance
requirement, the court denied class certification.

Named appellants Bobbitt and Sampson moved for voluntary dismissal
of their individual claims.  The district court granted the motion
on March 29, 2013, creating a final judgment.

Mr. Laber, an unnamed member of the putative class, then
successfully moved to intervene for the limited purpose of
bringing an appeal.

Circuit Judge John B. Owens said various factors supported
application of Arizona law.

For one, he said, the unnamed class members were injured when
Milberg failed to meet deadlines and make timely filings in the
Arizona court.

"The result of that alleged negligence was vacatur of the class
certification order, which also occurred in the Arizona court,"
Owens wrote in the Ninth Circuit's Sept. 10 opinion.  "The unnamed
class members lost the potential benefits of class certification
in the Arizona litigation. This injury occurred in Arizona."

The judge continued, "Indeed, most courts applying Sec. 145 in
analogous situations agree that negligent behavior in litigation
injures the client in the forum state of the court, whether or not
the client is physically present in the state."

Owens said the Ninth Circuit's inquiry focused not on the place
where the victim feels the consequences of the injury, but on the
location of the injury itself.

The judge said another factor -- the center of the relationship of
the parties -- also supports application of Arizona law.

"The relationship between the unnamed Drnek class members and
their lawyers existed only in Arizona," he wrote in the 12-page
opinion.  "The district court discounted this factor, reasoning
that Milberg had only a minimal relationship with the unnamed
class members.

"Whether or not Milberg established a full attorney-client
relationship with the unnamed class members, there was some
relationship.  Indeed, had the class remained certified and
proceeded to a valid final judgment, the unnamed class members
would likely have been bound by the final judgment.  That
relationship was centered in Arizona."

The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court's order and remanded
the case for further proceedings.

Once returned to the district court, Mr. Laber filed a motion to
intervene in November for the purpose of serving as a class
representative.

Milberg, in a December memorandum, argued the continued
prosecution of the matter as a class action is time barred; the
former named plaintiffs Bobbitt and Sampson cannot remain as class
representatives; and the claims of all other putative class
members have expired -- including Mr. Laber's.

In an order, Judge Zapata said the defendants have until April 1
to file any response to Mr. Laber's motion to intervene;
Mr. Laber has until April 29 to file any reply.

The judge also ordered that the parties "jointly report" the
status of the pending certiorari petition following the Supreme
Court's conference on or before March 22.

According to its website, Milberg was one of the first law firms
to prosecute class actions in federal courts on behalf of
investors and consumers.

"The firm pioneered this type of litigation and is widely
recognized as a leader in defending the rights of victims of
corporate and other large-scale wrongdoing," its website states.

The firm's practice focuses on the prosecution of class and
complex actions in many fields, including securities, corporate
fiduciary, consumer, insurance, antitrust, bankruptcy, mass tort,
and human rights litigation.

It has offices in New York City, Los Angeles and Detroit.


MILANEZZA LLC: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Wages & OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Jorge Hernandez, et al., Plaintiffs, other similarly situated v.
Milanezza LLC and Maximiliano D. Waicman, Defendants, Filling No.
38489681 (Fla. Cir., 11th Judicial, March 2, 2016), seeks payment
of wages and proper payment of overtime rate for hours worked in
excess of 40 each week.

Defendant, Milanezza LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company,
having its main place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: 305-416-5000
     Fax: 305-416-5005
     Email: agp@rgpattorneys.com
            apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
            rregueiro@rgpattorneys.com
            pn@rgattorneys.com


MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: NBA Fans Sue Over Paperless Tickets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jack Bouboushian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that season ticket-holders sued the Minnesota Timberwolves over
the NBA team's new ticket policy restricting resale, calling the
new guidelines "draconian and unlawful."

GLS Companies and James Mattson filed a class action in
Minneapolis against Minnesota Timberwolves Basketball in Hennepin
County, Minn., last March 3. The Minnesota Timberwolves are a
professional basketball team based in Minneapolis.

GLS and Mattson say they each spent more than $20,000 on 2015-2016
season tickets. But the team implemented a new ticketing policy
for this season requiring the use of paperless tickets through
Flash Seats, which controls the manner in which ticket-holders may
resell or transfer tickets, according to the lawsuit.

"The Timberwolves' new ticket policy eliminates paper tickets and
imposes draconian and unlawful limitations on the ability of
ticket-holders, including season ticket-holders, to acquire, sell,
or transfer the tickets for which they paid," the 28-page
complaint states.

The policy also allegedly imposed rules forbidding the resale of
tickets below a minimum price, usually between 75 and 90 percent
of the ticket's face value. Tickets can only be resold through
Flash Seats, eliminating secondary markets for tickets on other
platforms such as StubHub, or a hand-to-hand transaction, the
lawsuit states.

GLS and Mattson claim they had already bought their tickets when
the change was made and say that the move to paperless tickets
would have altered their decision.

"Because the Timberwolves have performed so poorly, plaintiffs and
class members have been left holding the bag, since reasonable
market purchasers have no interest in paying premium prices for a
team mired at the bottom of the conference standings with no hopes
of making the NBA playoffs," according to the complaint.

In the 2014-15 season, the Timberwolves had the worst record in
the NBA at 16-66.

Mattson says he tried to sell $240 face value tickets to a
Timberwolves vs. Celtics game in February for $100, but could only
set his price at $180 or higher. Since the tickets did not sell,
he was unable to recoup any of his money.

Timberwolves president Chris Wright issued a statement, saying,
"It is our policy not to comment on pending litigation. What we
can tell you is that the Timberwolves and Lynx organizations are
confident that Flash Seats supplies the best possible experience
for our fans. Flash Seats give our ticket-holders the maximum
possible convenience and complete control over their Timberwolves
and Lynx tickets."

Brian Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- attorney for
the ticketholders, told the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "This is
something a lot of ticket-holders, including very loyal fans, did
not bargain for. This was not something they were told about. It
was implemented, and this didn't sit well with them. People have
their limits. They're upset. These are not cheap products."


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: 8th Cir. Tosses Suit Filed by Ex-Players
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Harris, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld a summary
judgment ruling in favor of the National Football League in a
right-of-publicity lawsuit filed by three former players.

The players -- John Dreyer, Elvin Bethea and Edward White -- were
part of a class action in St. Louis, California consisting of 23
former players. The class claimed the NFL's use of their images in
promotional films violated the common law and statutory rights of
publicity in various states and violated the Lanham Act.

The NFL settled the class action by establishing a fund to assist
former players and a licensing agency to assist those players in
exploiting their publicity rights.

Dreyer, Bethea and White opted out of the settlement and pursued
their individual right to privacy and Lanham Act claims.

A federal court granted the NFL summary judgment, finding that the
Copyright Act preempted the players' claims because the NFL held a
valid copyright to the disputed images.

The players appealed, claiming that their play in football games
during their NFL careers constitute part of their identities
rather than "fixed" works eligible for copyright protection.

A three-judge panel of the 8th Circuit cited precedent from
National Basketball Association v. Motorola Inc. in 1997 in
upholding the federal court's decision.

"Although courts have recognized that the initial performance of a
game is an 'athletic event' outside the subject matter of
copyright, the Copyright Act specifically includes within its
purview fixed recordings of such live performances," Judge Raymond
W. Gruender wrote. "Indeed, the same decision that the appellants
cite to support excluding live sporting events from copyright law
recognized that '[t]he Copyright Act was amended in 1976
specifically to insure that simultaneously-recorded transmissions
of live performances and sporting events would meet the Act's
requirement that the original work of authorship be 'fixed in any
tangible medium of expression.'"

Judges Roger L. Wollman and Kermit E. Bye concurred.

The case captioned, United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth
Circuit, John Frederick Dryer, Elvin  Lamont Bethea, and Edward
Alvin White Plaintiffs - Appellants, v.  The National Football
League, Defendant - Appellee, No. 14-3428


NEFAB PACKAGING: CA Affirms Dismissal of "Gonzalez" Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Dean D. Pregerson, Andrew D. Hurwitz and Kim McLane
Wardlaw of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed the
dismissal of Plaintiff's amended complaint in the case captioned,
ENRIQUE F. GONZALEZ, Individually and on behalf of other Persons
similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NEFAB PACKAGING, INC.,
a New Hampshire Corporation; Ap & Co., Inc., DBA On-Call Staffing
Services of Carson California, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-
57116 (9th Cir.).

The amended complaint asserted five claims against both Nefab and
On-Call. The district court granted Nefab's Rule 12(b)(6) motion
as to Gonzalez's claims under California Labor Code Sections
1197, 226, and 203. The court later dismissed the remaining two
claims against Nefab without prejudice at Gonzalez's request.
Neither order mentioned On-Call.

Enrique F. Gonzalez appeals the dismissal of his amended complaint
in this putative class action against Nefab Packaging, Inc. and
On-Call Staffing Services. Gonzalez's primary claim is that the
defendants violated Labor Code Sec. 1197 by paying him less than
the minimum wage. Specifically, he contends that Section 9(B) of
California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 1-2001
requires that he be paid twice the otherwise-applicable minimum
wage because he was required to bring his own tools to work.
In the Memorandum dated February 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tewS4yfrom Leagle.com, Judges Pregerson, Hurwitz and
Wardlaw found that Plaintiff failed to state a Labor Code Sec. 203
claim for non-payment of wages.


NEW YORK: Faces Class Suit Over Tampon Tax
------------------------------------------
Christine Stuart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that New York's tampon tax is a "vestigate of another era," five
women claim in an equal-protection class in Manhattan action
against the Empire State's tax authority.

Led by actress Margo Seibert, the complaint says New York's tampon
tax is discriminatory because there is no tax on male health
products like Rogaine, or health products that are not gender-
specific, like dandruff shampoo, chapstick, facial wash, adult
diapers and incontinence pads.

"Medical products exclusively for women are taxed," the complaint
states. "Medical products also used by men are not."

Joined by fellow New Yorkers Jennifer Moore, Catherine O'Neil,
Natalie Brasington, and Taja-Nia Henderson, the plaintiffs call
the tampon tax "irrational."

"It is discrimination," the complaint continues. "It is wrong."

The women said they pay on average $70 a year on tampons and pads.
Based on a 4 percent sales tax, that means 5 million women paying
$70 a year pay about $14 million in taxes every year, according to
the complaint.

That's less than one-hundredth of 1 percent of the total annual
state budget for the state of New York.

"This tax is burdensome for the women who have to pay it,
particularly for women living in poverty or with a low income,"
the complaint states.

"Without access to tampons and sanitary pads, women are forced to
use unsanitary and dirty rags -- which can lead to infections and
an increased risk of diseases such as cervical cancer -- or have
nothing at all to staunch the blood -- which poses a risk to the
health of women and the public," the plaintiffs continue.

Filed March 3, in Manhattan Supreme Court, the lawsuit is part of
a movement in several states to eliminate the tampon tax.

Five states -- Minnesota, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland and
Massachusetts -- have created tax exemptions for tampons. Five
other states have no sales taxes, which brings the total number of
states where women can buy them without a tax up to 10. That means
women in 40 states still pay tax on tampons and sanitary pads.

Meanwhile, New York Assemblywoman Linda Rosenthal is looking to
eliminate the tax. The idea has the support of Democratic Gov.
Andrew Cuomo.

"We agree that sales tax on these products should be repealed and
will work with the legislature to do so," Cuomo spokeswoman Dani
Lever said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Ilann Maazel --
imaazel@ecbalaw.com -- of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff and Abady.


NEWARK, CA: Court Trims Claims in "Henneberry" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted in part the
City of Newark, John Becker, Karl Fredstrom, and Renny Lawson's
motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) in the case captioned, JOHN PATRICK HENNEBERRY,
Plaintiff, v. CITY OF NEWARK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-
05238-MEJ (N.D. Cal.).

On November 12, 2013, Plaintiff filed a Complaint against the City
of Newark, the County of Alameda, the Newark Chamber of Commerce,
Linda Ashley, John Becker, David Benoun, Karl Fredstrom, and Renny
Lawson. They bring the case for violations of his civil rights
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983, as well as on behalf of a
potential class of misdemeanor arrestees in the City of Newark who
were allegedly excessively detained instead of cited and released.
Plaintiff asserts five claims for relief, apparently asserting all
claims against all Defendants: (1) a claim under the First
Amendment of the United States Constitution for violating
Plaintiff's rights to freedom of speech and association; (2) a
claim under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution
for violating Plaintiff and putative class members' rights to be
free from unreasonable seizures and excessive/arbitrary arrest or
imprisonment; (3) a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment of the
United States Constitution for violating Plaintiff and putative
class members' rights to equal protection; (4) a claim for false
arrest and false imprisonment for intentionally imprisoning
Plaintiff and putative class members in violation of California
Penal Code section 853.6; and (5) a claim under California Civil
Code section 52.1 for violating Plaintiff's and putative class
members' peaceable exercise and enjoyment of rights secured by the
Constitution and laws of the United States and the State of
California.

Plaintiff was charged with trespass in violation of California
Penal Code section 602.1(A), and Sheriffs Deputies told Plaintiff
he was required to post $5,000 bail.  Plaintiff refused to post
bail, and he was placed in a holding tank.  After 32 hours of
incarceration, Plaintiff was released on citation. Plaintiff
alleges this citation "could and should have been given to him
immediately after arrest" by the Newark Police Department.
In the motion, Defendants challenge Plaintiff's FAC on the grounds
that it fails to state a claim for (1) violations of equal
protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment; (2) false arrest
or false imprisonment against Becker; (3) a violation of Civil
Code section 52.1; and (4) municipal liability against the City
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

In her Order dated February 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/yEBYL8from Leagle.com, Judge James denied without
prejudice Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's municipal
liability claims for violations of his First and Fourth Amendment
rights and granted as to Plaintiff's Bane Act claim against
Becker.

John Patrick Henneberry is represented by Yolanda Huang, Esq. --
yhuang.law@gmail.com -- YOLANDA HUANG ATTORNEY AT LAW

Defendants are represented by Danielle Kono Lewis, Esq. --
dlewis@selmanlaw.com -- & Gregg Anthony Thornton, Esq. --
gthornton@selmanlaw.com -- SELMAN BREITMAN, LLP

          - and -

Michael Shannon Burke, Esq.
VOGL MEREDITH & BURKE LLP
456 Montgomery Street, 20th Floor
San Francisco, CA 9410
Tel: (415)398-0200


NOKIAN TYRES: Helsinki Law Firm Urges Customers to Join Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Yle reports that a Helsinki law firm is looking for Nokian Tyres
customers who want to seek compensation from the tyre company.
Turre Legal reckons that anyone who bought tyres from Nokian Tyres
in the last ten years could be eligible for a settlement after it
emerged that the company had sent modified tyres to media
organisations to manipulate test results.

It emerged that Nokian Tyres had manipulated test results for
years in an effort to improve the image of its products, and now
Finnish customers are being asked to sign up for legal action
against the firm to try and secure some compensation.

The general secretary of the Consumers' Association, Juha
Beurling, had urged the company to consider voluntarily
compensating customers, but a statement to the stock exchange on
Feb. 29 outlined the firm's view that there was no case for
compensation.

However Turre Legal reckons customers could win up to 30 percent
of the cost of their tyres if they sign up for legal action.  The
firm is not planning a class action--only the Consumer Ombudsman
can do that-but customers who sign up with the firm will do so on
a no-win-no-fee basis.  If they lose they could be liable for
costs, but Turre lawyer Herkko Hietanen says that is unlikely.

"Law is clear"

"Nokian Tyres did this to raise the price of its tyres and to
improve sales," said Mr. Hietanen.  "The law is quite clear on
this.  If something like this happens, the customer has the right
to either cancel the transaction or to get a discount.  This case
is about us helping tyre purchasers to get those price
reductions."

According to Mr. Hietanen the firm began collecting details of
interested customers on March 2.  The firm will co-ordinate the
cases, and they are planning to collect names for a further month,
after which they will commence negotiations with Nokian Tyres.

"We're targeting tens of thousands of tyre buyers," said
Mr. Hietanen.  "This practice went on for more than ten years.
Price reductions could be available to everyone who has bought
Nokian Tyres over the past ten years."

To join the legal action, customers should have a receipt that
proves they bought the product in the last ten years.  Companies
can also bring legal action.

Not a class action

The case will not be a class action, as those cases can only be
brought by the Consumer Ombudsman.  The law changed to allow class
action cases in 2007, but since then there has not been a single
one.  The option was considered in when electricity transmission
firms raised their prices this year, but Caruna's offer of price
cuts was enough to see off the threat.

"The case is still under investigation so it's really too early to
say whether it meets the criteria for that," said Jari Suurla of
the Finnish Consumer and Competition Authority.  "First we should
see if the marketing was misleading, and what kind of groups it
affected, and so on. The cases are probably very different.  I
doubt we'll bring some kind of class action covering everybody."

Turre Legal's move is based on that in a forest industry cartel
case in which just over a thousand forest owners are seeking
compensation for forestry companies for losses they allegedly
suffered in connection with timber sales.

Mr. Hietanen, however, says he's aiming to get compensation from
Nokian Tyres without legal action, by settling out of court.  His
firm will take a third of any compensation that might be paid.


NORTHWELL HEALTH: "Park" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------
Franklin Park, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Northwell Health, Inc. F/k/a North Shore-
Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc., Defendant, Case
700757/2016 (N.Y. Sup., Queens County, January 21, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages with monetary damages, attorney's fees, costs
and any and all other remedies available under the New York Labor
Law.

Park works as a paramedic for Northwell Health, a medical facility
in 145 Community Drive, Great Neck, New York, 11021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ethan A. Brecher, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ETHAN A. BRECHER, LLC
      600 Third Avenue, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (646) 571-2440


NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL: Must Face "Wishnev" Suit
---------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied Northwestern
Mutual's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint  in
the case captioned, SANFORD J WISHNEV, Plaintiff, v. THE
NORTHWESTERN MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-03797-EMC (N.D. Cal.).
Plaintiff Sanford Wishnev is a California resident who purchased
four life insurance policies from Defendant The Northwestern
Mutual Life Insurance Company. Plaintiff Sanford Wishnev filed the
instant lawsuit against Defendant the Northwestern Mutual Life
Insurance Company asserting that Defendant violated California's
usury law by charging him compound interest on life insurance
policy loans, without Plaintiff's written agreement that interest
would be compounded. Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in state courts
as a putative class action on behalf of "all California persons as
to whom Northwestern Mutual's records show that they have been
charged compound interest by Northwestern Mutual on a life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four
years." Northwestern Mutual removed the state court action to
federal court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(d).

The core of the Plaintiff's Complaint concerns Defendant's
practice of charging compound interest on policy loans, without a
Plaintiff's signed written agreement that interest would be
compounded. Based on this practice, Wishnev asserts the following
causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) violation of UCL
section; (3) violation of usury law under California Civil Code;
and (4) unjust enrichment and money had and received.
In the motion, Northwestern Mutual moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
First Amended Complaint on the grounds that (1) Plaintiff lacks
standing because he did not allege that he paid compound interest;
(2) insurers such as Northwestern Mutual have been exempted from
the usury law pursuant to article XV of the California
Constitution and California Insurance Code.
In her Order dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/f4taQIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen concluded that
Northwestern Mutual is exempt from the maximum interest rate
provisions of Article XV Sec. 1 and that Constitution did not
repeal the particular statutory provision of compound interest
provisions of Cal. Civ. Code Sec. 1916-2. The Court also concluded
that Plaintiff's allegations to support standing under the UCL are
sufficient to plead and that declaratory relief claim establishes
an actual controversy between the parties.

