CAR_Public/160317.mbx
             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 17, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 55


                            Headlines


ABALUX INC: Faces "Collar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
ADOBE SYSTEMS INC: Violated TCPA, "Alcaraz" Suit Claims
AEGIS AMBULANCE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
AEQUITAS CAPITAL: SEC Files Suit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Must Process Food Stamps Quickly, Judge Says

AMERICAN AIRLINES: 100 Suits Filed Over Air Passenger Capacity
AMERICAN AIRLINES: To Litigate Fjord Case in Bankruptcy Court
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: "Exserve" Sues Over Unauthorized Insurance
AVVO: Defends Online Legal Directory
BENCO DENTAL: Violated Antitrust Laws, Peter Bence Suit Claims

BIG CITY YONKERS: "Cando" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
BISMILLAH USA INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Gomez" Suit Claims
BLUE CROSS: Pettus Plumbing Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA: Violated UCL, "Fisher" Suit Claims
BMW OF NORTH AMERICAN: "Marina" Sues Over Wheel Warranty

BP: Fisherwoman Sues Plaintiffs Lawyers Over False Representation
BROTHERS INC: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Gauger" Suit Claims
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Doesn't Pay Tipped Employees, Suit Says
CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
CARRINGTON TEA CO: "Boulton" Sues over Product Mislabeling

CARTER'S INC: "Morrow" Sues Over Deceptive Pricing
CHASE HOME: Brief Due May 23 in 9th Cir. Appeal in "Montez" Suit
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Thieme" Class Suit in W.D. Okla.
CHEVRON CORP: Saddam Terror Victims Defend Suit
CINEMARK HOLDINGS: No Sanctions for Capstone Law, Court Says

CLARKE'S TOWING: "Williams" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
COMMERCE PLANET: Ex-Pres. Must Pay $18.2M for Deceptive Practices
CONTINENTAL AG: Airbag Control Units Defective, "Leon" Suit Says
CONTINENTAL AG: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Defective Airbag
CORA OPERATIONS: Violated Wage Act, "Sullivan" Suit Claims

CREDIT CONTROL: "Clancy" Sues over Illegal Collection Practice
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Rapaport" Suit for FDCPA Violation
CVS HEALTH: Judge Won't Dismiss Suit Over Generic Drug Price
DAVE & BUSTERS: "Alvarez" Labor Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
DISCOVER FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Hansen" Suit

DISH NETWORK: Faces Suit Over Hiring of Spanish Speakers
DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
DOLLAR EXPRESS: Faces "Steingruber" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guercio" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guttman" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Halperin" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "McCallie" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DSWC INC: Brief Due July 25 in 9th Cir. Appeal in "Sperling"
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss in Tribune Buyout Case Pending
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing to Continue in "Scranton" Case

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Due Date to Respond to "Rayner" Case Extended
EDPO LLC: "Word" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Premiums
EMSP LLC: "Funez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
ENCORE CAPITAL: Appeal by Objector to Settlement Remains Pending
ENCORE CAPITAL: Midland Case Settlement Awaits Approval

EOS PRODUCTS: Faces "Gilsleider" Suit Over Lip Balm
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Court Dismissed "Coburn" Lawsuit
EXPERIAN INFO: "Hickman" Suit Moved from Arizona to C.D. Cal.
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: FHFA Turns to JPMDL to Delay Lawsuits
FIESTA MEXICANA: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Damages

FINANCIAL SCIENCES CORP: "Mitsos" Suit Seeks Damages from Fraud
FINISHING HOLDINGS: Central Alarm Sues Over Junk Faxes
FIRST SOLAR: Opening Brief in Class Action Appeal Due March 25
FLOWERS FOODS: Summary Judgment Motions Nixed in "Rehberg"
FOUR M CAPITAL: Faces "Deslandes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages

FRESNO, CA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Hanna" Case
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Clayton Act, Bay County Suit Claims
GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, "Everett" Suit Claims
GENERAL NUTRITION: Discovery Ongoing in "Romero" Suit
GOLDMAN SACHS: June 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

GORDMANS STORES: Faces "Merchant" Suit for failure to Pay OT
GOTTA GETTA BAGEL: "Cayetano" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
GOURMET BOUTIQUE: Case Conference Set for April 11 in "Metellus"
GREENWICH HOTEL LTD: Violated FLSA & CLL, "Benavidez" Suit Claims
GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT: "Beckwith" Suit Moved to Oregon Dist. Court

HARBOR TRANSIT: Faces "Mayorga" Suit for Refusal to Pay OT
HARDMAN SIGNS: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HEART HOME CARE: Faces "Castro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
HELMERICH & PAYNE: Violated WARN Act, "Sunday" Suit Claims
HOSPITAL CORP OF AMERICA: Patients Face HIV Risk, Suit Says

IL CAFE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime Wages, "Perez" Suit Claims
INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Sued for Violating FDCPA in E.D. New York
INVICTUS MEDICAL: Violated FLSA, "Gutierrez" Suit Claims
JMJ CATERERS: Case Conference Set for June 14 in "Dekanchuk" Suit
JMJ CATERERS: $450,000 Settlement Reached in "Quiroga" Suit

JOHN DORY: "Grier" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
KOHL'S CORP: "Tran" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages Under FACTA
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
LINCARE INC: "Shemi" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
MACY'S INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Holland" Suit Claims

MACY'S INC: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation Under FLSA
MATCH GROUP: Faces "Chan" Securities Class Action
MATTSON TECH: "Brown" Seeks to Block Merger with Beijing E-Town
MCLEOD EXPRESS: Faces "Downs" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages & OT
MDL 2591: "Sefton" Suit Consolidated in Kansas

MDL 2657: "Christy" Personal Injury Suit Filed
MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Oliver" Suit Claims
MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Puts Off Class Action Arguments
MONSANTO CO: Brief Due July 25 in 9th Cir. Appeal in "Mirzaie"
MOSTAFAVI LAW: Faces "McCoy" Suit Over Cal. Labor Code Violations

MSK MANAGEMENT: Violated NYLL & FLSA, "Sedrak" Suit Claims
NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Amityville Union Suit Challenges Tax Levies
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces "Deepe" Suit Over Football Scholarships
NATIONAL DIVERSIFIED: "Pena" Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
NATIONAL RETAIL: Violated FLSA, "Rainboth-Venditt" Suit Claims

NATURE'S WAY: Violated CLRA, UCL & FAL, "Hunter" Suit Claims
NEENAH PAPER: Faces "Dame" Suit Over Health & Life Insurance Plan
NEW YORK: Judge Narrows Occupy Wall Street Suit v. NYPD
NEWS CORP: Class Counsel Fees May Reach $73 Million
NIMBLE STORAGE: Violated Exchange Act, "Madhani" Suit Claims

OAK CREEK INNS: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Perez" Suit Claims
ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Shareholders Challenge Fairchild Merger
OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS: Violated Cal Labor Code, "So" Suit Claims
PATTERSON COMPANY: "Yanez" Suit to Recover Missed Breaks, Wages
PEET'S COFFEE: Faces "Klarik" Suit Over Press Pot Coffee's Volume

PHOENIX COMPANIES: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
PICOLLA VENNEZIA REST: Violated FLSA, "Caisaguano" Suit Claims
PORSCHE CARS: Vehicles Violate Emission Tests, "Dunham" Suit Says
PVH CORP: Faces "Young" Suit Over Misleading Merchandise Label
QEP RESOURCES: Insurer Covered Settlement Amount in "Gagne" Case

QUEST NUTRITION: "Paramo" Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Law Violation
REALD INC: "Garfield" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sales Agreement
REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Settlement Has Final Approval
REALOGY HOLDINGS: Dismissal of "Strader" Case Sought
RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Musicians File Copyright Class Suit

ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
SCOTT PROPERTIES: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Security Deposit
SEACROSS TRADING: Faces "Gomez-Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SEAGATE TECH: Violated Cal UCL & FAL, "Ginsberg" Suit Claims
SELECT ENERGY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Aragon" Suit Claims

SKANSAKA US BUILDING: "Ford" Suit Seeks Wages and OT
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Violated Cal UCL, "Reznick" Suit Claims
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Suarez" Sues Over Gas Leaks
SOUTHSTAR FIRE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
SPAIN INN: Faces "Sontay" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report

SPRINT CORP: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Drouillard" Suit Claims
STEIN MART: "Gaudio" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensatory Damages
STRATAGRAPH NE: "McNutt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
SUPERCOM LTD: Faces "Seiden" Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit Removed to W.D. Washington

T/J INSPECTION: Faces "Lopez" Suit for Failure to Pay OT
TAKATA CORP: Snyders Files Suit Over Defective Airbags
TARGA RESOURCES: Had Feb. 29 Deadline to Respond to Merger Suit
TAXI AFFILIATION: "Freeman-Hargis" Sues Over Credit Card Charges
TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Order Pending

TIDE ENERGY: "Falk" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Wants to Exit from Class Suit
TRUSTED MEDIA: Sold Subscriber Info to Brokers, N.Y. Suit Claims
UNITED STATES: Immigration Faces Class Suit Over Refugee Children
UNIVERSAL ROOFING: "Battle" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: "Furbush" Suit Seeks Damages Under FERPA
VELOCITY VEHICLE: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
VISA INC: Shifted Credit Card Liability to Merchants, Suit Claims
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Deleted Emission Evidence, Ex-Employee Claims
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Browne" Suit Over Defective Brakes

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Institutional Investors File Emissions Suit
VOLUME SERVICES: "Allchin" FLSA Suit Goes to S.D. California
WCC ENERGY: Faces "Hurt" Suit for Failure to Pay OT
WEST VA AMERICAN: Wants Chemical Spill Class Action Trial Delayed
WHITE WAY THREADING: Faces "Gurung" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

WHOLE FOODS: Judge Suggests Another Round of Mediation
WINGSPORT LP: Sued in Oklahoma Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
WOLF HALDENSTEIN: Obtains Dismissal of Class Member's Suit
WYNN RESORTS: Continues to Pool Tips, Workers Complain
Y & Y PROPERTIES: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT

YELP INC: Dismissal of Securities Action Under Appeal
YELP INC: $550,000 Deal Reached in Former Eat24 Employees' Suit
YELP INC: Has $200,000 Deal in Former Eat24 Sales Employee's Suit


                            *********


ABALUX INC: Faces "Collar" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Lazaro Collar, Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated
v. Abalux, Inc. and Juan D Cabral, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
20872-JAL (S.D. Fla., March 9, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in excess of 40 hours
worked weekly in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Abalux Inc. is a printing press enterprise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J. H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, FL 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167


ADOBE SYSTEMS INC: Violated TCPA, "Alcaraz" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jason Alcaraz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Adobe Systems Inc. and Does 1-10,
inclusive, and each of them, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00184 (C.D. Cal., February 3, 2016), seeks to recover damages and
any other available legal or equitable remedies resulting from the
alleged illegal actions the Defendant, in negligently, knowingly,
and/or willfully contacting Plaintiff's cellular telephone in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act(TCPA).

Adobe Systems Incorporated develops, markets, and supports
computer software products and technologies. The Company's
products allow users to express and use information across all
print and electronic media. Adobe offers a line of application
software products, type products, and content for creating,
distributing, and managing information. The Company is based in
San Jose, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AEGIS AMBULANCE: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yoana Gutierrez, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Aegis Ambulance Services, Inc.,
a California Corporation, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive,
Defendants, Case BC611167 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County
February 22, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages, meal and rest
break premium wages, waiting time penalties, and penalties or
damages for failure to keep accurate records, penalties under
California Labor Code statutes and for restitution and injunctive
relief under the California Labor Code.

Aegis provides ambulance services to the public. Gutierrez was
employed as an emergency medical technician by the Defendant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Larry W. Lee, Esq.
      Nick Rosenthal, Esq.
      DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      550 S. Hope St., Suite 2655
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213)488-6555
           (213) 488-6554
      Email: lwlee@.diversitylaw.com

           - and -

      Edward W. Choi, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF CHOI & ASSOCIATES
      3435 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010-2006
      Tel: (213) 381-1515
      Fax: (213) 465-4885
      Email: edward.choi@calaw.biz

           - and -

      Thomas M. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LAW OFFICES, APLC
      3435 Wilshire Blvd Suite 2400
      Los Angeles, CA 90010
      Telephone: (213) 251-5533
      Facsimile: (213) 251-5534
      Email: leethomas.esq@gmail.com


AEQUITAS CAPITAL: SEC Files Suit Over Alleged Ponzi Scheme
----------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dubois, writing for The Associated Press, reports that the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has sued an Oregon company
and its top executives on accusations they operated a $350 million
Ponzi scheme.

The SEC says executives from Aequitas Capital Management told more
than 1,500 clients they were using their money for investment
purposes.  The SEC alleges the executives instead used the money
to fund their lucrative salaries, repay prior investors and pay
expenses, including "a private jet and pilots, and dinners and
golf outings for prospective investors."

The suit filed on March 10 in Portland comes a month after
Aequitas announced layoffs and hired a consulting firm to wind-
down the business.  The SEC names three top executives as
defendants, including chief executive Robert Jesenik, who founded
the Lake Oswego-based company in the 1990s.

"I'm disappointed that the SEC has also chosen to rush to judgment
about the company's management and make sweeping allegations
without the benefit of a thorough investigation,"
Mr. Jesenik said in a written statement to The Oregonian
newspaper, which was first to report on the troubles at Aequitas.
"I look forward to addressing these claims in court."

The 30-page lawsuit states Aequitas was profitable at one time,
but things went rapidly downhill in early 2014.  An Aequitas
subsidiary entered the business of buying private student loans,
and got hammered when Corinthian Colleges, a for-profit education
provider, collapsed amid fraud allegations.

"Prior to Corinthian's default, (Aequitas Commercial Finance)
already relied heavily on raising investor funds to meet its
weekly cash obligations," the lawsuit states.  "The loss of income
from Corinthian heightened ACF's cash crunch and made it even more
dependent on investor funds to meet obligations, including
redemptions and interest payments to prior investors."

The company, however, continued to send out quarterly updates to
investors, falsely stating their money was being used to purchase
receivables, the lawsuit alleges.  By the end of 2015, the firm
owed to $312 million to investors and, according to the SEC, had
virtually no operating income to repay them.

The lawsuit seeks civil penalties against the executives and the
relinquishing of any ill-gotten gains.  It also asks for them to
be prevented from working in the securities industry.


ALAMEDA COUNTY, CA: Must Process Food Stamps Quickly, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge slapped Alameda County with a permanent
injunction on March 7, ordering its social services agency to
process food stamps more quickly.

Lead plaintiff Donald Ray Lilley filed a class action in San
Francisco against the county in September 2015, citing the
county's backlog of more than 10,000 people waiting for food
assistance.

Federal law requires that counties process applications for
CalFresh food stamp benefits within 30 days and emergency food
assistance requests within three days.

At the end of July 2015, the county had 10,657 pending CalFresh
applications and ranked dead last among the state's 58 counties
for processing requests on time over the last year, according to
the state Department of Social Services.

On March 7, U.S. District Judge James Donato granted a request for
a permanent injunction that orders the county to "comply fully
within a margin of human error" with mandated timelines for
determining food stamp eligibility.

The injunction also requires the county to submit monthly reports
to the plaintiffs' counsel on the number of applications received,
processed and those not assigned to a caseworker within seven
days.  If the percentage of applications denied exceeds the
percentage denied the prior month by more than 10 percent, the
county must turn over a random sample of 30 cases to the
plaintiffs' counsel to determine if those denials were properly
issued.

"The concern in terms of tracking that number is just to make sure
the number of denials doesn't spike and increase unnecessarily as
the county tries to work through processing their applications,"
class counsel Lauren Hansen of the Public Interest Law Project
said.

The injunction will remain in place at least one year.

Before it can dissolve the injunction, the county must show it has
fully complied with the order for six consecutive months and
demonstrate it has a plan to meet timelines for processing
applications in the future.

"That's important because of the long history of being out of
compliance," Hansen said. "It's important they have a plan so they
don't slip back inadvertently into processing applications late."

Hansen said county was out of compliance for at least four years
and refused to take steps to improve its processing times before
her clients filed the class action last year.

Since the lawsuit was filed, the county decreased the percentage
of applications it processed late from around 23 percent in May
2015 to 13 percent in January this year, Hansen said.

"That's a great improvement, but they'll need to do more work to
get that down even further," she said.

Filing the class action was necessary, Hansen added, because
hunger can exacerbate health problems for individuals and families
waiting on food assistance.

A representative for the Alameda County Social Services Agency did
not immediately respond to a phone call seeking comment March 8
morning.

The case captioned, DONALD RAY LILLEY, JARVIS JOHNSON, and DANIEL
MALLORY, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA; BOARD
OF SUPERVISORS OF ALAMEDA COUNTY; ALAMEDA COUNTY SOCIAL SERVICES
AGENCY; and LORI COX, in her official capacity as Director of the
Alameda County Social Services Agency, Defendants., Case No.:
3:15-cv-04475 JD (N.D. Cal.).


AMERICAN AIRLINES: 100 Suits Filed Over Air Passenger Capacity
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that approximately
100 putative class action lawsuits have been filed alleging
unlawful agreements with respect to air passenger capacity.

"In June 2015, we received a Civil Investigative Demand (CID) from
the DOJ as part of an investigation into whether there have been
illegal agreements or coordination of air passenger capacity," the
Company said.  "The CID seeks documents and other information from
us, and other airlines have announced that they have received
similar requests. We are cooperating fully with the DOJ
investigation."

"In addition, subsequent to announcement of the delivery of CIDs
by the DOJ, we, along with Delta Air Lines, Inc., Southwest
Airlines Co., United Airlines, Inc. and, in the case of litigation
filed in Canada, Air Canada, have been named as defendants in
approximately 100 putative class action lawsuits alleging unlawful
agreements with respect to air passenger capacity. The U.S.
lawsuits were the subject of multiple motions to consolidate them
in a single forum, and they have now been consolidated in the
Federal District Court for the District of Columbia. Both the DOJ
investigation and these lawsuits are in their very early stages
and we intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously."


AMERICAN AIRLINES: To Litigate Fjord Case in Bankruptcy Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
American Airlines Group Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that parties will
continue to litigate the Fjord case in bankruptcy court.

On July 2, 2013, a lawsuit captioned Carolyn Fjord, et al., v. US
Airways Group, Inc., et al., was filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
complaint named as defendants US Airways Group and US Airways, and
alleged that the effect of the Merger may be to substantially
lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in violation of
Section 7 of the Clayton Antitrust Act. The relief sought in the
complaint included an injunction against the Merger, or
divestiture.

On August 6, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their complaint in the
Bankruptcy Court, adding AMR and American as defendants, and on
October 2, 2013, dismissed the initial California action. On
November 27, 2013, the Bankruptcy Court denied plaintiffs' motion
to preliminarily enjoin the Merger.

On August 19, 2015, after three previous largely unsuccessful
attempts to amend their complaint, plaintiffs filed a fourth
motion for leave to file an amended and supplemental complaint to
add a claim for damages and demand for jury trial, as well as
claims similar to those in the putative class action lawsuits
regarding air passenger capacity. Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a
request with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML)
to consolidate the Fjord matter with the putative class action
lawsuits. The JPML denied that request on October 15, 2015 and
plaintiffs' request for further relief from the JPML was denied on
February 4, 2016.

Accordingly, the parties will continue to litigate the matter in
Bankruptcy Court.

"We believe this lawsuit is without merit and intend to vigorously
defend against the allegations," the Company said.

American Airlines Group is a holding company whose primary
business activity is the operation of a major network carrier
through its principal wholly-owned mainline operating subsidiary,
American.


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: "Exserve" Sues Over Unauthorized Insurance
----------------------------------------------------------------
National Convention Services, LLC, and Exserve, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all those so similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
Class Representatives, v. Applied Underwriters Captive Risk
Assurance Company, Inc., Applied Underwriters, Inc., California
Insurance Company, ARS Insurance Agency, Applied Risk Services,
Inc., Continental Indemnity Company and Applied Risk Services Of
New York, Inc., Defendants, Case 650579/2016 (N.Y. Sup., New York
County, February 4, 2016), seeks damages, litigation costs,
expenses, disbursements and attorneys' fees and equitable relief
under New York State Insurance Law and NYS Insurance Regulations.

Defendants have marketed Workers Compensation coverage to the
Plaintiffs who allege that the defendants were not properly
authorized to conduct insurance transactions in New York, as they
were not approved insurance carriers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Page, Esq.
      O'CONNOR REDD LLP
      PO Box 1000
      242 King Street
      Port Chester, NY
      Tel: (914) 686-1700


AVVO: Defends Online Legal Directory
------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that considering the anti-SLAPP statute and the contours of
protected First Amendment speech, a federal judge in San Francisco
on March 10, heard arguments in a class action accusing Avvo of
misappropriating attorneys' names and likenesses.

Seattle-based Avvo obtains lawyers' information from public
records, posts it online and then charges other lawyers for
advertising on the page. Lead plaintiff Aaron Darsky, a California
attorney, claims that these practices constitute unfair
competition and violate California business law.

At March 10 hearing, Avvo moved to strike under California's anti-
SLAPP statute, which is aimed at preventing lawsuits intended to
maliciously burden a party with the cost of a legal defense.

The plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction against Avvo.

U.S. District Judge Haywood Gilliam first asked the attorneys to
argue as to whether California's anti-SLAPP statute should apply
to the case, since Avvo's base of Washington state has no such
statute.

Arguing for the plaintiffs, Roy Katriel said that it should not
since "a defendant from outside of California with no presence in
California" should not ask the state to extend the privilege of
litigation that it does to its citizens.

"What we have here is a defendant who by its own admission has no
relationship to California," Katriel said, adding that just
because his client brought suit in California does not give Avvo
access to the anti-SLAPP statute.

When Gilliam pointed out that it was relevant to consider where
the speech at issue was transmitted to, Katriel said that since
the speech was communicated on the Internet "it was communicated
equally in every state."

"If you said in this circumstance that anti-SLAPP immunized Avvo,
it would apply worldwide," Katriel told Gilliam.

Bruce Johnson, who argued for Avvo, contended that the company is
not asking for "worldwide" application of the statute.

"All that we're asking is for California law to be applied in
courts of California," Johnson said. "The proposed class action
consists entirely of California lawyers, and plaintiff alleges
that all causes of action arose within this judicial district."

Gilliam then turned to the First Amendment question of whether the
speech on Avvo's site is constitutionally protected.

Katriel argued that Avvo's content is commercial speech and is
therefore not constitutionally protected, because any attorney who
advertises on the site is subject to having their advertisement
regulated by the California state bar.

But Gilliam said it seemed "indisputable" that Avvo's web profiles
contain "a combination of commercial and non-commercial elements."

"The reporting and re-reporting of public information about Mr.
Darsky seems to be within the non-commercial speech bucket,"
Gilliam said

Johnson said, "I don't think anyone disputes the fact that the
section [of Avvo] called 'advertising' is advertising."

He added, "We're talking about what's an online legal directory,
and that's fully protected speech. Mere proximity to advertising
does not transform a fully protected statement into advertising."

But Gilliam pointed out that Johnson's argument failed to address
"the underlying economic motive of the speaker."

"It seems at least arguable that Avvo's motive is thoroughly
commercial," the judge said. "This is not a nonprofit enterprise
of making information available from state bar websites. The goal
is to create profiles and place ads on the profiles and reap
economic benefit."

Gilliam did not indicate when he would rule.

Katriel practices in La Jolla, California.

Johnson is with Davis Wright in Seattle.


BENCO DENTAL: Violated Antitrust Laws, Peter Bence Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Bence, DMD P.A., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patterson Companies, Inc,
Henry Schein, Inc., and Benco Dental Supply Company, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00631-JG-JO (E.D.N.Y., February 5,
2016), seeks to recover treble compensatory damages and injunctive
relief under the antitrust laws of the United States, against the
Defendants.

The Defendants allegedly conspired to foreclose competition
by illegally engaging in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental
product distributors and other entities that do business with such
competitors, in order to allow Defendants to maintain and extend
their dominant collective market power in the market for the
distribution of dental supplies and dental equipment in the United
States.

Patterson Companies, Inc. is the second largest distributor of
dental supplies in the United States. Patterson is incorporated in
Minnesota, and its principal place of business is in St. Paul,
Minnesota. Benco is incorporated in Delaware, and its principal
place of business is in Pittston, Pennsylvania. The Defendants
sell dental supplies to dental practices and laboratories
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Christopher Carmody, Esq.
          Arun Subramanian, Esq.
          SUSMAN GODFREY L.L.P.
          560 Lexington Avenue, 15th Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Tel: (212) 336 8330
          Fax: (212) 336 8340
          E-mail: bcarmody@susmangodfrey.com
                  asubramanian@susmangodfrey.com


BIG CITY YONKERS: "Cando" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mario Cando, Ramon A. Placencia, Freddy Rodriguez and Yldefonso
Hernandez, Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Big City Yonkers, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01154 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay wages and overtime pay
in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Big City Yonkers operates a warehouse business for auto parts, and
offers and provides an array of automotive parts and accessories
by retail and by delivery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BISMILLAH USA INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Gomez" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Basurto Gomez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bismillah USA Inc. (d/b/a
Alachi Masala), Amin Mehedi, and John Doe, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00923 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum and overtime wages, including applicable liquidated
damages, interest, attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Alachi Masala is an Indian restaurant owned by Amin Mehedi and
John Doe, located at 488 Amsterdam Avenue, New York, New York
10024.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200


BLUE CROSS: Pettus Plumbing Sues Over Sherman Act Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Pettus Plumbing & Piping, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Blue Cross, Blue
Shield Group, Case 3:16-cv-00297-RDP (N.D. Ala., February 22,
2016), seeks enjoinment, treble damages, costs and attorneys' fees
for violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Blue Cross/Blue Shield health
insurance companies engaged in conspiracy to allocate markets and
share it among themselves, Blue Cross/Blue Shield affiliates.

Pettus Plumbing & Piping, Inc. is an Alabama corporation with its
principal office located in Colbert County, Alabama. It has
purchased health insurance from one or more of the Defendants for
its 185 employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert G. Methvin, Jr., Esq.
      Phillip W. McCallum, Esq.
      James M. Terrell, Esq.
      MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
      2201 Arlington Avenue South
      Birmingham, AL 35205
      Tel: (205) 939-0199
      Fax: (205) 939-0399
      Email: rgm@mmlaw.net
             pwm@mmlaw.net
             jterrell@mmlaw.net

             - and -

      Jeffrey L. Bowling, Esq.
      BEDFORD, ROGERS & BOWLING, P.C.
      303 North Jackson Avenue
      Russellville, AL 35653
      Tel: (256) 332-2880


BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA: Violated UCL, "Fisher" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sheryl Fisher and Ronny Appoldt, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Blue Shield of
California, and Does 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
BC608608 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, January 28,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of requiring
patients to use an inferior drug that places them at higher risk
for side effects, adverse drug interactions, and worsening liver
disease, pursuant to the Business and Professions Code and the
Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

In October of 2014 the United States Food and Drug Administration
announced its approval of a new wonder drug that cures Hepatitis C
Harvoni. Immediately, physicians who specialize in the treatment
of Hepatitis C and liver disease began prescribing Harvoni for
their Hepatitis C patients as the standard of care for curing and,
therefore, stopping the progression of, what can be a disabling
and even deadly disease.

Hepatitis C is a liver infection caused by the Hepatitis C virus
(HCV). It is a blood-borne virus that has six different genotypes,
or virus classifications, based on the virus's genetic material in
RNA strands.

Blue Shield is "health care service plan" licensed by the
Department of Managed Health Care.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Gianelli, Esq.
          Joshua S. Davis, Esq.
          Adrian J. Barrio, Esq.
          GIANELLI & MORRIS,
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 1645
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 489 1600
          Facsimile: (213) 489 1611
          E-mail: rob.gianelli@gmlawyers.com
                  joshua.davis@gmlawyers.com
                  adrian.barrio@gmlawyers.com

               - and -

          Don A. Ernst, Esq.
          Christopher Edgington, Esq.
          Taylor Ernst, Esq.
          ERNST LAW GROUP
          1020 Palm Street
          San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
          Telephone: (805) 541 0300
          Facsimile: (805) 541 5168


BMW OF NORTH AMERICAN: "Marina" Sues Over Wheel Warranty
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Marina, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW of North America, LLC and Does 1
through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC609532 (Cal. Super., Los
Angeles County, February 5, 2016), seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief, damages and restitution, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs of suit for violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act, for breach of express and implied warranties,
and for violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act Civil
Code Sec 1790 et seq. and the Consumers Legal Remedies Act and the
Unfair Competition Law - Business & Professions Code Sec. 17200,
et seq.

Marina leased a 2013 BMW Z4 equipped with BMW V Spoke (Style 296)
light alloy wheels that cracked and BMW refused to honor the
warranty.

BMW is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business
in New Jersey. It is into the manufacture and marketing of
vehicles under the same name.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
      Elliot Conn, Esq.
      KEMNITZER, BARRON & KRIEG, LLP
      445 Bush St., 6th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94108
      Tel: (415) 632-1900
      Fax: (415) 632-1901

           - and -

      Mark A. Chavez, Esq.
      CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP
      42 Miller Avenue
      Mill Valley, CA 94941
      Tel: (415) 381-5599
      Fax: (415) 381-5572


BP: Fisherwoman Sues Plaintiffs Lawyers Over False Representation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a Vietnamese-
American boat owner, captain and fisherwoman filed a lawsuit
against Bob Hilliard and his firm, Hilliard Munoz Gonzales in
Corpus Christi, and John Cracken and his firm, The Cracken Law
Firm in Dallas.

In her lawsuit, the plaintiff, Thim Nguyen, alleges that the two
high-profile plaintiff lawyers stole her name and identity and
those of 45,500 other Vietnamese-Americans who fish for a living
in the Gulf of Mexico.  Ms. Nguyen alleges the two stole the
identities as part of their plan to gain more than $2 billion in
payments from BP Exploration & Production after the 2010 Deepwater
Horizon Oil Spill.

