CAR_Public/160315.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, March 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 53


                            Headlines


AFFYMETRIX INC: "Cheah" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger Agreement
AMBIENT WEATHER: Recalls Radios Due to Fire Hazard
ANCHOR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Pool Covers Due to Drowning Risk
APPLE INC: To Pay Consumers $400MM in E-Book Class Action
ARKANSAS: 8th Cir. Refuses to Review Planned Parenthood Ruling

AUSTRALIA: Detective Testifies in Palm Island Class Action Trial
BANK OF AMERICA: Violated Sherman Act, "Harrison" Suit Claims
BENCO DENTAL: Kanellos & Kotis Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
BISON RAPIDS INVESTMENTS: "Gackenbach" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
BOEING: Can Appeal Environmental Class Action Remand

BULLSEYE GLASS: Pollution Suits Face Complicated Legal Issues
CARLIN COMBUSTION: Recalls Furnaces and Boilers Due to Fire Risk
CEDAR TOWNHOMES: Violated Cal. Common Law, "Nadan" Suit Claims
CHASE BANK: Settles Class Action Over TCPA Violations
CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS: Violated Sherman Act, Little Suit Claims

CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS: Violated Sherman Act, Municipal Suit Claims
COMPUTER COLLECTIONS: "Bose" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
CORAL SPRINGS, FL: Faces Class Action Over Speed Trap Ticket
CORRECTIONS CORP: Wants Hawaiian Inmates' Class Action Settled
DELTA PETROLEUM: March 31 Proof of Claim Deadline Set

DUNKIN' DONUTS: "Estler" Sues over Illegal Sales Tax
EASY MOBILE LABS: "Freeman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
ENGLAND'S STOVE: Recalls Freestanding Pellet Stoves
EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: 1st Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Phillips" Case
FIRST NIAGARA: Settles KeyCorp Sale Class Actions in New York

FLINT, MI: Gov. Snyder Faces Class Action Over Water Crisis
FORT MYERS HOSPITALITY: "Harris" Suit Seek Minimum Wages, OT Pay
GOOGLE INC: Class Action Over reCAPTCHA Dismissed
GOOGLE INC: Seeks Review of Pay-Per-Click Class Action Ruling
GOOGLE INC: Sued for Allegedly Stealing "Face Templates"

HAMILTON COUNTY, LA: Miner Sues Over Inadequate Layoff Notice
HINDUSTAN UNILEVER: Settles Class Action Over Mercury Poisoning
HOME DEPOT: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $19.5 Million
HORIZON PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
ILLUME: Recalls Ceramic Coffee Mugs Due to Fire Hazard

IRON BOW: Plaintiffs Ask for TRO v. Tender Offer of Class B Units
JM & DAUGHTERS CO: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Wu" Suit Claims
KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Violated CLRA, FAL & UCL, "Lewin" Suit Claims
KYMCO USA: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
LARUE PEST MANAGEMENT: "Patton" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay

LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: "Roser" Suit Seeks to Block VTech Merger
LIBERTY HARDWARE: Recalls Wall Plates Due to Shock & Fire Risk
LUFTHANSA TECHNIK: Appeal in "Venegas" Pending in 1st Cir. Ct.
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Flooring
MAGNOLIA TIRE: Violated FLSA & NJWHL, "Williams" Suit Claims

MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Files Securities Class Action in California
MATTSON TECH: "Talbert" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
MEMPHIS POLICE: Moses Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
MERCEDES-BENZ: Violated Clean Air Act, "Lynevych" Suit Claims
MICHIGAN: Hearing Held in Suit v. Unemployment Insurance Agency

NAMIAS OF ARIZONA: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Challenges Transfer Rules
NESTLE USA: Complied with "Safe Harbor Law, Court Rules
NESTLE USA: Recalls Chicken Pizza Products
NORTHLAND GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Certification Denial

OKLAHOMA: Spending Necessary for Child Welfare Services Reform
OUTERWALL INC: "Boyer" Sues Over Kiosk Inaccessibility
PARKATLANTA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Tickets
PEARLS GROUP: Class Action Mulled Over Indian Ponzi Scam
PELICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Flashlights & Replacement Battery Packs

PERDUE FOODS: Recalls Chicken Nugget Products
PERFECTION FOODS: Faces Class Action in Pa. Over Unpaid Wages
PILOT FLYING J: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Holds
PRIDE: Faces Class Action in UK Over Mobility Scooter Price
PROLOGIX DISTRBUTION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages

RAILWORKS TRACK SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Finnemore" Suit Claims
RANK TRADE SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Meran" Suit Claims
RED ROBIN: Judge Approves Hepatitis A Class Action Settlement
RHAPSODY: Faces Class Action Over Unlicensed Works
ROOM & BOARD: Recalls Arm And Side Chairs Due to Laceration Risk

SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Brokovich Expands Tainted Water Probe
SALLY SHERMAN: Recalls Various Chicken Products Due to Listeria
SAMEER PATTEL: "Tipton" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Two Suits Over Defective Hard Drives
SPOTIFY: Lowery Suit to Spur More Legal Fights in Music Industry

STANDARD INSURANCE: "Nelson" Suit Now Before 9th Cir. Ct.
STATE FARM GENERAL: Violated Insurance Code, GC Micro Suit Claims
SWAMPY'S BAR & GRILLE: Violated FLSA, "White" Suit Claims
SWEDISH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Drug Theft Case
SWEDISH MEDICAL: Two Law Firms File Class Action in Colorado

SYNGENTA: GMO Corn Suit May Evolve Into Class Action
T&T 130 PIZZA: "Del Rio" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
TRULIA: Court Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
TRUMP MODEL: Judge Set to Decide on Class Action This Month
TRUMP SOHO: Catering Staff File Class Action Over Tips

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump Vows to Defend School at Trial
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Documents Reveal Details on Education Program
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Drivers Files Class Action
UNITED PET: Recalls Power Filters for Aquariums Due to Shock Risk
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Student Files Data Breach Class Action

VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING: Recalls Gas Boilers Due to Fire Hazard
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: CEO to Step Down Amid Emissions Scandal
WESTJET: Flight Attendant Mulls Sexual Assault Class Action
WILMINGTON TRUST: June 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
WINCO FOODS: Violated FCRA, "Mitchelle" Suit Says

XEROX BUSINESS: Faces "Douglas" Appeal in 9th Cir.
YOGURTBLAST LLC: Violated FLSA, "Endicott" Suit Claims
Z GALLERIE: Recalls Wall Clocks Due to Fire Hazard
ZETA INTERACTIVE: Faces "Mora" Suit in Calif. Eastern District

* Automakers Face Class Action Over Keyless Ignition System
* CFPB Unveils Outline of Proposed Class Action Arbitration Rules




                            *********


AFFYMETRIX INC: "Cheah" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger Agreement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey S. L. Cheah, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Affymetrix, Inc., Jami Dover Nachtsheim,
Frank Witney, Nelson C. Chan, Gary S. Guthart,
Riccardo Pugliucci, Merilee Raines, Robert H. Trice, Thermo Fisher
Scientific Inc., White Birch Merger Co., and Does 1-25, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. 1-16-CV-290794 (Cal. Super. Ct, County of
Santa Clara, February 18, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants from
taking any steps to consummate the sale of the Company to Thermo
Fisher through Thermo Fisher's wholly-owned subsidiary (Proposed
Transaction), or, in the event the Proposed Transaction is
consummated, to recover damages resulting from the Individual
Defendants' violations of their fiduciary duties.

On January 8, 2016, Affymetrix and Thermo Fisher issued a joint
press release announcing that they entered into an Agreement and
Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") to sell Affymetrix to
Thermo Fisher. Subject to the terms of the Merger Agreement,
Affymetrix stockholders will receive $14.00 in cash for each share
of Affymetrix they own (the "Merger Consideration"). Following
consummation of the Proposed Transaction, Merger Sub will merge
with and into Affymetrix with Affymetrix surviving as a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Thermo Fisher. The Proposed Transaction is
valued at approximately $1.3 billion.

Affymetrix provides life science products and molecular diagnostic
products that enable parallel analysis of biological systems at
the gene, protein, and cell level primarily in the United States,
Europe, Latin America, and Asia. The company operates in two
segments, Affymetrix Core and eBioscience.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISSLAWLLP
          1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 208 2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2348
          E-mail: lparker@weisslawllp.com


AMBIENT WEATHER: Recalls Radios Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Ambient Weather, announced a voluntary recall of about 57,000
Ambient Weather radios (In addition, about 12,500 were recalled in
August 2015). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The weather radio can overheat when plugged into an AC power
outlet, posing a fire hazard.

The recalled Ambient Weather radios are red and black and measure
about 8 inches wide by 4 inches tall by 2 inches deep. "Ambient
Weather," "AM/FM/Weather Band Radio" and "NOAA Weather Radio" are
printed in white lettering on the front of the radio. The radios
have a black crank handle on the back, an antenna on the top, and
LED flashlight on the left side, a clip on the right side and a
cable to charge a smart phone. Accessories included an AC adapter,
DC converter or solar panel charger. Model number WR-333,WR-333A,
WR-334-U or WR-334A-U is printed in the owner's manual.

The firm has received an additional four reports of smoke in the
back battery area. No injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Grainger stores nationwide and online at Amazon.com and
AmbientWeather.com from October 2012 through June 2014 for between
$30 and $90.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled weather
radios and contact Ambient Weather for a full refund. Consumers
who received replacement AC power adapters in the previous recall
are also included in this recall.


ANCHOR INDUSTRIES: Recalls Pool Covers Due to Drowning Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Anchor Industries, Inc., of Evansville, Ind., announced a
voluntary recall of about 350 Safety pool covers. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The brass-plated snap hooks used to connect the cover's cables to
the wall can break, posing a drowning risk.

This recall involves mesh and solid-material Anchor 5-Star, Anchor
Mesh, Classic Solid and Defender Mesh brand custom safety pool
covers. The covers' cables are connected to the pool wall using
brass-plated snap hooks with a gold-tone spring tab, a seam and a
hook end with a bezel. The date of manufacture appears on the
warning label on the underside of each pool cover. Manufacture
dates of "Sep 14," "Oct 14" and "Nov 14" are subject to the
recall. "Manufactured by Anchor Industries, Inc." also appears on
the label.

The firm has received 20 reports of snap hook failure. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kwOP78

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
Independent pool supply stores and dealers nationwide from
September 2014 to November 2014 for about $3,000.

Consumers should immediately contact their pool cover dealer to
schedule an inspection and replacement of the snap hooks.


APPLE INC: To Pay Consumers $400MM in E-Book Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Hagens Berman attorneys representing a class of e-book purchasers
on March 8 disclosed that the Supreme Court denied appeal from
Apple in an antitrust suit brought against the company for its
role in an alleged e-book price-fixing scheme with five of the
nation's largest publishing companies, bringing a $400 million
settlement to e-book purchasers.

With the Supreme Court's denial to review findings against Apple,
consumers will receive an additional $400 million, reaching a
total amount of more than $560 million when combined with
settlements with the publishing companies -- more than twice the
amount of losses suffered by the class of e-book purchasers.
Hagens Berman litigated the case jointly with the United States
Department of Justice and attorneys general from 33 U.S. states
and territories.

"We're incredibly pleased to culminate this case for the millions
of consumers who were forced by Apple and the publishing companies
to pay inflated prices -- skyrocketing up to 50 percent -- for e-
books," said Steve W. Berman.  "When we began this case in 2012,
we knew that the defendants would fight us each step of the way,
but with determination, we are proud to say we will be able to
bring purchasers more than twice the amount of losses through this
settlement."

According to attorneys, the anticompetitive price-fixing collusion
between Apple and the publishers caused the price of
e-books to increase 30 to 50 percent to $12.99 or $14.99 from
Amazon's $9.99 price.

"Apple was caught red-handed orchestrating this scheme to inflate
the prices of e-books, and we believe this case is a true
testament to the tangible benefits the law can bring consumers,"
Berman added.

The class of consumers alleged that Apple illegally colluded with
a group of five publishing companies to manipulate the e-book
market by artificially raising the price of e-books, lowering
competition and charging consumers higher prices.

In the case's next steps, attorneys will work to bring the
settlement to consumers through a quick process and hope to return
losses to purchasers by fall of 2016.

Earlier this year, the Second Circuit rejected a single objector's
claim that the settlement structure that was contingent on Apple's
appeal was not ripe for decision.

                       About Hagens Berman

Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP -- http://www.hbsslaw.com-- is a
consumer-rights class-action law firm with offices in 10 cities.


ARKANSAS: 8th Cir. Refuses to Review Planned Parenthood Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Satter, writing for Northwest Arkansas, reports that the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on March 8 refused -- for now
-- to review a ruling granting class-action status to a federal
lawsuit challenging Arkansas' discontinuation of Medicaid funds
for Planned Parenthood services.

"The order from the 8th Circuit has nothing to do with the legal
merits of the appeal," Judd Deere, a spokesman for Attorney
General Leslie Rutledge, said after the appeals court issued a
brief order denying the state permission to appeal.  "The order
only puts off appellate review of one specific issue -- class
certification -- until the end of the case."

Mr. Deere added that "Attorney General Rutledge remains confident
that the state will prevail when the 8th Circuit addresses the
substance of this case."

U.S. District Judge Kristine Baker granted class-action
certification Jan. 25 to the lawsuit that was filed Sept. 11 by
three Arkansas women, who are insured by Medicaid and use Planned
Parenthood services, and by Planned Parenthood of the Heartland,
which operates clinics in Little Rock and Fayetteville.

When Judge Baker granted a preliminary injunction Oct. 2
preventing the state from discontinuing Medicaid funding for the
services until the case is adjudicated, she said it applied only
to the three women, who are pursuing the case anonymously.  She
later agreed to grant the lawsuit class-action status, so the
women will represent perhaps hundreds of people in Arkansas who
are affected by the cutoff of Medicaid funds.  However, she has
yet to determine the parameters of the class.

Mr. Rutledge appealed the preliminary injunction as well as the
class-certification ruling, asking the 8th Circuit to decide
whether the case should proceed as a class-action before Baker
decides the merits of the lawsuit -- or whether to grant a
permanent injunction.  The appeal also asked that the 8th Circuit
overturn Baker's order allowing the parties to begin the process
of discovery, or gathering information, before the class is
defined.

The family planning services offered at Arkansas' two Planned
Parenthood clinics, and covered by Medicaid until Gov. Asa
Hutchinson announced Aug. 14 that the clinics' Medicaid provider
agreements would be terminated within 30 days, include
contraception and contraceptive counseling, screening for breast
and cervical cancer, pregnancy testing and counseling.  Medicaid
funds already were prohibited from being used to cover most
abortions in Arkansas.

From July 2014 through June 2015, the last full fiscal year before
Mr. Hutchinson's directive was to take effect, the health care
program for the poor and disabled, which is funded mostly by
federal dollars, spent about $51,000 to cover costs incurred at
the clinics by Arkansas Medicaid recipients.

In cutting off Medicaid funding for services offered at Planned
Parenthood clinics in Arkansas, Mr. Hutchinson cited an anti-
abortion group's release of videos indicating that Planned
Parenthood clinics in other states profited from allowing patients
to donate fetal tissue to medical research after abortions.

The videos have been lambasted as false portrayals, and in late
January, a Houston grand jury investigating the undercover footage
found no wrongdoing by Planned Parenthood, choosing instead to
indict the activists involved in making the videos on charges of
tampering with a governmental record.

Judge Baker also is presiding over a second lawsuit filed by
Planned Parenthood that challenges a new Arkansas law limiting the
way the abortion pill can be administered.

Judge Baker granted a temporary restraining order in December
prohibiting the state from enforcing the law, which was to take
effect Jan. 1.  She heard arguments over whether to extend the
order into a longer-lasting preliminary injunction that would
remain in effect until the legal issues in the case are resolved.

She is expected to issue a written ruling before the temporary
restraining order expires on March 14.


AUSTRALIA: Detective Testifies in Palm Island Class Action Trial
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that after a high-profile
death in custody sparked rioting on Palm Island, balaclava-clad
police armed with large guns swept through the community looking
for suspects.

Their efforts, which islanders testify included holding guns to
children's heads, resulted in three convictions.

A senior detective told a Federal Court trial that ongoing pain
caused by the tough response in November 2004 was less significant
than the benefit of the prosecutions.

"I suggest to you the small amount of successful convictions is
far outweighed by the ongoing detriment to the community," counsel
for Palm Islanders Chris Ronalds SC said on March 9.

"I'm sorry, I disagree with that," Detective Inspector Warren
Webber said.

Det Insp Webber declared an emergency on the island as the police
station and home of arresting officer Senior Sergeant Chris Hurley
burned a week after Mulrunji Doomadgee's death in custody.

The class action, launched by once-jailed rioter Lex Wotton on
behalf of Palm Islanders, claims the police response to the unrest
was excessive and the emergency declaration should have been
revoked when crowds dispersed from the local hospital.

Instead, it was in place for almost two days.

Det Insp Webber said he thought there was still a risk of harm
after the riots and the police presence helped create calm.

Ms. Ronalds asserted the SERT officers created needless "terror".

"You were punishing the Aboriginal community because they dared to
take a strike against the police," she said.

"No, that's not true," he replied.

Det Insp Webber was also part of the initial investigation into
Mulrunji's death, which has been criticized by numerous reviews
and inquests.

The court heard he didn't instruct anyone to seize the uniform Sen
Sgt Hurley was wearing when he arrested the dead man.

The trial was told former Detective Senior Sergeant Joe Kitching,
now an inspector, and Det Insp Webber controversially shared a
meal with the arresting officer on the night of Mulrunji's death.

Insp Kitching said there was no discussion of the investigation
during the meal.

He accepted that his previously close working relationship with
Sen Sgt Hurley had tarnished the investigation's image of
independence.

Sen Sgt Hurley was cleared of Mulrunji's manslaughter in 2007.

Justice Debra Mortimer will determine whether police actions
before during and after the riots were racially discriminatory and
whether the community should be compensated.

The trial continues.


BANK OF AMERICA: Violated Sherman Act, "Harrison" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Harrison County, Mississippi, Magnolia Regional Health Center, And
Cullman Regional Medical Center, Inc., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, v. Bank of America Corporation,
Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., BNP Paribas Securities Corp.,
Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Citigroup Global Markets INC.,
Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse
Group Ag, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Credit Suisse
International, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc. ,
The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. , Goldman, Sachs & Co., Goldman
Sachs Bank USA, Goldman Sachs Financial Markets, LP, Goldman Sachs
International, ICAP Capital Markets LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co.,
J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities PLC, The Royal Bank Of Scotland Group PLC, Royal
Bank Of Scotland PLC, RBS Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC,
UBS AG, and UBS Securities LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02382 (N.D. Ill., February 18, 2016), seeks treble damages,
injunctive relief, costs of suit, including reasonable attorneys'
fees, against Defendants for violations of the Sherman Act.

Defendants allegedly forestalled the development of exchange-style
trading for Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by using their market
power, collectively, to exclude rivals and new entrants from the
marketplace. In particular, Defendants boycotted and collusively
targeted a series of new electronic trading platforms that would
have allowed direct and/or anonymous comparison-shopping and IRS
execution for the buy-side.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George A. Zelcs, Esq.
          Robert E. Litan, Esq.
          KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
          205 North Michigan, Suite 1950
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 641-9750
          E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com
                  rlitan@koreintillery.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Guzman, Esq.
          Derek T. Ho, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD
          EVANS & FIGEL, P.L.L.C.
          Sumner Square
          1615 M Street, NW, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326 7900
          E-mail: mguzman@khhte.com
                  dho@khhte.com

               - and -

          R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
          Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
          McCULLEY McCLUER PLLC
          1022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
          Isle of Palms, SC 29451
          Telephone: (662) 550 4511
          E-mail: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
                  smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com

               - and -

          W. Percy Badham III, Esq.
          Sam David Knight, Esq.
          BADHAM & BUCK LLC
          2001 Park Place, #500
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 521-0036
          E-mail: pbadham@badhambuck.com
                  sdknight@badhambuck.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Tim C. Holleman, Esq.
          BOYCE HOLLEMAN & ASSOCIATES
          1720 23rd Ave./Boyce Holleman Blvd.
          Gulfport, MS 39501
          Telephone: (228) 863 3142
          E-mail: tim@boyceholleman.com

               - and -

          Michael W. Fuller, Esq.
          S. Wayne Fuller, Esq.
          FULLER, WILLINGHAM, FULLER &
          CARTER, LLC
          413 First Avenue SW
          Cullman, AL 35055
          Telephone: (256) 734 2023
          E-mail: mfuller@fandwlaw.com
                  vsfuller@fandwlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Istvan, LLC
          Matthew Duncan, LLC
          Adam J. Pessin, LLC
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK, R.P.C.
          1 South Broad St., 23rd Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567-6565
          E-mail: jistvan@finekaplan.com
                  mduncan@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Jonathan Compretta, Esq.
          MIKE MOORE LAW FIRM, LLC
          10 Canebrake, Suite 150
          Flowood, MS 39232
          Telephone: (601) 933 0070
          E-mail: jc@mikemoorelawfirm.com


BENCO DENTAL: Kanellos & Kotis Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kanellos & Kotis, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein,
Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-00657 (E.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016), seeks treble compensatory
damages and injunctive relief under Section 1 of the Sherman
Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1: Unlawful Agreements in
Unreasonable Restraint of Trade.

Defendants are the three dominant dental product distributors in
the United States. Plaintiff alleges that they are illegally
engaging in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental product
distributors and other entities to maintain and extend their
market dominance.

Kanellos & Kotis is a private dental practice in Morton Grove,
Illinois. They directly purchased dental supplies from one or more
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Toomey, Esq.
      11 Times Square, 640 8th Ave.
      10th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 688-0782
      Fax: (212) 688-0783
      Email: mtoomey@barrack.com

           - and -

      Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      3300 Two Commerce Square
      2001 Market Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 963-0600
      Fax: (215) 963-0838
      Email: grodos@barrack.com
             jgittleman@barrack.com

           - and -

      Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
      James B. Zouras, Esq.
      Stephan Zouras, LLP
      205 N. Michigan Ave., Suite 2560
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: (312) 233-1550
      Fax: (312) 133-1560
      Email: rstephan@stephanzouras.com
             jzouras@stephanzouras.com


BISON RAPIDS INVESTMENTS: "Gackenbach" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Gackenbach, on behalf of herself and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bison Rapids Investments, LLC;
Bradley E. Mangas, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-00289 (N.D. Ohio,
Western Division, February 8, 2016), seeks preliminary and
permanent injunction, unpaid wages, liquidated damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees, expenses, expert fees and costs, prejudgment and
post-judgment interest and other and further legal or equitable
relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Defendants operate Buffalo Wild Wings restaurants at Defiance,
Ohio where Gackenbach has worked as a server and bartender. She
claims to have been paid below minimum wage rate.