Sanford J. Wishney is represented by Robert M. Bramson, Esq. --
RBramson@bramsonplutzik.com -- & Jennifer Susan Rosenberg, Esq. --
JRosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com -- BRAMSON, PLUTZIK, MAHLER &
BIRKHAEUSER LLP

The Northwestern Mutual Insurance Company is represented by
Michael James Stortz, Esq. -- Michael.Stortz@dbr.com -- Marshall
Lee Benjamin Baker, Esq. -- Marshall.Baker@dbr.com -- Stephen C.
Baker, Esq. -- Stephen.Baker@dbr.com -- & Timothy J. O'Driscoll,
Esq. -- Timothy.ODriscoll@dbr.com  --DRINKER BIDDLE REATH LLP


NPSZ VALET: "Garcia" Suit to Recover OT, Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Alberto Morera Garcia and other similarly situated valet parking
employees, Plaintiff(s), v. NPSZ Valet Services, Inc. and Rudy G.
Rodriguez, Individually, Defendant(s), Case CACE-16-001129 (Fla.
Cir., January 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

NPSZ Valet Services, Inc. operates in Broward County, Florida
where Plaintiff works as a parking attendant. Garcia alleges that
he was not paid the mandatory minimum wage and overtime premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTERWALL INC: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
April Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Outerwall Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00611-LS (E.D. Pa.,
February 8, 2016) is brought against the Defendant for violation
of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Outerwall Inc. delivers retail products and services to consumers
via self-service interactive kiosks.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady Eric Rayz, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ LLC
      1051 county line road, suite A
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone: (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com


PALESTINIAN BROADCASTING: Israeli Lawfare Group Mulls Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ruthie Blum, writing for The Algemeiner, reports that an
Israel-based international lawfare group is preparing a class-
action suit against the heads of the Palestinian Broadcasting
Corporation for spurring viewers to commit terrorist attacks
against Jews.

Shurat HaDin-The Israel Law Center intends to submit a complaint
against Riyad al-Hassan and Ahmed Assaf for war crimes at the
International Criminal Court at the Hague, after collecting
thousands of signatures from plaintiffs, according to a video on
its website and Facebook page.

Shurat HaDin told Army Radio on March 2 that there is a precedent
for such a suit, citing the lengthy prison sentences received by
the heads of Rwanda's TV and radio authority for war crimes,
following incitement to murder during the civil war in that
country.

In its campaign to garner plaintiffs for the suit (which
prosecutors can decide to pursue and indict the PBC directors),
Shurat HaDin produced a video clip showing famous US TV
personalities -- such as Oprah Winfrey, Jimmy Fallon and Ellen
DeGeneres -- with their voices dubbed over, ostensibly calling on
viewers to kill Muslims.  The clip then proceeds to present
popular American cartoon characters saying the same thing, then
moves on to show actual broadcasts from PA-controlled TV.

It concludes with the narrator saying: "Of course, American TV
would never really call for the murder of Muslims.  But
Palestinian TV incites for the murder of innocent Jews every
single day."

This is not the first time The Algemeiner has reported on Shurat
HaDin targeting incitement.  In October, the organization --
founded and run by attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner -- collected
signatures for a class-action suit against Facebook, accusing it
of not doing enough to counter Arabic-language pages containing
antisemitic images and calls to commit violence against Israelis
and Jews.

In January, it conducted an experiment that involved creating an
antisemitic Facebook page and an anti-Palestinian one, and waiting
to see which, if either, was removed.  While the latter was
instantly deemed in violation of Facebook's "community standards,"
it took six full days and numerous complaints by users, for the
former to be taken down.

Later that same month, Shurat HaDin launched another campaign, to
raise money for billboards to be placed in the area of Facebook
founder Mark Zuckerberg's house in Palo Alto, California -- urging
the social media giant, "Don't Kill Us."


PANDA EXPRESS: "Tapia" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Lopez Tapia, an individual, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Panda
Express, LLC, Panda Express, Inc., Panda Express (P.R.), Inc., and
Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants, Case BC607846 (Cal.
Sup., Los Angeles County, January 21, 2016), seeks recovery of all
wages withheld, compensatory damages, overtime compensation due,
final pay due all terminated employees, prejudgment interest,
penalties, attorneys' fees and cost of suit pursuant to the
California Labor Code.

The Panda Group is a chain of Chinese restaurants operating
globally. Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant did not pay
overtime, made him work through meal/rest breaks and did not
provide accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PIERCE MANUFACTURING: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Billy Wagness, writing for NBC26, reports that a Wisconsin company
with thousands of employees is facing a federal class action
lawsuit over what could be potentially millions of dollars in
alleged unpaid wages.

No specific dollar amount is mentioned in this 20-page suit.

But the employee behind it claims several workers, past and
present, have been cheated out of 50 minutes of pay each week for
years.

Eric Ehmann says he enjoys assembling firetrucks for the nation's
largest firetruck manufacturer.

"Yeah, it's a great job," smiles Mr. Ehmann.

But about a month ago, Pierce Manufacturing sent out a memo
listing the reasons why they'd be reducing daily shift lengths by
10 minutes.

"One of the reasons that they cited in that memo was that they
wanted us to spend more time with our families," says Mr. Ehmann,
which admittedly made him question their motives.  "It makes me
wonder why they would be making so many workers work 9, 10, 11, 12
hour days, 5-6 days a week, when it seems like that would make
more of a difference in allowing us to spend more time with our
families," adds Mr. Ehmann, "in terms of changing those shifts."

So Mr. Ehmann did research, and says he discovered that Pierce had
not been compensating hundreds of employees for what should be
paid short breaks.

"Not just for a little while," adds Mr. Ehmann, "but apparently
for decades,"

Mr. Ehmann contacted an attorney, who decided a class action suit
would be best.

"If you work, you're supposed to be paid for it," says attorney
James Walcheske, "and so, there are procedures in place that, if
for whatever reason, someone is not being paid for all time
worked, or if they're working overtime, there's penalties for
that."

But progress in federal court could take months.

Mr. Ehmann's attorney says Pierce has not yet been served the
suit, but will be soon.  They're seeking a jury trial.

NBC26reached out to Oshkosh Corporation, who owns Pierce
Manufacturing. Spokespeople tell NBC26 it's company policy not to
comment on pending litigation.


PINNACLE WEST: 9th Cir. Heard Oral Argument in Power Outage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Pinnacle West Capital Corporation and Arizona Public Service
Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that in the lawsuit related to the
Southwest Power Outage, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit heard oral argument on February 9, 2016, and a
written decision on the case is expected 30-60 days after oral
argument.

On September 8, 2011 at approximately 3:30 PM, a 500 kV
transmission line running between the Hassayampa and North Gila
substations in southwestern Arizona tripped out of service due to
a fault that occurred at a switchyard operated by APS.
Approximately ten minutes after the transmission line went off-
line, generation and transmission resources for the Yuma area were
lost, resulting in approximately 69,700 APS customers losing
service.

On September 6, 2013, a purported consumer class action complaint
was filed in Federal District Court in San Diego, California,
naming APS and Pinnacle West as defendants and seeking damages for
loss of perishable inventory and sales as a result of interruption
of electrical service.  APS and Pinnacle West filed a motion to
dismiss, which the court granted on December 9, 2013.

On January 13, 2014, the plaintiffs appealed the lower court's
decision.  The appeal is now fully briefed and pending before the
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which heard
oral argument on February 9, 2016.  A written decision on the case
is expected 30-60 days after oral argument.

"We believe the District Court's decision will be upheld on
appeal, but cannot predict the outcome at the appellate court. If
the District Court's decision is reversed, the case would be
remanded for discovery and trial, and there is insufficient
information at this time to reasonably estimate any possible loss
or range of loss to APS and Pinnacle West," the Companies said.

Pinnacle West is a holding company that conducts business through
its subsidiaries.  It derives essentially all of its revenues and
earnings from its wholly-owned subsidiary, APS.  APS is a
vertically-integrated electric utility that provides either retail
or wholesale electric service to most of the State of Arizona,
with the major exceptions of about one-half of the Phoenix
metropolitan area, the Tucson metropolitan area and Mohave County
in northwestern Arizona.


PROLOGIX DISTRIBUTION: Sued in California Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Mchenry, Gary Ohnesorgen, and Gerardo Gonzalez, individuals,
on behalf of themselves, and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated v. Prologix Distribution Services (West), LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Case No. BC608948 (Cal. Sup. Ct., February
2, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

Prologix Distribution Services (West), LLC is an end-to-end
logistics and supply chain partner specializing in transportation,
warehousing and distribution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PROSPEROUS CONSTRUCTION: Faces "Yu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wen Zhang Yu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated v. A. Prosperous Construction, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00668 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

A. Prosperous Construction, Inc. operates a construction company
located at 21350 35th Ave, Flushing, NY 11361.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      136-18 39th Ave, Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (918) 353-6288
      E-mail: jhang@hanglaw.com


QUAKER OATS: Faces Class Action Over "Maple" Oatmeal Product
------------------------------------------------------------
CNBC reports that Quaker Oats has been accused in a new lawsuit of
fraudulently misleading consumers into believing its Maple & Brown
Sugar instant oatmeal contains real maple syrup.

In a complaint filed on March 1 in Los Angeles federal court,
Darren Eisenlord said Quaker Oats causes confusion by including a
glass pitcher of maple syrup and the words "maple sugar" on
packaging for six instant oatmeal products.

Real maple syrup and maple sugar are "premium ingredients,"
Eisenlord said, and the Pepsi unit knows that shoppers would pay
more for oatmeal containing them.

He seeks class-action status for shoppers nationwide and in
California who, like him, in the last four years bought the
"classic" version of the oatmeal, or any of the organic, high-
fiber, gluten-free, low-sugar and "weight control" versions.

The lawsuit seeks damages as well as new packaging.

Quaker Oats did not immediately respond to requests for comment on
March 2.

The lawsuit followed a Feb. 15 letter from the North American
Maple Syrup Council, the Vermont Maple Sugar Makers' Association
and other trade groups urging the US Food and Drug Administration
to crack down on food companies whose labels incorrectly suggest
the presence of maple syrup.

These groups say "maple" is understood to refer to "maple syrup,"
much as "mayo" is understood to refer to "mayonnaise."  They
pointed to an FDA warning letter last August to the maker of "Just
Mayo," which unlike mayonnaise contained no eggs.

The case is Eisenlord v Quaker Oats Co et al, U.S. District Court,
Central District of California, No. 16-01442.


RABOBANK: Seeks Dismissal of Libor Manipulation Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, Matthew Perlman and Jeff Zalesin, writing for
Law360, report that Rabobank pressed its argument to a New York
federal judge on March 1 that a group of futures market investors
should not be allowed to pursue proposed class action claims over
Rabobank traders' alleged Libor manipulation, rejecting the
group's contention it's too early to remove potential claimants
from the suit.

Responding to a letter from investors contending that evidence
recently brought to light in a parallel criminal trial must be
weighed before class certification is decided, Rabobank doubled
down on its January request to file a motion striking class
allegations, arguing the court has all the information it needs to
decide whether the case is too individualized and that the
proposed class too broad.

"This case is now in its fifth year," Rabobank said.  "Plaintiffs
have filed four iterations of their complaint.  There have been
thousands of pages of briefing and supporting materials filed in
connection with numerous motions.  This court has issued hundreds
of pages of rulings addressing what is required for a plaintiff to
have standing to assert a trader conduct claim and what a
plaintiff must show to establish liability and damages."

Cooperatieve Rabobank UA, based in the Netherlands, asked the
court in January for permission to file a motion to strike class
allegations from a Commodity Exchange Act case to the extent that
the claims are based on sporadic trader conduct.  The CEA case,
brought on behalf of traders who dealt with eurodollar futures and
options, is part of the sprawling multidistrict litigation over
the harms investors allegedly suffered due to rigging of the
London Interbank Offered Rate, a key interest rate that affects
many financial products.

According to Rabobank, Metzler Investment GmbH and other
plaintiffs are seeking to file an amended complaint claiming,
among other allegations, that traders at Rabobank and other banks
sometimes tried to manipulate the U.S. dollar Libor benchmark
upward or downward, depending on which direction would benefit
their investments.

The Dutch bank argued the investors' proposed class -- every
individual and entity that traded eurodollar futures or related
options on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange or a similar exchange
from Jan. 1, 2003, to May 31, 2011, and was harmed by the alleged
Libor manipulation -- is overbroad in that many of the members
weren't affected by the manipulation, and that individual investor
cases are too specific to be argued in a class action.

But the investors argued in a letter in February that these
arguments should be explored while deciding class certification
and not now, especially given facts uncovered in a criminal case
against a pair of former Rabobank employees they say shows that
the practice was in fact not sporadic, but consistent.

Rabobank on March 1 argued the same points it did in January, save
for minor tweaks in response to the investors Feb. 19 letter and a
rebuttal to the investors' claim that U.S. District Judge Naomi
Reice Buchwald should save this decision for her consideration of
their motion for class certification.

"Plaintiffs argue that Rabobank's proposed motion is 'premature'
because the issues Rabobank proposes to raise can be addressed on
plaintiffs' motion for class certification," the bank said.
"Motions to strike, however, are appropriate where no further
discovery is necessary to decide the class certification issues."

Rabobank's response does not touch on the investors' argument the
criminal revelations strengthen its case for class certification,
a point not lost on attorney David Kovel -- dkovel@kmllp.com -- of
Kirby McInerney LLP, who represents the investors.

"Rabobank's reply adds nothing to the baseless nature of its
motion to strike," Mr. Kovel told Law360 in an email on March 2.
"A motion to strike class allegations is especially inappropriate
in this situation where evidence from criminal trial testimony
demonstrates longstanding manipulation."

Attorneys for Rabobank did not immediately respond to requests for
comment on Feb. 26.

The Metzler Investment plaintiffs are represented by David E.
Kovel, Lauren Wagner Pederson and Thomas W. Elrod --
telrod@kmllp.com -- of Kirby McInerney LLP, and Christopher
Lovell, Gary S. Jacobson and Jody R. Krisiloff --
JKrisiloff@lshllp.com -- of Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.

Rabobank is represented by David R. Gelfand --
dgelfand@milbank.com -- of Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP.

The MDL is In re: Libor-Based Financial Instruments Antitrust
Litigation, case number 1:11-md-02262, in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York.


RAC ACCEPTANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Caldera" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Natalie Caldera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RAC Acceptance West, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-
00234-SVW-DTB (C.D. Cal., February 8, 2016), seeks to put an end
to the Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls.

RAC Acceptance West, LLC operates a furniture and electronics
rent-to-own company based in Plano, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RADIOLOGY REGIONAL: Faces Data Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Melanie Payne, writing for News-Press.com, reports that The
Radiology Regional data breach has folks hopping mad.  And now
some of them are suing.  So far there have been two suits against
Radiology Regional Center, the medical imaging company, and Lee
County.

If you aren't familiar with this dustup, here's what happened.  On
Dec. 19, a Lee County Solid Waste truck was transporting boxes of
Radiology Regional's medical and business records to a disposal
facility.  The door to the container containing the records wasn't
properly secured and while traveling down Fowler Street in Fort
Myers, the door came ajar and some boxes flew out.

Despite Radiology Regional's efforts to round up the papers, it
was a windy day and the company couldn't be certain all were
recovered.  Because boxes in the truck contained confidential
medical and financial records, Radiology Regional was required to
notify 483,000 patients that their personal information could have
been compromised.

Lee County Solid Waste has been providing document destruction
services to Radiology Regional for 12 years, said Shawn Elliott,
the director of business development for Radiology Regional.  It's
not picking up a trash bin as some have described it. Rather, the
documents are loaded into a shipping container that is secured,
picked up, shredded and then burned.

Jean Gray of Fort Myers was one of many callers who asked why the
documents weren't shredded before they left Radiology Regional's
facility.  "To me shredding is the safest way," Ms. Gray said.
"They didn't think this out. I'm shocked."

Ms. Gray was also angry about how long it took for the information
to reach her.

"It happened in December and I didn't even open the letter until I
read your article," Ms. Gray said.  She thought the notice was a
bill.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services gives health care
providers 60 days to notify affected individuals of a breach.
Florida Statue 501.171 requires notification in 30 days, unless
"the breach has not and will not likely result in identity theft
or any other financial harm to the individuals whose personal
information has been accessed."

Radiology Regional's spokesman said the breach will likely not
result in identity theft.

"What we would really like to say is that there is truly nothing
to worry about," Mr. Elliott said.  The records that fell off the
truck were mostly Radiology Regional's business records, things
such as utility bills.  But because there were also patient
medical and financial records in the container, HIPAA rules
applied.  "I think there's a lot of hysteria and sensationalism
regarding this," Elliott said.  "It was not someone maliciously
hacking into a system or taking these documents and trying to do
something with them."

Mr. Elliot said most large facilities operate the same way
Radiology Regional does when it comes to document disposal.  They
are transported off-site, by truck, in a shipping container.

But Tim Jenkins' company, Secure Shredding in Cape Coral, will
come to the business and shred there.  The difference is price.
Lee County handled shredding of medical records for four companies
and generated an annual revenue of $4,000.  Onsite shredding comes
at a premium.

"There's no way we could compete," against the prices for off-site
shredding, Mr. Jenkins said.

Another factor in the price is whether or not the shredding
corporation has received certification from the National
Association for Information Destruction.  The certification is
voluntary but it assures the company meets the highest industry
standards and HIPAA regulations regarding handling sensitive
documents.  And there is NAID certification for both on and off-
site shredders.  Lee County Solid Waste is not listed as being
NAID certified.

Accidents can happen, Mr. Jenkins pointed out, even armored trucks
have inadvertently opened up on the road.  But having documents
shredded before they travel around town greatly reduces the risk
of loss.

"The best way to make sure it's being done, is make sure it's done
right there," Mr. Jenkins said.  He acknowledge it's more
expensive.  "But how much is Radiology Regional paying in bad
publicity?"

They may also be paying in real money.

The company risks being fined by the Department of Health and
Human Services.  Even small breaches have resulted in large
settlements being paid to the government.  A hospital that lost
records of fewer than 200 patients, for example, was fined $1
million.

Attorney William Thompson, who is representing around 20 people
who received notification from Radiology Regional, has asked for
the complaint to be certified as a class action, meaning it could
involve a settlement with nearly a half-million people, not to
mention the cost of litigation.

Radiology Regional also hired a company to provide one year of
free credit watch services and they hired a company to answer
calls from concerned patients.

There is some good news on that front.  Many people called me
unable to sign up for the credit services by computer and they
couldn't get any help from Radiology Regional's call center with
the computer issues.  Mr. Elliott said the policy has changed.


RANOR INC: Discovery in "Caron" Suit Due Dec. 20
------------------------------------------------
Caron, Valmore vs. Ranor, Inc., Case No. 1685CV00293 (Mass. Super,
Worcester County, February 24, 2016) arises from a contract
dispute.

Discovery is due Dec. 20, 2016.  A final pre-trial conference is
set for June 19, 2017; and judgment is set for February 23, 2018.

Ranor, Inc. is engaged in the fabrication and machining of
precision components and equipment.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edwin Herbert Howard, Esq.
     Edwin Howard, II, Esq.
     Mark R Meehan, Esq.
     BONVILLE & HOWARD
     154 Prichard Street
     Fitchburg, MA 01420-9654


RAPID CAPITAL: Faces "Melingonis" Over Unsolicited Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Melingonis, individually and on behalf of all Others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Rapid Capital Funding L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00490-WQH-KSC, (S.D. Cal., February
25, 2016), claims the Defendant performed unsolicited telephone
sales.

The case is assigned to Judge William Q. Hayes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108
     Tel: (619) 233-7770
     Fax: (619) 297-1022
     Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


RECKITT BENCKISER: Stays Mum on Nurofen Pain Drug Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pharmacy Today reports that an Australian law firm is launching
class action against Reckitt Benckiser for claiming its Nurofen
specific pain products target certain forms of pain, when the
products are identical.

In November 2015, the Australian Federal Court upheld a complaint
from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC)
that the range is misleading consumers because the products all
contain the same ingredients.

The court ordered the company to remove the products by the start
of this month -- within three months of its ruling.  This ruling
affects Nurofen Migraine Pain, Nurofen Period Pain, Nurofen Back
Pain and Nurofen Tension Headache.

Bannister Law is now calling for consumers to come forward if they
believe they have been misled into purchasing Nurofen specific
pain products, which are about double the price of standard
Nurofen, in a bid to get them compensation, according to its
website.

"Our claim is for a full refund of the Nurofen specific pain
product that the consumer purchased for their particular pain,"
the law firm says.