According to Ms. Nguyen's lawsuit, Messrs. Cracken and Hilliard
paid $10.9 million to two case runners in exchange for the stolen
names and identities.  The case runners then gave the names to
Mikal Watts, a San Antonio lawyer, who was Messrs. Cracken and
Hilliard's partner in a joint venture.  Watts then filed 25 cases
in various courts in Texas in 2010 claiming the Vietnamese-
Americans were clients.

In the lawsuit, filed in the 55th District Court in Houston, Ms.
Nguyen did not name Watts as a defendant.  But she had named him
in a previously filed and pending suit in San Antonio.  Mr. Watts
is also a criminal defendant, along with six others, in a related
federal case, which is scheduled to go to trial this summer.

Tammy Tran, a well-known lawyer in the Houston Vietnamese-American
community, represents Ms. Nguyen.

Mr. Hilliard did not return a call for this story, but his firm
released a statement that said: "Ms. Tran is addicted to headlines
and incapable of proving this case.  Her claims are false and,
when her threats to sue so as to attempt to extort a multi-million
dollar settlement failed, her baseless bluff was called.  Now she
is faced with proving the unprovable.  These are fictitious
allegations."

Mr. Cracken, who is a solo, known for his role representing class
plaintiffs in consumer credit reporting litigation, also did not
return a call for this story.

"This case against Hilliard and Cracken has zero merit, just as is
true with the case she filed against me several years ago in San
Antonio," Watts said, when asked about Nguyen's new lawsuit. "We
are ready, willing and able to disprove the criminal case
allegations and Tammy Tran's allegations," said Mr. Watts, who is
representing himself pro se in his federal criminal case.
Mr. Watts has repeatedly denied the allegations by federal
prosecutors that he stole the names and identities.

For her part, Ms. Tran denied in an email that she is addicted to
headlines or engaged in extortion.  "I represent real Vietnamese
victims and make a demand for just claims for real damages.  We
are using the legal system to serve this plaintiff, a boat woman,
who is defenseless against lawyers like Mr. Hilliard," Ms. Tran
wrote.

Ms. Tran's client Ms. Nguyen's petition identifies Messrs. Cracken
and Hilliard as the unnamed attorneys #1 and #2 referenced in the
federal indictment against Ms. Watts and the others, which was
first unsealed in October 2015.  In the indictment, attorneys #1
and #2 are described as buying into Watts' docket of claims filed
by Vietnamese-American fisherman in the oil spill litigation
against BP.

According to Ms. Nguyen's petition: Messrs. Cracken and Hilliard
entered in a joint venture with Watts to represent the 44,510
Vietnamese-Americans engaged in the fishing industry in the Gulf.
Emails show Mr. Cracken reviewed the files and identities of those
purported Vietnamese-American clients.  Mr. Hilliard paid $7.8
million and Mr. Cracken, $3.1 million, the total was given to the
case runners in exchange for the names of the 44,510.

According to the petition: In December 2010, Mr. Cracken sent an
email to Watts, Hilliard and others, stating that he had received
the names of Vietnamese-Americans in the fishing industry in the
Gulf, whom he hoped a runner could "convert to 'clients' over
time."  By January 2011, however, Mr. Hilliard expressed concerns,
sending an email to Messrs. Watts and Cracken that referred to the
purported clients as "ghosts in the wind."

According to Ms. Nguyen's petition, Mr. Hilliard next email was
more emotional.  "Mikal, you know I say this will love in my heart
so hear me on this, this is either a super-secret plan for a
billion-dollar success that I just don't see, even when I try to
read between the lines in [John Cracken] emails, or if I just read
what is written in JC's emails, and add my own gut feeling, it is
a 'king has no clothes' cluster fuck that needs to be dealt with
openly, quickly and effectively."

Ms. Nguyen's petition alleges that by the end of January 2011, Mr.
Cracken sent an email stating that the roster of purposed client
had bad telephone numbers, bad street addresses, and the percent
of names taken from a phone book was still to be determined.  But
by March 2012, Mr. Watts reported in an email to Messrs. Cracken
and Hilliard that BP had settled for $2.3 million special limited
fund for the Vietnamese-American fishing industry, which would be
paid regardless of the proof.  "Hope this makes everyone feel
better about our eggshell plaintiff docket. To quote Monte Python,
it's merely a flesh wound; I'm not dead yet," Mr. Watts wrote in
the email to Messrs. Cracken and Hilliard.


BROTHERS INC: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Gauger" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Allan Gauger, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Brothers, Inc., the Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00603-MMB (E.D. Penn., February 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated damages,
litigation costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees, and further
relief as the Court deems just and proper, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act
(PMWA).

Brothers, Inc. is a corporate entity headquartered in Broomall,
Pennsylvania. The Defendant is an electrical contracting company
that employs a staff of over 180 electricians and administrative
employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          715 Twining Road, Suite 211
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: Doesn't Pay Tipped Employees, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Oklahoma City claims the owner of five Buffalo Wild Wings
franchises does not pay tipped employees the minimum wage.


CARDIOVASCULAR SYSTEMS: Sued Over Misleading Financial Reports
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sandra K. Shoemaker, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., David L.
Martin, and Laurence L. Betterley, Case No. 0:16-cv-00568-RHK-TNL
(D. Minn., March 4, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false
and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered
in St. Paul, Minnesota, develops and manufactures medical devices
for the treatment of peripheral and coronary arterial diseases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clark C. Walton, Esq.
      ALEXANDER RICKS, PLLC
      2901 Coltsgate Road, Suite 202
      Charlote, NC 28211
      Telephone: (704) 200-2637
      Facsimile: (704) 365-3676
      E-mail: clark@alexanderricks.com


CARRINGTON TEA CO: "Boulton" Sues over Product Mislabeling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Boulton, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, Plaintiff v. Carrington Tea Company, LLC,
Defendant, Case BC609360 (Cal. Super. Los Angeles County, February
4, 2016), seeks corrective advertising campaign, cessation of all
misleading and deceptive advertising, disgorgement of all monies,
revenues and profits, restitution, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other and further
relief under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act, Unfair
Competition Law, False Advertising Law and for breach of express
and implied warranties.

Defendant manufactures, distributes and markets Carrington
Farms brand coconut oil products. Plaintiff accuses the Defendant
of mislabeling their unsaturated fat content as saturated of which
the former is deemed unhealthy.

Carrington Tea Company, LLC is a New Jersey limited liability
company with its principal place of business at 7 Reuten Drive,
Building A, Closter, New Jersey 07624.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
      4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 206
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Tel:(619)767-0356
      Fax:(619)331-2943
      Email: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

           - and -

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


CARTER'S INC: "Morrow" Sues Over Deceptive Pricing
--------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Morrow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Carter's, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
The William Carter Company, a Massachusetts corporation, Carter's
Retail, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Oshkosh B'Gosh, Inc., a
Delaware Corporation, and DOES 1 - 50, inclusive, Case
16CV345LABJMA (S.D. Cal., February 10, 2016), seeks damages,
restitution and disgorgement of all profits, declaratory and
injunctive relief, enjoinment, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other and further relief for violation of California's Unfair
Competition Laws, California Business & Professions Code Sections
17200, et seq., California's False Advertising Laws and California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The complaint says the Defendant advertised discounts that were
phantom markdowns because the represented market prices were
artificially inflated and were never the original prices.

The William Carter Company, a Massachusetts corporation, Carter's
Retail, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and OshKosh B'gosh, Inc. a
Delaware Corporation, are manufacturers of children's apparel,
holding principal executive offices in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      1133 Penn Avenue
      5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Tel: (412) 322-9243
      Fax: (412) 231-0246
      Email: ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
             glynch@carlsonlynch.com


CHASE HOME: Brief Due May 23 in 9th Cir. Appeal in "Montez" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dianna Montez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Chase Home Finance, LLC, JP Morgan Chase, N.A, Case
No. 16-55226 (9th Cir., Feb. 12, 2016) is an appeal filed before
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a
lower court decision in a class action, Case No. 3:11-cv-00530-
JLS-MDD (S.D. Cal., Mar 17, 2011).

Appellant Dianna Montez's opening brief is due May 23, 2016.

Appellees Chase Home Finance, LLC and JP Morgan Chase, N.A.
answering brief is due July 20, 2016.

Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of
the answering brief.

Dianna Montez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, is represented by:

          Amid Bahadori, Esq.
          BAHADORI & THOMAS LLP
          2 Park Plaza
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 954 8164

The Appellees are represented by:

          Joseph Vincent Quattrocchi, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612 2500


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces "Thieme" Class Suit in W.D. Okla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Thieme, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 16-cv-206-M (W.D. Okla., March 3, 2016), alleges that the
Defendants conspired to rig bids and depress the market for
purchase of oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties
containing producing oil and natural gas wells, in violation of
Sections 1 and 3 of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Defendants Chesapeake and SandRidge Energy are engaged in the
business of oil, natural gas, and/or natural gas liquid
production.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Douglas D. Wilguess, Esq.
     Heather A. Garrett, Esq.
     WILGUESS & GARRETT, PLLC
     211 N. Robinson, Suite 1350
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Tel.: (405) 235-0200
     Fax: (405) 232-6515
     Email: wilguess@wgokc.com
            garrett@wgokc.com

          - and -

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      Daniel H. Charest, Esq.
      Will Thompson, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 North Akard Street, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Tel.: (469) 904-4550
      Fax: (469) 444-5002
      Email: wburns@burnscharest.com
             dcharest@burnscharest.com
             wthompson@burnscharest.com

          - and -

       Isaac Diel, Esq.
       SHARP MCQUEN PA
       6900 College Boulevard Suite 285
       Overland Park, KS 66211
       Tel.: (913) 661-9931
       Email: idiel@sharpmcqueen.com


CHEVRON CORP: Saddam Terror Victims Defend Suit
-----------------------------------------------
Dave Tartre, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
hundreds of victims of Saddam Hussein asked a federal judge in San
Francisco March 8, to reject Chevron's motion to dismiss the class
action that accuses it of financing Saddam's terrorism by
illegally buying 78 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

Baruch Yehuda Ziv Brill and 328 other named plaintiffs claim that
Chevron's illegal oil purchases from July 2000 to December 2002
put about $20 million into a slush fund that Saddam used for
crimes against humanity and terrorism against the United States,
Israel and other nations.

The plaintiffs, 18 of them U.S. citizens, say Chevron's violations
of the Oil-for-Food Program enabled Saddam to send money to Hamas
and other terrorists that committed 21 terrorist acts.

The Oct. 26, 2015 federal lawsuit claims that links between the
oil sales and the violence are clear enough that Chevron should
face liability under the Anti-Terrorism Act and the Alien Tort
Statute.

Lead plaintiff Brill, a U.S. citizen, was 17 years old in December
2001 when two suicide bombers and a car bomb exploded on a
Jerusalem street, killing 10 people and wounding 150. Brill
suffered multiple shrapnel wounds from nails that pierced his
wrist and leg.

Each of the bombers' families received a $15,000 check, Brill
says, "paid on behalf of Saddam Hussein with funds acquired, in
part, from Chevron's payment of illegal kickbacks in violation of
the OFP [Oil-for-Food Program]."

In court March 8, U.S. District Judge James Donato questioned
whether Chevron, which paid $27 million in disgorgement and
penalties to settle the SEC's 2007 lawsuit over oil sales, could
be blamed under the Anti-Terrorism Act for directly financing
terrorism.

"How does an oil company that greases the palm of a corrupt regime
to buy some oil fit this definition?" he asked plaintiffs'
attorney, Maria Weitz.

Weitz said that Chevron gave material support to Saddam, who was
known to engage in terrorism, giving the objective impression that
Chevron supports terrorism.

Donato asked whether knowledge that Saddam was connected to
terrorism was sufficient under the Anti-Terrorism Act, or whether
the terrorism victims must show that Chevron intended that its
payments be spent on terrorism.

"There isn't a single allegation of a direct transaction between
Chevron and Saddam Hussein," the judge said.  He described the
victims' complaint as "fairly conclusory" about the connection
between Chevron and terrorism in Israel, and said, "the causality
chain is very difficult to follow."

"Chevron did something with a bad person," he said, adding that
the oil sales are not disputed.

Donato said he did not see how doing business with Saddam shows
that Chevron plausibly knew that plaintiffs in Israel would be
harmed by terrorism.

Chevron attorney Meir Feder encouraged Donato's line of thinking.
He suggested that Chevron may have turned a blind eye, but "in
order to have a primary violation, it has to be the defendant that
is making the acts that make it liable."

"It's got to be an act of international terrorism that Chevron
committed," Feder said.

Even if the victims tried to show that Chevron aided and abetted
terrorism, Feder said, civil law does not have the sanctions for
aiding and abetting that criminal law does.

"So, unless a company cuts a check directly to Hamas, it couldn't
have liability?" Donato asked Feder.

"Well, yes," Feder replied.

At this early stage, Donato limited discussion to whether Brill's
lawsuit should be dismissed now, or is complete enough to head to
trial. He suggested that Weitz amend the complaint to show more
direct causality between the payments and terrorism.

Maria Weitz is with Boucher LLP of Woodland Hills, and Meir Feder
with Jones Day -- mfeder@jonesday.com -- in New York.

Boucher may be reached at:

     Maria Weitz, Esq.
     BOUCHER LLP
     21600 Oxnard Street, Suite 600
     Woodland Hills, CA 91367
     Tel: (818) 340-5400


CINEMARK HOLDINGS: No Sanctions for Capstone Law, Court Says
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, Joseph Amey, et al. v. Cinemark USA, Inc., Case No.
3:13cv05669, In the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, San Francisco Division, the Court on
February 3, 2016, denied the Defendants' request to hold
plaintiff's counsel Capstone Law APC in contempt and to sanction
the firm for Capstone's alleged violation of the Protective Order
in this case.

The Defendants allege that Capstone Law impermissibly used
confidential absent class member contact information -- months
after the Court had denied plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and while defendants' motion for summary judgment as
to the three then-remaining plaintiffs was pending -- to contact
defendants' employees in an effort to instigate additional
litigation against defendants.

Capstone Law opposes the motion, arguing that the class member
contact list was not designated as confidential under the
Protective Order and, therefore, there was no limit on its use by
Capstone Law.  But even if the class member contact information
could be considered "Protected Material" under the Protective
Order, Capstone Law contends that it properly used that
information to seek (from an unidentified number of class members)
information: "(a) to assess the value of the representative claims
in the action to determine whether to appeal the Court's Orders;
(b) to value the case for a potential class and/or PAGA
settlement; and (c) to continue gathering witness and documentary
evidence in support of the representative claims [] if a reversal
is obtained on appeal."

The Court agrees that there is no evidence that an express
agreement to treat that information as confidential under the
Protective Order was reached, or that defendants otherwise
affirmatively designated the information as confidential under the
Protective Order.

District Judge William H. Orrick ruled, however, that to prevent
potential abuse of the class member contact information, Capstone
Law must return all absent class member information received from
CPT Group to defendants.  If plaintiffs prevail after an appeal to
the Ninth Circuit, defendants shall promptly return that
information to Capstone Law after the mandate issues so that
counsel may use it consistently with the limitations imposed by
the Protective Order.

The California court previously determined that class
certification is not appropriate and determined that a PAGA
representative action is not appropriate

"The plaintiff may appeal these rulings. We are unable to predict
the outcome of the litigation or the range of potential loss,"
Cinemark Holdings said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The case presents putative class action claims for damages and
attorney's fees arising from employee wage and hour claims under
California law for alleged meal period, rest break, reporting time
pay, unpaid wages, pay upon termination, and wage statements
violations. The claims are also asserted as a representative
action under the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA").

"We deny the claims, deny that class certification is appropriate
and deny that a PAGA representative action is appropriate, and are
vigorously defending against the claims," the Company said.  "We
deny any violation of law and plan to vigorously defend against
all claims."

Plaintiff Amey is represented by:

     Hannah Ruth Salassi, Esq.
     Scott Edward Cole, Esq.
     Christopher Brian Johnson, Esq.
     Courtland Wayne Creekmore, Esq.
     Matthew R. Bainer, Esq.
     Scott Cole and Associates, APC
     1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: (510) 891-9800
     Fax: (510) 891-7030
     E-mail: hannah.salassi@gmail.com
             scole@scalaw.com
             cjohnson@scalaw.com
             courtland.creekmore@gmail.com
             mbainer@scalaw.com

          - and -

     Stan Karas, Esq.
     Capstone Law APC
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 556-4811
     Fax: (310) 943-0396
     E-mail: Stan.Karas@capstonelawyers.com

          - and -

     Stephen Noel Ilg, Esq.
     Hoffman Employment Lawyers
     580 California Street, Suite 1600
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 362-1111
     Fax: (415) 362-1112
     E-mail: silg@employment-lawyers.com

Plaintiff Silken Brown is represented by:

     Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq.
     Katherine Ward Kehr, Esq.
     Robert Joseph Drexler , Jr., Esq.
     Robert Kenneth Friedl, Esq.
     Capstone Law APC
     1840 Century Park E Ste 450
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 556-4811
     E-mail: Jonathan.Lee@capstonelawyers.com
             Robert.Drexler@capstonelawyers.com
             robert.friedl@capstonelawyers.com

Counsel to Cinemark USA Inc:

     Emily Burkhardt Vicente, Esq.
     Matthew I. Bobb, Esq.
     Hunton and Williams
     550 South Hope Street, Suite 2000
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 532-2000
     Fax: (213) 532-2020
     E-mail: ebvicente@hunton.com
             mbobb@hunton.com

          - and -

     Michael Brett Burns, Esq.
     Hunton and Williams, LLP
     575 Market Street, Suite 3700
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: (415) 975-3700
     Fax: (415) 975-3701
     E-mail: mbrettburns@hunton.com

Cinemark is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry,
with theatres in the United States, or U.S., Brazil, Argentina,
Chile, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador, Honduras, El Salvador, Nicaragua,
Costa Rica, Panama, Guatemala, Bolivia and Curacao.


CLARKE'S TOWING: "Williams" Suit to Recover Minimum, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Williams, Moses Gray, and Aaron Thompson, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Clarke's Towing & Transportation, Inc. and Henry Clarke,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00375-TWT (N.D. Ga., February 8, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated
damages, permanent enjoinment, costs of litigation and including
reasonable attorney's fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants employed Plaintiffs as tow truck drivers in and around
Atlanta, Georgia. Defendants operate a tow truck service located
at 950 Royal Industrial Boulevard, Austell, GA with Clarke as the
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer.

Plaintiffs claim to receive sub-minimum wage rates, were not
compensated for overtime and were deducted repair costs from their
pay for the trucks they drove.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
      Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
      DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
      3100 Centennial Tower
      101 Marietta Street
      Atlanta, GA 30303
      Tel: (404) 979-3171
      Fax: (404) 979-3170
      Email: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
             charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com
             matthew.herrington@dcbflegal.com


COMMERCE PLANET: Ex-Pres. Must Pay $18.2M for Deceptive Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Miller, writing for The Recorder, reports that the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on March 3 agreed that the
former president of an online company can be forced to pay $18.2
million in restitution for engaging in allegedly deceptive
practices even if he only personally received $3 million.

The three-judge panel wrote that U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney
of the Central District of California could actually have slapped
Charles Gugliuzza, the ex-leader of Commerce Planet, with $36.4
million in restitution since he failed to "produce any reliable
evidence" that any portion of the company's revenues were not
generated unjustly.

"The court could simply have awarded that amount and been done
with it," Judge Paul Watford wrote for the unanimous panel.  "The
district court did not abuse its discretion when it instead
decided to err on the side of caution by slashing the otherwise-
permissible award in half."

The FTC action was among the first to focus not on the language of
online consumer disclosures but on their placement and visibility.
Judge Watford was joined in his opinion by Judges Consuelo
Callahan and John Owens.

The panel did remand the case back to the district court, however,
noting that Carney did not declare Mr. Gugliuzza jointly and
severally liable in what was likely an "oversight."

"If on remand the district court decides, in the exercise of its
discretion, to hold Gugliuzza jointly and severally liable with
Commerce Planet, it may reinstate the $18.2 million restitution
award," Judge Watford wrote.  "Otherwise, the award must be
limited to the unjust gains Gugliuzza himself received."

The decision still appears to be a likely blow for Mr. Gugliuzza,
who opted for a bench trial when the Federal Trade Commission sued
in 2009, even after the agency reached settlements with Commerce
Planet and two other corporate officers totaling $522,000.

"We have not decided whether we're going to seek en banc review or
file a writ of certiorari," said Mr. Gugliuzza counsel Erwin
Chemerinsky, dean of the UC-Irvine School of Law.

"It's a very good decision for us," said FTC attorney David
Newman.  "The court reaffirmed the standards for individual
liability and restitution that it has used over the years in FTC
cases but it did so in a very clear and concise way, and that will
be useful going forward."

Mr. Gugliuzza's defense team included both Mr. Chemerinsky and the
ubiquitous Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partner Theodore Boutrous Jr.

"I thought there was a terrible injustice done," Mr. Chemerinsky
said. "How can this man be personally held responsible for $18
million when he hardly profited?"

The FTC says Commerce Planet operated a website that offered
customers free "online auction kits" that would help them set up
businesses selling goods on sites such as eBay.  Customers were
told they would only be charged for shipping and handling.  But in
fine print only accessible through a web link or by scrolling to a
portion of a page not visible in the primary screen, the company's
terms and conditions explained that customers were actually being
enrolled in an "online supplier" program at a cost of up to $59.95
a month, unless they opted out within a few days of ordering.  The
FTC contended that most customers did not know about the
enrollment until charges showed up on their credit cards.

"The relevant question in a case like this one -- in which an
individual defendant violates the FTC Act by acting in concert
with a corporate entity -- is whether the individual may be held
personally liable for restitution of the corporation's unjust
gains," Judge Watford wrote.  "The answer is yes -- provided the
requirements for imposing joint and several liability are
satisfied, and here they are."


CONTINENTAL AG: Airbag Control Units Defective, "Leon" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lourdes Leon, and all others similarly-situated vs. Continental
AG, Continental Automotive Systems, Inc., Continental Automotive
Systems US, Inc., Atmel Corporation, Daimler AG, Mercedes-Benz
USA, LLC, Honda Motor Co., Ltd., and American Honda Motor Co.,
Inc., Case No.1:16-cv-20572-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants manufacture and use defective airbag
control units in vehicles.

Continental AG is a specialized supplier of automotive products,
including automotive safety systems, and designs, manufactures,
tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags and airbag
components, including airbag control units.

Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. is a subsidiary of
Continental AG.  Continental Automotive Systems US, Inc. is a
subsidiary of Continental AG.

Atmel Corporation sells, designs, manufactures, tests, markets,
and distributes microcontrollers and other electronic components,
including power supply components for airbags, in the United
States.

Daimler AG is a foreign for-profit corporation with its principal
place of business in Stuttgart, Germany. Daimler manufactures and
sells automobiles through independent retail dealers, outlets, and
authorized dealerships primarily in North America, Europe, and
Asia.

Mercedes-Benz USA is a New Jersey corporation with its principal
headquarters located in Atlanta, Georgia. Mercedes-Benz USA
conducts the sale, marketing, and operational activities for
Mercedes Benz cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles in the
United States.

Honda Motor Co., Ltd. is a foreign for-profit corporation with its
principal place of business in Tokyo, Japan. Honda Motor
manufactures and sells motorcycles, automobiles, and power
products through independent retail dealers, outlets, and
authorized dealerships primarily in Japan, North America, Europe,
and Asia.

American Honda Motor Co., Inc. is a subsidiary of Honda Motor.
American Honda is a California corporation with its principal
headquarters located in Torrance, California.  American Honda
conducts the sale, marketing, and operational activities for Honda
cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles automobile parts in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
       Avi R. Kaufman, Esq.
       Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
       KOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
       2525 Ponce de Leon Boulevard, Suite 625
       Coral Gables, FL 33134
       Telephone: (305) 384-7270
       E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com
               kaufman@kolawyers.com
               edelsberg@kolawyers.com


CONTINENTAL AG: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Defective Airbag
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuela Valentina Churi Hernandez, Plaintiff, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Continental AG, et al.,
Defendants, Case No.: 1:16-cv-20845-JKL (S.D. Fla., March 8,
2016), seeks redress for defective airbag control unit.

The Complaint alleges that defective vehicles contain airbag
control units manufactured by the Airbag Manufacturer Defendants
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, either (a) fail to deploy the airbag and other
safety systems during a crash, when most needed, or (b) cause the
airbag and other safety systems to deploy violently and
unexpectedly, increasing the risk of a crash and serious injuries.

Defendant Continental AG is a foreign for-profit corporation with
its principal place of business in Hannover, Germany. Continental
AG is a specialized supplier of automotive products, including
automotive safety systems. Continental AG designs, manufactures,
tests, markets, distributes, and sells airbags and airbags
components, including airbag control units.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark J. Dearman, Esq.
     Paul J. Geller, Esq.
     Stuart A. Davidson, Esq.
     Jason H. Alperstein, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     120 East Palmentto Park Road, Suite 500
     Boca Raton, FL 33432
     Tel: 561/750-3000
     Fax: 561/750-3364
     Email: pgeller@rgrdlaw.com
            mdearman@rgrdlaw.com
            jalperstein@rgrdlaw.com


CORA OPERATIONS: Violated Wage Act, "Sullivan" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Sullivan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cora Operations, Inc., and John V.
Zirpolo, the Defendants, Case No. 16-0283 BIS (Mass. Super Ct.,
January 23, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, actual and
statutory damages, and treble damages plus costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees, pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage Act and
Massachusetts Prevailing Wage Law.

Defendants contracted with the Massachusetts Department of
Transportation and general contractor J.F. White-Skanska, Joint
Venture to provide construction services for the Fore River Bridge
Replacement Project in Quincy and Weymouth, Massachusetts.

Cora Operations Inc. was founded in 2003. The company's line of
business includes highway and street construction. The Company is
based in Boston, Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua N. Garick, Esq.
          A W OFFICES OF JOSHUA N. GARICK, P.C.
          100 TradeCenter, Suite G-700
          Woburn, MA 01801
          Telephone: (617) 600 7520
          E-mail: Joshua@GarickLaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: "Clancy" Sues over Illegal Collection Practice
--------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL P. CLANCY, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Credit Control Services, Inc., dba Credit
Collection Services, Steven Sands and Jeffrey Stoddard,
Defendants, Case 600823/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Nassau County, February 8,
2016), seeks statutory damages, actual damages along with costs
and attorney's fees for violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et. seq and New York General
Business Law Sec. 349.

Credit Control Services, Inc is a Delaware Corporation with
principal place of business located at Two Wells Avenue, Newton,
MA 02459. It tried to collect a debt from the Plaintiff under
false, deceptive or misleading means, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mitchell L. Pashkin, Esq.
      775 Park Avenue, Suite 255
      Huntington, NY 11743
      Tel: (631) 335-1107


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Rapaport" Suit for FDCPA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Velvl Rapaport, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control Services, Inc., d/b/a Credit
Collection Services, Case No. 1:16-cv-00840 (E.D.N.Y., Feb. 18,
2016), is brought over alleged violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Credit Control Services, Inc., doing business as Credit Collection
Services, provides business process outsourcing solutions for
customers in the United States.  The Company offers automated
voice messaging, live agent/call center, text messaging, email
campaigns, and direct mail solutions; and consumer and commercial
credit collection services, as well as involved in the recovery of
large/complex contracts and tort-based obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          ADAM J. FISHBEIN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791-4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791-4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


CVS HEALTH: Judge Won't Dismiss Suit Over Generic Drug Price
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Oakland, Calif. said March 8, she won't
dismiss a class action accusing CVS of overcharging for generic
drugs by up to 400 percent, but hinted it may not belong in a
California court.

Lead plaintiff Christopher Corcoran sued CVS Health and CVS
Pharmacy, saying that the companies submit fraudulently inflated
claims to insurers through a so-called Health Savings Pass - which
the complaint calls "the centerpiece" of CVS's fraud.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers seemed impatient with
CVS's motion to dismiss the class action.  "There's enough here.
We are not going to argue about it," Rogers said.

"We're not going to spend all day arguing about things that are
frankly about judgment calls. It's my judgment call."

The question, she said, was whether to grant the plaintiffs leave
to amend on the few claims against CVS that she said she was
inclined to dismiss, such as a constructive fraud claim.

"Is there any court anywhere that has ever said that this kind of
factual situation creates a fiduciary relationship or confidential
relationship?" Rogers asked Robert Gilmore, who argued for the
plaintiffs. "Have you found any case anywhere to support this
theory?

"I'm asking if you have any authority to suggest that a customer
who gets their prescriptions at a particular pharmacy - if anyone
has said that that creates a special duty."

Enu Mainigi, who argued for CVS, pointed out that a finding of
such a relationship in this case would lead to a similar finding
"in every single consumer fraud case."

The parties also argued as to whether the case should be
adjudicated in California, since CVS is based in Rhode Island.

Rogers said she was inclined to grant CVS's jurisdictional motion.

"If I grant the motion for lack of jurisdiction, does this case go
away?" she asked.

Elizabeth Pritzker, who argued for the plaintiffs on that motion,
said that it would not since there would be jurisdiction in Rhode
Island.

Pritzker is with Pritzker Levine in Oakland, Calif., and Gilmore
is with Stein Mitchell in Washington.

Mainigi is with Williams & Connolly, also in Washington.


DAVE & BUSTERS: "Alvarez" Labor Suit Moved to M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Joseph Alvarez, on behalf of
himself and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Dave &
Busters, Inc., Case No. 2016-CA-685-O, was removed from the 9th
Judicial Circuit Court, Orange County, Florida, to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Orlando). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00252-RBD-GJK to
the proceeding.

