CAR_Public/160318.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Friday, March 18, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 56


                            Headlines


ADVANCE INTERACTIVE: Wins Summary Judgment in Wages Suit
AFFYMETRIX INC: Faces "Merola" Suit Over Thermo Fisher Merger
ALL STAR SPORTS BAR: "Blue" SeeKs Back Pay, Unpaid Overtime Wages
AM PIZZA: "Tigges" Class Action Moved to Mass. Dist. Ct.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement Deal in "Kaufman" Finally Approved

AMGEN INC: Denial of Zhang Class Cert. Bid Upheld
ANADIGICS INC: "Zalewski" Class Suit Removed to D. Del.
ANTHEM INC: "Hunter" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2617
ANTHEM INC: "West" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2617
APOLLO EDUCATION: Shares Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims

APOLLO EDUCATION: Robbins Geller File Securities Class Action
APPRISS INC: Faces "Greenwald" Class Suit in D. N.J.
ARCHON INC: Judge Tosses Plaintiff's Bid for Default Judgment
AROMA BAKERY: Owners Not Liable for Atty Fees, App. Ct. Says
ARTISAN & TRUCKERS: Faces "Fischetti" Suit in Florida

ASCENA RETAIL GROUP: "Morrow" Sues Over Deceptive Pricing
AT&T: Averts Class Action Over "Unlimited" Wireless Data
AT&T MOBILITY: Bid to Compel Arbitration of "Roberts" Suit Okayed
AUSTRALIA: Night Club Bosses Mull Suit Over New Lockout Laws
BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Intends to Defend Class Action

BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Faces Second Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
BENCO DENTAL: "Prato" Files Antitrust Class Action in Wash. Ct.
BLACKHAWK ESTATES: Illegally Increases Rent, Action Claims
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Lesieur" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to N.J.
BODY CONTOUR CENTERS: "Bazell" Suit seeks Overtime Pay

BURCH EQUIPMENT: E.D.N.C. Certifies "Velazquez" as Class Suit
CALIFORNIA: July 18 Case Conference in Sex Offenders' Suit
CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Ruling to Impact Class Action Litigation
CANADA: Newfoundland & Labrador Settlement Talks Stall
CANADA: Significant Progress Made in Labrador Residential Suit

CAPITAL BUILDING: Workers Await Approval of Wage Theft Settlement
CAREER EDUCATION: CEC, EduTrek Fail in Bid to Dismiss "Fitzhenry"
CELTIC BANK: "Scoma" Sues Over Illegal Phone Calls
CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Suit v Lessor Survives Dismissal Bid
CHINA MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted

CHINESE DAILY: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Denial in HAMP MDL
CLEAR WIRELESS: Class in "Lindsay" Suit Decertified
CLIF BAR: Faces "Perieff" Fraud Suit in California Superior Court
CLIFFS NATURAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Unfair Exchange Offer
COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Won't Allow Interlocutory Review

COLE HAAN: Faces "Chin" Class Suit in California Superior Court
COMCAST CORP: "Brown" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: 2017 Trial Set in Long-Term Care Suit
COOK COUNTY, IL: App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of "Marshall" Suit
COVINGTON SPECIALTY: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.

CUSTOMER CREDIT: "Dietz" FLSA Suit Moved to West. Dist. Okla.
CYPRESS SECURITY: "Rita" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. Ct.
DETROIT, MI: Must Respond to Discovery, Judge Says
DIAMOND FOODS: "McGee" Suit Over Trans Fat Popcorn Rejected
DIRECTV LLC: "Brown" Sues Over Unauthorized Automated Calls

DOLGENCORP LLC: "Hill" Suit Moved to Vt. Dist. Ct.
EASE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Quigley" Suit in California Superior Court
ENCORE RECEIVABLE: "Diaz" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: "Usry" Suit Moved to S.D. Ga.
EVEREST UNIVERSITY: Significant Problems Remain Despite Rescue

EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Hickman" Suit Moved to Ariz. Dist. Ct.
EXPERIAN N.A.: "Switaj" Suit Moved to Cal. C.D. Ct.
FEDERAL HOME LOAN: Alleges Tax Fraud in Ill., "Long" Suit Says
FIRST ACCEPTANCE: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Fla. S.D. Ct.
FLEET LEASE: "Labidou" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Ct.

FLINT, MI: Gov. Snyder Among Defendants in Water Crisis Suit
FLOWER FOODS: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FORWARD SUNSET: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Insurance Practice
FRANK'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FTS USA: 6th Cir. Remands "Monroe" Suit to Recalculate Damages

GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Trial Set to Start
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: AIMCo Recovers USD219 Million for Investors
GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action, Two Suits Still Pending
GGNSC HOLDINGS: Arkansas High Court Rules in Favor of Arbitration
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Averts Avandia No-Injury Class Action

GOOGLE INC: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, "Weiss" Suit Says
GREEN CAB: Judge Slashed Attorneys' Fees
GROVE PLUMBING: Faces "Wesselhoff" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
GUAM: 1st Green to Join Class Action Over Smart Meters
GUAM: Adelup Challenges Court Order in Tax Refunds Case

GUERVA USA: Faces Yesh Suit Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
HAGAR TOWNSHIP: Judge Narrows Claims in "Krawczyk" Suit
HALSTED FINANCIAL: "Holloway" Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
HAMILTON CO: "Zako" FLSA Suit Moved to Nev. Dist. Ct.
HAYNES TRUCKING: Appeal in Truck Drivers' Case Tossed

HERMES: Sales Associates File Class Action Over Unpaid Commission
HOLDER PROPERTIES: ADESSO Suit Removed to S.C. Dist. Ct.
HOME BOX OFFICE: "Lake" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2369
HOME LOAN SERVICING: "Oliveira" Suit Transferred to Fla. S.D. Ct.
HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No OT Pay for Underwriters, 6th Cir. Says

INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: "Taylor" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
INDUSTRIAL STAFFING: "Cody" Settlement Wins Final Approval
JC CHRISTENSEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Watson" Suit Claims
JOE TEX: Faces "Crump" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
KNUDSEN & SONS: Plaintiff Successful in His Bid to Remand Suit

KRAFT FOODS: Settlement in Wage & Hour Suit Has Initial OK
LAGO EXPRESS: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
LAWRENCE D. BRUDY: Judge Denies Bid for Conditional Certification
LG ELECTRONICS: "Hlavaj" Suit Moved to Cal. C.D. Ct.
LIFELOCK INC: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to Cal. S.D. Ct.

LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Ramsey" ERISA Suit Moved to Ark. E.D. Ct.
LRI HOLDINGS: Faces "Elchert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAC PRODUCTS: Faces "Rodas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Faces "Gormley" Securities Class Suit
MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: Settlement Okayed; Fees Granted in Part
MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: 9th Cir. Dismisses Untimely Appeal
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Flynn"
MATHESON TRI-GAS: $1,300,000 "Ambriz" Settlement Approved
MDL 1203: Denial of Kennedy Estate's Claim Affirmed

MDL 2325: Settlement Proceeds Don't Belong to Chapter 7 Estate
MDL 2521: Endo Pharmaceuticals' Bid for Reconsideration Denied
MDL 2657: "Ramos" Personal Injury Suit Filed in Boston
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bid
MF GLOBAL: Underwriters Settle Class Action for $29.825 Million

MKM OIL: "Franks" Suit Plaintiffs Win $336,000 in Attorneys' Fees
MORGAN STANLEY: "Frazier" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
MT GOX: Japanese Bank Must Face Bitcoin Class Action, Judge Rules
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Suit Challenges Student-Athlete Compensation
NAT'L MEDICAL VENTURES: Trial Court Ruling in "Allison" Upheld

NATIONAL SETTLEMENT: Faces "William" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
NATIONAL SPECIALTY: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
NEST LABS: Class Plaintiff Fails in Bid to Quash Subpoena
NEVADA PROPERTY 1: $14.5M "Mirkarimi" Deal Wins Final Approval
NEW WEST: Bid to Remand "Rolan" Suit Granted

NRG RESIDENTIAL: "Gennarini" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
OMNI LIMOUSINE: Judge Narrows Defendant's Discovery Bid
PAGEDALE CITY, MO: Judge Narrows Residents' Ticketing Suit
PENNSYLVANIA: Dismissal of "Thompson" Suit Affirmed
PETER J. LISKA: Illegally Collects Debt, "Billups" Suit Claims

POWERCET CORPORATION: "George" Sues Over Defective Steel Tubing
PRIMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Family Medicine Awarded $500 in TCPA Suit
PRIMERO MINING: Faces "White" Securities Class Action in Cal.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Stays "Ramcharitar" Flushable Wipes Suit
PTC THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit

RELIANT BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Kelly" Suit Says
RUNG CHAROEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Romero" Suit Says
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces 2nd Tainted Water Class Action
SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Ruggiero" Over Misleading Ads
SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: Rimkus' Counsel Must Submit Amended Suit

SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Okays Settlement in Defective Washers Suit
SECURE TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SKY UNION: Faces Class Action Over "Castle Clash" Game
SMARTPAY LEASING: Judge Approves Limited Discovery in "Arviso"
SPOKEO: Supreme Court Has Yet to Tackle Issue Over FCRA Damages

TACO BELL: Jury May Decide on Waiting Time Penalties, Court Says
TACO BELL: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Meal Break Suit
TARGET CORP: "Thompson" Suit Moved to Cal. C.D. Ct.
TERRAFOAM GLOBAL: Judge Remands "Fraser" Suit to State Court
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Judge Remands Iron Workers' Suit

THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Says
TOWER HILL PRIME: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S. Dist. Florida
TOWER HILL PRIME: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S. Dist. Florida
TRANS-CONTINENTAL: "Beltre" Cries Harassment over Debt Collection
TWITTER INC: Huang's Bid to Challenge Contract Provision May Fail

U.S. SECURITY: "Stone" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia Dist. Ct.
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Razak" Suit Moved to E.D. Penn.
UNITED PARCEL: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal. Ct.
UNITED STATES: Inmate Suit Sent to Magistrate Judge for Pretrial
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Rape Victim Sue Over Dorm Safety Concerns

VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
VISA: Supreme Court Files Suit Over Chip Card Shift
VIZIO INC: Smart TVs Illegally Collect Data, "Thomson" Suit Says
VOLKSWAGEN: Investors Launch Class Action in Braunschweig Court
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Suits to Face Uphill Battle in EU

WAL-MART STORES: Faces False Advertising Class Action
WEIGHT WATCHERS: "Roberts" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
WILDCAT SERVICES: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Court Won't Lift PSLRA Discovery Stay
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: May 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set

WINN-DIXIE STORES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
WISCONSIN: Deal Drives Reforms at Women's Prison

* Bernstein Named to National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List
* CFPB Targets Financial Firms' Arbitration Clauses
* Scalia's Death to Impact Arbitration, Consumer Class Action
* U.S. Wants Class Actions v. For-Profit-Colleges Easier to File


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Workers Sue Over Exposure at Nassau Coliseum
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect NYCal Appeals Enlarged to Dec.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Chief Resigns After Contamination Row
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Threaten Legal Action in Asbestos Row
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. County Suffers from High Asbestos Deaths

ASBESTOS UPDATE: French Court Limits Damages for Anxiety Injuries
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Exposure Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chesterfield Electrician Dies of Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whitley Bay Grandad Diagnosed with Cancer
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Ruling Tarnishes Reputation

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Only 3% of VI State Schools are Asbestos-Free
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Leads Filings Decline in EDPA
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined Over Waste Dump in Walking Trail
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Fails to Show Asbestos Needed in Brakes
ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Urges Tenn. Gov. to Sign HB2234

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibrosis Deaths in UK May be Due to Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Should Be Part of Ajax Studies
ASBESTOS UPDATE: REINSW Calls for Mandatory Asbestos Disclosure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor to Face Asbestos Lawsuit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: PEI Schools Found with Asbestos in Ceiling

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma of 3 Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined for Potentially Exposing Public
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Remands Action
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Product Liability Act Unconstitutional
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Alleges Dozens Caused Husband's Death

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Keen to Help Asbestos-Affected Residents
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby, Troy Residents Still Refuse Inspections
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford, MetLife Named in Couple's Suit
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Seeks Damages for Husband's Exposure
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Survivors Lose Out in Insurers' Deal

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Admits to Using Asbestos in New Bldgs.
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Expert Sceptical on Talc Powder Concerns
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhauser Inks Deal with Asbestos Plaintiff
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bethel Public Schools Have Asbestos
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Manufacturer from Take-Home Case

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Garlock's Suit vs. Widow Affirmed
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Continues to Face Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Faces 37,000 Claimants at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Still Facing Asbestos Claims

ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steris Still Facing PI, Product Exposure Suits
ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 713 PI Litigation at Dec. 31
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Records $20.4MM Underwriting Loss for A&E
ASBESTOS ALERT: HCP May Be Liable for Injuries from Sites
ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cesarin" Remanded to Calif. State Court

ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Denies Bid to Remand "Colletti"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Dismissal of "Dooley"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbine Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bartolone"
ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Ordered to York's Defense Costs


                            *********


ADVANCE INTERACTIVE: Wins Summary Judgment in Wages Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the Western District of
Washington, Seattle granted defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the case MICHAEL ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. ZECHARIAH
CLIFTON DAMERON IV, et al., Defendants, No. C14-1263RSL (W.D.
Wash.)

Plaintiff Michael Allen was the interim Chief Financial Officer of
Advanced Interactive Systems, Inc. (AIS) between April 2010 and
March2013. His offer of employment included $5,769.23 paid bi-
weekly, a bi-weekly allowance of $1,938.47, and three months pay
in lieu of notice as a conditioned for a complete release if
plaintiff's employment were involuntarily terminated for anything
other than gross misconduct.

In December 2011, plaintiff agreed to a reduction of bi-weekly
salary to $4,807.69, with the understanding that the reduction
would not affect the calculation of his severance package if he
were involuntarily terminated.

Defendants Daniel Standen and Zechariah Clifton Dameron IV were
members of AIS' Board of Directors. By February 2013, AIS'
financial situation had become dire, and the Board unanimously
voted to prepare the company for a Chapter 7 bankruptcy filing. On
March 13, 2013, plaintiff provided the board with information
regarding AIS' on-going wage and benefit obligations. With regards
to the pay period that had ended on March 10, 2013, plaintiff
notified the board that he was owed net wages of $3,565.00. With
regards to the pay period that would end on March 24, 2013,
plaintiff listed for himself a net wage obligation of $73,106.00.
The amount reflected one week's wages, the promised severance
payment, reimbursement for unused vacation days, and other wages
of $1,923.08, less taxes, withholdings, and a salary advance.

On March 14, 2013, the board allocated AIS' last dollars to
payroll expenses and filed for bankruptcy protection. Plaintiff
did not receive any part of the allocation. The filing of the
bankruptcy petition immediately terminated the employment of the
remaining AIS employees, including plaintiff.

Plaintiff seeks to recover all wages that were earned prior to the
termination. He alleges that he was owed unpaid wages, benefits,
and a severance payment at the timeAIS filed for Chapter 7
bankruptcy protection. He has asserted a Washington Rebate Act
claim against defendants seeking to recover the principal amount
of $84,175.21 plus exemplary damages and prejudgment interest.

Plaintiff and defendants both filed motion for summary judgment.

Judge Lasnik granted defendants' motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Lasnik's order dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/QeU2xsfrom Leagle.com.

Mike Allen, Plaintiff, represented by Steven Bert Frank --
sfrank@frankfreed.com -- Michael C Subit --
jfrancisco@frankfreed.com -- at FRANK FREED SUBIT & THOMAS

Defendants, represented by A Robert Fischer --
FischerA@jacksonlewis.com -- Karen P Kruse --
Karen.Kruse@jacksonlewis.com -- Megan Burrows Carpenter --
Megan.Carpenter@jacksonlewis.com -- at JACKSON LEWIS P.C.

John Rigas, Daniel Standen, Zechariah Clifton Dameron IV,  Third
Party Plaintiffs, represented by Karen P Kruse --
Karen.Kruse@jacksonlewis.com -- Megan Burrows Carpenter --
Megan.Carpenter@jacksonlewis.com -- at JACKSON LEWIS P.C..