Bradley Mangas is the owner and principal of Bison Rapids.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bruce B. Elfvin, Esq.
      Stuart Torch, Esq.
      ELFVIN, KLINGSHIRN, ROYER & TORCH, LLC
      4070 Mayfield Road
      Cleveland, OH 44121-3031
      Tel: (216) 382-2500
      Fax: (216) 381-0250
      Email: bruce@ekrtlaw.com
             stuart@ekrtlaw.com

           - and -

      J. Nelson Thomas, Esq.
      Jared K. Cook, Esq.
      THOMAS & SOLOMON LLP
      693 East Avenue
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Tel: (585) 272-0540
      Email: nthomas@theemploymentattorneys.com
             jcook@theemploymentattorneys.com


BOEING: Can Appeal Environmental Class Action Remand
----------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Siros, Esq. -- ssiros@jenner.com -- of Jenner & Block
LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on March 7, 2016,
the Ninth Circuit granted Boeing's petition seeking to appeal the
remand to state court of an environmental class action lawsuit
alleging the improper disposal of hazardous chemicals into soil
and groundwater at a site in Auburn, Washington.  This would be
the second time that Boeing has appealed an order remanding the
case back to state court.  In the first go-around, the district
court granted plaintiffs' motion to remand, applying the single-
event exception to removal under the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA).  Boeing appealed, and the Ninth Circuit concluded
that the single-event exception to CAFA removal did not apply and
directed the district court to examine plaintiffs' separate
argument in support of remand based on CAFA's local-controversy
exception.  Under CAFA's local-controversy exception, federal
courts should decline to exercise jurisdiction over a class where
at least two-thirds of the class are citizens of the state in
which the complaint is filed and at least one defendant is a
citizen of the filing state whose alleged conduct forms a
significant basis of the asserted claims and from whom the class
seeks significant relief.

On this second go-around, Boeing contends that the plaintiffs'
speculative claims against the single in-state defendant were
insufficient to satisfy plaintiffs' burden under the local
controversy-exception of CAFA and that the district court judge
erred in simply analyzing whether that in-state defendant had been
fraudulently joined.  According to Boeing, plaintiffs' claims
against the in-state defendant failed as a matter of law and
plaintiffs did not satisfy their burden of demonstrating that the
conduct of the in-state defendant or the relief sought from said
in-state defendant was significant.  The matter will be briefed
over the next several months.

The Ninth Circuit's decision comes on the heels of another
decision from the Tenth Circuit (Reece v. AES Corp., No. 14-7010
(10th Cir. 2015)) that rejected plaintiffs' efforts to remand an
environmental class action case back to state court.  In its
decision, the Tenth Circuit focused on CAFA's local-controversy
exception, noting that plaintiffs had the burden to demonstrate
each of the requisite elements to warrant remand to the state
court.  The court found that plaintiffs had failed to satisfy
their burden of demonstrating that more than two-thirds of the
class were citizens of Oklahoma notwithstanding an affidavit that
had been submitted by a local land records expert that endeavored
to demonstrate same.

These cases may be indicative of a trend among federal court to
apply heightened scrutiny to plaintiffs' efforts to keep class
action cases in state court.


BULLSEYE GLASS: Pollution Suits Face Complicated Legal Issues
-------------------------------------------------------------
Kristian Foden-Vencil, writing for OPB, reports that Erin Meeker
lives within a half mile of Bullseye Glass in Portland.  Her 2-
year-old goes to daycare across the street from the artistic glass
factory.

Ms. Meeker is one of the seven people who've filed a lawsuit
against the glassmaker with help from the Seattle law firm Keller
Rohrback.

"My No. 1 concern is our health and our neighbor's health," she
said.

Bullseye and another Portland glassmaker, Uroboros Glass, were
recently linked to elevated levels of heavy metals air pollution
in the city.

In the suit, Ms. Meeker said she's not planting her usual
strawberries this year, because health officials said it's not
safe to eat out of her garden.

So far, Ms. Meeker and the other plaintiffs are only claiming
nuisance and trespass: Nuisance in that their kids can no longer
play in their backyards and the value of their homes have dropped.
And trespass in that Bullseye allowed toxic chemicals to enter
their properties without permission.  Uroboros is not named in the
lawsuit.

"The movement of pollution onto somebody's property amounts to a
trespass," said Melissa Powers, an associate professor at Lewis
and Clark Law School.  She said proving nuisance and trespass is a
much lower bar than proving someone got sick from Bullseye
pollution.

"It's very complicated to actually trace one specific cancer to
one specific exposure," Ms. Powers said.


She added that attorneys would need data and statistics if they
were going to try to make a direct connection.

"Basically, to create as strong a case as possible showing that,
more probable than not, the particular activity you're challenging
is a cause of the cancer," Ms. Powers said.

The U.S. Forest Service discovered the concentration of heavy
metals around Bullseye in a study of moss.  But so far, an Oregon
Health Authority study hasn't identified any local cancer cluster.

One of the main legal questions is whether it will become a class
action suit.

Keller Rohrback argues that there are enough individuals who
qualify to justify a class action: They all live near Bullseye;
they were all exposed; and they all suffered similar injuries.

Several law firms have expressed interest in a class action case
if a judge agrees to it.

"There are number of factors that the judge would consider," said
Ms. Powers, "including the degree of expertise of the particular
law firm; past experience litigating cases like this; timing -- so
which law firm filed first; and other factors, just to make sure
that the class itself is going to receive adequate
representation."

Ethical rules stop lawyers from directly soliciting clients for
this case.  But firms have been gathering plaintiffs by appearing
at informational meetings about Bullseye and by setting up
websites.  They're also gathering clients via word of mouth and by
getting their names into news stories.

If the case becomes a class action lawsuit, plaintiffs don't have
to opt in.  Generally, they're either a member of the affected
class or they're not.  They would be notified about the suit and
if there's a settlement, they'd get a slice.

But nobody knows how much that slice might be.  Remember, there
are thousands of potential plaintiffs and Bullseye is not an
enormous company.

Although they don't have to, lawyers are likely to consider
Bullseye's ability to pay.  It's little use asking for damages so
large that the company goes out of business because then they
won't be able to pay.  That is unless plaintiffs want them out of
business -- as was the case in some of the lawsuits against the
tobacco industry.

There's also the issue of attorney fees.  The court generally
decides those based on time spent on the case and the cost of
expert testimony.  But judges often cap costs at a quarter or a
third of the settlement.

For its part, Bullseye Glass officials have said they operated
their factory in line with permits issued by the state Department
of Environmental Quality.

Chris Winter, an environmental lawyer with the Crag Law Center,
doesn't think that Bullseye having a permit from DEQ to burn heavy
metals without a filter insulates it from nuisance and trespass
suits.

"I think a lot of what Bullseye could do is to be proactive and go
to the local community and say, 'We're going to change the way we
do business.  We're going to take public health much more
seriously and we're going to be much more transparent,'" said
Mr. Winter.

Bullseye has said it plans to install a new pollution filtration
system, and it's suspending its use of cadmium and arsenic, which
are used to add colors to stained glass.


CARLIN COMBUSTION: Recalls Furnaces and Boilers Due to Fire Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Carlin Combustion Technology Inc., of North Haven, Conn.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 110 Williamson-Thermoflo
furnaces and boilers equipped with Carlin oil burners. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A wiring malfunction can result in the burners failing to shut
off, posing a fire hazard.

The recall includes Williamson and Thermoflo furnaces and boilers
with Carlin oil burners with an installation date label between
April 1, 2015 and November 31, 2015. The installation date is
printed on a label on the outside of the furnace or boiler.
Recalled furnaces have a Carlin burner inside of the furnace,
behind the furnace grate. Recalled boilers have a Carlin burner
attached to the outside of the boiler enclosure. "Carlin" is
printed in white letters on the face of the burner nameplate.

Carlin has received one report of the burner failing to shut off.
No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WA0pyz

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
Heating and plumbing contractors that install Williamson-Thermoflo
heating and plumbing equipment nationwide from April 2015 through
November 2015 for about $500 for the burners.

Consumers should immediately contact Carlin to arrange for a free
repair. Consumers who cannot locate their installation date label
can also contact Carlin. Carlin is contacting installers directly
to make repairs on furnaces that were installed in consumer's
homes.


CEDAR TOWNHOMES: Violated Cal. Common Law, "Nadan" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ishwa Nadan, Anu Radha Nadan, Jasneeta Nadan, Vikash Nadan, And
Vishal Nadan, the Plaintiffs, v. Cedar Townhomes, LLC, Sukhi
Sangha, Mohinder Singh Sangha and does 1-30, the Defendants, Case
No. RG6804190 (Cal. Super Ct., Alameda County, February 18, 2016),
seeks to recover damages including an overpayment of rent, and
incidental out of pocket expenses, and interest on their damages
from Defendants' alleged breach of rental agreement by making
inadequate repairs, failing and refusing to make repairs, and by
delaying in making necessary repairs to the Subject Premises after
obtaining knowledge and/or being notified of the poor conditions
of the Subject Premises, pursuant to California Common Law and
California Code of Civil Procedure.

Cedar Townhomes owns and manages the establishment being rented
the Plaintiffs which is located at 6054 Cedar Boulevard, Newark,
California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew Wolff, Esq.
          Chris Beatty, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ANDREW WOLFF, PC
          1970 Broadway, Ste. 210
          3 Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 834 3300
          Facsimile: (510) 834 3377
          E-mail: andrew@awolfflaw.com
                  chris@awolfflaw.com


CHASE BANK: Settles Class Action Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for ARM Insider, reports that a settlement of a
class action lawsuit brought against Chase Bank USA, N.A. and
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (collectively, "Chase") by several
consumers ("Plaintiffs") has been reached in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Gehrich v.
Chase, Case No. 1:12-CV-5510).

Plaintiffs alleged that Chase violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec 227, et seq. ("TCPA"), by making
automated telephone calls (i.e., using an automatic telephone
dialing system and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice) and
sending text messages to cell phones, including Collection Calls
and Automatic Alerts, in connection with Chase credit card and
bank accounts without the prior express consent of the people
contacted.

The Litigation -- Background

Jonathan Gehrich filed this suit in July 2012 as a putative class
action against Chase Bank for alleged violations of the TCPA.
Plaintiff alleged that Chase violated the TCPA by placing
automated calls and sending automated alerts regarding account
updates or debt collection to their cell phones using automatic
dialing systems, without their consent and after they asked that
the calls and alerts cease.  Two other putative class actions were
consolidated with this one.

On April 25, 2013, nine months after the initial complaint was
filed and before any non-discovery motion practice, the parties
entered settlement negotiations.  Prior to commencing
negotiations, Plaintiffs had moved to compel certain discovery,
but with both parties moving to stay the case during settlement
discussions, Plaintiffs withdrew the motion before the court could
rule on it.

On November 25, 2013, the parties reported that they had reached a
class-wide settlement in principle, and they subsequently moved
for preliminary approval of the settlement, which the court
granted.  The case proceeded in the background as class members
were identified and provided notice of the proposed settlement.

The proposed Settlement Class, which has 32,297,356 members, is
defined as follows:

All persons to whom, on or after July 1, 2008 through
December 31, 2013, Chase USA and/or JPMC Bank placed a non-
emergency call, SMS text message or voice alert call to a cellular
telephone through the use of an automatic telephone dialing system
and/or an artificial or prerecorded voice.

The Settlement Class comprises two subclasses, which correspond to
different TCPA violations. The Alert Call Subclass consists of:

Persons whom, on or after July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013
received one or more Short Message Service ("SMS") text messages
or voice alert calls to a cellular telephone using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or prerecorded voice placed either
directly or indirectly by Chase USA or JPMC Bank in connection
with providing account information ("Automatic Alert Calls").  The
Alert Call Subclass includes, without limitation, persons to whom
such Automatic Alerts were placed notwithstanding that they are
not Chase customers and/or not the person to whom the Automatic
Alert was intended to be directed . . . Alert Call Subclass
Members did not also receive Collection Calls.

The Alert Call Subclass has 13,927,106 members.  The approved
settlement does not provide for any monetary distribution to Alert
Call Subclass members.  The court determined it appropriate in
light of the fact that Alert Call Subclass members provided prior
express consent to the alerts, so they almost certainly had no
viable TCPA claim.

The Collection Call Subclass consists of:

Persons whom, on or after July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013
received one or more non-emergency telephone calls to cellular
telephones placed either directly or indirectly by Chase USA or
JPMC Bank using an automatic telephone dialing system and/or
artificial prerecorded voice in connection with attempts to
collect debts relating to Chase credit card accounts or JPMC Bank
accounts ("Collection Calls").  The Collection Call Subclass
includes, without limitation, persons to whom such Collection
Calls were placed notwithstanding that they are not Chase
customers and/or not the person to whom the Automatic Collection
Call was intended to be directed.

The Collection Call Subclass has 18,370,250 members.

Settlement Class Members submitted 349,206 timely claims,
representing 1.08% of the class. Per the Order: The theoretical
recovery per Collection Call Subclass member is about $1.00. The
actual recovery per claimant is approximately $52.50

The Settlement

Chase will pay the amount of $34,000,000 into a Settlement Fund,
which will cover: (1) cash payments to eligible persons in the
Settlement Class who submitted valid Claim Forms; (2) a dedicated
cy pres distribution of $50,000 to the Consumer Federation of
America; (3) settlement administration expenses of $5,152,929.51;
(4) court-approved incentive awards to the five class
representatives in the amount of $1,500 each ($7,500 total); and
(5) court-approved attorney fees and costs of $7,257,914.10.

Per the Order: The theoretical recovery per Collection Call
Subclass member is about $1.00. The actual recovery per claimant
is approximately $52.50

insideARM Perspective

This case highlights the absurdity of the TCPA. TCPA supporters
love to talk about "Robocalls" and "Robo-calling."  Yet this case
was not about random calls to consumers. Here there was a pre-
existing business relationship between the defendant and the
members of the putative class. However, the TCPA has been
interpreted to treat all calls the same.

In its opinion, the court discussed Chase's potential "exposure"
under the TCPA with a class size of over 32 million individuals.
The court noted, "However improbable it may be, complete victory
for Plaintiffs at $500 or $1,500 per class member could bankrupt
Chase.  Even assuming (conservatively and unrealistically) only
one violation per class member, if Plaintiffs won a complete
victory, Chase would owe $16.1 billion, and $48.4 billion if the
jury found that Chase's violations were knowing or willful."

The case also highlights the lucrative business of class action
litigation.  Attorneys for the plaintiffs had requested an
attorney fee award in excess of $9 million.  The judge reduced
that amount to $7.250 million.  There is no information on the
attorney's fees and expenses incurred by Chase in defending the
case.

Class action litigation is very, very good for attorneys.


CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS: Violated Sherman Act, Little Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Little River County R.D.A. Water System, on behalf of itself and
all other similarly situated v. Frank A. Reichl, Chemtrade
Logistics Inc., Chemtrade Logistics US LLC, and John Does 1-10,
the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00868 (E.D. Penn., December 11,
2015), seeks to recover damages resulting from alleged Defendants'
violations of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act in unlawful
conspiracy to eliminate liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS) market.

Chemtrade manufactures, market, and supplies specialty chemicals,
including LAS, to customers in the United States and elsewhere. It
is based in Toronto, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
          161 Washington, PA 19428
          E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


CHEMTRADE CHEMICALS: Violated Sherman Act, Municipal Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, on behalf of itself
and all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Frank A.
Reichl, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade Logistics US LLC, and
John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00867 (E.D.
Penn., January 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages resulting from
alleged Defendants' violations of the Sherman Act and Clayton Act
in unlawful conspiracy to eliminate liquid aluminum sulfate (LAS)
market.

Chemtrade manufactures, market, and supplies specialty chemicals,
including LAS, to customers in the United States and elsewhere.
The Company is based in Toronto, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Paul Costa, Esq.
          Adam J. Pessin, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN AND BLACK RPC
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          Facsimile: (215) 568 5872
          E-mail: rlienbenberg@finekaplan.com
                  pcosta@finekaplan.com
                  apessin@finekaplan.com

               - and -

          Gregory S. Asciolla, Esq.
          Jay L. Himes, Esq.
          Karin E. Garvey, Esq.
          Matthew J. Perez
          140 Broadway
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 907 0700
          Facsimile: (212) 818 0477
          E-mail: GAasciolla@labaton.com
                  Jhimes@labaton.com
                  GBradley@labaton.com
                  KGarvey@labaton.com
                  MPerez@labaton.com

               - and -

          Paul Scarlato, Esq.
          GOLDMAN SCARLATO & PENNY PC
          Eight Tower Bridge, Suite 1025
          161 Washington, PA 19428
          E-mail: scarlato@lawgsp.com


COMPUTER COLLECTIONS: "Bose" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Bose, individually, and on all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Computer Collections, Inc., Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-
00855 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2016), seeks statutory and actual
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit, prejudgment
interest and such further relief for violation of the Rosenthal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Federal Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Computer Collections, Inc. is a company engaged, by use of the
mails and telephone, in the business of collecting a debt from the
Plaintiff without the proper notices as required by federal and
state law.

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
      Tel: (877) 206-4741
      Fax: (866) 633-0228
      Email: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
             abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


CORAL SPRINGS, FL: Faces Class Action Over Speed Trap Ticket
------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
$600 traffic ticket in an alleged speed trap prompted disgruntled
motorist Robert Zoba and his attorney John Caserta to file a class
action lawsuit that a state appellate court said challenged "the
boundaries of judicial immunity."

Mr. Caserta received his own $450 ticket weeks earlier in a school
zone near the Sawgrass Springs Middle School but successfully
fought it by arguing the zone had been illegally established.

His client paid the fine in full but filed the proposed class
action against Coral Springs, Broward County, Broward Clerk of
Courts Howard Forman and the state Revenue Department.  He sued to
get his money back, alleging the government agencies illegally
established the school zone and set up the speed trap for
unsuspecting drivers.  His amended complaint alleged the
defendants collected thousands of dollars in fines for traffic
violations in the school zone.

Under Florida law, 50.8 percent of traffic fines goes to the city,
43.1 percent to the state, 6.1 percent to the clerk and a $12.50
surcharge per violation to the county.

The state tax agency successfully argued Mr. Zoba had to file suit
against it in Leon Circuit Court, not Broward, and exited the
litigation.

The case against Coral Springs and the county remained alive after
Broward Circuit Judge Carlos Rodriguez denied their motion to
dismiss on sovereign immunity.

The clerk's status divided the Fourth District Court of Appeal on
March 9.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel considered whether the clerk had
judicial immunity for collecting its portion -- a task Forman's
attorneys described as part of the overall decision-making process
for noncriminal traffic infractions.  But Mr. Zoba argued unjust
enrichment and sought to recover the share of the fine the clerk
retains after deducting 0.5 of a percent for administrative
expenses.

The appellate court largely sided with the clerk, dismissing
Forman from the litigation after finding judicial immunity
protected him from defending the claim or incurring attorney fees.

"The elephant in the room, however, is whether the clerk can
ultimately be required to refund any of the monies it retained if
the school zone is determined to be illegally established,"
District Judge Melanie May wrote for the majority.

Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeffrey Gillen, sitting by designation,
concurred.

"Here if the school zone is found to be illegal, then a traffic
fine for an infraction committed in the school zone is
unconstitutional, but the administrative costs the clerk earned by
statutorily collecting the fine are not," Judge May wrote for the
majority.  "The clerk earned the costs for performing his
statutorily and judicially directed job."

Judges May and Gillen found it should be up to a trial court to
unravel whether the clerk could keep the majority of his portion,
which is deposited in a trust fund after subtracting expenses.

"There are several hurdles the plaintiff must first overcome:
proving the school zone was illegally created, defending the
voluntary payment waiver defense and whether the clerk must refund
monies beyond the administrative fees authorized by statute,"
Judge May wrote.  "Wisely the trial court foresaw the issue, but
the case was not yet in the procedural posture for the trial court
to rule on it.  We save that issue for another day."


CORRECTIONS CORP: Wants Hawaiian Inmates' Class Action Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rui Kaneya, writing for Civil Beat, reports that Corrections
Corporation of America is asking the federal court to force a
final settlement in a class-action lawsuit over religious rights
of Native Hawaiian inmates in Arizona.

The lawsuit was filed in 2011 by eight inmates at the Saguaro
Correctional Center, a CCA-run prison in Eloy, Arizona, that, at
the end of January, housed nearly a quarter of Hawaii's 5,936
inmates.

The inmates alleged that CCA officials prevented them from
gathering for daily outdoor worship and confiscated objects they
said were vital to their religion.  The Hawaii Department of
Public Safety is also a defendant in the case.

The case was supposed to be all but settled in May, when the two
sides agreed to the basic terms of a settlement, with the details
to be hammered out by October, according to court records.

According to CCA and the state, what remained was "a mere
technicality" -- committing the settlement terms to writing.

Nine months later, no written agreement has yet to materialize --
a situation that CCA attorney Rachel Love argues is caused by the
plaintiffs' attorney, Sharla Manley.

Ms. Love is accusing Ms. Monley of "embark(ing) on a nine-month
trek of delay and additional unreasonable settlement demands that
exceed the scope of what was already agreed to."

Ms. Love filed a motion asking the court to grant preliminary
approval of the terms of the May settlement.

In essence, the motion argues that the terms were "fair,
reasonable and adequate" and address all of the plaintiffs'
claims.  Specifically, the motion says, "registered Native
Hawaiian inmate practitioners" in Saguaro would be allowed to:

   -- observe the annual season of Makahiki -- a four-month period
dedicated to the Hawaiian god Lono -- twice a year;
   -- participate in 90-minute outdoor worship classes six times a
year;
   -- keep Native Hawaiian garments, sea salts, written religious
materials and ti leaf in their cells;
   -- participate in weekly group gatherings, as well as classes
to make Native Hawaiian garments;
   -- loan out bamboo nose flute;
   -- purchase coconut oil and one amulet per inmate for religious
use;
   -- have access to a spiritual advisor, as well as communal
religious items stored in the chapel.

Ms. Manley, staff attorney at the Native Hawaiian Legal
Corporation, declined to comment, saying settlement negotiations
are ongoing.

Her reply to Love's motion is due to be filed before the next
hearing, which is scheduled for April 11.


DELTA PETROLEUM: March 31 Proof of Claim Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Federman & Sherwood
regarding the Delta Petroleum Corporation Securities Litigation

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Civil Action No. 12-cv-01038-CMA-CBS (Consolidated for all
purposes with Civil Action No. 12-cv-01521-CMA-CBS)

PATIPAN NAKKHUMPUN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. DANIEL J. TAYLOR, Defendant.

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE
TO: Purchasers of Delta Petroleum Corporation ("Delta") Common
Stock, during the Period March 11, 2010 through November 9, 2011,
Inclusive (the "Class Period").

A federal district court has ordered this Notice. This is not a
solicitation from a lawyer.

A settlement has been proposed and preliminarily approved in the
above class action.  Notice was provided pursuant to an Order of
the federal district court requiring that all Proof of Claim forms
by potential class members be postmarked and sent to the
settlement administrator, Heffler Claims Group LLC, on or before
January 29, 2016.  The parties have learned that several brokerage
firms (including Goldman Sachs & Company, Charles Schwab &
Company, Inc., E*Trade Financial LLC, SunTrust Banks, Inc., U.S.
Bancorp Investments, and Pershing LLC) may have requested mailing
of Notice and Proof of Claim forms with insufficient time for
potential class members to complete and return the forms to the
claims administrator by the court ordered deadline.

Pursuant to the federal district court order, the postmarked
deadline for all Proof of Claim forms has been extended to
March 31, 2016.  All Proof of Claim forms in this settlement that
are sent to Heffler Claims Group LLC by March 31, 2016 will be
considered.  If you completed and submitted an earlier Proof of
Claim form, there is no need to take further action.

To obtain a copy of the Notice, Proof of Claim form, or additional
information about the proposed Settlement, you may contact Heffler
Claims Group LLC at the address listed below.  You may also obtain
copies at www.DeltaPetroleumSettlement.com

Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the Plan of Allocation,
and/or Fee and Expense Application must be filed in the manner
detailed in the Notice with the Clerk of the Court and delivered
to the Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs and Counsel for Defendants,
such that it is postmarked no later than March 31, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  Any
requests for exclusion from the Settlement must be postmarked by
March 31, 2016, in accordance with the instructions set forth in
the Notice.