Dave & Buster's owns, operates, and licenses dining and
entertainment venues for adults and families in North America. It
provides a menu of casual dining food items, and a selection of
non-alcoholic and alcoholic beverage items with an assortment of
entertainment attractions, including screen televisions and audio
systems, live sports and other televised events, skill and sports-
oriented redemption games, video games, interactive simulators,
and other traditional games. The company serves men and women aged
21 to 39, and families with children and teenagers. As of May 1,
2014, it had 68 dining and entertainment venues. The company was
founded in 1982 and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Stephen Thomas Ball, Esq.
          Luis Javier Gonzalez, Esq.
          HOLLAND & KNIGHT, LLP - ORLANDO
          200 S Orange Ave-Ste 2600
          PO Box 1526
          Orlando, FL 32802-1526
          Telephone: (407) 425 8500
          Facsimile: (407) 244 5288
          E-mail: stephen.ball@hklaw.com
                  luis.gonzalez@hklaw.com


DISCOVER FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Hansen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Discover Financial Services will seek to vigorously defend against
all claims asserted by Polly Hansen in a class action lawsuit,
Discover said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

On July 9, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois (Polly Hansen v. Discover Financial Services and Discover
Home Loans, Inc.). The plaintiff alleges that the Company
contacted her, and members of the class she seeks to represent, on
their cellular and residential telephones without their express
consent or after consent was revoked in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"). Plaintiff seeks statutory
damages for alleged negligent and willful violations of the TCPA,
attorneys' fees, costs and injunctive relief. The TCPA provides
for statutory damages of $500 for each violation ($1,500 for
willful violations).

Discover Financial Services ("DFS" or the "Company") is a direct
banking and payment services company.


DISH NETWORK: Faces Suit Over Hiring of Spanish Speakers
--------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Dish Network solicits
Spanish speakers with ads but has them sign English contracts
without adequate disclosures about cancellation, a class action in
Oakland, Calif. claims in Alameda County Court.


DIVERSIFIED CONSULTANTS: Accused of Violating FDCPA in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robin Holmes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Consultants Inc. and Orion Portfolio
Services, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-00837 (E.D.N.Y., February 18,
2006) alleges violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Diversified Consultants, Inc. is a third-party debt collection
agency specializing in the telecom industry.  The Company seeks
payment on accounts related to wireless, landline, cable and
satellite services for phone, Internet access, television,
security and utilities.  The Company has offices in Jacksonville,
Florida, and Portland, Oregon.


DOLLAR EXPRESS: Faces "Steingruber" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Aniko Steingruber, for and on behalf of herself and other
employees similarly situated v. Dollar Express Stores, LLC, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00213-MMH-PDB (M.D. Fla., March 4, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dollar Express Stores, LLC owns and operates 330 retail stores
throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Thomas Fortune, Esq.
      FORTUNE LAW OFFICES, P.A.
      1807 3rd Street North
      Jacksonville Beach, FL 32250
      Telephone: (904) 246-2125
      Facsimile: (904) 246-1551
      E-mail: SFortune@FortuneLegal.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guercio" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Guercio, et al. v. Fanduel, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09641, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10322-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Gary Steven Graifman, Esq.
          KANTROWITZ GOLDHAMER & GRAIFMAN, P.C.
          747 Chestnut Ridge Road
          Chestnut Ridge, NY 10977
          Telephone: (845) 356-2570
          Facsimile: (845) 356-4335
          E-mail: ggraifman@kgglaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Guttman" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Guttman v. Visa Inc., et al., Case
No. 1:15-cv-09084, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10321-GAO to the
proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Visa Inc. is a payments technology company.  Visa is engaged in
operating a processing network, VisaNet, which facilitates
authorization, clearing and settlement of payment transactions
across the world.  Visa provides its services to consumers,
businesses, financial institutions and governments in more than
200 countries and territories for electronic payments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annie Erin Causey, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          1301 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 00000
          Telephone: (212) 397-1000
          Facsimile: (646) 843-7603
          E-mail: acausey@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          Brittany Sloane Weiner, Esq.
          IMBESI CHRISTENSEN AND MICHAEL
          450 7th Avenue
          New York, NY 10123
          Telephone: (212) 736-0007
          Facsimile: (646) 514-3888
          E-mail: brittany@lawicm.com

Defendant Visa Inc. is represented by:

          Michael S. Shuster, Esq.
          KASOWITZ, BENSON, TORRES & FRIEDMAN LLP
          1633 Broadway
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 506-1968
          Facsimile: (212) 506-3397
          E-mail: MShuster@Kasowitz.com

               - and -

          Vincent Gregory Levy, Esq.
          Zachary Adam Kerner, Esq.
          HOLWELL SHUSTER & GOLDBERG
          750 Seventh Ave., 26th Floor
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (646) 837-5151
          Facsimile: (646) 837-5150
          E-mail: vlevy@hsgllp.com
                  zkerner@hsgllp.com

Defendant Mastercard Inc. is represented by:

          Bruce S. Meyer, Esq.
          Eric Shaun Hochstadt, Esq.
          WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310-8538
          Facsimile: (212) 310-8007
          E-mail: bruce.meyer@weil.com
                  eric.hochstadt@weil.com

Defendant American Express Credit Corporation is represented by:

          Wendy Helene Schwartz, Esq.
          Lauren Kathryn Handelsman, Esq.
          BINDER & SCHWARTZ LLP
          28 W. 44th Street, Suite 700
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 510-7143
          Facsimile: (212) 510-7299
          E-mail: wschwartz@binderschwartz.com
                  lhandelsman@binderschwartz.com

Defendant J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. is represented by:

          David Zorian Pinsky, Esq.
          COVINGTON & BURLING LLP
          620 Eighth Avenue
          New York, NY 10018-1405
          Telephone: (212) 841-1177
          Facsimile: (212) 841-9177
          E-mail: dpinsky@cov.com

Defendant HDS Capital LLC is represented by:

          Jonathan L. Adler, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
          200 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 592-1400
          Facsimile: (212) 592-1500
          E-mail: jadler@herrick.com

Defendant 21st Century Fox is represented by:

          Daniel J. Kramer, Esq.
          PAUL WEISS RIVKIND WHARTON & GARRISON LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 373-3020
          Facsimile: (212) 492-0020
          E-mail: dkramer@paulweiss.com

Defendant Legends Hospitality LLC is represented by:

          David H. Stern, Esq.
          Carolin Sahimi, Esq.
          HUGHES HUBBARD & REED LLP
          350 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3600
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 613-2800
          Facsimile: (213) 613-2950
          E-mail: sternd@hugheshubbard.com
                  sahimi@hugheshubbard.com

Defendants NHL Enterprises, Inc., and NHL Enterprises L.P. are
represented by:

          Shepard Goldfein, Esq.
          Anthony Joseph Dreyer, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM
          919 Third Avenue
          New York, NY 10022-3897
          Telephone: (212) 735-3000
          Facsimile: (917) 777-3610
          E-mail: shepard.goldfein@skadden.com
                  adreyer@skadden.com

Defendant Paysafecard.com USA, Inc., is represented by:

          Francesca Marie Erts, Esq.
          Paul Hastings LLP
          875 15th Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 551-1700
          Facsimile: (202) 551-1705
          E-mail: francescaerts@paulhastings.com

Defendant Vantiv Inc. is represented by:

          James Douglas Baldridge, Esq.
          VENABLE LLP
          575 7th Street, N.W.
          Washington, DC 20004
          Telephone: (202) 344-4703
          Facsimile: (202) 344-8300
          E-mail: jdbaldridge@venable.com

Defendant BDS Capital Management LLC is represented by:

          Lori Marks-Esterman, Esq.
          Peter Martin Sartorius, Esq.
          OLSHAN FROME WOLOSKY LLP
          Park Avenue Tower
          65 East 55th Street
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 451-2247
          Facsimile: (212) 451-2222
          E-mail: lmarksesterman@olshanlaw.com
                  psartorius@olshanlaw.com

Defendant Kraft Group is represented by:

          Andrew C. Phelan, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          One Federal Street
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 951-8603
          Facsimile: (617) 951-8736
          E-mail: andrew.phelan@morganlewis.com

Defendant MSG Sports & Entertainment LLC is represented by:

          Cynthia S. Arato, Esq.
          Fabien Manohar Thayamballi, Esq.
          SHAPIRO ARATO LLP
          500 Fifth Avenue, 40th Floor
          New York, NY 10110
          Telephone: (212) 257-4880
          Facsimile: (212) 202-6417
          E-mail: carato@shapiroarato.com
                  fthayamballi@shapiroarato.com

Defendant Major League Soccer, L.L.C., is represented by:

          Bradley I. Ruskin, Esq.
          Scott Arthur Eggers, Esq.
          PROSKAUER ROSE LLP
          11 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3465
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: bruskin@proskauer.com
                  Seggers@proskauer.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Halperin" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Halperin, et al. v. FanDuel
Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-09725, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York to the
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10323-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel F. Schreck, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF G. OLIVER KOPPELL
          99 Park Avenue, Suite 800
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (917) 368-0400
          Facsimile: (212) 973-9494
          E-mail: dschreck@koppellaw.com

               - and -

          Paul C. Whalen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PAUL C. WHALEN, P.C.
          768 Plandome Road
          Manhasset, NY 11030
          Telephone: (516) 627-5610
          Facsimile: (212) 658-9685
          E-mail: paul@paulwhalen.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "McCallie" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled McCallie v. DraftKings, Inc., et
al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08463, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10318-GAO to the proceeding.

The lawsuit is consolidated in the multidistrict litigation
captioned In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Litigation, MDL No. 1:16-md-
02677-GAO.

The litigation involves allegations of improper or illegal conduct
by the nation's two largest operators of online daily fantasy
sports contests -- DraftKings, Inc. and FanDuel, Inc.  The
allegations include claims for insider trading, illegal gambling
and bonus fraud.

DraftKings, Inc. provides online daily and weekly fantasy sports
contests for cash prizes in major sports in the United States and
Canada.  The Boston, Massachusetts-based Company offers daily
leagues for fantasy football, baseball, basketball, hockey, golf,
college football, and college basketball.

FanDuel Inc. operates an online fantasy sports platform that
enables users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes.  The
Company's online sports platform enables users to play fantasy
football, baseball, hockey, and basketball.  The Company was
founded in 2009 and is based in New York City, with an additional
office in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Amanda Marjorie Steiner, Esq.
          GIRARD GIBBS LLP
          601 California Street, Suite 1400
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 981-4800
          Facsimile: (415) 981-4846
          E-mail: as@girardgibbs.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Jamie Levitt, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER, LLP
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          E-mail: jlevitt@mofo.com

               - and -

          Michael Bruce Miller, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          250 West 55th Street
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 468-8009
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: mbmiller@mofo.com


DSWC INC: Brief Due July 25 in 9th Cir. Appeal in "Sperling"
------------------------------------------------------------
Marilyn Sperling, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. DSWC, Inc., an Ohio corporation, DSW Shoe
Warehouse, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Case No. 16-55231 (9th
Cir., Feb. 12, 2016), is an appeal filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision
in a class action, Case No. 5:15-cv-01366-JGB-SP (C.D. Cal., Jul.
8, 2015).

Appellant Marilyn Sperling opening brief is due July 25, 2016.

Appellees DSW Shoe Warehouse, Inc. and DSWC, Inc. answering brief
is due August 24, 2016.

Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of
the answering brief.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on July 23, 2015,
Sperling sued DSW Inc., et al, alleging that the Defendant
advertise, and/or have advertised false and/or misleading
comparative prices and corresponding false discounts and/or
savings for their shoes and other merchandise.

Marilyn Sperling, an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, are represented by:

          Douglas Caiafa, Esq.
          DOUGLAS CAIAFA PROFESSIONAL LAW CORP.
          11845 W. Olympic Boulevard, Suite 1245
          Los Angeles, CA 90064
          Telephone: (310) 444 5240

The Appellees are represented by:

          Anthony Anscombem Esq.
          SEDGWICK LLP
          333 Bush Street
          San Francisco, CA 94104-2834
          Telephone: (415) 7810 7900


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Bid to Dismiss in Tribune Buyout Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in
the multi-district litigation related to the 2007 leveraged buyout
of Tribune Company are awaiting a court decision on the motion to
dismiss Count I of the Fifth Amended Complaint.

Several cases have been filed nationwide involving the April 2007
leveraged buyout ("LBO") of the Tribune Company ("Tribune") by Sam
Zell, and the subsequent bankruptcy of Tribune. In William Niese
et al. v. A.G. Edwards et al., in Superior Court of Delaware, New
Castle County, former Tribune employees and retirees claimed that
Tribune was actually insolvent at the time of the LBO and that the
LBO constituted a fraudulent transaction that depleted the
plaintiffs' retirement plans, rendering them worthless. E*TRADE
Clearing, along with numerous other financial institutions, is a
named defendant in this case. One of the defendants removed the
action to federal district court in Delaware on July 1, 2011.

In Deutsche Bank Trust Company Americas et al. v. Adaly
Opportunity Fund et al., filed in the Supreme Court of New York,
New York County on June 3, 2011, the Trustees of certain notes
issued by Tribune allege wrongdoing in connection with the LBO. In
particular the Trustees claim that the LBO constituted a
constructive fraudulent transfer under various state laws. G1
Execution Services, LLC (formerly known as E*TRADE Capital
Markets, LLC), along with numerous other financial institutions,
is a named defendant in this case.

In Deutsche Bank et al. v. Ohlson et al., filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, noteholders
of Tribune asserted claims of constructive fraud and G1 Execution
Services, LLC is a named defendant in this case. Under the
agreement governing the sale of G1 Execution Services, LLC to
Susquehanna International Group, LLP, the Company remains
responsible for any resulting actions taken against G1 Execution
Services, LLC as a result of such investigation.

In EGI-TRB LLC et al. v. ABN-AMRO et al., filed in the Circuit
Court of Cook County Illinois, creditors of Tribune assert
fraudulent conveyance claims against multiple shareholder
defendants and E*TRADE Clearing is a named defendant in this case.

These cases have been consolidated into a multi-district
litigation. The Company's time to answer or otherwise respond to
the complaints has been stayed pending further orders of the
Court.

On September 18, 2013, the Court entered the Fifth Amended
Complaint. On September 23, 2013, the Court granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the individual creditors' complaint.
The individual creditors filed a notice of appeal. The steering
committees for plaintiffs and defendants have submitted a joint
plan for the next phase of litigation. The next phase of the
action will involve individual motions to dismiss.

On April 22, 2014, the Court issued its protocols for dismissal
motions for those defendants who were "mere conduits" who
facilitated the transactions at issue. The motion to dismiss Count
I of the Fifth Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of
action was fully briefed on July 2, 2014, and the parties await
decision on that motion. The Company will continue to defend
itself vigorously in these matters.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that, through its
subsidiaries, provides a full suite of online brokerage, investing
and related banking solutions.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing to Continue in "Scranton" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing is
scheduled to continue through 2016 in the class action lawsuit by
John Scranton.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The Complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

The case has been deemed complex within the meaning of the
California Rules of Court, and a case management conference was
held on September 13, 2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to
strike the complaint were granted by order dated December 20,
2013. The Court granted leave to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint. On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained
the Company's demurrer, dismissing four counts of the second
amended complaint with prejudice and two counts without prejudice.

The plaintiffs filed a third amended complaint on November 10,
2014. The Company filed a third demurrer and motion to strike on
December 12, 2014. By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior
Court entered a final order sustaining the Company's demurrer on
all remaining claims with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in
the Company's favor on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of
Appeal April 27, 2015. Briefing is scheduled to continue through
2016. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that, through its
subsidiaries, provides a full suite of online brokerage, investing
and related banking solutions.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Due Date to Respond to "Rayner" Case Extended
----------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in
the class action lawsuit by Ty Rayner have agreed to extend
indefinitely the due date for a response to the claim.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees. By stipulation, the parties have
agreed to extend indefinitely the due date for a response to the
claim. The Company will continue to defend itself vigorously in
this matter.

E*TRADE is a financial services company that, through its
subsidiaries, provides a full suite of online brokerage, investing
and related banking solutions.


EDPO LLC: "Word" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Premiums
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lonnie C. Word, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated
Plaintiff, v. EDPO, LLC, Propane Holdings, Inc., Energy
Distribution Partners GP LLC, Expo Propane Inc., Energy
Distribution Partners and Does 1 to 100, inclusive, Defendants,
Case BC610011 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County February 10, 2016),
seeks damages, unpaid wages and overtime premium, missed break
premiums, final pay upon termination, pre-judgment interest, post-
judgment interest, attorneys' fees and costs of suit under
California Labor Code.

Defendants jointly operate a gas facility at 9144 Rose St.,
Bellflower, CA 90706.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Lavi, Esq.
      Edith P. Castafieda, Esq.
      LAVI & EBRAHIMIAN, LLP
      8889 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 200
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Tel: (310) 432-0000
      Fax: (310) 432-0001


EMSP LLC: "Funez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Marilu Rosalez Funez, Sulma Hernandez, Candy Melissa
Zamora, Julia S. Carbollo, Dianna Mejia, Dilcia Nunez, Karlina
Molina, Lydia Vega, and Reyna Rodriguez, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly-situated v. E.M.S.P., LLC, Edwin A.
Miranda, and Sadia Esther Palacio, Case No. 2:16-cv-01922 (E.D.
Lo., March 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and
overtime liquidated damages, and attorney's fees and costs
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in janitorial business in the State of
Louisiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher L. Williams, Esq.
      WILLIAMS LITIGATION, L.L.C.
      639 Loyola Ave., Suite 1850
      New Orleans, LA 70113
      Telephone: (504) 308-1438
      Facsimile: (504) 308-1446
      E-mail: chris@williamslitigation.com


ENCORE CAPITAL: Appeal by Objector to Settlement Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal by an
objector to the settlement in the case, Brent v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. et al., remains pending.

On May 19, 2008, an action captioned Brent v. Midland Credit
Management, Inc. et. al was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio Western Division, in which
the plaintiff filed a class action counter-claim against two of
the Company's subsidiaries (the "Midland Defendants"). The
complaint alleged that the Midland Defendants' business practices
violated consumers' rights under the FDCPA and the Ohio Consumer
Sales Practices Act.

The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it
in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed settlement to avoid
the burden and expense of continued litigation. Subject to court
approval, settlement awards to eligible class members, as well as
fees and costs, will be paid from a settlement fund of
approximately $5.2 million, which has already been paid by the
Company and its insurer. If the number of class members who make
claims exceeds a certain level, the total settlement could
increase to an amount not to exceed $5.7 million.

On October 14, 2014, the district court issued an order granting
final approval of the parties' revised agreed upon settlement of
this lawsuit. That order has been appealed by an objector to the
settlement, which appeal remains pending.

Encore Capital Group is an international specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers and property
owners across a broad range of financial assets.


ENCORE CAPITAL: Midland Case Settlement Awaits Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Encore Capital Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the settlement
reached in the case, Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone
Consumer Protection Act Litigation, remains subject to court
approval.

On November 2, 2010 and December 17, 2010, two national class
actions entitled Robinson v. Midland Funding LLC and Tovar v.
Midland Credit Management, respectively, were filed in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California. The
complaints allege that certain of the Company's subsidiaries
violated the TCPA by calling consumers' cellular phones without
their prior express consent. The complaints seek monetary damages
under the TCPA, injunctive relief, and other relief, including
attorney fees.

On May 10, 2011 and May 11, 2011 two class actions entitled
Scardina v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., Midland Funding LLC
and Encore Capital Group, Inc. and Martin v. Midland Funding, LLC,
respectively, were filed in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois. The complaints allege on behalf
of a putative class of Illinois consumers that certain of the
Company's subsidiaries violated the TCPA by calling consumers'
cellular phones without their prior express consent. The
complaints seek monetary damages under the TCPA, injunctive
relief, and other relief, including attorney fees.

On July 28, 2011, the Company filed a motion to transfer the
Scardina and Martin cases to the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California to be consolidated with the
Tovar and Robinson cases.

On October 11, 2011, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company's motion to transfer.
All four of these cases, along with a number of additional cases
brought against the Company that allege violations of the TCPA,
are now pending in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California in a multidistrict litigation
titled In re Midland Credit Management Inc. Telephone Consumer
Protection Act Litigation. The lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint on July 11, 2012.

The Company has vigorously denied the claims asserted against it
in these matters, but has agreed to a proposed class settlement to
avoid the burden and expense of continued litigation. The proposed
class settlement is intended to resolve all cases involved in
multi-district litigation, and all claims against the Company for
alleged violations of the TCPA that occurred before August 31,
2014, other than those of persons who exclude themselves from
class settlement.

The settlement agreement, which is subject to court approval,
would require the Company to contribute $2.0 million to a
settlement fund, to be disbursed among eligible class members, and
to set aside $13.0 million in debt forgiveness to be allocated
among eligible class members. In addition, the settlement
agreement provides that the Company will pay plaintiffs' attorney
fees in an amount to be determined by the court, and for the costs
associated with administering the class relief.

Encore Capital Group is an international specialty finance company
providing debt recovery solutions for consumers and property
owners across a broad range of financial assets.


EOS PRODUCTS: Faces "Gilsleider" Suit Over Lip Balm
---------------------------------------------------
Marylou Gilsleider and Yokie Renee Ivy, individually and all
others similarly-situated vs. EOS Products, LLC, Case 8:16-cv-
00283-AG-JCG (C.D. Cal., February 18, 2016), seeks to redress
defendant's deceptive business practices in selling its lip balm
products.

EOS Products, LLC, is a New York Limited Liability Company with
its principal place of business at 19 West 44th Street, Suite 811,
New York, New York 10036.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       BISNAR CHASE LLP
       Jerusalem F. Beligan, Esq.
       Brian D Chase, Esq.
       One Newport Place
       1301 Dove Street Suite 120
       Newport Beach, CA 92626
       Tel: (949) 752-2999
       Fax: (949) 752-2777
       E-mail: jbeligan@bisnarchase.com
               bchase@bisnarchase.com

            - and -

       LEVI AND KORSINSKY LLP
       Andrea Clisura, Esq.
       Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
       Courtney E. Maccaron, Esq.
       30 Broad Street 24th Floor
       New York, NY 10004
       Tel: (232) 363-7500
       Fax: (866) 367-6510
       E-mail: aclisura@zlk.com
               lfeldman@zlk.com
               cmaccaron@zlk.com

            - and -

       WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
       Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
       270 Madison Avenue
       New York, New York 10016
       Telephone: 212/545-4600
       Facsimile: 212/545-4653
       E-mail: pollack@whafh.com


EVERCORE PARTNERS: Court Dismissed "Coburn" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia has granted Evercore's motion to
dismiss without prejudice the lawsuit by Donna Marie Coburn.

In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action
complaint against ETC in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia, in which she purports to represent a class of
participants in the J.C. Penney Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-
Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") whose participant
accounts held J.C. Penney stock at any time between May 15, 2012
and the present. The complaint alleges that ETC breached its
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
by causing the Plan to invest in J.C. Penney stock during that
period and claims the Plan suffered losses of approximately $300
million due to declines in J.C. Penney stock. The plaintiff seeks
the recovery of alleged Plan losses, attorneys' fees, other costs,
and other injunctive and equitable relief.

The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these claims and intends to vigorously defend against them. ETC is
indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for
reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would
be refunded should ETC not prevail.

On April 13, 2015, ETC filed an answer along with a motion to
dismiss. On June 13, 2015 Plaintiffs filed an opposition to ETC's
motion to dismiss and on July 13, 2015, ETC filed its reply to
Plaintiffs' opposition. On February 17, 2016, the U.S. District
Court for the District of Columbia granted Evercore's motion to
dismiss without prejudice.

Evercore is an independent investment banking advisory firm.


EXPERIAN INFO: "Hickman" Suit Moved from Arizona to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Donna Hickman, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated v. Experian Information
Solutions Incorporated, Case No. 2:16-cv-00347, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 8:16-cv-00253-CJC-DFM to the proceeding.

Experian Info is an information services company that provides
data and analytical tools to clients around the world. It offers
credit report, credit score, credit monitoring, and identity theft
protection services to individuals; and customer acquisition,
customer management, risk management, fraud management, debt
recovery, regulatory compliance, business resources, and
consulting services to businesses. The company is based in Costa
Mesa, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David James McGlothlin, Esq.
          HYDE & SWIGART
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 265 3332
          Facsimile: (602) 230 4482

               - and -

          Ryan Lee McBride, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP
          2633 E Indian School Rd., Ste. 460
          Phoenix, AZ 85016
          Telephone: (602) 900 1288

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily Gildar Wagner, Esq.
          SNELL & WILMER LLP
          1 Arizona Center
          400 E Van Buren
          Phoenix, AZ 85004-2202
          Telephone: (602) 382 6000
          Facsimile: (602) 382 6070


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: FHFA Turns to JPMDL to Delay Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tired of battling lawsuits challenging the Net Worth Sweep, under
which Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac deliver all of their profits to
the U.S. Treasury each calendar quarter, in courthouses scattered
across the country, the Federal Housing Finance Agency turned to
the United States Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation,
asking that tribunal to consolidate:

    Jacobs v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-708 (D. Del.);
    Roberts v. FHFA, Case No. 16-cv-2107 (N.D. Ill.);
    Saxton v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-47 (N.D. Iowa); and
    Robinson v. FHFA, Case No. 15-cv-109 (E.D. Ky.);

into one master MDL proceeding and transfer that consolidated
action to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia for
coordinated pretrial proceedings.

FHFA argues that consolidation and transfer of these suits is
efficient.  Cynics say FHFA's motivation is delay.

This action will take on a life of its own before the JPMDL, with
the parties debating whether consolidation is appropriate and to
what Court and judge any consolidated proceeding should be
transferred.  FHFA is likely hoping that Judge Lamberth will
receive the cases, dismiss them all, and enter some type of order
blocking further lawsuits against FHFA, which some commentators
now describe as the All Powerful Oz with no accountability and no
duty to anyone but itself.  If the cases are consolidated, there
will likely a dog and pony show before the Transferee Court about
which law firm should serve as lead counsel for a steering
committee of lawyers representing the various parties is
predictable.

Notices will be filed by FHFA in each of the four cases to alert
the District Courts courts that FHFA took this action.

The JPMDL Proceeding, filed Tues., Mar. 15, 2016, is captioned In
re: Third Amendment Litigation and is currently identified as
Pending No. 28.


FIESTA MEXICANA: "Reyes" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Reyes, Individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Fiesta Mexicana VI, LLC, a
North Carolina limited liability company and Andres Escamilla, an
individual, jointly and severally, Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-00019-
FL (E.D.N.C., February 22, 2016), seeks compensatory and punitive
damages for unpaid wages owed, overtime compensation with
corresponding liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and
costs, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and such further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201,. 1950.5, et seq. and the North Carolina Wage and Hour Laws.

Defendant is a Mexican-themed restaurant owned by Andres
Escamilla. Reyes worked as a kitchen staff worker at their Holly
Springs location. He alleges that he was not paid the minimum
wage, overtime premium and that the Defendant falsified his
earning statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Pedro Krompecher, Esq.
      KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, PLLC
      4010 Barrett Drive #203
      Raleigh, NC 27609
      Tel: (919) 977-8082
      Email: pedro@krompecherlaw.com

           - and -

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


FINANCIAL SCIENCES CORP: "Mitsos" Suit Seeks Damages from Fraud
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Mitsos, individually and on Behalf of himself and all
others, the Plaintiff, v. Alfred Sims Newlin and Behrouz Vafa,
individually and as members of the Board of Directors of Financial
Sciences Corporation, and Financial Sciences Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 650476/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New
York, January 29, 2016), seeks to recover damages and declaratory
relief arising from Defendants' breach of contract, fraud,
minority shareholder oppression, intentional torts and involuntary
termination of Plaintiff's employment.

For 27 years, Plaintiff was an employee, shareholder and cofounder
of Financial Sciences Corporation. In November 2009, Plaintiff
allegedly learned that Defendants Newlin and Vafa beginning in
2005 had taken excessive compensation in the form of bonuses
without notice to or approval of disinterested shareholders and
disinterested board members. When Plaintiff protested to
Defendants regarding their misconduct, Defendants initiated and
continued over the next several years, efforts to squeeze
Plaintiff out as a minority shareholder and to deny him the
benefits of his employment and his ownership interests. Every year
from 2005 through 2014 Defendants improperly took excessive
compensation and refused to distribute any discretionary dividends
to shareholders, asserts the complaint.

Financial Sciences Corporation develops and distributes integrated
enterprise financial systems for multinational corporations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Mitsos
          5620F Coach House Circle
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (917) 439-1613
          E-mail: nmitsos@gmail.com
          Pro Se


FINISHING HOLDINGS: Central Alarm Sues Over Junk Faxes
------------------------------------------------------
Central Alarm Signal, Inc., Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Finishing Brands Holdings Inc., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10844 (E.D. Mich., March 8,
2016), alleges that the Defendants sent unsolicited advertisements
via facsimile transmission in violation of the Junk Fax Prevention
Act.

Finishing Brands Holding Inc. is the manufacturer of spray
application, fluid delivery and curing equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
     ANDERSON+WANCA
     3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
     Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
     Tel: 847-368-1500
     Fax: 847-368-1501
     Email: bwanca@andersonwanca.com


FIRST SOLAR: Opening Brief in Class Action Appeal Due March 25
--------------------------------------------------------------
First Solar, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that First Solar's opening
brief in a class action appeal is due on March 25, 2016.

On March 15, 2012, a purported class action lawsuit titled
Smilovits v. First Solar, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:12-cv-00555-
DGC, was filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Arizona (hereafter "Arizona District Court") against
the Company and certain of our current and former directors and
officers. The complaint was filed on behalf of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired the Company's publicly traded
securities between April 30, 2008 and February 28, 2012 (the
"Class Action"). The complaint generally alleges that the
defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and misleading statements
regarding the Company's financial performance and prospects. The
action includes claims for damages, including interest, and an
award of reasonable costs and attorneys' fees to the putative
class. The Company believes it has meritorious defenses and will
vigorously defend this action.

On July 23, 2012, the Arizona District Court issued an order
appointing as lead plaintiffs in the Class Action the Mineworkers'
Pension Scheme and British Coal Staff Superannuation Scheme
(collectively "Pension Schemes"). The Pension Schemes filed an
amended complaint on August 17, 2012, which contains similar
allegations and seeks similar relief as the original complaint.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on September 14, 2012. On
December 17, 2012, the court denied Defendants' motion to dismiss.