Steven Kalmanovitz, ThirdParty Defendant, represented by Mario A
Bianchi -- bianchi@lasher.com -- at LASHER HOLZAPFEL SPERRY &
EBBERSON


AFFYMETRIX INC: Faces "Merola" Suit Over Thermo Fisher Merger
-------------------------------------------------------------
Steven Merola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Frank Witney, Nelson Chan, Gary Guthart, Jami
Nachtsheim, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines, Robert Trice, and
Affymetrix, Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-01237-PJH (N.D. Cal., March 14,
2016), seeks to enjoin the proposed merger in which Thermo Fisher
will acquire Affymetrix through a flawed process and for
inadequate consideration.

Affymetrix, Inc., is a Delaware corporation and is the market
leader in the field of DNA chip technology (also known as
biochips).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Adam C. McCall, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     445 South Figueroa Street, 31st Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 985-7290
     Facsimile: (202) 333-2121
     E-mail: amccall@zlk.com

          - and -

     Donald E. Enright, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     1101 30th Street NW, Suite 115
     Washington, DC 20007
     Telephone: (202) 524-4290
     Facsimile: (202) 337-1567
     E-mail: denright@zlk.com


ALL STAR SPORTS BAR: "Blue" SeeKs Back Pay, Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lana Rae Blue, Plaintiff, v. All Star Sports Bar and Grill III,
LLC Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00155-AJS (W.D. Pa., February 10,
2016), seeks back pay, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid spread
of hours payments and unpaid wages, prejudgment interest,
liquidated damages, litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees
such other and further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act
of 1938.

All Star Sports Bar and Grill, III is a restaurant and sports bar
operating in Canonsburg, PA where Plaintiff worked as a server.
She claims to have received below the minimum wage rate and has
rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
      HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
      The Frick Building
      437 Grant Street, Suite 620
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Tel: (412) 315-7195
      Fax: (412) 315-7386


AM PIZZA: "Tigges" Class Action Moved to Mass. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Tigges v. AM Pizza, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 1581CV06338, was removed from the Middlesex Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the District of
Massachusetts (Boston). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-10136-WGY to the proceeding.

AM Pizza was founded in 1981. The company's line of business
includes the retail sale of prepared foods and drinks for on-
premise consumption. The Company is based in Springfield, Montana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen S. Churchill, Esq.
          FAIR WORK, P.C.
          192 South Street, Suite 450
          Boston, MA 02111
          Telephone: (617) 607 3260
          E-mail: steve@fairworklaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric R. LeBlanc, Esq.
          BENNETT & BELFORT PC
          24 Thorndike Street, Suite 300
          Cambridge, MA 02141
          Telephone: (617) 737 8865
          Facsimile: (617) 342 4850
          E-mail: eleblanc@bennettandbelfort.com


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Settlement Deal in "Kaufman" Finally Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joan B. Gottschall granted final approval to the Settlement
Agreement entered into by the parties in the case captioned SAUL
M. KAUFMAN and KIMBERLY STEGICH, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly-situated, Plaintiffs, v. AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL
RELATED SERVICES, CO., Defendant, Case No. 07-cv-1707 (N.D. Ill.).
Judge Gottschall also granted in part and denied in part the
petitions for attorney fees filed by lead counsel, additional
class counsel, and counsel for the intervenors.

A putative class action was filed against American Express for
alleged breach of contract, unjust enrichment, and statutory fraud
arising from American Express' alleged misrepresentation of the
value of its gift card products.

The parties eventually entered into a class action settlement.
After being denied twice, the parties again filed their memorandum
in support of their third motion for final approval of the class
action settlement on December 11, 2015.

Applying the factors identified in Synfuel Techs., Inc. v. DHL
Express (USA), Inc., 463 F.3d 646, 653 (7th Cir. 2006) to the
case, Judge Gottschall found that these factors weigh in favor of
granting final approval.

The judge, however, did not see fit to approve of lead and
additional class counsel's petition for attorneys fees, finding
that the huge fee, in proportion to the amount being received by
the class, would overly incentivize the settlement, which offers a
meager benefit to the class.  Attorneys' fees were awarded as
follows:

          -- to lead class counsel in the total amount of
             $1,000,000, plus $40,000 in expenses

          -- to additional class counsel in the total amount of
             $250,000

          -- to counsel for intervenors J.L. Goodman and Carla
             Santsche in the total amount $700,000

Judge Gottschall also reiterated her approval of incentive awards
to the representative parties in the amount of $1,000 for each
party.

Finally, Judge Gottschall approved Consumer Reports/Consumer Union
as the cy pres recipient, and denied American Express' renewed
request for reimbursement for the cost of the first round of
notice in the amount of $527,580.27.

A full-text copy of Judge Gottschall's March 2, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/zlEuH0from
Leagle.com.

Saul M. Kaufman, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Smith --
jim@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch LLC, Jonathan B. Piper --
jon@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC, Julia Lynn Titolo --
julia@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch Llc, Phillip A. Bock --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch, LLC & Robert M. Hatch --
robert@bockhatchllc.com -- Bock & Hatch.

Kimberly Stegich, Plaintiff, represented by James Michael Smith,
Bock & Hatch LLC, Jonathan B. Piper, Bock & Hatch, LLC & Robert M.
Hatch, Bock & Hatch.

American Express Travel Related Services, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Daniel Keenan Ryan -- dryan@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Adam L. Saper -- asaper@hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Richard B. Polony -- rpolony@hinshawlaw.com
-- Hinshaw & Culbertson, Stephen J. Newman --  snewman@stroock.com
-- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP & Stephen Devereux Vernon,
InfoLawGroup LLP.

Kambiz Kazemi, Katayoun Kazemi, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented
by Jeffrey R Krinsk, Finkelstein & Krinsk, Lori Ann Fanning --
lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC, Mark L Knutson,
Finkelstein & Krinsk & Marvin Alan Miller --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC.

J. L. Goodman, Carla Santsche, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented
by Daniel Cobrinik, Daniel Cobrinik, P.C. & Richard D. Greenfield,
Greenfield & Goodman LLC.

Gordon Jarratt, Amanda Rudd, Intervenors, represented by Stephen
Bryan Morris, Morris and Associates.


AMGEN INC: Denial of Zhang Class Cert. Bid Upheld
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TIE ZHANG, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
AMGEN, INC., Defendant and Respondent, 2d Civil No. B261294 (Cal.
Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial
court's order denying Tie Zhang's motion for class certification.

Zhang, who was employed by Amgen, Inc. as a Senior Associate
Scientist until he was terminated in December 2011, filed a
complaint against his former employer alleging violations of state
regulations governing overtime wages as well as meal and rest
breaks.  Zhang asserted that Amgen had misclassified Senior
Associate Scientists as exempt employees not entitled to overtime
wages or rest and mean breaks.

Zhang moved for certification of a class consisting of "all Senior
Associate Scientists who worked in California for [respondent]
during the period of June 29, 2008 to the present, who have
neither executed an arbitration agreement regarding the claims
asserted in this action, nor have executed a release regarding the
claims asserted in this action."  The motion was denied by the
trial court.

Zhang appealed, arguing that the trial court applied the
"incorrect criteria" because it failed to consider the knowledge
requirement of the learned professions exemption.  Zhang explained
that the lack of a standard educational prerequisite is
dispositive and establishes that Senior Associate Scientists are
nonexempt employees subject to hour and wage regulations.

The appellate court, however, found that Zhang mistated the
criteria for the learned professions exemption.  The court
clarified that while Wage Order 4-2001 implies that specific
academic training is a prerequisite for entrance into the
profession, it did not provide that the specific academic training
must be a "standard requirement" for employment.  Further, the
appellate court also presumed that the trial court applied the
correct criteria, holding that the mere fact that the trial court
did not explicitly refer to the knowledge requirement of the
learned professions exemption in its minute order denying class
certification, does not support the conclusion that the knowledge
requirement was ignored.  Finally, the appellate court found that
the trial court had a rational basis for concluding that Zhang
"failed to meet his burden of establishing the requisite elements
for class certification" because "liability will turn upon an
individualized analysis of the 'learned profession[s]' exemption."

A full-text copy of the appellate court's March 2, 2016 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/zr0CUFfrom Leagle.com.

Rob A. Hennig, Sereena J. Singh; Hennig Ruiz and Louis H. Kreuzer
II, Joseph M. Herbert; The Law Offices of Louis H. Kreuzer II, for
Plaintiff and Appellant.

Jeffrey D. Wohl -- jeffwohl@paulhastings.com -- Zachary P. Hutton
-- zachhutton@paulhastings.com -- Paul W. Cane, Jr. --
paulcane@paulhastings.com -- Zina Deldar --
zinadeldar@paulhastings.com -- and Paul Hastings LLP, for
Defendant and Respondent.


ANADIGICS INC: "Zalewski" Class Suit Removed to D. Del.
-------------------------------------------------------
Wes Zalewski, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Anadigics, Inc., Ron Michels, Dennis Strigl, Richard
Kelson, David Fellows, Harry Rein, Ronald Rosenzweig, II-VI
Incorporated, and Regulus Acquisition Sub, Inc., Case No. SOM-C-
16-12005, was removed from the Superior Court of New Jersey
Somerset County to the U.S. District Court District of Delaware
(Wilmington). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
00136-UNA to the proceeding.

Anadigics, Inc. is a provider of semiconductor solutions to the
broadband wireless and wire-line communications markets.


ANTHEM INC: "Hunter" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2617
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hunter et al. v. Anthem, Inc. et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-10046, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San Jose).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00463-LHK to
the proceeding.

The Hunter case is being consolidated with MDL 2617 in re: Anthem,
Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 8, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and
February4, 2015, and resulted in the electronic theft of
personally identifiable information and personal health
information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and
former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or
its affiliated health insurance companies. In its June 8, 2015
Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Lucy H. Koh,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Lisa S. Lee
          JANET, JENNER AND SUGGS, LLC
          31 St. James Avenue, Suite 365
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 933 1265
          E-mail: llee@myadvocates.com


ANTHEM INC: "West" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2617
------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled West v. Anthem, Inc. et al, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00071, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the District of Maryland, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Jose). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00462-LHK to the proceeding.

The West case is being consolidated with MDL 2617 in re: Anthem,
Inc., Customer Data Security Breach Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on June 8, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from a data security breach that
allegedly occurred sometime between December 10, 2014, and
February4, 2015, and resulted in the electronic theft of
personally identifiable information and personal health
information of, by one estimate, some 80 million current and
former health insurance plan members and employees of Anthem or
its affiliated health insurance companies. In its June 8, 2015
Order, the MDL Panel found that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of California will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judges in the MDL is Hon. Lucy H. Koh,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 5:15-md-02617-LHK.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew N. Friedman, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, Suite 500
          Washington, DC 98104
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: afriedman@cohenmilstein.com


APOLLO EDUCATION: Shares Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Rameses Te Lomingkit, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Apollo Education Group, Inc. (f/k/a Apollo
Group, Inc.), Peter V. Sperling, Gregory W. Cappelli, Brian L.
Swartz, Joseph L. D'Amico and Gregory J. Iverson, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00689-JZB (D. Ariz., March 14, 2016), alleges that Apollo
reported generating billions of dollars in revenues while
concealing that a substantial portion of those revenues were being
derived through recruiting tactics being undertaken at U.S.
military bases across the country that contradicted an Executive
Order signed into law by President Barrack Obama on April 27,
2012.  The express intent of the Executive Order, which had been
implemented in large part by the spring of 2013, was to stop for-
profit secondary education providers like the University of
Phoenix from continuing to take advantage of present and former
members of the U.S. military.  Defendants also concealed that
Apollo was using improper recruiting tactics that likely violated
the express terms of the contractual agreements the Company had
entered into with the U.S. Department of Defense in February 2012
and July 2014 to permit the University of Phoenix to continue to
participate in the DoD's tuition assistance programs.  As a result
of Defendants' false statements, the price of Apollo's Class A
common stock traded at artificially inflated levels.

This is a securities class action on behalf of all purchasers of
the Class A common stock of Apollo between June 26, 2013 and
October 21, 2015, inclusive.

Apollo Education Group, Inc., is an Arizona corporation which owns
and operates several for-profit-educational institutions
throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Hart L. Robinovitch, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
     14646 N. Kierland Blvd., Suite 145
     Scottsdale, AZ 85254
     Telephone: (480) 348-6400
     Facsimile: (480) 348-6415
     E-mail: Hart.Robinovitch@zimmreed.com

         - and -

     Carolyn G. Anderson, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN REED, LLP
     1100 IDS Center, 80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Telephone: (612) 341-0400
     Facsimile: (612) 341-0844
     E-mail: Carolyn.Anderson@zimmreed.com

          - and -

     Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
     Mary K. Blasy, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
     58 South Service Road, Suite 200
     Melville, NY 11747
     Telephone: (631) 367-7100
     Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
     E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
             mblasy@rdrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Corey Holzer, Esq.
     Marshall Dees, Esq.
     HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
     1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
     Atlanta, GA 30338
     Telephone: (770) 392-0090
     Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
     E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
             mdees@holzerlaw.com


APOLLO EDUCATION: Robbins Geller File Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP on March 14 disclosed that a
class action has been commenced in the United States District
Court for the District of Arizona on behalf of purchasers of
Apollo Education Group, Inc. Class A common stock during the
period between June 26, 2013 and October 21, 2015 (the "Class
Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from March 14, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or David A. Rosenfeld of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com
If you are a member of this class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/apolloeducation/

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

The complaint charges Apollo and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Apollo owns and operates several for-profit educational
institutions throughout the United States, its largest being the
University of Phoenix.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Apollo
reported generating billions of dollars in revenues while
concealing that a substantial portion of those revenues were being
derived through improperly aggressive recruiting tactics being
undertaken at U.S. military bases across the country that
contradicted an Executive Order signed into law by President
Barrack Obama on April 27, 2012.  The express intent of the
Executive Order, which had been implemented in large part by the
spring of 2013, was to stop for-profit secondary education
providers like the University of Phoenix from continuing to take
advantage of present and former members of the U.S. military.
Apollo's improperly aggressive recruiting tactics also allegedly
violated the express terms of the contractual agreements the
Company had entered into with the U.S. Department of Defense
("DoD") in February 2012 and July 2014 to permit the University of
Phoenix to continue to participate in the DoD's tuition assistance
programs.

During the Class Period, Defendants also concealed that efforts to
transition Apollo's online classroom platform to a new "industry-
leading private cloud infrastructure, offering enhanced
scalability, reliability and performance," were failing because,
unbeknownst to investors, from its inception the new platform was
not functioning as designed due to software compatibility problems
that prevented students from signing onto their online courses,
which had dramatically increased student drop-out rates.  Adding
insult to injury, in addition to repeatedly minimizing the true
extent of the software compatibility problems, even when later
being questioned about them by stock analysts, Defendants hid from
the investment community the deleterious impact the software
compatibility problems were having not only on retention rates but
on new student enrollment.

As a result of Defendants' false statements during the Class
Period, which emphasized Apollo's financial successes and strong
financial prospects, the price of Apollo's Class A common stock
traded at artificially inflated levels, reaching a Class Period
high of $35.92 per share in intraday trading on January 22, 2014.
With the price of the Class A common stock artificially inflated,
certain of Apollo's senior executives cashed in, selling almost
$42 million of their personally held shares at artificially
inflated prices.

On January 8, 2015, Apollo announced that its conversion to the
new online platform was more challenging than had been anticipated
and had resulted in a greater than expected impact on retention.
Due to other more positive statements made that day concerning the
strong ongoing enrollment and profitability trends being
experienced, the price of Apollo stock declined only moderately.
However, when on March 25, 2015 Apollo disclosed that it had
actually experienced a significant disruption with respect to the
new online classroom platform that was not only adversely
impacting retention but had decreased enrollment by 13% in the
quarter, forcing Apollo to cut its annual revenue forecast, the
stock price declined significantly.

Then, on June 30, 2015, the Center for Investigative Reporting
("CIR") published an expos??? entitled "University of Phoenix
sidesteps Obama order on recruiting veterans."  In its expos???, CIR
detailed how the University of Phoenix was violating President
Obama's Executive Order, as well as the contractual agreements the
University of Phoenix had entered into with the DoD, through a
variety of improperly aggressive recruiting tactics.  That same
day U.S. Senator Richard J. Durbin sent a letter to Secretary of
Defense Ashton Carter bringing the matters raised in the CIR
expos??? to his attention and calling for the military to
investigate and put an end to the illicit recruiting tactics.