"We believe that the consumer would not have purchased the product
if they had known that it was not more effective on targeted pain
than any of the Nurofen specific pain products."

The Australian court's ruling found each product in the range
contains the same active ingredient, ibuprofen lysine 342mg, and
are no more effective at treating the type of pain described on
its packaging than any of the other Nurofen specific pain
products.

The specific pain range's 342mg ibuprofen lysine is equivalent to
ibuprofen 200mg.

However, the ibuprofen lysine has a faster absorption rate than
the ibuprofen in Nurofen's standard 200mg caplets, Reckitt
Benckiser says.

Bannister Law is asking affected consumers to register their
details, including an estimate of how many products in the range
the customer purchased between 1 January 2011 and 31 December
2015.

Nurofen stays quiet on class action issue

In a media statement emailed to Pharmacy Today, Nurofen says it is
not in a position to comment on the class action while it is
before the courts.

However, it reiterates the Nurofen specific pain products were
introduced to help consumers navigate pain-relief options when
they do not have access to health professionals' advice.

All Nurofen products with the same pack size, format and
formulation have the same recommended retail price.

New Zealand still deciding repercussions

Meanwhile, the New Zealand Commerce Commission is still
investigating Reckitt Benckiser over the Nurofen specific pain
products and is yet to determine any long-term repercussions.

Australia's court order was immediate and final but New Zealand's
Commerce Commission instead issued a "temporary packaging
agreement".

As of this month, the three Nurofen Specific Pain products sold in
New Zealand -- Nurofen Migraine Pain, Nurofen Period Pain and
Nurofen Back Pain -- must now have an added label which says the
products are equally effective in treating other forms of pain.

The Commerce Commission would not comment on the progress of the
investigation while it is still under way.

Regulators should be 'even more vigilant' - Consumer New Zealand

Consumer New Zealand believes it is up to the regulators to take
action against the company -- rather than lawyers -- and does not
think New Zealand will follow Australia's lead with class action.

"New Zealand is a far less litigious and class action-oriented
society than Australia. It's the lawyers generally that win, not
consumers," Ms. Chetwin says.

"While what Reckitt Benckiser did was deliberately deceptive, the
Commerce Commission here and in Australia has stopped it
continuing the practice.

"The best option would be for the regulators to be even more
vigilant than they are and to heavily fine companies which behave
in this way. The Australians tend to be more aggressive in the
consumer space than here," Ms. Chetwin says.


RED DIRT OILFIELD: Violated FLSA, "Carbajal" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Leovardo S. Carabajal, Jr., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Red Dirt Oilfield
Services, Inc., dba JKD Red Dirt Oilfield Services, Inc., JK Red
Dirt Rentals, Inc., John Moore, III AND Kyle Lewis, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00148-O, (N.D. Tex., February 24, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime wages brought pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et. seq.

The case is assigned to Judge Reed C O'Connor.

The Defendants are based in Granbury, Texas, and provide torque
and test services, back pressure valve service, pressure
transition/tree saver tools, surface rentals and safety trailers.
The Defendants currently have operations throughout the State of
Texas in the Barnett and Eagle Ford Shale areas as well as the
Permian Basin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Clif Alexander, Esq.
     PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
     819 N. Upper Broadway
     Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
     Tel: (361) 452-1279
     Fax: (361) 452-1284
     Email: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com


ROBINSON PHARMA: Suit for Breach of Express & Implied Warranties
------------------------------------------------------------
Aren Hatamian, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated v. Robinson Pharma, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. BC612428 (Cal. Super., March 2, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants manufacture and sell a line of "Arthro" dietary
supplement marketed as clinically-proven to provide a wide variety
of joint health benefits, such as relieving joint pain and
rejuvenating joint cartilage. These claim, however, are false and
misleading.

Defendant Robinson Pharma, Inc., is a California corporation with
its principal place of business at 3330 South Harbor Boulevard,
Santa Ana, California 92704.

Defendant Nutrivita Laboratories, Inc. is a California corporation
with its principal place of business at 2781 West Macarthur
Boulevard, No. B-305, Santa Ana, California 92626.

Defendant DRM Resources is a subsidiary of Robinson Pharma, whose
principal place of business is located at 1683 Sunflower Avenue,
Costa Mesa, California 92626.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Martin E. Jerisat, Esq.
     JERISA FIRM
     2373 Morse Ave., Suite 322
     Irvine, CA 92614
     Tel: (714) 571-5700
     Email: mjerista@fortheplaintiff.net

- and --

     Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
     Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
     Melanie Persinger, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD,PC
     Hillcrest Professional Building
     3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
     San Diego, CA 92103
     Tel: (619) 692-3840
     Fax: (619) 362-9555
     Email: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
            trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
            melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


ROCKWATER ENERGY: "Estraca" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Estraca, Richard Ken Barrera, and Claude Cunningham, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated v. Rockwater
Energy Solutions, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00480 (S.D. Tex.,
February 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rockwater Energy Solutions, Inc. provides support services,
including flowback well testing services, to hydraulic fracturing
drilling sites throughout the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
      Dorian Vandenberg-Rodes, Esq.
      SHELLIST  LAZARZ  SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: dsinkule@eeoc.net
              drodes@eeoc.net


SABRE CORP: Seeks Dismissal of New York Consumer Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation filed a motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit
in New York, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

In July 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed against
the Company and two other global distribution system ("GDS"), in
the Federal District Court of New York, Southern Division. In
January 2016, Sabre filed a motion to dismiss all of the
plaintiffs' claims, which is pending before the court.

The plaintiffs, who are asserting claims on behalf of a putative
class of consumers in various states, are generally alleging that
the GDSs conspired to, for example, negotiate for full content
from the airlines, resulting in higher ticket prices for
consumers, in violation of various federal and state laws.
Although the amount of damages allegedly incurred by the
plaintiffs has not been asserted to date, the plaintiffs are also
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.

"We may incur significant fees, costs and expenses for as long as
this litigation is ongoing. We intend to vigorously defend against
these claims," the Company said.

Sabre Corporation is a technology solutions provider to the global
travel and tourism industry.


SABRE CORP: 2 Class Actions Pending in Texas Courts
---------------------------------------------------
Sabre Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two consumer class
action lawsuits have been filed against the Company in which the
plaintiffs allege that Sabre made misrepresentations concerning
the description of the fees received in relation to facilitating
hotel reservations.

The Company said, "Generally, the consumer claims relate to
whether Travelocity provided adequate notice to consumers
regarding the nature of our fees and the amount of taxes charged
or collected. One of these lawsuits is pending in Texas state
court, where the court is currently considering the plaintiffs'
motion to certify a class action; and the other is pending in
federal court, but has been stayed pending the outcome of the
Texas state court action. We believe the notice we provided was
appropriate and therefore have not accrued any losses related to
these cases."

Sabre Corporation is a technology solutions provider to the global
travel and tourism industry.


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: "Baker" Suit Alleges Torts to Land
------------------------------------------------------------
Michele Baker, Angela Corbett, Michelle O'Leary, and Daniel
Schuttig, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.,
and Honeywell International Inc., formerly known as Allied-Signal
Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00220-LEK-DJS, ((N.D.N.Y.,
February 24, 2016), allege torts to land.

The case is senior Judge Lawrence E. Kahn.

Saint-Gobain Corporation is a Paris-based multinational
corporation with more than 350 years of engineered materials
expertise.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Ellen Relkin, Esq.
     Weitz, Luxenberg Law Firm
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Tel: (212) 558-5715
     Fax: (212) 363-2721
     Email: erelkin@weitzlux.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Sold Defective Gear S2, "Whiteman" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Corrine Whiteman, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01055-SDW-LDW, (D.N.J., February 24,
2016), alleges that Defendant's manufacture of the Gear S2 product
line was defective and the corresponding sales and marketing of
the product were deceptive.

The case is assigned to Judge Susan D. Wigenton.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James C. Shah, Esq.
     Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     475 White Horse Pike
     Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909
     Tel: (856) 858-1770
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     Email: jshah@sfmslaw.com
            finkelman@sfmslaw.com

          - and -

     John F. Edgar, Esq.
     Boyce N. Richardson, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM, LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     Email: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com
            bnr@edgarlawfirm.com


SCOTCH INC: "Cortes" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------
Valentin Cortes and Segundo Macancela, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Scotch Inc., dba
CUBANA CAFE, Jean Claude Lacovelli and Danforth Houle, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00917, (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

Valentin Cortes
PRO SE


SCRANTON, PA: Rental Registration Fee Class Action Can Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Lockwood, writing for thetimes-tribune.com, reports that
landlords who complied with Scranton's rental registration program
in 2014-15 and paid its fee increases may proceed as a class in a
lawsuit that aims to recoup fees, Lackawanna County Judge Terrence
Nealon ruled March 2 in a lawsuit.

The ruling certified a class of plaintiffs of those landlords who
registered and paid fees in 2014 and 2015 and who now formally
"opt in" to the lawsuit.

Filed in May by landlord Adam Guiffrida, the lawsuit contends
Scranton's rental registration program should be scrapped because
it imposed arbitrary, high fees and unwarranted inspections on
only those few landlords who have registered properties.

In 2014, the city tripled the rental registration per-structure
fee from $50 to $150 and raised the per-unit fee from $15 to $50.
The city was unable to tell Mr. Guiffrida how many rental units
exist.

Fees also are supposed to be based only upon operational costs and
not be a cash cow for the city, but collections have outpaced
costs, a plaintiff motion for class certification contended.

On March 1, Judge Nealon issued a mixed ruling that individual
landlords cannot proceed as a class, and that rejected parts of
city defense motions in the case.

Judge Nealon's order on March 2 also requires the city to provide
an accounting of all property owners who paid the residential
rental registration and permit fees in 2014-15, as well as an
affidavit clarifying color coding on documents from the city
identifying owners who made full or partial fee payments.

The lawsuit now continues and a status conference has been
scheduled for April 20.  At that time, the judge and both sides
will discuss the city's accounting of fees and a proposed notice
to be issued to potential class plaintiffs.


SEMPRA ENERGY: "Tetalman" Suit Alleges Overbilling
--------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that    a
class action in San Barbara, California, accuses Sempra Energy and
its SoCalGas subsidiary of unfairly extending billing cycles and
using the extra days to charge customers "over baseline" rates for
natural gas.

Garry Tetalman accuses Sempra of unfair competition and consumer
law violations in his Feb. 29 complaint in Superior Court. He
claims that by extending some monthly billing periods to as long
as 35 days, Sempra and SoCalGas charge higher, over-baseline rates
that would not apply had the billing cycle ended after 31 days or
less.

The complaint stems from a bill he received on Jan. 26, for a 35-
day billing cycle. He says he was charged 83 cents per therm for
the first 59 therms of natural gas, and $1.09 for the 78 therms he
used over his baseline of 59. Had he been billed for just 31 days,
he says, the next four days would have been billed at the lower
rate.

A therm is 100,000 British thermal units, or BTUs. It is the
approximate equivalent of burning 100 cubic feet of natural gas.

Tetalman says in the complaint that SoCalGas acknowledges that its
longer billing cycle can increase a bill by as much as 30 percent,
particularly during the winter, when customers use up to seven
times more natural gas than during the summer.

SoCalGas said on its website that the long billing cycle in
December -- the bill that prompted Tetalman to sue -- stemmed from
the year-end holidays.

"At the end of each year, meters are read on Saturdays to
accommodate the holiday schedule. A Saturday read occurred in the
month of December, 2015, thereby increasing the number of billing
days by up to five. These additional days could result in higher
bills depending on your usage, and will show in January billing,"
SoCalGas said on its website.

However, SoCalGas does not use door-to-door employees to read gas
meters for customers who have "advanced meters," which transmit
gas meter data directly to its service and billing center. The
company website says the advanced meters "enabl(e) us to provide
you with more frequent and detailed gas information."

Tetalman has an advanced meter at his home, his attorney Robert
Curtis told Courthouse News, so SoCalGas should be able to
calculate 30- or 31-day monthly bills.

"I think it's unfair to consumers to force them into a longer bill
cycle than 31 days given the tiered pricing structure of the gas,"
Curtis said. "And I think, given the proliferation of smart meter
and smart meter technology, they should be able to break up the
year."

Curtis said the long cycles are common during winter months. The
complaint includes a chart of 21 billing cycles the company uses;
in 19 of them, December had at least 33 days. October, November
and January also had cycles longer than 31 days, but during the
summer the cycles are shorter. There was just one cycle longer
than 31 days in July, none longer than 32 in August and none in
September longer than 30.

Curtis said millions of Sempra customers could be affected. The
company has 21.4 million customers and 5.9 million meters, and
Curtis says he believes the long billing cycles affected most
customers.

"I have looked at a host of bills and I think it's happened to a
large percentage of that 5.9 million," Curtis said. "Almost every
bill I see has the problem. A few don't have, maybe the person had
an electric stove or heater, but my client's case was not
abnormal. Almost everybody got hit by it."

SoCalGas did not respond immediately to a request for comment.

Tetalman seeks class certification, disgorgement, restitution, an
injunction and costs.

Curtis -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- is with Foley, Bezek, Behle &
Curtis, in Santa Barbara.


SENTRY CREDIT: "Gordon" Suit Alleges FDCPA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Abba Gordon, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers, Plaintiff, v. Sentry Credit, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00927, (E.D.N.Y., February 24, 2016), alleges violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
     483 Chestnut Street
     Cedarhurst, NY 11516
     Tel: (516) 791-4400
     Fax: (516) 791-4411
     Email: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


SFX ENTERTAINMENT: Asks Court to Stay Guevoura Fund Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
SFX Entertainment Inc., 430R Acquisition LLC, Beatport, LLC, Core
Productions LLC, EZ Festivals LLC, Flavorus, Inc., ID&T/SFX
Mysteryland LLC, ID&T/SFX North America LLC, ID&T/SFX Q-Dance LLC,
ID&T/SFX Sensation LLC, ID&T/SFX TomorrowWorld LLC, LETMA
Acquisition, LLC, Made Event, LLC, Michigan JJ Holdings LLC, SFX
Acquisition LLC, SFX Brazil LLC, SFX Canada Inc., SFX Development
LLC, SFX EDM Holdings Corporation, SFX Entertainment
International, Inc., SFX Entertainment International II, Inc., SFX
Intermediate Holdco II LLC, SFX Managing Member Inc., SFX
Marketing LLC, SFX Platform & Sponsorship LLC, SFX Technology
Services, Inc., SFX/AB Live Event Canada, Inc., SFX/AB Live Event
Intermediate Holdco LLC, SFX/AB Live Event LLC, SFX-94 LLC, SFX-
Disco Intermediate Holdco LLC, SFX-Disco Operating LLC, SFXE IP
LLC, SFX-EMC, Inc., SFX-Hudson LLC, SFX-IDT N.A. Holding II LLC,
SFX-LIC Operating LLC, SFX-IDT N.A. Holding LLC, SFX-Nightlife
Operating LLC, SFX-Perryscope LLC, SFX-React Operating LLC, Spring
Awakening, LLC, SFXE Netherlands Holdings Cooperatief U.A., SFXE
Netherlands Holdings B.V., Plaintiffs, v. Guevoura Fund Ltd., on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Defendant,
Adversary Proceeding No. 16-50078-MFW, (Bankr. D. Del., February
24, 2016), seek reinstatement of the automatic stay against
Guevoura Fund.

SFX et al. also filed a motion in the adversary case asking
Bankruptcy Judge Mary F. Walrath to extend the automatic stay
provisions of Bankruptcy Code Section 362 to non-debtors Robert
Sillerman, John Miller, Michael Meyer and D. Geoffrey Armstrong.

According to Pollstarpro.com, the Guevora Fund suit is a
securities class action "that seeks to hold the Debtor Defendant
and the Directors liable for allegedly making false and misleading
statements designed to artificially inflate [SFX] stock in 2015."
Several firms sued, or threatened to sue, over Sillerman's failed
"go private" attempt since August.

Mr. Sillerman is the chairman of SFX.  John Miller, Michael John
Meyer and D. Geoffrey Armstrong are SFX directors and members of
the Company's restructuring committee.

SFX et al. are debtors in Chapter 11 cases (Bankr. D. Del. Lead
Case No. 16-10238).

SFX et al. represented by:

     Dennis A. Meloro, Esq.
     GREENBERG TRAURIG, ESQ.
     The Nemours Building
     1007 North Orange Street, Suite 1200
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Tel: (302) 661-7000
     Fax: (302) 661-7360
     Email: melorod@gtlaw.com


SHARKNINJA OPERATING: Faces "Rosenthal" Suit Over Vacuum Products
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mordechai Rosenthal, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Sharkninja Operating LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01048-AET-LHG, (D.N.J., February 24, 2016), alleges
that the Defendant failed to disclose material facts concerning
the design, manufacture, performance history, and propensity for
failure and malfunction of its vacuums products.

The case is assigned to Judge Anne E. Thompson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Esq.
     James C. Shah, Esq.
     Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
     SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
     475 White Horse Pike
     Collingswood, NJ 08107-1909
     Tel: (856) 858-1770
     Fax: (866) 300-7367
     Email: nfinkelman@sfmslaw.com
            jshah@sfmslaw.com
            nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


SHUTTERFLY: Faces Class Suit Over Continuing Monthly Fee
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Shutterfly charges
subscribers a continuing monthly fee of $2.99 without adequate
warning, a class action claims in Los Angeles Superior Court.


SKYRISE CONSTRUCTION: "Vasquez" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Vazquez, individually and on behalf of other employees
similarly situated, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Skyrise
Construction Group, LLC and Ignacio Garcia, Individually,
Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00114 (N.D. Wis., Milwaukee Division,
January 29, 2016), seeks recovery of unpaid overtime wages due,
statutory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs,
injunction and such other relief under the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and Wisconsin Statutes Sec.
103.001, 104.01 and 109.01, et seq.

Defendant is a construction company owned by Garcia in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin where the Plaintiff worked as a construction worker. He
claims to have worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
overtime premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Valentin T. Narvaez, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: (312) 878-1302
      Email: vnarvaez@yourclg.com


SLATER & GORDON: Woodsford to Underwrite Shareholder Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Higgins, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that
London-based Woodsford Litigation Funding is underwriting a class
action lawsuit brought by Australian firm ACA Lawyers on behalf of
Slater & Gordon shareholders, as the listed firm's stock hits
record lows.

ACA Lawyers has reportedly finalized a funding agreement with both
Woodsfords and Australian funder Justkapital Litigation Finance
after embattled Australia-listed firm Slater & Gordon unveiled a
staggering GBP493 million loss for the six months to
December 31 on Feb. 29.  The ACA class action represents
shareholders who bought Slater & Gordon stock between April 1 and
December 17 last year, when ACA announced its examination of
statements made by the firm around capital raising for its
acquisition of Quindell PLC and its profit forecasting for 2016.

A massive writedown of goodwill in relation to the acquisition was
largely responsible for the listed firm's catastrophic half-year
losses.  After debuting 11 months ago at AUS$8 per share it was
trading at only 83c per unit, Slater & Gordon's stock closed trade
on March 2 at just 26c per unit--its lowest ever value.

'Real anger'

ACA Lawyers principal Bruce Clarke argues that Slater & Gordon
management has "a lot to answer for".  The firm's class action,
which is one of two, has reportedly been 'inundated' by inquiries
from investors who have lost out in Slater & Gordon's downward
spiral.  "There is real anger among Slater & Gordon investors,
from small mum and dad investors to large institutional investors
who are looking for some way to recover millions of dollars that
have been lost over the last 10 months," he said.


SOLARWINDS WORLDWIDE: "Thurston" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew M. Thurston, Richard A. Hanna, and Kevin Hines,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. Solarwinds, Inc., Solarwinds Worldwide, LLC dba
Solarwinds, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00213, (W.D. Tex.,
February 24, 2016), alleges that Defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act by improperly classifying, or other otherwise
treating, their Inside Sales Representatives as employees who are
exempt from the guarantees and protections of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edmond S. Moreland, Jr., Esq.
     MORELAND LAW FIRM, P.C.
     13590 Ranch Road 12
     Wimberley, Texas 78676
     Tel: (512) 782-0567
     Fax: (512) 782-0605
     Email: edmond@morelandlaw.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Song" Suit Over Aliso Canyon Gas Leak
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ju Won Song, et al. v. Southern California Gas Company, et al.,
Case No. BC608950 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 2, 2016), is brought
by businesses and business owners who suffered loss as a result of
the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak in the Los Angeles County.