On October 8, 2013, the Arizona District Court granted the Pension
Schemes' motion for class certification, and certified a class
comprised of all persons who purchased or otherwise acquired
publicly traded securities of the Company between April 30, 2008
and February 28, 2012 and were damaged thereby, excluding
defendants and certain related parties. Merits discovery closed on
February 27, 2015.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on March 27, 2015.
On August 11, 2015, the Arizona District Court granted defendants'
motion in part and denied it in part, and certified an issue for
immediate appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. First
Solar filed a petition for interlocutory appeal with the Ninth
Circuit, and that petition was granted on November 18, 2015. First
Solar's opening brief is due on March 25, 2016.

The Arizona District Court entered a stay of the proceedings in
district court until the appeal is decided. Given the pending
appeal, the need for further expert discovery, and the
uncertainties of trial, we are not in a position to assess whether
any loss or adverse effect on our financial condition is probable
or remote or to estimate the range of potential loss, if any.

First Solar designs, manufactures, and sells PV solar modules with
an advanced thin-film semiconductor technology and also develops,
designs, constructs, and sells PV solar power systems that
primarily use the modules it manufactures.


FLOWERS FOODS: Summary Judgment Motions Nixed in "Rehberg"
----------------------------------------------------------
Flowers Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that a North Carolina court has
dismissed the parties' respective motions for summary judgement in
the complaint filed by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and
Mario Ronchetti.

On September 12, 2012, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina (Charlotte
Division) by Scott Rehberg, Willard Allen Riley and Mario
Ronchetti against the company and its subsidiary, Flowers Baking
Company of Jamestown, LLC. Plaintiffs are or were distributors of
our Jamestown subsidiary who contend they were misclassified as
independent contractors. The action sought class certification on
behalf of a class comprised of independent distributors of our
Jamestown subsidiary who are classified as independent
contractors.

In March 2013, the court conditionally certified the class action
for claims under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"). On March
23, 2015, the court re-affirmed its FLSA certification decision
and also certified claims under state law.

On February 12, 2016, the court dismissed the parties' respective
motions for summary judgement with the exception of the
plaintiffs' motions related to a waiver of state wage statute
claims and waiver of the right to seek liquidated damages.

Flowers Foods owns fresh bakery and frozen bread and roll
businesses.


FOUR M CAPITAL: Faces "Deslandes" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Deslandes, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all other
persons similarly situated v. Four M Capital, LLC and Four M
Franchising, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 16cv1174 (E.D.N.Y., March
9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants' failure to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly-situated tipped employees all earned
minimum wages pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and/or operate approximately 13 or more Buffalo
Wild Wings franchise restaurants in the New York and Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ted Trief, Esq.
      TRIEF & OLK
      150 East 58th Street, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10155
      Tel: (212) 486-6060
      Fax: (212) 317-2946
      Email: ttrief@triefandolk.com

            - and -

      Peter S. Pearlman, Esq.
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERMANN & KNOPF
      Park 80 West-Plaza One
      250 Pehle Avenue, Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Tel: (201) 845-9600
      Fax: (201) 845-9423
      Email: psp@njlawfirm.com

            - and -

      David H. Lichter, Esq.
      LICHTER LAW FIRM,P.A.
      2999 NE 191st Street
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Tel: (786) 664-6727
      Fax: (786) 664-6788


FRESNO, CA: 9th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Hanna" Case
-------------------------------------------------
Dominic Hanna v. USDC-CAFR, Quentin Hall, Robert Merryman, Dawn
Singh, Brian Keith Murphy, Shawn Gonzales, and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, and County Of
Fresno, Case No. 16-70423 (9th Cir., Feb. 12, 2016), is an appeal
filed before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit from a lower court decision in a class action, Case No.
1:11-cv-02047-LJO-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

The appeal stems from a ruling in the case QUENTIN HALL, SHAWN
GONZALES, ROBERT MERRYMAN, DAWN SINGH, and BRIAN MURPHY, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
COUNTY OF FRESNO, Defendant, Case No. 1:11-cv-2047-LJO-BAM, (E.D.
Cal.), a putative class action regarding conditions at the Fresno
County Jail.  Plaintiffs are prisoners who are or have been
incarcerated in the Fresno County Jail. The class consists of all
prisoners who are now, or will in the future be, incarcerated in
the Jail. Defendant is the County of Fresno, which is responsible
for the operation of the Jail.

Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint alleged that the conditions in
the Jail violated the constitutional and statutory rights of all
prisoners who were or will be housed in the Jail. Specifically,
the Complaint alleged that the Jail does not provide prisoners
with access to adequate medical, mental health and dental care in
violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments; prisoners are
not reasonably protected from injury and violence from other
prisoners in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments;
and that prisoners are not provided with reasonable accommodations
for their disabilities in violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.

The Court issued a protective order, permitting the so-called Hall
parties, pursuant to Local Rule 141, to file "Confidential"
documents under seal. The Court permitted counsel to file under
seal the four expert reports prepared for the parties during the
course of their settlement negotiations. The Court's June 8, 2015
found compelling reasons to file the reports under seal.

As a result of that sealing order, Hanna sought permissive
intervention pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b), for the limited
purpose of unsealing three of the four expert reports. Hanna
contends the reports allegedly pertain to issues directly relevant
to Hanna's civil rights action, Hanna v. County of Fresno, et al.,
1:14-cv-00142-LJO-SKO, concerning the conditions, policies and
practices at the Fresno County Jail during the relevant time
period in Hall.

In Hanna v. County of Fresno, Hanna alleges he was booked into the
Fresno County Jail on February 6, 2012, where within three days he
attempted suicide twice causing him to be permanently disabled and
immobilized. His complaint alleges that the individual and county
defendants' mental health, medical health, construction and
security operations, failed to provide and/or enforce adequate
policies and practices for the protection and care of the mentally
ill and inmates with suicidal histories and ideation.

Fresno opposed Hanna's Motion on three grounds: (1) Hanna's motion
is untimely; (2) intervention is prejudicial to the County; and
(3) compelling reasons exist to maintain the records under seal.
Hanna responds that the motion is timely and compelling reasons do
not exist to keep the expert reports under seal.

In her Order dated December 11, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/wL7ESFfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Barbara A.
McAuliffe denied Hanna's motion to intervene and unseal court
records.  The judge explained that the Defendant has presented the
unique circumstance where the damage that would be caused by
making public certain aspects of judicial proceedings is so
significant that it must override the public's interest in being
able to freely scrutinize these documents.

In a Memorandum Decision and Order dated February 1, 2016
available at http://is.gd/O4okC1from Leagle.com, District Judge
Lawrence J. O'Neill denied Hanna's motion for reconsideration.

The Appellant Dominic Hanna is represented by:

          Robert Navarro, Esq.
          ROBERT NAVARRO, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          1295 N. Wishon Avenue, Suite 207
          Fresno, CA 93728
          Telephone: (559) 240 2354

               - and -

          Carolyn Phillips
          P.O. Box 5622
          Fresno, CA 93755-5622
          Telephone: (559) 248 9833

The Appellees are represented by:

          Donald Specter, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 280 2621

               - and -

          Maureen Alger, Esq.
          Cooley LLP
          5 Palo Alto Square
          3000 El Camino Real
          Palo Alto, CA 94306-2155
          Telephone: (650) 843 5201

               - and -

          Melinda R. Bird, Esq.
          Monisha Ann Coelho, Esq.
          DISABILITY RIGHTS CALIFORNIA
          350 South Bixel Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 213 8000

               - and -

          Mary Kathryn Kelley, Esq.
          Cooley LLP
          4401 Eastgate Mall
          San Diego, CA 92121-1909
          Telephone: (858) 550 6000

               - and -

          Kelly Knapp, Esq.
          PRISON LAW OFFICE
          1917 Fifth Street
          Berkeley, CA 94710-1916
          Telephone: (510) 280 2621


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Clayton Act, Bay County Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bay County, Florida, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Chemtrade Logistics
Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US,
LLC, Gentek, Inc., Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc., and Frank A.
Reichl, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00648-JLL-JAD (D. N.J.,
February 5, 2016), seeks to recover treble damages, costs of suit,
and other relief as maybe determined as just and proper, pursuant
to the Sherman Act, Clayton Act, and Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The
Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration
services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water
treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
          CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI
          OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068-1739
          Telephone: (973) 994 1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Linda P. Nussbaum, Esq.
          Susan R. Schwaiger, Esq.
          NUSSBAUM LAW GROUP, P.C.
          570 Lexington Avenue, 19 Fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 722 7053
          Facsimile: (212) 681 0300
          E-mail: lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: Violated Sherman Act, "Everett" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
City Of Everett, the Plaintiff, v. General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Chemtrade Logistics
Inc., Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US,
LLC, Gentek, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and Frank A. Reichl,
and John Does 1-50, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00184 (W.D.
Wash. (Seattle), February 5, 2016), seeks to recover treble
damages, costs of suit, and other relief as maybe determined
appropriate, as a result of Defendants' alleged conspiracy and
agreement to fix, raise, inflate, maintain or stabilize prices of
Alum, rig bids and allocate customers for Alum supplied to
municipalities, pulp and paper companies, agricultural companies
and all other direct purchasers in the United States, under the
Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty chemicals. The
Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric acid regeneration
services. General Chemical serves the photographic, water
treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The Company is based in
Parsippany, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GENERAL NUTRITION: Discovery Ongoing in "Romero" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Isabelle Romero and Melissa Romero, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. General Nutrition Corporation,
Inc.; Labrada Nutritional Systems, Inc., d/b/a Labrada Nutrition,
Inc.; and Rightway Nutrition, LLC, Case No. CACE-15-019703 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., November 5, 2015), is an economic consumer protection
lawsuit based on the Defendants' alleged misrepresentations and
omissions regarding certain energy and weight loss dietary
supplements.

The Plaintiffs allege that (1) Rightway Nutrition's Green Coffee
Bean + Energy supplement contained the harmful synthetic
adulterant, picamilon; and (2) Labrada's Lean Body Hi Energy Fat
Burn supplement contained the harmful synthetic adulterant, BMPEA.

On Jan. 15, 2016, GNC filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint.

The parties are presently engaged in discovery.

Picamilon is a synthetic chemical designed to cross the blood
brain barrier and is a prescription drug.  BMPEA is a synthetic
chemical similar to an amphetamine that is banned by the World
Anti-Doping Organizaton.  Both chemicals are not approved for sale
as dietary ingredients in the United States of America.

Rightway Nutrition and GNC collectively manufactured, advertised,
sold, and distributed the Green Coffee Supplement.  Labrada and
GNC collectively manufactured, advertised sold, and distributed
the Fat Burn supplement.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael J. Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Suite 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889-3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889-5913
          E-mail: JEggnatz@ELPlawyers.com
                  MPascucci@ELPlawyers.com

Counsel to Defendant General Nutrition Corporation, Inc.:

     Berg, Paul R
     Vocelle & Berg LLP
     3333 20th Street
     Vero Beach, FL 32960-2469

Counsel to Defendant Labrada Nutritional Systems, Inc.:

     Fernandez, Laura
     Foley & Lardner LLP
     One Biscayne Tower
     2 S Biscayne BLvd, Suite 1900
     Miami, FL 33143


GOLDMAN SACHS: June 17 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Berger & Montague, P.C.
regarding the Hudson Mezzanine Funding securities class action
settlement.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
DODONA I, LLC, on Behalf of Itself and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., et al., Defendants.
Case No. 10 Civ. 7497 (VM)(DCF) ECF Case Class Action

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION,
CERTIFICATION OF SETTLEMENT CLASS, FINAL APPROVAL HEARING, AND
MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF LITIGATION COSTS

To:  All persons and entities who, from their Initial Offering
through February 16, 2016, purchased or otherwise acquired any of
the following notes (the "Hudson CDO Notes") issued or co-issued
by Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-1, Ltd. or Hudson Mezzanine
Funding 2006-1, Corp. (the "Hudson 1 CDO") or Hudson Mezzanine
Funding 2006-2, Ltd. or Hudson Mezzanine Funding 2006-2, Corp.
(the "Hudson 2 CDO"), and were damaged thereby (notwithstanding
the existence of any indemnification, hedge or other provision
that may have reduced or offset such damages in whole or in part)
(the "Settlement Class"):

Hudson 1 CDO

Security          CUSIP

Class S           443860AA9
                  G46464AA4

Class A-f         443860AB7
                  G46464AB2

Class A-b         443860AC5
                  G46464AC0

Class B           443860AD3
                  G46464AD8

Class C           443860AE1
                  G46464AE6

Class D           443860AF8
                  G46464AF3

Class E           443860AG6
                  G46464AG1

Income Notes      44386PAA4
                  G46429AA7
                  44386PAB2

Hudson 2 CDO

Security          CUSIP

Class S          44386QAA2
                 G46539AA3

Class A-1        44386QAB0
                 G46539AB1

Class A-2        44386QAC8
                 G46539AC9

Class B          44386QAD6
                 G46539AD7

Class C          44386QAE4
                 G46539AE5

Class D          44386QAF1
                 G46539AF2

Class E          44386NAC5
                 G46539AB5

Income Notes     44386NAA9
                 G46539AA7
                 44386NAB7

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to an Order of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the
"Court"), of the pendency of this class action (the "Action")
asserting claims against Goldman, Sachs & Co., The Goldman Sachs
Group, Inc., Peter L. Ostrem and Darryl K. Herrick (the
"Defendants") relating to the Hudson CDO Notes; and that a
settlement of the Action for a total payment to the Settlement
Class of $27.5 million, plus accrued interest (the "Settlement")
has been proposed.  A hearing will be held on June 17, 2016, at
9:30 a.m., before the Honorable Victor Marrero, at the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 500
Pearl Street, New York, New York 10007, Courtroom 11B, for the
purpose of determining: (1) whether the proposed Settlement should
be approved by the Court as fair, reasonable and adequate; (2)
whether a Final Judgment and Order should be entered by the Court
dismissing the Action with prejudice; (3) whether the Plan of
Allocation to distribute the net settlement proceeds to eligible
Settlement Class members should be approved; (4) whether the
application by Settlement Class Lead Counsel for payment of
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of costs and expenses incurred
in prosecuting this Action should be approved; and (5) to rule
upon such other matters as the Court may deem appropriate.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED ABOVE, YOUR
RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ACTION, AND YOU
MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE SETTLEMENT.  If you have not
received the Notice of Proposed Settlement of Class Action,
Certification of Settlement Class, Final Approval Hearing, and
Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Costs
(the "Notice"), which more completely describes the Settlement and
Settlement Class members' rights, or a copy of the Proof of Claim
and Release Form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain copies of
these documents by writing to the Claims Administrator, Heffler
Claims Group LLC, 1515 Market Street - Suite 1700, Philadelphia,
PA 19102, or by calling 1-855-711-8800 or via the internet at
http://www.hefflercases.com/cases/don

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to share in
the distribution of the Settlement, you must submit a Proof of
Claim postmarked no later than June 29, 2016, establishing that
you are entitled to recovery.  If you desire to be excluded from
the Settlement Class, you must submit a Request for Exclusion
postmarked by May 27, 2016, in the manner and form explained in
the detailed Notice referred to above.  All members of the
Settlement Class who have not timely and validly requested
exclusion from the Settlement Class will be bound by any Judgment
entered in the Action, whether or not you submit a Proof of Claim.
Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or the application for attorneys' fees and expenses by
Plaintiff's Lead Counsel, must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Lead Counsel and counsel for Defendants such that
they are received no later than May 27, 2016, in accordance with
the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you are a member of
the Settlement Class and do not submit a proper Proof of Claim,
you will not share in the Settlement but you will nevertheless be
bound by the Judgment of the Court.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice and Proof of Claim
which should be directed to the Claims Administrator, may be made
to Plaintiff's Lead Counsel:  Merrill G. Davidoff or Lawrence J.
Lederer, Berger & Montague, P.C., 1622 Locust Street,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103-6305; Telephone: (215) 875-3000;
Toll-Free: (800) 424-6690; Fax: (215) 875-4604; mdavidoff@bm.net
or llederer@bm.net

PLEASE DO NOT CALL THE COURT OR THE CLERK'S OFFICE REGARDING THIS
NOTICE.

Dated: March 14, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


GORDMANS STORES: Faces "Merchant" Suit for failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua W. Merchant and all others similarly-situated vs. Gordmans
Stores Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00219 (E.D. Mo., February 17, 2016),
is brought against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Gordmans is a Delaware corporation maintaining its principal place
of business within Omaha, Nebraska, and doing business in
Missouri, including in the Eastern District of Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
       George A. Hanson, Esq.
       Lauren A. Wolf, Esq.
      460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
       Kansas City, MO 64112
       Tel: 816.714.7100
       Fax: 816.714.7101
       E-mail: hanson@stuevesiegel.com

            - and -

       SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, PA.
       Gregg Shavitz, Esq.
       Camar Jones, Esq.
      1515 S. Federal Highway, Suite 404
       Boca Raton, FL 33432
       Tel: 561.447.8888
       E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
               cjones@shavitzlaw.com


GOTTA GETTA BAGEL: "Cayetano" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jose G. Hernandez-Cayetano, Plaintiff, individually and in behalf
of all persons similarly situated v. Gotta Getta Bagel of Queens
of NY Inc. and Simon Mirzokandov, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01188 (E.D.N.Y., March 9, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standard Act and New York Labor Law.

Defendant is a limited-service restaurant and located at 10709
71st Avenue, Forest Hills, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, NY 10007-2036
      Tel: (212) 229-2249
      Fax: (212) 229-2246
      Email: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
             bsherr@zellerlegal.com
             jazeller@zellerlegal.com


GOURMET BOUTIQUE: Case Conference Set for April 11 in "Metellus"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Etzer Metellus, Sheldon Richens, Elliott Hankerson, and all others
similarly-situated v. Gourmet Boutique, LLC, Jan Sussman, Roberto
Liberto, Jason Sussman, Jedd Savel, and Hector "Doe", Case No.
708731/2014 (N.Y. Sup., November 19, 2014), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages and
reasonable attorneys' fees under the New York Labor Law and the
New York common law.

A preliminary conference was held in the case on February 16,
2016, before Judge Marguerite A. Grays.  Another hearing is set
for April 11, 2016.

The Defendants manufacture and sell prepared foods marketed as
fresh and preservative-free to regional and national grocery
retailers across the United States.

The Individual Defendants are the officers, directors, managers
and/or majority shareholders or owners of the Corporate Defendant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

      Robert Wisniewski, Esq.
      ROBERT WISNIEWSKI P.C.
      225 Broadway, Suite 1020
      New York, NY 10007
      Tel: (212) 267-2101

The Defendants are represented by:

     JACKSON LEWIS LLP.
     59 MAIDEN LANE
     NEW YORK, NY 10038
     Tel: (212) 545-4000


GREENWICH HOTEL LTD: Violated FLSA & CLL, "Benavidez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Edgar Benavidez, Ali Kazi, Marvin Castaneda, Ivan Peralta-Cabrera,
Luis Victoria, Patrick Desrosiers, Collective
Rocio Ribeiro, And Douglas Molina, on behalf Of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Greenwich Hotel
Limited Partnership (GHLP) d/b/a Hyatt Regency Greenwich, Hyatt
Equities, L.L.C., and Hyatt Corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00191 (.D. Conn., February 5, 2016), seeks to recover
monetary damages as a result of Defendants' policy and practice of
compensating Plaintiffs' supervisors via the tip pool through
which Defendants pay tips/gratuities to Plaintiffs in violation of
the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Connecticut Labor
Law (CLL).

GHLP is a limited partnership organized under the laws of the
State of Connecticut and is the owner, operator and manager of the
Hotel. GHLP does business as Hyatt Regency Greenwich.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan M. Shapiro, Esq.
          SHAPIRO LAW OFFICES, LLC
          104 Court Street
          Middletown, CT 06457
          Telephone: (860) 347 3325
          Facsimile: (860) 347 3874
          jshapiro@shapirolawofficesct.com

               - and -

          John J. Malley, Esq.
          SMITH, BUSS & JACOBS, LLC
          733 Yonkers Ave., 2nd Floor
          Yonkers, NY 10704
          Telephone: (914) 476 0600
          Facsimile: (914) 476 0614
          E-mail: jmalley@sbjlaw.com


GUARDIAN MANAGEMENT: "Beckwith" Suit Moved to Oregon Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Donald Beckwith and Gwen Beckwith,
individually and on behalf of all persons similarly situated v.
Guardian Management, LLC, IPM Management Co., New Columbia/Woolsey
LP, Erik Fabian, Guardian Management, LLC, in his official and
individual capacity, Mathew Fullen, Guardian Management, LLC, in
his official and individual capacity, Robert Coleman, of IPM, in
his official and individual capacity, Eduardo Salacido-Solis, New
Columbia Compliance Manager of IPM, in his official and individual
capacity, Jeff Reingold, CPM and President of IPM Management, in
his official and individual capacity, Nan Waller, Presiding
Multnomah Co. Court Judge, in her official and individual
capacity, Janice Wilson Multnomah Co. Court Judge, in her official
and individual capacity, Aaron S. Matusick, Attorney for Bittner &
Hahs PC, in his official and individual capacity, as attorney for
Home Forward and Guardian and IPM Management, Eric S. Postma,
Attorney for Bittner & Hahs PC, in his official and individual
capacity, as attorney for Home Forward and Guardian and IPM
Management, and Home Forward, formerly known as Portland
Development Commission, Case No. 120022095E, was removed from the
Multnomah County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Oregon (Portland). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 3:16-cv-00258-MO to the proceeding.

Guardian Management, a real estate company, operates in real
estate investments, management, and commercial brokerage services.
The company provides acquisition, repositioning, development,
owning, and operation of mixed-use housing, retail, and commercial
properties in Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Arizona, and Texas. It
also provides property, asset, and construction management
services. The company was founded in 1971 and is based in
Portland, Oregon with franchise offices in the Southern California
and Arizona. Guardian Management, LLC operates as a subsidiary of
Guardian Real Estate Services, Inc.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


HARBOR TRANSIT: Faces "Mayorga" Suit for Refusal to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose Mayorga and all others similarly-situated vs. Harbor Transit,
Inc., Roberto Victorero and Viviana Victorero, Case No. 1:16-cv-
20578-JLK (S.D. Fla., February 17, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for refusal to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Harbor Transit, Inc. is a corporation that regularly transacts
business with Dade County.

Roberto Victorero is a corporate officer and/or owner and/or
manager of the Defendant Corporation.

Viviana Victorero is a corporate officer and/or owner and/or
manager of the Defendant Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       J.H. Zidell,, Esq.
       J.H. Zidell, P.A.
       300 71st Street, Suite 605
       Miami Beach, FL 33141
       Tel: (305) 865-6766
       E-mail: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


HARDMAN SIGNS: Faces "Pena" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Pena, Ariel Coutino, and Adrian Balderas, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Hardman Signs, LP
d/b/a Hardman Signs, Hardman Management, LLC, and Clay Hardman,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00579 (S.D. Tex., March 4, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a full service sign manufacturing
and installation company located at 4913 Weeping Willow Road,
Houston, Texas 77092.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd Slobin, Esq.
      Ricardo J. Prieto, Esq.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      E-mail: tslobin@eeoc.net
              rprieto@eeoc.net

         - and -

      J. Alfred Southerland, Esq.
      SOUTHERLAND LAW FIRM
      4141 Southwest Freeway, Suite 300
      Houston, TX 77027
      Telephone: (713) 228-8508
      Facsimile:  (713) 228-8507
      E-mail: alf@southerlandlawfirm.com


HEART HOME CARE: Faces "Castro" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Castro, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Heart Home Care, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-00570 (N.D. Ohio, March 9, 2016), seeks payment of
overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek
pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a home health care business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Tel: 216-696-5000
      Fax: 216-696-7005
      Email: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
             chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
             lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


HELMERICH & PAYNE: Violated WARN Act, "Sunday" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
AJ Sunday, III, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Helmerich & Payne International
Drilling Co., the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00128 (W.D. Tex.,
San Antonio Division, February 5, 2016), seeks to recover
all damages available including back wages, liquidated damages,
legal fees, costs, and post-judgment interest under the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988 (WARN
Act) and the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Helmerich & Payne International has done business in the State of
Texas, and is based in Tulsa, Oklahoma. The Company maintains
multiple district offices/yards throughout the United States from
which drilling rig workers, support personnel, supplies and
equipment are based and dispatched on a variety of work projects,
including oil and/or gas exploration and production projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HOSPITAL CORP OF AMERICA: Patients Face HIV Risk, Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that as
many as 3,000 patients of a Denver hospital may have been exposed
to HIV and hepatitis by a drug-using, needle-swapping technician,
surgical patients say in a federal class action in Denver, Colo.

The Swedish Medical Center fired the technician in late January,
after a fellow employee claimed to have caught him stealing a
syringe of fentanyl, a strong painkiller, and replacing it with a
different syringe. The hospital did not identify the fired worker
at the time, but Englewood police identified him as Rocky Allen,
28.

A federal grand jury charged Allen on Feb. 16 with tampering with
a consumer product and obtaining a controlled substance by deceit,
according to the class action lawsuit. If convicted, he could be
sentenced to up to 14 years in prison and fined $500,000.

The Swedish Medical Center in February sent a letter to 3,000
patients who had undergone surgical procedures between August 2015
and January this year -- the course of Allen's employment -- and
informed them they may have been exposed to blood-borne pathogens.

At least two people are believed to have contracted hepatitis B
after having surgery at Swedish Medical Center in that time frame.

Named as defendants are the Hospital Corporation of America (HCA),
and HealthONE LLC dba the Swedish Medical Center, one of several
Denver-area hospitals run by HealthONE.

The plaintiffs say the hospital's inadequate hiring processes
resulted in the ill-advised hiring of Allen, who had been fired
for stealing drugs and syringes from other hospitals, and court-
martialed for it while he was in the Navy.

"Swedish Medical failed these patients when it hired Rocky Allen,"
the plaintiffs' attorney Joseph Sauder told Courthouse News. "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."

According to the lawsuit, Allen was court-martialed in 2011 "and
pleaded guilty to making a false official statement, wrongfully
possessing approximately 30 vials of fentanyl, wrongly possessing
a syringe containing fentanyl, stealing fentanyl and stealing a
syringe containing fentanyl." The Navy would have made that
information available to the hospital, had it asked, according to
the complaint.

Scripps Green Hospital in La Jolla, Calif. fired Allen in June
2013, after less than two months on the job, when "he was caught
switching a fentanyl syringe with a saline-filled syringe," the
complaint states. Scripps said it notified the DEA.

Allen was fired from a Phoenix hospital in October 2014, after two
months on the job, for testing positive for fentanyl while
working, according to the complaint.

HealthONE had a similar scandal in 2009, when its surgical
technician Kristen Parker at Rose Medical Center was fired after
she was caught injecting fentanyl and replacing the syringes with
a saline solution. Fifteen patients contracted Parker's hepatitis
C.

Sauder said his clients have tested negative for the diseases so
far.

"While the named plaintiffs have fortunately tested negative in
their first round of blood tests, they have been instructed by the
hospital to get follow-up testing over the next several weeks and
months," Sauder said.

The immune system needs eight to 12 weeks to produce antibodies to
HIV and hepatitis, and blood tests search for the antibodies, so
conclusive tests cannot be made immediately.

"Thus, the named plaintiffs, like the nearly 3,000 [other]
patients, must continue to live in fear that they have contracted
a potentially deadly virus," Sauder said.

Nicole Williams, spokeswoman for Swedish Medical Center, said in a
statement that the hospital properly followed procedure after
Allen's actions came to light.

"Our staff reacted swiftly and appropriately to report this
incident to multiple authorities and to notify patients as no one
had previously, even knowing it would result in intense publicity
and lawsuits from plaintiffs' attorneys seeking to take advantage
of this unfortunate situation for their own monetary gain,"
Williams said in the statement. "We will defend ourselves
vigorously."

Plaintiffs seek class certification, restitution, medical
monitoring, and punitive damages for negligence, negligent hiring,
and emotional distress. They also request an injunction ordering
the hospital to improve its hiring process and storage of
medications.

Attorney Sauder is with McCuneWright, in Berwyn, Pa.


IL CAFE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime Wages, "Perez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Perez, Federico Baten Ramirez, and Cira Canada Florida,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Il Cafe
Latte Inc.  (d/b/a Il Caffe Latte), Young Hee Han, and Pablo Doe,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01696 (S.D.N.Y., March 5, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a coffee house located at
189 Malcolm X Blvd #1, New York, New York 10026 under the name Il
Caffe Latte.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


INTERNATIONAL RECOVERY: Sued for Violating FDCPA in E.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jason A. Hoyler, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. International Recovery Associates, Inc.,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00830 (E.D.N.Y., February 18, 2016) alleges
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Headquartered in Nesconset, New York, International Recovery
Associates, Inc. is a collection agency, which specializes in debt
collection services.  The Company also offers financial services.


INVICTUS MEDICAL: Violated FLSA, "Gutierrez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Noelia Gutierrez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Invictus Medical Center,
Inc., and Mizael A. Ojeda, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
0:16-cv-60235-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 5, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees against Defendants for violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Noelia Gutierrez was hired by Defendants as a medical assistant in
or about September 2014, and worked for Defendants until
approximately May 2015.

Invictus is a Florida Corporation, which provides medical services
throughout Florida.

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


JMJ CATERERS: Case Conference Set for June 14 in "Dekanchuk" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Dekanchuk, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JMJ Caterers, Inc., The Metropolitan
of Glen Cove, LLC; Michael Giamalvo, Janender Narang, and any
other related corporate entities, the Defendants, Case No.
601537/2015 (NY Sup. Ct., County of Nassau, October 3, 2015),
seeks to recover compensation, including gratuities, plus
interest, attorneys' fees, and costs in violation of New York
Labor Law.

A preliminary conference was held in the case on March 15, 2016 ,
before Judge John M. Galasso.  Another hearing is set for June 14,
2016, at 9:30 a.m.