When the DoD formally placed the University of Phoenix on
probation on October 7, 2015, and banned it from recruiting on
military bases and prevented troops from using federal funds for
its classes, the price of Apollo common stock plunged further.
And when Apollo disclosed on October 22, 2015 that its fourth
quarter and fiscal year 2015 results had been negatively impacted
and that its future results would continue to be negatively
impacted by actions the Company had been forced to take to bring
its operations into compliance with the law, the price of the
common stock fell further.  In the end, the shares declined
approximately 80% from their Class Period high -- or nearly $29
per share -- erasing more than $3 billion in market
capitalization.

Though the Company has since reported that the DoD lifted the ban
on troops using federal funds for University of Phoenix courses,
the University of Phoenix remains on formal probation with the DoD
and under intense scrutiny, and Apollo has agreed to sell itself
to a private equity fund for $9.50 per share, down more than 73%
from the stock's Class Period high.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Apollo Class A common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").
The plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has
extensive experience in prosecuting investor class actions
including actions involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.


APPRISS INC: Faces "Greenwald" Class Suit in D. N.J.
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Appriss, Inc.
The case is captioned Menachem Greenwald, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated v. Appriss, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
01248-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., March 4, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (347) 526-4093
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


ARCHON INC: Judge Tosses Plaintiff's Bid for Default Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joanna Seybert of the Eastern District of New York
adopts the report and recommendation made by Magistrate Lindsay in
the case AMJAD SAIYED, individually and on Behalf of all others
similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ARCHON, INC., ARCHON
DISTRIBUTION, INC., RASHID PATEL, MOHAMMED ASHIF "MIKE" GAJRA, and
JOHN/JANE DOES "1-10", Defendants, No. 14-CV-6862(JS)(ARL)
(E.D.N.Y.)

Plaintiff Amjad Saiyed filed a lawsuit against Archon, Inc.,
Archon Distribution, Inc., Rashid Patel (Patel), Mohammed Ashif
Mike Gajra (Gajra) and John and Jane Does 1-10. Plaintiff alleges
that defendants refused to pay him minimum wages and engaged in
systematic mistreatment of plaintiff, among other things.
Plaintiff asserts eight causes of action: (i) two claims under the
Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, 18 U.S.C.
Sections 1589-90; (ii) one claim for material misrepresentations
and omissions; (iii) one claim for failure to pay proper wages
under Fair Labor Standards Act; (iv) three claims for failure to
pay proper wages under the New York Labor Law; and (v) one claim
for quantum meruit.

Patel filed an answer on behalf of all defendants. Judge Lindsay
informed Patel that he does not have legal authority to represent
the other individual and corporate defendants, thereby nullifying
Patel's answer as to any other party but him. The other defendants
failed to answer the complaint or defend themselves, so the clerk
of the court certified the default against them on April 16, 2015.

Plaintiff moved for default judgment against all defendants except
for Patel. On July 6, 2015, Judge Seybert referred plaintiff's
motion to Judge Lindsay for a report and recommendation (R&R) as
to whether the motion should be granted.

Judge Lindsay issued her R&R on January 20, 2016, recommending
that the court deny plaintiff's motion for default judgment
against Archon Distribution, Inc. until the court further inquires
into whether service of process was proper and also recommends to
deny plaintiff's motion for default judgment against Archon, Inc.
but grant plaintiff leave to renew its motion and file a
memorandum of law with applicable case law and arguments in
support. Judge Lindsay further recommends that the court vacate
the clerk's entry of default against Gajra and that he be granted
20 days to answer.

Judge Seybert adopts the report and recommendation in its
entirety.

A copy of Judge Seybert's memorandum and opinion dated March 7,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/c6XUp5from Leagle.com.

Amjad Saiyed, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Michael Joseph Romano, Esq.
     ROMANO & ASSOCIATES
     400 Garden City Plaza, Suite 432
     Garden City, NY 11530
     Telephone: 516-252-0097

Rashid Patel, Defendant, Pro Se

Mohammed Ashif Gajra, Defendant, Pro Se


AROMA BAKERY: Owners Not Liable for Atty Fees, App. Ct. Says
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NATALIE MAKABI et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. EASHAK GEDALIA et al., Defendants and Appellants,
No. B261005 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California
modified the trial court's order, removing the award of attorneys'
fees against Eashak Gedalia and Guy Twig.

Aroma Bakery Cafe, Inc. (ABC) and Gourmet Kosher Baking, Inc.
(GKB) were sued by its employees based upon a variety of Labor
Code violations, including the failure to pay minimum wages and
overtime compensation.  In the same action, Gedalia and Twig were
individually sued by four of the plaintiffs to recover civil
penalties under the Labor Code Private Attorneys General Act of
2004 (PAGA).  Gedalia and Twig owned the shares of ABC and GKB and
managed the Aroma Bakery restaurants.

The trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs on most of their
causes of action and awarded them damages against ABC and GKB, but
declined to impose civil penalties against Gedalia and Twig
thought they were found liable under PAGA.

The plaintiffs then moved for attorneys' fees based on Labor Code
sections 226 and 1194.  The motion was granted and the trial court
awarded the plaintiffs $456,522.20 in fees against ABC, GKB,
Gedalia, and Twig, jointly and severally.  The court did not
allocate or apportion the fees among the different defendants or
mention PAGA.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals of California found that
neither Gedalia nor Twig were named in any of the causes of action
based on section 226 or 1194 and that they did not employ the
plaintiffs and were not personally liable for the Labor Code
violations.  Thus, the appellate court held that they could not be
liable for the attorneys' fees authorized by those statutes.
Further, the appellate court found that although PAGA includes a
provision for "an award of reasonable attorney's fees" to a
prevailing employee, the plaintiffs did not request fees pursuant
to this provision nor did they segregate attorneys' fees expended
pursuing the PAGA claimed.  As such, the appellate court concluded
that the plaintiffs may only recover the award of attorneys' fees
from the corporate defendants, but not from Gedalia or Twig.

A full-text copy of Judge Lovell's March 2, 2016 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/CzVLwhfrom Leagle.com.

Beitchman & Zekian, David P. Beitchman, Rouben Varozian, and Zina
Yu for Defendants and Appellants.

James H. Cordes -- jim@jamescordes.com -- Law Office of Robert
Ackermann, Robert Ackermann -- robert@ackermanlawoffice.com --
Jennifer Kramer Legal, Jennifer Kramer --
jennifer.kramer@akerman.com --  Law Office of Ricardo Chavez and
Ricardo Chavez for Plaintiffs and Respondents


ARTISAN & TRUCKERS: Faces "Fischetti" Suit in Florida
-----------------------------------------------------
Joseph Fischetti P.A. d/b/a Non-Invasive Spine and Pain Center,
a/a/o Matthew Nunez, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Artisan and Truckers Casualty Company
f/k/a Progressive Consumers Insurance Company, Defendant, Case
CACE-16-002165 (Fla. Cir. Broward County, February 9, 2016), seeks
an adjustment of claims under an insurance policy, relief,
damages, interests and attorney's fees for breach of contract.

Defendant provides automobile insurance throughout the State of
Florida. Nunez was involved in a motor accident and sustained
injuries. He was insured under an automobile insurance policy
issued by Progressive.

According to the complaint, the Defendant routinely reduced the
multiple procedure payment reduction of the claimed physical
therapy service from their insurance policy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward H. Zeberski
      Michael T. Lewenz, Esq.
      ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
      110 SE. 6th Street, Ste. 2150
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Tel: (954) 989-6333
      Fax: (954) 989-7781
      Email: ezebersky@zpllp.com
             mlewenz@zpllp.com

           - and -

     Jay M. Klitzner, Esq.
     KLITZNER, PA
     133 Northwest 10oth Avenue
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Tel: (954) 423-2562
     Email: Jayklitzner@gmail.com

           - and -

     Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
     Mark. S. Fistos, Esq.
     FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN, PL.
     425 North Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
     Tel: (954) 524-2820
     Fax: (954) 524-2822
     Email: steve@pathtojustice.com
            mark@pathtojustice.com

            - and -

     Kimberly A. Driggers, Esq.
     DRIGGERS LAW, RA.
     3770 Piney Grove Dr.
     Tallahassee, FL 32311
     Tel: (850) 597-1355
     Email: kdriggers@driggers-law.com


ASCENA RETAIL GROUP: "Morrow" Sues Over Deceptive Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Morrow, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Ascena Retail Group, Inc. and , a Delaware
corporation, ANN Inc., Defendant, Case 16CV0344LABBLM (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.

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

Ascena Retail Group, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal executive offices in Mahwah, New Jersey. It is the
parent company of wholly-owned subsidiary Defendant Ann Inc. They
market a clothing line of which the Plaintiff purchased a pair of
pants.

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


AT&T: Averts Class Action Over "Unlimited" Wireless Data
--------------------------------------------------------
According to DSKReports' Karl Bode, AT&T has managed to
successfully tap dance around a class action lawsuit filed by
customers whose "unlimited" wireless data connections were
throttled without AT&T making the restrictions clear.  US District
Court Judge Edward Chen has told customers suing the telco for its
misleading throttling practices that they can't sue as part of a
class action -- because they signed a contract with AT&T locking
them into binding arbitration.

The practice of eroding user legal rights with mouse print is an
AT&T tactic that is now standard across numerous industries, and
was upheld by the Supreme Court back in 2011.  Binding arbitration
usually involves disputes being settled by an arbitrator hired by
the impacted company, who rules for his or her employer the vast
majority of the time.

Unfortunately for AT&T, the company still faces accountability on
several other fronts.

In June of last year the FCC fined AT&T $100 million for
throttling the company's "unlimited" wireless data users without
making it clear it was occurring.

According to the FCC, AT&T consumers were deceived by misleading
marketing materials and insufficient disclosure when the company
arbitrarily began throttling those users who exceeded 2-5 GB of
usage -- even when the network wasn't facing any meaningful
congestion.

Regular readers know AT&T's been waging a not-so-subtle war on
these grandfathered users ever since it got rid of unlimited data
plans.

In October of last year, AT&T was also sued by the FTC for its
behavior related to throttling.

Specifically, the FTC accused AT&T of falsely claiming user
connections were "unlimited," despite the fact these lines were
throttled after as little as 2 GB Of usage.  The FTC complaint
stated that AT&T violated the FTC Act by changing the terms of
customers' unlimited data plans while those customers were still
under contract, and by "failing to adequately disclose the nature
of the throttling program to consumers who renewed their unlimited
data plans."

Last fall AT&T finally adopted a new policy wherein once its
unlimited users consume 22 GB, they're subject to "network
management practices that might result in reduced data speeds and
increased latency."  AT&T lawyers meanwhile continue to fight the
FTC's lawsuit, claiming that now the company is a common carrier
under Title II, the FTC no longer has enforcement authority over
its data practices.


AT&T MOBILITY: Bid to Compel Arbitration of "Roberts" Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARCUS A. ROBERTS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
AT&T MOBILITY LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-03418-EMC (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen granted AT&T Mobility LLC's motion to
compel arbitration and stayed the lawsuit pending arbitration.

A class action was filed against AT&T asserting statutory, tort,
and warranty claims based on AT&T's "deceptive and unfair trade
practice of marketing its wireless service plans as being
'unlimited,' when in fact those plans are subject to a number of
limiting conditions that either are not disclosed or inadequately
disclosed to consumers."

AT&T moved to compel arbitration, relying largely on the fact that
the Supreme Court upheld AT&T's arbitration provision in AT&T
Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).  The plaintiffs
countered that enforcement of the arbitration agreements would
violate their rights as protected by the Petition Clause of the
First Amendment.

Judge Chen pointed out that for plaintiffs to have a First
Amendment claim, they must first show state action.  The judge
found no merit to the plaintiffs' assertion that the mere fact of
judicial enforcement itself provides the requisite state action
necessary to establish a constitutional claim.  Thus, Judge Chen
concluded that because there is no state action in the case, the
plaintiffs lack a viable First Amendment challenge to the
arbitration agreements.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's February 29, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/pAuzPEfrom Leagle.com.

Marcus A. Roberts, Kenneth A. Chewey, Ashley M. Chewey,
Plaintiffs, represented by Alexander H. Schmidt --
schmidt@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP,
pro hac vice, Daniel Morley Kekoa Hattis, Hattis Law, Jean Sutton
Martin, Law Office of Jean Sutton Martin, pro hac vice, Nicole
Diane Sugnet -- nsugnet@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP,Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and Morgan Complex
Litigation Group, pro hac vice, Roger Norton Heller --
rheller@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP
&Michael W. Sobol -- msobol@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

James Krenn, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander H. Schmidt, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Morley
Kekoa Hattis, Hattis Law, Patrick A. Barthle, II, Morgan and
Morgan Complex Litigation Group, pro hac vice & Michael W. Sobol,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

AT&T Mobility LLC, Defendant, represented by Donald M. Falk --
dfalk@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Archis Ashok Parasharami
-- aparasharami@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice,
Elspeth Victoria Hansen -- elspeth.hansen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP & Kevin Ranlett -- kranlett@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP, pro hac vice.


AUSTRALIA: Night Club Bosses Mull Suit Over New Lockout Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Kee, writing for Gold Coast Bulletin, reports that Gold Coast
nightclub bigshots plan to mount a legal challenge to overturn the
State Government's stiff new lockout laws.

One of the Glitter Strip bar bosses backing the dramatic move
claims widespread industry support and a million-dollar slush fund
to back the court action.

Hollywood Showgirls owner Craig Duffy and Glitter Strip night-life
kingpin Jamie Pickering are leading the bid.


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Intends to Defend Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Linda Santacruz, writing for Independent Financial Advisor,
reports that Bank of Queensland (BOQ) has said it will defend
itself in a class action lawsuit brought against the bank by a
representative of clients who were purportedly scammed by a
financial adviser.

Litigation firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan said it filed
a class action in the Federal Court of Australia against BOQ and
Brisbane funds management firm DDH Graham for their alleged roles
in the scam.

More than 350 investors lost over $60 million after supposedly
being swindled by financial adviser and principal of Sherwin
Financial Planners, Bradley Sherwin.

Mr. Sherwin used BOQ Money Market Deposit Accounts, administered
by DDH Graham, to perform a series of "round-robin transactions",
the statement said.

"Niels Petersen, a retired police officer who served in the
Queensland Police Force for 37 years, lost over $800,000 in
savings as a result of the financial scam set up by Mr. Sherwin
and enabled by BOQ and DDH Graham," said Quinn Emanuel partner
Damian Scattini.

"After losing their superannuation savings, Niels and his wife
Joyce were forced to live in a caravan before being moved into a
housing commission home.

"The Petersens, on behalf of all Sherwin victims, call upon BOQ to
restore its credibility and customer confidence by making good the
loss and damage its egregious breaches have caused to its
customers."

In a statement to the ASX, BOQ said the bank will "defend the
proceedings".

Quinn Emanuel was brought in on the case by Paul Watson of Watson
Law Group in Brisbane who has been representing numerous
individual victims of the scam.

ASIC is also currently investigating the role played by BOQ and
DDH Graham. ifa reported in September 2015 that the regulator was
urging clients who fell victim to Sherwin Financial Planners to
seek compensation.

"ASIC has commenced an investigation into the operation of the
Money Market Accounts held by Sherwin Group clients, which relates
to whether BOQ or DDH Graham may have processed transactions when
they should not have," ASIC said at the time.

"There are steps they may wish to take as soon as possible if they
have suffered financial loss and may have a claim for
compensation."

Mr. Sherwin was charged with fraud in June 2015. A hearing on the
matter is listed for 20 June 2016, according to the ASIC website.


BANK OF QUEENSLAND: Faces Second Class Action Over Ponzi Scheme
---------------------------------------------------------------
Georgia Wilkins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that Bank of Queensland is facing a second class action from
customers of disgraced financial planner Bradley Sherwin over
claims it failed to stop a multimillion dollar "Ponzi"-like
investment scheme from taking place.

Mr. Sherwin is currently facing various fraud charges over his
alleged role as director of collapsed Wickham Securities and
principal of Sherwin Financial Planners.  The two companies
collapsed in 2012 owing investors millions of dollars.
Legal firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart and Sullivan alleges the bank,
through its fund manager DDH Graham, failed to stop fraudulent
transactions from taking place.  It is mounting the class action
on behalf of one Sherwin's clients, Petersen Superannuation Fund.
The accounts, known as Money Market Deposit Accounts, were
spruiked to self-managed super fund retirees by Mr. Sherwin's
various outfits.