Claims Administrator:

Nakkhumpun , et al. v. Taylor, et al.
EXCLUSIONS
c/o Heffler Claims Group
P.O. Box 59028
Philadelphia, PA 19102-9028

Lead Counsel for Plaintiffs:

FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
William B. Federman, Esq.
Stuart W. Emmons, Esq.
10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
Oklahoma City, OK 73120

Defense Counsel:

JONES DAY
Eric Landau, Esq.
Travis Biffar, Esq.
3161 Michelson Drive,
Suite 800
Irvine, California 92612
E-mail: elandau@jonesday.com
        tbiffar@jonesday.com

The Final Fairness Hearing has been rescheduled for June 1, 2016,
at 9:00 a.m. before Judge Christine M. Arguello in Courtroom A
602, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th Street,
Denver, CO.


DUNKIN' DONUTS: "Estler" Sues over Illegal Sales Tax
--------------------------------------------------------------
THOMAS ESTLER, BLAKE RUEHRWEIN and STEVEN PARK, on behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Dunkin' Brands, Inc, Dunkin' Donuts Store #350125, Dunkin' Donuts
Store #350126, Donuts Store #350127, Dunkin' Donuts Store #345768,
and John Does 1-500, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00932-LGS (S.D.N.Y.,
February 9, 2016), seeks disgorgement of all profits made
illegally, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees, punitive
damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and other such
relief for violation of the New York General Business Law Sec.
349, breach of contract, as well as damages resulting from unjust
enrichment, fraud and negligence.

Plaintiffs are customers of Dunkin' Donuts and accuse the latter
for illegally surcharging a "sales tax" of 8.875% on customers who
purchase pre-packaged coffee.

Dunkin' Donuts Brand is a restaurant chain selling doughnuts and
coffee, existing under the laws of Delaware and based in 130 Royal
St., Canton, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Carl J. Mayer, Esq.
      Zachary J. Liszka, Esq.
      1180 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 800
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 382-4686
      Fax: (212) 382-4687

           - and -

      Ted M. Rosenberg, Esq.
      Robert Rosenberg, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF TED M. ROSENBERG
      321 New Albany Rd.
      Moorestown, NJ 08057
      Tel: (856) 608-9999


EASY MOBILE LABS: "Freeman" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonna Freeman, individually & on behalf of all similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s), v. Easy Mobile Labs, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00018-GNS (W.D. Ken., Bowling Green Division February 18,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
judgment, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Easy Mobile Labs is in the business of sending phlebotomists to
patients to collect urine, blood and stool samples. The Defendant
is a Washington State for profit Company conducting business in
Kentucky, Alabama, Georgia, Indiana, Mississippi, Tennessee,
Florida, Montana and Wyoming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407)420 1414
          Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


ENGLAND'S STOVE: Recalls Freestanding Pellet Stoves
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
England's Stove Works Inc., of Monroe, Va., announced a voluntary
recall of about 2,300 Smartstove freestanding pellet stoves.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Smoke can build up inside the firebox due to ash accumulation and
the glass in the door can break, posing a laceration hazard.

This recall involves Smartstove free standing pellet stoves, with
model number 55-SHSSP01 and serial numbers ranging from 101
through 2513. The cast iron pellet stove is about 36 inches high,
24 1/2 inches wide, 24 inches deep and has a black satin finish.
It has an arched glass door on the front with vents above the
door. The Smartstove logo appears on the stove's control panel.
The model and serial numbers are located on a black plate on the
top right hand corner on the back of the stove.

The firm has received four reports of incidents, including one
report of a minor injury.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Lowe's
and specialty hardware stores nationwide and online at
www.lowes.com from September 2015 through December 2015 for about
$1,500.


EQUITY RESIDENTIAL: 1st Circuit Appeal Lodged in "Phillips" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Phillips v. Equity Residential Management, Case No. 16-1254 (1st
Cir., March 10, 2016), is an appeal from a lower court ruling in
the case, Case No. 1:13-cv-12092-RWZ (D. Mass., Aug 27, 2013).

Scott Phillips, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

     Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
     100 TradeCenter
     Woburn, MA 01801
     Tel: 617-600-7520

          - and -

     Preston W. Leonard, Esq.
     Leonard Law Office, PC
     63 Atlantic
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: 617-329-1295

          - and -

     David Pastor, Esq.
     Pastor Law Office, LLP
     63 Atlantic Ave., 3rd Floor
     Boston, MA 02110-0000
     Tel: 617-742-9700

Equity Residential is represented by:

     Craig M. White, Esq.
     Baker & Hostetler LLP
     191 N Wacker Dr
     Chicago, IL 60606-1901

          - and -

     Thomas Hoelder Wintner, Esq.
     Mintz Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky & Popeo PC
     One Financial Center
     Boston, MA 02111-0000
     Tel: 617-542-6000
          617-348-1625


FIRST NIAGARA: Settles KeyCorp Sale Class Actions in New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Kline, writing for Buffalo Business First, reports that
First Niagara Financial Group Inc. and KeyCorp have agreed to
settle at least one class-action lawsuit brought against the
companies in the wake of KeyCorp's announcement that it plans to
buy First Niagara.

In separate regulatory filings, First Niagara and KeyCorp said on
March 9 that they have settled in principle all class-action
lawsuits filed in New York state.  Pending court approval, the
settlement will release both companies from all claims related to
KeyCorp's acquisition of First Niagara.

Under the agreement, shareholders still have the right to seek an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses, according to the filing.

The banks said they deny all of the allegations -- including the
allegation that First Niagara's board of directors did not act in
the best interest of shareholders when negotiating the sale to
KeyCorp -- but they have decided to settle "in order to avoid the
costs, disruption and distraction of further litigation."

Still pending are two suits filed in Delaware.  First Niagara
spokesperson David Lanzillo said in an email that the banks hope
to resolve those claims soon.

The transaction -- which will combine two of the three largest
banks in Western New York and likely lead to job losses and branch
closures -- is expected to close during the third quarter. The
banks said the settlement does not affect the deal in terms of the
amount of money to be paid to First Niagara shareholders or the
timing of the March 23 meetings at which First Niagara and KeyCorp
shareholders will vote on the proposed deal.

Buffalo-based First Niagara operates the No. 2 largest retail bank
in Western New York. KeyCorp, based in Cleveland, operates KeyBank
N.A., the third-largest bank in the area.


FLINT, MI: Gov. Snyder Faces Class Action Over Water Crisis
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit stemming
from Flint's lead-contaminated water has been filed on behalf of
residents against Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder as well as government
officials and corporations.

The suit filed on March 7 alleges that tens of thousands of
residents have suffered physical and economic injuries and
damages.  It argues officials failed to take action over
"dangerous levels of lead" in drinking water and "downplayed the
severity of the contamination."

It seeks a jury trial and unspecified damages.

A spokesman for Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder has declined to comment
on the lawsuit.

Ari Adler said on March 7 that the administration doesn't comment
on pending litigation but is "staying focused on solutions for the
people of Flint."

Numerous lawsuits have been filed on behalf of Flint residents
since a public health emergency was declared last year.


FORT MYERS HOSPITALITY: "Harris" Suit Seek Minimum Wages, OT Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherri Harris, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Fort Myers Hospitality LLC, Roberts Hotel
Management, Fort Myers, LLC, FM Investco, LLC, Steven C. Roberts
and Michael V. Roberts, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00108-JES-CM
(M.D. Fla., February 5, 2016), seeks recovery of minimum wages,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs, pre-
judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants collectively operate Allure Suites in Lee County,
Florida where Harris works as a desk clerk employee. She alleges
that the Defendants failed to pay her minimum wages and overtime
premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM, P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Tel: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


GOOGLE INC: Class Action Over reCAPTCHA Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Richard Stobbe, Esq. of Field Law, in an article for JDSupra,
reports that most of us have had to pass through a CAPTCHA screen
in order to log in or use a web-based service.  This often
involves deciphering and typing in one or two garbled words.  One
of the more popular screens is operated by Google and known as
reCAPTCHA.

When Google recruits your human brain to decode text, it is doing
two things: it is providing a service that protects websites from
bots, automated spam and abuse, "while letting real people pass
through with ease."  Second, it is deciphering text that stumps
OCR technology, all the while teaching its own robots, through
machine learning, to improve their predictive analysis of human
text.

Put another way, "Google is 'crowd sourcing' the transcription of
words that a computer cannot decipher." In a fascinating decision
(GABRIELA ROJAS-LOZANO, v. GOOGLE, INC.), a California court has
dismissed a class action claim that users deserved some
compensation for the service they were providing to Google.  To
paraphrase, the lawsuit alleged that Google failed to disclose
that the second reCAPTCHA word was used for transcription services
(from which Google profits) rather than for website security
purposes.

However, according to the judge, profit by Google does not
translate into a loss for the user who performs this micro-task,
which takes each user only a few seconds.  Plaintiff could not
cite any case that supports the theory that a non-employee
transcribing a single word is owed compensation.  Since this is
such a small amount of time, and there was no loss, damages or
reliance on the part of the user, and no actionable
misrepresentation or unjust enrichment on the part of Google, the
court concluded that the class action should be dismissed.

Hat tip to Professor Eric Goldman, who calls this "one of the most
interesting Internet law rulings so far in 2016."


GOOGLE INC: Seeks Review of Pay-Per-Click Class Action Ruling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Google has asked
the U.S. Supreme Court to review an appellate court's decision
granting class-action status to pay-per-click marketers who are
suing the company for allegedly placing their ads on "low quality"
sites.

In a petition, Google argues that the marketers should not be able
to proceed as a class because their damages would need to be
calculated on a company-by-company basis.

The battle centers on Google's "parked domains" and "errors"
programs, which often serve ads on sites that aren't fully
developed, and on typo sites that people visit accidentally.
Several pay-per-click marketers -- including law firm Pulaski &
Middleman and retailer RK West -- alleged in a 2009 lawsuit that
ads on Google's AdSense for Domains and AdSense for Errors
programs result in fewer purchases than ads on Google's search
results pages.  The marketers, who are seeking restitution, also
claimed that ads on parked domains could damage their reputations.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit recently ruled that the
marketers could proceed as a class because they had presented
valid proposals for determining restitution on a class-wide basis.
The appellate judges appeared to endorse at least one methodology
-- the "Smart Pricing" approach, which the opinion describes as
"the difference between the amount the advertiser actually paid
and the amount paid reduced by the Smart Pricing discount ratio."

But Google argues that restitution can't be calculated based on a
"general one-size-fits-all formula."

Google adds that many advertisers -- including RK West -- "achieve
higher conversion rates on parked domains and error pages than on
the Smart Pricing benchmarks."

Additionally, the company contends that the 9th Circuit's ruling
would result lead to a situation where "hundreds of thousands of
different advertisers who purchased millions of different ads from
Google over the course of several different years."

Those marketers "will demand restitution from Google for alleged
violations of California's unfair competition laws -- never mind
that some putative class members benefited from the alleged
misconduct," Google writes.


GOOGLE INC: Sued for Allegedly Stealing "Face Templates"
--------------------------------------------------------
Greg Sterling, writing for Marketing Land, reports that in a case
called Weiss v. Google Inc., plaintiff Joseph Weiss has filed a
potential class action accusing Google of stealing "face
templates" from Google Photos without permission.  The case was
filed in Illinois Northern District Court and accuses Google of
violating the Illinois Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA).

BIPA regulates the collection, use, and storage of "biometric
information" or "biometric identifiers," which is defined as any
personal feature unique to an individual (e.g., fingerprints,
DNA). According to the complaint biometric identifiers includes
"face geometry."  The law requires that any private entity (i.e.,
Google in this case) obtain consent from the affected individuals
whose data are being collected or used.


HAMILTON COUNTY, LA: Miner Sues Over Inadequate Layoff Notice
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Mariano, writing for The Southern Illinoisan, reports that a
laid off coal miner is suing his former employer on behalf of
nearly 200 others who lost their jobs in February at Hamilton
County Coal Mine No. 1 in Dahlgren.

The federal, class action complaint filed on March 8 on behalf of
Zeigler resident Carl Leeper accuses Hamilton County Coal LLC and
parent company, Alliance Resource Partners LP, of failing to give
the workers adequate notice as required under U.S. law.

In a news release announcing the lawsuit, Mr. Leeper stated he is
seeking the class-action to represent others he knows who might
fear retribution from the coal companies.

"A lot of people can't stand up to Alliance Coal because it's no
secret they would blackball us out of any future mining jobs," he
said in the release, issued by Edwardsville-based law firm
Goldenberg, Heller and Antognoli.

"When I saw the fear in my co-worker's eye wondering how he was
going to get his young son the medical treatment he needed and
what it means if he can't, I stopped caring how big Alliance Coal
is and decided I would stand up to them on behalf of Southern
Illinois."

Phone messages left on March 9 with the legal affairs division at
Alliance and with a business manager at Hamilton County Coal were
not returned.

A company statement in February indicated the temporary layoff was
because of overreaching regulations and a weak market caused by
lower demand, low natural gas prices and a coal oversupply.

The lawsuit contends that 60-days notice of the alleged "mass
layoff" was required under the federal Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act but that workers were given less than
24 hours notice.

"This violation left hundreds of Southern Illinois families
without health insurance, income and gave no ability for them to
job search," the news release said.

While the termination notice said the layoff was temporary, it
also indicated that Mr. Leeper was no longer employed at the mine
as of Feb. 6 and that many benefits also ended that date.  The
notice was attached to the lawsuit.

He could return to work Aug. 1 as an at-will employee, according
to the notice, but the lawsuit alleges he and other workers were
told by a company manager they would have to re-apply, undergo
interviews and that there was no guarantee of employment.

The lawsuit also contends the defendants knew the terminations
were anticipated though failed to give the required notice.  It
also states that company officials denied rumors of a possible
termination on Feb. 2, three days before the termination notice
was given.

The lawsuit seeks a jury trial and unpaid wages, benefits and
civil penalties.


HINDUSTAN UNILEVER: Settles Class Action Over Mercury Poisoning
---------------------------------------------------------------
Suresh Kumar, writing for The Hindu, reports that HUL was facing a
"class action litigation" moved by former workers of its
thermometer factory who were allegedly exposed to toxic mercury
vapour.

Hindustan Unilever Limited (HUL) has finally entered into a
settlement to provide "undisclosed" ex-gratia amount to the
victims consisting of future health care benefits.

The company was facing a "class action litigation" moved by the
former workers of its thermometer factory at Kodaikanal who were
allegedly exposed to toxic mercury vapor during their employment.

Claiming the settlement as historical, the association's counsel
R. Vaigai said, "This is the first ever class action litigation
moved by industrial workers against occupational health exposure."

Highlighting the significance of the case, she said, "We have
approached the court through a writ petition invoking Article 21,
seeking the Central and the State governments to protect the life
and personal liberty of the workers. We have not moved a plea for
compensation/damages."

A similar class action moved by the employees for damages before
the High Court of London since the company is headquartered in
United Kingdom will also be withdrawn in view of the settlement,
Ms. Vaigai added.

According to a joint statement issued by the HUL and the employees
association, the settlement has been entered into on humanitarian
considerations to put an end to the long-standing matter pending
before the court for several years, in view of the suggestion of
the Madras High Court.

"We have worked hard over many years to address this and find the
right solution for our former workers.  We, alongside all
involved, are glad to see an outcome to this long-standing case.
The wellbeing of our employees and the communities in which we
operate has and will always remain paramount.  This agreement
demonstrates our commitment to this," Dev Bajpai, Executive
Director - Legal and Corporate Affairs said.

Former employees happy

Former employees of Hindustan Unilever Ltd (HUL) thermometer
factory have welcomed the settlement reached between Pond's HLL
Ex-Mercury Employees Welfare Association and HUL that has put an
end to the long-standing issue.  Association president S.A.
Mahendra Babu welcomed the action taken by HUL, bringing the
negotiations to a satisfactory closure.  "We are pleased with all
the terms of the agreement which will help ensure the long-term
health and well-being of the factory's former workers.  We now
consider this issue to be fully resolved and have no more
grievances against the company in this regard," he said.

The company has also agreed to provide ex-gratia payments to 511
former workers/association members and their families towards
livelihood enhancement projects and skill enhancement programs.
The former employees confirmed this as a full and final settlement
of all their claims and demands.  They will withdraw the petition
they had filed in February 2006 in the Madras High Court. HUL too
will withdraw all cases filed in the Madras High Court, he added.
A similar class action suit moved by the employees for damages
before the High Court of London since the company is headquartered
in United Kingdom will also be withdrawn, Ms. R. Vaigai, counsel
for the employees' association, said.  HUL Legal and Corporate
Affairs Executive Director Dev Bajpai stated that the company was
glad that the issue has been resolved.  "The well-being of our
employees and the communities in which we operate has and will
always remain paramount," he added. The petition was filed by
employees more than four years after HUL had made a final
settlement in November 2001.

Timeline:

2001 TNPCB shuts down the HUL thermometer factory after sale of
mercury contaminated glass to scrap dealers is detected. Health
study of workers done

2003 Large amount of mercury scrap sent back to the U.S.

2006 Ex-employees move Madras High Court against Unilever. Health
effects such as miscarriages, kidney and nervous system damages,
mental disability in children etc. stated

2011 Committee constituted by Ministry of Labour concludes there
was prima facie evidence of mercury-related ailments in workers

2015 Unilever CEO Paul Polman says he is determined to solve the
issue after international focus following rap song.


HOME DEPOT: Settles Data Breach Class Action for $19.5 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Musil, writing for CNET, reports that Home Depot says it's
willing to pay as much as $19.5 million to settle a class-action
lawsuit brought by shoppers affected by a massive security breach
that exposed credit card information belonging to 56 million
customers.

The home-improvement retailer's offer includes the creation of a
$13 million fund that would compensate customers for out-of-pocket
expenses such as reasonably traceable fraud.  The remaining money
would go toward legal fees and associated expenses.  Atlanta-based
Home Depot also promised on March 8 to adopt new data security
measures to protect its customers' personal and financial
information.

Home Depot said its settlement offer, which still requires court
approval, was not an admission of liability in the matter.

"We're working to put the litigation behind us, and this was the
most expeditious path," said Stephen Holmes, a Home Depot
spokesman.

The settlement offer does not cover other pending lawsuits from
financial institutions such as banks and credit card companies.

In one of the largest data breaches ever, hackers used custom-
built malware to steal the credit card information of 56 million
Home Depot customers between April and September 2014.  Using
credentials stolen from a third-party vendor, hackers worked their
way through Home Depot's network to insert the malware on the
retailer's self-checkout machines in the US and Canada, where the
credit card information was exposed.

The breach occurred at a time when hacks on businesses and
government agencies were running rampant.  There were more than
1,500 data breaches worldwide in 2014, up nearly 50 percent from
2013.

The hack into Home Depot was similar to a security breach at
retail giant Target in 2013 that exposed the credit card data of
40 million Target customers and the personal information of an
additional 70 million customers.  In that case, Target offered $10
million to settle the resulting class-action lawsuit.

In the months that followed, arts and crafts retail chain Michaels
Stores, department store Neiman Marcus, and restaurant chain P.F.
Chang's all revealed they had fallen victim to security breaches
aimed at stealing customers' credit card information.

In response to that uptick, the Obama administration proposed
spending $19 billion on a broad range of initiatives designed to
make it harder for hackers to steal information from individuals,
companies and government agencies, a 35 percent increase over the
previous year's budget.


HORIZON PHARMA: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 8 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Horizon Pharma plc ("Horizon" or the "Company")
(NASDAQ:HZNP) and certain of its officers.  The class action,
filed in United States District Court, Southern District of New
York, and docketed under 16-cv-01763, is on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased Horizon
securities between March 13, 2014 and February 26, 2016 inclusive
(the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to recover damages
against Defendants for alleged violations of the federal
securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the
"Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Horizon securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 9, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com
To discuss this action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at
rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or 888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll
free, ext. 9980.  Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to
include their mailing address, telephone number, and number of
shares purchased.

Horizon is a specialty biopharmaceutical company that engages in
identifying, developing, acquiring or in-licensing, and
commercializing medicines for the treatment of arthritis, pain,
inflammatory, and/or orphan diseases in the United States and
internationally.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (i)
Horizon's Prescriptions Made Easy ("PME") program was designed to
artificially inflate the prices of minor differentiation standard
retail drugs; (ii) sales revenues from drugs sold through
Horizon's PME program were unsustainable at these inflated price
levels; (iii) Horizon's use of its PME program left the Company
subject to increased regulatory risks; (iv) Horizon received a
subpoena from the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York in November 2015; and (v) as a result of the
foregoing, Defendants' statements about Horizon's business,
operations, and prospects were false and misleading and/or lacked
a reasonable basis.

On February 29, 2016, Horizon disclosed in its 2015 annual report
that the Company received a subpoena in November 2015 from the
Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York
for documents and information related to the Company's patient
assistance programs, which include providing free medicines and
copay coupons to help cover out-of-pocket drug costs, and other
aspects of Horizon's sales and marketing activities.

On this news, Horizon's stock fell $2.63, or 13.3%, to close at
$17.16 on February 29, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.


ILLUME: Recalls Ceramic Coffee Mugs Due to Fire Hazard
------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Illume, of Bloomington, Minn., announced a voluntary recall of
about 12,300 "Love Today" ceramic coffee mugs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The mugs were mislabeled as microwave safe. If microwaved, the
metallic print on the mug can spark, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves 14 ounce, white ceramic coffee mugs with
"Love Today" printed in gold metallic on the outside of mug.
"Microwave Safe" and "Illume" are printed on a removable label on
the bottom of the mug.

Target has received three reports of mugs sparking during
microwaving. No injuries have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Target Stores nationwide and online at www.target.com  between
December 2015 and January 2016 for about $8.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mugs and
return them to Target for a full refund. Consumers can also
contact Illume for return instructions and a full refund.


IRON BOW: Plaintiffs Ask for TRO v. Tender Offer of Class B Units
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Iron Bow Holdco, LLC is facing a class action lawsuit captioned
STEVEN BALDWIN and PHILLIP HORVITZ v. IRON BOW HOLDCO, LLC, RENE
LAVIGNE, CHARLES CURRAN, STUART T. STRANG, MARC MERCELLIOTT, and
JOHN HANIFAN, Docket for Case #: 11996-VCG, (Del. Ch., February
13, 2016).

Plaintiffs Steven Baldwin and Phillip Horvitz ask the Court to
enjoin an alleged coercive tender offer designed to effect a
management-sponsored leveraged buyout of the Company's Class B
Preferred Units.

In connection with the Acquisition Transaction, the parties
(including Plaintiffs, the Management Members, and New Mountain)
entered into the LLC Agreement, which gave each Class B Preferred
Unit a right to a preferred return, compounded quarterly at a rate
of ten percent (10%) per annum initially until December 31, 2014,
which was extended until March 16, 2016 through that certain First
Amendment to the LLC Agreement, dated March 9, 2015 (the First
Amendment), at which time the interest rate increases to fifteen
percent (15%) per annum (the Preferred Return Right).

Plaintiffs ask the Court grants their Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order and enter an Order prohibiting Defendants from
closing the Tender Offer and amending the LLC Agreement until the
Court can hold a preliminary injunction hearing in the matter.

Iron Bow Technologies is a provider of intelligent, full-lifecycle
technology solutions for government and industry.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Stephen B. Brauerman, Esq.
     Vanessa R. Tiradentes, Esq.
     Sara E. Bussiere, Esq.
     BAYARD, P.A.
     222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
     Post Office Box 25130
     Wilmington, DE 19899
     Phone: (302) 655-5000


JM & DAUGHTERS CO: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Wu" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Li Wu, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. JM and Daughters Co., Inc.,
John Mei, Judy Chen, John Doe and Jane Doe No. 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00843 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2016),
seeks to recover compensatory, punitive, and statutory damages,
interest, costs and disbursements and attorneys' fees from the
Defendants for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
and the New York Labor Law.