JMJ Caterers is a domestic company organized and existing under
the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
business at 3 Pratt Blvd., Glen Cove, New York. The Company is
engaged in the restaurant and catering business. It has an annual
gross volume of sales in excess of $500,000.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Markowitz, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550

JMJ et al. are represented by:

          Alan Davis
          121 B West Oak Street
          Amityville, NY 11701
          Tel: (631) 598-0500


JMJ CATERERS: $450,000 Settlement Reached in "Quiroga" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
JONATHAN QUIROGA, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JMJ Caterers, Inc., The Metropolitan Of
Glen Cove, LLC, AAFF, INC., Michael Giamalvo, Janender Narang and
any other related corporate entities, Defendants, Case No.
602287/2014 (N.Y. Sup., May 19, 2014), seeks unpaid compensation,
attorneys' fees and costs, interest and other legal and equitable
relief in violation of New York Labor Law Sec. 190 and 196-d.  The
action is brought on behalf of Named Plaintiff Jonathan Quiroga
and a putative class of individuals who worked for Defendants
during the relevant period in service trades that customarily
receive gratuities including waiters, servers, bussers, runners,
bartenders, hosts/hostesses, bridal attendants, maitre d's at the
Defendants' catering facility commonly known as Metropolitan.

Quiroga worked for Defendants as a server and bartender. He claims
the Defendant withheld his gratuities,

On Dec. 16, 2015, the Plaintiffs submitted to the Court a
memorandum of law in support of their unopposed motion for
Preliminary Approval of the Settlement, certification of the
proposed Class, appointment of Class Counsel, and authorization to
distribute the proposed Notice and Claim Form to Class Members.
The Plaintiffs ask the Court to appoint Leeds Brown Law, P.C. as
Class Counsel; and certify this "Settlement Class":

     "Named Plaintiff and all current and former employees of
AAFF, Inc. who performed work as waiters, servers, bussers,
runners, bartenders, hosts/hostesses, bridal attendants, maitre
d's, or any similar position at Metropolitan and who performed
work during the period May 20, 2008 through December 31, 2012."

According to the Memorandum, as a result of Named Plaintiff and
Plaintiffs' counsel's efforts, Plaintiffs were able to obtain a
Gross Settlement Fund in the amount of $450,000 for the Settlement
Class.

JMJ Caterers, Inc. is a domestic company organized and existing
under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place
of business at 3 Pratt Blvd., Glen Cove, NY 11542 and is engaged
in the restaurant and catering business.

The Metropolitan of Glen Cove, LLC is a domestic company organized
and existing under the laws of the State of New York, with its
principal place of business at 3 Pratt Blvd., Glen Cove, NY 11542
and is engaged in the restaurant and catering business.

AAFF, Inc. is a domestic company organized and existing under the
laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of
business at 3 Pratt Blvd., Glen Cove, NY 11542 and is engaged in
the restaurant and catering business.

These companies are owned by Michael Giamalvo and Janender Narang.


JOHN DORY: "Grier" Suit Seeks Unpaid Minimum, Overtime Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Grier and Amy Cook, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. John Dory LLC, Joey Campanaro,
and Robert Michael Price Jr., Defendants, Case 501517/2016 (N.Y.
Sup., Kings County, February 3, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation, spread-of-hours pay, Article 6 and 19,
statutory damages, pre-judgment and post judgment interest,
injunction, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the
New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked at the Defendants' restaurant, Market Table
located at 54 Carmine Street, New York, New York 10014 as servers.

Defendants did not pay Plaintiffs the proper minimum wages,
overtime compensation and spread-of-hours, and did not provide tip
credit statements as well pay slips.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
      Jeffrey H. Dorfman, Esq.
      FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
      475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 300-0375


KOHL'S CORP: "Tran" Suit Seeks Statutory Damages Under FACTA
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Tran, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kohl's Corporation (d/b/a Kohl's),
Kohl's Department Stores, Inc. (d/b/a Kohl's), and Does 1-10,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-00197 (C.D. Cal.,
February 5, 2016), seeks to recover statutory damages, punitive
damages, costs and attorney fees, as a result of Defendants'
violations of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act
(FACTA).

The Defendants own, manage, maintain and or operate approximately
1,166 Kohl's department stores that sell, among other things,
exclusive and national brand apparel, footwear, accessories,
beauty and home products to their retail customers. Defendants
reap from their retail customers billions of dollars in annual
nationwide sales.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Chant Yedalian, Esq.
          CHANT & COMPANY
          A Professional Law Corporation
          1010 N. Central Ave.
          Glendale, CA 91202
          Telephone: (877) 574 7100
          Facsimile: (877) 574 9411
          E-mail: chant@chant.mobi


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Lee" Suit Over Misleading Product Label
-----------------------------------------------------------
Debra Lee, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated
v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 3:16-cv-00536-JJH (N.D.
Ohio, March 4, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been
manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of
its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan &
Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years,
in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company owns and operates a food company located
at 3000 Executive Pkwy, San Ramon, CA 94583.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard W. Schulte, Esq.
      WRIGHT & SCHULTE, LLC
      865 S. Dixie Dr.
      Vandalia, OH 45377
      Telephone: (937) 435-7500
      Facsimile: (937) 435-7511
      E-mail: rschulte@yourlegalhelp.com

         - and -

      John J. Driscoll, Esq.
      Philip Sholtz, Esq.
      THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
      St. Louis, MO  63102
      Telephone: (314) 932-3232
      Facsimile: (314) 932-3233
      E-mail: john@thedriscollfirm.com
              phil@thedriscollfirm.com


LINCARE INC: "Shemi" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Mary El Shemi, on her behalf and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lincare, Inc., d/b/a Open-aire and MRB
Acquisition Corp., d/b/a Open-Aire, the Defendants, Case No. 6:16-
cv-00200-GKS-TBS (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division, February 5, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief and other relief under FLSA.

Lincare is foreign profit corporation. MRB is a Florida profit
corporation. The Defendants are medical equipment
manufacturers/distributors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kimberly De Arcangelis, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN PA
          20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407) 420 1414
          Facsimile: (407) 245 3383
          E-mail: kimd@forthepeople.com


MACY'S INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Holland" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Theodora Holland and Agustin Islas, Plaintiff, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Macy's Inc., Department
Stores National Bank and FDS Bank, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01772 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2016), seeks injunctive relief for the
Defendants' practice of making unsolicited calls pursuant to the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

Macy's Inc. is a department store operator.

Department Stores National Bank is a national banking association
and the issuer of Macy's credit cards.

FDS Bank operates as a subsidiary of Macy's Inc. and is an element
of Macy's credit card operations that services consumer credit
card accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua D. Arisohn, Esq.
      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Tel: (646) 837-7150
      Fax: (212) 989-9163
      Email: scott@bursor.com
             jmarchese@bursor.com
             jarisohn@bursor.com


MACY'S INC: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yesenia Gonzalez, an individual, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Macy's Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, Macy's West Stores, Inc., d.b.a. Macy's, an Ohio
corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC
608604 (Cal Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles - Central Div.,
January 28, 2016), seeks reimbursement of business expenses,
unpaid compensation, declaratory and injunctive relief, civil
penalties, and any other appropriate remedy, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Macy's, Inc. is one of the nation's premier omnichannel retailers,
with fiscal 2015 sales of $27.079 billion. As of February 23,
2016, the company operates about 870 stores in 45 states, the
District of Columbia, Guam and Puerto Rico under the names of
Macy's, Bloomingdale's, Bloomingdale's Outlet, Macy's Backstage
and Bluemercury, as well as the macys.com, bloomingdales.com and
bluemercury.com websites.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ophir J. Bitton, Esq.
          BITTON & ASSOCIATES
          7220 Melrose Avenue, 2nd Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90046
          Telephone: (310) 356 1006
          Facsimile: (818) 524 1224


MATCH GROUP: Faces "Chan" Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Stephany Kam-wan Chan, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of
all persons similarly v. Match Group, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00668-D (N.D. Tex., March 9, 2016), alleges that
the Company's prospectus and offering documents contained untrue
statements of material fact and omitted other facts necessary to
make the statements reliable.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
      THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
      8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
      Dallas, TX 75206
      Tel: 214/239-4568
      Fax: 281/254-7789
      Email: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com

           - and -

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

           - and -

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

           - and -

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


MATTSON TECH: "Brown" Seeks to Block Merger with Beijing E-Town
--------------------------------------------------------------
Darrell Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Mattson Technology, Inc., Fusen Chen,
Richard Dyck, Kenneth Kannappan, Scott Kramer, Scott Peterson,
Kenneth Smith, Tom St. Dennis, Beijing E-Town Dragon Semiconductor
Industry Investment Center, Dragon Acquisition Sub, Inc. and Does
1-25, inclusive, Defendants, Case RG16804802 (Cal. Super., Alameda
County, February 22, 2016), seeks (a) damages for breach of
fiduciary duties, (b) preliminary and permanent enjoinment, (c)
rescinding of possible merger, and (d) compensatory and rescissory
damages.

According to the complaint, Mattson's Board of Directors agreed to
sell the Company to Beijing E-Town Dragon Semiconductor Industry
Investment Center through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Dragon
Acquisition Sub, Inc. Analyst set a $5.00 per share price target
for the Company with a $1.20 premium to the Merger despite the
fact that the Company's stock traded as high as $5.02 per share on
March 3, 2015, less than nine months before the announcement of
the Merger.

Mattson, a Delaware corporation, designs, manufactures and markets
semiconductor wafer processing equipment used in the fabrication
of integrated circuits. The Company's corporate headquarters are
located at 47131 Bayside Parkway, Fremont, California 94538.
Fusen Chen, Richard Dyck, Kenneth Kannappan, Scott Kramer, Scott
Peterson, Kenneth Smith and Tom St. Dennis are members of the
board of directors.

Dragon is a People's Republic of China limited partnership and a
subsidiary of Beijing E-Town Capital, a Beijing-based private
equity fund focused on investments in the semiconductor industry.

Brown is a Mattson shareholder.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
      Bryan Kemnitzer, Esq.
      WEISS LAW LLP
      1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 208-2800
      Fax: (310) 209-2348

            - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      WEISS LAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Tel: (212) 682-3025
      Fax: (212) 682-3010


MCLEOD EXPRESS: Faces "Downs" Suit Over Failure to Pay Wages & OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle D. Downs, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. McLeod Express LLC and Mark R. McLeod,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02060-HAB (C.D. Ill., March 8, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay wages and
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

McLeod is enterprise engaged in commerce or in the production of
good for commerce and had annual gross revenue in excess of
$500,000.00.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James A. Devine, Esq.
     607 East Adams
     Suite 1510
     Springfield, IL 62701
     Tel: (217) 788-0798
     Fax: (217) 788-1660
     Email: jamesalbertdevine@gmail.com

          - and -

     John A. Baker, Esq.
     BAKER, BAKER & KRAJEWSKI, LLC
     415 South Seventh Street
     Springfield, IL 62701
     Tel: (217) 522-3445
     Fax: (217) 522-8234
     Email: johnbakerlaw@sbsglobal.net


MDL 2591: "Sefton" Suit Consolidated in Kansas
----------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sefton v. Syngenta Corporation et
al., Case No. 2:16-cv-02011, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of Illinois, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Kansas (Kansas City). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02096-JWL-JPO to
the proceeding.

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher M. Ellis, Esq.
          Jon D Robinson, Esq.
          BOLEN ROSINSON & ELLIS, LLP
          202 S. Franklin
          Decatur, IL 62521
          Telephone: (217) 429 4296
          Facsimile: (217) 329 0034
          E-mail: cellis@brelaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael J Nester, Esq.
          DONOVAN ROSE NESTER PC
          201 South Illinois Street
          Belleville, IL 62220
          Telephone: (618) 212 6500
          Facsimile: (618) 212 6501


MDL 2657: "Christy" Personal Injury Suit Filed
----------------------------------------------
Brandy Christy, Plaintiff, individually and as parent and natural
guardian of A.C. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-10481-FDS (D. Mass., March 8, 2016) seeks compensatory damages
for fraudulent and misrepresentation of the product.

Plaintiff alleged that GSK has not submitted to the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration any data demonstrating the safety or efficacy
of Zofran for treating morning sickness in pregnant women.
Instead, GSK has illegally circumvented the FDA-approval process
by marketing Zofran for the treatment of morning sickness in
pregnant women without applying for the FDA's approval to market
Zofran to treat that condition, or any other condition, in
pregnant women. This practice is known as "off-label" promotion,
and in this case it constitutes fraudulent marketing.

The case was filed as part of In Re: Zofran (Ondansetron) )
Products Liability Litigation ) MDL No. 1:15-md-2657-FDS (D.
Mass.).

GSK is a pharmaceutical company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael T. Gallagher, Esq.
     THE GALLAGHER LAW FIRM
     2905 Sackett Street
     Houston, TX 77098
     Tel: (713) 222-8080
     Fax: (713) 222-0066
     Email: donnaf@gld-law.com


MEN'S WEARHOUSE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Oliver" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Oliver and all others similarly-situated vs. The Men's
Wearhouse, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01100 (C.D. Cal., February 17,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making
unsolicited "text message" calls to cellular telephones.

Men's Wearhouse is a men's retail clothing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       David C. Parisi, Esq.
       Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
       PARISI & HAVENS LLP
       212 Marine Street, Ste. 100
       Santa Monica, CA 90405
       Tel: (818) 990-1299
       E-mail: dcparis@parisihavens.com
               shavens@parisihavens.com

            - and -

       Eugene Turin, Esq.
      MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
       161 N. Clark Street, 47th Floor
       Chicago, IL 60601
       Tel: (312) 216-5179
       E-mail: eturin@mcgpc.com


MICROSOFT CORP: Supreme Court Puts Off Class Action Arguments
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court has put off the arguments in a closely watched
Microsoft Corp. class action until next term, in a scheduling move
that may be related to the Feb. 13 death of Justice Antonin
Scalia.

Lawyers in Microsoft v. Baker were anticipating arguing the case
in late April, but were alerted by the court clerk's office
March 2 that it would be argued instead next term, which begins on
Oct. 3.

"From our perspective, we wanted to argue this term. It was ready
to go," said Peter Stris -- peter.stris@strismaher.com -- of Stris
& Maher in Los Angeles, who represents the class action plaintiffs
in the case.

Microsoft is challenging an "end-run" tactic used by class action
plaintiffs aimed at speeding up the appeals process when class
action certification is denied at the district court level.  In
its petition for review Microsoft, represented by Davis Wright
Tremaine partner Stephen Rummage -- steverummage@dwt.com -- said
the case is "immensely important to the proper administration of
the class action device." Rummage could not be reached for
comment.

Other cases were also postponed until the fall, though some were
canceled before Scalia's death.  The court on March 4 issued its
April argument calendar with only 10 hours of oral argument
scheduled -- less than the usual 12 hours. Other cases were
granted in time for the court to add them to the April calendar,
and the court sometimes adds afternoon arguments to accommodate
such cases.

A practical reason related to Justice Scalia's death may explain
in part why the court trimmed its argument docket, said veteran
advocate Alan Morrison, associate dean of George Washington
University Law School.

"They may have wanted to lighten the caseload for April because
only eight justices are writing opinions now," Mr. Morrison said.
Usually, the chief justice tries to spread opinion-writing evenly
among justices for each argument schedule.  With eight justices,
that becomes more difficult.

Apart from Justice Scalia's death, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.
has long strived, with mixed results, to "frontload" court
arguments toward the beginning of the term and away from later
months like April.  His stated goal was reducing the workload in
the race toward recess in May and June -- a goal that has even
more urgency now because of Scalia's death.

The April calendar includes two of the most high profile cases of
the term: United States v. Texas, a dispute over President Barack
Obama's executive actions on immigration, set for April 18, and
McDonnell v. United States, an effort by former Virginia Gov.
Robert McDonnell to overturn his fraud convictions, which will be
argued on April 27, the final argument day of the current term.
Court officials declined to state the reasons for the shift in
scheduling of oral arguments.  Stris said he did not receive an
explanation for the delay, but agreed that the load-lightening
rationale "makes sense to me."


MONSANTO CO: Brief Due July 25 in 9th Cir. Appeal in "Mirzaie"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elvis Mirzaie, Edison Mirzaie, and Romi Mirzaie, an individual and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Monsanto Company, a Delaware corporation, Case No. 16-55228 (9th
Cir., Feb. 12, 2016) is an appeal filed before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from a lower court decision
in a class action, Case No. 2:15-cv-04361-DDP-FFM (S.D. Cal., June
9, 2015).

Appellants Edison Mirzaie, Elvis Mirzaie and Romi Mirzaie opening
brief is due July 25, 2016.

Appellee Monsanto Company answering brief is due August 24, 2016.

Appellant's optional reply brief is due 14 days after service of
the answering brief.

Elvis Mirzaie, Edison Mirzaie, and Romi Mirzaie, an individual and
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, are
represented by:

          T. Matthew Phillips, Esq.
          T MATTHEW PHILLIPS LAW OFFICES
          10040 West Cheyenne Avenue, Suite 170
          Las Vegas, NV 89129
          Telephone: (323) 314 6996

The Appellee is represented by:

          Stephen R. Smerek, Esq.
          WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 615 1700


MOSTAFAVI LAW: Faces "McCoy" Suit Over Cal. Labor Code Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chantal McCoy, individually and on behalf of all employees
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mostafavi Law Group, APC,
Amir Mostafavi; Does 1-10, business entities, forms unknown; Does
11-20, individuals, and Does 21-30, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC608620 (Cal, Super Ct., County of Los Angeles, January
29, 2016), seeks to recover damages and remedies afforded by law
for wrongful termination, retaliation, breach of contract, breach
of fiduciary duty, fraudulent inducement, and violations of the
California Labor Code.

Mostafavi Law Group operates a law practice that focuses
exclusively on the area of employment law within the state of
California, including, but not limited to, the County of Los
Angeles. The Group operates its business at Los Angeles,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David T. Wang, Esq.
          WANG LEGAL GROUP
          100 Pine Street, Suite 1250
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 887 2037
          E-mail: david@wanglegalgroup.com


MSK MANAGEMENT: Violated NYLL & FLSA, "Sedrak" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Amir Sedrak, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSK Management, LLC, S.I. Pizza, Inc.,
XYZ Corp., and Mohammad S. Khan a/k/a Mike Khan, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00614-ENV-RER (E.D.N.Y, February 5,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wage, overtime compensation,
spread-of-hours pay, misappropriated gratuities, uniform-related
expenses, and other statutory penalties, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL).

With over 47 franchises in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania,
MSK is a large member of Domino's franchise network. As a result,
MSK, through its individual subsidiaries/franchises, jointly
employs over 1,000 Domino's "team members" (i.e., employees)
throughout its various locations. MSK's individual subsidiaries
and locations in New York include but are not limited to: SIP in
Staten Island, New York; XYZ in Staten Island, New York; and
Mashal Enterprises, Inc. in Suffern, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian S, Schaffer, Esq.
          Arsenio D. Rodriquez, Esq.
          FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
          475 Park Avenue South, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 300 0375


NASSAU COUNTY, NY: Amityville Union Suit Challenges Tax Levies
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Amityville Union Free School District, Carle Place Union Free
School District, East Williston Union Free School District,
Farmingdale Union Free School District, Garden City Union Free
School District, H1cksville Union Free School District, Island
Trees Union Free School District, Locust Valley Central School
District, Massapequa Union Free School District, Plainview-Old
Bethpage Central School District, Valley Stream Central High
School District, Valley Stream Union Free School District 30,
Wantagh Union Free School District, West Hempstead Union Free
School District, Hempstead Union Free School District, Elmont
Union Free School District, Sewanhaka Central High School
District, and Mark Kamberg individually and as President of the
Board of Education of the East Williston Union Free School
District, v. County of Nassau, Edward Mangano, in his official
capacity as County Executive, Assessment Department of the County
of Nassau, James E. Davis, in his official capacity as Acting
Assessor, George Maragos, in his official capacity as Nassau
County Comptroller, Beaumont Jefferson, in his official capacity
as Nassau County Treasurer, Nassau County Legislature, Long Island
Power Authority, Long Island Lighting Company d/b/a Long Island
Power Authority, and PSEG Long Island LLC, the Defendants, Case
No. 16-000697 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Nassau, January 28, 2016),
seeks to vindicate the public interest of the School Districts and
find and declare that certain actions taken by Respondents-
Defendants are allegedly illegal, unlawful, and improper and, in
particular, the County of Nassau's unilateral reduction of the
School Districts' 2015-2016 voter-approved tax levies; the County
of Nassau's removal of certain Long Island Power Authority's
("LIPA") properties from the 2015-2016 school district tax roll;
and LIPA's failure to pay the full amount of taxes and/or payments
in lieu of taxes billed for the first half of the 2015-2016 school
year.

The Petitoners-Plaintiffs further seek orders permanently
enjoining Respondents-Defendants from: unilaterally reducing
school district tax levies in the future; removing LIPA
Respondents-Defendants' properties from tax rolls without
following the appropriate legal requirements for doing so; and
directing the LIPA Respondents-Defendants to remit the full amount
of all PILOT payments billed to it by the County regardless of the
LIPA Respondents-Defendants' agreement with the amount of such
bill; directing the LIPA Respondents-Defendants to utilize the
"tax certiorari" procedures outlined in Article 7 of the Real
Property l Tax Law in order to address future disagreements over
the proper calculation of such PILOT payments.

Nassau County is a suburban county on Long Island in the U.S.
state of New York. At the 2010 census, the county's population was
1,339,532, estimated to have increased to 1,358,627 in 2014. The
county seat is located in the Village of Garden City, within the
boundaries of the Mineola. The name of the county comes from an
old name for Long Island, which was at one time named Nassau,
after the Dutch Prince William of Nassau.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher T. Mestecky
          GUERCIO & GUERCIO, LLP
          77 Conklin Street
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Telephone: (516) 694 3000


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Faces "Deepe" Suit Over Football Scholarships
---------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Deppe, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. National Collegiate Athletic Association,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00528-WTL-MPB (S.D. Ind., March 8,
2016), alleges that the Defendant violated the Sherman Act by
unlawfully agreeing to limit the number of Division I football
scholarships that a member institution can grant in any year, and
that the NCAA and its member institutions have ensured that
student-athletes in the Class receive tens of millions less for
their labor for member institutions than they would receive, and
the member institutions would pay, in a competitive market.

Defendant NCAA is an unincorporated association that acts as the
governing body of college sports.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William N. Riley, Esq.
      Joseph N. Williams, Esq.
      RILEY WILLIAMS & PIATT LLC
      Hammond Block Building
      301 Massachusetts Avenue
      Indianapolis, IN 46204
      Tel: (317) 633-5270
      Fax: (317) 426-3348
      Email: wriley@rwp-law.com
             jwilliams@rwp-law.com

          - and -

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

          - and -

      Elizabeth A. Fegan, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
      Chicago, IL 60611
      Tel: (708) 628-4960
      Fax: (708) 628-4950
      Email: beth@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      Jon T. King, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Ave., Suite 202
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Tel: (510) 725-3000
      Fax: (510) 725-3001
      Email: jonk@hbsslaw.com

          - and -

      Stuart M. Paynter, Esq.
      THE PAYNTER LAW FIRM PLLC
      1200 G Street N.W., Suite 800
      Washington, D.C. 20005
      Tel: (202) 626-4486
      Fax: (866) 734-0622
      Email: stuart@smplegal.com


NATIONAL DIVERSIFIED: "Pena" Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Luis Pena, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. National Diversified Sales, Inc., NDS,
Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC610019 (Cal.
Super., February 10, 2016), seeks penalties for inaccurate wage
statements under California Labor Code Sec. 226(e), damages for
unpaid wages under Labor Code Sec. 201, 202, unpaid penalty wages
under Labor Code Sec. 203, unpaid wages for missed meal periods
under Labor Code Sec. 226.7, damages for minimum wages, premium
wages, liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages and unpaid
overtime wages under Labor Code Sec. 1194, restitution under
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17203, pre-judgment interest,
costs, reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further
relief.

National Diversified Sales, Inc. designs, manufactures and sells
water management systems. Pena works as a mold-maker for the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NATIONAL RETAIL: Violated FLSA, "Rainboth-Venditt" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Rainboth-Venditti, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. National Retail Solutions,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00137-MAD-ATB (N.D.N.Y.,
February 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages including minimum
wages, straight time, overtime compensation, and related penalties
and damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New
York Labor Laws (NYLL).

Defendant employs hundreds of persons across the United States as
Merchandisers. Each day, NRS sent Merchandisers to retail stores
where they stock and move product; install, set up, maintain, and
dismantle product displays; and collect information from the
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew E. Osman, Esq.
          OSMAN & SMAY LLP
          8500 W. 110th Street, Suite 330
          Overland Park, KS 66210
          Telephone: (1913) 667 9243
          Facsimile: (1866) 470 9243
          E-mail: mosman@workerwagerights.com


NATURE'S WAY: Violated CLRA, UCL & FAL, "Hunter" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Sherry Hunter and Malia Levin, on behalf of themselves, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v.
Nature's Way Products, LLC, and Schwabe North America, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 37-2016-00002933-CU-NP-CTL (Cal. Super. Ct.,
County of Dan Diego, January 28, 2016), seeks to compel Defendants
to cease marketing its coconut oil products using misleading and
unlawful tactics, destroy all misleading, deceptive, and unlawful
materials, conduct a corrective advertising campaign, restore
amounts by which they have been unjustly enriched, and pay
restitution, damages, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees as
allowed by law, pursuant to the California Consumer Legal Remedies
Act, (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL), and False Advertising
Law (FAL).

The Defendants allegedly and misleadingly market Nature's Way
brand coconut oil products as both inherently healthy, and a
healthy alternative to butter, margarine, shortening, and other
cooking oils, despite the fact that coconut oil is actually
inherently unhealthy, and a less healthy option to these
alternatives, says the complaint.

Nature's Way Products, Inc. manufactures and sells nutritional and
natural products. Its products include vitamins, essential fatty
acids, probiotics, minerals, specialty products, antioxidants,
cough and cold liquids, homeopathic products, diet and weight loss
products, herbs, energy and endurance products, products for
immune system, and liver health and detoxification products. The
company was founded in 1969 and is based in Lehi, Utah.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF
          PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
          4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 206
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 767 0356
          Facsimile: (619) 331 2943
          E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

               - and -

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


NEENAH PAPER: Faces "Dame" Suit Over Health & Life Insurance Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Donald Dame, et al., Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all
other persons similarly situated v. Neenah Paper, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-40029 (D. Mass., March 9, 2016),
contends that the Defendants are obligated to provide retiree
health and life insurance benefits pursuant to the terms of an
employee benefit plan.

Defendant Neenah Paper is manufacturer of premium writing, text,
cover, specialty and private watermark papers.

Defendant FiberMark is a manufacturing company, active in
nonwovens and papermaking.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terence E. Coles, Esq.
      PYLE ROME EHRENBERG, P.C.
      2 Liberty Square, 10th Floor
      Boston, MA 02109
      Tel: (617) 367-7200
      Fax: (617) 367-4820
      Email: tcoles@pylerome.com

            - and -

      William T. Payne, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      12 Eastern Avenue, Suite 203
      Pittsburgh, PA 15215
      Tel: (412) 492-8797
      Fax: (412) 281-1007
      Email: wpayne@fdpklaw.com

             - and -

      Pamina Ewing, Esq.
      Joel R. Hurt, Esq.
      McKean J. Evans, Esq.
      FEINSTEIN DOYLE PAYNE & KRAVEC, LLC
      Allegheny Building, 17th Floor
      429 Forbes Avenue
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 281-8400
      Fax: (412) 281-1007
      Email: pewing@fdpklaw.com
             jhurt@fdpklaw.com
             mevans@fdpklaw.com


NEW YORK: Judge Narrows Occupy Wall Street Suit v. NYPD
-------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
claims that New York City Police Department officials singled out
Occupy Wall Street protestors through illegal policies on mass
arrests have been dismissed by a federal judge.

Southern District Judge P. Kevin Castel agreed with the city that
former Chief of Department Joseph Esposito, and the city itself,
should not be the subject of a lawsuit alleging the design and
supervision of policies that violated the constitutional rights of
protestors removed from Zuccotti Park in 2012.

The plaintiffs in Marom v. The City of New York, 15-cv-2017,
Castel said, "fail to plausibly allege the city, through the NYPD,
engaged in a pattern or practice of similar constitutional
deprivations against protestors."

Plaintiffs Yotam Marom, Miriam Rocek and Don Fitzgerald were
arrested on March 17, 2012, in the police clearing of Zuccotti
Park as they were recognizing the six-month anniversary of the
Occupy movement.

In his 52-page decision, Castel kept alive Moram and Rocek's false
arrest, First Amendment retaliation and failure to intervene
claims against some police officials as well as Fitzgerald's claim
of excessive force.

But the judge dismissed everything else, including allegations
that the trio's arrest and ill treatment were the results of two
specific NYPD policies concerning the handling of mass arrests.

The first was an alleged policy that Occupy protesters arrested at
demonstrations would not receive individual consideration for a
summons instead of being arrested -- the "No-Summons Policy."

The second was an alleged "mass arrest processing plan," or MAPP,
where arrestees were taken to "a single mass arrest processing
center where, with the involvement of NYPD Legal Bureau and
Criminal Justice Bureau agents," boilerplate NYPD arrest documents
containing false information were drafted.

Both policies, they claimed, ran contrary to the NYPD Patrol
Guide, resulted in longer detention for Occupy protestors, and
were the result of "ill will" by the police determined to deter
further protests.

They also argued that the city knew better, because the NYPD used
similar tactics in the mass arrests during the 2004 Republican
National Convention (RNC), and those tactics triggered years of
litigation.

And they said Esposito and others adopted these policies during a
series of meetings leading up to the "raid" on Zuccotti Park, and
that they knew the policies would lead to false arrests, excessive
force, excessive detention and fabrication of evidence.
Castel disagreed.  The judge said the connection between Esposito
and the alleged MAPP policy was "too attenuated" to show his
personal involvement.  Moreover, he said, the complaint failed to
properly allege the MAPP policy caused falsified reports or
arrests.  In big cities, he said, it should surprise no one that
police at times must arrest large numbers of people in a short
span of time.