Wickham Securities collapsed in December 2012 owing more than $27
million to more than 300 debenture holders.  Sherwin Financial
Planners was placed into administration shortly after.

In July last year Mr Sherwin was charged with 33 counts of
dishonestly causing detriment totalling nearly $10 million
following an investigation by the corporate regulator.

He was also charged with one count of dishonestly breaching his
duties as a director of Wickham Securities.

In a statement of claim filed in the Federal Court of New South
Wales on March 11, lawyers allege Bank of Queensland "knowingly
assisted" Sherwin Financial Planners in breaching its fiduciary
duties by failing to question dodgy transactions.

They also allege DDH "willfully shut its eyes" to dishonest and
fraudulent behavior at the company by allegedly overseeing the use
of funds deposited into accounts to create the false appearance
that it was paying returns to investors.

"DDH knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was a
serious or real possibility that fraud was being committed on the
[accounts] in question," the statement of claim says.

In the case of such transfers, Sherwin Financial Planners would
allegedly "instruct DDH to include notations to the transfers to
appear on the recipient's bank statements which disguised the true
origin and nature of the payments".

Bank of Queensland and DDH said on March 14 they would defend the
proceedings. Spokespersons for both companies would not comment
further on the case.

In October last year, Shine Lawyers announced it had also begun a
class action against the bank on behalf of other Sherwin customers
who were seeking compensation.

The latest class action is open to anyone who held a Bank of
Queensland Money Market Deposit Account.

Mr. Sherwin was banned from providing financial services for two
years and seven months in September 2013 as a result of going
bankrupt.  A committal hearing for his case has been set for 20
June in the Brisbane Magistrates Court.


BENCO DENTAL: "Prato" Files Antitrust Class Action in Wash. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Arnell M. Prato, D.D.S., P.L.L.C., d/b/a Down to Earth Dental, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein, Inc. and Benco Dental
Supply Company, Defendants, Case 3:16-cv-05109 (W.D. Wash.,
February 10, 2016), seeks damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' fees under Section 1 of the
Sherman Antitrust Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act.

Benco Dental Supply Company, Henry Schein, Inc. and Patterson
Companies, Inc. are the largest distributors of dental supplies
and equipment in the United States. Plaintiff is a direct
purchaser of dental supplies and equipment from Defendants. Down
to Earth Dental accuses the Defendants of blocking the entry and
expansion of lower-priced and higher quality rival dental
distributors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lynn L. Sarko, Esq.
      Mark A. Griffin, Esq.
      Amy N.L. Hanson, Esq.
      Raymond J. Farrow, Esq.
      KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
      1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
      Seattle, WA 98101-3052
      Tel: (206) 623-1900
      Fax: (206) 623-3384
      Email: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
             mgriffin@kellerrohrback.com
             ahanson@kellerrohrback.com
             rfarrow@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     David S. Preminger
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1140 Avenue of the Americas, Suite 900
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (646) 380-6690
     Fax: (646) 380-6692
     Email: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com


BLACKHAWK ESTATES: Illegally Increases Rent, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Jose and Karin Chevere, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Blackhawk Estates MHC, LLC, Case No.
2016CH03153 (Ill. Ch. Ct., March 4, 2016), arises out of
Blackhawk's practice of increasing rent for tenants without
notice.

Blackhawk Estates MHC, LLC is an Illinois Limited Liability
Company that maintains the mobile park, which contains
approximately 560 sites for the use of mobile homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew M. Saffar, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF MATTHEW M. SAFFAR
      800 E. Northwest Highway, Suite 1095
      Palatine, IL 6007
      Telephone: (847) 259-664
      E-mail: saffarlaw@gmail.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: "Lesieur" Suit Moved from N.D. Cal. to N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Christopher Lesieur v. BMW of
North America, LLC, Case No. 3:15-cv-06143, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California,
to the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
(Newark). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00652
to the proceeding.

BMW of North America engages in the marketing and sale of BMW
brand motor vehicles, including motorcycles, the MINI brand, and
the Rolls-Royce brand of motor cars in the United States and
internationally. It manufactures sports activity vehicles;
provides creative consulting services; and offers leasing, retail,
and commercial financing and banking products. The company was
founded in 1975 and is headquartered in Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey
with a technology office in Silicon Valley, California; and a
manufacturing facility in Spartanburg, South Carolina. It also has
studios in Los Angeles, California; Munich, Germany; Singapore;
and Shanghai, China.


BODY CONTOUR CENTERS: "Bazell" Suit seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jamie Bazzell and Carissa Alioto, individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Body
Contour Centers, LLC, d/b/a Sono Bello, Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-
00202 (W.D. Wash., February 10, 2016), seeks unpaid wages owed,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs in accordance with the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Bazzell and Alioto worked for the Defendants as traveling patient
care consultants. They claim to have rendered in excess of 40
hours per workweek without overtime compensation.

Body Contour Centers, LLC d/b/a Sono Bello, is a limited liability
company with its headquarters located at 150 Lake Street South,
Suite 250, Kirkland, Washington, 98033.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Tel: (206) 816-6603
      Fax: (206) 319-5450
      Email: bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

           - and -

      Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
      Brittany B. Skemp, Esq.
      NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
      4600 IDS Center
      80 South 8th Street
      Minneapolis, MN 55427
      Tel: (612) 256-3200
      Fax: (612) 338-4878
      Email: lukas@nka.com
             bbachmanskemp@nka.com


BURCH EQUIPMENT: E.D.N.C. Certifies "Velazquez" as Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AUGUSTINA VELAZQUEZ and OMAR SEGUNDO URBINA
a/k/a one person named ROBERTO CARLOS DE LEON RAMOS, MOISES
SEGUNDO URBINA a/k/a MANUEL LOPEZ, and LUIS FERNANDO VELAZQUEZ
a/k/a ALFONSO REYNOSO GONZALEZ on behalf of themselves and all
other similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BURCH EQUIPMENT,
L.L.C.; BURCH FARMS, L.L.C.; JAMES P. BURCH, MANAGER of both BURCH
EQUIPMENT, L.L.C. and BURCH FARMS, L.L.C.; WILLIAM E. BURCH,
MANAGER of BURCH EQUIPMENT, L.L.C.; FRANCIS T. BURCH, MANAGER of
BURCH EQUIPMENT, L.L.C.; and TERESA BURCH, MEMBER of BURCH FARMS,
L.L.C., Defendants, Civil Action No. 7:14-CV-00303-FL (E.D.N.C.),
Judge Louise W. Flanagan issued separate orders approving class
action certification and approving the content of notice to class
members and method  of distribution of class notice.

The named plaintiffs and defendants have negotiated a settlement
agreement which includes relief on a class wide basis on the named
plaintiffs' claims under the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural
Worker Protection Act (AWPA).  The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants' recordkeeping practices were in violation of the AWPA.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the defendants consented to
and joined in the Joint Motion for Class Action Certification
under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(3) and the parties jointly sought to
certify a class under the  AWPA for statutory damages.

Granting the parties' joint motion, Judge Flanagan found that the
named plaintiffs' amended complaint and the information and sworn
declarations submitted in support of the joint motion are
sufficient to satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) and establish
that the class the named plaintiffs seek to represent also
qualifies under Rule 23(b)(3).

Judge Flanagan also approved the parties' Joint Motion to Approve
Notice to Class Action Members and to Approve Method for
Distributing Notice.  The judge found that the proposed content
and method of distribution for that notice are consistent with
that previously approved for use in other similar actions before
the federal courts of the state, and that they also appear to be
reasonably calculated to provide the best notice practicable under
the circumstances of the case.

A full-text copy of Judge Flanagan's March 8, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/OcTooHfrom Leagle.com.

Agustina Velazquez, Omar Segundo-Urbina, Moises Segundo-Urbina,
Luis Fernando-Velazquez, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J.
Willis.

Burch Equipment, L.L.C., Burch Farms, L.L.C., James Paul Burch,
William E Burch, Francis T. Burch, Teresa Burch, Defendant,
represented by William Sutton Cherry, III --
cherry@manningfulton.com -- Manning Fulton & Skinner, P.A. &
Jonathan Whitfield Gibson -- gibson@manningfulton.com -- Manning
Fulton & Skinner, P.A..


CALIFORNIA: July 18 Case Conference in Sex Offenders' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case JOHN DOE, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. KAMALA D. HARRIS, Defendant,
DAPHNE PHUNG; CHRIS KELLY, Intervenors, Civil Case No. 3:12-CV-
05713-THE (N.D. Cal.), the Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit
in 2012, challenging the portions of the newly enacted Proposition
35 that required all persons who must register under California
Penal Code Section 290 because they have been convicted of sex-
related offenses to provide to police their internet identifiers
and the names of their internet service providers. The court
granted a temporary restraining order, halting enforcement of the
law and then preliminary injunction, prohibiting defendant from
enforcing the challenged portions of the initiative.  The
Defendant and intervenors appealed, that the court stayed the
matter pending resolution of the appeal at the request of the
parties. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the court's decision to grant
a preliminary injunction on November 18, 2014, and remanded the
case back to the court for further proceedings.

On October 26, 2015, the court made an order declaring that the
provisions of state law at issue in the case are unconstitutional
but the court deferred entry of final judgment to allow
intervenors to continue pursuing legislation that may resolve the
matter. The order also requires the parties to update the court if
it becomes apparent that the legislation will or will not be
enacted and provides that they will not seek to extend the case
beyond the 2015-2016 legislative session.

All parties have jointly submitted a joint case management
statement requesting that the court continue the matter for four
months until on or around July 11, 2016, otherwise keeping the
provisions of its October 26, 2015 order in effect.

District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of
California deferred the entry of final judgment, set a case
management conference on July 18, 2016, at 1:30 pm in Courtroom
12.  He directed the parties to file an updated joint case
management statement no later than seven days prior to the case
management conference, providing an update as to the status of
Intervenors' proposed legislation and setting forth the parties'
views as to the implications for disposition of this case.

At any juncture during which the case remains pending and it
becomes apparent that intervenors' efforts to pass legislation are
either successful or not successful, the parties are to provide a
joint update to the Court. The parties shall meet and confer prior
to seeking entry of final judgment or bringing any motion and that
the parties will not seek to extend the case beyond the current
2015-2016 legislative session.

A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated March 9, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/03qJ8qfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Michael Temple Risher --
mrisher@aclunc.org -- Linda Lye -- at ACLU Foundation of Northern
California, Inc.; Lee Tien -- tien@eff.org -- at Electronic
Frontier Foundation

Defendant, represented by Robert David Wilson -- at California
State Attorney General's Office

Intervenors, represented by Margaret R. Prinzing --
mprinzing@rjp.com -- James C. Harrison -- harrison@rjp.com --
Karen Ann Getman -- kgetman@rjp.com -- at Remcho, Johansen &
Purcell LLP


CAMPBELL-EWALD CO: Ruling to Impact Class Action Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Evan M. Meyers, Esq., and Paul Geske, Esq., of McGuire Law, PC, in
an article for Jurist, report that the US Supreme Court's recent
January 20, 2016 decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez is a
landmark for class action practice.  The Supreme Court held that a
defendant's offer to provide complete relief to the plaintiff does
not render the case moot.  Gomez, a putative class action, was
originally filed in 2010 in California. The mootness issue arose
in the case after the defendant, Campbell-Ewald, made an
individual "pick-off" offer to the putative class's
representative, Jose Gomez.  Had Campbell-Ewald's attempted pick-
off been successful, it would have mooted the case and avoided any
potential liability to the putative class that Mr. Gomez sought to
represent.  Mr. Gomez rejected the offer, however, as it only
included a payment for him individually, while failing to provide
any injunctive or monetary relief for the tens of thousands of
other putative class members.

Although the Gomez holding clarified that a mere offer cannot moot
a plaintiff's claims, some have argued that the case leaves open
the possibility for a defendant to moot a case by going one step
further, and actually transferring money to the plaintiff in the
full amount of his claims.  Proponents of this view cite the
dissenting opinions and the majority's statement that it was
declining to reach the issue of "whether the result would be
different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in
that amount."  It is foreseeable that defendants will seize on
this statement, and the even stronger statements in the dissents,
and attempt to repackage the pick-off offer tactic in the form of
an actual transfer of money.  Indeed, in the few months
immediately following Gomez, lower courts have already confronted
this issue as defendants have begun testing this strategy.

It is misguided, however, to think that Gomez authorizes or
approves of a forced entry of judgment in a class action.  In
fact, the Gomez opinion strongly suggests that the opposite is
true.  Specifically, the court states that a putative class
representative with a viable claim is entitled to see the case
through to certification.  The court observed that "a would-be
class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded
a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted."  This
is because Rule 23 bestows on the class representative a
procedural right to have the issue of certification adjudicated.
Although the court did not go so far as to define this right's
extent or attributes, it would likely violate the class
representative's right if the court forced him to accept a payment
in satisfaction of his claims, over his objection, and then
dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction.

In addition to the procedural right to certification, a class
representative also has a strong interest in obtaining
certification, and this interest remains intact even in the event
that his individual claim is paid.  First, certification is the
only way for the class representative to hold a defendant liable
for all of its wrongdoing and to adequately deter similar
wrongdoing in the future.  Second, certification creates economic
interests.  If a class is certified, class representatives usually
receive an incentive award, which compensates them for all of
their time and effort spent working on the case and representing
the absent class members.  Certification also promotes
administrative efficiency by spreading the costs and expenses of
the litigation among the class, who will share in the eventual
recovery.  Importantly, these interests keep the case live, and
prevent it from becoming moot.

Some lower courts have observed that a forced entry of judgment is
inappropriate in the class action context for the additional
reason that it upsets the incentive structure created under
Rule 23.  Rule 23 imposes a duty on the named plaintiff to be an
adequate representative of the absent class members and to
champion their interests.  This duty arises as soon as the class
action complaint is filed.  The class representative thus serves
in a quasi-fiduciary role in relation to the class even prior to
certification.  It would therefore be contrary to the adequacy
requirement and the class representative's obligations to the
class to force him to take an individual payoff at the expense of
the other class members, who would then be left without a
representative or any relief.

Even in a case where the defendant successfully effects payment,
there will still be disagreement over whether that payment
actually satisfies the plaintiff's prayer for relief.  In other
words, questions will remain as to what the plaintiff is entitled
to recover on his claims, and whether the defendant's payment
constitutes complete relief.  For example, the plaintiff may be
requesting injunctive relief, even though the defendant is only
willing to pay money.  Or the plaintiff may be seeking class-wide
relief, but the defendant may only want to make an individual
deal.  In such situations, the plaintiff is asking for one thing,
but the defendant is only willing to provide something else. Since
these issues will be in dispute, they will need to be decided by a
court.  And because there is a dispute that needs to be
adjudicated, and the court is capable of granting relief to the
plaintiff, there will still be a "controversy" for purposes of
Article III, and the court will necessarily retain jurisdiction
over the case.

Finally, the court's reasoning in Gomez is supported by
fundamental policy considerations as well.  If courts allowed
defendants to moot a case at will, and thereby eliminate
jurisdiction or otherwise justify a forced entry of judgment, they
would essentially be handing the keys to the courthouse doors to
defendants.  As Justice Ginsburg observes, the Gomez dissenters'
opinions would have put defendants "in the driver's seat" of a
case, allowing them to impose a settlement against a plaintiff's
will.  Taken to its logical extreme, this strategy could be used
to cripple virtually any type of class action, from consumer
privacy and product defect actions, to environmental and civil
rights cases.  This would give defendants an extremely powerful
tool that hinders access to the courts and frustrates the purposes
of Rule 23.

The primary goal of Rule 23, and of class actions generally, is to
give people who are similarly situated, who have been injured in
the same way, a mechanism to join together and resolve their
issues in a fair and efficient way in a single proceeding.  This
is especially so where it is economically infeasible for each
individual class member to bring a separate suit, or each
individual lacks the resources to hire an attorney.  Closing the
courthouse doors to a large proportion of class actions not only
frustrates these goals, it also harms the public, because it
allows entities to escape liability for activities that injure a
large number of people, as long as the injury to each individual
is relatively small.  By avoiding this outcome, the court
preserved the viability of class actions as a mechanism for
aggregating the claims of members of the public who have been
injured at the hands of a single party.  The legacy of Gomez is an
assurance that class actions are an essential means of promoting
the public's access to justice, and courts should be wary of any
attempt to curtail that legacy.