Southern California Gas Company stores and sells natural gas in
California and transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth T. Haan, Esq.
      Kenneth A. Levine, Esq.
      KENNETH T. HAAN & ASSOCIATES
      A Professional Law Corporation
      3699 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 860
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 639-2900
      Facsimile: (213) 639-2909
      E-mail: kthaan@manlaw.com
              kenlevine@maanlaw.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: Faces "Bhardwaj" Suit over Aliso Gas Leak
--------------------------------------------------------------
Naval Bhardwaj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Southern California Gas Company, et al., Case No.
BC609189 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 3, 2016) is brought by
businesses and business owners who suffered loss as a result of
the Aliso Canyon natural gas leak in the Los Angeles County.

Southern California Gas Company stores and sells natural gas in
California and transmits such through the City of Los Angeles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Raymond P.Boucher, Esq.
      Maria L. Weitz, Esq.
      Priscilla Szeto, Esq.
      BOUCHER LLP
      21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367-4903
      Telephone: (818)340-5400
      Facsimile: (818)340-5401
      E-mail: ray@boucher.la
              weilz@boucher.la
              szeto@boucher.la

         - and -

      Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
      18250 Ventura Boulevard
      Tarzana, CA 91356
      Telephone: (818)609-0807
      Facsimile: (818)609-0892
      E-mail: sahagii@aol.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA: "Saab" Suit Alleges Negligence
---------------------------------------------------
Zack Saab, Hanah Saab, Brandon Saab, Brian Saab and Brad Saab,
minors, by and through their guardian Zack Zaab, Robert Naaman,
Diane Naaman, Reem Naaman, BMSJ Inc. dba Nail Garden and all
others similarly-situated v. Southern California Gas Company,
Sempra Energy, State of California, Division of Oil and Gas and
Geothermal Resources, California Public Utilities Commission, Does
1 through 100, Case No. BC608037 (Cal. Super., January 22, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for negligence, trespass,
private nuisance, public nuisance, inverse condemnation and unfair
business practices under the California Law.

Southern California Gas is a natural gas distribution utility.

Sempra Energy is a California corporation with its principal place
of business in San Diego, California. Sempra Energy is the parent
company of Southern California Gas.

Defendant the State of California, Division of Oil, Gas, and
Geothermal Resources is a California state governmental entity,
domiciled in California, which has been delegated certain
permitting responsibilities under state and federal environmental
laws.

Defendant the State of California, Public Utilities Commission is
a California state governmental entity, domiciled in California,
which has been delegated certain permitting responsibilities under
state and federal environmental laws.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      R. Rex Parris, Esq.
      Patricia K. Oliver, Esq.
      Ethan T. Litney, Esq.
      R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
      43364 10th Street West
      Lancaster, CA 93534
      Tel: (661) 949-2595
      Fax: (661) 949-7524
      E-mail: rrexparris@rrexparris.com
              poliver@rrexparris.com
              elitney@rrexparris.com

          - and -

      Brian Panish, Esq.
      Robert Glassman, Esq.
      PANISH SHEA & BOYLE LLP
      11111 Santa Monica Blvd., Ste 700
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 477-1700
      Fax: (310) 477-1699
      E-mail: panish@psblaw.com
              glassman@psblaw.com


STATE STREET: ERISA Class Actions Pending in Boston
---------------------------------------------------
State Street Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that two ERISA class
suits pending in Massachusetts.

In February 2011, a putative class action was filed in federal
court in Boston seeking unspecified damages, including treble
damages, on behalf of all custodial clients that executed certain
foreign exchange transactions with State Street from 1998 to 2009.
The putative class action alleges, among other things, that the
rates at which State Street executed foreign currency trades
constituted an unfair and deceptive practice under Massachusetts
law and a breach of the duty of loyalty.

Two other putative class actions are currently pending in federal
court in Boston alleging various violations of ERISA on behalf of
all ERISA plans custodied with us that executed indirect foreign
exchange trades with State Street from 1998 onward. The complaints
allege that State Street caused class members to pay unfair and
unreasonable rates on indirect foreign exchange trades with State
Street. The complaints seek unspecified damages, disgorgement of
profits, and other equitable relief.

"If these matters were to proceed to trial, we expect that
plaintiffs would seek to recover their share of all or a portion
of the revenue that we have recorded from indirect foreign
exchange trades. We cannot predict whether a court, in the event
of an adverse resolution, would consider our revenue to be the
appropriate measure of damages," the Company said.

State Street Corporation is a financial holding company organized
in 1969 under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.


STEIN MART: Faces "Riggins" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Riggins v. Stein Mart, Inc. and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC609280 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 3, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Stein Mart, Inc. owns and operates discount department stores in
Los Angeles County and throughout the state of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
      GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
      835 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213)452-0510
      Facsimile: (213)452-0514
      E-mail: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com

         - and -

      Joseph R. Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW FIRM
      835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 542-8501
      Facsimile: (213)542-5556
      E-mail: jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com


STELLAR RECOVERY: Faces "Garcia" Suit Over TCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Dina Garcia, and all others similarly-situated v. Stellar Recovery
Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-00521 (N.D. Calif., January 29, 2016),
seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the Defendant's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and California's Rosenthal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that between March 2015 and December 2015,
the Defendant made dozens of calls to Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone using an autodialer and/or an artificial or prerecorded
voice. Plaintiff did not give Stellar Recovery prior express
written consent to make these calls.

According to their website, Stellar Recovery Inc. is a privately
held company. Stellar Recovery acquires and services charged off
receivables from credit grantors and financial institutions.
Stellar Recovery creates collection strategies and designed asset
management platforms which are driven to deliver maximum
recoveries reducing costs and increasing cash flows for clients.

The Plaintiff is 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


STERLING SELF: Faces "Chamorro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebecca Chamorro and Shannon Moreno, each individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Sterling Self Insurance
Administration, LLC, and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Case No.
RG16802500 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 2, 2016) is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sterling Self Insurance Administration, Inc. provides integrated
health benefits design solutions to employers for self-insurance
options.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Na'il Benjamin, Esq.
      Jessica Shavers, Esq.
      BENJAMIN LAW GROUP, P.C.
      505 141h Street, Suite 900
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Telephone: (510) 588-8460
      Facsimile: (415) 349-3334
      E-mail: nbenjamin@benjaminlawgroup.com
              jshavers@benjaminlawgroup.com


STRIPE-A-ZONE: "Adams" Labor Suit Moved from E.D to N.D. Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Adams et al. v. Stripe-A-Zone,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-00532, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Fort Worth).
The Northern District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00046-
Y to the proceeding.

This collective action seeks recovery of unpaid wages and overtime
wages that are required to be paid under the Fair Labor Standards
Act. The Plaintiffs allege that they did not receive their wages
or overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Stripe-A-Zone provides pavement striping services. The Company
offers airport markings, bead blasting, concrete wheel stops,
highway striping, sealcoating, and warehouse striping services.
Stripe-A-Zone serves customers throughout the United States. The
Company is based in Grand Prairie, Texas.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

               - and -

          Harry Bob Whitehurst, Esq.
          WHITEHURST & WHITEHURST
          5380 Old Bullard Road
          Tyler, TX 75703
          Telephone: (903) 593 5588
          E-mail: whitehurstlawfirm@yahoo.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Kimberly Sumner Moore, Esq.
          STRASBURGER & PRICE LLP
          2801 Network Boulevard, Suite 600
          Frisco, TX 75034
          Telephone: (469) 287 3922
          Facsimile: (469) 227 6563
          E-mail: Ckim.moore@strasburger.com

               - and -

          Leslie A Palmer Jr., Esq.
          HALEY & OLSON
          510 N Valley Mills Dr, Suite 600
          Waco, TX 76710
          Telephone: (254) 776 3336
          Facsimile: (254) 776 6823
          E-mail: lpalmer@haleyolson.com

               - and -

          Monica A. Velazquez, Esq.
          STRASBURGER & PRICE-FRISCO
          2801 Network Blvd, Suite 600
          Frisco, TX 75034
          Telephone: (469) 287 3905
          Facsimile: (469) 227 6566
          E-mail: monica.velazquez@strasburger.com

               - and -

          William Cornelius, Esq.
          One American Center
          909 ESE Loop 323, Suite 400
          Tyler, TX 75701
          E-mail: wc@wilsonlawfirm.com


SUNEDISON INC: "French" Suit Seeks Damages Under TCPA
-----------------------------------------------------
Norene French, and all others similarly-situated v. SunEdison,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00188 (E.D. Calif., February 1, 2016),
seeks injunctive relief and statutory damages for the Defendant's
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff alleged that between December 23, 2015 and September
30, 2015, Defendant made 5 robocalls to Plaintiff on her cellular
telephone to sell her solar panels for her home. These calls were
made using an autodialer and/or an artificial prerecorded voice.
The Plaintiff did not give SunEdison prior express written consent
to make these calls.

SunEdison, Inc. is a global renewable energy company headquartered
in the U.S. In addition to developing, building, owning, and
operating solar power plants and wind energy plants, it also
manufactures high purity polysilicon, monocrystalline silicon
ingots, silicon wafers, solar modules, solar energy systems, and
solar module racking systems.

The Plaintiff is 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


SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING: "Johnson" Labor Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Janee Johnson v. Sunrise Senior
Living Management, Inc. et al., Case No. BC568224, was removed
from the Superior Court, Los Angeles, Central District, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00443-BRO-RAO to the proceeding.

Sunrise Senior Living Management, formerly known as Sunrise
Assisted Living Management Inc., operates as a subsidiary of
Sunrise Senior Living Inc. The company provides senior living and
health care services. Sunrise Senior Living Management, Inc. is
based in McLean Virginia. Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Natasha R Chesler, Esq.
          Timothy B McCaffrey Jr., Esq.
          CHESLER MCCAFFREY LLP
          11377 West Olympic Boulevard Suite 500
          Los Angeles, CA 90064-1683
          Telephone: (310) 882 6407
          Facsimile: (310) 882 6359
          E-mail: nrc@cmlegal.com
                  tbm@cmlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michele L Maryott, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN AND CRUTCHER LLP
          3161 Michelson Drive
          Irvine, CA 92612-4412
          Telephone: (949) 451 3800
          Facsimile: (949) 451 4220
          E-mail: mmaryott@gibsondunn.com


SUNWATER: Maddens Lawyers Drops Callide Dam Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Thorpe, writing for Central Telegraph, reports that Maddens
Lawyers have announced they will not be pursuing a class action
against SunWater on behalf of Jambin residents in relation to the
operation of Callide Dam during the events surrounding Cyclone
Marcia in February last year.

A representative for Maddens Lawyers told the Central Telegraph
the decision to drop the case was made based on expert advice.

"We simply couldn't be sure that this case would end up in favor
of those residents," said the representative.

Discussions are continuing in Banana Shire regarding the role
Callide Dam should play in the Shire's water management strategy -
- in particular whether it be used primarily for flood mitigation
rather than water storage.

Councillor Nev Ferrier voiced concerns from Jambin residents at
the last council meeting that heavy rainfall had sent dam levels
above 100% early February, once again requiring a hurried release
of water from the dam into Callide Creek.

The Department of Energy and Water Supply is currently studying
whether it is feasible to operate the dam primarily for flood
mitigation, with a call for public consultation expected to be
issued in the second quarter of 2016.

An inquiry into the flooding conducted by the Emergency Management
Inspector General Iain MacKenzie found that SunWater had correctly
followed its own procedures when operating the dam last year,
though residents claim those procedures were flawed.


SUPERIOR ENERGY: "Salas" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------
Adrian Salas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Superior Energy Services, Inc., d/b/a SPC
Rentals and Warrior Energy Services, Corp., Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-00029 (S.D. Tex., Corpus Christi Division, January 29, 2016),
seeks unpaid back wages due, liquidated damages equal in amount to
the unpaid compensation, attorney's fees, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, and such other and further relief pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff claims that he worked over 40 hours a week without
overtime compensation. Salas worked as a pump operator.

Superior Energy Services, Inc. and Warrior Energy Services Corp.
are located at 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas, TX. They
specialize in providing oilfield services to various drilling and
production companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SYNGENTA AG: "Fischer FLP" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2591
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Allan and Carolyn Fischer FLP et
al. v. Syngenta AG et al., Case No. 4:16-cv-00011, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Oklahoma, to the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas
(Kansas City). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
02054-JWL-JPO to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mark Alston Waller, Esq.
          Sneed Lang, Esq.
          1 W 3rd St Ste 1700
          TULSA, OK 74103-3522
          Telephone: (918) 588 1313
          Facsimile: (918) 588 1314

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Franklin Smith, Esq.
          Timothy James Bomhoff, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT (TULSA)
          1717 S Boulder Ste 900
          TULSA, OK 74119
          Telephone: (918) 587 0000
          Facsimile: (918) 599 9317


SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Crone" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2591 Kansas
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Crone v. Syngenta Seeds et al.,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00005, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02045-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Devin A. DeBacker, Esq.
          Jeffery Nye, Esq.
          Jessica M. Pettit, Esq.
          Sarah J. Schultes, Esq.
          Steve Hagenbuch, Esq.
          William Patrick J. Kimmitt, Esq.
          Zachary W. Byer, Esq.
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS - DC
          655 15th Street, NW, Suite 1200
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 879 5000

               - and -

          John B. Dempsey, Esq.
          MYERS, BRIER & KELLY, LLP
          425 Spruce Street, Suite 200
          Scranton, PA 18503
          Telephone: (570) 342 6100

               - and -

          Regina Murphy, Esq.
          B. BUZZ DEITCHMAN, PC
          14850 Montfort Dr. Ste 220
          Dallas, TX 75254-6721
          Telephone: (302) 300 3475


SYNGENTA SEEDS: "Vermeer" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2591
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Vermeer v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. et
al., Case No. 5:16-cv-04003, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
Kansas District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02052-JWL-
JPO to the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Randall D. Armentrout, Esq.
          Ryan Gene Koopmans, Esq.
          NYEMASTER, GOODE, WEST, HANSELL & O'BRIEN
          700 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Des Moines, IA 50312
          Telephone: (515) 283 3100
          Facsimile: (515) 283 8045

               - and -

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


TACONIC: Water Test Shows High Level of Toxic Chemical at Plant
---------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan J. Lyons, writing for Times Union, reports that the levels
of a toxic chemical discovered in the well water at a plastics
company in Petersburgh in 2004 were once as high as 152,000 parts
per trillion, far above the 400-ppt threshold recommended by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for short-term human exposure
to the contaminant.

More recent tests, conducted in 2013, showed that the well water
under the Route 22 plant had dropped significantly in the nine
years since the contaminant PFOA was first discovered there.  But
the tests conducted in January 2013, from samples taken two months
earlier, showed the levels of the contaminant in the unfiltered
well water at the plant were still high -- 7,500 ppt
-- but reduced to 420 ppt after the "finished" water was put
through carbon filters.

A one-page summary sheet containing information that the company,
Taconic, provided to state regulators recently was released by the
state Department of Environmental Conservation on March 1 in
response to a request from the Times Union.  The state said it
took immediate action in February.

"On Feb. 10, DEC and (Department of Health) met with company
officials when the company shared historical testing data that
showed elevated levels of PFOA," said Emily DeSantis, a DEC
spokeswoman.  "Within days, the state Department of Health
performed additional testing at the Taconic facility and in
Petersburgh.  As soon as those results were known, the state
secured bottled water for residents."

The document released by the state shows Taconic began testing its
underground wells for the hazardous man-made chemical,
perfluorooctanoic acid or PFOA, in November 2004.  That was four
months after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency filed a
widely publicized administrative action against DuPont, one of the
manufacturers of PFOA, and accused the company of covering up
information about the potential toxicity of the chemical.  Taconic
and several other specialty plants in Rensselaer County and
southern Vermont have used PFOA in their manufacturing processes
dating back decades.

It's unclear whether workers at the Taconic plant have ingested
the tainted water, filtered or otherwise, and if so for how long.
Taconic was founded in 1961, according to the company's website.
The company has told the state it provided alternative water or
purchased carbon filters a decade ago for residents who live near
the plant and have private wells.  The company also told the state
it has been making bottled water available to its employees for
the same amount of time.

Taconic, like many other manufacturing plants that used PFOA,
apparently became aware of the chemical's toxic capabilities after
the EPA's administrative action 12 years ago accused DuPont of
violating federal regulations for failing to report the
substantial risk of injury to human health and the environment
from PFOA between 1981 and 2001.  The chemical is used to made
non-stick and heat-resistant products ranging from airplane wiring
to Teflon-coated cookware.

Taconic's plant near the Little Hoosic River makes specialty
products including silicone-coated fabrics and tapes.

In 2006, the EPA reached an agreement with DuPont and other
manufacturers to stop producing or using PFOA, although DuPont
continued producing PFOA because the agreement did not call for
the end of production of the chemical until 2015.  The EPA
settlement with DuPont came less than a year after DuPont agreed
to pay $10.25 million in civil penalties to settle the complaint
brought by the EPA regarding the company's PFOA pollution in the
Midwest.  At the time, it was the largest civil administrative
penalty ever obtained by the EPA under federal environmental
statutes.

The 152,000 ppt level of PFOA found in the water at Taconic's
plant in 2004 may be the highest ever reported for a drinking
water source, according to Robert A. Bilott, an Ohio attorney
helping to represent an estimated 3,500 people in a class-action
lawsuit against DuPont.

Mr. Bilott said, however, he is not familiar with the situation at
Taconic and was speaking in general terms.

In January 2009, the EPA set its advisory for short-term exposure
to PFOA at no more than 400 ppt.  In February, the agency set a
long-term exposure limit of 100 ppt that applies to regular
residential water use.

Taconic officials met privately with state regulators in late
February following recent heightened interest in the chemical
after it was discovered in the Hoosick Falls village water system
at levels the EPA said are not safe for human consumption.

Despite concerns about the potential toxicity of PFOA, the
discovery of PFOA in the wells at Taconic's plant in 2004 did not
trigger any public notification or environmental investigation
when the DEC was notified about the situation that year, according
to state officials.  At the time, PFOA was not a regulated
contaminant.

The focus on PFOA contamination in this region began quietly
unfolding in August 2014 when a Hoosick Falls resident,
Michael Hickey, had samples of the village's water tested for the
chemical.  The results showed levels of PFOA in the village's
water system that exceeded the EPA advisory for short-term
exposure.  Mr. Hickey, an insurance underwriter, began researching
contaminants in the village water because he was concerned about
what he believed was a high rate of cancer in the community.

His father, John, died of kidney cancer in 2013 after working for
decades at the Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics plant on
McCaffrey Street, which has been the focus of water contamination
in the village.

A Saint-Gobain spokesperson said the company ceased all use of
PFOA at its McCaffrey Street plant in December 2014, the same
month the village notified the company about the pollution
discovered in the municipal well system, which is a few hundred
yards from the Saint-Gobain plant.  Saint-Gobain tested the
groundwater under its plant last year and found levels as high as
18,000 parts per trillion.

In recent weeks, traces of the chemical have been found in private
wells and public water supplies in the town of Hoosick, well
outside the village, and in North Bennington, Vt., where Saint-
Gobain also had a manufacturing plant that closed in 2002.


TAKATA CORP: Faces Midway Auto Over Defective Airbags
-----------------------------------------------------
Midway Auto Parts LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Takata Corporation, TK
Holdings, Inc., Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW OF North America, LLC, BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., and Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor
Corporation, Mazda Motor Of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors
Corp., Mitsubishi Motors North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co.,
Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd.,
Subaru Of America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00147-DW,
(W.D. Mo., February 24, 2016), seeks redress for economic losses
stemming from the Defendants' manufacture or use of Defective
Airbags in the Class Vehicles, including but not limited to
diminished value of the Defective Airbags and the Class Vehicles
and their constituent parts.