"Nothing is inherently unlawful or unconstitutional about creating
a plan in advance to deal with such occurrences," Castel said.
"There is nothing wrong with developing a uniform procedure for
all arrests arising out of a single event.  Nor is the use of
boilerplate forms or specifically trained agents to facilitate the
processing of multiple arrests inherently unlawful or
unconstitutional."

The judge also said there was no plausible allegation how
Mr. Esposito or the MAPP policy actually caused false information
to be relied on in processing the arrests.


NEWS CORP: Class Counsel Fees May Reach $73 Million
---------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that five law
firms that represent a class of corporate plaintiffs pursuing
antitrust litigation against News Corp. may receive attorney fees
equal to as much as 30 percent of a proposed $244 million
settlement -- or $73 million.

But a federal judge must first approve the proposed settlement,
which was announced this month on the first day of a scheduled
trial.  Then the judge must also approve the attorney fees.  The
firms have not yet specified how much they will seek in attorney
fees.  Under the terms of the proposed settlement, however, News
Corp agreed to not object if the attorney fees equal as much as 30
percent of the settlement.

"We don't want anything in the press assuming that we are going to
get anything," said Daniel Goldman -- dgoldman@kramerlevin.com --
partner in the New York office of Kramer Levin Naftalis & Frankel.

Goldman's firm represents the certified class of corporate
plaintiffs along with Washington, D.C.'s Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, two Texas-based firms -- Susman Godfrey and
McKool Smith -- and a Washington, D.C., lawyer R. Stephen Berry of
Berry Law, who initially developed the case.

The corporate plaintiffs include as leads -- Dial Corp., Henkel
Consumer Goods, Smithfield Foods, Kraft Heinz Co., Foster Poultry
Farms, HP Hood and Bob Evans Foods -- and a class of more than 500
other consumer product companies.  In their lawsuit, the
plaintiffs alleged that News Corp. acquired and maintained a
monopoly on in-store promotion services, such as shelf signs and
floor decals, and engaged in anti-competitive conduct.

In the tentative settlement, News Corp. agreed to alter its
retailer contracting practices.

Jim Southwick -- jsouthwick@susmangodfrey.com -- a partner in
Susman Godfrey and one of the plaintiffs counsel, stresses that he
and his co-counsel likely will not ask for the entire 30 percent.
Nor would the judge likely approve that much, Southwick said

In an uncommon arrangement, News Corp. also agreed in the terms of
the proposed settlement to pay an initial $6 million in attorney
fees to plaintiffs counsel, prior to the setting of the final
total fee amount.

Southwick said News Corp. agreed to pay that initial $6 million
after the court allowed four of the plaintiff class members' in-
house counsel and News Corp.'s in-house counsel to negotiate
separate settlements in late February, even though by that time
the opt-out deadline for class members had already passed months
earlier.  News Corp. agreed to pay the initial $6 million to the
class counsel to compensate them for getting those four class
members to the point where they could make those separate
settlements, Southwick said.  He characterized those separate
settlements, negotiated after the opt-out period had passed, as "a
highly unusual thing."

Also unusual was the collegiality among the plaintiffs counsel,
according to Southwick, and Lewis LeClair, a principal in McKool
Smith.  At the beginning of the case, the four firms and Berry
entered into an agreement with the lead plaintiffs that called for
all the firms to serve as co-lead class counsel. The court,
however, ordered that only two of the firms could serve as co-lead
class counsel.  As a result, the firms designated
Susman Godfrey and Kellogg Huber as co-lead class counsel and
McKool Smith and Kramer Levin as co-lead trial and settlement
counsel, an arrangement the court complained represented "a
workaround" of his order.

Despite the court's characterization, the arrangement fostered
friendly working conditions among the firms.

"This was interesting because we had four firms that operated as
equals and that is not typical," Mr. LeClair said.  Mr. LeClair
expects, based on the pre-set arrangement, that no matter what
attorney fees the court ultimately approves, those will be divided
relatively equally among the firms.


NIMBLE STORAGE: Violated Exchange Act, "Madhani" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Shams Madhani, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nimble Storage, Inc., Suresh
Vasudevan, and Anup V. Singh, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-
00629-PJH (N.D. Cal., February 5, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies
under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (he Exchange Act).

Nimble Storage provides flash-optimized storage platforms. The
Company concentrates on three main areas in terms of sales and
marketing investments: U.S. Commercial, which are mid-sized
customers who have traditionally been the core of Nimble Storage's
sales; Large Enterprises; and International.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: FrankJ@JohnsonandWeaver.com


OAK CREEK INNS: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Perez" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Xan Perez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
and on behalf of the general public as private attorneys general,
the Plaintiff, v. Oak Creek Inns, Inc. d/b/a Super 8 Motel, a
California Corporation, Edwin Villano, an individual; and Does 1-
250, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BG608375 (Cal Super. Ct.,
County of Los Angeles, January 29, 2016), seeks declaratory
relief, restitution and compensation for work performed and moneys
due under the California Labor Code and California Fair Employment
and Housing Act.

Super 8 Motel is an entity employing at least the minimum number
of persons needed to qualify, and is doing business within the
State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary R. Carlin, Esq.
          Brent S. Buchsbaum, Esq.
          Laurel N. Haag, Esq.
          Jean P. Buchanan, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CARLIN & BUCHSBAUM, LLP
          555 East Ocean Blvd., Suite 818
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 432 8933
          Facsimile: (562) 435 1656
          E-mail: jean@carlinbuchsbaum.com


ON SEMICONDUCTOR: Shareholders Challenge Fairchild Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
ON Semiconductor Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company was
named on December 14, 2015, as a defendant in a shareholder class
action lawsuit filed in state court in Delaware against the
Company, Falcon Operations Sub, Inc., an ON Semiconductor
subsidiary ("Merger Sub"), Fairchild and certain directors of
Fairchild with respect to the merger agreement entered into
between the Company's Merger Sub and Fairchild in November 2015,
by which the Company commenced a tender offer to acquire all of
the outstanding shares of Fairchild. The lawsuit alleges breach of
duty by the individual defendants and aiding and abetting by the
Company and the Merger Sub and has been docketed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware ("District Court") as Woo v.
Fairchild Semiconductor International, Inc. et al, Case #
11798VCL. The Company believes that the claim against it is
without merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The
litigation process is inherently uncertain, however, and the
Company cannot guarantee that the outcome of this matter will be
favorable for it.

The case is, Walter Wesley Woo, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Fairchild Semiconductor
International, Inc., et al., Case No. 11798 (Del. Ch. Ct.,
December 11, 2015), and the Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      Elizabeth K. Tripodi, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Telephone: (202) 524-4290
      E-mail: denright@zlk.com

There is a second lawsuit, as previously reported by the Class
Action Reporter, captioned as, Cody Laidlaw, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fairchild
Semiconductor International Inc., Mark S. Thompson, Charles P.
Carinalli, Randy W. Carson, Terry A. Klebe, Anthony Lear,
Catherine P. Lego, Kevin J. Mcgarity, Bryan R. Roub, Ronald W.
Shelly, Goldman, Sachs & Co., and Does 1-5, inclusive, Case No.
15CV289120 (Cal. Super, Sta. Clara County, December 17, 2015).
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
      HULETT HARPER STEW ART LLP
      550 West C Street, Suite 1500
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 338-1133
      Fax: (619) 338-1139

           - and -

      Richard B. Brualdi, Esq.
      Gaitri Boodhoo, Esq.
      Lauren C. Watson, Esq.
      THE BRUALDI LAW FIRM,P.C.
      29 Broadway, Suite 2400
      New York, NY 10006
      Tel: (212) 952-0602
      Fax: (212) 952-0608

ON Semiconductor's extensive portfolio of analog, digital and
mixed signal ICs, standard products, image sensors and custom
devices helps customers efficiently solve their design challenges
in advanced electronic systems and products.


OWENS-BROCKWAY GLASS: Violated Cal Labor Code, "So" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kosal So, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Owens-Brockway Glass Container, Inc.,
a Delaware Corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. BC608609 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los
Angeles, January 28, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and
penalties under the California Labor Code.

Owens-Brockway Glass Container Inc. manufactures and sells glass
container products. The company primarily offers glass containers
for the food and beverage industries. It principally operates in
Europe, North America, South America, and the Asia Pacific. The
company is based in Perrysburg, Ohio. Owens-Brockway Glass
Container Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Owens-Brockway
Packaging, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard L. Magee, Esq.
          Larry W. Lee, Esq.
          Nicholas Rosenthal, Esq.
          DIVERSITY LAW GROUP, P.C
          550 South Hope Street, Suite 2655
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213)488 6555
          Facsimile: (213)488 6554


PATTERSON COMPANY: "Yanez" Suit to Recover Missed Breaks, Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ramon Yanez, an individual, and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs v. The Patterson Company, Inc. and Does 1 through
50, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC609937 (Cal. Super., February
10, 2016), seeks unpaid wages and interest pursuant to California
Labor Code Sections 226.7, 1194 and 1998, attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to California Labor Code section 1194(a), waiting
time penalties pursuant to California Labor Code section 203,
failure to provide accurate itemized wage statements, penalties
pursuant to California Labor Code section 226(e) and the
California Unfair Competition Law, restitution of the wages and
other monies wrongfully withheld, general, special, compensatory,
exemplary and/or punitive damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest.

The Patterson Company, Inc. is a corporation conducting business
in the Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino
Counties, with its principal place of business located at 1912
North Batavia Street, Orange, California 92865.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aanand Ghods-Mehtani, Esq.
      Jana M. Moser, Esq.
      RUSHOVICH MEHTANI LLP
      5900 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, California 90036-5013
      Tel: (323) 330-0543
      Fax: (323) 395-5507
      Email: amehtani@rmlawpartners.com
             jmoser@rmlawpartners.com


PEET'S COFFEE: Faces "Klarik" Suit Over Press Pot Coffee's Volume
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alan Klarik and Ante Razov, individually and, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Peet's Coffee & Tea, LLC, a
Washington limited liability company, Peet's Operating Company,
Inc., a Virginia corporation; and Does 1-100, Case No. BC603856
(Cal. Super. Ct., December 11, 2015), arises from Peet's alleged
misrepresentation of the volume of coffee consumers receive when
they purchase cups of Peet's "Press Pot" coffee.

According to the complaint, what Peet's calls "Press Pot" coffee
is commonly known as French press coffee -- a handcrafted coffee
brewed in a narrow glass cylindrical beaker.  The Plaintiffs argue
that instead of the 12 and 32 ounce measurements advertised on
Peet's signage and menu refers to the size of the container used
by Peet's to make the Press Pot coffee, not the volume of Press
Pot coffee actually served to consumers.

Peet's Coffee & Tea, LLC is a Washington limited liability
company, with its principal place of business located in
Emeryville, California.  Peet's Operating Company, Inc., a
subsidiary of Peet's Coffee, is a Virginia corporation and is also
headquartered in Emeryville.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq.
          Charles T. Spagnola, Esq.
          Eliot F. Krieger, Esq.
          SULLIVAN, KRIEGER, TRUONG, SPAGNOLA & KLAUSNER, LLP
          444 West Ocean Boulevard, Suite 1700
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 597-7070
          Facsimile: (562) 597-7772
          E-mail: adam@sullivankrieger.com
                  charles@ sullivankrieger.com
                  eliot@sullivankrieger.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew C.DeRe, Esq.
          ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
          11 WestWashington Street, Suite 1220
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 440-0020
          Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
          E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
                  matt@attorneyzim.com


PHOENIX COMPANIES: MOU Reached in Merger Litigation
---------------------------------------------------
The Phoenix Companies, Inc. has entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding regarding the settlement of certain litigation
relating to the previously announced solicitation of consents
pursuant to a Consent Solicitation Statement, dated January 7,
2016, from holders of record as of 5:00 p.m. New York City time on
January 6, 2016, of Phoenix's outstanding 7.45% Quarterly Interest
Bonds due 2032 to amend Section 704 of the Indenture governing the
Securities (such proposed amendment, the "Fourth Supplemental
Indenture"), Phoenix said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016.

Kenneth Roth filed on February 8, 2016, a putative class action
complaint ("Complaint") in New York Supreme Court (New York
County) (the "Court") against Phoenix and U.S. Bank National
Association in its capacity as indenture trustee (the "Trustee"),
Index No. 650634/2016.  The Complaint asserts claims against
Phoenix for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good
faith and fair dealing, negligent misrepresentation, a temporary
restraining order, a preliminary and permanent injunction, and a
declaratory judgment.  In addition to damages, costs, and
attorneys' fees, the Complaint asks the Court to temporarily
restrain, and preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Consent
Solicitation or, alternatively, declare that the proposed
supplemental indenture is null and void.  The Complaint further
alleges that the Trustee breached its fiduciary duty to
bondholders by, inter alia, allowing the Consent Solicitation to
be issued.

Phoenix believes that the lawsuit is without merit and that no
additional or amended disclosure is required to supplement the
Consent Solicitation Statement, and that no changes to the
proposed supplemental indenture are required, under applicable
laws; however, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability
or wrongdoing, Phoenix has agreed, pursuant to the terms of a
Memorandum of Understanding, to: (a) revise the proposed Fourth
Supplemental Indenture to make available to Holders certain
information in connection with Phoenix's reporting obligations
under Section 704, as amended by the Fourth Supplemental
Indenture, (b) make available financial statements and related
information of Phoenix not only to current Holders but also to
prospective Holders, securities analysts and market makers, as
detailed in the supplemental disclosures to the Consent
Solicitation Statement, and (c) make certain other supplemental
disclosures to the Consent Solicitation Statement.  Nothing in
these supplemental disclosures or the changes to the proposed
Fourth Supplemental Indenture shall be deemed an admission of the
legal necessity or materiality under applicable laws of any of the
disclosures or changes set forth herein.

On February 24, 2016, the parties to the Litigation entered into
the Memorandum of Understanding providing for the settlement of
the Litigation, subject to the approval of the Court, among other
things. The defendants have vigorously denied, and continue
vigorously to deny, that they have committed any violation of law
or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were alleged in the
Litigation. The Memorandum of Understanding outlines the terms of
the Settling Parties' agreement in principle to settle and release
all claims which were or could have been asserted in the
Litigation.

The parties to the Memorandum of Understanding will seek to enter
into a stipulation of settlement that will be presented to the
Court for final approval. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including approval by the Court,
which will consider the fairness, reasonableness and adequacy of
the settlement. The stipulation of settlement will provide for,
among other things, the release of any and all claims arising from
or relating to the Consent Solicitation, subject to approval by
the Court. The release will not become effective until the
stipulation of settlement is approved by the Court. In connection
with the settlement, subject to the ultimate determination of the
Court, counsel for plaintiff may receive an award of reasonable
fees.  Neither this payment nor the settlement will affect the
consent fee to be received by consenting Phoenix bondholders in
the Consent Solicitation. There can be no assurance that the
Settling Parties will ultimately enter into a stipulation of
settlement or that the Court will approve the settlement even if
the Settling Parties were to enter into the stipulation. In such
event, or if the Consent Solicitation is not consummated for any
reason, the proposed settlement will be null and void and of no
force and effect.

The Phoenix Companies, Inc. (NYSE: PNX) offers products and
services designed to meet financial needs in the middle income and
mass affluent markets.


PICOLLA VENNEZIA REST: Violated FLSA, "Caisaguano" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Segundo Caisaguano, Luis Guiracocha, Hilario Cardoso Huerta,
Gerardo Muevecela, And Jose Sarmiento, individually and in behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Picolla Vennezia Rest. Inc., Christopher Vlacich, And Ezio
Vlacich, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00633-ARR-RM (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
or underpaid overtime compensation, and such other relief
available by law, spread-of-hours wages, and other wages not
timely paid, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Piccola Venezia is a fine-dining Northern Italian restaurant
specializing in fresh home-made pastas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, N.Y. 10007 2036
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


PORSCHE CARS: Vehicles Violate Emission Tests, "Dunham" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph L. Dunham, individually and all others similarly-situated
vs. Porsche Cars North America, Inc., Case No. 16-cv-00794 (N.D.
Cal., February 17, 2016), seeks to compel the Defendant to remove
all illegal "defeat devices" installed in the vehicle emissions
control systems.

Porsche Cars North America, Inc., is a Delaware corporation with
its principal place of business in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Adam C. McCall, Esq.
       LEVI & KORSINKSY LLP
       445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
       Los Angeles, CA 90071
       Telephone: (213) 985-7290
       Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
       Email: amccall@zlk.com

            - and -

       LEVI & KORSINKSY LLP
       Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
       Courtney E. Maccarone, Esq.
       Stephanie A. Bartone, Esq.
       30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
       New York, NY 10004
       Telephone: (232) 363-7500
       Facsimile: (866) 367-6510
       E-mail: lfeldman@zlk.com
               cmaccarone@zlk.com
               sbartone@zlk.com


PVH CORP: Faces "Young" Suit Over Misleading Merchandise Label
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Young, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. PVH Corp., PVH Retail Stores, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01517-SVW-FFM (C.D. Cal. March , 2016), is an action for damages
as a result of the Defendants' deceptive and misleading labeling
and marketing of the merchandise it sells at its company-owned Van
Heusen Outlet stores.

The Defendants operate Van Heusen outlet stores, and advertise,
market, distribute, and sell clothing and clothing accessories in
California and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wayne S. Kreger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF WAYNE S. KREGER, P.A.
      Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 940
      Santa Monica, CA  90401
      Telephone (310) 917-1083
      Facsimile (310) 917-1001
      E-mail: wayne@kregerlaw.com

         - and -

      Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq.
      Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
      TYCKO & ZAVAREEI LLP
      2000 L Street, NW, Suite 808
      Washington, DC 20036
      Telephone (202) 973-0900
      Facsimile (202) 973-0950
      E-mail: hzavareei@tzlegal.com
              jkaliel@tzlegal.com

         - and -

      Jeffrey M. OSTROW, Esq.
      Scott A. Edelsberg, Esq.
      KOPELOWITZ OSTROW P.A.
      200 S.W. 1st Avenue, 12th Floor
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4100
      Facsimile: (954) 525-4300
      E-mail: ostrow@kolawyers.com
              edelsberg@kolawyers.com


QEP RESOURCES: Insurer Covered Settlement Amount in "Gagne" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
QEP Resources, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a significant portion of
the settlement amount in the Yannick Gagne lawsuit was covered by
QEP's insurers.

Injured parties filed the initial class action lawsuit in July
2013, and plaintiffs added QEP and other operators as defendants
in February 2014. Plaintiffs in this initial lawsuit and
subsequent related lawsuits sought to obtain compensation for
persons who sustained damages as a result of the July 6, 2013,
train derailment in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, which resulted in
substantial loss of life and property. The rail company that
transported the crude oil filed for bankruptcy protection
following the accident.

The plaintiffs contended that QEP, and other producer defendants,
sold Bakken crude oil to third-party purchasers in North Dakota,
who resold the oil and transported it on the derailed train.
Plaintiffs alleged that QEP and the producer defendants, among
other things, failed to ensure that the oil was adequately
processed to remove volatile gases and vapors, failed to take
reasonable care to ensure that the oil was properly labeled and
shipped and failed to identify the risk of the train derailment
and take action to prevent it. The plaintiffs sought unspecified
damages.

During the third quarter of 2015, QEP was served with additional
complaints in state and federal courts in Maine, Texas and
Illinois, each of which made similar claims to those in the
Yannick Gagne case.

In March 2015, many of the defendants, including QEP, reached a
conditional settlement agreement with trustees in both Canadian
and U.S. bankruptcy courts to resolve all claims, including all
claims raised in all related tort actions in Canada and the United
States. The conditions were met in early November 2015, and at
that time QEP paid a settlement amount (a significant portion of
which was covered by QEP's insurers) and received a full release
of all known and unknown claims. The settlement amount paid by QEP
was not material to QEP's financial position or results of
operations.

QEP Resources is a holding company with two principal
subsidiaries, QEP Energy Company and QEP Marketing Company, which
are engaged in two primary lines of business: (i) oil and gas
exploration and production (QEP Energy) and (ii) oil and gas
marketing, operation of a gas gathering system and an underground
gas storage facility and corporate activities (QEP Marketing and
Other).


QUEST NUTRITION: "Paramo" Suit Asserts Calif. Labor Law Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Paramo, as an individual and on behalf of the California
Labor Commissioner as the California Private Attorney General,
Plaintiff, v. Quest Nutrition LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company, Horizon Personnel Services, Inc., a California
corporation, Personnel Staffing Group, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company and DOES 1-50, inclusive, Defendants, Case
BC609306 (Cal. Sup., Los Angeles County, February 4, 2016), seeks
penalties, actual damages, costs and reasonable attorney's fees
pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Plaintiff worked for Quest Nutrition through agencies Horizon
Personnel Services, Inc. and Personnel Staffing Group, LLC and
alleges that they failed to provide itemized wage statements, rest
periods and final pay upon termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Armond M. Jackson, SBN 281547
      JACKSON LAW, APC
      2913 El Camino Real #342
      Tustin, CA 92782
      Tel: (949) 281-6857
      Fax: (949) 777-6218


REALD INC: "Garfield" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Sales Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------
Robert Garfield, on Behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. RealD Inc., Michael V. Lewis, Francis
Biondi Jr., Richard L. Grand-Jean, David Habiger, P. Gordon Hodge,
Sherry Lansing. Rizvi Traverse Management, LLC, Rhombus Cinema
Holdings, LLC, Rhombus Merger Sub, INC., Moelis Company. LLC, and
inclusive, and John Does 1-5, the Defendants, Case No. BC608S090
(Cal. Super Ct., County of Los Angeles, January 25, 2016) arose
from Defendants' actions in causing RealD to agree to be sold to
RealD's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") Michael V.
Lewis ("CEO Lewis" or "Mr. Lewis") and Rizvi for $11 per share in
cash, pursuant to a transaction which protects and advances the
interest of RealD's directors at the expense of RealD's public
shareholders (the "Sale Agreement").

The Plaintiff seeks to enjoin the Sale Agreement and seeks
compensatory and/or rescissory damages if the Sale Agreement is
consummated.

RealD is a global licensor of three-dimensional technologies. The
Company licenses its Cinema Systems to motion picture exhibits
that show 3D motion pictures and alternative 3D content. RealD
also offers active and passive eyewear and display and gaming
technologies to consumer electronics manufactures and content
producers and distributors. The Company organized under the laws
of Delaware, with its corporate headquarters located at 100 N.
Crescent Drive, Suite 200, Beverly Hills, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Blake Muir Harper, Esq.
          HULETT HARPER STEWART LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1500
          San Diego, CA 92101J
          Telephone: (619) 338 1133
          Facsimile: (619) 338 1139


REALOGY HOLDINGS: "Bararsani" Settlement Has Final Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that a court has granted final approval of the settlement in the
case, Bararsani v. Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company.

On November 15, 2012, plaintiff Ali Bararsani filed a putative
class action complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, California,
against Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage Company ("CBRBC")
alleging that CBRBC had misclassified current and former
affiliated sales associates as independent contractors when they
were actually employees.  The Company believes that CBRBC has
properly classified the sales associates as independent
contractors, would have significant defenses to the claims
asserted in this action and continues to operate in a manner
consistent with applicable law, and longstanding, widespread
industry practice for many decades.

"To avoid further litigation expense, we entered into a settlement
on May 5, 2015," the Company said.  "The settlement requires court
approval and was accrued for as of June 30, 2015. In entering into
this settlement, CBRBC made no admission of wrongdoing or
liability, and is not obligated to change its business structures.
The court granted final approval of the settlement in January
2016."

Realogy is a franchisor of residential real estate brokerages and
provider of outsourced employee relocation services and of title
and settlement services.


REALOGY HOLDINGS: Dismissal of "Strader" Case Sought
----------------------------------------------------
Realogy Holdings Corp. and Realogy Group LLC said in their Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case, Strader
and Hall v. PHH Corporation, et al. (U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California).

This is a purported class action brought by two California
residents against 15 defendants, including Realogy and certain of
its subsidiaries, PHH Corporation and PHH Home Loans, LLC (a joint
venture between Realogy and PHH), alleging violations of Section
8(a) of RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek to represent two subclasses
comprised of all persons in the United States who, since January
31, 2005, (1) obtained a RESPA-covered mortgage loan from either
(a) PHH Home Loans, LLC or one of its subsidiaries, or (b) one of
the mortgage services managed by PHH Corporation for other
lenders, and (2) paid a fee for title insurance or settlement
services to TRG or one of its subsidiaries.  Plaintiffs allege,
among other things, that PHH Home Loans, LLC operates in violation
of RESPA and that the other defendants violate RESPA by referring
business to one another under agreements or arrangements that are
prohibited by RESPA.  Plaintiffs seek treble damages and an award
of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements.

On February 5, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
case claiming that not only to do the claims lack merit, but they
are time-barred under RESPA's one-year statute of limitations. In
seeking a dismissal of the case, the defendants assert that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to "equitable tolling" or suspension
of the statute of limitations because they have failed to prove
that (1) they pursued their rights diligently and (2) an
extraordinary circumstance outside of their control caused their
delay in bringing the action.

Realogy is a franchisor of residential real estate brokerages and
provider of outsourced employee relocation services and of title
and settlement services.


RHAPSODY INTERNATIONAL: Musicians File Copyright Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that in a federal class action in
San Francisco, songwriters and musicians accuse Rhapsody
International of "egregious, continuous and ongoing" copyright
infringement through its music streaming service.


ROCKWELL MEDICAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Schokman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Rockwell Medical, Inc., Robert L. Chioini,
and Thomas E. Klema, Case No. 1:16-cv-01691  (S.D.N.Y., March 4,
2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading
statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts
about the Company's business, operations, and prospects.

Rockwell Medical, Inc. operates as an integrated biopharmaceutical
company in the United States and internationally, and offers
products and services for the treatment of end-stage renal
disease, chronic kidney disease, iron deficiency, secondary
hyperparathyroidism, and hemodialysis.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip Kim, Esq.
      Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
      THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
      275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 686-1060
      Facsimile: (212) 202-3827
      E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
              pkim@rosenlegal.com


SCOTT PROPERTIES: "Anderson" Suit to Recover Security Deposit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory T. Anderson, Plaintiff, v. Scott Properties Group Inc.,
Roberto Alonzo, RFGF INC. d/b/a Prime Building Services and Does
1-25, inclusive, Defendant, Case BC609933 (Cal. Super., February
10, 2016), seeks return of their full security deposits, statutory
interest on such amounts, statutory damages, exemplary damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief and disgorgement of money
wrongfully withheld/charged in violation of California Civil Code
Sec. 1950.5, et seq. and California Business and Professions Code
Sec. 17200.

Scott Properties Group Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of California, with principal place of business
in the City of Santa Monica, County of Los Angeles.

Anderson was a tenant of the Defendant. The latter failed to
refund the entirety of his security deposit and failed to make the
statutorily mandated disclosures, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander J. Perez, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ALEXANDER J. PEREZ
      58 West Portal Avenue, Suite 286
      San Francisco, CA 94127
      Tel: (415) 682-2540
      Fax: (415) 664-7111


SEACROSS TRADING: Faces "Gomez-Lopez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hector Gomez-Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Seacross Trading Company, Inc. and Yanxuan Guo, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00623-N (N.D. Tex., March 4, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an apparel and fashion company located in
10814 NW 33rd St Ste 100, Miami, Florida, United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      Robert L. Manteuffel
      Joshua A. Petersen
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
      6310 LBJ Freeway, Ste. 112
      Dallas, TX 75240
      Telephone: (972) 233-2264
      Facsimile: (972) 386-7610
      E-mail: zabogado@aol.com
              rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
              josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


SEAGATE TECH: Violated Cal UCL & FAL, "Ginsberg" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Ginsberg, Dudley Lane Dortch IV, Dennis Crawford, and David
Schechner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Seagate Technology LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00612-PSG (N.D. Cal., February 5,
2016), seeks to recover restitution, damages arising from
replacement costs, loss of data, and data recovery expenses; other
actual, consequential, and incidental damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and any other relief the
Court deems just and appropriate, as a result of Defendant's
repeated failure and inability to deliver non-defective hard
drives that conform to their express and implied warranties, in
violation of the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the
California False Advertising Law (FAL), breach of express and
implied warranties, unjust enrichment, and the New York Deceptive
Acts and Practices Statute.

Seagate Technology is a hard drive manufacturer and distributor
incorporated in Delaware and is based in Cupertino, California.
The Defendant, along with its subsidiaries, affiliates, and parent
corporations, is the second largest hard drive manufacturer in the
world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeff D. Friedman, Esq.
          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
          Berkeley, CA 94710
          Telephone: (510) 725 3000
          Facsimile: (510) 725 3001
          E-mail: jefff@hbsslaw.com
                  steve@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          Marc A. Goldich, Esq.
          SHELLER, P.C.
          1528 Walnut St., 4th Floor
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          mgoldich@sheller.com
          Telephone: (215) 790 7300
          Facsimile: (215) 546 0942


SELECT ENERGY: Fails to Pay Wages, "Aragon" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Aragon, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all similarly
situated persons v. Select Energy Services, L.L.C., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00563 (D. Colo., March 8, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Select is an oilfield service company providing well monitoring,
water hauling and water transfer services in Colorado and
nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brian D. Gonzales, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN D. GONZALES, PLLC
     123 North College Avenue, Suite 200
     Fort Collins, CO 80524
     Tel: (970) 212-4665
     Fax: (303) 539-9812
     Email: BGonzales@ColoradoWageLaw.com


SKANSAKA US BUILDING: "Ford" Suit Seeks Wages and OT
----------------------------------------------------
Richard Ford, Paul Jenkins, Ronald Gathers, Jerome Fraiser and
Derrick L Bonneau, Plaintiff, on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Skanska US Building, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00759 (D. S.C., March 9, 2016), seeks payment of wages
and overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act.

Defendant Skanska is a nationwide construction management and
development corporation.

Defendant Trident is a project planning and construction service
corporation based in Charleston, South Carolina.

Defendant STJVP is a joint venture partnership formed by and
between Skanska and Trident for the limited purpose of negotiating
and performing a construction contract with the City of Charleston
for the renovation and construction of the Gaillard Center Project
("Gaillard Project").