Evan M. Meyers is a partner, and Paul Geske is an associate, at
McGuire Law, PC, a consumer class action litigation firm based in
Chicago that handles the prosecution of civil claims in federal
and state courts throughout the country.  McGuire Law, PC
represented Mr. Gomez as lead counsel in the US Supreme Court.


CANADA: Newfoundland & Labrador Settlement Talks Stall
------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that negotiations on an out-of-court settlement
for residential school survivors in Newfoundland and Labrador have
come to a halt, CBC News has learned.

Meetings between lawyers in Toronto during February ended without
a deal and no further talks are scheduled.

In an email, a lawyer for the former students told CBC, "This is
not complicated and Canada must simply move more quickly. It could
do so if it wanted to."

The class action lawsuit represents more than 1,200 former
students at residential schools in Newfoundland and Labrador, who
are seeking an apology and compensation for abuse and cultural
losses.

Trial would resume in May

Last fall the class action case went to trial.  Former students
testified in court, with many saying it was painful to relive
their experiences at the schools.

However, there was hope that the new Liberal government would
reach an out of court agreement.

In February, court proceedings in the class action lawsuit
stopped, and federal lawyers tried to reach a settlement outside
court with the help of a retired judge.

Late last month, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador
gave lawyers a few more weeks to try to negotiate an out of court
settlement, extending their deadline to May 9.

If the lawyers do not reach a settlement, the trial is scheduled
to resume in May.

Residential school survivors in the province were excluded from a
massive federal government settlement in 2006, which included
compensation and a 2008 apology from then-prime minister Stephen
Harper.


CANADA: Significant Progress Made in Labrador Residential Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
James McLeod, writing for The Packet, reports that two different
lawyers involved in the Labrador residential schools class-action
lawsuit are downplaying reports that negotiations with the federal
government have hit a snag.

In a brief emailed statement, St.John's lawyer Ches Crosbie said
that "significant progress occurred over the weekend" on the case.

That seems to run contrary to a story by the CBC that quoted a
lawyer saying things were not going well, and negotiations had
stopped.

The Labrador residential schools lawsuit has been dragging through
the court system for years.

Aboriginal Labrador survivors of residential schools were left out
of a national apology and settlement agreement in 2008 by then-
prime minister Stephen Harper.

The subsequent Truth and Reconciliations Commission specifically
recommended that the government settle with outstanding groups
like the Labrador students to heal old wounds.

However, settlement negotiations last summer went nowhere, and the
case went to trial -- the first time that survivors of the schools
had to recount their stories in open court.

Justice Robert Stack heard stories of physical, sexual, and
emotional abuse from a parade of survivors -- outright examples of
violence against children, and sexual violation by school staff.

Following the federal election in October, the trial continued to
proceed for a few months before an announcement in February that
things were being suspended to give the two sides time for
settlement negotiations.

After a month, the plaintiffs extended the postponement.

At the time, Mr. Crosbie said that he was "confident that this
postponement will position the parties for resolution of the
case."

Steve Cooper, another lawyer representing the residential schools
survivors, also said that good progress was made in negotiations
over the weekend.

"The talks have not broken off," Mr. Cooper said in an email.

"The date of our next meeting will depend on sufficient progress
being made in advance of the courts schedule for recommencement of
the trial if necessary."

Nobody at the Department if Aboriginal and Northern Affairs was
immediately available to comment.


CAPITAL BUILDING: Workers Await Approval of Wage Theft Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Moylan, writing for MPR News, reports that millions of
workers have had their wages stolen by their employers, a crime
that has victimized employees ranging from NFL cheerleaders to
janitors.

The issue is widespread across the nation, including Minnesota.
Many workers fear retribution for bringing up wage theft claims,
but private lawsuits and government intervention have pried loose
back pay for some.

Most victims of wage theft are low-paid workers like Jesus
Sanchez, according to U.S. Department of Labor research.

Mr. Sanchez cleans stores for the retail cleaning business Capital
Building Services.  After five years with the company, he said
he's still making just minimum wage.

But that is less of a problem than not getting paid for hours he
actually worked, he said, which was an issue before he and
co-workers sued Capital Building Services.

"I didn't even receive pay stubs with my pay checks to know how
many hours I was paid for," Mr. Sanchez said through a translator.

Two top Minnesota Democrats, Sen. Al Franken and Rep. Keith
Ellison, are backing legislation that could help fight wage theft,
including situations just like Sanchez's.  It would require that
all workers get pay stubs detailing an employee's pay rate, along
with their regular and overtime hours worked. They point out that
42 states, including Minnesota, require employers to provide some
form of pay stub to employees, but the standards vary from state
to state.

The bill pushed by Ellison and Franken would make law a 1946
Supreme Court decision that if an employer fails to keep records
of an employee's pay, the employee's own credible evidence and
testimony about his or her pay is presumed to be true.

Mr. Sanchez and the other plaintiffs are now waiting for court
approval of a $425,000 settlement, much of which they will receive
as back pay.  Capital Building Services denies any wrongdoing, but
said it is settling to avoid further litigation.

Attorney Adam Hansen represented the employees.  "These workers
will get hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay," he said.
"That's a big deal."

Mr. Hansen said there's intense competition among cleaning
contractors.  The low bid usually wins, which "puts tremendous
pressure on these contracting companies to cut corners, to not pay
the full amount of wages owed," he said.

And Mr. Hansen said small cleaning companies that are owned by
individuals and lack significant assets can escape being held
accountable for ripping off workers.  "You have that threat that,
'Hey we're just going to fold our tents and declare bankruptcy,'"
he said.

Janitors have been especially vocal about wage theft, but they're
hardly alone.  Emiliano Alberto Espinoza Santos has worked in
roofing for nearly a decade.  The south Minneapolis resident said
he's learned to be wary about contractors.

Also speaking through a translator, Espinoza Santos said that
multiple times, "people haven't paid me or they paid me less than
we had agreed on in the beginning."

Both the Minnesota and U.S. labor departments investigate wage
issues. Last year, the feds and state together recovered about
$1.5 million for some 2,300 Minnesota employees.  That's an
average of $650 a person.

"Wage theft is everywhere," said David King, district director for
the for U.S. Department of Labor's wage and hour division. "Every
day, we've got investigators going out into the field and finding
people are not being paid in compliance with the law."

Mr. King said wage theft is most common in certain industries such
as hospitality, janitorial and security services.

It can be costly for employers who get caught.  The left-leaning
Economic Policy Institute said government and private attorneys
recovered nearly $1 billion dollars on behalf of wage theft
victims in 2012.

The Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry said most of the
wage complaints coming to the agency involve employers stiffing
former employees on their final paycheck.  But the department also
sees wage theft occur when employers misclassify workers as
independent contractors rather than employees.  Deputy
commissioner Jessica Looman said that's a problem they often see
in the construction industry.

"They'll say, 'If you want to work for us, you're going to be an
independent contractor.  You're responsible for your own taxes,
your own withholding, your own business expenses,'" she said. That
way the employer avoids all payment of minimum wages, overtime,
unemployment insurance and workers' compensation benefits, Ms.
Looman said.

Several NFL teams -- not the Vikings -- have classified their
cheerleaders as independent contractors in recent years.  Some of
these franchises have reached settlements with their squads, but
not the Buffalo Bills. Attorney Christopher Marlborough represents
the team's cheerleaders, the Buffalo Jills.

"Quite a few of the cheerleaders made approximately $200 a year or
less, for hundreds of hours of work," Mr. Marlborough said.

The Bills team said it has long relied on third party contractors
for cheerleading and is confident in its legal position.

The Vikings' cheerleaders are employees and the team won't say how
much they are paid, but a one-hour public appearance by two
cheerleaders costs $500.

Another wage theft tactic is to wrongly classify low-level
managers as white-collar professionals who are exempt from hourly
wage rules. Over-classifying means the employer pays no overtime
after 40 hours a week.  People in those jobs may work so many
hours that they're effectively earning less than minimum wage.

But wage theft also occurs in higher paying industries. A handful
of tech giants, including Google and Apple, ponied up $435 million
to settle allegations of illegal wage suppression in the tech
industry.

Despite those high profile victories, the Labor Department
acknowledges people are still reluctant to speak up.

Employment attorney Marshall Tanick said that's because it is
dangerous for individuals to complain.  "They put their jobs at
risk," he said.  "There's a real tendency for employers to
retaliate against employees."

Wage theft complaints may be best pursued on a group basis or as a
class action, Mr. Tanick said.

An even bigger problem may be that wage theft not only cheats
employees, but also can hurt employers who play by the rules.
Aaron Sojourner, assistant professor at the University of
Minnesota's Carlson School of Management, said "you have a lot of
businesses that are out there following the law and then you have
other businesses that are cheating," he said.  "This practice
creates an uneven playing field."


CAREER EDUCATION: CEC, EduTrek Fail in Bid to Dismiss "Fitzhenry"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK FITZHENRY, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CAREER EDUCATION
CORPORATION and EDUTREK, LLC., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-10172
(N.D. Ill.), Judge John W. Darrah denied Career Education
Corporation (CEC) and EduTrek, LLC's motion to dismiss and motion
to strike class allegations, as well as EduTrek's motion to stay
the proceedings.

Mark Fitzhenry sued CEC and EduTrek for violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act based on two telephone calls: one made by
the Education Network, allegedly on behalf of EduTrek, and the
other made by the Colorado Technical University (CTU), allegedly
on behalf of CEC.

The defendants moved to dismiss Fitzhenry's second amended
complaint, arguing that Fitzhenry lacks standing to bring the
lawsuit as he has not and cannot establish the alleged harm is
fairly traceable to CEC.  The defendants also argued that
Fitzhenry consented to receive one of the calls upon which he
bases his TCPA claim.

Judge Darrah, however, found that the second amendment complaint
asserted factual allegations that connect both telephone calls to
CEC.  Further, the judge also found that while Fitzhenry did
consent to receiving a live call, he did not consent to calls made
by an automated dialing system, the use of which is forbidden by
the TCPA.  Judge Darrah thus concluded that the complaint has
satisfied the requirements of Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) in
pleading sufficient factual allegations that satisfy standing and
provide reasonable basis upon which relief can be granted.

The defendants also argued that CEC and CTU offered a complete
settlement on February 17, 2015 that warrants dismissal of the
suit.  However, Fitzhenry claimed that the settlement offer is
incomplete and does not account for a third phone call.  On this
matter, Judge Darrah held that an unaccepted settlement offer or
offer of judgment does not moot a would-be class representative
plaintiff's case.  Thus, the defendants' motion to dismiss was
denied.

EduTrek filed a motion to stay proceedings pending the Supreme
Court's decision in Spokeo, Inc. v. Thomas Robins, Docket No. 13-
1339.  Judge Darrah, however, held that the decision in Spokeo is
not binding because it involves a claim under the Fair Credit
Report Act (FCRA), and not the TCPA which is the operative statute
in Fitzhenry's suit.

Finally, Judge Darrah denied the defendants' motion to strike
class allegations on the ground that it would be premature to
strike the plaintiff's class claims because of a speculative
assertion regarding each class member's possible entitlement to
damages.

A full-text copy of Judge Darrah's March 1, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/ocYg2Cfrom
Leagle.com.

Mark Fitzhenry, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Holmes Burke -
- aburke@burkelawllc.com -- Burke Law Offices, LLC, Anthony
Paronich, Broderick Law, P.C., Beth Ellen Terrell --
bterrell@terrelmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC,
Daniel J. Marovitch, Burke Law Offices, LLC & Mary B. Reiten --
mreiten@terrelmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC.

Career Education Corporation, Defendant, represented by Terance A
Gonsalves -- terance.gonsalves@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP, Charles Allan Devore -- charles.devore@kattenlaw.com
-- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Dawn Marie Canty --
dawn.canty@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP.

Edutrek, LLC, Defendant, represented by Raymond L. Fitzgerald --
rfitzgerald@bffmlaw.com -- Butler, Fitzgerald & Potter.


CELTIC BANK: "Scoma" Sues Over Illegal Phone Calls
--------------------------------------------------
Scoma Chiropractic, P.A., a Florida corporation, individually and
as the representative of a class of similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. Celtic Bank, Kabbage, Inc., Loanme, Inc. and John
Does (1-10), Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00143-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.,
February 18, 2016), complains of illegal phone calls.

Plaintiff is a chiropractic practice based in Cape Coral, Florida.

Celtic Bank, Kabbage, Inc., Loanme, Inc. are small business
financing institutions offering loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 760
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Tel: (847) 368-1500
      Fax: (847) 368-1501
      Email: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Suit v Lessor Survives Dismissal Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Malachy E. Mannon denied the motion filed by James L. Brown
to dismiss the case captioned CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC.,
Plaintiff v. JAMES L. BROWN, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:14-0833
(M.D. Pa.).

On March 28, 2014, Brown commenced an arbitration before the
American Arbitration Association, as the result of a dispute with
Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, arising from an oil and gas lease
entered into by the parties.

On April 29, 2014, Chesapeake sued Brown in which it seeks two
declarations: (1) that the court, not an arbitrator, must decide
whether class arbitration is available pursuant to the parties'
lease, and (2) that Brown is precluded from pursuing the pending
arbitration as a class arbitration.  Chesapeake sought summary
judgment on the first issue, and Brown sought to dismiss the
complaint.

On January 5, 2016, the Third Circuit issued its decision in the
substantially similar case Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC v. Scout
Petroleum, LLC in which it held that courts, not arbitrators,
decide questions of class arbitrability absent clear and
unmistakable evidence otherwise, and that the arbitration
provisions at issue, which are identical to those in Brown's case,
did not constitute clear and unmistakable evidence otherwise.

In light of the precedential holding of the Third Circuit in
Scout, Judge Mannon thus granted Chesapeake's motion for summary
judgment and denied Brown's motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Mannon's March 2, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/mm7UFKfrom Leagle.com.

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel T.
Brier -- dbrier@mbklaw.com -- Myers Brier & Kelly, LLP, Daniel T
Donovan -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP &
Ragan Naresh -- ragen.naresh@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

James L. Brown, Defendant, represented by Michael D. Donovan,
Donovan Axler, LLC, Noah Axler, Donovan Axler, LLC, Robert E.
McCann -- rmccann@mccannwallinjury.com -- McCann & Wall, LLC &
Todd J Jacobs, McCann & Wall, LLC.


CHINA MOBILE: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re CHINA MOBILE GAMES & ENTERTAINMENT
GROUP, LTD SECURITIES LITIGATION, No. 14-CV-4471 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.),
Judge Kimba M. Wood granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
Consolidated Securities Class Action Complaint pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 9(b).

A putative class action was brought against the defendants China
Mobile Games & Entertainment Group, Ltd. (CMGE), certain of its
officers and directors, and several investment banks that
underwrote CMGE's secondary public offering.  Plaintiffs Miran
Segregated Portfolio Company - Miran Long Short Equity Segregated
Portfolio, Edward McCaffery, and Charlie Shun alleged that the
defendants made materially false or misleading statements relating
to their involvement in bribery and related-party transactions,
thereby artificially increasing the prices of CMGE securities.

Judge Kimba granted the defendants' motion to dismiss in its
entirety, holding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead
either actionable misstatements or omissions, and scienter.

Judge Kimba found that the plaintiffs failed to allege any
actionable misstatements or omissions with regard to bribery,
because they did not adequately allege contemporaneous falsity.
The judge also found that the plaintiffs failed to properly allege
misstatements or omissions with regard to alleged related-party
transactions, because they did not plead sufficient facts to show
that Shuling Ying, who was president of CMGE from October 2013
until his removal on or about June 19, 2014, somehow secretly
controlled Zhongzheng after having divested his entire interest in
the company.

Judge Kimba also held that the complaint failed to adequately
plead that the defendants CMGE, its Chief Executive Officer Jian
Xiao, and its Chief Financial Officer Ken Fei Fu Chang acted with
the requisite scienter.  The judge found that the plaintiffs'
allegations failed to support a strong inference of scienter based
on either (1) motive and opportunity; or (2) circumstantial
evidence of conscious misbehavior or recklessness.