The case is assigned to District Judge Dean Whipple.

Defendant Takata Corporation is a foreign for-profit corporation
with its principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Takata is a
specialized supplier of automotive safety systems that designs,
manufactures, tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags.
Takata is a vertically-integrated company and manufactures
component parts in its own facilities. Takata, either directly or
through its wholly-owned subsidiaries, manufactures airbags for
distribution in the United States and Missouri, including the
airbags at issue in this litigation. Takata delivers its products,
including the airbags at issue in this litigation, into the stream
of commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by
consumers and businesses in the United States and the State of
Missouri.

Defendant TK Holdings Inc., is a subsidiary of Takata
Corporation and is headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan. TK
Holdings sells, designs, manufactures, tests, markets, and
distributes airbags in the United States. TK Holdings both
directly and through subsidiaries, owns and operates 56
manufacturing plants in twenty countries. TK Holdings manufactures
airbags in the United States, including airbags at issue in this
litigation. TK Holdings delivers its products into the stream of
commerce with the expectation that they will be purchased by
consumers and businesses in the United States and the State of
Missouri.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher J. Stucky, Esq.
     Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
     STUCKY & FIELDS, LLC
     214 W. 18th Street, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Tel: (816) 659-9970
     Fax: (816) 659-9969
     Email: chris@stuckyfields.com
            ben@stuckyfields.com

          - and -

     R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
     Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
     Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
     MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
     12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
     P.O. Box 505
     Charleston, SC 29451
     Tel: (205) 238-6757
     Fax: (904) 239-5388
     Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
            smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com
            fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com


TARGET CORP: "Daniels" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Delano Daniels, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Target Corporation and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Defendants, 100, Case BC607742 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles County, January 29, 2016), seeks compensatory damages,
economic and/or special damages, unpaid wages, unfair competition
for violation of the California Business and Professions Code Sec.
17200, et seq., enjoinment, restitution, disgorgement of profits
pursuant to California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17203
and 17204, interests, attorneys' fees and cost of suit under
California Labor Code Sec. 226 and 1194.

Plaintiff was employed as a service station employee at a Target
facility in Los Angeles, California. He alleges that the Defendant
required him to work in excess of 40 hours per work week and did
not pay him overtime, did not provide adequate meal and break
periods, and did not provide itemized wage statements.

Target Corporation is a corporation organized and existing
pursuant to the laws of the state of Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
      Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
      324 S. Beverly Drive, #725
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
             abacon@attomeysforconsumers.com


TED WIENS: Sued Over Uniform Cleaning Fee, Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carri Geer Thevenot, writing for Las Vegas Review-Journal, reports
that a former technician filed a class action lawsuit on March 2
that accuses Ted Wiens Tire & Auto of illegally deducting a
uniform cleaning fee from employees' paychecks and of failing to
pay required overtime wages.

Daniel Acuna filed the complaint in U.S. District Court in Las
Vegas.  He worked at Ted Wiens for 13 years before his employment
ended.

According to the lawsuit, Ted Wiens has a corporate-wide practice
of automatically deducting $7.50 each pay period from employees'
paychecks for laundering the specialized uniform that the business
requires them to wear.

"Ted Wiens' uniform laundry deduction policy has deprived Ted
Wiens' employees hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more,
for well over a decade," the lawsuit alleges.

The document further alleges that all technicians employed by the
business have worked, at times, more than 40 hours a week "but
have been illegally deprived their overtime wages."

According to the lawsuit, the laundry fee and lack of overtime
compensation also often resulted in employees earning less than
the required minimum wage.

"We don't feel like we did anything wrong, and we can't comment
any further on litigation matters," Ted Wiens manager Dan Berry
said.

Hundreds of technicians have worked at Ted Wiens' 11 locations in
Las Vegas, according to the lawsuit, which alleges violations of
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act and Nevada law.

According to the complaint, state law prohibits employers from
deducting wages from employees for cleaning employer-mandated
uniforms.

Mr. Acuna is represented by attorneys Steven Parsons, Andrew
Rempfer and Joseph Mott.

According to the Ted Wiens website, it has been a locally owned
and operated company in Las Vegas since 1948.


TELEXELECTRIC LLLP: "Murdoch" Suit Alleges Fraudulent VoIP Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Murdoch, Angela Batista Jimenez, Elisangela Oliveira, and
Diogo Deraugo, Putative Class Representatives, and those similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TelexElectric, LLLP, Telex Mobile
Holdings, Inc., Douglas M. Machado, Alexandro O. Rocha, David
Reis, Leonardo Francisco, Linda S. Hackett, David Hackett, DL1
Inc., Benjamin Argueta, Jacqueline Da Costa Zieff, Jose Carlos
Maciel, Bruno Graziani, Renato Ribeiro, Erasmo Barroso, Lair
Fernandes, Layza Duarte, Lyvia M. Wanzeler, Rodrigo Montemor, Roni
Yasmine, Rudnei Da Silva, Vagner Dantas Silva, Wagner Weihrauch,
Julio Silva, Jose Neto, Julio C. Paz, Euzebio Sudre Neto, Hugo
Alvarado, Ana R. Ramos, Ruddy Abreau, Marco Almeida, Laureano
Arellano, Aaron Ataide, Rosane Cruz, Omar Quinonez, Carlo DeJesus,
Bilkish Sunesara, Andres Bolivar Estevez, Jose Lopez, Ana Rosa
Lopez, Frantz Balan, Marcelo Dasilva, Benerando Contreras,Gladys
Alvardo, Steven M. Labriola, Carlos Costa, Sanderley Rodrigues De
Vasconcelos, Santiago De La Rosa; Randy N. Crosby, Defendants,
Case No. 4:16-cv-40018, (D. Mass., February 24, 2016), alleges
that the Defendants operated an illegal and fraudulent scheme
whereby they sold "memberships," ostensibly paid its "promoters"
for placing duplicative and meaningless advertisements for a
"voice over internet protocol" product, and in reality paid them
to recruit other investors whose new membership fees kept the
scheme afloat.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
     Lisa Sleboda, Esq.
     Robert Lam, Esq.
     Ernesto Ganaden, Esq.
     BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
     3771 Meadowcrest Drive
     Las Vegas, NV 89121
     Tel: (781) 856-7650
     Email: rbonsignore@classactions.us
            lsleboda@classactions.us

          - and -

     Ronald A. Dardeno, Esq.
     Alexander D. Wall, Esq.
     Law Offices of Frank N. Dardeno
     424 Broadway
     Somerville, MA 02145
     Tel: (617) 666-2600
     Email: rdardeno@dardeno.com
            awall@dardeno.com

          - and -

     William R. Baldiga, Esq.
     Jill C. Wexler, Esq.
     Brown Rudnick LLP
     One Financial Center
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617) 856-8586
     Email: wbaldiga@brownrudnick.com
            JWexler@brownrudnick.com

          - and -

     Evans J. Carter, Esq.
     Evans J. Carter, P.C.
     860 Worcester Road, 2nd Floor
     P.O. Box 812
     Framingham, MA 01701
     Tel: (508) 875-1669
     Email: ejcatty1@verizon.net

          - and -

     D. Michael Noonan, Esq.
     Christine M. Craig, Esq.
     Shaheen and Gordon
     140 Washington Street
     P.O. Box 977
     Dover, NH 03821
     Tel: (603) 871-4144
     Email: mnoonan@shaheengordon.com
            ccraig@shaheengordon.com

          - and -

     R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
     Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
     Carl N. Hammarskjold, Esq.
     Saveri & Saveri, Inc.
     706 Sansome Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (4150 217-6810
     Email: rick@saveri.com
            cadio@saveri.com
            carl@saveri.com

          - and -

     Ronald P. Passatempo, Esq.
     Ronald P. Passatempo Law Offices
     200 Broadway
     Lynnfield, MA 01940
     Tel: (781) 596-3100
     Email: passatempolaw@comcast.net

          - and -

     William Coulthard, Esq.
     Michael Gayan, Esq.
     Kemp, Jones & Coulthard, LLP
     Wells Fargo Tower
     3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, 17th Floor
     Las Vegas, NV 89169
     Tel: (702) 385-6000
     Email: w.coulthard@kempjones.com

          - and -

     D. Scott Dulea, Esq.
     Goldberg & Dullea
     5 Briscoe Street
     Beverly, MA 01915
     Tel: (978) 922-4025
     Email: scott@goldberganddulles.com

          - and -

     Jan R. Schlichtmann, Esq.
     Jan R. Schlichtmann, Attorney at Law, PC
     P.O. Box 233
     Prides Crossing, MA 01965
     Tel: (978) 927-1037
     Email: jan@schlichtmannlaw.com

          - and -

     Randall Renick, Esq.
     Hadsell Stormer Richardson & Renick, LLP
     128 N. Fair Oaks Avenue, Suite 204
     Pasadena, CA 91103
     Tel: (626) 381-9261
     Email: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

          - and -

     Adriana Contartese, Esq.
     Law Offices of Adriana Contartese
     Prep Suite 926 19W Flagler Street
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (617) 268-3557
     Email: adriana911@juno.com

          - and -

     Ihuoma Igboanugo, Esq.
     The Crescent Law Practice
     183 Wind Chime Court, Suite 100
     Raleigh, NC 27615
     Tel: (919) 341-9707
     Email: ihuoma2007@yahoo.com

          - and -

     Jack Baldwin, Esq.
     Baldwin & Baldwin, LLP
     400 W. Houston Street
     Marshall, Texas 75670
     Tel: (903) 935-4131
     Email: jbb@baldwinlaw.com

          - and -

     Mark A. Tate, Esq.
     Tate Law Group, LLC
     2 East Bryan Street, Suite 600
     P.O. Box 9060
     Savannah, GA 31412
     Tel: (912) 234-3030
     Email: marktate@tatelawgroup.com

          - and -

     Stephen M. Smith, Esq.
     Brain Injury Law Center
     2100 Kecoughtan Road
     Hampton, VA 23661
     Tel: 877-840-3431
     Email: ssmith@braininjurylawcenter.com


TERRACE MANAGEMENT: "Shaw" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Shaw, Michelle Curtis and Crystal Diaz, individually, and
on behalf of a class of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
Terrace Management, LLC, HF Consulting LLC, PHX SC Management,
Inc., The HF Saunders, Co., LLC, ABC Entities 1-20, Rochelle and
Gerrie Carr, Michael and Christine Hanson, Randal and Heather Dix,
John and Jane Does 1-20, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00065-DCB (D.
Ariz., January 29, 2016), seeks to recover wages and damages for
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et
seq. and the Arizona wage statute, A.R.S. Sec. 23-350.

Defendants transact and conduct business within the State of
Arizona, operating retail beauty salons that offer hair care
services and sell beauty and hair care consumer goods. This is
jointly owned and operated by the Defendants operating under the
name Supercuts.

Plaintiffs work as stylists and they claim overtime for services
rendered off-the-clock.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Merle Joy Turchik, Esq.
      2205 E. Speedway Blvd.
      Tucson, AZ 85719
      Tel: (520) 882-7070

           - and -

      Daniel L. Bonnett, Esq.
      Ravi Patel, Esq.
      1850 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2010
      Phoenix, AZ 85004
      Tel: (602) 240-6900


TGI FRIDAYS: Faces "Calabrese" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Calabrese, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TGI Fridays Inc., Sentinel Capital Partners,
Triartisan Capital Partners, Carlson Companies, and Doe Defendants
1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-00867-ER (E.D. Penn., February 23, 2016) is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of TGI Fridays restaurant
in Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arkady "Eric" Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Telephone:  (215) 364-5030
      Facsimile:  (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com

         - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      Robert J. Gray, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Telephone: (610) 822-3700
      Facsimile: (610) 822-3800
      E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
              rgray@cwg-law.com


TIME INC: Michigan Court Dismissed "Fox" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Time Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that a court has granted Time Inc.'s
motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case by Susan Fox.

On October 3, 2012, Susan Fox filed a class action complaint (the
"Complaint") against Time Inc. in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan alleging violations of
Michigan's Video Rental Privacy Act ("VRPA") as well as claims for
breach of contract and unjust enrichment. The VRPA limits the
ability of entities engaged in the business of selling, renting or
lending retail books or other written materials from disclosing to
third parties certain information about customers' purchase, lease
or rental of those materials. The Complaint alleges that Time Inc.
violated the VRPA by renting to third parties lists of subscribers
to various Time Inc. magazines. The Complaint sought injunctive
relief and the greater of statutory damages of $5,000 per class
member or actual damages.

On December 3, 2012, Time Inc. moved to dismiss the Complaint on
the grounds that it failed to state claims for relief and because
the named plaintiff lacked standing because she suffered no injury
from the alleged conduct. On August 6, 2013, the court granted, in
part, and denied, in part, Time Inc.'s motion, dismissing the
breach of contract claim but allowing the VRPA and unjust
enrichment claims to proceed. On November 11, 2013, Rose Coulter-
Owens replaced Susan Fox as the named plaintiff. On March 13,
2015, the plaintiff filed a motion seeking to certify a class
consisting of all Michigan residents who between March 31, 2009
and November 15, 2013 purchased a subscription to TIME, Fortune or
Real Simple magazines through any website other than Time.com,
Fortune.com and RealSimple.com. On July 27, 2015, the court
granted plaintiff's motion to certify the class, which we estimate
to comprise approximately 40,000 consumers. On August 31, 2015,
Time Inc. and the plaintiff moved for summary judgment and on
October 1, 2015 both parties filed briefs in opposition to their
adversaries' motions. On February 16, 2016, the court granted Time
Inc.'s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case.

Time Inc., is one of the world's leading media companies, with a
monthly global print audience of over 120 million and more than
150 million monthly visitors to its worldwide digital properties,
including over 60 websites.


TLC MANAGEMENT: Sued Over Landlords and Tenants Rights Summary
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey Fox, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. TLC Management Co. and The Regal Apartments, LLC, Case
No. 2016CH01523 (Ill. Ch. Ct., February 8, 2016) is brought
against the Defendants for failure to provide a copy of a separate
summary describing the respective rights, obligations and remedies
of landlords and tenants with respect to security deposits that
was prepared by the Chicago commissioner of the department of
housing.

TLC Management Co. manages and operates the dwelling unit known as
651 S. Wells St, Apt. # 202, Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.

The Regal Apartments, LLC owns the dwelling unit known as 651 S.
Wells St, Apt. # 202, Chicago, Illinois, Cook County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey S. Sobek, Esq.
      JS LAW
      29 E. Madison Street, Suite 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone (312) 756-1330
      E-mail: jeffs@jsslawoffices.com


TRANSUNION: Objecting Counsel Files Interlocutory Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that an objecting counsel is seeking an
interlocutory appeal of this ruling to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the Bankruptcy Tradeline
Litigation.

"In a matter captioned White, et al, v. Experian Information
Solutions, Inc. (No. 05-cv-01070-DOC/MLG, filed in 2005 in the
United States District Court for the Central District of
California), plaintiffs sought class action status against
Equifax, Experian and us in connection with the reporting of
delinquent or charged-off consumer debt obligations on a consumer
report after the consumer was discharged in a bankruptcy
proceeding," the Company said.  The claims allege that each
national consumer reporting company did not automatically update a
consumer's file after their discharge from bankruptcy and such
non-action was a failure to employ reasonable procedures to assure
maximum file accuracy, a requirement of the Fair Credit Reporting
Act.

"Without admitting any wrongdoing, we have agreed to a settlement
of this matter. In August 2008, the Court approved an agreement
whereby we and the other industry defendants voluntarily changed
certain operational practices. These changes require us to update
certain delinquent records when we learn, through the collection
of public records, that the consumer has received an order of
discharge in a bankruptcy proceeding. These business practice
changes did not have a material adverse impact on our operations
or those of our customers.

"In 2009, we also agreed, with the other two defendants, to settle
the monetary claims associated with this matter for $17.0 million
each ($51.0 million in total), which amount will be distributed
from a settlement fund to pay the class counsel's attorney fees,
all administration and notice costs of the fund to the purported
class, and a variable damage amount to consumers within the class
based on the level of harm the consumer is able to confirm. Our
share of this settlement was fully covered by insurance. Final
approval of this monetary settlement by the Court occurred in July
2011.

"Certain objecting plaintiffs appealed the Court's final approval
of the monetary settlement and, in April 2013, the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the final approval
order and remanded the matter to the District Court. The rationale
provided by the United States Court of Appeals was not that the
proposed settlement was unfair or defective, but that named class
counsel and certain named plaintiffs did not adequately represent
the interests of the class because of certain identified
conflicts. Objecting counsel to the settlement has sought to
become new class counsel and the District Court has denied this
request. Objecting counsel is currently seeking an interlocutory
appeal of this ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit.

"If the monetary settlement is not ultimately upheld, we expect to
vigorously litigate this matter and to assert what we believe are
valid defenses to the claims made by the plaintiffs. Regardless of
what occurs next, we believe we have not violated any law, have
valid defenses and are willing to aggressively litigate this
matter. We do not believe any final resolution of this matter will
have a material adverse effect on our financial condition."


TRANSUNION: "Patel" Suit Stayed Pending Ruling in Spokeo
--------------------------------------------------------
TransUnion said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that proceedings in the "Patel" class
action lawsuit has been stayed pending the Supreme Court's ruling
in Spokeo v. Robins.

The Company said, "As a result of a decision by the United States
Third Circuit Court of Appeals in 2010 (Cortez v. Trans Union
LLC), we modified one of our add-on services we offer to our
business customers that was designed to alert our customer that
the consumer, who was seeking to establish a business relationship
with the customer, may potentially be on the Office of Foreign
Assets Control, Specifically Designated National and Blocked
Persons alert list (the "OFAC Alert"). The OFAC Alert service is
meant to assist our customers with their compliance obligations in
connection with the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism
(USA PATRIOT) Act of 2001."

"In Ramirez v. Trans Union LLC, (No. 3:12-cv-00632-JSC, United
States District Court for the Northern District of California)
that was filed in 2012, the plaintiff has alleged that: the OFAC
Alert service does not comply with the Cortez ruling; we have
willfully violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") and the
corresponding California state-FCRA based on the Cortez ruling by
continuing to offer the OFAC Alert service; and there are one or
more classes of individuals who should be entitled to statutory
damages (i.e., $100 to $5,000 per person) based on the allegedly
willful violations.

In addition to the Ramirez action, the same lawyers representing
Ramirez (who also represented the plaintiff in Cortez) filed two
additional alleged class actions in 2012 (Miller v. Trans Union,
LLC, No. 12-1715-WJN, United States District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania; and Larson v. Trans Union, LLC, No. 12-
5726-JSC, United States District Court for the Northern District
of California) and one in 2014 (Amit Patel, et al. v. TransUnion
LLC, TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, Inc. and TransUnion
Background Data Solutions, No. 14-cv-0522-LB, United States
District Court for the Northern District of California) claiming
that our process for disclosing OFAC information to consumers, or
how we match OFAC information to a consumer's name or other
identifying information, violates the FCRA and, in some instances,
the corresponding California state-FCRA.

In addition to the OFAC allegations, the plaintiff in the Patel
action seeks to collapse all TransUnion FCRA regulated entities
into a single entity.

"In July 2014, the Court in Ramirez certified a class of
approximately 8,000 individuals solely for purposes of statutory
damages if TransUnion is ultimately found to have willfully
violated the FCRA, and a sub-class of California residents solely
for purposes of injunctive relief under the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act. While the Court noted that the
plaintiff is not seeking any actual monetary damage, the class
certification order was predicated on a disputed question of Ninth
Circuit law (currently there is a conflict between the federal
circuits) that is awaiting action by the United States Supreme
Court. Our motions to stay the Ramirez, Miller and Larson
proceedings have been granted and the proceedings stayed pending
action by the U.S. Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins.

"In June 2015, the Court in Patel certified a national class of
approximately 11,000 individuals claiming TransUnion willfully
violated the FCRA by failing to maintain and follow reasonable
procedures to ensure the maximum possible accuracy of their
information, and a national subclass of approximately 3,000
individuals claiming TransUnion willfully violated the FCRA by
failing to provide consumers with all information in their files.