JM and Daughters Co. owns and operates a seafood wholesale
business located at Long Island City, New York. It has a gross
sales in excess of $500,000/year.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KRAFT HEINZ FOODS: Violated CLRA, FAL & UCL, "Lewin" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Lewin, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00823-MEJ (N.D. Cal., February 18,
2016), seeks a refund and/or rescission of the transaction and all
further equitable and injunctive relief as provided by applicable
law from the purchase of Kraft's "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" for
violation of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA),
Civil Code, California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Bus. &
Prof. Code, and California's False Advertising Law.

The Defendant has advertised and sold millions of containers of
its "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" products as "100%" Parmesan
cheese. Independent laboratory testing shows, that such products
are allegedly not in fact "100%" Parmesan, but rather contain
significant amounts of adulterants and fillers.

Kraft Heinz Foods produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names;
and tomato and vegetable-based snacks, prepared meals, frozen
potatoes, frozen snacks and entrees, and other products under the
brand names of Heinz, Quero, ABC, Ore-Ida, Bagel Bites, T.G.I.
Friday's, Smart Ones, and Weight Watchers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
          Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com
                  apersinger@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com


KYMCO USA: Recalls Utility Vehicles Due to Crash Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
KYMCO USA, of Spartanburg, S.C., announced a voluntary recall of
about 1,700 Utility Vehicles. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The throttle can fail to return to idle causing the rider to lose
control, posing crash and injury hazards.

This recall involves all model years 2015 and 2016 UXV 450i, UXV
450i LE and UXV 450i Turf models. Recalled utility vehicles come
in the colors blue, camouflage, matte black, gold, green, red,
blue and black. The model year 2015 recalled vehicles are those
units with the last six numbers of the vehicle identification
numbers (VIN) between 100101 and 190370. The model year 2016
recalled vehicles are those units with the last six numbers of the
vehicle identification numbers (VIN) between 190371 and 260240.
The VIN can be found on the frame behind the right front wheel.
UXV is printed on each side of the rear cargo box and on the hood.
KYMCO is printed on the side panels.

The firm has received seven reports of the throttle failing. No
injuries have been reported.

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized KYMCO dealers nationwide from June 2014 through
November 2015 for between $8,000 and $8,700.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled utility
vehicles and contact an authorized KYMCO dealer for a free
inspection and free repair. KYMCO is contacting consumers
directly.


LARUE PEST MANAGEMENT: "Patton" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rusty Patton, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Larue Pest Management, Inc. and Keith Ruebeling,
Individually, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-00107-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla.,
Fort Myers Division, February 5, 2016), seeks compensation for all
hours worked and corresponding liquidated damages.

Larue Pest Management is a Florida Corporation located at 561l 8th
St. W., Lehigh Acres, FL 33971 and managed by Keith Ruebeling.

Patton worked as a service technician. He claims to have rendered
in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime compensation
and alleges that the Defendant did not maintain time-keeping
facilities and did not pay him the mandatory minimum wage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bill B. Berke, Esq.
      BERKE LAW FIRM P.A.
      4423 Del Prado Blvd. S.
      Cape Coral, FL 33904
      Tel: (239) 549-6689
      Email: berkelaw@yahoo.com


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: "Roser" Suit Seeks to Block VTech Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Roser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc., John
Barbour, William B. Chiasson, Thomas J. Kalinske, E. Stanton
Mckee, Jr., Randy 0. Rissman, Caden C. Wang, Stephen M. Youngwood,
Vtech Holdings Limited, Bonita Merger Sub, L.L.C., the Defendants,
Case No. RG 16804344 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Alameda, February
18, 2016), seeks to enjoin the acquisition of all publicly owned
shares of LeapFrog common stock by VTech Holdings Limited and
Bonita Merger Sub, LLC for $1.00 per share in cash under the
parties' Agreement and Plan of Merger.

On February 5, 2016, LeapFrog and VTech announced that they had
entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger, pursuant to which
VTech, through its wholly-owned subsidiary Bonita will acquire all
outstanding shares of LeapFrog common stock through a tender
offer. Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, for each
share of LeapFrog common stock, shareholders will be entitled to
receive $1.00 in cash. Bonita was expected to commence the Offer
on or before March 3, 2016 and is expected to close on March 31,
2016.

LeapFrog is a Delaware corporation that designs, develops, and
markets technology-based learning products and related proprietary
content for children worldwide. It operates through United States
and International segments. The Company sells its products
directly to national and regional mass-market and specialty
retailers, other retail stores, distributors, and resellers, as
well as online channels. The company was founded in 1995 and is
headquartered in Emeryville, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Green, Esq.
          James Robert Noblin, Esq.
          GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
          2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
          Larkspur, CA 94939
          Telephone: (415) 477 6700
          Facsimile: (415) 477 6710
          Email: gnecf@classcounsel.com


LIBERTY HARDWARE: Recalls Wall Plates Due to Shock & Fire Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Liberty Hardware Manufacturing Corp., of Winston-Salem, N.C.,
announced a voluntary recall of Wall plates. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The decorative wall plates can dislodge from the backplate and
short circuit the outlet, posing a risk of electrical shock or
fire.

The recalled allen + roth Linden and Brainerd Ironton wall plates
have two plates that are attached by hidden fasteners: (1) a
backplate that screws into the wall like traditional wall plates,
and (2) a decorative cover that snaps over the cover through use
of spring clips.   The recalled plates have a smooth, metallic
finish and fit a variety of switch and outlet designs.  The
recalled decorative wall plates snap onto the backplate without
the use of screws. Under the decorative plate, the backplate is
stamped with the letters "LHMC."

The firm has received two reports of short circuits when the
decorative plate dislodged from the back plate and touched an
energized, partially released plug. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/50W5Sy

The recalled products were manufactured in Vietnam and China and
sold at Lowe's Home Improvement stores nationwide and and online
at www.dlawlesshardware.com, www.flyingbulldogs.com, www.lowes.com
and www.riverbend.builders from January 2013 through January 2016
for between $5 and $27.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled wall plates,
remove them and contact Liberty Hardware Manufacturing for a full
refund.


LUFTHANSA TECHNIK: Appeal in "Venegas" Pending in 1st Cir. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Venegas v. Lufthansa Technik North, Case No. 16-8006 (1st Cir.,
February 18, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit from District Court in the
class action suit with Case No. 2:14-cv-00249-NT (D. Maine,
Portland, June 24, 2014).

Appellee Lufthansa Technik North's answering brief was due
March 3, 2016.

Christopher Venegas, on his own behalf and on behalf of all other
similarly situated, is represented by:

          Allison G. Gray, Esq.
          Jeffrey Neil Young, Esq.
          JOHNSON WEBBERT & YOUNG LLP
          160 Capitol St, Ste 3
          PO Box 79
          Augusta, ME 04332-0079
          Telephone: 207-623 5110

               - and -

          R. Scott Oswald, Esq.
          Nicholas W. Woodfield, Esq.
          Employment Law Group, P.C.
          888 17th Street NW
          Washington, DC 20006

Lufthansa Technik North America Holding Corporation,
is represented by:

          Tawny L. Alvarez, Esq.
          VERRILL DANA LLP
          1 Portland Sq
          PO Box 586
          Portland, ME 04112-0586
          Telephone: (207) 253 4522

               - and -

          Robert C. Brooks, Esq.
          Sara E. Hirshon, Esq.
          VERRILL DANA LLP
          1 Portland Sq
          PO Box 586
          Portland, ME 04112-0586
          Telephone: (207) 774 4000

Global Aircraft Service, Inc., is represented by:

          Timothy J. O'Brien, Esq.
          Tara Anne Rich, Esq.
          Tyler Justin Smith, Esq.
          LIBBY O'BRIEN KINGSLEY & CHAMPION LLC
          62 Portland Rd, Ste 17
          Kennebunk, ME 04043
          Telephone: (207) 985 1815

               - and -

          Roger M. Yale, Esq.
          YALE LAW FIRM
          1417 E. McKinney St
          Denton, TX 76209
          Telephone: (940) 891 1130


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Faces Class Action Over Defective Flooring
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hoang Tran, writing for LouisianaRecord.com, reports that
Lumber Liquidators faces a lawsuit from Louisiana residents who
claim they purchased its Chinese-made flooring materials, which
allegedly leaked formaldehyde.

Theresa DeVillier and Earl and Shirley Wells, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated, filed a class-action suit on
March 2 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Louisiana against the lumber company, citing redhibition,
violation of the Louisiana Products Liability Act, unfair trade
practices and consumer protection law.

The plaintiffs assert that they were misled by the defendant, who
was alleged to falsely warrant, advertise and sell defective
Chinese flooring.  The plaintiffs allege that the flooring failed
to meet industry standards and, as a result of improper oversight,
leaked formaldehyde, which is a carcinogenic gas. Formaldehyde
emissions from the floor boards were alleged to be multiple times
the maximum permissible limits.  The plaintiffs alleges that not
only were they exposed to the dangerous gas emissions, but they
were financially harmed by the actions of defendant as the
flooring is markedly less valuable because of the defect.

The plaintiffs claim that, at all times, the defendant knew about
the defect, yet willingly and deceptively engaged in the
manufacturing, promoting, advertising, selling and distributing
these alleged dangerous floorboards to consumers, violating
consumer protection laws and breaching warranties.

They are now suing for actual, compensatory damages or, in the
alternative, statutory damages, as well as exemplary damages,
attorney fees, court costs, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
any such further relief deemed proper by the court.  They are
demanding a jury trial and are represented by Kevin Klibert,
Salvadore Christina Jr. and Matthew B. Moreland from Becnel Law
Firm LLC in Reserve and Morris Bar and Mekel Alvarez from Morris
Bart LLC in New Orleans.

U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana Case
number 3:16-cv-00139-JWD-EWD


MAGNOLIA TIRE: Violated FLSA & NJWHL, "Williams" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Arnold Williams on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Magnolia Tire Service Corp., and Marco
Tejena, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00895-ES-
JAD (Dist. N.J., February 18, 2016), seeks recovery against
Defendants for violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL).

The Plaintiff was employed by Defendants full time as a non-exempt
laborer, performing tire repair and replacement duties, from 2014
to 2016.

Magnolia Tire, is headquartered in Elizabeth, Union County, New
Jersey. The Company employs individuals to perform labor services.
It has annual gross volume of sales made or business done was not
less than $500,000.00.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jodi J. Jaffe, Esq.
          JAFFE GLENN LAW GROUP, P.A.
          301 N. Harrison Street, Suite 9F, #306
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (201) 687 9977
          Facsimile: (201) 595 0308
          E-mail: JJaffe@JaffeGlenn.com


MATTSON TECHNOLOGY: Files Securities Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on March 9 disclosed that it has filed a
class action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California, case no. 3:16-cv-00811, on behalf
of shareholders of Mattson Technology, Inc. ("Mattson" or the
"Company") who held Mattson securities on the record date,
February 4, 2016, and have been harmed by Mattson's and its board
of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange
Act") in connection with  the proposed sale of the Company to
Beijing E-Town Dragon Semiconductor Industry Investment Center
(Limited Partnership) ("E-Town Dragon").

On December 2, 2015, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which E-
Town Dragon will acquire all of the outstanding shares of Mattson
through Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc., a newly formed subsidiary of
the acquirer (the "Proposed Transaction").  The shareholder vote
on the Proposed Transaction is expected to occur on March 23,
2016.

The complaint charges Mattson and the Board with violations of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) the Exchange Act.

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/MTSNnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Mattson shareholders will
receive $3.80 in cash per share for each share of Mattson they
own.  The offer is 36% less than the $6.00 per share price target
analysts at Needham & Co. issued as recently as February 2015 and
24% less than the $5.00 per share price target analysts at B Riley
& Co. issued as recently as late-October 2015.  The offer is also
significantly below Mattson's 52-week high stock price of $5.10
per share.

The complaint alleges that the proxy statement (the "Proxy") filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on February
17, 2016 provides materially incomplete and misleading information
about the Company and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of
Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act.  The Proxy fails to
provide Mattson's shareholders with material information
concerning the financial and procedural fairness of the Proposed
Transaction.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement
includes a non-solicitation provision, a matching rights
provisions, and a $8.58 million termination fee which essentially
ensure that a superior bidder will not emerge, as any potential
suitor will undoubtedly be deterred from expending the time, cost,
and effort of making a superior proposal while knowing that E-Town
Dragon can easily foreclose a competing bid.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 9, 2016.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


MATTSON TECH: "Talbert" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Stockholder Vote
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brent Talbert, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mattson Technology, Inc., Fusen E.
Chen, Kenneth Kannappan, Richard E. Dyck, Scott Kramer, Douglas
Scott Peterson, Kenneth G. Smith, And Thomas St. Dennis, the
Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00811-LHK (N.D. Cal., February 18,
2016), seeks to enjoin the stockholder vote on the merger between
Mattson and Beijing E-Town Dragon Semiconductor Industry
Investment Center (Proposed Transaction), for violation of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

In the event the Proposed Transaction is consummated, the
Plaintiff seeks to recover damages resulting from the Defendants'
violations of the Exchange Act.

The Stockholder vote is currently scheduled for March 23, 2016.
Pursuant to the terms of the definitive agreement and plan of
merger these entities entered into, Mattson stockholders stand to
receive only $3.80 in cash for each share of Mattson common stock
they own.

Mattson is incorporated under the laws of Delaware and maintains
its principal executive offices in Fremont, California. The
Company designs, manufactures, markets and globally supports
semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the fabrication
of integrated circuits. Mattson is a key supplier of processing
equipment used in the global semiconductor industry, and operates
primarily in four product sectors: dry strip, etch, conventional
rapid thermal processing and millisecond anneal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David E. Bower, Esq.
          Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
          FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (424) 256 2884
          Facsimile: (424) 256 2885
          E-mail: dbower@faruqilaw.com


MEMPHIS POLICE: Moses Appeals Case Dismissal to 6th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------------
Pamela J. Moses, appearing pro se, is taking an appeal to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from a ruling by the
District Court for the Western District of Tennessee at Memphis in
her lawsuit against the City of Memphis' Police Department and
Mayor AC Wharton.

The appeal was filed March 10, 2016, and is captioned as Pamela
Moses v. Amy Weirich, et al, Case No. 16-5278 (6th Cir.).

The appeal stemmed from the civil rights case, Case No. 2:15-cv-
02806.

District Judge James D. Todd of the United States District Court
for the Western District of Tennessee adopted a magistrate judge's
Report and Recommendation (R&R) dismissing the case captioned,
PAMELA MOSES, Plaintiff, v. AMY WEIRICH, ET AL., Defendants, Case
No. 15-2806-JDT-DKV (W.D. Tenn.); and denied leave to appeal in
forma pauperis.

On December 17, 2015, Plaintiff Pamela Moses, a resident of
Memphis, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 1983, accompanied by a motion to proceed in forma pauperis.
United States Magistrate Judge Diane K. Vescovo granted leave to
proceed in forma pauperis on December 18, 2015. On December 21,
2015, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint which included a motion
for class certification; Plaintiff also filed an emergency motion
for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction on
December 28, 2015.

Magistrate Judge Vescovo issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R)
on January 19, 2016, in which she recommended denying the motion
for class certification, denying Plaintiff's motion for injunctive
relief, and dismissing the case sua sponte pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1915(e)(2). The Magistrate Judge also concluded that none of
Plaintiff's claims for money damages stated a claim on which
relief may be granted.

Plaintiff timely objected to the R&R on February 1, 2016.  The
Plaintiff also filed motions for a temporary stay, to amend, and
to appoint counsel for Plaintiff and a special master for the
proposed class. Plaintiff contends that all of the criminal
prosecutions brought against her since 2014 were malicious and
retaliatory, stemming from her previous opposition to and conflict
with Shelby County General Sessions Court Judge Phyllis Gardner.

In his Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/BU9k9Xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Todd concluded that the
case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Violated Clean Air Act, "Lynevych" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ulyana Lynevych, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a Delaware
Limited Liability Company, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00881-
JLL-JAD (D. N.J., February 18, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive
relief, and equitable relief for Mercedes' misconduct related to
the design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and lease of Affected
Vehicles with unlawfully high emissions, pursuant to the Clean Air
Act and the Unfair Competition Law under State and Federal law.

Mercedes allegedly promised that the BlueTEC Clean Diesel vehicles
provide "higher torque and efficiency with up to 30% lower
greenhouse-gas emissions than gasoline," together with "ultra-low
emissions, high fuel economy and responsive performance". Mercedes
represents that, when injected into the exhaust, AdBlue converts
the nitrogen oxide emissions into harmless nitrogen and oxygen and
reduces the nitrogen oxides in the exhaust gases by up to 90%.

Mercedes-Benz USA is a Delaware limited liability corporation
whose principal place of business is at Atlanta, Georgia.
Mercedes, through its various entities, designs, manufactures,
markets, distributes and sell Mercedes automobiles in Illinois and
multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.
Mercedes and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed
the BlueTEC Clean Diesel engine systems in the Affected Vehicles.
Mercedes also developed and disseminated the owner's manuals and
warranty booklets, advertisements, and other promotional materials
relating to the Affected Vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI,
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          1918 8th Avenue, Suite 3300
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 623 7292


MICHIGAN: Hearing Held in Suit v. Unemployment Insurance Agency
---------------------------------------------------------------
Darren Cunningham, writing for Fox17, reports that the first
hearing in a potential class action lawsuit against the Michigan
Unemployment Insurance Agency took place on March 8 in the
Michigan Court of Claims in Detroit.

The hearing centered around the motion by the state attorney
general's office to dismiss the case.  The AG alleges the Court of
Claims lacks jurisdiction to hear the case and that no damage has
been done to the plaintiffs.

Judge Cynthia Stephens must determine whether to grant the motion
to dismiss the case or move forward.  She said she will attempt to
make that decision.


NAMIAS OF ARIZONA: Recalls Chicken Products Due to Misbranding
--------------------------------------------------------------
Namias of Arizona, Inc., a Tucson, Ariz. establishment, is
recalling approximately 19,200 pounds of chicken products due to
misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.
The products contain hydrolyzed soy protein, a known allergen
which is not declared on the product label.

The fully-cooked chicken items were produced on various dates
between Sept. 2, 2015, and March 1, 2016. The following products
are subject to recall:

  --- 20-pound cases containing 5-pound bags of "Carlotta's
      Kitchen CHICKEN CHILE VERDE."
  --- 20-pound cases containing 5-pound bags of "Carlotta's
      Kitchen SPORTS CHICKEN," a chili-type entree.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-6006"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. The chicken chile verde items
were shipped to the company's restaurant in Nevada. The sports
chicken items were shipped to the company's restaurants in
Arizona.

The problem was discovered by FSIS personnel during a routine
label review at the establishment. Hydrolyzed soy is a component
of the chicken base used to manufacture the products.

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

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


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Class Action Challenges Transfer Rules
--------------------------------------------------------
Steve Berkowitz, writing for USA TODAY Sports, reports that the
Seattle-based law firm leading a variety of class-action lawsuits
against the NCAA on March 8 opened another front against the
association, this time challenging the association's rules that
prevent some Division I football players from transferring to
other schools without losing a season of athletics eligibility.

The new complaint was filed in federal court in Indianapolis,
where the NCAA is headquartered.  It is being pursued primarily by
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP on behalf of Peter Deppe, a punter
who had planned to transfer from Northern Illinois to Iowa.

The suit alleges that Iowa accepted Mr. Deppe academically, but
that Iowa's athletics department declined to pursue a waiver that
would have allowed Mr. Deppe to become eligible immediately and
the NCAA would not consider a waiver request from Mr. Deppe.  The
suit alleges that Iowa then turned its attention toward another
punter who would be eligible immediately without a waiver.

Mr. Deppe's case is similar to another suit related to the NCAA's
transfer rules that the Hagens Berman firm is pursuing.  But
Mr. Deppe has remaining eligibility, and he was trying to transfer
from one Football Bowl Subdivision school to another FBS school.
In the other case about the transfer rules, the named plaintiff --
Devin Pugh -- was attempting to transfer from a Football
Championship Subdivision school to an FBS school, and that
plaintiff's eligibility has expired. (Football players can
transfer from an FBS school to an FCS school without having to sit
out a year or lose a season of eligibility.)

As with yet another suit the Hagens Berman firm is pursuing
against the NCAA, the Deppe case also seeks to overturn the
association's rules capping the number of football scholarships a
Division I football team may award.

But the primary issue relates to the transfer rules.

"The NCAA's limitation on the mobility of college athletes is
patently unlawful," the suit claims. "For a striking contrast, one
can simply examine the unfettered mobility of the players'
coaches.  Football coaches, including assistant coaches, are free
to leave a school at any time they choose to take another job in
the college or professional football ranks.  This ability to
better their own situation has allowed coaches to reap enormous
financial benefits.

"Players, however, suffer a severe penalty for transferring -- the
loss of a year of athletics eligibility. This can make them a very
unattractive option for coaches who are under constant 'win now'
pressure. The NCAA's transfer rules restrain players' ability to
make the best choices for themselves, including ones based on
financial considerations, academic considerations, athletics
considerations, and personal circumstances."

In a statement early on March 9, the NCAA's chief legal officer
Donald Remy said: "The Deppe complaint repeats many of the same
arguments made by the same law firm in other cases against the
NCAA.  Repeating allegations and legal theories does not make them
true. As a result, the lawsuit should be dismissed."

The Hagens Berman firm is overseeing the settlement of lawsuits
against the NCAA, video game manufacturer EA Sports and the
Collegiate Licensing Co., relating to the use of college athletes'
names and likenesses in video games.  It is trying to gain a
judge's approval of a settlement with the NCAA in a case relating
to concussions.

It also is involved with two cases challenging the NCAA's limits
on what athletes can receive while playing college sports -- cases
that have been granted class-action status for its pursuit of an
injunction against the NCAA and major conferences.  The firm is
seeking class-action status in one of those two cases for a group
of athletes it claims are entitled to damages based on the
difference in value between a traditional scholarship covering
tuition, fees, room, board and books and a newly allowed
scholarship that covers the full cost of attending college.

In addition, the firm is pursuing a case that primarily targets
the NCAA's scholarship limits.


NESTLE USA: Complied with "Safe Harbor Law, Court Rules
-------------------------------------------------------
Lyzzette M. Bullock, Esq., and Daniel J. Herling, Esq. of Mintz
Levin Cohn Ferris Glovsky and Popeo PC, in an article for
Lexology, report that the law firm recently blogged about a new
wave of class action litigation related to California's
Transparency in Supply Chains Act.  In December, Nestle USA won
the dismissal of a complaint against it alleging that the company
was "obligated to inform consumers that some proportion of its cat
food products may include seafood which was sourced from forced
labor."  In Barber v. Nestle USA, the question was whether Nestle
had a duty to disclose on its packaging the possibility that some
of its suppliers or suppliers' suppliers used illegal labor
practices, particularly when it is virtually impossible to trace
such practices directly to their food products.  The Central
District of California found that the law recognizes a "safe
harbor" and that Nestle complied with the law by providing a
limited disclosure to its customers regarding the company's
efforts to ensure compliance with labor laws on its website.

It turns out that fish used in cat food is not the only product
that may include sourcing from forced labor.  Suppliers of cocoa
used to make chocolate may be using forced labor and child labor
in cocoa fields.  Plaintiffs wielding such reports sued Mars, Inc.
in September 2015 on largely the same grounds as the Barber
plaintiffs in the Nestle case, arguing that under California law,
Mars is obligated to disclose on its packaging that some of its
cocoa beans may have been sourced from forced and child labor.
See Hodsdon v. Mars, Inc.  Like the Nestle court, the Mars court
in the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint and
found that the law does not impose a duty on Mars to disclose such
issues at the point of sale on its packaging.