The plaintiffs were granted 30 days within which to re-file their
complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Wood's March 7, 2016 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/NKvctkfrom Leagle.com.

Darryl Reitan, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin Koon-Pon Chan --
kchan@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Laurence M.
Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM PA, pro hac
vice & Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm
P.A..

ASHOK SAGAR, Movant, represented by Gregory M. Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- Gainey McKenna & Egleston.

Johnnie Dormier, Movant, represented by Gregory Bradley Linkh --
glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Robert
Vincent Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, pro hac vice.

OP Investment Management Ltd, Movant, represented by Phillip C.
Kim, The Rosen Law Firm P.A..

Miran Segregated Portfolio Company Miran Long Short Equity
Segregated Portfolio, Movant, represented by Richard William
Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro
hac vice.

The China Mobile Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jeremy
Alan Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

China Mobile Games & Entertainment Group, LTD, Ken Jian Xiao, Ying
Shuling, Ken Fei Fu Chang, Defendants, represented by Andrew Brian
Clubok -- andrew.clubok@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Adam
Thomas Humann -- adam.humann@kirkland.com -- Kirkland & Ellis LLP,
Eric Scott Merin, Kirkland & Ellis LLP & Leopoldo Joaquin Yanez,
Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Barclays Capital, Inc.,
Jeffries LLC, Nomura Securities International, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Adam Selim Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com -- Shearman
& Sterling LLP, Daniel Craig Lewis -- daniel.lewis@shearman.com --
Shearman & Sterling LLP & Jeffrey D. Hoschander --
jeff.hoschander@shearman.com -- Shearman & Sterling LLP.


CHINESE DAILY: 9th Cir. Affirms Class Cert. Denial in HAMP MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Kane, Esq. -- pkane@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that in a
consolidated multi-district litigation putative class action
involving allegations of improper handling of HAMP loan
modifications by a large mortgage servicer, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the district
court's order denying the putative class plaintiffs' motion for
class certification, holding that the district court correctly
determined that individual issues predominated over common issues.

The opinion was not published, and is non-precedential.

Among other things, the putative class plaintiffs alleged that the
defendant servicer supposedly improperly denied permanent HAMP
loan modifications, and supposedly breached loan modification
agreements with homeowners.

The Ninth Circuit began its analysis by recounting that a ruling
on class certification will be reversed only if the district court
clearly abuses its discretion.  The Court then addressed whether
the district court applied the correct legal standard under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, finding that there was no
dispute that it did so.

The dispute before the Court, however, was whether "the district
court's findings of fact, and its application of those findings of
fact to the correct legal standard, were illogical, implausible,
or without support in inferences that may be drawn from facts in
the record."  This is what the putative class plaintiffs argued.

The Court found that the district court did not abuse its
discretion in denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(3)
because, as required by the Ninth Circuit's decision in Wang v.
Chinese Daily News, Inc., "the district court's analysis focused
on the relationship between the common and individual issues in
the case . . . [determining] that individual issues predominated
over common issues, because determination of the deadline by which
[the defendant mortgagee] was allegedly required to grant or deny
permanent modification could not be made 'simply by identifying
the MED [Modification Effective Date] as stated in the TPP [Trial
Payment Plan Agreement].'"

The Court reasoned that "such a determination would also require
inquiry into issues unique to each class member" and therefore
that class treatment was not appropriate.

The Ninth Circuit noted that the district court supported its
decision to deny class certification with specific examples, such
as "the parties' course of conduct, changes in income,
inaccurately or incompletely reported income, oral and written
representations regarding documentation still needed and other
modification options . . ." The Court agreed with the district
court that such "additional considerations were critical to
determining not only whether [defendant] had breached the TPP, but
also the amount of damages."

The Court also found that the district court "did not abuse its
discretion by denying class certification under Rule 23(b)(1),
because Plaintiffs failed to 'affirmatively demonstrate [their]
compliance' with Rule 23(b)(1)."  Specifically, the Ninth Circuit
noted that their "arguments under Rule 23(b)(1) were 'cursory' and
lacked 'any substantive explanation as to why the reasoning in
[the cases Plaintiffs cited] would support certification on the
facts and law in this case."

Finally, the Ninth Circuit found that "the district court did not
abuse its discretion by denying class certification under Rule
23(b)(2)" because the putative class plaintiffs raised a new
argument for the first time on appeal by framing "their legal
theory as seeking declaratory relief to qualify under Rule
23(b)(2)" while they argued to the district court that their legal
theory was based on injunctive relief prohibiting the defendant
from collecting certain fees and requiring corrective reporting.
Because the argument was not raised in the district court, the
Court held it was waived.


CLEAR WIRELESS: Class in "Lindsay" Suit Decertified
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge David S. Doty of the District of Minnesota granted
the defendants' motion to decertify the class in the case Kenneth
Lindsay and Jesse Owens individually and on behalf of other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Clear Wireless LLC
and Workforce Logic LLC, d/b/a Workforce Logic, a Zero Chaos
Company, APC Workforce Solutions, LLC, d/b/a Zero Chaos, Gary D.
Nelson and Associates, Inc., ABE Services d/b/a Workforce Logic,
and Clearwire Corporation, Defendants, Civil No. 13-834(DSD/FLN)
(D. Minn.)

Clear Wireless LLC and Clearwire Corporation provided wireless
products and broadband services to consumers throughout the
country. In July 2013, Sprint Nextel Corporation acquired Clear
Wireless. Clear Wireless stopped doing business on August 31,
2013.

Gary D. Nelson and Associates, Inc. (GDNA) is a staffing company
that formed ABE Services to provide temporary placement,
onboarding, and payroll services to employers. In 2005, ABE
Services merged with Workforce Logic and thereafter did business
as Workforce Logic. From April 2006 to January 4, 2012, ABE
Services provided services to Clear Wireless pursuant to a
professional services agreement (PSA). The PSA provided that ABE
Services would onboard individuals that Clear Wireless had
recruited and interviewed.

In 2011, ZeroChaos (ZC) agreed to purchase certain of GDNA's
assets, including ABE Services' Clear Wireless account and the
PSA. GDNA transferred those assets to the newly formed Workforce
Logic LLC. ZC purchased Workforce Logic LLC and thus took over the
Clear Wireless account and PSA on January 5, 2012. Neither GDNA
nor ABE Services had any involvement with the Clear Wireless
account.

Plaintiff Kenneth Lindsay worked as a retail sales representative
for Clear Wireless from November 2010 to August 2011. He was
typically scheduled to work 30-36 hours per week.  Plaintiff Jesse
Owens sold Clear Wireless products and services in the Minneapolis
area as a retail sales representative from March 2012 to June
2012. During his short tenure with the company, Owens was
typically scheduled to work between 30 and 35 hours per week.

Lindsay and Owens filed suit individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, alleging that defendants failed to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).  Plaintiffs specifically allege that they were
required to perform off-the-clock overtime work. Plaintiffs seek
unpaid overtime, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees and
costs.

On January 3, 2014, the court conditionally certified a nationwide
class:

     "Clear Wireless and Workforce Logic's employees and/or
contractors that were employed in a sales related capacity to sell
Clear Wireless' 4G broadband products in Clear Wireless' retail
and national retail subdistribution channels and markets as either
Retail Sales Representatives and/or National Retail Account
Executives from April 2010 to the present."

In an order dated March 10, 2016, available at
http://goo.gl/sx3nLqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Doty granted
defendants' motion to decertify the class and motion for summary
judgment and dismissed without prejudice the opt-in-plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs, represented by Eric D Satre -- esatre@satrelaw.com --
at Satre Law Firm; Jarvis C Jones -- jjones@jonessatre.com -- at
Jones Satre & Weimer

Clear Wireless LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian L Mosby --
bmosby@littler.com -- John H Lassetter -- jlassetter@littler.com -
- Kerry L Middleton -- kmiddleton@littler.com -- Niloy Ray --
nray@littler.com -- Stephanie M Laws -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Workforce Logic LLC and APC Workforce Solutions, LLC, Defendants,
represented by Daniel R Hall -- dhall@anthonyostlund.com -- Mary L
Knoblauch -- mknoblauch@anthonyostlund.com -- at Anthony Ostlund
Baer & Louwagie PA; Joyce Ackerbaum Cox -- jacox@bakerlaw.com --
at Baker & Hostetler LLP

Clearwire Corporation, Defendant, represented by John H Lassetter
-- jlassetter@littler.com -- Kerry L Middleton --
kmiddleton@littler.com -- Niloy Ray -- nray@littler.com --
Stephanie M Laws -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.

Gary D. Nelson and Associates, Inc. and ABE Services, Defendants,
represented by Dean A LeDoux -- dean.ledoux@gpmlaw.com -- Gregory
R Merz -- gregory.merz@gpmlaw.com -- Janet C Evans --
jan.evans@gpmlaw.com -- Matthew P Webster --
matthew.webster@gpmlaw.com -- Meghann F Kantke --
meghann.kantke@gpmlaw.com -- at Gray Plant Mooty Mooty & Bennett,
PA


CLIF BAR: Faces "Perieff" Fraud Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Clif Bar &
Company.  The fraud case is captioned Greg Perieff, Linda Cheslow,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Clif
Bar & Company, Case No. CGC 16 550801 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 5,
2015).


CLIFFS NATURAL: Sued in N.Y. Over Unfair Exchange Offer
-------------------------------------------------------
Gary Waxman and Leonard Hammerschlag, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Cliffs Natural Resources,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01899 (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2016), alleges
that Cliff violated a 2010 Indenture governing the issuance of the
Company's (i) 5.90% Senior Notes due 2020 (CUSIP 18683KAA9); and
(ii) 6.25% Senior Notes due 2040 (CUSIP 18683KAC5), for denying
non-Qualified Institutional Buyers or QIBs from participating in a
private exchange offer for the Notes.  The Exchange Offer now
subordinates the Class Notes held by Class members to the QIBs who
elected to exchange their Class Notes for 8.00% 1.5L Notes.

Cliffs Natural Resources, Inc., an Ohio corporation, is a leading
mining and natural resources company in the U.S.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
     James S. Notis, Esq.
     Meagan Farmer, Esq.
     GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
     Tower 56
     126 East 56th Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 905-0509
     Facsimile: (212) 905-0508

          - and -

     Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
     Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
     485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (646) 722-8500
     Facsimile: (646) 722-8501


COGENT COMMUNICATIONS: Court Won't Allow Interlocutory Review
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOAN AMBROSIO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COGENT
COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-02182-RS (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg denied the motion filed by Cogent
Communications, Inc. for certification of a January 4, 2016 order
and for a stay of the proceedings pending resolution of its appeal
of the order.

Cogent requested certification for interlocutory review of a
January 4, 2016 order granting the plaintiffs' motion to
conditionally certify a collective action under the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA").  Cogent sought to clarify the appropriate
standard for conditionally certifying a collective action when the
parties have conducted substantial discovery prior to the motion
being filed.  Cogent likewise moved to stay the case pending
resolution of its appeal of the order.

Denying Cogent's request for certification of the January 4, 2016
order, Judge Seeborg held that Cogent has not shown exceptional
circumstances that would justify a departure from the basic policy
of postponing appellate review until after a final judgment.

Judge Seeborg further held that Cogent has not persuasively shown
a stay of the proceedings is warranted, and its motion was
accordingly denied.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's February 29, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/zwLjoOfrom Leagle.com.

Joan Ambrosio, Keith Swick, Cosmin Banu, Shahid Rahmatullah, Dana
Rogers, Christian Halloran, Novelett Witt, Art Baimkin, Angelito
Muyot, Jr., Jason Ruiz, Keshav Lilburn, Kamath Peet Sapsin, Alicia
Erby, Plaintiffs, represented by Thomas E. Duckworth --
tom@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP, Mark
Christopher Peters -- mark@dplolaw.com -- Duckworth Peters
Lebowitz Olivier LLP, Michael Todd Slobin, Shellist Lazarz Slobin
LLP, pro hac vice & Monique Olivier -- monique@dplolaw.com --
Duckworth Peters Lebowitz Olivier LLP.

Cogent Communications, Inc., Defendant, represented by Tamara
Irene Devitt -- tamara.devitt@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone,
LLP, Mary-Christine Sungaila -- mc.sungaila@haynesboone.com --
Haynes and Boone, LLP, Matthew E Costello --
matthew.costello@haynesboone.com -- Haynes and Boone, LLP &
Meghaan Cecilia McElroy -- meghaan.madriz@haynesboone.com --
Haynes and Boone, LLP, pro hac vice.

The International Association of Defense Counsel, Amicus,
represented by Andrew Kopon, Jr. -- akopon@koponairdo.com -- Kopon
Airdo, pro hac vice, Robert A. Brundage, Morgan Lewis & Bockius
LLP & Eleonora Paloma Khazanova -- ekhazanova@koponairdo.com --
Kopon Airdo, LLC.


COLE HAAN: Faces "Chin" Class Suit in California Superior Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Cole Haan, LLC.
The case is captioned Alex Chin, individually and on behalf of
other members of the general public similarly situated v. Does 1
to 100, Inclusive and Cole Haan, LLC, Case No. CGC 16 550794 (Cal.
Super. Ct., March 5, 2016).


COMCAST CORP: "Brown" Sues Over Illegal Telemarketing Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Malik Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Comcast Corporation, Defendant, Case 5:16-
cv-00264 (C.D. Cal. February 10, 2016), seeks injunctive relief,
treble damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and
such other relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.

Comcast or its agents called Mr. Brown's cellular telephone at
least 27 times using an automatic telephone dialing system without
his prior express written consent, says the complaint.

Comcast is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
business at 1701 John F Kennedy Blvd., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
19103. It is the largest broadcasting and cable company in the
world and is the largest internet service provider in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
      Scott A Bursor, Esq.
      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 300-4455
      Email: scott@bursor.com
             ltfisher@bursor.com
             apersinger@bursor.com
             ykrivoshey@bursor.com


CONTINENTAL CASUALTY: 2017 Trial Set in Long-Term Care Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Tuccitto Sullo, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune,
reports that Francis and Barbara Coughlin purchased a long-term
care insurance policy in 1992.  Two decades later, they needed it.
Francis was suffering from multiple ailments and Barbara had
Alzheimer's disease. In April 2012, they moved into an assisted
living facility in Darien, but their insurance company refused to
pay for their care.

Their alleged experiences are detailed in ongoing litigation
against the Continental Casualty Company in U.S. District Court in
Connecticut.  According to the 2013 lawsuit, other policy holders
encountered the same situation.  In a decision dated
March 1, Judge Janet Bond Arterton granted class action status to
plaintiffs in the case, which is scheduled to go to trial in early
2017.  "The heart of these claims is a dispute over the proper
interpretation of identically worded policies,"
Judge Arterton wrote.

Louis George -- lgeorge@hgesq.com -- of Hassett & George in
Simsbury is part of a team of attorneys representing the
plaintiffs, some of whom have since passed away, including the
Coughlins.  "We feel it is a positive step in our pursuit to
obtain coverage for individuals who paid premiums for long-term
care coverage," Mr. George said, of class certification being
granted.   "It is one hurdle in the pursuit of coverage that has
been denied to many elderly individuals."

According to Mr. George, there are about 740 relevant long-term
care policy holders in Connecticut, and the team has identified
over 26 plaintiffs so far who have had their benefit claims denied
on identical grounds.

Typically, policy holders were denied coverage for a stay at a
facility on the grounds that it didn't meet policy requirements,
such as that the facility wasn't licensed by the state or it could
not legally provide 24 hour a day nursing services or care, court
documents show.

"People bought these long-term care policies, but when they needed
it, they were denied, with the insurance company claiming their
policy didn't cover it, which we disagree with," Mr. George said.
"Unfortunately, some people have passed away since the inception
of this case.  Some had to have their family members do their best
to pay for their care, when they thought they had obtained
coverage."

In the case of the Coughlins, they were told the Darien facility
was a "managed residential community," and as such did not meet
the requirements of the policy as a "long-term care facility."

Francis Coughlin returned home and "began paying for at-home
nursing care out of pocket," according to the complaint. Barbara
Coughlin moved in 2013 to different facility, believing it met the
"long term care" definition, but was again denied coverage, the
lawsuit alleges.  Francis died in 2014, and Barbara passed away in
2015.