"In September 2015, our motion to stay the Patel proceedings was
granted and the proceedings stayed pending action by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Spokeo v. Robins. We intend to continue to defend
these matters vigorously as we believe we have acted in a lawful
manner."

TransUnion is a global risk and information solutions provider to
businesses and consumers.


TRAVELERS HOME: "Tkachyk" Suit Removed to D. Montana
----------------------------------------------------
Sara Tkachyk, individually and on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Travelers Home & Marine Ins.
Company, The Charter Oak Fire Ins. Company, Northland Cas.
Company, Northland Ins. Company, Phoenix Ins. Company, St. Paul
Fire & Marine Ins. Company, St. Paul Mercury Ins. Company, The
Standard Fire Ins. Company, Travelers Cas. Ins. Company of
America, Travelers Commercial Ins. Company, The Travelers Indem.
Company, Travelers Indem. Company of America, The Travelers Indem.
Company of Connecticut, Travelers Prop. Casualty Company of
America, and Roderick McNeil, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-00028-
DLC, (D. Mont., February 24, 2016), alleges violation of insurance
contract.

The case is assigned to Judge Dana L. Christensen.

The case was removed from the Montana Eleventh Judicial District
Court, Flathead County, case number DV-16-029D, on February 24,
2016.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alan J. Lerner, Esq.
     LERNER LAW FIRM
     PO Box 1158
     Kalispell, MT 59903-1158
     Tel: (406) 756-9100
     Fax: (406) 756-9105
     Email: lerner@lernerlawmt.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Marshal L. Mickelson, Esq.
     CORETTE BLACK CARLSON & MICKELSON
     129 West Park Street
     PO Box 509
     Butte, MT 59703
     Tel: (406) 782-5800
     Fax: (406) 723-8919
     Email: mmick@cpklawmt.com


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Defending Illinois Suits Related to ET Plus
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is aware
of four class action lawsuits involving claims pertaining to the
ET Plus.

The Company has been served in a lawsuit filed November 6, 2014,
titled Hamilton County, Illinois and Macon County, Illinois,
Individually and on behalf of all Other Counties in the State of
Illinois vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 3:14-cv-1320 (Southern District of
Illinois). This complaint was later amended to substitute St.
Clair County, Illinois for Hamilton County as a lead plaintiff.
The case is being brought by plaintiffs for and on behalf of
themselves and the other 101 counties of the State of Illinois.

The plaintiffs allege that the Company and Trinity Highway
Products made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus
and falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for
use on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards
and approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiffs also
allege breach of implied warranties, violation of the Illinois
Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act and unjust enrichment, for
which plaintiffs seek actual damages related to purchases of the
ET Plus, compensatory damages for establishing a common fund for
class members, punitive damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive
relief.

This lawsuit was previously stayed by order of the Court. On
September 30, 2015, the Court lifted the stay on this action.

Trinity Industries, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a diversified industrial
company that owns a variety of market-leading businesses providing
products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical, and
construction sectors.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Canada Suits Related to ET Plus Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed February 11, 2015 titled The Corporation
of the City of Stratford and Trinity Industries, Inc., Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada, Inc., Case
No. 15-2622 CP, pending in Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The
alleged class in this matter has been identified as persons in
Canada who purchased and/or used an ET Plus guardrail end
terminal. The plaintiff alleges that Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Trinity Highway Products, LLC, and Trinity Industries Canada,
Inc., failed to warn of dangers associated with undisclosed
modifications to the ET Plus guardrail end terminals, breached an
implied warranty, breached a duty of care, and were negligent. The
plaintiff is seeking $400 million in compensatory damages and $100
million in punitive damages. Alternatively, the plaintiff claims
the right to an accounting or other restitution remedy for
disgorgement of the revenues generated by the sale of the modified
ET Plus in Canada.

Trinity Industries, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a diversified industrial
company that owns a variety of market-leading businesses providing
products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical, and
construction sectors.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Wisconsin Suit Over ET Plus Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed February 25, 2015, titled La Crosse
County, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity Highway
Products, LLC, Case No. 15-cv-117 (Western District of Wisconsin).
The case is being brought by the plaintiffs for and on behalf of
themselves and all other purchasers of allegedly defective ET
Pluses, including proposed statewide and nationwide classes. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products
made a series of un-tested modifications to the ET Plus and
falsely certified that the modified ET Plus was acceptable for use
on the nation's highways based on federal testing standards and
approval for federal-aid reimbursement. The plaintiff also alleges
strict liability design defect, breach of contract, breach of
express and implied warranties, violation of the Wisconsin Uniform
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and unjust enrichment. The
plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is
defective, actual damages related to class-wide purchases of the
ET Plus, punitive damages, statutory penalties, interest,
attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief.

Trinity Industries, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a diversified industrial
company that owns a variety of market-leading businesses providing
products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical, and
construction sectors.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Faces Missouri Action Related to ET Plus
------------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has been
served in a lawsuit filed November 5, 2015, titled Jackson County,
Missouri, individually and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated vs. Trinity Industries, Inc. and Trinity
Highway Products, LLC, Case No. 1516-CV23684 (Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri). The case is being brought by plaintiff
for and on behalf of themselves and all Missouri counties with the
population of 10,000 or more persons, including the City of St.
Louis, and the State of Missouri's transportation authority. The
plaintiff alleges that the Company and Trinity Highway Products
did not disclose design changes to the ET Plus and these allegedly
undisclosed design changes made the ET Plus allegedly defective,
unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous. The plaintiff alleges product
liability negligence, product liability strict liability, and
negligently supplying dangerous instrumentality for supplier's
business purposes. The plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, and in the alternative
plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that the ET Plus is
defective, the Company's conduct was unlawful, and class-wide
costs and expenses associated with removing and replacing the ET
Plus throughout Missouri.

Trinity Industries, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a diversified industrial
company that owns a variety of market-leading businesses providing
products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical, and
construction sectors.


TRINITY INDUSTRIES: Nemky and Isolde Cases Consolidated
-------------------------------------------------------
Trinity Industries, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Nemky and Isolde
shareholder class actions have been consolidated in the District
Court for the Northern District of Texas.

Thomas Nemky, Individually and On Behalf of All Other Similarly
Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R. Wallace, and
James E. Perry, Case No. (2:15-CV-00732) was filed in U.S.
District Court in the Eastern District of Texas on May 15, 2015
("Nemky").  Richard J. Isolde, Individually and On Behalf of All
Other Similarly Situated v. Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry, Case No. (3:15-CV-2093) was filed in
U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Texas on June 19,
2015 ("Isolde"). The complaints in the Nemky and Isolde cases
allege that defendants Trinity Industries, Inc., Timothy R.
Wallace, and James E. Perry violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and/or
by failing to disclose material facts about Trinity's ET Plus and
the FCA case styled Joshua Harman, on behalf of the United States
of America, Plaintiff/Relator v. Trinity Industries, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:12-cv-00089-JRG (E.D. Tex.).

On September 21, 2015, the District Court in the Eastern District
of Texas appointed the Department of the Treasury of the State of
New Jersey and its Division of Investment as the lead plaintiff in
the Nemky case. On October 5, 2015, the District Court in the
Eastern District of Texas granted the Company's, Mr. Wallace's,
and Mr. Perry's motion to transfer venue to the Northern District
of Texas in the Nemky case. The Nemky case was transferred to the
District Court in the Northern District of Texas on November 3,
2015.

On December 8, 2015, the District Court in the Northern District
of Texas denied as moot the motion by the Department of the
Treasury of the State of New Jersey and its Division of Investment
to transfer venue to the Eastern District of Texas in the Isolde
case.  On January 11, 2016, the Nemky and Isolde cases were
consolidated in the District Court for the Northern District of
Texas, with all future filings to be filed in the Isolde case.
Trinity, Mr. Wallace, and Mr. Perry deny and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations in the Isolde case.

Trinity Industries, Inc. and its consolidated subsidiaries,
headquartered in Dallas, Texas, is a diversified industrial
company that owns a variety of market-leading businesses providing
products and services to the energy, transportation, chemical, and
construction sectors.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Challenges Lead Plaintiff's Bid to Withdraw
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Donald Trump has opposed a woman's request to withdraw as lead
plaintiff in a six-year-long class action accusing him of
defrauding students at Trump University.

Tarla Makaeff asked to withdraw as class representative and named
plaintiff on Feb. 8, citing health problems, family loss and
financial troubles in the years since she filed the class action
on April 30, 2010.

"Trump was a celebrity when the case was filed, but no one could
have anticipated that he would become a viable presidential
candidate and a 24/7 media obsession as this case neared trial,"
Makaeff said in her motion to withdraw from the federal class
action in San Diego.

"Subjecting herself to the intense media attention and likely
barbs from Trump and his agents and followers simply would not be
healthy for her," she added.

A hearing on Makaeff's motion to withdraw is scheduled for March
11.

When Makaeff sued Trump and Trump University in 2010, she said she
had spent $60,000 for a classes and seminars she called little
more than infomercials.  The class was certified in 2014 to
include all people who purchased a Trump University three-day live
workshop or program in California, New York and Florida, and have
not received a full refund.

Makaeff says she has been "put through the wringer in this case,"
from her "very public battle with Trump over his million-dollar
counterclaim," enduring stress, anxiety and fears of retaliation.
She says she sat through four deposition sessions in 2012 and 2014
for more than 15-1/2 hours.  Makaeff says that vitriol from Trump
has affected her opportunities as a writer, and forced her to seek
work in a new field.

Makaeff's attorneys in December asked Trump's attorneys to
stipulate to her withdrawal on the same terms as former plaintiffs
who left the class action, but Trump declined the proposal in
January.

In his Feb. 26 opposition to her motion to withdraw, Trump says
dismissing Makaeff and allowing her to revoke her commitment to
testify at trial would cause "irremediable prejudice" to him and
Trump University. He calls Makaeff the "critical witness in this
case."

His 28-page opposition, with redactions on six pages, says there
is "no basis whatsoever to insulate her from trial." Trump claims
Makaeff gave his program "high praise," leading her to sign up for
the "Trump Gold Elite" three-day mentoring program which cost just
under $35,000.

Trump claims Makaeff failed in her real estate endeavors through
no fault of Trump University, but from Makaeff's "own lack of
effort."  Trump also claims the class plaintiffs have "played a
game of musical chairs," as other plaintiffs have entered and left
the class during the 6 years of litigation.

Trump says Makaeff's allegations were the most robust of any
plaintiff, and were used to achieve and maintain class
certification and avoid dismissal.

Discovery has been closed for 14 months, and much of Trump's is
based on Makaeff's testimony and promise to testify at trial, he
says.

"Makaeff brought this lawsuit, allowed herself to become the
public poster child for it, and should be required to finish what
she started," Trump says in his opposition memo.

Trump added that if Makaeff is no longer willing to perform as
class representative or attend trial, the case should be dismissed
and he should be awarded costs of litigation, including vacating
the anti-SLAPP award of attorney's fees and costs already granted
to Makaeff in trump's $1 million counterclaim against her.

Makaeff's motion included a proposed order that would prevent
Trump from making good on his threats to file suit against her
individually or her attorneys, preventing Trump from using her
withdrawal as the basis for a claim for attorneys' fees, costs and
other claims.

Makaeff requested to retain her right to share in any class
recovery by way of a settlement or trial if the court grants her
motion for dismissal.

The court denied Trump's motion for summary judgment in November,
putting the case on track to go to trial sometime this year.

Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli declined to comment, as did
attorneys at Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, who represent the
class.

It's not the only case against Trump University.

A state appeals court gave New York Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman more time to argue fraud claims against Trump
University, stemming from an investigation of profit-seeking
universities and trade schools in New York.

                           *     *     *

D'Angelo Gore, writing for FactCheck.org, reports that businessman
Donald Trump has made false and misleading claims in response to
attacks on "Trump University," a now defunct program that offered
tips on real estate to paying customers.

Mr. Trump said that the so-called university "had an A rating from
the Better Business Bureau."  Actually, it once had an "A+"
rating, according to a Better Business Bureau spokeswoman.  But
its most recent rating was a "D-."

Mr. Trump claimed that "many of" the university's instructors were
"handpicked" by him.  That's not true.  In a 2012 deposition, a
top executive for Trump University said that "none of our
instructors" was picked by Trump himself.

Mr. Trump said that "98 percent of the people that took the
courses . . . thought they were terrific."  That's misleading.  A
class-action lawsuit against Mr. Trump alleges that the surveys
were not anonymous and were filled out during or immediately after
sessions when participants were still expecting to receive future
benefits from the program.

Mr. Trump, who is campaigning for the Republican Party's
nomination for president, made each of those claims during an
interview Feb. 28 on "Fox News Sunday."  Anchor Chris Wallace had
asked Trump to respond to an ad from American Future Fund, an
issue advocacy group, that features Sherri Simpson saying that the
program she paid to participate in turned out to be "a fake."

Mr. Trump and his "university," which was never officially
licensed as such and eventually had to change its name to The
Trump Entrepreneur Initiative in May 2010, are the subjects of
three ongoing lawsuits alleging fraud.  One $40 million lawsuit
was filed by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman in 2013,
and two other class-action lawsuits have been filed by former
participants who paid thousands of dollars for the courses and are
seeking reimbursement.

Better Business Bureau Rating

Mr. Trump told Mr. Wallace that his program "had an 'A' rating
from the Better Business Bureau," a nonprofit organization that
reviews millions of businesses by request and rates them on a
scale from "A+ to F."

The BBB website does not currently list a rating for The Trump
Entrepreneur Initiative. It says that is "because BBB has
information indicating it is out of business."

But, in a statement to a reporter with PolitiFact.com, a Better
Business Bureau spokeswoman said that "over the years, the
company's BBB rating has fluctuated between an 'A+' and a 'D-.'
"The spokeswoman declined to say when the program received the
"A+" rating.

However, the most recent rating that we could find for the program
was a "D-" in 2010.  That is based on news reports from the
Washington Post and the New York Times in 2011, and the
New York Daily News and the BBB's own website in 2010, as recorded
by the Internet Archive's Wayback Machine.

Instructors Not Handpicked by Trump

In a video promoting the old Trump University, which was formed as
a for-profit company in 2004, Trump said that the educational
program would have "professors and adjunct professors" that were
"handpicked" by him.

But Mr. Trump didn't personally select "all people" on staff, as
he claimed in the promotional video, or even "many" of them, as he
said during the recent interview on "Fox News Sunday."

Michael Sexton, the former president of Trump University, who was
deposed in 2012 for a civil case against Trump and the real estate
program, admitted that the course instructors were not personally
approved by Mr. Trump.

Mr. Trump's attorneys have created a website called
98percentapproval.com, which claims to provide "over 10,000
surveys from Trump University students demonstrating their
overwhelming satisfaction with the program."  The website states
that "98% of Trump University students rated the program
'excellent.' "On Twitter, Trump says, "Trump University has a 98%
approval rating."

That includes surveys filled out by Kevin Scott and Bob Guillo,
two men who each spent more than $30,000 to attend seminars
offered by "Trump University" and who are featured in separate ads
also paid for by the American Future Fund.  In the ads, Scott and
Mr. Guillo voice their displeasure with having paid to take the
classes and say that they were "scammed" by Trump and call him "a
fraud."

In response, the Trump campaign has pointed out that both Scott
and Mr.  Guillo gave the program positive reviews, and the
campaign has called on the American Future Fund to retract the
advertisements.

While it may be the case that many attendees initially filled out
positive evaluations, one of the class-action lawsuits alleges
that the surveys were filled out under pressure or with the
expectation that participants would receive additional benefits in
the future.

As the Washington Post Fact Checker pointed out, Scott said that
he gave his course instructor a positive review "because I did not
think that the problems with the mentorship were his fault." Scott
added that he told his mentor that "he was courteous and
professional, but that I did not see any results."

Mr. Guillo, on the other hand, said that he gave his instructor a
positive assessment "because I believed that that was the only way
to get my Certificates of Completion for the seminars that I
attended."  Mr. Guillo stated that "the evaluations did not
reflect my actual opinions on the courses."

So, Mr. Trump isn't telling the whole story when he says that "98
percent of the people that took the courses . . .thought they were
terrific."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Adzhemyan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Armen Adzhemyan, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., LP and Does
1-20, inclusive, Case No. BC608874 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 3,
2016) is brought against the Defendants for failure pay drivers'
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Uber Technologies Inc. operates an online taxi dispatch company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
      Thom E. Smith, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com
              tsmith@audetlaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Aquino" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gilbert Aquino, et al. v. Uber Technologies Inc., LP and Does 1-
20, inclusive, Case No. BC608873 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 3,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure pay drivers'
minimum and overtime wages in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Uber Technologies Inc. operates an online taxi dispatch company
headquartered in San Francisco, California.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark E. Burton, Jr., Esq.
      Thom E. Smith, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: mburton@audetlaw.com
              tsmith@audetlaw.com


UBERX: Jefferson Parish Taxicab Drivers File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Littice Bacon-Blood, writing for NOLA.com, reports that nineteen
taxicab drivers have filed a lawsuit alleging that Uber drivers
are illegally picking up customers of the ride-booking service in
Jefferson Parish.  The suit, filed Feb. 29 in the 24th Judicial
District Court, asks a judge to stop the eight defendants and
seeks class action status, because it says thousands of UberX
drivers are deliberately undercutting regulated taxi drivers by
charging lower fares.

A similar suit was filed by cab drivers in New Orleans against
UberX drivers.  The suits are part of a continuing feud between
local cab drivers and those driving for Uber.

The Jefferson Parish government also has a suit pending against
the company, in which parish officials allege that the UberX
drivers and car owners violated parish ordinances that govern
vehicles for hire, including provisions for permitting,
inspections, taxi meters and charging unregulated fares. That suit
is pending, while the two sides try to negotiate a settlement.

Jefferson Parish's Uber lawsuit to be postponed, likely to spring

The new suit charges that the UberX drivers are violating parish
law because they have not obtained the required permits to
operate, nor have they followed requirements such as background
checks, drug tests, and statutory fare pricing. Violation of the
ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a $500 fine, six months
in jail or both.

The suit also alleges the UberX drivers are violating Louisiana's
unfair trade practices act because they failed to comply with
Jefferson's permitting requirements while the plaintiffs have
borne the compliance costs.  The suit seeks a jury trial and
monetary damages from the individual drivers.

In seeking class action status for their suit, the plaintiffs say
that based on New Orleans records there are an estimated 4,000 to
5,000 UberX drivers in the New Orleans area, with abut 2,000 in
Jefferson Parish.  The suit alleges that many of those drivers are
not properly permitted and that "all are participating in the
illegal pricing scheme" of lowering fares during non-peak hours.

A hearing is scheduled March 16 before Judge Ellen Kovach.


ULTRAMAR LTD: Still Defends Price-Fixing Claims in Canada
---------------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Ultramar Ltd., Valero
Energy Corporation's principal Canadian subsidiary ("Ultramar"),
continues to defend price-fixing class actions in Canada.

Ultramar, four of its then current and former employees and
several competitors were named as defendants in four class actions
alleging that Ultramar and the other named competitors engaged in
illegal price fixing in four distinct markets in the province of
Quebec. The cases were filed in June 2008 following an
investigation by the Canadian Competition Bureau, which resulted
in limited guilty pleas by Ultramar and two former employees and
charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators. The guilty
pleas followed an extensive government investigation and was
confined to a limited time period and limited geographic area
around Thetford Mines and Victoriaville in Quebec.

As a result, four class actions were filed on the same day in the
matters of (i) Simon Jacques vs. Ultramar et al in the Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec City, (ii) Daniel Thouin/
Marcel Lafontaine vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec,
District of Montreal, (iii) Michael Jeanson et al vs. Ultramar et
al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of Hull and (iv) Thibeau
vs. Ultramar et al, Superior Court of Quebec, District of
Montreal.

As required, pursuant to the civil procedure rules in effect, the
first filed claim is given priority, and the others are suspended
pending final judgment on the first filed claim. The plaintiffs'
lawsuits alleged the existence of a conspiracy beyond the scope of
the time and geographic regions of the guilty pleas.