However, instead of arguing that Mars was protected by the "safe
harbor" provisions of the law (which the court declined to
address), Mars argued that the law imposes a duty to disclose such
information only when it pertains to the safety or defect of the
product.  The court agreed with Mars, finding that a
manufacturer's duty to disclose only relates to the product's
safety risks and defects, and such duty does not extend to
situations "where information may persuade a consumer to make
different purchasing decisions," like bad labor practices.  In
other words, unless there was a safety risk to chocolate
consumers, Mars did not have a duty to disclose at the point of
sale (i.e., on packaging and labeling) the possible child labor
used to source its cocoa beans.

The crux of the Mars plaintiffs' argument is that they would not
have purchased Mars's chocolate or would have paid less for it had
they been aware of the prospect that illegal labor practices may
have been used in its sourcing.  But the court didn't buy that
argument because, like Nestle, Mars disclosed the prospect of
illegal labor practices used in cocoa sourcing on its website.

In a similar action in the Northern District of California,
plaintiffs sued another chocolate giant, Hershey.  The Hershey
Company filed its motion to dismiss in January and it's currently
pending the court's decision.  So far, the industry is 2 for 2 in
defending these disclosure-based actions.  We believe that if
companies are proactive in disclosing their efforts toward
compliance with labor laws and the Supply Chains Act, they will
continue to be successful against plaintiffs' disclosure claims.


NESTLE USA: Recalls Chicken Pizza Products
------------------------------------------
Nestle USA Inc. is recalling approximately 267,024 pounds of
chicken pizza products, produced at its Little Chute, Wisconsin
establishment, and chicken lasagna products, produced at its
Springville, Utah establishment that may be contaminated with
extraneous materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The chicken lasagna items were produced on Dec. 21, 2015 and the
chicken pizza items were produced on Jan. 17, 2016 and Jan. 18,
2015.

The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 19.03-oz. boxes containing "DIGIORNO pizzeria! Tuscan-style
      chicken pizza" with case codes 601752592 and 601852591 and
      Best By: Aug., 2016.

  --- 96-oz. boxes containing "Stouffer's chicken lasagna" with a
      case code 5355595915 and Best By: Jan., 2018.

The chicken pizza products subject to recall bear establishment
number "P-5754" and the chicken lasagna products subject to recall
bear establishment number "P9018" inside the USDA mark of
inspection. These items were shipped to retail locations
nationwide.

The problem was discovered after the firm received multiple
consumer complaints regarding small pieces of glass in foods that
fall under the jurisdiction of FSIS or the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. More specifically, one consumer complaint was
received regarding FSIS inspected product.

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

Consumers who may have purchased the recalled products are urged
not to consume them but instead contact Nestle Consumer Services
at 1-800-681-1676.


NORTHLAND GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms Class Certification Denial
------------------------------------------------------------
Archis A. Parasharami, Esq. -- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- and
Kevin Ranlett, Esq. -- kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- of Mayer Brown,
in an article for the law firm's Class Defense Blog, report that
it's often argued that when the principal rationale for approving
a low-value class settlement is that the claims are weak, that is
a signal that the case should not have been filed as a class
action in the first place.  Second Circuit recently reached that
exact conclusion when considering a proposed class settlement in a
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) case, holding that the
putative class couldn't be certified and that the FDCPA claims
should be dismissed.

The decision

In Gallego v. Northland Group Inc., a debt collector faced a class
action under the FDCPA for allegedly sending borrowers a debt
collection letter that gave a call-back number but didn't specify
the name of the person at that number.  As a matter of law, the
claim seems dubious at best.  But rather than incur the expense of
filing a motion to dismiss, the defendant agreed to a class
settlement.  Under the deal, the defendant would pay plaintiff's
counsel attorney's fees of up to $35,000 and establish a class
fund of $17,500--an amount equal to one percent of its net worth,
which was its maximum exposure in the class action. (The FDCPA
limits liability in a class action to "the lesser of $500,000 or 1
per centum of the net worth of the debt collector." 15 U.S.C. Sec
1692k(a)(2)(B).) Of the class fund, the named plaintiff was to
receive $1,000 with the remainder to be distributed pro rata to
the class members who submit claims --meaning that if all of the
100,000 class members were to submit claims, each would receive
16.5 cents.

The district court denied preliminary approval of the class
settlement, holding that the class couldn't even be certified
because a class action wasn't superior to individual lawsuits. And
the court then dismissed the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, concluding that the FDCPA claim was so weak that it
couldn't support an exercise of federal question jurisdiction.

The Second Circuit largely agreed with the district court's
ruling. Although the Second Circuit held that the FDCPA claims
should be dismissed on the merits rather than for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, the court affirmed the denial of class
certification. The Second Circuit explained that the
"'meaningless' amount' of relief "that each putative class member
would receive from the settlement" confirmed that "Rule 23(b)(3)'s
superiority requirement was not met[.]" Nor was the court
impressed by the plaintiff's rejoinder that likely only "5%" of
class members would file claims, and thus each would recover "a
more substantial amount"; as the court put it, "[a]n expected low
participation rate is hardly a selling point for a proposed
classwide settlement--and the relief provided would still be
trivial even if only 5% of class members filed a claim."

Implications

The Second Circuit's ruling in Gallego is noteworthy.  To begin
with, it underscores the unfortunate economics of class-action
litigation: The costs of getting even borderline frivolous class
actions dismissed or thrown out on summary judgment are high
enough that defendants often feel compelled to agree to a class
settlement--at least under the circumstances of the FDCPA's cap on
class-wide damages.  In addition, it is more than a little ironic
that plaintiff's counsel sought to salvage the settlement by
arguing that it was his expectation that 95 percent of his clients
(the class members) wouldn't get a cent.

Gallego is also important because it confirms that few large FDCPA
classes merit certification.  As the court pointed out, the
maximum class recovery in these cases is capped at $500,000 or one
percent of the defendant's net worth, whichever is less. By
contrast, in an individual case, a plaintiff can recover actual
damages plus up to $1,000 in statutory damages.  Thus, once the
number of class members exceeds 500, the maximum recovery for each
class member falls below the $1,000 in statutory damages that
could be recovered in individual actions. And if class members
also incurred actual damages, then the break-even point is even
lower.

Plaintiffs typically respond by insisting that the prospect of
individual lawsuits over these amounts is unrealistic.  But the
whole point of statutory damages and statutory attorneys' fees is
to make individual litigation worthwhile.  And the sheer number of
individual FDCPA actions filed every year confirms that many do
indeed find these suits worthwhile.  Moreover, if the consumer's
claim were covered by an arbitration agreement requiring
individual arbitration--in which all or all but a token amount of
the costs of the forum are paid by the defendant--that process
would surely result in a better outcome for the consumer than
would a class action in court.


OKLAHOMA: Spending Necessary for Child Welfare Services Reform
--------------------------------------------------------------
According to an Editorial posted at The Oklahoman, during a time
when Oklahoma state agencies are being forced to cut their
budgets, expenditures on such things as consultants automatically
raise concern.  Yet in the case of the Department of Human
Services, the spending has been necessary.

When the state settled a federal class-action lawsuit in 2012, it
agreed to overhaul its child welfare services agency.  Part of
that agreement included using three out-of-state experts,
appointed by a federal judge in Tulsa, to monitor DHS's progress
and recommend reforms.  That has cost money -- big money.

As The Oklahoman's Randy Ellis reported on March 6, DHS in the
past four years has spent just over $5.6 million on a New Jersey-
based consulting firm that includes the three experts, called
co-neutrals, who get $315 per hour for their work. The firm's
partners, associates, support staff and consultants also have been
paid under the agency's contract.

The optics here are not good.  In order to meet a budget that's
being cut by millions of dollars over the next 16 months, DHS has
offered voluntary buyouts to more than 400 employees.  Meantime,
it's spending these large sums for the co-neutrals and others.

Additionally, the agency has not yet shown significant improvement
in child welfare services.  The percentage of children who
experienced maltreatment while in state care was 1.27 during the
2014 federal fiscal year (compared with 0.48 percent in 2011).
That translates to 206 substantiated instances of children being
maltreated, out of 16,272 children in state care that year.  The
1.27 percent was also second-worst nationally for 2014, trailing
only Colorado's 1.42 percent.

The co-neutrals say it wouldn't be accurate to say Oklahoma's
maltreatment rate has more than doubled during their involvement
in the state, because the method now used by the agency to track
maltreatment has changed to include a broader scope.

And DHS officials say the co-neutrals aren't to blame for the
higher maltreatment rates.  Instead, they note the biggest problem
is that the number of children needing out-of-home care has grown
tremendously in recent years -- from about 7,900 at the end of
Oklahoma's fiscal year 2011, to about 11,300 three years later.
That argument shouldn't be dismissed.  The rapid growth in the
number of kids in state custody has made caseworkers' jobs all the
more difficult and left DHS scrambling to try to find enough
foster homes.

It's also worth noting that the amount paid to the consulting firm
and co-neutrals to reform the child welfare system is about $2
million less than DHS paid its attorneys to fight the class-action
lawsuit.  That money went into attorneys' bank accounts. Today,
DHS has fewer young children in shelters, better-trained case
workers and has made other strides.  Steven Dow, a Tulsa attorney
who serves on the agency's child and family services committee and
who has been closely involved in this process from the start,
points out that "some things have changed within the department to
get it on a better trajectory" and that the deeply adversarial
relationship between DHS and the plaintiffs has eased
considerably.

Indeed, Marcia Robinson Lowry, who led the lawsuit against DHS and
who generally has been critical of the agency's efforts since the
settlement, is sounding a more supportive tone.  "Already the
state has ended the placement of babies and young children in
public shelters and increased the number of caseworkers so they
can do a better job of protecting children," she said.

The adage in business that you sometimes need to spend money to
make money applies here. DHS, in order to comply with the lawsuit
agreement, must spend on these special services.  The frustration
stems from the slow pace of outward change, compounded now by
economic conditions outside of the agency's control.


OUTERWALL INC: "Boyer" Sues Over Kiosk Inaccessibility
------------------------------------------------------
Brett Boyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Outerwall Inc., Defendant(s), Case
6CV0306-LAB-BLM (S.D. Cal., February 8, 2016), seeks permanent
injunction, minimum statutory damages under the Unruh Act and the
California Disabled Persons Act, costs of suit and reasonable
attorneys' fees.

Outerwall, Inc. is incorporated in the state of Delaware with
headquarters in Bellevue, Washington. It owns and operates more
than 21,000 coin-counting kiosks in more than 20,000 locations,
which enable consumers to convert their coins to cash or eGift
Cards, or to donate their coins to a charitable cause.

Plaintiff is legally blind and alleges that Coinstar kiosks are
not accessible.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Meghan S. Maertz, Esq.
      185 South Linden Drive
      Ventura, CA 93004
      Tel: (805) 444-6801
      Email: meghansherry@yahoo.com

             - and -

      Gerald D. Wells III, Esq.
      CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
      2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
      King of Prussia, PA 19406
      Tel: (610) 822-3700
      Fax: (610) 822-3800
      Email: gwells@cwg-law.com

             - and -

      Meghan S. Maertz, Esq.
      Arkady Rayz, Esq.
      Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
      KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
      1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
      Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
      Tel: (215) 364-5030
      Fax: (215) 364-5029
      E-mail: erayz@kalraylaw.com
              dbraynin@kalraylaw.com


PARKATLANTA: Faces Class Action Over Parking Tickets
----------------------------------------------------
Christian De La Rosa, writing for CBS46 News, reports a class
action lawsuit is in the works against ParkAtlanta.

The embattled company has been faced by a wave of criticism,
accusing it of being predatory, ticketing customers with no mercy.

"The level of dissatisfaction is pretty telling," said
Peter Varney who we met paying for parking on Peachtree Street in
Midtown.

But figures obtained by CBS46 from the company tell a different
story.

Out of 3.5 million paid parking transactions in 2015, ParkAtlanta
enforcement officers wrote 200,000 parking tickets.

A spokesperson for the company told us most people didn't fight
their tickets and less than 1% of those tickets were found to be
written in error.

"That doesn't make the ticket right.  That doesn't make the ticket
valid and that does not make the ticket legal," said Attorney
Eddie Key.

He said the problem is it's virtually impossible for customers who
are ticketed to prove ParkAtlanta wrong.

"Am I going take a day off work [to go to court], or am I going to
pay 25 dollars? And a lot of people just choose to pay 25
dollars," said Mr. Key.

It's why he's now building a case against the private parking
enforcement company, and seeking damages.

ParkAtlanta officials said the criticism isn't justified, claiming
they actually write less tickets than the city of Atlanta did
before ParkAtlanta took over seven years ago.  The company's
contract with the City ends in September of this year and the
company hopes to renew it.

Attorneys told CBS46 they're particularly interested in customers
ticketed during September of last year.

Those interested in joining the class-action can call 888-665-
0241.


PEARLS GROUP: Class Action Mulled Over Indian Ponzi Scam
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Klan, writing for The Australian, reports that a Brisbane
lawyer and corporate fraud expert is preparing to launch a class
action against the massive Pearls Group Indian Ponzi scam that
would include a bid to freeze $140 million-plus of assets and cash
allegedly funnelled to Australia.

Niall Coburn, of Coburn Corporate Intelligence, said he was
seeking to represent investors burned in the $10 billion scam,
with a focus on recovering -- between $150m and $500m.

In 2009, following official introductions by federal government
agency Austrade, Pearls Group founder Nirmal Singh Bhangoo teamed
up with Gold Coast property developers Paul Brinsmead and Peter
Madrers and created Pearls Australasia.

Mr. Brinsmead has confirmed $135 million was moved from Pearls
Group to form Pearls Australasia in September 2009, with the
company buying the Sheraton Mirage resort on the Gold Coast for
$62m and spending $20m on refurbishments.  He said the pair had
not been aware Pearls was a Ponzi scheme and they had trusted
Austrade, as an arm of the federal government, that the company
was legitimate.

On a website created to handle the proposed class action,
Mr. Coburn says his firm is seeking to investigate where Indian
investor funds have ended up.

"Bhangoo and other executives of the Pearls Group were arrested in
India for their part in the scheme that involves a complex money
trail and (alleged) conspiracy with government officials in
India," Mr Coburn writes.  "The money trail of illegal funds from
India led to . . . properties including the Sheraton Mirage on the
Gold Coast and other . . . developments in Brisbane."

Mr. Coburn said his firm was conducting due diligence to determine
whether there was "sufficient evidence" to take action in the
Federal Court to obtain freezing orders relating to the $150m-
$500m moved here.  He said he was working with a Sydney law firm.

The actual amount of Pearls cash moved to Australia is unknown.
The Australian has revealed that Mr. Bhangoo's family members own
a $5 million Gold Coast waterfront mansion and a $2.5 million
inner-Melbourne home, each bought with Pearls cash.

Pearls had also been involved in numerous property developments in
Brisbane, the Gold Coast and Melbourne.  Former Austrade official
Peter Linford, who introduced Pearls to Australia, has claimed
$500m of Pearls Group India funds were brought here.

Mr. Brinsmead and Mr. Madrers of Pearls Australasia, which has
since changed its name to MiiGroup, say they wrote to Indian
authorities explaining they were eager to help repay investors,
but had not received a response.

Mr. Brinsmead said Indian authorities had closed Pearls India arm
Pearls Agrotech Corporation but had not closed its stablemate,
Pearls Infrastructure Projects Limited, which has shares in the
Australian company that owns the Gold Coast Sheraton Mirage.

Mr. Brinsmead and Mr. Madrers propose that an investor be found to
buy out the Pearls Group India holding in MiiGroup, or Indian
authorities work with them on a "work out" proposal to return
funds over a longer timeframe.


PELICAN PRODUCTS: Recalls Flashlights & Replacement Battery Packs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Pelican Products Inc., of Torrance, Calif., (flashlights) and HYB
Battery Co. Ltd., of China (batteries), announced a voluntary
recall of About 3,800 Pelican flashlights and 150 replacement
battery packs (in addition, about 800 flashlights and 18
replacement battery packs were sold in Canada). Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The battery packs in the flashlights can overheat, posing a fire
hazard to consumers.

This recall involves Pelican 9410L flashlights equipped with
lithium ion battery packs and replacement battery packs. The
flashlights are yellow and black. "Pelican 9410L" is printed on
the front of the flashlights and on the top of the handle. The
recalled flashlights have manufacturer part number 9410-021-245 or
9410-021-110 printed on the packaging. The manufacturer part
number for the recalled battery pack is 9413-301-001 and is
printed on a label on the battery's shrink wrap.  Only battery
packs that contain green shrink wrapped cells are included in the
recall.

Pelican has received two reports of overheating battery packs. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lZ63dd

The recalled products were manufactured in United States and China
and sold at Sports and specialty stores nationwide, online at
Amazon.com and other industrial supply dealers or distributors
from May 2014 through January 2016 for between $240 to $280 for
the flashlights and between $50 and $70 for the replacement
battery packs.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled flashlights
and replacement battery packs and contact Pelican for instructions
on returning the flashlights for free installation of a new
battery pack or to exchange replacement battery packs that were
sold separately for a new replacement battery pack.


PERDUE FOODS: Recalls Chicken Nugget Products
---------------------------------------------
Perdue Foods LLC, a Gainesville, Ga. establishment, is recalling
approximately 4,530 pounds of chicken nugget products (produced
for Applegate Farms) that may be contaminated with extraneous
plastic materials, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food
Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets were produced on Sept. 28,
2015. The following products are subject to recall:

8-oz. boxed packages containing approximately 18 pieces of
"Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets" with Best Before Date
09/27/2016.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-2617"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
retail distribution centers in Florida, Georgia, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, and Texas.

The problem was discovered when the establishment received
consumer complaints of small, solid, clear plastic inside the
Applegate Naturals Chicken Nuggets.

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

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


PERFECTION FOODS: Faces Class Action in Pa. Over Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Annie Hunt, writing for Penn Record, reports that a former
employee of Perfection Foods Company and Maximum Labor Inc. is
collectively suing the companies over allegations of unpaid wages.

Silvia Barrientos Molina filed a class-action lawsuit on Feb. 22
in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania against Perfection Foods Company Inc., Maximum Labor
Inc., Hahn Tran and Chavez Glady, citing violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA).

According to the complaint, Ms. Molina was employed at the
defendants' facility, working in the production and packaging of
food products from 2011 until January 2015.  The plaintiff was
paid an hourly rate of $7.25 per hour, and regularly worked
between 40 and 72 hours per week.

Ms. Molina claims that the defendants failed to record and pay her
for regular hours worked and for overtime compensation.  The
plaintiff avers that many other non-exempt employees for the
defendant have not been compensated for their work activities and
files this action collectively on their behalf.

Ms. Molina seeks an order permitting the class-action designation,
unpaid wages, prejudice interest, liquidated damages, litigation
costs, expenses and attorneys' fees.  She is represented by Peter
Winebrake, R. Andrew Santillo and Mark J. Gottesfeld of Winebrake
& Santillo LLC.


PILOT FLYING J: Faces Class Action Over Credit Card Holds
---------------------------------------------------------
WBIR reports that another proposed class action lawsuit has been
filed against Pilot Flying J -- this one in federal court in
Florida -- that accuses the truck stop giant of placing excessive
holds on customer credit cards used to buy gas at the pump.

On March 3, three East Tennessee attorneys filed two lawsuits
seeking class action status, saying the holds are placed without
the customer's knowledge or consent, and are typically greater
than the total cost of the fuel actually purchased.

They were filed by Knoxville-based attorneys Gordon Ball and Lance
Baker, and Johnson City-based Thomas Jessee in Jefferson County
and Sevier County circuit courts.

On March 4, the trio, along with Florida-based Philip Hammersley,
sued Pilot Flying J in U.S. District Court in Tampa, alleging
similar complaints.

The 30-page federal complaint says the holds placed on the credit
cards can be as much as $100, and for some semi-truck operators
they can be as high as $500.  The holds, according to the
complaint, prevent users from tapping additional credit,
sometimes, up to three days.

The Florida lawsuit was filed on behalf of Nolan Darby who says a
hold was placed on his card after he bought $23 in fuel in mid-
February at an Ellenton, Fla. Pilot Flying J store.

Court records note that the proposed class involved in the lawsuit
consists of "100 or more members" and the "amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million."

The complaint says the company deceived customers by not
disclosing the holds.

Jeff Lenard, spokesman for the National Association of Convenience
Stores, told WBIR 10News that holds are set "by the rules of Visa
and MasterCard," but the amount is determined by the retailer.

In addition, he said, the length of the hold is determined by the
credit card's bank.

"It does not mean that the station owns that money at any point,
because they don't," he said.  "They don't own that money until
it's reconciled by your bank and it goes through and is
processed."

Mr. Lenard added: "The retailer doesn't own that money, and there
really are no positive benefits to that hold beyond -- they have
to have it, otherwise they may not get paid."

Anne LeZotte, communications manager for Pilot Flying J, said the
company is "aware of the complaints and plans to vigorously defend
this matter."


PRIDE: Faces Class Action in UK Over Mobility Scooter Price
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chris Haan, Esq., of Leigh Day, in an article for Lexology,
reports that first consumer class action launched against scooter
manufacturer Pride over breaches to competition law.

Law firm Leigh Day is bringing what is believed to be the first
class action in the UK, representing the National Pensioners
Convention on behalf of people who claim they paid too much for a
mobility scooter from the manufacturer, Pride, which was found
guilty of competition law breaches in 2014.

The class action claims that between 2010 and 2012, Pride banned
retailers from advertising online prices below their recommended
retail price (RRP).

According to the 2014 hearing, Pride was worried about the prices
on the internet being too low and even referred to online
retailers, who priced below the RRP, as "internet rogues".

The ban made it harder for consumers to shop around for the best
price.  In March 2014, the Office of Fair Trading found that Pride
had breached competition law by imposing the ban and that as a
result consumers potentially paid higher prices.

In October 2015, the new Consumer Rights Act brought in, for the
first time in the UK, an opt out class action regime to make it
easier for consumers to claim compensation for breaches of
competition law.

Class actions are a legal claim brought by one representative
whose duty is to act fairly and adequately in the interests of all
consumers affected by a company's wrongdoing.

Before the class action regime was introduced, individual
consumers would each have to opt in and bring a claim as a group
claiming individual compensation.

Chris Haan from the consumer law team at Leigh Day, said:

"This class action is about seeking compensation for consumers who
were overcharged, and by how much.  "Up to 34,000 Pride customers,
who bought a scooter between 2010 and 2012, may be entitled to
around a ??200 refund, or even more in specific cases. A potential
claim in total of up to ??7.7million, including interest."

Leigh Day are now waiting to hear back from Pride about reaching a
collective settlement of the claim.  If no settlement is reached,
the National Pensioners Convention will need to apply to the
Competition Appeal Tribunal for permission to bring the class
action.

If permission is given, then all members of the class of affected
consumers will be automatically covered by the claim.  If the
class action is successful, then the Tribunal can award a lump sum
of compensation for all class members to share.

Class members then need to come forward to claim their
compensation, which may be determined in accordance with a
formula.

Mr. Haan explained: "We are now keen to hear from anyone who
believes they may have been affected, those people who bought or
leased a mobility scooter manufactured by Pride Mobility Products
Limited in the UK between approximately February 2010 and late
2012.

"This includes Pride scooters bought from any retailer in the UK,
whether online or in a shop. It also includes Pride scooters
leased through the Motability scheme.

"As it is a class action they don't need to sign anything at this
stage, or become a client but they can be kept up to date with
developments via our website, as the case progresses."