The litigation names five individuals as plaintiffs, including one
other person who has since died.  The lawsuit alleges violations
of the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, unjust enrichment,
breach of contract and bad faith, because of Continental's denial
of claims for the plaintiffs' stays in assisted living facilities
in Connecticut.

Financial Resources

Continental Casualty Company is being represented by the Chicago-
based firm of Eimer Stahl, and the Hartford office of the
international firm Locke Lord.  Brent Austin of Eimer Stahl and
Donald Frechette -- donald.frechette@lockelord.com -- of Locke
Lord both declined to comment, citing pending litigation.

In objecting to class action status being granted, Continental's
attorneys asserted that they had planned to offer affirmative
defenses that are specific to each individual plaintiff.  They
also claimed the need for non-party testimony, such as facility
employees and family members, further barred certification.

In her decision, Judge Arterton wrote, "Every current policyholder
purchased long-term care insurance with the expectation that at
some point in the future she would need to utilize it.  She may
not know exactly when she will need the insurance, but she can be
fairly certain that at some point she will need it, and when she
does, she will be faced with a policy interpretation that severely
limits her options for long-term care. These individuals,
therefore, have standing to challenge defendant's interpretation
of their policies."

The defense also asserted the plaintiffs made no showing that the
class members' financial resources would prevent them from
bringing individual lawsuits.  Judge Arterton, however, wrote that
while the plaintiffs haven't put forth evidence of financial
barriers, "Many of the class members are likely to be elderly and
of limited capacity, making it difficult for them to file
individual suits," she wrote.


COOK COUNTY, IL: App. Ct. Affirms Dismissal of "Marshall" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the trial court's
dismissal of Steven Marshall's third amended complaint with
prejudice in the case captioned STEVEN MARSHALL, as a
Representative of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. THE COUNTY OF COOK, Defendant-Appellee, No. 1-14-
2864 (Ill. App. Ct.).

In 2010, Marshall filed a complaint against Cook County, alleging
that the county misused funds collected from litigation fees by
failing to use them for the purposes stated in the enabling
statutes.  A third amended complaint was filed in September 2013,
styled as a class action.

The trial court dismissed Marshall's third amended complaint with
prejudice, finding that it was not a taxpayer case, that Marshall
lacked standing, and that any claim, if there is one, would need
to be brought by the Cook County State's Attorney.  Marshall moved
for reconsideration, but was denied by the trial court.

The appellate court agreed with the circuit court in ruling that
no private right of action exists under the enabling statutes, as
the statutes are intended to benefit counties that want to reduce
court security costs or establish and maintain document storage or
automated recordkeeping systems.  Thus, the appellate court
concluded that Marshall did not have standing and it was the Cook
County State's Attorney that could bring the lawsuit.

The appellate court also found that Marshall presented no evidence
that he bears any liability or that any pecuniary loss from the
misuse of the funds adversely impacts all taxpayers.  Thus, the
appellate court held that he has no legally cognizable interest as
a taxpayer in the outcome of the lawsuit.

The appellate court also did not find abuse of discretion in the
circuit court's denial of Marshall's motion to disqualify the
State Attorney, because the State Attorney is not an actual party
in this litigation, and the record does not support a finding that
she has a private individual interest in the litigation.

Lastly, the appellate court held that the trial court properly
denied Marshall's request to file a fourth-amended complaint
because the request came after the final entry of a final
judgment.  The court explained that once final judgment has been
obtained, section 2-616(c) bars a plaintiff from either adding new
claims and theories or correcting deficiencies.

A full-text copy of the Appellate Court of Illinois' March 1, 2016
opinion is available at http://is.gd/pOapV6from Leagle.com.


COVINGTON SPECIALTY: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Covington
Specialty Insurance Company, Case No. 15-029870-CA-01, was removed
from 11th Judicial Circuit in Miami-Dade County, Florida, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20338-JAL to
the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly failed to Pay
Medical Pay Benefits to the Plaintiff.

Covington Specialty Insurance Company offers insurance services.
The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in New
Hampshire. Covington Specialty Insurance Company operates as a
subsidiary of RSUI Indemnity Company, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Michael K. Kiernan, Esq.
          TRAUB LIEBERMAN STRAUS
          & SHREWSBERRY, LLP
          P.O. Box 3942
          St. Petersburg, FL 33731
          Telephone: (727) 898 8100
          Facsimile: (727) 895 4838
          E-mail: ServiceMKiernan@traublieberman.com
                  FLPleadings@traublieberman.com


CUSTOMER CREDIT: "Dietz" FLSA Suit Moved to West. Dist. Okla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Dietz v. Customer Credit
Corporation et al., Case No. CJ-15-05912, was removed from the
Oklahoma County Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Oklahoma (Oklahoma City). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00108-L to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover actual
damages, plus liquidated damages, punitive damages, and attorneys'
fees as as result of Defendants' alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Customer Credit Corporation is engaged in the business of Credit &
Debt Counseling. The Company is based in Edmond, Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark Hammons, Esq.
          Leah Roper, Esq.
          HAMMONS, GOWENS &burst
          325 Dean A. McGee Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (445) 235 6100
          Facsimile: (445) 235 6111
          E-mail: Leah@hatnmonslaw.com
                  Mark@hammonlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Tanya S. Brvant, Esq.
          Mary P. Snyder, Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          Braniff Building
          324 N. Robinson Ave., Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102-8273
          Telephone: (405) 235 7700
          Facsimile: (405) 239 6651
          E-mail: tanya.bryant@crowedunlevy.com
                  mary.snyder@crowedunlevy.com


CYPRESS SECURITY: "Rita" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Alfredo Rita et al. v. Cypress
Security, LLC, Case No. CGC-15-549477, was removed from the San
Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00614-EDL to the proceeding.

Cypress Security was founded in 2004. The Company's line of
business includes providing detective, guard, and armored car
services. The Company is based in San Francisco, California.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Alex Hernaez, Esq.
          FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
          345 California Street, Suite 2200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 364 5540
          Facsimile: (415) 391 4436
          E-mail: ahernaez@foxrothschild.com


DETROIT, MI: Must Respond to Discovery, Judge Says
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul D. Borman of the Eastern District of Michigan,
Southern Division, directed the City of Detroit to respond to
plaintiffs' discovery requests in the case TIMOTHY DAVIS AND
HATEMA DAVIS, Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF DETROIT, ET AL., Defendants,
Case No. 15-10547 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiffs originally filed their putative class action on
February 11, 2015, alleging that individual members of the Detroit
Police Department violated their constitutional right to be free
from unlawful searches and seizures and also allege that their
constitutional rights were violated as a result of the City of
Detroit's unconstitutional polices, customs, training and/or
supervision of its police officers. On July 14, 2015, pursuant to
a stipulated order, plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint
which added new defendants and reflected a party substitution.

On June 30, 2015, the City of Detroit moved the court for a
protective order seeking to preclude or delay discovery of the
Detroit's Internal Affairs files and files related to homes other
than the named plaintiffs' home.  Detroit argued a protective
order was needed because the files requested by plaintiffs in
their requests to produce were part of an on-going federal and
local enforcement investigation. Additionally, Detroit asserted
that the requested documents and information relative to internal
investigations of the Detroit Police Department contained
privileged information regarding the disposition of internal
police department proceedings.

The motion was referred to Magistrate Judge David R. Grand; the
motion was granted in part and denied in part. On October 8, 2015,
the court entered a referenced stipulated protective order.

On January 26, 2016, plaintiffs filed an amended motion for order
to show cause and/or for default judgment for defendants' failure
to comply with the court's prior discovery orders. Plaintiffs
assert that on November 3, 2015, Detroit provided its supplemental
responses to plaintiffs' discovery requests but violated the
September order when it failed to provide the responsive documents
to plaintiffs' first request to produce, dated April 23, 2015, No.
7 as it pertained to defendant Arthur Leavells. Plaintiffs also
assert that Detroit violated the September order when it failed to
produce any documents, subject to redaction as set forth in the
stipulated protective order, responsive to plaintiffs' second
request to produce No. 1 relating to the personnel files of the
named individual defendants.

Plaintiffs request that the court order Detroit to show cause for
its failure to comply with the September order and/or sanction
Detroit for its failure to comply by entering a default judgment
against it pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
37(b)(2)(A).

Judge Borman granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
amended motion for order to show cause and/or default judgment
such that plaintiffs' request for an order to show cause is
granted but the request for a default judgment and attorneys' fees
is denied.

The court orders that Detroit either comply with Magistrate Judge
Grand's September 15, 2015 order within 21 days of the present
order and supply responsive documents to plaintiffs' first request
to produce No. 7, plaintiffs' second request to produce No. 1, and
supply plaintiffs with the appropriate privilege log, or show
cause in writing within 21 days of the date of the order for its
failure to do so.

A copy of Judge Borman's order dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/QpASPXfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Dennis A Dettmer, Esq.
     Dettmer and Dezsi
     Ford Bldg.
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Telephone: 313-281-8090

          - and -

     Michael R. Dezsi, Esq.
     Law Office of Michael R. Dezsi, PLLC
     615 Griswold Street, Suite 1600
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Telephone: 313-879-1206
     Facsimile: 313-963-5221

City of Detroit, Charles Flanagan, Vatasha K Napier, Arthur
Leavells, Officer Amy Matellic, Officer Larry Barnett, Officer
Steven Riley, Officer Matthew Bray, Officer Brian Johnson, Officer
Reginald Beasley, Sgt. Stephen Geelhood, Defendants, represented
by:

     Calvert A. Bailey, Esq.
     Detroit City Law Department
     660 Woodward Ave #1650
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Telephone: 313-224-4550

Arthur Leavells, Defendant, represented by:

     Lawrence T. Garcia, Esq.
     Garcia Law Group, PLLC
     3011 W Grand Blvd.
     Detroit, MI 48202
     Telephone: 877-643-6255


DIAMOND FOODS: "McGee" Suit Over Trans Fat Popcorn Rejected
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JACQUELYN McGEE, Plaintiff, v. DIAMOND
FOODS, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 14cv2446 JAH (DHB) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge John A. Houston granted Diamond Foods, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss Jacquelyn McGee's complaint.

McGee filed a class action against Diamond Foods on October 14,
2014, alleging unfair and unlawful business practices, public
nuisance, and breach of implied warranty of merchantability for
unfairly electing not to use safe, low-cost, and commercially
acceptable alternatives to the artificial trans fat ("TFA")
contained in its Pop Secret brand popcorn products.  On November
12, 2014, Diamond Foods filed a motion to dismiss.

Judge Houston granted Diamond Foods' motion to dismiss due to
McGee's failure to allege an injury-in-fact, physical or economic,
which satisfies the Article III standing requirement.  The judge
found that McGee's alleged risk of developing diseases from her
consumption of Diamond Foods' trans fat popcorn is merely
speculative.  Judge Houston also found that McGee did not allege
an economic injury which satisfies Article III standing by
alleging that she purchased a product that was less healthy than
expected.  McGee did not allege that the popcorn labels were
misleading or that she would have purchased an alternative product
but for Diamond Foods' representations.  The judge found that
McGee received the benefit of her bargain when she consumed the
popcorn.

Judge Houston also dismissed McGee's claim under the California
Unfair Competition Law as her allegations fail all three
"unfairness" tests.  The judge held that McGee failed the Federal
Trade Commission test as her alleged injuries were not substantial
and reasonably avoidable.  Also, under the public policy test, the
judge found that McGee failed to state a claim as she did not
allege applicable statutory authority that was violated by Diamond
Foods.  Lastly, in concluding that McGee's claim also failed the
"balancing" test, Judge Houston found that McGee has not alleged a
cognizable injury-in-fact.

Judge Houston also found that McGee did not allege the type of
special harm required to support a public nuisance claim.

Finally, Judge Houston found that McGee waived her rights under
the implied warranty by failing to inspect the trans fat popcorn
before purchasing and consuming.

A full-text copy of Judge Houston's March 1, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/RJ9gfCfrom Leagle.com.

Jacquelyn McGee, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory S. Weston, The
Weston Firm & David Elliot.

Diamond Foods, Inc., Defendant, represented by Amanda Leigh
Groves, Winston & Strawn LLP, Sean D Meenan, Winston & Strawn &
Shawn Rieko Obi, Winston & Stawn LLP.


DIRECTV LLC: "Brown" Sues Over Unauthorized Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------
Malik Brown, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. DirecTV, Defendant, Case 5:16-cv-00263
(C.D. Cal., February 10, 2016), seeks injunctive relief, treble
damages, statutory damages, attorneys' fees and costs and such
other relief pursuant to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq.

According to the complaint, DirecTV, LLC, or its agents called Mr.
Brown's cellular telephone several times using an automatic
telephone dialing system and/or artificial or prerecorded voice
without his prior express written consent.

DirecTV, LLC is a California limited liability with its principal
place of business at 2260 East Imperial Highway, El Segundo,
California 90245. Defendant is a direct broadcast satellite
service provider and broadcaster.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yeremey Krivoshey, Esq.
      Scott A Bursor, Esq.
      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA 94596
      Tel: (925) 300-4455
      Email: scott@bursor.com
             ltfisher@bursor.com
             apersinger@bursor.com
             ykrivoshey@bursor.com


DOLGENCORP LLC: "Hill" Suit Moved to Vt. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hill v. Dolgencorp, LLC, Case No.
335-12-00015-Oscv, was removed from the Vermont Superior Court,
Orleans Unit, Civil Div., to the U.S. District Court for the of
District of Vermont (Burlington). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00026-wks to the proceeding.

Dolgencorp operates discount retail stores. The company was
founded in 1973 and is based in Goodlettsville, Tennessee. It
operates as a subsidiary of Dollar General Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wilfred K. Wright, Jr., Esq.
          WRIGHT LAW PLC
          P.O. Box 982
          Claremore, OK 74018
          Telephone: (918) 341 1923
          Facsimile: (918) 341 1923

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew S. Borick , Esq.
          DOWNS RACHLIN MARTIN PLLC
          199 Main Street
          P.O. Box 190
          Burlington, VT 05402-0190
          Telephone: (802) 863 2375
          Facsimile: (802) 862 7512
          E-mail: mborick@drm.com


EASE SOLUTIONS: Faces "Quigley" Suit in California Superior Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Ease Solutions,
Inc. The case is captioned Dakota Quigley, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated v. Ease Solutions, Inc., Case
No. CGC 16 550805 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 4, 2016).


ENCORE RECEIVABLE: "Diaz" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------
Peggy Diaz, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Encore Receivable Management, Inc., Does
1-10, Inclusive, Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00866-NIQA (E.D. Pa.,
February 23, 2016), complains of illegal collection practices over
a consumer debt in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act.

Encore Receivable Management, Inc. is a collection agency based in
Lenexa, Kansas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


EQUITYEXPERTS.ORG LLC: "Usry" Suit Moved to S.D. Ga.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Usry v. Equityexperts.org, LLC,
Case No. 2015CV0847, was removed from the Superior Court of
Columbia County, State of GA, to the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Georgia (Augusta). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00010-JRH-BKE to the proceeding.

Equity Experts is engaged in collections solution for association
delinquencies. The company was established in 2004.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George G. Robertson, Esq.
          HULL BARRETT, PC
          P.O. Box 1564
          Augusta, GA 30903-1564
          Telephone: (706) 722 4481
          Facsimile: (706) 722 9779
          E-mail: grobertson@hullbarrett.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          John H. Bedard, Jr., Esq.
          Michael K. Chapman, Esq.
          BEDARD LAW GROUP, PC
          2810 Peachtree Industrial Blvd., Suite D
          Duluth, GA 30097
          Telephone: (678) 253 1871
          Facsimile: (678) 253 1873
          E-mail: jbedard@bedardlawgroup.com
                  mchapman@bedardlawgroup.com


EVEREST UNIVERSITY: Significant Problems Remain Despite Rescue
--------------------------------------------------------------
CBS reports that significant problems remain at a formerly for-
profit college that the Obama administration rescued from near
collapse, an Associated Press review has found, despite new
federal oversight and pledges of a turnaround by the schools'
current nonprofit owner.

Everest University was once the flagship brand of Corinthian
Colleges Inc., a for-profit school chain.  Allegations of fraud
and mismanagement nearly felled the school before the Education
Department helped transfer Everest and a sister institution to
Zenith Education Group, a nonprofit affiliate of a student-loan
debt collection firm.