Hearings on class suitability took place in September 2009, and in
November 2009 and the court allowed plaintiffs to assert claims
for a time range of 2002 to 2006, but limited the geographic area
of the claims to the four limited markets, which were the subject
of the investigation by the Competition Bureau. Plaintiffs amended
their claims to assert claims, which include claims for 2001 and
claims for interest and attorneys fees.

"During the fourth quarter of 2012, we concluded a loss was
probable and reasonably estimable and as such, we recorded an
immaterial loss contingency liability for the amount we believe
could be assessed against Ultramar. Due to the inherent
uncertainty of litigation, we believe it is reasonably possible
that CST may suffer a loss in excess of the amount recorded that
could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations,
financial position or liquidity with respect to one or more of the
lawsuits. Ultramar intends to vigorously contest the scope of
alleged liability and damages," the Company said.

CST is a holding company and conducts substantially all of its
operations through its subsidiaries. CST was incorporated in
Delaware in 2012, formed solely in contemplation of the spin-off
of the retail business of Valero.  CST is one of the largest
independent retailers of motor fuel and convenience merchandise in
the U.S. and eastern Canada.


ULTRAMAR LTD: Still Defends "Thouin" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
CST Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 19, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Ultramar Ltd., Valero
Energy Corporation's principal Canadian subsidiary ("Ultramar"),
continues to defend the class action by Daniel Thouin.

"On June 10, 2011, Ultramar and several other defendants were
served with a "new" amended motion to institute a class action in
the matter of Daniel Thouin v. Ultramar Ltd., et al., Superior
Court of Quebec, District of Quebec. On September 6, 2012, the
Superior Court of Quebec authorized the class action to be
extended to 14 additional cities/regions of the Province of
Quebec, which were beyond the scope of the Competition Bureau's
investigation and the guilty pleas by Ultramar and former
employees.

An investigation by the Canadian Competition Bureau resulted in
limited guilty pleas by Ultramar and two former employees and
charges laid against several alleged co-conspirators.

"CST does not believe that a loss for this claim is either
probable or estimable at this time and intends to vigorously
defend these claims," the Company said.  "An estimate of the
possible loss or range of loss from an adverse result in all or
substantially all of these cases cannot be reasonably made due to
a number of factors, the most significant of which is that no
amount of damages has been specified by the plaintiffs."

CST is a holding company and conducts substantially all of its
operations through its subsidiaries. CST was incorporated in
Delaware in 2012, formed solely in contemplation of the spin-off
of the retail business of Valero.  CST is one of the largest
independent retailers of motor fuel and convenience merchandise in
the U.S. and eastern Canada.


UNITED DEV'T: K&T Says Investors to Recover More Via Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Securities Arbitration Law Firm of Klayman & Toskes, P.A.
("K&T") on March 2 provided notice to all United Development
Funding IV investors with full-service brokerage accounts.  Class
action lawsuits have been filed against company and its officers
only.  Investors with full-service brokerage firms should consider
all investment loss recovery options including, claims filed with
the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority ("FINRA") for sales
practice violations.  According to a study conducted by K&T,
investors can expect to recover only a small fraction of their
estimated damages through participation in a class action lawsuit.

According to securities attorney Steven D. Toskes, Esq., "The
greater the investment loss, the more viable an individual
securities arbitration claim becomes for recovery of investment
losses.  An individual arbitration claim filed with FINRA
increases the likelihood of a larger recovery of your investment
loss."  Mr. Toskes explains, "An individual securities arbitration
claim for sales practice violations is based on facts specific to
the handling of an individual investor's entire brokerage account.
As a result, investor-specific considerations provide the basis
for recovery of losses from all of the securities held with a
brokerage firm."

Brokerage firms that sold and marketed investments in United
Development Funding IV were obligated to conduct adequate due
diligence of facts concerning the risks associated with the
investments, including fraud.  Investors in United Development
Funding IV investors were told that these securities were suitable
for current income investment objectives.  Brokerage firms are
obligated to give, and investors are entitled to rely upon
brokerage firms for, suitable and competent investment advice in
accordance with FINRA rules and regulations.  Recommendations of
unsuitable investments and/or failure to conduct adequate due
diligence are both causes of action that form the basis for
individual securities arbitration claims filed with FINRA.

                   About Klayman & Toskes, P.A.

K&T is a national securities law firm which practices exclusively
in the field of securities arbitration and litigation, on behalf
of retail and institutional investors such as non-profit
organizations, public and multi-employer pension funds in large
and complex securities matters.  K&T has office locations in
California, Florida, New York and Puerto Rico.


UNITED KINGDOM: NHS Faces Class Action Over PMS Funding Cuts
------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Lind, writing for Pulse, reports that patients of a GP
practice in Norfolk are considering joining a 'class action' legal
challenge against NHS England over PMS funding cuts.

Vida Healthcare, a GP partnership that runs six surgeries in Lynn,
Downham, Dersingham and Hunstanton with a combined 37,000
patients, has been told it will lose at least GBP250,000 in
funding each year over the next four years following its PMS
review.

An initial appeal against the decision was refused by NHS England,
but partner Dr Gareth Allen told Pulse a second appeal will now be
reviewed by the health secretary.

But he said there was a separate legal challenge being brought
about by the four patient groups linked to the practice, who are
in talks with other patients bringing legal challenges against PMS
cuts on the basis that commissioners failed to consult them before
deciding to reduce funding.

Dr. Allen said: "We are going for a second appeal which I am told
is going to go to the secretary of state.  But we felt we needed
to let our patient groups know what was happening, because they
had not been consulted, and they decided to challenge it as well.
They are writing to MPs, going to the papers."

Patient group representatives told Lynn News, which reported the
story, that they would try lobbying MPs and senior NHS England
bosses before making a final decision whether to take part in
legal action brought by a patient of the Slaithwaite Surgery in
Huddersfield last November, which was exclusively revealed by
Pulse.

Dr. Allen said: "They have been in contact and discussed their
patient's legal challenge through the High Court because of the
lack of consultation.  So I think the PPGs are thinking about
getting involved in that class action, but that is their
initiative, not mine. "

Dr. Allen also said the practice had not been given reasons why
the funding was cut, just that it was "part of the review" but
that a couple of the surgeries stood to lose deprivation payments.

He said that if the cuts went ahead, the practice would have to
stop providing additional services for which it was not funded,
such as for example insulin initiation and drug dependency
clinics.

He said there were no definite answers yet as to what services may
be reduced, but added: "There is no question that we can't go on
providing services that we are not funded for."

In a letter to NHS England, the patient groups said: 'We believe
that there is a statutory duty on NHS England to consult publicly
before cutting vital funding to patient services for 37,000
people.  This has not happened. Because of NHSE's failure to
consult, we are now taking advice on pursuing this matter, with
the intention of becoming party to an existing, patient-led legal
challenge in the High Court against NHS England."

Ruth Derrett, locality director for NHS England (East) said: 'We
can confirm that Vida Healthcare has formally appealed against the
results of the PMS review and this appeal will now be reviewed by
the Family Health Services Appeal Unit (FHSAU) which is tasked
with the prompt and fair resolution of appeals between NHS England
and primary care contractors.  As this is part of a legal process
it would not be appropriate for us to comment further.'

A spokesperson for NHS West Norfolk CCG said: 'Working in
partnership, NHS England, NHS West Norfolk CCG and the Norfolk and
Waveney LMC have met with Vida Healthcare to discuss the PMS
review, a national process all PMS practices have had to
undertake, with discussions focused on the continued delivery of
high quality patient-centred services.

"As per national guidance, the funding released from the PMS
review process will be reinvested locally to support all GP
practices within the CCG area."

NHS England announced a review of the "premium" funding received
by PMS practices that were not linked to specific services in
2013, in a bid to save GBP260m, which it said was set to be
"redeployed" across all GP practices in the area.  Having got
under way in 2014, these reviews are all due to be completed by
April.


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Weighs Sanctions Against Lawyers
-------------------------------------------------------
John O'Brien, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an Arkansas
federal judge recently held a hearing to weigh sanctioning class
action attorneys, including John Goodson of Keil & Goodson, and
attorneys for the company they sued that he says wasted his
court's time while colluding to push through a controversial
settlement in a different court.

On Feb. 18, U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III held a hearing to
decide whether he will sanction the attorneys who sued insurer
United Services Automobile Association, as well as that company,
for submitting a settlement in another court the day after it was
dismissed from Holmes' court.

Judge Holmes presided over the case for 17 months and said he was
assured the sides were engaged in settlement negotiations.
Eventually, on June 22, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the
case.

But they refiled it the next day in an Arkansas state court, along
with the proposed settlement.

Judge Holmes said it is clear the sides waited to submit the
settlement until the case was moved to a state court to avoid
having the settlement scrutinized under federal court procedures.

Judge Holmes wrote that the attorneys must have realized he would
be diligent in his duty to protect the interests of absent class
members and would be unlikely to approve the settlement.

The settlement "advanced the interests of class counsel (a large
fee award with a clear sailing provision) and defense counsel (a
claims made settlement with onerous claims requirements and a
reversionary fund) while largely failing to protect the interests
of the class, whose members would otherwise be entitled to collect
potentially substantial sums of money from Defendants."

The lawsuit against USAA, which provides insurance for military
members and their families, alleged excessive depreciation costs
figured in insurance claims.

Mr. Goodson is known for a case that came before the U.S. Supreme
Court in 2013.  He had attempted to keep another case in state
court by stipulating that the plaintiffs he represented wouldn't
seek more than $5 million in damages.

Under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, defendants can
transfer state court class actions to federal court if the amount
in controversy exceeds $5 million.

The unanimous Supreme Court said that stipulation wasn't good
enough and that federal courts could compute potential damages on
their own to determine the amount in controversy.

In the USAA case, which ended up in Polk County Circuit Court, a
Little Rock attorney named Robert Trammell, representing four
veterans, asked the court to dismiss the potential settlement.

He wrote, "Everything about this case has a sham aspect to it." He
says there's no way USAA ends up paying out the $3.4 million
attorneys claim the settlement provides to class members.

The Arkansas Times reported that the Polk County court has already
approved $1.85 million in fees for the attorneys.

USAA wrote that it acted in good faith and that all federal rules
and statutes allow what it and the plaintiffs attorneys did.

It also claimed it believes the settlement would have held up to
federal court scrutiny.

Class attorneys say they achieved a favorable settlement for the
class and that sanctions are not warranted.

"Counsel's actions complied with the applicable rules of civil
procedure, were supported by existing case law interpreting the
parties' right to choose their forum, were endorsed by and
consistent with treatises discussing this issue, and were in
accord with the express and implicit approval of other federal
judges in (Arkansas federal courts)," they wrote.


UNITED STATES: Army Wants Fort Detrick Contamination Suit Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Carignan, writing for The Frederick News-Post, reports that
The Army is asking that complaints by current and former Frederick
residents who sued Fort Detrick for wrongful death and suffering
be denied.

Frederick residents and Randy White's family, along with members
of the Kristen Renee Foundation, filed a class-action lawsuit in
August claiming that Fort Detrick's failure to clean up
contaminated soil and groundwater caused the illnesses and deaths
of their relatives.

The plaintiffs are seeking $750 million for wrongful death and
pain and suffering. U.S. Attorney Rod Rosenstein, representing the
Army's interests, asked Feb. 29 that the case be dismissed.
In online court documents, Rosenstein argued that the government
has no particular duty to respond to hazardous substances and the
Army can use its own judgment to decide whether to clean up.

Decades ago, the Army dumped sludge from its former
decontamination plants, ashes from its incinerators, potentially
radioactive sludge from a sewage disposal plant, drums of the
industrial solvent trichloroethylene, chemical materials,
biological materials and herbicides at Area B.

The area is a Fort Detrick property roughly bordered by Shookstown
Road, Rocky Springs Road and Kemp Lane.

The hazardous substances were likely buried at Area B in unlined
pits five or six decades ago.  Rosenstein argued that the Army
made a sensible decision at the time to bury the substances and
continues to make sensible decisions about cleaning them up.

In the early 2000s, Fort Detrick spent millions to dig out the
contents of one of those pits. But further "intrusive" actions
were considered too expensive because of the cost of ensuring
public safety, "estimated at almost a billion dollars," Rosenstein
argued.

In 2008, the Army capped the tops of the remaining pits for a
price of $5.5 million.  Local residents are still concerned that
the bottoms and sides of the pits continue to drain toxins into
the groundwater.

At each meeting of the Fort Detrick Restoration Advisory Board,
when the Army briefs local stakeholders on its current cleanup
activities, residents have been frustrated at the decades-long
process of finding the remaining toxins on Area B.

The Army continues to investigate the size and location of a plume
of chemicals that may have spread through groundwater from the
military property.

Some in the Frederick community believe that many cancer cases in
the residential neighborhoods around Fort Detrick were caused by
that contamination, though the state has been unable to verify the
existence of a cancer cluster.

Randy White, founder of the Kristen Renee Foundation, said many
people who learned about the cancer cluster possibility in a
Feb. 14 News-Post story are now contacting the foundation about
their experiences with cancer and terminal illness related to Fort
Detrick.

Because of the recent influx of attention to the issue, Mr. White
said, he is unsure of the number of people currently involved in
the class-action lawsuit, but estimated it to be close to 200.
In the past two months, 6,300 people have signed a petition asking
Maryland's senators to take another look at a possible cluster.

Mr. Rosenstein argued in court documents that local residents'
claims of suffering were vague, and "allege unspecified acts of
negligence by Fort Detrick that caused unspecified injuries and
occurred at unspecified times."

If dismissed, this case would follow a long pattern of denied
complaints.

A developer's $37 million lawsuit against Fort Detrick was
dismissed in January.

The developer, Waverley View Investors LLC, owns a property
totaling 92.8 acres near the installation.  Its lawyers argued
that Fort Detrick was responsible for cleaning up contaminated
groundwater that had flowed under their property.

Rosenstein is asking the chief judge who dismissed that case to do
the same with this case.

Current and former local residents also filed more than 100 claims
of wrongful deaths and illnesses caused by Fort Detrick, seeking a
total of $3.8 billion.

The garrison denied those claims last March.

Mr. Rosenstein is arguing that Fort Detrick has sovereign immunity
from these types of lawsuits, and White said that's not a
surprise.

"Fort Detrick can huff and puff, and they can say that they're
going to deny every lawsuit," Mr. White said.  "Our legal team is
sharp as they come.  We're going on five years now of fighting
this, but . . . we're not going to stop."


UNITED STATES: Court Partially Grants Class Cert. in "Steele"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia granted in part Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, ADAM STEELE,
et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case
No. 14-1523 (RCL) (D.D.C.).

The lawsuit arises out of the Department of the Treasury and
Internal Revenue Service's (IRS's) requirement that compensated
tax return preparers both obtain and pay for a preparer tax
identification number (PTIN).

Plaintiffs challenge the IRS's PTIN fee, arguing first that
because the PTIN does not represent or confer a "service or thing
of value," the IRS is not permitted to impose any fee at all for
the identifying number. In the alternative, plaintiffs argue that
even if the IRS is authorized to impose a fee for a PTIN, the
amount the IRS charges is excessive and therefore impermissible at
its current level. In terms of relief, plaintiffs seek a judgment
declaring either that the IRS lacks the authority to charge a fee
for a PTIN or that the fee it charges is excessive. Additionally,
plaintiffs seek restitution or return of the PTIN fees collected
by the IRS, or alternatively, simply those fees collected that
exceed the amount authorized by law.
In the motion, named plaintiffs, Adam Steele, Brittany Montrois,
and Joseph Henchman, asked the court to certify under FRCP 23 a
class of "All individuals and entities who have paid an initial
and/or renewal fee for a PTIN, excluding Allen Buckley, Allen
Buckley LLC, and Christopher Rizek."
In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/yIDbuzfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lamberth finding that
plaintiffs have satisfied the requirements of FRCP 23, granted as
to declaratory relief and certify the proposed class under FRCP
23(b)(2) for that portion of the case. With respect to the
restitution plaintiffs seek, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to certify a class, finding that plaintiffs have not demonstrated
the Court has sufficient subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher S. Rizek, Esq. --
crizek@capdale.com -- CAPLIN & DRYSDALE, CHARTERED, Elizabeth S.
Smith, Esq. - esmith@motleyrice.com -- Nathan David Finch, Esq. --
nfinch@motleyrice.com -- & William H. Narwold, Esq. --
bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- MOTLEY RICE, LLC & Deepak Gupta, Esq.
-- deepak@guptawessler.com -- GUPTA BECK PLLC

United States of America is represented by:

     Christopher James Williamson, Esq.
     Vassiliki Eliza Economides, Esq.
     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202)353-1555


UNITED STATES NAVY: Court Finds Plaintiffs' Claims as Time-Barred
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gladys Kessler of the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs' motion for
Modification and/or Clarification of the Court's Decision to
Dismiss Certain Plaintiffs under the Statute of Limitations in the
case captioned, IN RE: NAVY CHAPLAINCY, Case No. 1:07-MC-269 (GK)
(D.D.C.).

Plaintiffs, 65 current and former Non-liturgical Protestant
chaplains in the United States Navy, their endorsing agencies, and
a fellowship of non-denominational Christian evangelical churches,
bring the consolidated action against the Department of the Navy
and several of its officials. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants
discriminated against Non-liturgical Protestant chaplains on the
basis of their religion, maintained a culture of denominational
favoritism in the Navy, and infringed on their free exercise and
free speech rights.

On September 26, 2014, the Court granted Defendants' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment, finding that many of Plaintiffs' claims
were time-barred. The Court also ordered the parties to submit a
joint Notice identifying the remaining claims following its Order.

In the motion, Plaintiffs argue that the Court was incorrect in
its conclusion that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2401(a) is jurisdictional and
does not permit class action tolling.
In her Memorandum Opinion dated February 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/z7yXSVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kessler concluded that
the Court correctly denied Plaintiffs' requests for equitable
tolling because the Court of Appeals has explicitly held that Sec.
2401(a) is jurisdictional, and because the Supreme Court's holding
in Kwai Fun Wong is limited to Sec. 2401 (b), the Court remains
bound by Circuit precedent as it currently exists.

Given Plaintiffs' lack of specificity for why the Court should
further delay dismissing the twelve chaplains who purportedly
sought to join the Adair case in 2002, the Court sees no reason to
withhold dismissal of those plaintiffs whose claims are time-
barred.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Arthur A. Schulcz, Sr., Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ARTHUR A. SCHULCZ SR. PLLC
      2521 Drexel St.
      Vienna, VA

United States Navy is represented by:

     Christopher R. Hall, Esq.
     Eric B. Beckenhauer, Esq.
     Kieran Gavin Gostin, Esq.
     Matthew J.B. Lawrence, Esq.
     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202) 353-1555


URBAN FULFILLMENT SERVICES: "Ragano" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Anita Ragano v. Urban Fulfillment
Services LLC et al., Case No. BC604856, was removed from the Los
Angeles Superior Court - Central District, to the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California (Western Division -
Los Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00479-BRO-JPR to the proceeding.

Urban Fulfillment Services is doing business as Urban Lending
Solutions and erroneously sued As Urban Lending Solutions LLC.
Urban Fulfillment Services offers a wide variety of outsourced
services to its clients, including mortgage and consumer loan
fulfillment, home retention, and call center solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Roland Bainer, Esq.
          Nathan R Yannone, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE AND ASSOCIATES APC
          1970 Broadway 9th Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Carly B Plaskin, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 South Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 689 0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: carly.plaskin@jacksonlewis.com

               - and -

          Mindy S Novick, Esq.
          JACKSON LEWIS LLP
          725 S Figueroa Street Suite 2500
          Los Angeles, CA 90017-5408
          Telephone: (213) 689 0404
          Facsimile: (213) 689 0430
          E-mail: novickm@jacksonlewis.com


VHU EXPRESS: Faces "Benjamin" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eleuterio A. Benjamin, Luis Alonso, and all others similarly
situated v. VHU Express, Inc., Lisa D. Bythewood, and Craig
Bythewood, Case No. 1:16-cv-20642-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 23,
2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a logistics company that operates
throughout Florida and utilize cars, vans, computers, telephones,
phone systems, handheld devices, and other materials and supplies
to engage in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian H. Pollock, Esq.
      FAIRLAW FIRM
      8603 S. Dixie Highway, Suite 408
      Miami, FL 3343
      Telephone: (305) 230-4884
      Facsimile: (305) 230-4844
      E-mail: brian@fairlawattorney.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Chevrolet Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Carriage Chevrolet, Inc. v.
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-00080,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District California (San Francisco). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00296-CRB to the proceeding.