Dot Gibson, NPC general secretary said: "This is an important case
because it lets manufacturers know that they cannot try and rip
off older consumers.  We believe Pride breached competition law by
banning online retailers from selling scooters below the
recommended retail price, and it's right that we should test that
in the courts.

"Someone has to stand up for older consumers, and whilst it might
be about mobility scooters today, the ability to take out a class
action means that this sort of case may well be used in the future
against things like care homes.  It's an important landmark case."


PROLOGIX DISTRBUTION: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
On February 2, 2016 the Los Angeles employment lawyers at
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik filed a Lawsuit alleging Prologix
Distrbution Services (West) LLC failed to pay their non exempt
employees the proper amount of overtime wages and allegedly failed
to provide adequate breaks.  The Prologix Distribution class
action, Case No. BC608948 is currently pending in the Los Angeles
County Superior Court for the State of California. A copy of the
Complaint can be read by clicking here.

According to the class action lawsuit filed against Prologix, the
company allegedly did not allow their drivers to record all of
their time worked.  The Complaint alleges that the distribution
company consistently required their hourly drivers to work of the
clock without paying them for all the time these employees were
under the company's control.

The Complaint also alleges that the employees working for the
company in California were not always able to take their thirty
minute uninterrupted meal breaks before their fifth hour of work.
California law requires employers to provide their non-exempt
employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute meal periods
before the employee works five hours.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Prologix Distribution Services, please call (866) 771-7099 to
speak to one of the attorneys at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and
Bhowmik.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is an employment law firm that
dedicates its practice to helping employees fight back against
unfair business practices, including violations of the California
Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.  The firm has offices
located in San Francisco, Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and
San Diego County.


RAILWORKS TRACK SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Finnemore" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jared Finnemore, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Railworks Track Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00395-LJM-TAB (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis
Division, February 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff worked for Defendant as an operator and laborer.

Railworks Track Services provides railroad construction and
maintenance services. It expects that operator and laborers will
travel from project locations away from home back to home without
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407)420 1414
          Email: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


RANK TRADE SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Meran" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Meran and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Rank Trade Services, Inc., and Rafael Aznielles, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20580-JEM (S.D. Fla., February 18,
2016), seeks to recover double damages and reasonable attorney
fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rank Trade Services owns and operates cold storage warehouses and
conducts business in Doral, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          Attorney For Plaintiff
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


RED ROBIN: Judge Approves Hepatitis A Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
KY3 reports that a Greene County circuit judge approved a class-
action settlement between Red Robin and people who were possibly
exposed to hepatitis A in 2014.  About 2,500 people could each
receive $250 from the company if they accept the settlement.

A worker at the Red Robin on South Glenstone Avenue in Springfield
tested positive for the disease.  About 2,500 people who ate food
from there between May 8 and May 16, 2014, received vaccinations,
according to the Springfield-Greene County Health Department.

A couple from Republic sued the restaurant's parent company the
same month as the potential exposure.  The case then became a
class-action case.  A judge approved the settlement agreement on
March 7 and plans to finalize it in June.

The judge ordered the Springfield-Greene County Health Department
to release the names of anyone who got those immunizations for
hepatitis A to the case's administrators so they can be contacted
by mail to see if they want to accept the settlement.  The court
order says that personal information must remain confidential.


RHAPSODY: Faces Class Action Over Unlicensed Works
--------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that on
March 6, sources pointed Digital Music News to a string of
upcoming class action lawsuits involving Spotify competitors.
Now, the first of those lawsuits is being served against Rhapsody.

The massive class action lawsuit against Rhapsody is being filed
by Michelman & Robinson, LLP, the same law firm that filed against
Spotify in December.  That represents a critical first step, with
hearing dates and response briefs from Rhapsody soon following.

Just like the Spotify filing, the plaintiffs against Rhapsody
include David Lowery, along with a number of fellow members from
Lowery's bands, Camper van Beethoven and Cracker.  Perhaps most
importantly, the class action carries a similar damages estimate
of $200 million, based on the approximate number of unlicensed
works in Rhapsody's catalog.

Spotify's lawyers have already attacked their case and attempted
to nullify it completely, though Rhapsody may have fewer resources
to fight this battle.  The streaming service currently carries
more than three million paying subscribers, though many are 'low-
rent' users from bundled mobile packages.  Leaked financial
documents showed losses at Rhapsody topping $35.5 million, with
serious questions of long-term survival surfacing.

Just like Spotify, Rhapsody is being accused of non-payment on
mechanical royalties, a specific type of publishing license often
administered through Harry Fox Agency, or HFA.  The license
typically requires the mailing of NOIs, or Notices of Intent,
though HFA (on behalf of Rhapsody) started sending backdated NOIs
this year following the Spotify case.

And that may have been a critical error: the retroactive NOIs dial
back t0 2005, according to paperwork shared with Digital Music
News, a strange procedural decision that could be used as evidence
of admitted infringement in upcoming proceedings.

Outside of that smoking gun, Rhapsody's longevity as a streaming
music provider makes its lack of payment all the more egregious.
This is a service that dates back to 2001, and that agedness was
clearly mentioned in the complaint.

"Touted as one of the earliest U.S.-based subscription streaming
services, Rhapsody has a significant and impactful presence in the
music industry, and the available resources to properly obtain all
requisite licenses.  Rhapsody's current illegal practices and
procedures in connection with its unlicensed reproduction and/or
distribution of the copyrighted Works, combined with its failure
to pay owed mechanical royalties, evidences its practice of
unfairly profiting off the backs of composers."

The filing comes on the heels of urgent settlement discussions
involving Spotify and a group of other streaming providers that
may include Rhapsody.  The talks, coordinated through the National
Music Publishers' Association (NMPA), were leaked to Digital Music
News on March 7, and could substantially reduce the number of
class action participants.  According to top-level details shared
by sources, the settlement includes a one-time, $5 million Spotify
penalty, plus the creation of an interface to properly match
recording and publishing copyright data.

The case was being filed in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California.


ROOM & BOARD: Recalls Arm And Side Chairs Due to Laceration Risk
----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Room & Board, of Minneapolis, Minn., announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,500 Doyle arm chairs and side chairs. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The backrest can break during normal use, posing a laceration
hazard to the user.

This recalls involves Room & Board's Doyle arm chairs and side
chairs. The wood chairs were sold with and without an upholstered
seat and in five different finishes:  Charcoal, cherry, maple,
shell and walnut. Each chair has a barcode printed on a label
located under the seat on the inside of the seat frame. "Room &
Board-Handcrafted in Vermont" is inscribed on the seat frame next
to the barcode. A complete list of bar codes included in this
recall can be found on the firm's website.

The firm has received 10 incident reports of the chair backrest
breaking, including one report of a scratch.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/e7Urpd

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at Room &
Board stores nationwide and online at www.roomandboard.com from
May 2015 through December 2015 for between $350 and $520 for the
arm chairs and between $300 and $400 for the side chairs.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled chairs and
contact Room & Board to receive a free replacement chair or a full
refund. Room & Board is contacting consumers directly.


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Brokovich Expands Tainted Water Probe
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Houghton, writing for Union Leader, reports that
environmental activist Erin Brockovich and the law firm that
recently filed a class-action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics and Honeywell International over water
contamination are expanding their investigation to include the
town of Merrimack.

It was announced that four faucets at Saint-Gobain's Merrimack
plant detected low levels of perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA),
prompting action from the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services.

On March 9, Ms. Brockovich and the law firm Weitz & Luxenberg
announced that it will begin looking into the Merrimack water
issue, just as it has in other communities in New York and
Vermont.

"Almost every week a new community learns its drinking water is no
longer safe. We have to put an end to this crisis, step up our
investment into vital infrastructure and see a greater enforcement
of the Safe Drinking Water Act," Ms. Brockovich said in a
statement provided to the New Hampshire Union Leader.

Ms. Brockovich and Weitz & Luxenberg filed a federal class-action
lawsuit against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and
Honeywell International Inc. on behalf of residents in Hoosick
Falls, N.Y., after discovering they were drinking water containing
high levels of PFOA, a man-made chemical once used to make Teflon.

The law firm is also investigating similar situations in
Petersburgh, N.Y. and North Bennington, Vt., where elevated levels
of PFOA were discovered in drinking water there.

Levels below EPA standard

According to a news release from the law firm, chronic PFOA
exposure has been linked to a myriad of medical problems,
including kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease,
ulcerative colitis, pregnancy-induced hypertension and high
cholesterol.

"We want people to know that we are taking this very seriously,"
said James Martin, public information officer with the state DES.
A plan has been created to start testing numerous wells in the
area, including wells at the Saint-Gobain plant in Merrimack,
private wells within a certain radius of the facility, Merrimack
Village Water District wells and private residential wells.  Some
of the results are expected in about two weeks.

Martin stressed that the levels of PFOA discovered at
Saint-Gobain, 701 Daniel Webster Highway, are significantly below
the provisional standards published by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.

The data collected from tap water at the plant, which is serviced
by the Merrimack Valley Water District, detected low levels of
PFOA at 30 parts per trillion, compared to EPA's provisional
health advisory of 400 parts per trillion (ppt).

Voluntary testing

Following Ms. Brockovich's announcement on March 9, Dina Silver
Pokedoff, spokesman for Saint-Gobain, emphasized that the
Merrimack facility pro-actively decided to test the tap water
given recent events in New York and Vermont.

"We'd like to reiterate that Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics has
acted quickly and openly since learning recently of very low
levels of PFOA in the tap water at our Merrimack facility," said
Ms. Pokedoff. " . . . The U.S. EPA in 2014 tested municipal
drinking water systems in New Hampshire that serve more than
10,000 residents and found levels of PFOA ranging from 20 ppt to
67 ppt in several public water systems, including in Merrimack's."

Although two wells in Merrimack detected 42 ppt in April 2014, six
months later the chemical was not detected, according to Ron
Miner, superintendent of the Merrimack Village Water District.

"As a dedicated member of the Merrimack community, we have made
the decision to voluntarily test the soil and groundwater at our
site as well.  We had begun testing last week," said
Ms. Pokedoff.  If the results from those tests reveal elevated
levels, Saint-Gobain will discuss the next steps with local, state
and federal officials, she added.

In response to Ms. Brockovich's involvement, Nancy Harrington,
town council chairman, said on March 9 that town officials are
keeping apprised of the water situation in order to ensure that
citizens are well-represented, and that action is taking place in
a timely manner.

"We have to be transparent with this immediately.  Everyone
appreciates the sensitivity of the information," said
Ms. Harrington, adding the water district, Saint-Gobain and DES
are being responsive to the concerns of Merrimack residents.


SALLY SHERMAN: Recalls Various Chicken Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sally Sherman Foods, a Mount Vernon, N.Y. establishment, is
recalling approximately 3,004 pounds of various chicken products
that may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The chicken salad items were produced on various dates between
Feb. 2-18, 2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 4-lb. Plastic container of Sally Sherman "Spa Chicken Salad
      with Greek Yogurt," with a packaging date of Feb. 2, 9, 11,
      and 18, 2016 and a case code of N-026, N-096, N-114, N-184.
  --- 4-lb. Plastic container of Sally Sherman "Chicken Salad All
      White Meat," with a packaging date of Feb. 2, 4, 11, and
      18, 2016 and a case code of N-026, N-044, N-114, N184.
  --- 4-lb. Plastic container of Sally Sherman "Deluxe Chicken
      Salad All White Meat," with a packaging date of Feb. 4, 11,
      and 18, 2016 and a case code of N-044, N-114, N184.
  --- 4-lb. Plastic container of Sally Sherman "Farmcrest Chicken
      Salad," with a packaging date of Feb. 2, 4, 9, 11, and 18,
      2016 and a case code of N-184, N-114, N-026, N-044, N-096.
  --- 4-lb. Plastic container of Sally Sherman "Cranberry Walnut
      Chicken Salad," with a packaging date of Feb. 4, 9, 11, and
      18, 2016 and a case code of, N-044, N-096 N-114, and N-184.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-4400"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
distributor locations in New York, New Jersey, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

The problem was discovered due to in-plant sampling of products
that confirmed positive for Lm. FSIS and the company have received
no reports of illness due to consumption of these products.

Consumption of food contaminated with L. monocytogenes can cause
listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects older
adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women
and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these risk
groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance, and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

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


SAMEER PATTEL: "Tipton" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ciara Tipton, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Sameer Patel, individually, the Defendant, Case
No. 6:16-cv-00286-JA-KRS (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division, February
18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff was an hourly paid employee who worked under the
direction and supervision of Defendant within the last 3 years in
Volusia County, Florida.

Sameer Patel is the former Manger of Monarch Hospitality, LLC that
operated a hotel in Daytona Beach.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Ryan Gunter
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave. Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867 4791
          E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Two Suits Over Defective Hard Drives
--------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that two class
action lawsuits against Seagate Technology, both claiming the
manufacturer knowingly sold defective hard drives, now are
combined into one after a U.S District Court judge approved a
motion to relate the two cases.

Meanwhile, Seagate isn't saying much about either case,
individually or combined. Seagate is aware of both cases filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
Seagate Technology Senior Director of Executive Communications
Eric DeRitis said in an email to Legal Newsline.

"Seagate is reviewing the complaints and will respond to them in
due course," Mr. DeRitis said.

Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the court's San Jose Division granted a
motion to relate the two cases.

The first of the two class action cases was filed Feb. 1 by
Christopher A. Nelson of South Dakota, alleging that certain of
Seagate's hard drives are not as "innovative, fast, powerful,
reliable, dependable, and having extremely low failure rates," as
advertised.

"Rather, they were defective and failed prematurely at
spectacularly -- and in many respects unprecedentedly -- high
rates," Mr. Nelson's lawsuit said.

The hard drives named in Mr. Nelson's lawsuit are the Barracuda
3TB Hard Disk Drive and Backup Plus 3TB External Hard Disk Drive.

In his lawsuit, Mr. Nelson said he purchased the Seagate Backup
Plus hard drive online through a third party retailer Nov. 22,
2012, and received it shortly thereafter, registering the drive
with Seagate the following month.  The drive cost Mr. Nelson
$105.99, including tax and was covered by a two-year warranty, the
lawsuit said.

The drive sustained "a catastrophic failure with little to no
forewarning" in December 2014 while it was still under warranty,
the lawsuit said.

Mr. Nelson did receive a replacement drive from Seagate but that
drive also suffered a catastrophic failure Oct. 20, less than a
year later, the lawsuit said.

Mr. Nelson's suit also referred to negative consumer comments
about the drive posted online, include more than 700 reviews
posted on the website newegg.com, where reviewers gave the drive a
rating of one or two out of five.

Four days after the Nelson lawsuit was filed, another class action
lawsuit with similar claims was filed with the court by Adam
Ginsberg, Dudley Lane Dortch IV, Dennis Crawford and
David Schechner.

Mr. Ginsberg lives in California, Dortch in South Carolina,
Crawford in New York and Mr. Schechner in North Carolina, though
Mr. Schechner lived in Florida when he bought the Seagate drive
that later failed, that lawsuit said.

In addition to the two Seagate hard drives mentioned in the Nelson
case, the Ginsberg lawsuit also listed Seagate's FreeAgent GoFlex
Desk 3TB External Hard Disk Drive.

Plaintiffs in both cases claimed they lost data, including photos
and documents, when their Seagate drives failed.

On Feb. 10, an administrative motion was submitted in the case by
Plaintiffs in the Ginsberg case for the court to consider whether
the cases should be related, thus joining the two. Both cases
allege Seagate sold defective hard drives and both cases name
Seagate as the defendant, the motion said.

"Consequently, Ginsberg and Nelson will involve overlapping
witnesses, experts, and discovery such that maintaining two
separate actions would be an unduly burdensome duplication of
labor and expense on the part of counsel and the courts," the
motion said.  "Relating Ginsberg to Nelson will promote
substantial efficiency and judicial economy."

When no objections were filed by Seagate, Judge Whyte granted the
motion Feb. 26.


SPOTIFY: Lowery Suit to Spur More Legal Fights in Music Industry
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Resnikoff, writing for Digital Music News, reports that what
started as a $150 million class action against Spotify is now
threatening to snowball into one of the largest legal fights the
music industry has ever witnessed.

Spotify's attorneys at Mayer Brown LLC are diligently fighting
against a massive class action initiated by David Lowery, with
infringement claims now potentially surpassing $200 million.  But
that's just the beginning: now, a number of rival streaming music
services are getting sucked into the tsunami, with multiple class
actions and potentially hundreds of millions in additional royalty
damages on the way, according to sources.

This is happening, and it's happening fast.  According to
confidential information shared with Digital Music News, legal
paperwork may already be getting drafted against Tidal, Microsoft-
owned Xbox Music and Groove Music, Google Play Music, Rhapsody,
Slacker, and potentially other on-demand streaming music services,
with similar, $150 million damage claims for each.

These expanded legal actions may be announced within the next ten
days, according to sources.

As before, artist activist David Lowery is expected to remain a
central figure in the litigation, though others are rapidly piling
on.  That includes John Emanuel of the obscure band The American
Dollar, whose Yesh Music is blazing a legal warpath that has
already resulted in an unthinkable settlement with Microsoft (as
first reported by DMN).  That out-of-court agreement settles
claims involving Xbox Music and Groove Music, and could suggest a
slam dunk case by Yesh, Lowery and others.

Indeed, Yesh is also taking on Google Play Music on similar
grounds, a David vs. Goliath legal scenario to the extreme.

Common to all of these cases is a specific, overlooked publishing
license: the mechanical.  The antiquated license originally
covered "mechanical" reproductions of song compositions onto fixed
formats like CDs, LPs, and prior to that, early reproductions like
player piano rolls.  These days, the license has been wedged into
the "reproduction" of temporary files created by music streaming
services, a stretch re-definition that is already raising
accusations of "copyright trolling" in DMN comment threads.

Backdated NOIs = Admission of Guilt

The Spotify class action has prompted quick "cover your ass" style
reactions from Rhapsody, Microsoft, and Slacker, all of whom have
issued backdated NOIs (Notices of Intent) which are the procedural
first step for securing a proper mechanical license.  The only
problem is that these NOIs date back to 2005, according to
paperwork shown to Digital Music News, which could demonstrate
culpability in the new class action filings.

Content Removals at Rhapsody, Slacker, Deezer

Rhapsody and Slacker (not to mention Spotify US) have also
recently ripped down David Lowery's content, specifically for
Cracker and Camper van Beethoven, another potential admission of
guilt.  Separately, Deezer has also ripped down Lowery's content,
though the streaming service has a scant presence in the US and
will likely not face any litigation given the US-based nature of
the mechanical copyright claim.

Rhapsody now appears to have two Cracker and two Camper van
Beethoven albums on its service, which, according to our source,
were re-loaded (as of March 5).  We'll keep tabs on this.

Slacker has also played the retroactive game, though the service
is a far smaller fish against belugas like Spotify.  Slacker,
which is mostly known as a smaller rival to streaming radio giant
Pandora, also has an on-demand component.

And what about Pandora itself?  The internet radio heavyweight is
planning a big on-demand expansion ahead, but is unlikely to be
touched by the upcoming litigation.  Just last year, Pandora
acquired the bankrupted Rdio, though the acquisition itself is
subject to certain bankruptcy stipulations.  Currently, Rdio is
not a live concern and its previous liabilities would not be
assumed by Pandora.

Pressure on HFA

HFA, or Harry Fox Agency, may also get dragged into the expanding
legal warfare, according to DMN sources.  The reason is that there
may be negligence surrounding HFA's handling of NOIs themselves,
or failure to properly advise their clients (for example,
Rhapsody) on proper procedures.  Whether those accusations are
reasonable or will hold water in court is another matter entirely,
with sources unable to offer any substantive details around this
potential side-battle.

Tidal's Abrupt Response

Then there's Tidal, which brusquely (and very publicly) dismissed
a mechanical lawsuit by Yesh Music as frivolous and an abuse of
the legal system.  Unfortunately for Tidal, Yesh then quickly
settled a massive lawsuit against Microsoft on the very same
grounds, suggesting a very 'non-frivolous' (and expensive)
licensing problem.  Tidal still has Cracker and Camper van
Beethoven music available, but has reportedly failed to issue NOIs
to properly license mechanicals on those catalogs.

Apple Music, YouTube: In the Clear

Apparently Apple Music will not be named in any upcoming
litigation, thanks to proper issuance of NOIs and mechanical
clearances.  According to sources, Apple's NOI paperwork has a few
missing elements, but clearly shows procedural compliance and
proper intent to license.  Apple Music, which launched in July of
2015, would also face far smaller damages if a licensing problem
arose, and could likely settle for a modest fee.

YouTube also appears to have its bases covered, thanks to its in-
house mechanical licensing work.  Mechanicals have apparently been
properly handled by recently acquired Rightsflow, which was
purchased for exactly this reason.  Those procedures appear
markedly different than HFA's, but acceptable nonetheless.
According to information shared with DMN, Rightsflow prefers
electronic NOIs, among other methods, and could solidly argue
compliance in court.


STANDARD INSURANCE: "Nelson" Suit Now Before 9th Cir. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned MARIANA NELSON, an individual,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff
- Appellant, v. STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY, COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION GROUP LONG TERM DISABILITY PLAN, COUNTRYWIDE FINANCIAL
CORP., Case: 16-55227 (9th. Cir., February 12, 2016) is a "3791
Employee Retirement" suit.  The Original Cases are: 3:13-cv-00188-
WQH-MDD on Jan 23, 2013, U.S. District Court for Southern
California, San Diego.

The Plaintiff is represented by:
     Sarah Ball, Esq.
     Jack Bruce Winters, Jr., Esq.
     WINTERS & ASSOCIATES
     1901 First Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619-234-9000


STATE FARM GENERAL: Violated Insurance Code, GC Micro Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
GC Micro Corporation, the Plaintiff, v. State Farm General
Insurance Company and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. CIV537448 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo County, February 18,
2016), seeks damages as a result of Defendant's alleged breaches
of the policies, and for violation of the California Insurance
Code and regulations issued by the California Department of
Insurance.

State Farm General Insurance Company, Inc. operates as a property
insurance writer. The company focuses primarily on state farm
homeowners and property liability insurance in the state of
California. It also writes boat owners, personal liability
umbrella, farm-ranch, commercial umbrella, commercial auto,
professional and specialty, workers compensation, inland marine &
mobile property, surety and fidelity bonds. The company was
founded in 1962 and is based in Bloomington, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Randy M. Hess, Esq.
          Pamela X. Bower, Esq.
          ADLESO& HESS & KELLY, APC
          577 Salmar Ave # 2
          Campbell, CA 95008
          United States
          Telephone: +1 408-341-0234


SWAMPY'S BAR & GRILLE: Violated FLSA, "White" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
James White on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Swampy's Bar & Grille, Dunnellon LLC, and Carlos
Sanchez, individually the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00385-VMC-
AEP (M.D. Fla., Tampa Division, February 18, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid minimum wages and
declaratory relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Swampy's employed at least 2 employees who handled goods,
materials and supplies such as food, drinks, alcoholic beverages,
computers, phones, restaurant equipment and other items used to
run the business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Ryan Gunter
          MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
          20 N. Orange Ave. Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 867 4791
          E-mail: mgunter@forthepeople.com


SWEDISH MEDICAL: Faces Class Action Over Drug Theft Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Christopher N. Osher, writing for The Denver Post, reports that a
class-action federal lawsuit filed on March 8 alleges Swedish
Medical Center negligently put thousands of patients in danger by
hiring a surgical technologist who the hospital now says may have
exposed them to HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C.

In January, the Englewood hospital fired Rocky Allen, who has
since been indicted on two federal counts alleging he was caught
stealing a syringe filled with fentanyl from an operating room.
Allen has pleaded not guilty.