Defendant Horus is a construction corporation, with headquarters
in Tampa Florida that provides construction services throughout
the Southeast of the United States, including masonry work for
civic buildings.

Defendant GPM is a construction company that installs drywall,
stucco, metal framing, masonry and concrete in buildings with
headquarters in Tampa, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      1037-D Chuck Dawley Blvd, Suite 104
      Mount Pleasant, South Carolina 29464
      Tel: (800) 385-8160
      Fax: (800) 385-8160
      Email: Marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

           - and -

      Bruce E. Miller, Esq.
      BRUCE E. MILLER, P.A.
      147 Wappoo Creek Drive, Suite 603
      Charleston, SC 29412
      Tel: (843) 579-7373
      Fax: (843) 614-6417
      Email: bmiller@brucemillerlaw.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: Violated Cal UCL, "Reznick" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lori S. Reznick, Avram Kipper, Michelle Demoss, and George Demoss,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Southern California Gas Company, a
California Corporation; Sempra Energy, a California Corporation,
and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC608575 (Cal.
Super., Ct., County of Los Angeles, January 27, 2016), seeks to
recover damages, restitution, and equitable relief as a result of
Defendants' negligence resulting to Plaintiffs' damage to property
and bodily injury and other conditions injurious to health, in
violation of the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), the False
Advertising Law (FAL), and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA).

Since October 23. 2015, when the leak was first detected and
reported by SoCalGas, 88,192 tons of methane gas has been
discharged into the atmosphere in the Porter Ranch community and
adjacent areas, which has the equivalent adverse environmental
impact as burning 833.5 million gallons of gasoline, displacing
oxygen with carbon dioxide. By one estimate, the leak is producing
greenhouse gas emissions equivalent to the tailpipes of 2.3
million cars.

Southern California Gas Company engages in the distribution,
transmission, and storage of natural gas in California. As of
December 31, 2015, it had 5.9 million customer meters consisting
of approximately 5,621,600 residential; 252,900 commercial; 26,300
industrial; and 50 electric generation and wholesale meters. The
company's natural gas facilities included 2,962 miles of
transmission and storage pipelines; 50,097 miles of distribution
pipelines; and 47,514 miles of service pipelines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael E. Reznick, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. REZNICK
          283 Ocho Rios Way
          Oak Park, CA 91377-5540
          Telephone: (818) 888 5900
          Facsimile: (818)888 5947
          E-mail: reznagoura@aol.com
                  rezlawoffices@gmail.com


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS: "Suarez" Sues Over Gas Leaks
-----------------------------------------------------
Romeo Suarez, an individual, Josephine Suarez, an individual, on
their own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
and as private attorney general on behalf of the general public,
v. Southern California Gas Company, a California Corporation,
Sempra Energy a California Corporation, State Of California,
Division Of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources, a state agency,
Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC603540 (Cal.
Super., Los Angeles Country, January 29, 2016), seeks general,
compensatory and exemplary damages, injunctive relief,
disgorgement of profits, restitution, reasonable attorney's fees,
costs of suit, prejudgment interest and such other and further
relief as the Court may deem just for negligence, strict liability
for ultra-hazardous activities, public nuisance, trespass
negligence per se and unfair business practices in violation of
the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200, et seq.

Plaintiffs reside in Porter Ranch community of Los Angeles where a
gas well leaked at Defendants' Aliso Canyon storage-facility
releasing dangerous levels of toxic gases into the air.

Southern California Gas Company is a natural gas distribution
utility with Sempra Energy as its parent company. They are under
the supervision of the State Of California, Division of Oil, Gas
and Geothermal Resources.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mike Arias, Esq.
      Elise R. Sanguinetti, Esq.
      Arnold C. Wang, Esq.
      ARIAS SANGUINETTI STAHLE & TORRIJOS LLP
      6701 Center Drive West, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90045
      Tel: (310)844-9696
      Fax: (310)861-0168

           - and -

      Eileen Mungcal, Esq.
      Drew Warren, Esq.
      THE KILLINO FIRM, P.C.
      515 South Flower Street, Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90071
      Tel: (213) 623-2544
      Fax: (213) 623-3823


SOUTHSTAR FIRE: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Mauricio Londono, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Southstar Fire Protection Company d/b/a Northstar Fire
Protection of Texas, Inc., Mark D. Tate, and Ricky Jackson, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00159-RC (E.D. Tex., March 4, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
of more than 40 hours per workweek.

Southstar Fire Protection Company engineers, fabricates, and
installs fire sprinkler systems for structures, including
commercial buildings, government buildings, healthcare facilities,
high-rise condominiums and mixed-use projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Watkins, Esq.
      Jason E. Winford, Esq.
      JENKINS & WATKINS
      A Professional Corporation
      2626 Cole Avenue, Suite 200
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 378-6675
      Facsimile: (214) 378-6680
      E-mail: dwatkins@jenkinswatkins.com
              jwinford@jenkinswatkins.com


SPAIN INN: Faces "Sontay" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Report
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sergio Sontay, a/k/a Angel Sontay v. Spain Inn, Inc., Luis
Rodriguez, and Jose Rodriguez, Case No. 2:16-cv-01278-CCC-JBC
(D.N.J., March 6, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Piscatawy, Camden
County, New Jersey.

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


SPRINT CORP: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Drouillard" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shaina Drouillard, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sprint Corporation, the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-00624 (E.D.N.Y., February 5, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages, regular wages, and other relief,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York labor
Law (NYLL).

Sprint Corporation is a cell phone and wireless service provider
that has store locations in Kings County, Queens County, Nassau
County, and Suffolk County in the New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil H. Greenberg, Esq.
          NEIL H. GREENBERG & ASSOCIATES PC
          900 Merchants Concourse, Suite 314
          Westbury, NY 11590
          Telephone: (516) 228 5100


STEIN MART: "Gaudio" Suit Seeks to Recover Compensatory Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Wendi Gaudio, Plaintiff, v. STEIN MART, INC. and DOES 1 through
10, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC609187 (Cal. Super, February 3,
2016), seeks compensatory damages for failure to provide wage
statements, meal/rest periods, recovery of unpaid wages,
restitution of all monies due, statutory penalties, interest
accrued, costs of suit and reasonable attorneys' fees,
prejudgment, injunctive relief and such other and further relief
under the California Labor Code, Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders.

Plaintiff is a former employee of Stein Mart. He was employed as
an assistant store manager in Granada Hills and Carlsbad,
California Stein Mart stores. He works 50-60 hours per week
without overtime compensation, worked through meal/rest period and
did not receive accurate pay stubs, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Torey Joseph Favarote, Esq.
      GLEASON & FAVAROTE LLP
      835 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213) 452-0510
      Fax: (213) 452-0514
      Email: tfavarote@gleasonfavarote.com

             - and -

      Joseph R. Becerra, Esq.
      BECERRA LAW FIRM
      835 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 200
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: (213)542-8501
      Fax: (213)542-5556
      Email: jbecerra@jrbecerralaw.com


STRATAGRAPH NE: "McNutt" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Waylon McNutt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Stratagraph NE, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00249-LPL (W.D.
Penn., March 4, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
other damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stratagraph NE, Inc. is an oilfield service company that provides
mud logging and other related services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua P. Geist, Esq.
      GOODRICH & GEIST, P.C.
      3634 California Ave.
      Pittsburgh, PA 15212
      Telephone: (412) 766-1455
      Facsimile: (412) 766-0300
      E-mail: josh@goodrichandgeist.com

         - and -

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

      Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 877-8788
      Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
      E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


SUPERCOM LTD: Faces "Seiden" Securities Class Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Arthur Seiden, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Supercom Ltd., Arie Trabelsi, Tsviya
Trabelsi, Ordan Trabelsi, Barak Trabelsi and Simona Green, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00919 (S.D.N.Y., February 5, 2016),
seeks to pursue remedies against the Defendants and its most
senior executives under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

SuperCom, headquartered in Herzliya, Israel, provides traditional
and digital identity solutions to governments and private and
public organizations worldwide. The Company was founded in 1988 as
SuperCom, changed its name to Vuance Ltd. in 2007 and
changed its name back to SuperCom in March 2013.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Marc Gorrie, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  mgorrie@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

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


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: "Hedglin" Suit Removed to W.D. Washington
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Hedglin v. Swift Transportation
Co. of Arizona, LLC, Case No. 16-00002-04632-6, was removed from
the Pierce County Superior Court to the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Washington (Tacoma).  The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-05127-RJB to the proceeding.

Swift Transportation is a Phoenix, Arizona based publicly held
American truckload motor shipping carrier.  With over 16,000
trucks, the Company is one of the largest common carriers in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          India Lin Bodien, Esq.
          INDIA LIN BODIEN, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2522 N Proctor St., #387
          Tacoma, WA 98406-5338
          Telephone: (253) 212-7913
          E-mail: india@indialinbodienlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David W. Wiley, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Wells, Esq.
          Sheryl D.J. Willert, Esq.
          WILLIAMS KASTNER (SEA)
          Two Union Square
          601 Union St., Suite 4100
          Seattle, WA 98101
          Telephone: (206) 628-6600
          E-mail: dwiley@williamskastner.com
                  jwells@williamskastner.com
                  swillert@williamskastner.com


T/J INSPECTION: Faces "Lopez" Suit for Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Lopez and all others similarly-situated vs. T/J Inspection,
Inc., Case 5:16-cv-00148-M (W.D. Okla., February 17, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant T/J Inspection, Inc. is a servicing corporation
providing pipeline inspections to oil and gas companies throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Kevin S. Locke, Esq.
       TAYLOR, LUCAS, LOCKE & CORBIN
       1132 N. Broadway Dr.
       Oklahoma City, OK 73103
       Telephone: (405) 232-8585
       Facsimile: (405) 232-8588
       E-mail: kevin.locke@taylorlucas.com

            - and -

       Sharon J Carson, Esq.
       Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
       Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
       Camille Fundora, Esq.
       BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
       1622 Locust Street
       Philadelphia, PA 19103
       Telephone: (215) 875-3000
       Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
       E-mail: scarson@bm.net
              sschalman-bergen@bm.net
              apiazza@bm.net
              cfundora@bm.net


TAKATA CORP: Snyders Files Suit Over Defective Airbags
------------------------------------------------------
Snyder's Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Takata Corporation, TK Holdings, Inc.,
Honda Motor Co., Ltd., American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Bayerische
Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing
Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota
Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor Engineering &
Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda
Motor Of America, Inc., Mitsubishi Motors Corp., Mitsubishi Motors
North America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., Nissan North America,
Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Subaru Of America, Inc.,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-20625-FAM (W.D. Tex., San Antonio
Division, February 9, 2016), seeks enjoinment from further
distribution, sales and lease of vehicles with Takata airbags,
compensatory, exemplary and punitive remedies and damages,
statutory penalties, reasonable expenses, reasonable attorney's
fees, disgorgement of ill-gotten profits and such other relief
resulting from fraudulent concealment, and violation of the Lanham
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1501 et seq., State Deceptive Trade Practices
Statutes and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Defendants use Takata's ammonium nitrate propellant in its airbags
that tends to destabilize, causing irregular and dangerous
behavior ranging from inertness to violent combustion.

Takata Companies are the manufacturers, distributor and marketers
of airbags, while the rest are automotive manufacturers.

Snyder's Ltd. is an automotive parts recycler located at 24549
State Hwy. 95, Holland, Texas 76534. Snyder's purchased vehicles
installed with Takata airbags.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard B. Drubel, Esq.
      Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
      26 South Main Street
      Hanover, NH 03755
      Tel: (603) 643-9090
      Fax: (603) 643-9010
      Email: rdrubel@bsfllp.com
             jvoegele@bsfllp.com

          - and -

     Stephen N. Zack, Esq.
     Mark J. Heise, Esq.
     James Lee, Esq.
     Tyler Ulrich, Esq.
     100 SE Second Street, Suite 2800
     Miami, FL 33131, Esq.
     Tel: (305) 539-8400
     Fax: (305) 539-1307
     Email: szack@bsfllp.com
            mheise@bsfllp.com
            jlee@bsfllp.com
            tulrich@bsfllp.com

          - and -

     R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
     Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
     Frank Ulmer, Esq.
     MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
     12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
     P.O. Box 505
     Charleston, SC 29451
     Tel: (205) 238-6757
     Fax: (904) 239-5388
     Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
            smccluer@mccul1eymccluer.com
            fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com

          - and -

     Christopher J. Stucky
     Benjamin C. Fields
     STUCKY & FIELDS LLC
     214W. 18th St., Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Telephone: (816) 659-9970
     Facsimile: (816) 659-9969
     Email: chris@stuckyfields.com
            ben@stuckyfields.com


TARGA RESOURCES: Had Feb. 29 Deadline to Respond to Merger Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Blumberg and The Cliffside Enterprise, Derivatively and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Targa Resources Corp.,
Targa Resources GP LLC, Spartan Merger Sub LLC, Joe Bob Perkins,
Rene R. Joyce, James W. Whalen, Ruth I. Dreessen, Robert B. Evans
and Barry R. Pearl, and Targa Resources Partners, L.P., a Delaware
corporation, Case No. 2015-75481-7 (Tex. Dist. Ct., Harris County,
December 16, 2015), arises from TRC's efforts to acquire all of
the outstanding common units representing limited partner
interests in TRP not already owned by TRC and Merger Sub.

Targa said in its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended
Dec. 31, 2015, that on December 16, 2015, two purported
unitholders of TRP filed a putative class action and derivative
lawsuit challenging the TRC/TRP Merger against TRC, TRP (as a
nominal defendant), TRP GP, the members of the board of the
general partner and Merger Sub.  This lawsuit is styled
Leslie Blumberg et al. v. TRC Resources Corp., et al., Cause No.
2015-75481, in the District Court of Harris County, Texas, 234th
Judicial District.

"The State Court Plaintiffs allege several causes of action
challenging the TRC/TRP Merger," the Company said. "Generally, the
State Court Plaintiffs allege that (i) the members of the TRP GP
Board breached express and/or implied duties under the TRP
partnership agreement and (ii) TRC, our general partner, and
Merger Sub aided and abetted in these alleged breaches of duties.
The State Court Plaintiffs further allege, in general, that (a)
the premium offered to TRP's unitholders was inadequate, (b) the
TRC/TRP Merger did not include a collar to protect TRP unitholders
from decreases in TRC's stock price, (c) the TRP GP Board agreed
to contractual terms that allegedly may have dissuaded other
potential acquirers from seeking to acquire TRP (including the
"no-solicitation," "matching rights," and "termination fee"
provisions), (d) the process leading up to the TRC/TRP Merger was
unfair and (e) the TRP GP Board has conflicts of interest due to
TRC's control of our general partner."

Based on these allegations, the State Court Plaintiffs sought to
enjoin the State Court Defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the TRC/TRP Merger unless and until the TRP GP Board
adopted and implemented processes to obtain the best possible
terms for TRP common unitholders. The State Court Plaintiffs now
seek to have the TRC/TRP Merger rescinded and seek attorneys'
fees. The date to answer or otherwise respond to the State Court
Lawsuit was set for February 29, 2016.

Headquartered in Houston, Texas, TRP is a Delaware limited
partnership.  TRP is a leading provider of midstream natural gas
and natural gas liquid services in the United States.  TRC owns
general and limited partner interests, including distribution
rights, in TRP.  LLC is the general partner of TRP.  The
Individual Defendants are directors and officers of TRP.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Andrew M. Edison, Esq.
          EDISON, MCDOWELL & HETHERINGTON LLP
          Phoenix Tower
          3200 Southwest Freeway, Suite 2100
          Houston, TX 77027
          Telephone: (713) 337-5581
          Facsimile: (713) 337-8841
          E-mail: andrew.edison@emhllp.com

               - and -

          David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
          Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231-1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
          E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
                  EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Patrick W. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS TAYLOR LLP
          Campbell Centre II
          8150 North Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-8900
          Facsimile: (214) 239-8901

               - and -

          Willie C. Briscoe, Esq.
          THE BRISCOE LAW FIRM, PLLC
          8150 N. Central Expressway, Suite 1575
          Dallas, TX 75206
          Telephone: (214) 239-4568
          Facsimile: (281) 254-7789
          E-mail: wbriscoe@thebriscoelawfirm.com


TAXI AFFILIATION: "Freeman-Hargis" Sues Over Credit Card Charges
----------------------------------------------------------------
James Freeman-Hargis, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Taxi Affiliation Services LLC,
Defendant, Case 2016-CH-02519 (Ill. Cir., February 22, 2016),
seeks statutory damages, attorneys' fees, costs and interest and
other relief for violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act.

Plaintiff takes Yellow Cab Affiliation, Inc. and American United
Taxi Affiliation, Inc. taxis several times per week within the
City of Chicago and has been repeatedly charged an illegal $0.50
surcharge for using his credit card when paying for taxi rides.

Taxi Affiliation Services LLC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of
Yellow Group, Inc. with principal place of business at 3351 W.
Addison St., Chicago, IL 60618.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore B. Bell, Esq.
      Carl V. Malmstrom, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLC
      One South Dearborn St., Suite 2122
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: (312) 984-0000
      Fax: (312) 212-440 I
      Email: tbell@whafh.com
             malmstrom@whafh.com

           - and -

      Thomas H. Burt, Esq.
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 545-4600
      Fax: (212) 545-4653
           Email: burt@whafh.com


TESLA MOTORS: Plaintiffs' Appeal on Dismissal Order Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tesla Motors, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs have
appealed from the trial court's order dismissing their securities
class action lawsuit, and that appeal is pending.

In November 2013, a putative securities class action lawsuit was
filed against Tesla in U.S. District Court, Northern District of
California, alleging violations of, and seeking remedies pursuant
to, Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5. The complaint, made claims against Tesla and
our CEO, Elon Musk, sought damages and attorney's fees on the
basis of allegations that, among other things, Tesla and Mr. Musk
made false and/or misleading representations and omissions,
including with respect to the safety of Model S. This case was
brought on behalf of a putative class consisting of certain
persons who purchased Tesla's securities between August 19, 2013
and November 17, 2013. On September 26, 2014, the trial court,
upon the motion of Tesla and Mr. Musk, dismissed the complaint
with prejudice, and thereafter issued a formal written order to
that effect.  The plaintiffs have appealed from the trial court's
order, and that appeal is pending.

Tesla Motors, Inc. designs, develops, manufactures and sells high-
performance fully electric vehicles and energy storage products.


TIDE ENERGY: "Falk" Suit Seeks Wages and Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Steven Falk, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Tide Energy, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00272 (W.D. Wash., March 9, 2016), seeks payment of minimum
wage and overtime compensation for all hours worked over 40 each
workweek pursuant to Fair Labor Standards Act and Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant is a company that provides mineral title, surface title,
right of way title and acquisition, mineral leasing and surface
leasing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John R. Linkosky, Esq.
      Sara E. Linkosky, Esq.
      JOHN LINKOSKY & ASSOC.
      715 Washington Avenue
      Carnegie, PA 15106
      Tel: (412) 278-1280
      Fax: (412) 278-1282
      Email: linklaw@comcast.net


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Wants to Exit from Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
both sides in the SoCal Trump University class action in San Diego
cited intense media scrutiny at a hearing to decide whether the
lead plaintiff should be dismissed from the case.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel heard from lead plaintiff Tarla
Makaeff's attorneys Rachel Jensen and Jason Forge as to why their
client should be dismissed without prejudice in the six-year-long
case.  Makaeff asked to withdraw as class representative Feb. 8,
citing health problems, family loss and financial troubles in the
years since she filed the class action in April 2010. She
requested to retain her right to share in any class recovery by
way of a settlement or trial if the court grants her motion for
dismissal.

She sued Trump and Trump University claiming she had spent $60,000
for a classes and seminars she called little more than
infomercials.  The class was certified in 2014 to include all
people who purchased a Trump University three-day live workshop or
program in California, New York and Florida, and have not received
a full refund.

Jensen told the court the case has been fully vetted during the
discovery process and does not depend on Makaeff to move forward.
The other lead plaintiff representing the California class, Sonny
Low, would see the case through the end, Jensen said.

But Curiel pointed out that in opposition papers Trump argued
Makaeff should not be dismissed because much of the Republican
front-runner's evidence relied on what she said during her
deposition.

"They put most of their eggs in the Makaeff basket and didn't
pursue Mr. Low the same way," Curiel said.

The case is the second-oldest on Curiel's docket.

Jensen said Trump is "trying to distract the court" and argued the
plaintiffs, not Trump, would be prejudiced if the court grants
Makaeff's dismissal.

Addressing the elephant in the room, Jensen also explained why
Makaeff wanted to opt out now, on the eve of trial. Jensen said
she approached Trump's attorneys last fall to discuss allowing
Makaeff to be removed as lead plaintiff, and she says Trump
attorney Daniel Petrocelli initially thought the billionaire would
agree.

But Trump did not agree, leading Makaeff to file her motion to
withdraw.

Makaeff has been berated publicly by Trump -- most recently on the
GOP debate stage, Jensen said.

"This motion involves humans and human emotions. She's now been
derided and called out by name on the campaign trail, on Twitter
and on the GOP stage. Ms. Makaeff has been put through too much,"
Jensen said.

Petrocelli disputed the plaintiffs in the class would be
prejudiced, instead claiming Trump has been prejudiced "backwards
and forwards" throughout the years-long litigation.

Makaeff remained a constant throughout the case, Petrocelli
argued, calling her the pillar and centerpiece to the entire case
and their defense.

"Ms. Makaeff's deposition, evidence and claims were the pillar to
secure decisive court decisions in their favor. She is the
centerpiece to this litigation. All that's left for her to do is
to show up at trial and testify for one or two days," Petrocelli
said.

Petrocelli pointed fingers at Makaeff, saying her claims for
wanting to opt out over the media attention the case has received
do not hold up because she started the publicity when she gave
interviews after she filed the class action. Trump's counsel also
speculated that recent court filings by the plaintiffs may have
been handed over to the media, which has scrutinized and
questioned Trump much more frequently about Trump University in
recent weeks.

"I am very hopeful this will stop. We should not be litigating
this case on a public debate forum. Everyone I know knows I'm
involved in this case and based on what they read in the papers,
they don't have anything nice to say," Petrocelli said.

Curiel pushed back when Petrocelli commented the defense can never
get a fair trial when "the atmosphere is poisoned."

"There are also allegations that the poison is a two-way street,"
Curiel said.

Forge responded to Petrocelli by pointing out Trump moved to have
Makaeff dismissed from the case through summary judgment, a move
he said indicates Trump would not solely rely on Makaeff in his
defense.

"All we're talking about is liability. She could be the greatest
witness or the worst witness. Her withdrawal would not prejudice
that effort. I'm not going to pound on the lectern to make my
point," Forge said.

Petrocelli reiterated the motion for summary judgment was to throw
out the entire case.

Both sides have agreed to defer the trial until after the
Republican National Convention in July, where the presidential
nomination for the GOP will be announced. But Petrocelli told the
court if Trump gets the party's nomination, he would want the
trial to start after the election in November.

Curiel is expected to issue a written order on the matter within a
week.


TRUSTED MEDIA: Sold Subscriber Info to Brokers, N.Y. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Reader's Digest publisher
Trusted Media Brands sold its subscribers' information to list
brokers, which in turn sold the information to telemarketers and
other aggressive advertisers, fueling a barrage of junk mail and
telephone solicitations, a woman claims in a federal class action
in Manhattan.


UNITED STATES: Immigration Faces Class Suit Over Refugee Children
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kocian, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal class action in Austin, Texas claims that immigration
officials illegally deny the Special Immigrant Juvenile
applications of abused and neglected refugee children by saying
they are no longer children, though the Texas Family Code says
they are.

Deepak Budhathoki et al. sued the Department of Homeland Security,
DHS Director Jeh Johnson, Citizenship and Immigration Service
Director Leon Rodriguez, and USCIS San Antonio Field Office
Director Mario R. Ortiz on Tuesday, under the Administrative
Procedure Act.

David Walding, director of the Bernard Kohler Center, which
represents the plaintiffs, told Courthouse News the legal
violations stem from the federal government's efforts to deport
Central American children, who have fled to the United States in
increasing numbers due to violence from police and criminal gangs.

Immigration agencies have expedited children's cases since at
least 2014, Walding said.

The drive to deport child refugees reached ridiculous proportions
earlier this month when the Washington Post and Boston Globe
revealed that a senior official in the Department of Justice said
that 3- and 4-year-old children can learn enough immigration law
to represent themselves in court.

Jack H. Weil, a longtime immigration judge who now trains other
immigration judges, made the comments in a deposition for a
federal case in Seattle.

"I've taught immigration law literally to 3-year-olds and 4-year-
olds," Weil said. "It takes a lot of time. It takes a lot of
patience. They get it. It's not the most efficient, but it can be
done," according to the Washington Post.

To make sure there was no mistake, the Post said, citing Weil's
deposition, he repeated the claim: "I've told you I have trained
3-year-olds and 4-year-olds in immigration law. You can do a fair
hearing. It's going to take you a lot of time."

Weil's comments spurred outrage in Congress.

"I've never heard such a stupid, stupid thing," Sen. Patrick Leahy
said March 9, at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Leahy, of Vermont, is the senior Democrat on the committee and the
former head of it. He made the comment to U.S. Attorney General
Loretta Lynch, who was called to answer why children were being
forced to represent themselves in immigration courts.

Lynch dodged the question, according to The New York Times, and
after a few more unsuccessful attempts to get an answer, Leahy
gave up.

In the new case, filed March 8, the three named plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of "All unmarried persons whose applications for
Special Immigrant Juvenile (SIJ) status were denied or will be
denied by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
because the required Texas court dependency order ('Suit Affecting
the Parent-Child Relationship' or SAPCR) became final after the
person turned 18 years."

The plaintiffs, all under 21, obtained SAPCR orders from Texas
courts finding "they have been subjected to abandonment, abuse or
neglect by one or more parent; that reunification with one or more
parent is not viable based on that abandonment, abuse or neglect;
and that return to the plaintiff's country of origin is not in the
best interests of the child."

They cite a report from the U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, stating there were
53,515 unaccompanied minors in Office of Refugee Resettlement
custody in 2014, of whom 7,409 were released to sponsors in Texas.

The Office of Refugee Resettlement is the federal agency that
provides care to unaccompanied alien children. These children are
defined as a person younger than 18 who has no lawful status and
does not have a parent or guardian in the United States, or the
parent/guardian in the United States is unavailable to provide
care for the child.

A child is eligible for Special Immigrant Juvenile relief if he or
she is younger than 21, unmarried, and has been declared dependent
on a juvenile court in the United States (or has been committed by
a juvenile court to the custody of a state agency or a state-
appointed individual); has obtained a determination by the
juvenile court that reunification with one or both of his or her
parents is not viable due to abuse, neglect, abandonment, or a
similar basis found under State law; and has obtained a
determination by the juvenile court that it is not in his or her
best interest to be returned the child's country of origin or last
habitual residence.

Texas courts fall within the definition of a "juvenile court" when
deciding SAPCR matters, under the Texas Family Code. The federal
government explicitly defers findings concerning a child's welfare
to the expertise and judgment of the juvenile court, according to
the complaint.

The plaintiffs say that though they are older than 18, they are
children under Sec. 101.003 of the Texas Family Code. The code
defines a "child or minor" as an unmarried person under 18 years
of age, and/or "a person over 18 years of age for whom a person
may be obligated to pay child support."

The Texas Family Code also says that a Texas court can render a
SAPCR order seeking child support after a child's 18th birthday if
the child is enrolled in certain educational programs. Such an
order can be filed before or after the child's 18th birthday, and
the obligation to support a child continues "through the end of
the month in which the child graduates."

Budhathoki is a native of Nepal who was born in 1996. The Travis
County Court entered final SAPCR orders in 2015 and ordered $200
per month in child support to be paid by his father until the
completion of certain events, including high school.

Budhathoki filed a Special Immigrant Juvenile petition with the
USCIS district office in San Antonio on Jan. 27, 2015, which
denied it on Sept. 26. It claimed that the Texas court lacked
jurisdiction to enter the SAPCR because Budhathoki was no longer a
child.

Plaintiffs Clesmy Canales Gonzales and Ramon Soto Carias, both of
Honduras, had similar experiences. Each was granted final SAPCR
orders from Travis County ordering child support to be paid by
their fathers. They subsequently filed SIJ petitions with USCIS,
which rejected them, saying they were no longer children and the
Texas court lacked jurisdiction to enter the SAPCR.

Their attorneys say the defendants' reading of the Texas Family
Code is "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in
accordance with law, and/or in excess of USCIS' statutory
jurisdiction and authority."

"Defendants' narrow definition of the term 'child' is plainly
inconsistent with the Texas Family Code. Section 101.003(b) of the
Texas Family Code unambiguously defines a child as 'a person over
18 years of age for whom a person may be obligated to pay child
support.'

"Defendants' determination that the Texas court lacked
jurisdiction is also erroneous. USCIS has no authority to question
the jurisdiction of a Texas district court when there has been no
challenge to the court's jurisdiction."

Walding said the central issue in this case is that the federal
government claims, incorrectly, that Texas courts are not properly
interpreting the state family code.

The goal of the class action is to get USCIS to apply federal laws
correctly, and not undermine state court orders for children
seeking Special Immigrant Juvenile relief.

USCIS told Courthouse News it does not comment on pending
litigation.

The plaintiffs seek class certification, court costs and
declaratory judgment that a "child" includes a person over 18 for
whom a person may be obligated to pay child support; that Texas
courts have proper jurisdiction to enter support orders for the
class; that plaintiffs were "dependent" on a "juvenile court;" and
that USCIS' denial of the SIJ petitions was arbitrary and
capricious.

The Bernardo Kohler Center is an Austin nonprofit that helps
refugee children and victims of human trafficking. Their attorney
Tania Rosamond is co-counsel with Javier Maldonado, in San
Antonio.