The Carriage Chevrolet case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in
re: Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and
Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On
December 8, 2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2
3.0 Liter diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of
America, Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly
contain software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions
requirements by engaging full emissions controls only when
Official Emissions Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order,
the MDL panel found that the actions in this litigation involve
common questions of fact, and that centralization in the northern
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David J Hodge, Esq.
          38 Miller Ave. No. 157
          Mill Valley, CA 94941

               - and -

          James M. Terrell, Esq.
          James M Stephens, Esq.
          MCCALLUM METHVIN & TERRELL PC
          The Highland Building
          2201 Arlington Avenue South
          Birmingham, AL 35205
          Telephone: (205) 939 3006
          Facsimile: (205) 9390399

               - and -

          Jayne Conroy, Esq.
          Paul Hanly, Esq.
          Sarah Burns, Esq.
          SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC
          112 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 784 6400
          E-mail: jconroy@simmonsfirm.com


VONS COMPANIES: "Moreno" Labor Suit Removed to C.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
J. Moreno, A. Baltazar, J. Costello, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Vons
Companies, Inc., and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00334-JGB-KK, (C.D. Cal., February 24, 2016), alleges
violation of labor laws.

The case was removed from the Riverside Superior Court, case
number RIC1601315 on February 24, 2016, and is assigned to
District Judge Jesus G. Bernal.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     D Alan Harris, Esq.
     Christina Marie Nordsten, Esq.
     David Covington Garrett, Esq.
     Rebecca J. Lee, Esq.
     HARRIS AND RUBLE
     655 North Central Avenue 17th Floor
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (323) 962-3777
     Fax: (323) 962-3004
     Email: aharris@harrisandruble.com
            cnordsten@harrisandruble.com
            dgarrett@harrisandruble.com
            rlee@harrisandruble.com

The Defendant, The Vons Companies, Inc., is represented by:

     Michael F. McCabe, Esq.
     R Brian Dixon, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson PC
     650 California Street 20th Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
     Tel: (415) 433-1940
     Fax: (415) 399-8490
     Email: mmccabe@littler.com
       bdixon@littler.com


VSTYLES INC: Faces "Navarro" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bertha Navarro, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees v. VSTYLES, Inc., and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC609123 (Cal. Super. Ct., February 3, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standard Act.

VSTYLES, Inc. owns and operates hair salons in Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
      Morgan E. Glynn, Esq.
      MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
      249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
      Long Beach, CA 90802
      Telephone: (562) 590-5550
      Facsimile: (562) 590-8400
      E-mail: kmahonev@mahoney-law.net
              mglynn@mahoney-law.net


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Bustamante" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cindy Bustamante, Rita Schmoll, and Barbara Reinbott, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., and Wal-Mart Stores East, L.P. Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01265-GW-AS, (C.D. Cal., February 24, 2016),
alleges that rigorous independent scientific testing has revealed
that Walmart's store-brand "Great Value 100% Grated Parmesan
Cheese," actually consists of at least 7.8% wood pulp, also known
as cellulose, a filler and anti-clumping agent.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., is the owner and operator of various
Walmart stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman, P.C.
     324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (877) 206-4741
     Fax: (866) 633-0228
     Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

          - and -

     Stephen P. DeNittis, Esq.
     DeNITTIS OSEFCHEN, P.C.
     5 Greentree Centre
     525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
     Marlton, NJ 08053
     Tel: (856) 797-9951
     Fax: (856) 797-9978
     Email: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

          - and -

     Derek T. Braslow, Esq.
     Pogust Braslow Millrood, LLC
     Eight Tower Bridge
     161 Washington Street, Suite 940
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Tel: (610) 941-4204
     Fax: (610) 941-4245


WAL-MART STORES: Falsely Marketed Parmesan Cheese, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Moschetta, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. d/b/a Great Value,
Case No. 7:16-cv-01377 (S.D.N.Y., February 23, 2016) is brought on
behalf of all consumers who purchased Great Value Grated Parmesan
Cheese, that were falsely Marketed by the Defendant as 100%
Parmesan Cheese when in fact it contains significant quantities of
adulterants and fillers.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a retail corporation that operates a
chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Jean M. Sedlak, Esq.
      85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 104
      Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
      Telephone: (845) 483-7100
      Facsimile: (888) 749-7747
      E-mail: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


WALT DISNEY: Studios Sued Over Tobacco Products in Movies
---------------------------------------------------------
Jon Chown, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
saying 1 million young lives are at stake, a Bay Area activist
filed a class action in San Francisco against six major movie
studios and the Motion Picture Association of America to try to
stop children from being exposed to tobacco products in movies.

First Amendment notwithstanding, Timothy Forsyth sued Disney,
Paramount, Sony, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, Warner Bros.,
the MPAA and the National Association of Theatre Owners on Feb. 25
in Federal Court.

Forsyth, of Hayward, wants an injunction ordering the defendants
to give any film that depicts smoking an "R" rating, unless it
accurately reflects the dangers of smoking, and required to
certify that no one involved in the production process was given
anything in exchange for using or showing tobacco products on
screen. He also wants more than $5 million in damages.

"According to the scientific evidence, if defendants continue
their current rating of films with tobacco imagery, defendants'
conduct will kill approximately one million children," the
complaint states."

Forsyth claims that the MPAA and the major Hollywood studios have
known since 2003 that exposing youth to tobacco imagery in films
rated G, PG, and PG-13 is one a major cause of children becoming
addicted to nicotine.

Health experts and organizations, including the World Health
Organization and the American Medical Association, have
recommended that smoking in films targeted at youth be eliminated
"so as to substantially and permanently reduce the deadly physical
harm these films pose to young audiences," Forsyth says in the 59-
page lawsuit.

In 2007, he says, 31 state attorneys general wrote letters to the
MPAA and the major studios demanding immediate action to
"eliminate the depiction of tobacco smoking from films accessible
to children and youth. There is simply no justification for
further delay."

But since 2012, thousands of films depicting smoking have been
deemed suitable for children, causing more than 1.1 million
children under 17 to become addicted to nicotine and the premature
death of 360,000 people, Forsyth says in the complaint.

The lawsuit details the long history of tobacco companies and the
film industry, dating back to 1927. In the 1950s, the money moved
to television, until cigarette ads were banned in 1970. Tobacco
companies then began paying for product placement in movies.

From 2003 to 2015, the top 1,870 films featured 34,600 scenes with
tobacco use and less than half were rated R," according to the
complaint.

"Tobacco imagery was featured in half of all top-grossing films
released in the four years 2012-2015," the complaint states, while
citing numerous studies showing the harm this does.

"Films can provide an opportunity to convert a deadly consumer
product into a cool, glamorous and desirable lifestyle necessity
. . . .  The presentation of smoking in films does not reflect
reality. . . .  Because smoking on screen is vivid and because
young people see so many films so often, films are the most
effective method currently available for the tobacco industry to
recruit new smokers," the complaint states, citing a study by the
World Health Organization.

"Defendants, however, have repeatedly assigned, and continue to
assign, their seal of approval and certification that films
intended for children under the age of seventeen are suitable and
appropriate for children under the age of seventeen. Despite
defendants' knowledge of the authoritative, peer reviewed,
scientific evidence that the exposure to tobacco imagery in youth
rated films has caused, and will continue to cause, hundreds of
thousands of children under the age of seventeen in the United
States to become addicted to tobacco every year."

Chris Ortman, vice president of corporate communications for the
Motion Picture Association of America, said he could not comment
on this case because the MPAA has not been served with it yet. But
he said the MPAA was confident the courts would recognize the
MPAA's right to provide information to parents, who can make the
appropriate movie-going decisions for their children.

"For almost 50 years, the MPAA's voluntary film ratings system has
provided parents with advance information about the content of
movies to help them determine what's appropriate for their
children. This system has withstood the test of time because, as
American parents' sensitivities change, so too does the rating
system," Ortman wrote in an email.

"Elements such as violence, language, drug use, and sexuality are
continually re-evaluated through surveys and focus groups to
mirror contemporary concern and to better assist parents in making
the right family viewing choices. And since 2007, the ratings have
taken into account depictions of tobacco use; accompanying
descriptors provide additional information on this subject."

Forsyth says in the lawsuit that the issue hit him when he took
his 12- and 13-year-old children to the movies. He is the son of
Bay Area activist Jim Forsyth, who died at 85 in 2013 after
championing affordable child care, immigration reform,
farmworkers' rights and a nuclear freeze.

He seeks class certification, an injunction, and damages for
fraudulent misrepresentation, private and public nuisance,
negligent misrepresentation, false advertising, unfair
competition, and negligence.

He is represented by:

     Jeffrey Keller, Esq.
     KELLER GROVER LLP
     1965 Market Street
     San Francisco, CA 94103
     Tel: 415-964-2838


WASTEWATER SPECIALTIES: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Brittany Rosenstein v. Wastewater Specialties, L.L.C., Case No.
2:16-cv-00180 (W.D. Lo., February 8, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Wastewater Specialties, L.L.C. provides wastewater services,
vessel and pipeline services and repairs to various petrochemical
and refining facility customers located in southwest
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward J. Fonti, Esq.
      JONES, TETE, FONTI & BELFOUR, L.L.P.
      1135 Lakeshore Drive, 6th Floor
      P. O. Box 1930
      Lake Charles, LA 70602-1930
      Telephone: (337) 439-8315
      Facsimile: (337) 436-5606


WAYNE FARMS: "Avery" Suit Moved from Circuit Ct. to E.D. Ark.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Avery v. Wayne Farms LLC et al.,
Case No. 75-cv-15-00073, was removed from the Yell County Circuit
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-00032-JM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff brought this action under the Arkansas Minimum Wage
Act for declaratory judgment, monetary damages, liquidated
damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and costs,
including reasonable attorneys' fees as a result of Defendant's
commonly applied policy and practice of failing to pay Plaintiff
and all others similarly situated regular wages and overtime
compensation for the hours that they were/are made to work off the
clock for each single workweek.

Wayne Farms produces prepared foods and food products at large
facilities across the United States, including the Danville Plant.
It has annual gross revenues exceeding $500,000.00.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Colleen S. Welch, Esq.
          Jennifer J. Skipper, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400
          Jackson, MS 39201-2133
          Telephone: (601) 965 8183
          Facsimile: (866) 501 9987
          E-mail: cwelch@balch.com
                  jskipper@balch.com

               - and --

          M. Christine Crockett White, Esq.
          FORMAN WATKINS & KRUTZ LLP
          Post Office Box 22608
          Jackson, MS 39225-2608
          Telephone: (601) 974 8741
          E-mail: cwhite@balch.com

               - and --

          R. Pepper Crutcher, Esq.
          BALCH & BINGHAM LLP
          188 East Capitol Street, Suite 1400
          Jackson, MS 39201-2133
          Telephone: (601) 965 8158
          Facsimile: (866) 811 7317
          E-mail: pcrutcher@balch.com

               - and --

          Vincent O. Chadick, Esq.
          Quattlebaum, Grooms & Tull PLLC
          4100 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 310
          Springdale, AR 72762
          Telephone: (479) 444 5208
          Facsimile: (479) 444 5258
          E-mail: vchadick@qgtlaw.com


WELLS FARGO: CA Affirms Approval of Class Action Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Madeleine Flier of the Court of Appeals of
California affirmed the trial court's approval of a $5.6 million
class action settlement with defendant Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in
the case captioned, WILLIAM MOUNT et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Defendant and Respondent,
JAMES COLLINS et al., Objectors and Appellants, Case No. B260585
(Cal. App.).
Plaintiffs Madeline and William Mount filed their putative class
action against Wells Fargo in August 2008. The Mounts alleged
Wells Fargo had surreptitiously recorded or monitored borrowers'
telephone conversations with the bank without informing them or
obtaining their consent to do so. The first cause of action
alleged a violation of California's Invasion of Privacy Act and
sought statutory remedies. The second and third causes of action
alleged negligence and violation of the common law right of
privacy, respectively. Wells Fargo removed the Mount action to
federal court in September 2008, but the federal court remanded
the action to Los Angeles County Superior Court in November 2008.

In spring 2011, the Mounts began informal settlement discussions
with Wells Fargo, and in November 2011, the parties participated
in a settlement conference before the Honorable Peter D. Lichtman
(Ret.). In October 2012, the parties reached an agreement in
principle to settle the claims in the Mount and Hoffman actions.
Wells Fargo agreed to pay a nonreversionary gross settlement of
$5.6 million. The parties allocated $5 million of the gross
settlement fund to class members who Wells Fargo called from July
13, 2006, through October 3, 2008, and $600,000 to class members
who Wells Fargo called from October 4, 2008, through December 31,
2012. Class members could make claims under one or both periods.
The parties agreed to incentive awards of $25,000 each for the
Mounts and $5,000 for Hoffman. They also agreed to attorney fees
and costs for class counsel not to exceed $1,916,667. The
incentive awards, attorney fees and costs, and class administrator
fees and costs would be deducted from the gross settlement fund.

They entered into the settlement agreement in February 2014, and
the Mounts and Hoffman filed their motion for preliminary approval
of the class action settlement in February 2014. The court
permitted them to file a consolidated amended class action
complaint, which added Hoffman as a named plaintiff and alleged
the same theories of recovery as the original Mount complaint. The
court entered a final approval order overruling all objections to
the settlement except the objection to the Mounts' incentive
awards - it reduced their awards from $25,000 each to $10,000
each.
On appeal, Collins and Phillips argue that the Court should
reverse the order of final approval because (1) the class did not
have sufficient opportunity to review and object to class
counsel's fee motions; (2) the opt-in claims procedure was
unnecessary and discouraged claims; (3) the court failed to
provide ways to submit claims other than online; (4) the
settlement agreement released UCL claims not alleged in the
action; and (5) the court awarded unreasonable attorney fees.
In her Order dated February 10, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/plcd8Hfrom Leagle.com, Judge Flier did not disturb
the trial court's judgment that an enhancement was appropriate for
obtaining a $5.6 million settlement fund. Wells Fargo showed any
recovery was uncertain, whether because individualized issues
barred class certification, or because of strong defenses on the
merits.

James Collins, et al. are represented by:

     Elizabeth J. Arleo, Esq.
     ARLEO LAW FIRM
     16870 W Bernardo Dr
     San Diego, CA 92127
     Tel: (858)674-6912

          - and -

     Scott A. Kron, Esq.
     KRON & CARD
     23421 S Pointe Dr #280
     Laguna Hills, CA 92653
     Tel: (949)367-0520

William Mount, et al. are represented by Paul R. Kiesel, Esq. --
kiesel@kbla.com -- Jeffrey A. Koncius, Esq. -- koncius@kbla.com --
KIESEL LAW, Neville Johnson, Esq. & Douglas Johnson, Esq. --
JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Wells Fargo Bank is represented by Mark D. Lonergan, Esq. --
mdl@severson.com -- Jan T. Chilton, Esq. -- jtc@severson.com
Kalama M. Lui-Kwanand, Esq. -- kml@severson.com -- & Erik Kemp,
Esq. -- ek@severson.com -- SEVERSON & WERSON


WESTERN LAND: "Falk" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Falk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Western Land Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00196-
CRE (W.D. Penn., February 23, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Western Land Services, Inc. operates a land brokerage firm that
provides services relating to land servicing needs including but
not limited to abstracting, leasing, surveying, mapping and
operations support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      Sara E. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOC.
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Telephone: (412) 1278-1280
      Facsimile: (412) 1278-1282
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


WESTERN LAND: "Falk" 2nd Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Falk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Western Land Services, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00196-
NBF (W.D. Penn., February 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standard
Act.

Western Land Services, Inc. operates a land brokerage firm that
provides services relating to land servicing needs including but
not limited to abstracting, leasing, surveying, mapping and
operations support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      Sara E. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOC.
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Telephone: (412) 1278-1280
      Facsimile: (412) 1278-1282
      E-mail: linklaw@comcast.net


WESTSIDE AG: Faces "Cardenas" Suit Over Failure to Pay Min. Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Atsiri Cardenas, Honorina Garcia, Andres Gonzalez, Florentina
Pina, Raul Pina, Sergio Velasco, Lupe Alvarez, and Wilmar Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of all other members of the public
similarly situated v. Westside AG, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00255-
LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal., February 23, 2016) is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standard Act.

Westside AG, Inc. is a farm labor contractor that employs seasonal
agricultural workers throughout in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
      Patrick J. Clifford, Esq.
      Christopher Pantel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
      Telephone: (310) 286-0246
      Facsimile: (310) 407-5391


WESTSIDE AG: Faces "Cardenas" 2nd Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Atsiri Cardenas, Honorina Garcia, Andres Gonzalez, Florentina
Pina, Raul Pina, Sergio Velasco, Lupe Alvarez, and Wilmar Ramirez,
individually and on behalf of all other members of the public
similarly situated v. Westside AG, Inc., Case No. 1:16-at-00137
(E.D. Cal., February 23, 2016) is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standardz Act.

Westside AG, Inc. is a farm labor contractor that employs seasonal
agricultural workers throughout the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
      Patrick J. Clifford, Esq.
      Christopher Pantel, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK YABLONOVICH
      Telephone: (310) 286-0246
      Facsimile: (310) 407-5391


WILSHIRE CONSUMER: Motion to Deny TCPA Class Certification OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jason C. Gavejian, Esq. -- GavejiaJ@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson
Lewis P.C., in an article for The National Law Review, reports
that for employers who are facing class claims under the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, you may have more support for your
defense: The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California recently granted Wilshire Consumer Capital's (WCC)
motion to deny class certification in a putative class action
filed under the TCPA.

Judge Roger T. Benitez found that although the plaintiff was
probably annoyed by the robocalls at issue, her case was "unique
to herself and perhaps a small subset of the class": Her father
was a frequent user of the phone, and therefore there was a
factual issue as to whether he may have consented to the calls.
Based upon such facts, the court held that "the majority of the
proposed class may suffer as Plaintiff will be engrossed with
disputing WCC's arguments regarding Plaintiff's individual case."
For employers looking to distinguish the named plaintiff in their
own TCPA cases, this case may have your number.


WISCONSIN HORMEL: Wage-and-Hour Class Action Ruling Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Judy Greenwald, writing for Business Insurance, reports that
workers at a Wisconsin Hormel Foods Corp. plant are entitled to
compensation for the nearly six minutes they spend donning and
doffing required work clothing and equipment, the Wisconsin
Supreme Court has ruled.

Milwaukee-based Local 1473 of the United Food & Commercial Workers
Union filed a class action lawsuit against Austin, Minnesota-based
Hormel Foods alleging the company violated Wisconsin wage-and-hour
laws by not paying its Beloit, Wisconsin, cannery employees for
the time they spent putting on and taking off required work
clothes and equipment, according to the March 1 4-2 ruling by the
Wisconsin high court.

In 2013, a Janesville, Wisconsin, circuit court ruled that some
330 workers were entitled to $195,100 in pay.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court, in upholding the lower court, said
"that donning and doffing the clothing and equipment at the
beginning and end of the day in the instant case is 'integral and
indispensable' to the employees' principal activities of producing
food products."

"Accordingly, we affirm the circuit court's judgment and order
that the employees should be compensated for the 5.7 minutes per
day" under Wisconsin law, the court ruled.

The dissenting opinion states it is not correct that donning and
doffing is integral and indispensable to a principal activity in
part because, contrary to what is said in the lead opinion,
applicable federal food, health and safety regulations do not
require it.

The U.S. Supreme Court has heard, but has not yet issued an
opinion in Tyson Foods Inc. v. Peg Bouaphakeo et al., a class
action on the issue of whether employees should be paid for all
the time they spend donning and doffing protective gear.



                            *********

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  * * *