Court records show that by the time Swedish hired him, Mr. Allen
had been fired from four other hospitals and also had been court-
martialed in 2011, when he was serving with the Navy in
Afghanistan, for the theft of fentanyl.  Court testimony revealed
that he is carrying an undisclosed bloodborne pathogen.

"By the time Allen appeared on the doorstep of SMC in August 2015
looking for a job as a surgical technician, all the warning signs
of what would later occur at SMC were present," the lawsuit
states.  "Allen already had been terminated by numerous other
hospitals for the exact conduct that has now exposed thousands of
SMC patients at an increased risk of bloodborne pathogens."

Officials with Swedish could not be reached for comment.

The lawsuit names three plaintiffs, Angelica Porras, Catherine
Pecha and Gary Wolter, but seeks class-action status for all
individuals who had surgery at Swedish between Aug. 17 and
Jan. 22.  The hospital has offered free blood tests to 2,900
patients.

Each of the three named plaintiffs has received negative test
results for the three viruses, the lawsuit states.  But all three
were told that despite those test results, they remain at risk and
should pursue continued blood testing, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit claims the hospital negligently hired Allen,
negligently inflicted emotional distress and failed to properly
supervise Allen after hiring him.

Named as defendants are Swedish and its parent companies, Hospital
Corp. of America and HealthONE of Denver Inc.  The lawsuit states
that another HealthONE hospital, Rose Medical Center, had another
drug-theft scandal.

In that case, Kristen Parker, a former Rose Medical surgical
technician, was sentenced to 30 years in prison in 2010 for
swapping drug-filled syringes, intended for patients, with
previously injected, non-sterile syringes.  She infected at least
18 hospital patients with hepatitis C.

After that sentencing, Rose Medical released a statement that it
had upgraded systems for policing medications in the operating
room, the lawsuit states.


SWEDISH MEDICAL: Two Law Firms File Class Action in Colorado
------------------------------------------------------------
McCuneWright and Morgan & Morgan, two nationally recognized law
firms, filed a class action lawsuit on March 9 against Swedish
Medical Center, located in Englewood, Colorado, alleging it
negligently hired and inadequately supervised surgical technician,
Rocky Allen, who, with a known intravenous drug addiction and a
long history of employment terminations, put nearly 3,000 surgical
patients at risk for HIV, hepatitis B and hepatitis C by swapping
needles intended for patients.

"Swedish Medical failed these patients when it hired Rocky Allen.
The most cursory background investigation would have revealed that
Allen was someone who should not have had access to surgical
patients and the hospital's medication.  He has a long history of
this exact behavior, including a court martial in 2011 by the Navy
for stealing a syringe containing fentanyl and a termination from
a San Diego hospital in 2013 for needle swapping," said Joe Sauder
-- jgs@mccunewright.com -- of McCuneWright.

"As a result of Swedish Medical's failure to properly screen this
employee during its hiring process, over 3,000 patients must live
in fear that they have contracted a potentially deathly virus,"
said John Yanchunis, of Morgan & Morgan.

The class action lawsuit, filed on March 7, 2016, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Colorado, highlights the
systemic failure by HCA-HealthONE, a defendant in this case, to
properly screen potential employees and secure powerful pain
management medications.  This is not the first time that HCA-
HealthONE has failed to protect patients from certain negligently
hired employees with drug addictions.  In 2009, a surgical
technician at the Rose Medical Center infected 15 patients with
hepatitis C due to needle swapping.  She was subsequently
sentenced to 30 years in prison and, at the time of sentencing,
HCA-HealthONE stated it had upgraded the policing of medications
in operating rooms.  Despite this assurance, in 2014 a nurse at
Swedish Medical was terminated for diverting medication for his
own use.  Rocky Allen arrived at Swedish Medical on the heels of
these two incidents with his own publicly known troubled history
involving drug addiction and needle swapping.

At the direction of the hospital, the suit's named plaintiffs have
been and will continue to be tested for HIV, hepatitis B and
hepatitis C.

                      About McCuneWright

Headquartered in Redlands, CA, McCuneWright --
http://www.mccunewright.com-- represents plaintiffs in mass tort,
complex and class action litigation. The Firm has played lead
roles in major nationwide cases resulting in verdicts and
settlements of over $400 million for its clients and the classes
they represent.  The Firm's attorneys have extensive experience in
representing individuals, consumers and businesses in both mass
torts and class action litigation. www.mccunewright.com

                     About Morgan & Morgan

Morgan & Morgan is the nation's largest law firm representing
plaintiffs exclusively on contingency fee.  With offices
throughout the United States, Morgan & Morgan concentrates on
consumer protection, employee rights, business litigation,
pharmaceutical and medical device litigation, personal injury,
complex litigation, whistleblower cases and many other practice
areas on behalf of plaintiffs.


SYNGENTA: GMO Corn Suit May Evolve Into Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Amy Mayer, writing for kmuw, reports that hundreds of lawsuits
against seed company Syngenta could evolve into a major class
action and involve almost every corn farmer in the country.

In 2013, China rejected some American imports because they
contained corn grown from a seed with a genetically engineered
Syngenta trait.  The trait was approved for sale in the United
States, but China's regulators had not yet approved it.

China is a huge market for US corn. Lawyers have filed many cases
on behalf of farmers seeking compensation from Syngenta for lost
sales.

Many of those lawyers are asking the court to combine the cases
into a class action, which could include "virtually every corn
farmer in America," according to court documents.

Syngenta denies any wrongdoing and in a statement said the
lawsuits have no merit because the seed was approved for sale
here.


T&T 130 PIZZA: "Del Rio" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Del Rio, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. T&T 130 Pizza Corp., or any other business
entity doing business as Bella Napoli Pizzeria, located at 130
Madison Avenue, New York, NY, and Anthony Russo, individually,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00955 (S.D.N.Y., February 8, 2016), seeks
unpaid minimum wages and overtime wages due under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law, unpaid "spread of hours"
premiums under the New York Labor Law, statutory penalties for
failing to comply with the notice and record-keeping requirements
of the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act, liquidated
damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216, liquidated damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs and other and further relief.

T&T 130 Pizza Corp. operates as Bella Napoli Pizzeria located at
130 Madison Avenue, New York, New York.  Del Rio was hired by
Defendants to work as kitchen helper, food preparer, dishwasher
and delivery person at Defendants' restaurant. He claims to have
worked over 40 hours per week without overtime premium, did not
receive itemized wage statements, and has yet to receive his
spread-of-hours premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter Cooper, Esq.
      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 209-3933
      Fax: (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpclaw.com


TRULIA: Court Refuses to Approve Class Action Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
John P. Stigi III, Esq. -- jstigi@sheppardmullin.com -- and
Alejandro E. Moreno, Esq. -- amoreno@sheppardmullin.com -- of
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP, in an article for The
National Law Review, report that as recently as 2014, nearly 95%
of all mergers of public companies valued at $100 million or more
triggered stockholder class action litigation.  Historically, a
large number of merger-related stockholder litigation settled
solely on the basis of supplemental proxy disclosures coupled with
the payment of the plaintiff's attorneys' fees.  Such disclosure-
based settlements have been criticized for providing little real
benefit to stockholders and amounting to no more than a "deal tax"
in favor of plaintiff's lawyers, while at the same time
threatening the loss of potentially valuable stockholder claims as
a result of an overly broad release of defendants.  In In re
Trulia Stockholder Litigation, 2016 Del. Ch. LEXIS 8 (Del. Ch.
Jan. 22, 2016), the Delaware Court of Chancery (Bouchard C.)
confirmed that the Court will be "increasingly vigilant in
scrutinizing the 'give' and the 'get' of [disclosure based]
settlements to ensure that they are genuinely fair and reasonable
to the absent class members."

On July 28, 2014, Trulia and Zillow (both online real estate
firms) announced that they had entered into a merger agreement
under which Zillow would acquire Trulia for approximately $3.5
billion in stock.  After the merger was announced, four
stockholder plaintiffs filed suit challenging the merger and
seeking to enjoin it.  The complaints, which were essentially
identical, alleged that the individual defendants had breached
their fiduciary duties and that Zillow and Trulia had aided and
abetted those breaches.  The Court consolidated the lawsuits and
the parties agreed to expedited discovery.  As part of expedited
discovery, plaintiffs reviewed approximately 3,000 documents and
deposed the Company's CEO and one director.  On November 14, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction focused
primarily on purported disclosure deficiencies in Trulia's proxy
statement.  Before defendants even filed an opposition to the
request for an injunction, the parties entered into a Memorandum
of Understanding detailing an agreement-in-principle to settle the
litigation in exchange for a payment of attorneys' fees and
supplemental disclosures in Trulia's proxy, subject to
confirmatory discovery.  The merger was ultimately approved by
Trulia's stockholders on December 18, 2014.

The final settlement agreement contained an extremely broad
release in favor of defendants in exchange for an agreement from
defendants not to oppose plaintiffs' claims for attorneys' fees up
to $375,000.  As required by Court of Chancery Rule 23, the Court
held a settlement approval hearing.  After considering the
briefing, the Court refused to approve the settlement finding that
it was neither "fair" nor "reasonable" to the absent class
members.

The supplemental disclosures obtained by plaintiffs were not
material and did not justify the broad release granted in favor of
defendants.  The plaintiffs argued that Trulia's proxy was
misleading because it omitted some of the details regarding the
financial analysis the board relied upon to approve the merger.
Under Delaware law, the proxy must contain a "fair summary" of the
investment banker's analysis regarding the merger.  In Trulia, the
Proxy contained a 10 page, single-spaced summary of the investment
banker's analysis.  Although the plaintiffs identified the
following omissions in the proxy:  (1) certain synergy numbers in
J.P. Morgan's value creation analysis; (2) selected comparable
transaction multiples; (3) selected public trading multiples; and
(4) implied terminal EBITDA multiples for a relative discounted
cash flow analysis, the Court found that these additional details
were not material.  In fact, the supplemental disclosures obtained
by the plaintiffs were "not even helpful to stockholders" and did
not facilitate a better informed vote.  The "fair summary"
standard does not require the disclosure of all of the minutiae of
the investment banker's analysis.  All that is required is a "fair
summary," which the 10 pages of single spaced information in
Trulia's proxy accomplished.

Although the analysis of the facts at issue in Trulia is
straightforward, the Court conducted an academic review of the
problems presented by disclosure only settlements, including: (i)
lack of an adversarial process; (ii) overbroad releases in favor
of defendants; and (iii) the lack of any real shareholder value
generated as a result of the additional disclosures.  The Court
recognized that its prior willingness to approve disclosure
settlements of marginal value, routinely approve broad releases in
favor of defendants, and six-figure fees to plaintiffs' counsel
had encouraged the explosion of merger related litigation.
Disclosure based settlements create the risk that stockholders may
lose potentially valuable claims in exchange for supplemental
disclosures that rarely yield genuine benefits to the
stockholders.


TRUMP MODEL: Judge Set to Decide on Class Action This Month
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Kebede, writing for Raw Story, reports that a judge will
decide by the end of this month whether to proceed with a proposed
class action lawsuit filed by a Jamaican fashion model against
Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump's modeling
agency, the judge's office said.

Alexia Palmer accuses Trump Model Management LLC of lying to the
federal government in its work-visa application that said she
would be paid a $75,000-a-year salary while living in the United
States, according to court documents.

Instead, according to court papers, Palmer received a total of
$3,880.75 during the three years she was under contract with the
agency.  The complaint alleges "fraudulent misrepresentation" and
violations of U.S. immigration and labor laws.  It asks for
$225,000 in back pay.

The suit was originally filed in October 2014. A decision on a
pending motion by Trump Model Management to dismiss is expected by
the end of March, the clerk for Judge Analisa Torres, who is
presiding over the case in the U.S District Court, Southern
District, told Reuters.

If Judge Torres rules the case can proceed, it could revive
attention on Trump's foreign labor practices at a time when the
celebrity billionaire's rise in American politics has riveted the
world's attention.

Trump's lawyers have called the case "frivolous" and "without
merit."  In court documents, they said Palmer wasn't an employee
and was more than adequately compensated for a "very brief stint
as a fashion model," which they say amounted to less than 10 days
of work over three years.

Reuters could not independently confirm that assertion.

"At the end of the day, this model just didn't have a successful
career, and we fully expect to win," said Lawrence Rosen, a lawyer
for Trump Model Management.

Although Mr. Trump owns the modeling agency, the suit does not
name him.  Mr. Trump's campaign spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, said in a
statement that Trump Model Management's treatment of Ms. Palmer
was in line with "standard practice in the modeling industry."

Ms. Palmer's lawyer, Naresh Gehi, says his client was cheated of
earnings and seduced by a life of glamour that never materialized.
"The visa application the company filed with the government
requires that people are paid the full amount,"
Mr. Gehi said. "It's a requirement."

Ms. Palmer, who was 17 when she came to New York in 2011, was not
available to comment.

Top Jamaican Model

Sylvia Ayass, a lawyer who has worked with models on visas like
Palmer's, said agencies typically pay what they state on visa
applications.

Mr. Trump has won Republican frontrunner status in the 2016
election in large part by positioning himself as a champion of the
American worker who will deport illegal immigrants, build a wall
with Mexico and do away with the off shoring of U.S. jobs.

This is not the first time Trump's labor practices have drawn
criticism.  A Reuters story published in August revealed that
Trump's companies sought to import at least 1,100 workers on
temporary visas since 2000.  Of those, 250 were filed for foreign
fashion models, according to the Reuters analysis of federal
Department of Labor data.

Using a federal visa program called H-1B that allows U.S.
employers to hire "specialized" foreign labor, Mr. Trump's
modeling agency offered Palmer "at least $75,000 per year" for
three years.  It listed that salary on her H-1B visa application
in 2011, according to the court documents reviewed by Reuters.

Mr. Rosen, the lawyer for Trump Model Management, said the $75,000
a year figure was simply a guess, not a guarantee.

Under that contract, Palmer agreed "to promptly reimburse" Trump
Model Management "for any and all costs and expenses" that the
agency incurred relating to her modeling.

According to the suit, the agreement stipulated that Trump Model
Management would take a 20 percent cut of Palmer's earnings but
instead took 80 percent by deducting charges for everything from
postage to walking lessons to mobile phone costs and limousine
rides, as well as $4,000 in "administrative fees," according to
court documents.

The suit said it was seeking class-action status to represent
other models who believe they were misled and underpaid after
coming to the United States with sponsorship from Trump's modeling
agency.


TRUMP SOHO: Catering Staff File Class Action Over Tips
------------------------------------------------------
James Fanelli, writing for DNAinfo, reports that Donald Trump's
luxury hotel illegally stiffed its catering staff out of tips by
keeping a mandatory 22-percent service fee it added to customers'
bills, a new lawsuit charges.

Catering staffer Deborah Garcia is suing Mr. Trump, his daughter,
Ivanka, and his son Donald Trump Jr., claiming the service fee
never reached her or other employees' pockets, even though most
customers likely assumed it was for gratuity.

"A reasonable customer would believe that the service was in fact
a gratuity for [Garcia] and similarly situated employees," says
the lawsuit, which was filed in Suffolk County Supreme Court on
Feb. 13, 2015.

Instead, the hotel, run by the Republican presidential front-
runner's real estate firm, the Trump Organization, "retained the
money for their own benefit" -- a violation of state labor law,
the lawsuit says.

Under New York law, employers are not allowed to retain any
portion of an employee's gratuity or a charge "purported to be a
gratuity."

A business must also clearly indicate in 12-point font on a menu
and a bill when a service charge connected to a banquet or special
function is not a tip or gratuity, according to state regulations.

Ms. Garcia, who lives in Suffolk County, said in the lawsuit that
Trump SoHo didn't disclose on invoices, menus or bills that the
service charge wasn't for tips.

She worked at Trump SoHo in 2013 as part of a catering team of
more 40 employees who handled weddings, birthdays and other
celebrations at the hotel, according to the lawsuit.  She said she
earned $15 an hour but didn't receive tips.

The lawsuit claims that, from February 2009 to at least the time
the lawsuit was filed, Trump SoHo applied the service charge to
catering bills.

Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's office brought a similar
complaint against the Michelin-starred restaurant Per Se in 2012.
In that case, Per Se kept a 20-percent service fee it charged
customers for private-dining events and banquets.

Mr. Schneiderman's office reached a settlement with the restaurant
in which it agreed to pay $500,000 to its workers.

The state attorney general's office is currently suing
Donald Trump's for-profit school Trump University, accusing it of
fraud and cheating thousands of students out of money.

Mr. Schneiderman's office declined to comment on the Trump SoHo
lawsuit.

Trump SoHo said in a statement that Garcia did not work directly
for the hotel.

"The lawsuit filed in 2015, is entirely a reflection of the
responsibility of the third-party contractor," the hotel said in a
statement.  "The plaintiff has never been a staff member of the
Trump Soho Hotel. She was contracted by a third party but was
never directly employed by Trump Soho Hotel."

Ms. Garcia is also suing the Sapir Organization and the Bayrock
Group LLC, the developers who owned the hotel until they lost it
to foreclosure in 2014.

A lawyer for the developers did not immediately respond to
comment.

The heads of Koi SoHo, a high-end sushi restaurant at the hotel,
is also named as a defendant in the lawsuit.  A Koi spokeswoman
said that the restaurant never employed Ms. Garcia.

Brett R. Cohen, a lawyer representing Ms. Garcia, declined to
comment.

His firm states in Garcia's complaint that it would like the
lawsuit to receive class-action status so other aggrieved
employees could join in the case.

The case is currently in the discovery phase, and the parties are
due in court again on Sept. 1.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump Vows to Defend School at Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Julianna Goldman, writing for CBS News, reports that Republican
groups fighting Donald Trump are trying everything to derail the
front-runner, including airing ads targeting Trump University. The
program sold nearly 7,000 students on learning the billionaire's
real estate secrets, but the school began winding down in 2010.
More than 150 former students allege it was a fraud.  Three
lawsuits have been filed, one $40 million case in New York brought
by the state's attorney general and two class action suits in
California.

Trump University began in 2004 with online courses and in 2007 it
started offering live events across the country as seminars in
hotel ballrooms.  There was a three-day, $1,500 course where
students were urged to sign up for a $35,000 mentorship program.

In a tweet on March 6 defending the school, Mr. Trump pointed to a
98 percent satisfaction rate, but court documents show that nearly
40 percent of the students who signed up for the three-day seminar
or more received a refund.

Mr. Trump's critics say the next week is critical to stopping the
Republican front-runner, and they're betting Trump University is
their best weapon.

"I could have settled it, I think, pretty easy, I don't like
settling cases," Mr. Trump said on "Face the Nation."

But by refusing to settle, Mr. Trump has opened the door to
attacks at the peak of his presidential bid and distractions on
the campaign trail -- like the 10 hours in December and January he
spent in closed-door depositions for the two class-action
lawsuits.

Court documents reveal that attorneys for the other side zeroing
in on Mr. Trump's claim, as seen in a promotional video, that he
chose all the instructors.

"If you don't learn from the people that we're going to be putting
forward, and these are all people who are handpicked by me," Mr.
Trump said in the commercial.

But confronted with questions about the instructors' lack of real
estate experience, Mr. Trump acknowledged "he looked at resumes
and things but didn't pick the speakers" and some "slipped through
the cracks."

He was repeatedly pressed on one instructor CBS News told you
about back in September, James Harris.  Mr. Trump said he didn't
know who he was and said, "I wasn't running it."

Mr. Harris told CBS News he was a motivational speaker paid on
commission to sell additional Trump training.  At least 17
students complained about Harris in affidavits.

"Trump University is something that I've thought about for a long
time.  I didn't want to put my name on anything having to do with
education unless it was going to be the best," Mr. Trump said in a
promotional video.

In other court documents, former events manager Corinne Sommer
wrote that in her experience, "the focus of Trump University was
on making sales rather than on providing educational services."

"Some consumers had showed up who were homeless and could not
afford the seminars," she wrote.  "Yet I overheard Trump
University representatives telling them, 'It's ok; just max out
your credit card.'"

"They said to call the credit card companies and make a request
and try not to take no as an answer," former student Gary Smith
said.

Mr. Smith was sold on the $35,000 package.  He initially gave
positive reviews but now says that his investment in Trump
University was a net loss.

"Trump's name, you know, is one that -- at least up until that, I
kind of thought that he was reputable," Mr. Smith said.

Mr. Trump's attorney told CBS News that they're looking forward to
defending Trump University at trial and he said when the evidence
comes out, it will show there was significant value and substance
in the program and there will be a lot of people proven wrong.
One of the California cases could be brought to trial during the
campaign and Mr. Trump's attorney also told us that if and when
that happens, Trump will take the stand.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Documents Reveal Details on Education Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Torrence, writing for La Jolla Patch, reports that new court
documents show that Donald Trump maybe wasn't telling the whole
truth about a past business venture of his.

Trump University, a Donald education program, promised "hand-
picked instructors" who would teach students Trump's real estate
tricks and have them making money in no time.

But the "university," according to two lawsuits still wending
through the courts:

   -- was not an actual university;
   -- did not include instructors that Trump picked or vetted;
   -- probably involved little to no oversight from Trump himself;
and
   -- actually caused students to go into thousands of dollars of
debt with no real skills learned or deals completed.

Mr. Trump faces at least two lawsuits -- one from the New York
Attorney General's Office in 2013 and a class-action lawsuit filed
in San Diego federal court in 2010 -- saying that he defrauded
students out of millions of dollars.

And a deposition as part of the civil suit shows he apparently
knew that everything wasn't so above board.

Here's what to know.

Experts Who?

Advertisements promised that students would "learn from my hand-
picked experts," New York Attorney General A.G. Schneiderman said.
His investigation found that "Trump did not handpick even a single
instructor at these seminars" after all.

In the deposition as part of the civil suit, Mr. Trump asked an
interviewer to "give me a list" of instructors, then said it was
so long ago that he couldn't remember who any of them were.

"Johnny Harris?"

"Too many years."

"Tim Gorsline?"

"Too many years."

And on and on it went.

Mr. Trump was also shown pictures, videos and audio recordings of
people and asked to identify them as students, instructors or
neither.  No dice on those, either.

So much for that "world's greatest memory."

Not A "University"

"Trump University" was also not, in fact, a real university,
something New York education officials did not take lightly,
according to Mr. Schneiderman.

It was not licensed or chartered to call itself such,
Mr. Schneiderman said.  But it still used a "University-like seal"
on advertisements and gave out "diploma-like Certificates of
Completion" to people who made it through, Mr. Schneiderman said.

The New York State Education Department told Trump to change the
name in 2005, but he didn't do so until 2010, when it became the
"Trump Entrepreneur Initiative."

Free Can Be Pretty Expensive

Mr. Trump's not-actually-a-university still cost as much as a real
one, according to the lawsuits.

First, people were lured to a "free" workshop, usually at a hotel
ballroom, where prospective students were offered a $1,495, three-
day seminar.  Then, students were persuaded to join "expensive
Trump Elite mentorship programs costing $10,000 to $35,000," Mr.
Schneiderman said.

Not So "Trump," Either

While Mr. Trump's name, face and branding were all over everything
(as they are with many of Mr. Trump's business ventures), it's
unclear how much of a hand he actually had in developing and
running the thing.

Mr. Schneiderman said he "had little or no role in developing any
of the Trump University curricula, or seminar content."  In the
deposition, Trump said that he never reviewed any resumes or
transcripts of students who attended his "school."

And Mr. Trump apparently didn't do too much quality control on the
classes themselves, either.

"I would go and just walk in and just stand in the back of the
room on occasion just to see how they were doing," he said in the
deposition.

What Education?