UNIVERSAL ROOFING: "Battle" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
James Battle, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Universal Roofing Group, Inc., a
Florida profit corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00205-
GKS-TBS (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division, February 5, 2016), seeks
unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, attorney's fees costs,
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Universal Roofing Group has been in the construction business
since 1997.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
          Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN
          20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
          Orlando, FL 32801
          Telephone: (407)420 1414
          E-mail: bmazaheri@forthepeople.com
                  cthomas@forthepeople.com


UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA: "Furbush" Suit Seeks Damages Under FERPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Furbush and Logan Berkowitz, individually, and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
University of Central Florida Board of Trustees d/b/a University
of Central Florida (UCF), the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00204-
GAP-KRS (M.D. Fla., Orlando Division, February 5, 2016), seeks to
recover damages and costs against UCF for its failure to
inadequately safeguard and secure personal data including names,
social security numbers, student identification numbers, and other
sensitive identifiable student information, pursuant to the
Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

UCF is an American public research university in Orlando, Florida.
It is the largest university in the United States by undergraduate
enrollment, and the second largest by total enrollment. Founded in
1963, UCF opened with a mission of providing personnel to support
the U.S. space program at the Kennedy Space Center and Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station on Florida's Space Coast.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua H. Eggnatz, Esq.
          Michael Pascucci, Esq.
          EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
          5400 S. University Drive, Ste 413
          Davie, FL 33328
          Telephone: (954) 889 3359
          Facsimile: (954) 889 59513
          E-mail: Mpascucci@ELPLawyes.com
                  JEggnatz@ELPLawyes.com


VELOCITY VEHICLE: "Rivera" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Rivera, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Velocity Vehicle Group, Los Angeles Truck
Centers, LLC and Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case BC609050
(Cal. Super., February 4, 2016), seeks nominal damages, equitable
and declaratory relief, restitution, disgorgement of profits,
penalties, costs of suit and expenses incurred, attorneys' fees
and all such other and further relief under the California Labor
Code.

According to the complaint, Defendant required Plaintiff and
members of the Plaintiff Class to work off-the-clock without
overtime premium, failed to maintain a time-keeping system, failed
to pay the required minimum wage, failed to provide proper meal
and rest breaks, failed to pay all wages due upon termination of
his employment, and failed to reimburse business expenses such as
mileage, gasoline and cell-phone expenses.

Plaintiff was employed by Defendants as a sales-person at the
Defendants' Los Angeles facility. Velocity Vehicle Group & Los
Angeles Truck Centers, LLC are commercial trucking sales, service
and rental companies specializing in trucks, rentals and services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
      Kiley L. Grombacher, Esq.
      Cody R. Kennedy, Esq.
      MARLIN & SALTZMAN, LLP
      29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
      Agoura Hills, CA 91301
      Tel: (818) 991-8080
      Fax: (818) 991-8081
      Email: mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com
             kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
             ckennedy@marlinsaltzman.com

          - and -

     Frank A. Alfonso, Esq.
     FACTUM LAW GROUP
     776 E Green St Ste 210
     Pasadena, CA 91101
     Tel: (626) 356-2120
     Fax: (626) 356-2130
     Email: fa@factumlaw.com


VISA INC: Shifted Credit Card Liability to Merchants, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
B & R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market and Grove Liquors
LLC, Plaintiffs, on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Visa, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01150-DMR (N.D.
Cal., March 8, 2016), alleges that the major credit card issuing
firms and banks, through EMVCo, conspired to shift billions of
dollars in liability for fraudulent, faulty and otherwise rejected
consumer credit card transactions from themselves to the Class,
without consideration to, or meaningful recourse by, those
merchants.

The merchants allege they were unlawfully subjected to a Liability
Shift for the assessment of MasterCard, Visa, Discover, UnionPay,
JCB, and American Express credit and charge card chargebacks,
despite having purchased EMV-chip-compliant point of sale card
readers and having otherwise complied with the directives of the
Networks and Issuing Banks, during the period from October 1, 2015
until the anticompetitive acts cease.

The defendants are: Visa, Inc. and Visa USA, Inc.
(collectively, "Visa"), MasterCard International Incorporated
("MasterCard"), American Express  Company ("American Express") and
Discover Financial Services ("Discover") (collectively, the
"Networks"); Bank of America, N.A. ("BOA"), Barclays Bank Delaware
("Barclays"), Capital One Financial Corporation ("Capital One"),
Chase Bank USA, National Association ("Chase"), Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A., Citibank, N.A., PNC Bank, National Association
("PNC"), USAA Savings Bank ("USAA"), U.S. Bancorp National
Association ("US Bank") and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. ("Wells Fargo")
(collectively, the "Issuing Banks"); EMVCo, LLC ("EMVCo"); JCB Co.
Ltd ("JCB"); and UnionPay ("UnionPay").

Plaintiff B & R Supermarket, Inc., d/b/a Milam's Market, is a
Florida corporation that operates four retail grocery stores in
Miami-Dade County.

Plaintiff Grove Liquors LLC is a Florida limited liability company
operating a retail liquor store in Miami-Dade County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Patrick J. Coughli, Esq.
     David W. Mitchell, Esq.
     Alexandera S. Bernay, Esq.
     Carmen A. Medici, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Tel: 619/231-1058
     Fax: 619/231-7423

          - and -

     John W. Devine, Esq.
     Lawrence D. Goodman, Esq.
     Robert J. Kuntiz, Jr., Esq.
     DEVINE GOODMAN RASCO & WATTS-FITZGERALD, LLP
     2800 Ponce De Leon Blvd., Suite 1400
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Tel: 305-374-8200
     Fax: 305-374-8208

                           *     *     *

Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
merchants claim in a federal class action in San Francisco that
credit card companies are using the installation of new chip
readers on credit and debit cards to shift the liability of fraud
from financial institutions to merchants.

The class action, filed on March 8, in San Francisco Federal
Court, was Courthouse News' top download on March 9 and March 10.

Plaintiffs B&R Supermarket, Milam's Market and Grove Liquors claim
that most of the major financial institutions in the United
States, Japan and China have conspired to put the burden of
compensating consumers for credit card fraud onto merchants.

Some of the named defendants include Visa, Mastercard, Discover,
American Express, Wells Fargo, Capital One, U.S. Bancorp, Barclays
and more.

The case revolves around the introduction of the EMV chip, a
square chip that functions as a microprocessor and has rapidly
replaced the magnetic stripe as the means by which transactions
occur, according to the complaint.

Because the EMV chip has a more dynamic capacity to register
transactions, the chip is viewed by many to be a more secure means
of rendering payment, thereby curtailing credit card fraud.

In Europe, the EMV chip is the preferred method for credit card
transactions since the consumer is also required to enter a PIN
number.

While the chip's introduction in the U.S. market has been slower
to take hold, financial institutions have begun to ramp up
implementation.

According to the plaintiffs, merchants have borne the brunt of not
only the transition to the new system, by buying new chip readers
for their stores, but they must also pass an arduous certification
process before the financial institutions will agree to assume the
burden for fraud, the complaint says.

In the past, when consumers report misuse of their credit or debit
card, the financial institutions reimbursed the customer and bore
the onus for recouping the funds from fraudsters.

But the merchants say banks are now forcing the financial
liability on stores or requiring an extensive certification
process the plaintiffs claim is actually impossible to achieve.

"In what defendants dubbed a 'liability shift' the issuing banks
and the networks decreed that, as of Oct. 1, 2015, liability for
billions of dollars of card-present chargebacks would shift from
the issuing banks to the merchants, unless the merchants could
satisfy certain conditions -- conditions, it would turn out, which
were impossible for the class members to meet," the merchants say
in their 47-page complaint.

The merchants add that while large retail corporations had no
problems obtaining certification by the deadline, their experience
was different.

"The networks, the issuing banks and EMVCo knew from the outset -
and the class members are now learning - that the 'certification'
process would take years after the Oct. 1, 2015 liability shift
was imposed," the complaint says.

Meanwhile, the merchants say they are incurring expenses related
to fraud while awaiting word whether they had received the
necessary certification, despite having purchased new machines and
performed extensive training.

While Visa, Mastercard, American Express and the others operate
separately, the plaintiffs claim the owners of EMVCo operate
collectively and account for 100 percent of the general purpose
card network services market in violation of antitrust laws.

The merchants say the defendants have a history of anticompetitive
behavior, pointing to a 1998 case in which the U.S. Department of
Justice sued Visa and Mastercard claiming the joint governance of
the companies made it easier for them to form exclusionary rules
that harmed consumer welfare.

The merchants are suing for violations of the Sherman Antitrust
Act's prohibition on agreements to restrain trade and its
California equivalent, and unjust enrichment. They seek treble
damages.

The class is represented by Patrick Coughlin of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd in San Diego, who did not return a voicemail seeking
comment by press time.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Deleted Emission Evidence, Ex-Employee Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Krisher and Tali Arbel, writing for The Associated Press,
report that Volkswagen deleted documents and obstructed justice
after the U.S. Environmental Protection accused the company of
cheating on emissions tests, a former employee alleged in a
lawsuit.

Daniel Donovan says in a whistleblower case that he was wrongfully
fired Dec. 6, 2015 after refusing to participate in the deletions
and reporting them to a supervisor.  The lawsuit says that the
evidence deletion continued for three days after the Sept. 18
allegations from the EPA and despite a hold order from the Justice
Department.

VW has admitted that it programmed about 600,000 diesel-powered
cars in the U.S. to turn on pollution controls during EPA
treadmill tests and turn them off when the cars were on the road.
The agency alleges that the cars emit as much as 40 times the
allowable amount of nitrogen oxide, which can cause respiratory
problems.

The Justice Department is investigating potential criminal charges
against VW, and the company has been negotiating with the EPA and
California regulators to come up with repairs.  VW faces a March
24 deadline from a federal judge to reach agreement on the fixes.

Mr. Donovan worked as a technology employee with VW's general
counsel office who was responsible for electronic information
management in injury and product liability cases.  The lawsuit
said he was fired "because of his refusal to participate in a
course of action that would spoilate evidence and obstruct
justice" in the EPA and Justice Department probes.

But VW said on March 14 that Mr. Donovan's departure from the
company was not related to the diesel emissions issue. "We believe
his claim of wrongful termination is without merit," the company
said on March 14 in a statement.

Mr. Donovan, who worked in VW's Michigan offices, alleges that the
company's information technology department did not stop deleting
items until Sept. 21, so Donovan reported his concerns to his
supervisor, according to the March 8 lawsuit filed with the
Oakland County Circuit Court in Pontiac, Michigan.  It also says
the department was not preserving backup disks.

Mr. Donovan was fired because VW of America believed he was about
to report the deletions and obstruction of justice to the EPA,
Justice Department or the FBI, according to the complaint.  It was
unclear whether Donovan, of suburban Detroit, spoke with federal
investigators.  His attorney, Sam Morgan, would not comment and
said his client didn't want to speak about it either. A message
was left for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit.

The lawsuit alleges that the company violated the Michigan
Whistleblowers' protection act.

Obstruction of justice by destroying evidence can have serious
consequences for companies, but also can be difficult to
prosecute.  In 2002, accounting firm Arthur Andersen was found
guilty of shredding documents involving its auditing of defunct
energy firm Enron Corp. in order to thwart a federal accounting
probe.  The firm, which withered after the Enron case, was placed
on five years of probation and fined $500,000.  But its conviction
was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2005, which ruled the
judge's instructions to the jury were too vague for jurors to
determine correctly whether Andersen obstructed justice.

VW already faces the potential for over $20 billion in fines from
the government for the pollution violations, as well as hundreds
of class-action lawsuits from angry vehicle owners.  Before the
scandal, diesels accounted for about 25 percent of the company's
U.S. sales.

The scandal already has cost Volkswagen's CEO his job, and last
week, VW ousted its top U.S. executive.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Browne" Suit Over Defective Brakes
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Browne, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and
Volkswagen AG, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02950 (N.D. Ill.,
March 8, 2016), seeks damages for the defective brakes installed
in at least these models of Volkswagen vehicles:

     2015-16 VW Jetta;
     2015-2016 VW Beetle;
     2015-2016 VW Golf; and
     2015-2016 VW Passat

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Cates, Esq.
     CATES MAHONEY, LLC
     216 West Pointe Drive, Suite A
     Swansea, IL 62226
     Tel: 618-277-3644
     Fax: 618-277-7882
     Email: dcates@cateslaw.com

          - and -

     Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
     GILMAN LAW LLP
     8951 Bonita Beach Road, S.E. Suite 525
     Bonita Springs, FL 34135
     Tel: (239) 221-8301
     Email: kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Institutional Investors File Emissions Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
David McHugh, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
institutional investors are suing Volkswagen for 3.25 billion
euros ($3.57 billion) in damages over the company's handling of
its emissions scandal, which has so far seen the share price fall
by about a third.

Attorney Andreas Tilp said on March 15 that the suit in the German
regional court in Braunschweig was joined by investors from 14
countries, including the U.S., Australia, Germany, Canada, the
Netherlands, and the U.K. Among the plaintiffs is CalPERS, the
giant pension fund for government employees in California.

Volkswagen had no immediate comment on the suit, but has said that
shareholder lawsuits in Germany are without merit.

Tilp has already filed a suit on behalf of individual investors,
claiming Volkswagen didn't inform investors in a timely way about
the troubles with diesel cars.

Marc Schiefer, an attorney with Mr. Tilp's firm, said Volkswagen
did not live up to legal requirements that it inform investors of
troubles with diesel engines between 2008 and 2015.  "They should
have told the markets that something was not working with their
diesel technology," Mr. Schiefer said.

German securities law requires that companies tell investors when
they have information that could substantially affect the share
price.  If the negative information had been made public,
investors could have either decided not to buy the stock or would
have been able to purchase it at a lower price.

Volkswagen is being sued by U.S. authorities over 600,000 cars
equipped with software that defeated diesel emissions tests.  The
company has apologized and said it will fix the cars.  Some 11
million cars worldwide are affected.

The company's preference shares have fallen 33 percent since Sept.
17, the day before the scandal became public, and were trading at
112.80 euros per share on March 15.

So far, Volkswagen has set aside 6.7 billion euros ($7.4 billion)
to cover the cost of recalling cars, but analysts say the final
bill from lawsuits and lost sales could be several times higher.

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

Volkswagen on March 2 issued a statement saying that they had met
their disclosure obligations under German law.  That statement
said management expected the diesel problem would affect only a
manageable number of vehicles and that any fines would be in the
low two- or three-digit millions of dollars.  The company only
found out otherwise, it said, on Sept. 18, when the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency announced it had found the engines
to be in violation.  The company said it then "promptly" announced
the problem on Sept. 22.


VOLUME SERVICES: "Allchin" FLSA Suit Goes to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Allchin and David Foster, individuals, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Volume Services, Inc. d/b/a
Centerplate and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-00488-DMS-
MDD 9 (S.D. Cal., February 23, 2016) is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was originally filed in the Superior Court of California,
County of Sacramento, Case No. 34-2015-00175521, and on April 24,
2015, removed by the Defendant to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of California.  The clerk of court assigned Case
No. 2:15-cv-00886.

At the behest of Volume Services, the case was transferred to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California on
February 23, 2016.

Judge Dana M. Sabraw and Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin in
San Diego are assigned to the case.

Judge Troy L. Nunley of the Eastern District of California court
entered the Transfer order.  He also a motion by the Plaintiffs to
remand the case.  He did not rule on the Defendant' Motions to
Dismiss and/or to Strike.

Volume Services, Inc. provides food, catering and banquet services
for a host of various events and in different venues throughout
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lawrence J. Salisbury, Esq.
      Andrew M. Greene, Esq.
      SALISBURY LEGAL CORP.
      656 51h Ave., Suite R
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 241-2760
      E-mail: lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com
              agreene@salisburylegal.com

         - and -

      Mark A. Redmond, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MARK A. REDMOND
      7311 Greenhaven Dr., Suite 268
      Sacramento, CA 95831
      Telephone: (916) 444-8240
      Facsimile: (916) 444-8242
      E-mail: nrr@markredmondlaw.com

Volume Services, Inc., doing business as Centerplate, is
represented by:

      Scott J Witlin, Esq.
      Steve Lou Hernandez, Esq.
      Barnes & Thornburg, LLP
      2029 Century Park East, Suite 300
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Tel: (310) 284-3777
      Fax: (310) 284-3894
      E-mail: scott.witlin@btlaw.com
              stevelouesq@yahoo.com


WCC ENERGY: Faces "Hurt" Suit for Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Blake Hurt, individually and all others similarly-
situated vs. WCC Energy, LLC and Ronald Worden, Case No.7:16-CV-49
(W.D. Tex., February 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

WCC Energy, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in Anson, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

       Josh Borsellino, Esq.
       BORSELLINO, P.C.
       1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
       Fort Worth, Texas 76102
       Tel.: 817.908.9861
       Facsimile: 817.394.2412
       E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


WEST VA AMERICAN: Wants Chemical Spill Class Action Trial Delayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that West Virginia American Water Co.
is asking a federal judge to delay a class-action lawsuit over a
chemical spill that tainted tap water for 300,000 people in 2014.

According to The Charleston Gazette-Mail, in a court filing on
March 10, attorneys for the water company asked U.S. District
Judge John T. Copenhaver Jr. to postpone the trial for 60 days,
from its current starting date of July 12 until Sept. 12.

The attorneys say they need more time to complete depositions of
potential witnesses in the case.

The lawsuit pits affected residents and businesses against West
Virginia American Water, its parent company and Eastman Chemical.
The lawsuit says the utility could have prevented Freedom
Industries from seeping chemicals into the Elk River, causing a
tap-water ban for the utility's customers for days.


WHITE WAY THREADING: Faces "Gurung" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sidartha Gurung, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. White Way Threading LLC, Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-01795 (S.D.N.Y., March 9, 2016), seeks payment of overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 each workweek pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant was engaged in the beauty salon business in the New-
York Tri State Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abdul Hassan, Esq.
      ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
      215-28 Hillside Avenue
      Queens Village, NY 11427
      Tel: 718-740-1000
      Fax: 718-355-9668
      Email: abdul@abdulhassan.com


WHOLE FOODS: Judge Suggests Another Round of Mediation
------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Whole Foods Market on March 10, tried to swat down two class
actions in San Francisco claiming it falsely labels its baked
goods as "all natural."

Lead plaintiff Mary Garrison filed two class actions against the
grocery store chain, in 2013 and 2014, saying she and other
customers paid premium prices for "all natural" cookies, muffins
and other goods that contained synthetic ingredients.

In a March 10 hearing on Whole Foods' request for summary
judgment, its attorneys said the plaintiffs failed to show how
much they allegedly overpaid for the "all natural" products.
"The plaintiffs must satisfy all elements of their claims,
including damages," Whole Foods attorney Jay Connolly said.
"There's no evidence of a price premium attributable to the all-
natural label."

But class attorney Molly DeSario said the evidence can be found in
her clients' deposition testimony: that they paid $3 to $6 more,
or 10 to 20 percent more, for products they believed contained
only natural ingredients.

Class co-counsel Matthew Bainer said the plaintiffs' expert
developed a method to calculate the "inherent value" of the all-
natural label.

Bainer rebuffed Whole Foods' contention that the lawsuits should
be thrown out because the plaintiffs did not take the extra,
expensive step of computing the damages at an early stage in the
litigation. No motions for class certification have been filed
yet.

"We didn't pay our expert an extra $50,000 to calculate the
amount, and the defendants want to rake us over the coals for
that," Bainer told U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria.

Whole Foods attorney Joseph Orzano said the mere claim that they
would not have paid as much for a product is insufficient basis
for litigation.

"They have to at least show there was a price premium," Orzano
said.

Whole Foods' attorneys cited a 2011 ruling from the Southern
District of New York, Weiner v. Snapple, which granted summary
judgment to the defendants, as the plaintiffs had only "vague
recollections" of where and when they bought "all natural"-labeled
beverages and how much they paid for them.

Chhabria drew a distinction between that ruling and this case,
saying Whole Foods has records on how much it charged for the
products in question and how much consumers pay for comparable
products that are not labeled "all natural."

The judge gave mixed signals on how he might rule.

Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiffs,
Chhabria said, testimony that the plaintiffs overpaid for the
baked goods was sufficient to establish standing.

But whether they can establish damages they suffered as a result
of that injury is another question.

"I've never seen an opposition to summary judgment be successful
when saying, 'I don't have the evidence now, but we will have
it,'" Chhabria said.

DeSario said her clients' expert has developed a "range" on the
value of the all-natural label and her clients testified about the
exact amount they overpaid for the products.

The two sides also squabbled over whether the plaintiffs sued the
correct Whole Foods entities.

Whole Foods' attorneys said the plaintiffs improperly sued the
"bakehouse," which sells goods at cost to distributors that supply
the stores with products.

Connolly said there is no evidence the bakehouse sold those
products at a premium price or profited from their sale and
distribution.

"The fact that one unit in the company isn't profiting, I don't
see how that's relevant," Chhabria replied.

DeSario cited a slew of cases, including class actions against
carmakers for auto defects, showing that manufacturers can be held
liable for warranty and fraud claims.

"The manufacturer put the 'all natural' claim on the label,"
DeSario said. "You sue the manufacturer, not the dealership, for
misrepresentation."

Chhabria ended the hearing after about two hours, recommended the
parties take a second stab at mediation before he rules on the
request for summary judgment.

The case captioned, MARY GARRISON, and GRACE GARRISON,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, V. WHOLE FOODS MARKET GROUP, INC., Defendant., Case
No. 3:13-CV-05222 VC (N.D. Cal.)


WINGSPORT LP: Sued in Oklahoma Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chastity Turner and Carlie Cook, on behalf of themselves, and all
other persons similarly situated, known and unknown v. Wingsport,
LP d/b/a Buffalo Wild Wings, Case No. 5:16-cv-00219-L (W.D. OK.,
March 4, 20160, is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wingsport, LP owns and operates approximately five franchised
Buffalo Wild Wings ("BWW") restaurants in Oklahoma and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amber L. Hurst, Esq.
      HAMMONS, GOWENS, HURST & ASSOCIATES
      325 Dean A. McGee Ave.
      Oklahoma City, OK 73102
      Telephone: (405) 235-6100
      Facsimile: (405) 235-6100
      E-mail: amberh@hammonslaw.com

         - and -

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


WOLF HALDENSTEIN: Obtains Dismissal of Class Member's Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
A New York law firm that handled federal securities litigation on
behalf of stockholders in a now-defunct auto parts manufacturer
has succeeded in obtaining dismissal of a suit lodged by a New
Jersey class member claiming legal malpractice.

The Appellate Division on March 8 found a lack of jurisdiction
over claims against Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz stemming
from the class action, which settled in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan.

The plaintiff alleges that she recovered about one-tenth of the
$250,000 she expected to receive as a claimant -- and would have
opted out of the settlement if she had been properly advised.

Wolf Haldenstein -- which is based in New York and has branches in
Chicago and San Diego -- filed the class suit in May 2005 on
behalf of various groups of stock- and bondholders with a stake in
Collins & Aikman, an auto parts maker.

The company's collapse resulted in bankruptcy as well as civil
litigation by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, in
addition to criminal inquiries, according to Wolf Haldenstein
attorney Thomas Burt and SEC releases.

The class action, Egleston v. Heartland Indus. Partners L.P., was
filed in the Southern District of New York and later transferred
to the Eastern District of Michigan, where it was consolidated
with related cases.

A $12.26 million settlement was forged in February 2010, and a
claims notice was later mailed, noting that class counsel
estimated average recovery for Egleston class members at 28 cents
per share of Collins & Aikman common stock, according to the
decision.

After the notice went out, one of the class members, Christine
Suarez Loures of New Jersey, hired a lawyer, who wrote to class
counsel saying that Ms. Loures decided not to opt out of the
settlement based on the estimated recovery, the decision stated.
The settlement received final approval in June 2010, and the court
awarded fees to Wolf Haldenstein.

The district court order retained jurisdiction over the matter and
ordered a distribution of the settlement funds.

Rather than 28 cents per share, Ms. Loures' recovery amounted to 3
cents per share, according to the decision.

Her lawyer, Michael Kasanoff, said she expected to recover roughly
$250,000 and ended up with $27,000.

Ms. Loures lodged an action in Monmouth County Superior Court
asserting claims of legal malpractice, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

Wolf Haldenstein's motion to dismiss based on lack of jurisdiction
failed at the trial court level: Superior Court Judge Joseph Quinn
found that he had personal as well as subject matter jurisdiction.


WYNN RESORTS: Continues to Pool Tips, Workers Complain
------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that in
defiance of law and a court order, Wynn Resorts continues forcing
dealers to share tips with untipped workers, dozens of workers say
in a federal class action in Las Vegas.

John Doe dealers say Wynn Resorts still forces them to share their
tips with untipped workers, despite a Feb. 23 ruling from the
Ninth Circuit that reversed and remanded a ruling that favored
restaurant trade associations.

In the new lawsuit, of March 4, the workers say they chose John
Doe as lead plaintiff to protect them "from the notoriety and
presumptive harassment that one of them would face" were his name
revealed. They say there are at least 500 potential class members
working at the Wynn and Encore casinos in Las Vegas.

In the 7-page lawsuit, with 118 pages of signed consents to
joinder, the workers say Wynn Resorts forces them to share their
tips to increase the wages of workers who do not receive tips, in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Wynn "effectively failed to pay any wages whatsoever . . . through
the taking of a portion of the plaintiffs' tips an amount far in
excess of the amount it nominally pays" the dealers with Wynn
Resorts' own money, the dealers say in the complaint.

The Fair Labor Standards Act once allowed such tip-pooling, but as
of May 5, 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor revised its
regulations and banned the practice if it forces workers to
subsidize the wages of those who do not get tips. Employers still
can pool tips among workers who customarily receive tips.

Wynn Resorts, Steve Wynn and former Wynn Resorts President and COO
Andrew Pascal were defendants in the previous class action, which
the Ninth Circuit consolidated with a complaint from the Oregon
Restaurant and Lodging Association et al., against the U.S.
Department of Labor.

The Ninth Circuit on Feb. 23 reversed a district court ruling that
had invalidated changes the Labor Department made to its tip-pool
regulations. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the Labor Department was
within its regulatory authority when it changed its tip-pooling
regulation and stopped employers from forcing workers to share
their tips with untipped workers.

Though Wynn and Wynn Resorts were defendants in that class action,
which had virtually identical claims, the workers say in the new
lawsuit that Wynn refuses to recognize their class claims.  They
seek relief for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, plus
costs, attorney's fees and any other relief the court decides is
warranted.

Their attorney Leon Greenberg told Courthouse News, "From an
economic perspective, the casino is not really paying $7.25 an
hour. The casino has taken even more from each dealer."

Through its tip-pool policy, Greenberg estimated Wynn Resorts
annually takes between $15,000 and $20,000 from each of the about
500 plaintiff class dealers who work table games on the casino
floor, including craps and roulette. Poker room dealers are not
part of the class action.

Greenberg said floor supervisors get money from the tip pool, but
they don't customarily receive tips.

Wynn Resorts had not returned an emailed request for comment by
March 8, night and could not be reached by telephone.


Y & Y PROPERTIES: Faces "Herrera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bartolome Herrera, and other similarly-situated individuals v. Y &
Y Properties, Inc., F.R. Aleman And Associates, Inc., and Ivette
A. Aleman, Case No. 1:16-cv-20801-KMW (S.D. Fla., March 4, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Y & Y Properties, Inc. owns and operates a real state, and
property management company in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

F.R. Aleman And Associates, Inc. is a consulting firm specializing
in planning, design and construction oversight of public
infrastructure projects.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
      ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
      9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
      Miami, FL 33156
      Telephone: (305) 446-1500
      Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
      E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


YELP INC: Dismissal of Securities Action Under Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have appealed a judgment
dismissing their first amended class action complaint to the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

"In August 2014, two putative class action lawsuits alleging
violations of federal securities laws were filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, naming as
defendants us and certain of our officers," the Company said. "The
lawsuits allege violations of the Exchange Act by us and our
officers for allegedly making materially false and misleading
statements regarding our business and operations between October
29, 2013 and April 3, 2014. These cases were subsequently
consolidated and, in January 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint seeking unspecified monetary damages and
other relief."

"Following the court's dismissal of the consolidated complaint on
April 21, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint on
May 21, 2015. On November 24, 2015, the court dismissed the first
amended complaint with prejudice, and entered judgment in our
favor on December 28, 2015. The plaintiffs have appealed this
judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit."

Yelp is a local business review site.


YELP INC: $550,000 Deal Reached in Former Eat24 Employees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. has reached a preliminary agreement to settle a class
action lawsuit by former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County, Yelp said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

"On April 23, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit was filed by
former Eat24 employees in the Superior Court of California for San
Francisco County, naming as defendants us and Eat24," the Company
said.  "The lawsuit asserts that we failed to permit meal and rest
periods for certain current and former employees working as Eat24
customer support specialists, and alleges violations of the
California Labor Code, applicable Industrial Welfare Commission
Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions Code. The
plaintiffs seek monetary damages in an unspecified amount and
injunctive relief."

"On May 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act. In January 2016, we reached a
preliminary agreement to settle this matter for payments in the
aggregate amount of up to approximately $550,000. Once finalized,
the settlement will be subject to court approval."

Yelp is a local business review site.


YELP INC: Has $200,000 Deal in Former Eat24 Sales Employee's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Yelp Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 24, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has reached a
preliminary agreement to settle a former Eat24 sales employee's
class action lawsuit.

On June 24, 2015, a former Eat24 sales employee filed a lawsuit,
on behalf of herself and a putative class of current and former
Eat24 sales employees, against Eat24 in the Superior Court of
California for San Francisco County. The lawsuit alleges that
Eat24 failed to pay required wages, including overtime wages,
allow meal and rest periods and maintain proper records, and
asserts causes of action under the California Labor Code,
applicable Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders and the
California Business and Professions Code. The plaintiff seeks
monetary damages and penalties in unspecified amounts, as well as
injunctive relief.

On August 3, 2015, the plaintiff filed a first amended complaint
asserting an additional cause of action for penalties under the
Private Attorneys General Act.

"In January 2016, we reached a preliminary agreement to settle
this matter for payments in the aggregate amount of up to
approximately $200,000. Once finalized, the settlement will be
subject to court approval," Yelp said.

Yelp is a local business review site.


                            *********

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  * * *