After attending the three-day seminar, students were encouraged to
call their credit card companies to raise their credit limit so
they could pay for the costly elite mentorship program,
Mr. Schneiderman said.

"Despite diligent efforts, many consumers were unable to conclude
even a single real estate deal and were left worse off than they
had been before enrolling in the Trump University programs,"
Mr. Schneiderman said.

"Some consumers faced thousands of dollars of debt due to the
expensive cost of the Elite Programs. Many felt they had been
victims of an elaborate scam."

What Has Trump Said?

This may shock you, but Mr. Trump and his representatives have
responded with brash, over-the-top statements about the lawsuits.
They say that students should have known what they were getting
themselves in to.

"We're completely winning this case," Alan Garten, a Trump
attorney, told the Washington Post. "People who say, 'I thought it
was a university with a football team and a bookstore,' it's
laughable."

At the last Republican debate, Mr. Trump said, "This is a case I
could have settled very easily, but I don't settle cases very
easily when I'm right."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Texas Drivers Files Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Christine Dobbyn, writing for ABC13, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against Uber on behalf of its Texas
drivers.

The attorney filed the lawsuit on behalf of one Uber driver but he
says that's just the beginning, he isn't the only one complaining.

"Uber has not been very fair and very truthful to its drivers,"
Uber driver Chris said.

Chris has been an Uber driver for almost a year and a half.  Uber
is a California company's car service that provides drivers who
can be hailed and dispatched through a mobile phone app. He says
he would join a class action lawsuit.

"Customers are being told that tipping is actually included in the
fare, which is a lie.  Tipping is not included in the fare," Chris
said.

That's the basis for the March 9 filing by Houston Attorney
Ross Sears II.

"I'm all for them making a profit, I'm all for them making obscene
profits but don't do it at the expense of the guys that are making
you the money, that's the drivers," Mr. Sears said.

The driver in the lawsuit claims Uber has advertised to customers
on its website and in marketing materials that gratuity is
included in the cost of its car service, but some Uber drivers say
they do not receive the total proceeds of any such gratuity. The
app gives a total payment to customers and no specific line for
tipping.

"If you violate statues that are there to protect people like
these drivers then you should be held accountable just like you or
I would.  That's kind of the drive behind it, no pun intended,"
Mr. Sears said.

A similar lawsuit is making its way through the California courts
now, and Mr. Sears says he expects thousands of Texas Uber drivers
will join this one.


UNITED PET: Recalls Power Filters for Aquariums Due to Shock Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
United Pet Group, of Earth City, Mo., announced a voluntary recall
of about 155,000 Top Fin(TM) Power Filters for Aquariums (in
addition, about 3,300 filters were sold in Canada). Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

A conductor on the pump motor can become exposed and electrify the
aquarium water, posing a shock hazard to consumers.

This recall involves five models of Top Fin Power Filters. The
models included in this recall are Top Fin Power Filters 10, 20,
30, 40 and 75.  The filters are black with a trapezoid shaped top.
The words "TOP FIN" are molded into the top of the filter.  The
filters were also sold as part of Top Fin 5.5 and 10 gallon LED
aquarium kits.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
PetSmart stores nationwide and online from September 2015 through
December 2015 for between $15 and $64.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled filters,
unplug them from the power supply, remove from the aquarium, and
contact United Pet Group for a free replacement power filter.


UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL: Student Files Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
WFTV0 reports that a former University of Central Florida student
filed a class-action lawsuit after the school's February
announcement of a data breach affecting 63,000 people.

Benjamin Heller of Cary, North Carolina, filed suit on behalf of
all the people affected by the breach, which UCF said involved the
theft of private information of student government leaders,
student athletes and current and former employees dating back to
the 1980s.

The FBI's Jacksonville office is investigating and has not said
how the lapse occurred.

The school set up a call center and promised one year of free
credit monitoring and identity-protection services in the wake of
the announcement.

UCF President John Hitt called for the university to review its
procedures and online systems in the aftermath.  FBI officials
contacted schools across the country to look for other potential
victims.

Mr. Heller's is the third lawsuit filed against UCF over the data
breach, which the university discovered on Jan. 8 but did not
announce until Feb. 4.

Mr. Heller does not claim that his identity has been stolen, or
that he has had any monetary loss as a result of the breach.

Instead, he is seeking compensation because he says he and
everyone else affected will have to monitor and safeguard their
bank and credit accounts for the rest of their lives.

UCF said it will pay for a year of credit monitoring and identity
protection service for everyone affected, which Mr. Heller's
lawsuit argues is not sufficient.

"(UCF's offer) does not compensate (Heller) and the other members
of the class for the lifelong burden UCF's improper conduct has
cause them to incur," the lawsuit says.

Mr. Heller accuses the university of negligence for not exercising
"reasonable care" in the safeguarding of the personal and
financial information of the people affected by the breach.

The lawsuit does not seek a specific dollar amount.

Previous lawsuits

Jeremiah Hughley, a former and student and manager of the men's
basketball team at UCF, filed suit in February, claiming that his
bank account was drained after his personal information was
compromised.

His suit says the school's handling of people's private
information was "lackadaisical, cavalier, reckless, or at the very
least, negligent."

The lawsuit, which seeks more than $15,000, accuses the university
of not doing enough to help the victims and says
Mr. Hughley had to buy additional identity theft protection at his
own expense.

Two UCF alumni filed the first lawsuit over the data breach on
Feb. 5.


VIESSMANN MANUFACTURING: Recalls Gas Boilers Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Viessmann Manufacturing Co. (U.S.) Inc., of Warwick, R.I.,
announced a voluntary recall of about 165 Gas boilers in the
United States (in addition, about 141 were sold in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The boiler can overheat and emit flue gases into the venting
system and carbon monoxide can leak throughout the residence,
posing a fire and carbon monoxide hazard to consumers.

This recall involves the Vitodens 200-W condensing gas boilers
used for residential use. These wall hung units are housed in a
white metal box that measures about 43.5 inches tall by 19 inches
wide by 21 inches deep.  There are two models: B2HB-45 and B2HB-57
included in this recall.  The name "Vitodens" and "Viessmann" are
printed on the label on the outside of the boiler box. The product
name and model number can be found on the boiler rating plate
located on the left side of the white boiler cover. The serial
number can be found on a separate label under the boiler cover or
on the left hand side of the unit. Recalled boilers do not have a
blue dot with a handwritten data label on it.

The two models of boilers included in the recall have the
following serial number ranges:

  Product Name      Model Numbers   Serial Number Range
  ------------      -------------   -------------------
  Vitodens 200-W    B2HB-45         7554703501001105 to
                                    7554703501369106 *
                    B2HB-57         7554704501001102 to
                                    7554703501411109 *

* Serial number range within bold number range are the only units
included in the recall.

The firm has received 10 reports where the boilers overheated,
causing the boilers to shut down. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zJoOt9

The recalled products were manufactured in Germany and sold at
Heating and Plumbing contractors or wholesalers to consumers
nationwide from September 2015 through December 2015 for about
$4,800 and $5,800.

Consumers with recalled boilers should immediately contact the
installer or distributor to schedule a free boiler safety
inspection and repair. Consumers who continue using the boilers
while awaiting repair, should have working smoke and carbon alarms
throughout their homes.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: CEO to Step Down Amid Emissions Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Biesecker, writing for Associated Press, reports that
Volkswagen's top U.S. executive is stepping down amid the
company's ongoing emissions cheating scandal, the company
announced on March 9.

U.S. President and CEO Michael Horn is leaving "to pursue other
opportunities effective immediately," the automaker said in a
statement.  He had been with the German auto maker for 25 years,
assuming his most recent post in 2014.

Mr. Horn's sudden departure comes as the company continues to
grapple with the fallout from its admission last year that nearly
600,000 cars were sold in the U.S. with software that regulators
say was designed to cheat on required emissions tests.

The company potentially faces more than $20 billion in fines from
state and federal regulators, as well as hundreds of class-action
lawsuits filed on behalf of angry vehicle owners.  The Justice
Department is also conducting a criminal investigation.

It was Mr. Horn who was sent to apologize to consumers at a
congressional hearing in October.  But at the same time, he told
lawmakers that top corporate officials had no knowledge of the
cheating software installed in 11 million diesel cars worldwide.

"To my understanding this was not a corporate decision, this was
something individuals did," Mr. Horn said, adding that he felt
personally deceived.

A federal judge has given the company until March 24 to reach an
agreement with the government on recalling the affected vehicles.
U.S. District Court Judge Charles R. Breyer wants to know about
available technical solutions to fix the cars and the status of
negotiations on a potential settlement with affected owners.
Volkswagen has not indicated whether it will be able to meet the
deadline.

Volkswagen in September admitted to U.S. regulators that it had
used illegal software installed in its so-called "Clean Diesel"
engines.  The cheating allowed cars to pass laboratory emissions
tests while spewing levels of harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40
times the level allowed when operating on real roads.

The company is negotiating with lawyers for the owners of the
defective cars, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and
the California Air Resources Board.  Both state and federal
regulators will have to sign off on any planned recall.


WESTJET: Flight Attendant Mulls Sexual Assault Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that the
lawyer for a former WestJet flight attendant who alleges the
airline failed to protect her from being sexually assaulted by a
pilot says he is contemplating turning her suit into a class
action that would include other women lodging similar complaints
against the company.

"We are certainly considering it," said Sean Hern, the lawyer for
Mandalena Lewis, who filed a statement of claim against WestJet in
the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

"It just depends on how many women there are and what their
circumstances would be," Mr. Hern said on March 7.  "It's
something that certainly is on the radar."

A representative of the WestJet Professional Flight Attendants
Association said additional women have "come forward" with
allegations of assault to representatives of the union, which has
yet to be certified. They have been referred to Mr. Hern, said the
man, who did not want to be identified because of concerns about
his own employment.

Mr. Hern would not confirm that he had discussed the case with
other potential complainants, saying, "I don't talk about people
who talk to me."

Ms. Lewis alleges in her statement of claim that the airline
failed to protect her from being sexually assaulted by a pilot who
was known to have assaulted another woman, that its officials did
not discipline her alleged assailant, and that she was fired when
she tried to find out how the company had responded to her
complaint. None of the allegations has been proven in court.

WestJet officials say the company will "vigorously" defend itself
against Ms. Lewis's claim. Company spokeswoman Lauren Stewart said
on March 7 that the company has not been contacted by other
employees who are alleging assault.

Gregg Saretsky, WestJet's president, said in an online statement
that the safety of his employees is something he does not take
lightly and that sexual assault is a serious matter.

Investigations of Ms. Lewis's allegations of sexual assault, and
those of the second flight attendant, were conducted and
subsequently closed, said Mr. Saretsky, but they are now being
reviewed to ensure that they were diligently conducted and that no
new information has come to light.

Emma Pullman, a strategist with SumOfUs.org, an international
consumer watchdog, said that 17,000 people signed her group's
petition urging Mr. Saretsky to resign and calling on the company
to enforce its policies on sexual harassment and assault.  About
10,000 identified themselves as WestJet customers, Ms. Pullman
said.

According to Ms. Lewis's statement of claim, a man referred to as
Pilot M sexually assaulted her in 2010 during a layover in Hawaii.
She says she reported the assault to WestJet officials but, rather
than discipline or fire Pilot M, she was told "not to speak of the
sexual assault to anyone else, out of concern for the pilot's
privacy."

The claim says Ms. Lewis learned last year that another flight
attendant complained to WestJet in 2008 of being assaulted by the
same pilot.  Ms. Lewis argues in her statement of claim that, had
the company responded appropriately to that allegation, her own
assault would not have occurred.

The court document goes on to say Ms. Lewis was fired in January
of this year for "insubordination" based on the swear word
contained in an e-mail she wrote to WestJet officials and a
disconnected call to a WestJet manager that she had inadvertently
dialled.

Ms. Stewart, the WestJet spokeswoman, said both Pilot M and the
flight attendant who complained about being assaulted in 2008 have
been take of the flight schedule while the company reviews the
investigations it conducted into the alleged assaults.  She would
not say whether the two employees are being paid while they are
grounded.


WILMINGTON TRUST: June 13 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN RE WILMINGTON TRUST
SECURITIES LITIGATION

This document relates to: ALL ACTIONS
Master File No. 10-cv-00990-SLR-SRF
(Securities Class Action)

Hon. Sue L. Robinson
SUMMARY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

To:      All persons or entities who (1) purchased or otherwise
acquired Wilmington Trust Corporation ("Wilmington Trust") common
stock during the period January 18, 2008 up to November 1, 2010,
and were damaged thereby; and/or (2) purchased shares of
Wilmington Trust common stock issued in the secondary common stock
offering that occurred on or about February 23, 2010, pursuant to
the Registration Statement, as amended, and were damaged thereby
(the "Class").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Delaware, that the lawsuit that is now
pending in that court under the caption In re Wilmington Trust
Securities Litigation, Case No. 10-cv-00990-SLR-SRF (D. Del.) (the
"Action") has been certified as a class action on behalf of the
Class, except for certain persons and entities that are excluded
from the Class by definition as set forth in the full printed
Notice of Pendency of Class Action ("Notice").

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION.  The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to
known Class Members.  If you have not yet received the Notice, you
may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Notice
Administrator at:

Wilmington Trust Securities Litigation
c/o Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions, Inc.
P.O. Box 2838
Portland, OR 97208-2838
1-866-800-6639
www.WilmingtonTrustSecuritiesLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to
Class Counsel:

Joseph E. White, III
SAXENA WHITE P.A.
5200 Town Center Cir., Ste. 601
Boca Raton, FL 33486
(561) 394-3399
Hannah Ross
BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ
BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
(212) 554-1400

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time other than
to retain your documentation reflecting your transactions and
holdings in Wilmington Trust common stock.  You will automatically
be included in the Class.  If you are a Class Member and do not
exclude yourself from the Class, you will be bound by the
proceedings in this Action, including all past, present and future
orders and judgments of the Court, whether favorable or
unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment of this Court, and you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked no later
than June 13, 2016 in accordance with the instructions set forth
in the full printed Notice.  Please note, if you decide to exclude
yourself from the Class, you may be time-barred from asserting the
claims covered by the Action by a statute of repose.  Pursuant to
Rule 23(e)(4) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is
within the Court's discretion as to whether a second opportunity
to request exclusion from the Class will be allowed if there is a
settlement or judgment in the Action.

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Notice Administrator.

BY ORDER OF THE COURT:

United States District Court
For the District of Delaware


WINCO FOODS: Violated FCRA, "Mitchelle" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------
Gloria Mitchell, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Winco Foods, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00076-
BLW (.D. Idaho, February 18, 2016), seeks redress for, and to put
an end to, Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act (FCRA), specifically its failure to provide proper
notices and disclosures to its job applicants and employees.

WinCo is a privately-held supermarket chain based in Boise, Idaho.
It was founded in 1967 and now has over 100 store locations in
Idaho, Arizona, California, Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and
Washington. WinCo also operates at least 5 distribution centers
throughout the United States. The Company has over 15,000
employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Eric B. Swartz, Esq.
          JONES & SWARTZ PLLC
          623 W. Hays Street
          Telephone: (208) 489 8989
          Facsimile: (208) 489 8988
          Email: eric@jonesandswartzlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          3900 East Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0676
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com


XEROX BUSINESS: Faces "Douglas" Appeal in 9th Cir.
--------------------------------------------------
Kristy Douglas, et al v. Xerox Business Services, LLC, et al, Case
No. 16-80033 (9th Cir., March 10, 2016), seeks permission to
appeal a ruling by the U.S. District Court for Western Washington
in Seattle in Case No. 2:12-cv-01798-JCC.

In a July 10, 2014 Order, available at http://bit.ly/1pixaLYfrom
Leagle.com, District Judge John C. Coughenour granted in part the
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification; denied the
Defendant's motion to strike; denied the Plaintiffs' motion to
strike; and denied Defendant's motion to file surreply.

The Defendants operate call centers, or "strategic business
units," throughout the country.  At these call centers, agents
respond to calls for third-party clients such as phone companies,
airlines, and hotels.  Plaintiff Richard is employed at a call
center in Federal Way, Washington.  Plaintiff Douglas works at a
call center in Anderson, Indiana.  In their lawsuit filed in
October 2012, the Plaintiffs seek to conditionally certify classes
concerning two sets of claims.  One relates to the compensation
plan used in many call centers, known as the Activity Based
Compensation plan.  The other relates to Defendants' alleged
policy of requiring off-the-clock work.

Under the ABC plan, agents are paid for certain activities or
transactions.  These transactions are called "units of production"
or "production units."  Different call centers may use different
metrics -- such as calls, bookings, or "production minutes" -- as
production units.  When agents are performing activities deemed
non-productive, they record the time spent on those activities but
do not receive transactional pay for that time.  Instead, if
necessary, they receive "subsidy pay" to ensure that compensation
remains above a certain hourly floor.

The Plaintiffs also allege that the Defendants require off-the-
clock work. There is no dispute that no written company-wide
policy requires off-the-clock work.  They add that several
company-wide policies implicitly require or pressure agents to
perform work before or after clocking out or to perform work
without recording it.

Plaintiffs Kristly Douglas and Tysheka Richard are represented by:

     Marc Cote, Esq.
     Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC
     936 North 34th Street
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Tel: 206-816-6603

          - and -

     Daniel Foster Johnson, Esq.
     Breskin Johnson & Townsend PLLC
     1000 Second Avenue
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Tel: 206-652-8660

          - and -

     Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
     Terrell Marshall Daudt & Willie PLLC
     936 North 34th Street
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Tel: 206-816-6603

Xerox Business Services, LLC, Livebridge, Inc., Affiliated
Computer Services, Inc., and Affiliated Computer Services, LLC,
are represented by:

     Patrick Michael Madden, Esq.
     Todd L. Nunn, Esq.
     Ryan D. Redekopp, Esq.
     K&L Gates LLP
     925 Fourth Avenue
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Tel: 206-623-7580


YOGURTBLAST LLC: Violated FLSA, "Endicott" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Zachary Endicott, and others similarly-situated, Plaintiff, v.
Yogurtblast LLC, d/b/a Menchie's Frozen Yogurt Homestead, a
Florida Corporation, and Jose Mendez, individually, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20594-KMW (S.D. Fla., Miami Division,
February 18, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages, liquidated
damages, interests, costs and attorney's fees for alleged willful
violations of minimum wage and overtime pay under the laws of the
United States, the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Yogurtblast business activities involve those to which the Fair
Labor Standards Act applies. During the relevant time period,
Defendant regularly employed two or more employees that sold,
marketed and/or handled goods and/or materials which travelled
and/or were manufactured through interstate commerce. Defendant
also used electronic and telephonic transmission lines to accept,
obtain or solicit funds from sources outside the State of 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
          Co-counsel for Plaintiff
          1150 Kane Concourse, Second Floor
          Bay Harbor Islands, FL 33154
          Telephone 305-773-6661
          E-mail: mamane@gmail.com


Z GALLERIE: Recalls Wall Clocks Due to Fire Hazard
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Z Gallerie, of Gardenia, Calif., announced a voluntary recall of
about 450 Golda Wall Clocks. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The batteries inside the clock can overheat due to defective
battery springs located at the bottom of the battery compartment,
posing a fire hazard.

This recall includes Golda wall clocks. The clocks are round and
measure 32 inches in diameter and four inches in depth. The front
of the wall clocks is made of glass and has a white background.
"Invented in 1698" is printed on the front of the clocks. The
numbers printed on the clock and clock hands are printed in a
brown antiqued ink. The battery compartment on the back holds one
AA battery and four D batteries. "Made in China" and "Made for Z
Gallerie" are printed on a label on the back of the clocks.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/k96vqy

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at Z
Gallerie stores nationwide and online at ZGallerie.com between
July 2015 and January 2016 for about $400.

Consumers should immediately remove the batteries from the clocks
and contact Z Gallerie for a full refund and $50 Z Gallerie gift
card.


ZETA INTERACTIVE: Faces "Mora" Suit in Calif. Eastern District
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zeta Interactive Corp. is facing a class action captioned Sergio
Mora v. Zeta Interactive Corp. and David A. Steinberg, CASE #:
1:16-cv-00198-DAD-SAB, Cause: 28:1331 Fed. Question, (E.D. Cal.,
February 12, 2016). The case was assigned to District Judge Dale
A. Drozd, and was subsequently referred to Magistrate Judge
Stanley A. Boone.

Zeta Interactive (formerly XL Marketing) is a Big Data-driven
Marketing company that uses actionable data, insightful analytics
and proprietary technology to acquire, engage and retain customers
for Enterprise brands.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     E-mail: apersinger@bursor.com

               - and -

     Scott A Bursor, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER PA
     369 Lexington Ave.
     10th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 989-9113
     Fax: (212) 989-9163
     E-mail: scott@bursor.com

               - and -

     Yeremey Olegovich Krivoshey, Esq.
     BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
     1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Fax: (925) 407-2700
     E-mail: ykrivoshey@bursor.com

               - and -

     Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
     BURSOR AND FISHER, PA
     1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
     Walnut Creek, CA 94596
     Phone: (925) 300-4455
     Fax: (925) 407-2700
     E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com


* Automakers Face Class Action Over Keyless Ignition System
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hyland, writing for WNCN.com, reports that a class action
lawsuit has been filed against ten auto makers, calling on them to
install an automatic shut off feature.  Ford has started doing
that on newer models.

In a statement, the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers told
WNCN:

"Auto safety is our top priority, so the industry continues
working with a standards-setting body to further develop best
practices.

"Current keyless ignition system designs generally follow the
recommended practices of the Society of Automotive Engineers,
which includes recommendations that deal with operating logic,
indication of vehicle ignition/control status and the physical
control characteristics of keyless ignitions systems.  The
recommendations also address uniform labeling -- all of this so
consumers can have an even better understanding of keyless systems
functions."


* CFPB Unveils Outline of Proposed Class Action Arbitration Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Kaplinsky, Esq. -- kaplinsky@ballardspahr.com -- of Ballard
Spahr, in an article for Reuters' Legal Solutions, reports that
the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is considering rules that
would effectively overrule the Supreme Court's decisions in
Concepcion and Italian Colors, and prohibit consumer financial
services companies from using class-action waivers in their
arbitration agreements.

At a field hearing attended by industry stakeholders at which Alan
Kaplinsky of Ballard Spahr LLP testified on behalf of the
industry, the bureau provided an outline of its proposed
arbitration rules.  It then convened a Small Business Review Panel
to gather feedback from small industry stakeholders that might be
impacted by the proposed rules if they become final.

In an expert analysis commentary published in published in
Consumer Financial Services Law Report, Mr. Kaplinsky and co-
author Mark Levin of Ballard Spahr said the CFPB's proposed rules
exposed at the hearing generally would prohibit companies from
including arbitration clauses that block class action lawsuits in
their consumer contracts for everything from credit cards to
certain auto loans, among many others.

They would not ban consumer arbitration clauses in their entirety.

However, for companies still willing to offer arbitration for
individual (non-class) cases, the clauses would have to state
explicitly that they do not apply to cases filed as class actions
unless and until class certification is denied by the court or the
class claims are dismissed in court.  The CFPB may provide
companies with specific "safe harbor" language to that effect that
could be included in the companies' arbitration agreements.

The authors conclude that "enhancing consumer education about
arbitration would be far more beneficial to consumers than
depriving them of arbitration as a means of resolving disputes."

Meanwhile, companies that do not use arbitration agreements in
their financial services contracts should strongly consider doing
so, since agreements entered into before a rule becomes effective
are grandfathered under existing law (i.e., Concepcion and Italian
Colors) which is favorable to class-action waivers.

Alan Kaplinsky is chair of Ballard Spahr's consumer financial
services group.  Mark Levin, a member of the group, specializes in
complex litigation.



                            *********

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  * * *