Zenith pledged to transform Everest, ending the school's habit of
admitting "anyone with a pulse" and churning out unprepared
graduates deeply in debt.

But a year after Zenith formally took control of Corinthian's
flagship Everest brand and its smaller sibling, WyoTech,
revolutionary change is hard to find.

Everest has shrunk to about 15,000 students from 70,000 at the
time of Corinthian's failure, lowered tuition by 20 percent and
shuttered some of its worst performing programs.  More changes are
planned, although an AP review found Everest is still operating
largely according to Corinthian's for-profit business model.

Zenith still recruits students through large-scale telemarketing.
Major changes to its curriculum have not yet occurred.  It has
retained senior Corinthian executives in key posts.  It continues
to recruit students using some of the very same ads that
Corinthian ran during the same daytime TV talk shows.

Recent graduates told the AP they are struggling to find work that
would allow them to pay back their student loans, raising the
prospect that the government is seeding a new crop of loan
defaults.  The average post-graduation employment rate among
Everest's online programs -- for which data is most readily
available -- was less than 46 percent in the academic year ended
last June.

"I graduated in April at the top of my class, with honors," said
Shane Satterfield, a roofer in Georgia who now owes more than
$30,000 in debt for the associate's degree in computer science he
completed last year.  "And I can't get a job paying over $8.50 an
hour."

Zenith chairman David Hawn said many graduates are not yet coming
out of the school with important career credentials. He said the
schools were on the right track and would revamp their curriculum
to focus on marketable skills.

"To suggest that any program that we have today isn't creating
value is grossly overstated," he said.  Zenith is investing more
per-pupil in academic instruction, he said, losing $100 million in
its first year.

Education Department Undersecretary Ted Mitchell said the schools'
transformation is incomplete.  He said Everest's operations have
improved and he expects continued progress.

"If Zenith is not doing right by its students, we won't hesitate
to act," he said.

Despite Zenith's acknowledgement of Corinthian's past misconduct,
many senior Corinthian academic, financial aid and legal officials
have stayed on.  After the AP asked Zenith why it had retained
Diana Scherer -- a deputy general counsel who had highlighted her
regulatory and compliance work for Corinthian on LinkedIn -- her
profile was edited to remove references to such work.

Mr. Hawn defended the former Corinthian employees' integrity and
said any holdover employees reported to newly installed managers.

The AP's review found that Everest continues to advertise programs
it had eliminated due to poor student outcomes. Recruiters then
seek to direct interested prospective students to other programs.
Mr. Hawn said the errors were inadvertent.

Mr. Hawn has said Zenith would differentiate itself from its past
as a for-profit company, but it maintains some practices at odds
with virtually all nonprofit schools.  Instead of having an
independent and unpaid board of directors, Zenith shares its board
with its parent company, Education Credit Management Corp., and
pays its board members as much as $142,000 a year for a job that
requires fewer than 20 hours each week.

Likewise, Zenith's enrollment agreements prohibit students from
suing in class actions, a legal remedy generally regarded as an
effective way to pursue a large number of cases.

Mr. Hawn said Zenith's current board structure is working well,
and he does not believe class action suits are in students' best
interest.

The Education Department's Mitchell disagreed.  The government
wants Zenith to remove the ban on group litigation, he said.

As for Zenith's continued lack of an independent board, he said:
"I'm personally disappointed that they haven't moved more quickly
on this."

Mr. Hawn responded on March 14 to this AP report, writing in part,
"Unfortunately, a recent Associated Press story by Jeff Horwitz
portrayed what we see as an unbalanced review of our journey to
transform heavily distressed schools.  Most surprising is his
assertion that 'the business model . . . hasn't fundamentally
changed.' In fact, it has changed -- fundamentally.  In contrast
to the prior owner, Zenith is a nonprofit company focused on a
mission to help students succeed -- not on shareholder return."


EXPERIAN INFORMATION: "Hickman" Suit Moved to Ariz. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hickman v. Experian Information
Solutions Incorporated, Case No. CV2016-000427, was removed from
the Maricopa County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona (Phoenix Division). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00347-ESW 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
          E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

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


EXPERIAN N.A.: "Switaj" Suit Moved to Cal. C.D. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Diana Switaj v. Experian North
America Inc. et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-01162, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico, to the
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
(Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00187-DOC-DFM to the proceeding.

Experian North America, based in Washington DC, operates as a
credit monitoring company. The company offers information on the
credit worthiness of individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nicholas Koluncich, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF NICHOLAS KOLUNCICH LLC
          500 Marquette Ave NW, Suite 1200
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 881 2228
          Facsimile: (505) 881 4288

               - and -

          Erika E Anderson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ERIKA E. ANDERSON
          201 3rd Street, NW, Suite 500
          Albuquerque, NM 87102
          Telephone: (505) 944-9039

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles J Vigil, Esq.
          RODEY DICKASON SLOAN AKIN AND ROBB
          PO Box 1888
          201 Third Street NW Suite 2200
          Albuquerque, NM 87103
          Telephone: (505) 765 5900


FEDERAL HOME LOAN: Alleges Tax Fraud in Ill., "Long" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Julie Long, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03072 (N.D. Ill., March 11, 2016), wants the Defendant to
properly complete the Transfer Tax Declaration to exempt home
sales from transfer tax, as it unnecessarily imposes additional
costs on the buyer and frustrates Defendant's congressionally
mandated purpose of making home ownership more affordable.

Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation is a federally chartered
corporation created by Congress with the mission of making
homeownership throughout the United States more affordable for
middle to low-income individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
     Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
     Andrew C. Murphy, Esq.
     DITOMASSO LUBIN, P.C.
     17W 220 22nd Street, Suite 410
     Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
     Telephone: (630) 333-0000
     E-mail: vdt@ditommasolaw.com


FIRST ACCEPTANCE: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to Fla. S.D. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. First
Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc., Case No. 2015-027921-CA-01,
was removed from the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit of Florida, in and for Miami-Dade County, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20314-KMW to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly committed
"Breach of Contract for Failure to Pay Personal Independence
Payment (PIP) Benefits or in the Alternative, Equitable
Subrogation."

First Acceptance Insurance Company provides insurance products.
The company was formerly known as USAuto Insurance Company, Inc.
and changed its name to First Acceptance Insurance Company, Inc.
in April 2006. The company was founded in 1957 and is based in
Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
          Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
          Christine Marie Lugo, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LA LEY CON JOHN H. RUIZ
          5000 SW 75th Ave., Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582 0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com
                  bcournoyer@msprecovery.com
                  clugo002@fiu.edu

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 614 2222
          Facsimile: (866) 582 0907
          E-mail: fquesada@msprecovery.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Timothy J Van Name, Esq.
          MSP RECOVERY
          5000 SW 75th Avenue, Suite 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 905 6365
          Facsimile: (305) 614 2233
          E-mail: tvanname@att.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Kathy J. Maus, Esq.
          Fay E. Ryan, Esq.
          Matthew J. Lavisky, Esq.
          BUTLER WEIHMUHLER KATZ CRAIG LLP
          400 N. Ashley Drive, Suite 2300
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 281 1900
          Facsimile: (813) 281 0900
          E-mail: Ekmaus@butler.legal
                  fryan@butler.legal
                  mlavisky@butler.legal
                  eservice@butler.legal


FLEET LEASE: "Labidou" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Labidou et al. v. Fleet Lease
Network, Inc. et al., Case No. HUD-L-005191-15, was removed from
the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County-Law Di, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00502-WJM-MF to the
proceeding.

Fleet Lease Network is an automotive company located in Jersey
City, New Jersey.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Mariel Mercado-Guevara
          THE WOLF LAW FIRM, LLC
          1520 U.S. Highway 130, Suite 101
          North Brunswick, NJ 08902
          Telephone: (732) 545 7900

The Defendants are represented by:

          Anthony E. Bush, Esq.
          ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT, LLC
          Princeton Pike Corporate Center
          2000 Lenox Drive, Suite 203
          Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
          Telephone: (609) 392 2100
          E-mail: abush@eckertseamans.com


FLINT, MI: Gov. Snyder Among Defendants in Water Crisis Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Reyes, writing for Examiner Gazette, reports that so far,
the Board of State Canvassers has approved two recall efforts
against the governor and many residents are calling for his arrest
over the lead contamination.

Investigations continued into whether Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder
and other officials knew about the unsafe water and possible
Legionnaires' connection before alerting the public.  The
petitioner, Flint activist Quincy Murphy, also filed a recall
petition against Lt. Gov. Brian Calley, who would replace Snyder
in the event of his recall, arguing that it was neither clear nor
factual.  James Inhofe (R-Okla.), one of the Republicans who
worked on the measure for weeks, said on March 14 that the senator
is still negotiating. The report came as crews in the city started
to dig up old pipes connecting water mains to homes.  No level of
lead in the human body is considered safe, especially in children.
The department said 95 percent of sanitary surveys and 64 percent
of surveillance visits meet required deadlines, exceeding goals
set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
State Fire Marshal Julie Secontine says "building owners are,
however, reminded to follow proper preventative maintenance and
inspection guidelines to help ensure their facilities are safe".

Lt. Gov. Calley, in an e-mail that was released along with a raft
of e-mails Snyder released about the Flint drinking water crisis,
said the state might want to consider changing the law to allow
write-in candidates in the primary.

The city has since returned to Detroit's water system.
The lawsuit claims in part violations of the Safe Drinking Water
Act and the federal Lead and Copper Rule and traces the history of
the water woes in the city.

The suit filed on behalf of seven residents alleges that tens of
thousands of residents have suffered physical and economic
injuries and damages.

The complaint, filed on March 14, contends that officials did not
appropriately respond to the "dangerous levels of lead" in the
city's tap water and lied about the severity of the pollution.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified punitive damages, medical monitoring
for residents and money to pay for the removal of lead pipes.
City officials, conversely, are blaming the emergency manager.
The river had a reputation for nastiness, and after the April 2014
switch.

Actor Mark Ruffalo says people across the USA need to learn more
about Flint's lead-tainted water crisis.

The Flint Journal reports that Mr. Ruffalo said the situation in
Flint is "really only the tip of the iceberg of a kind of attitude
towards our people and our resources that is happening everywhere
in the United States".

Dr. Hanna Mona-Attisha, a local pediatrician whose research helped
expose the crisis last year, previously told RT that the highest
readings recorded were 38 micrograms per deciliter.

This isn't the first litigation to be filed over the water crisis
in Flint.

More than 60 percent of blacks and Hispanics say the federal
government should do more, compared to 44 percent of whites, the
poll found.


FLOWER FOODS: Faces "Zapata" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Raul Zapata, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Flowers Foods, Inc. and Flowers Baking Co.
of Houston, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00676 (S.D. Tex., March 14,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Flowers Foods, Inc., is a Georgia corporation engaged in the
business of distributing bakery and snack food products to retail
customers, using a centralized network of communication,
distribution, and warehousing facilities integrating Class members
into the existing network of operations.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alfonso Kennard, Jr., Esq.
     KENNARD RICHARD, PC
     2603 Augusta Drive, 14th Floor
     Houston, TX 77057
     Telephone: (713) 742-0900
     Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
     E-mail: alfonso.kennard@kennardlaw.com

          - and -

     Arnoldo J. Rodriquez, Esq.
     KENNARD RICHARD, PC
     85 N.E. Loop 410, Ste. 603
     San Antonio, TX 78216
     Telephone: (713) 742-0900
     Facsimile: (713) 742-0951
     E-mail: aj.rodriguez@kennardlaw.com


FORWARD SUNSET: Sued in Cal. Over Illegal Insurance Practice
------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Kormondy, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Forward Sunset, Inc., et al., Case No. BC610493 (Cal.
Super., February 17, 2016), is brought to redress Defendants'
practice of reaping unlawful profits from its forced sale of
marked-up malpractice insurance and legal services to the agents
at the Keller Williams Hills real estate office.

Forward Sunset, Inc., is a California corporation which operates
the Keller Williams Hollywood Hills real estate brokerage
franchise.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Peter B. Fredman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF PETER FREDMAN PC
     125 University Avenue, Suite 102
     Berkeley, CA 94710
     Telephone: (510) 868-2626
     Facsimile: (510) 868-2627
     E-mail: peter@peterfredmanlaw.com

          - and -

     David Pivtorak, Esq.
     PIVTORAK LAW FIRM
     611 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 325
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Telephone: (213) 291-9130
     Facsimile: (877) 748-4529
     E-mail: pivtoraklaw@gmail.com


FRANK'S INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Riley" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brad Riley, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
v. Frank's International, LLC, Case No. 7:16-cv-00064 (W.D. Tex.,
March 14, 2016), is brought against the defendant for failure to
pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Frank's International, LLC, is a limited liability company engaged
in providing casing delivery and installation services to
customers in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
     THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
     Amarillo, Texas 79101
     Telephone: (806) 331-1800
     Facsimile: (806) 398-9095
     E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com


FTS USA: 6th Cir. Remands "Monroe" Suit to Recalculate Damages
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned EDWARD MONROE, FABIAN MOORE, and TIMOTHY
WILLIAMS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. FTS USA, LLC; UNITEK USA, LLC,
Defendants-Appellants, No. 14-6063 (6th Cir.), the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court's
certification of the case as a collective action and its finding
that sufficient evidence supports the jury's verdicts.  However,
it reversed the district court's calculation of damages and
remanded the case for recalculation of damages.

FTS USA, LLC, a cable-television company, and its parent company,
UniTek USA, LLC, were sued by its cable technician employees on a
a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claim.  The technicians alleged
that FTS implemented a company-wide time-shaving policy that
required its employees to systematically underreport their
overtime hours.  The district court certified the case as an FLSA
collective action.

A jury returned verdicts of liability in favor of the class,
finding that FTS technicians worked in excess of 40 hours weekly
without being paid overtime compensation and that FTS and UniTek
knew or should have known and willfully violated the law.

The district court upheld the jury's verdicts then adopted the FTS
technicians' proposed order, using an "estimated-average" approach
to calculate damages and employing a multiplier of 1.5.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit found no abuse of discretion on the
part of the district court when it certified the case as a
collective action.  The appellate court held that the factual and
employment settings of individual FTS technicians and the degree
of fairness and the procedural impact of certifying the case favor
upholding certification.

The Sixth Circuit also found that the evidence is sufficient to
support the jury's verdict that all FTS technicians, both
testifying and nontestifying, performed work for which they were
not compensated.

The Sixth Circuit, however, found that the district court's
approach in computing for damages overcompensated FTS technicians
and required FTS and UniTek to pay more for unrecorded overtime
hours than recorded overtime hours.  The appellate court explained
that for the damages calculation to be compensatory, hourly rates
must be recalculated with the correct number of hours to ensure
FTS technicians receive the pay they would have received had there
been no violation.  The court accordingly reversed the district
court's use of a 1.5 multiplier.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 2, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/E8P9hMfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Miguel A. Estrada -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON,
DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Adam W. Hansen -- ahansen@nka.com -- NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP,
Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellees.

ON BRIEF: Miguel A. Estrada, GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP,
Washington, D.C., Colin D. Dougherty --
cdougherty@foxrothschild.com -- Jonathan D. Christman, FOX
ROTHSCHILD LLP, Blue Bell, Pennsylvania, for Appellants.

Adam W. Hansen, Rachhana T. Srey -- srey@nka.com -- Anna P.
Prakash, NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota, William B.
Ryan, Bryce W. Ashby, DONATI LAW FIRM, LLP, Memphis, Tennessee,
for Appellees.

William C. Jhaveri-Weeks -- wjhaveriweeks@gbdhlegal.com --
GOLDSTEIN, BORGEN, DARDARIAN & HO, Oakland, California, for Amicus
Curiae.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Trial Set to Start
--------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
at a trial aimed at aiding the settlement of lawsuits, a
plaintiffs' lawyer told a jury in his opening statement on
March 14 that a General Motors faulty ignition switch was to blame
for a 2014 accident on an icy Louisiana bridge while a GM lawyer
said the company was not at fault.

The trial in Manhattan federal court came just weeks after another
trial meant to define legal boundaries for hundreds of lawsuits
ended abruptly without a verdict.

The flood of litigation commenced when GM revealed that it had
continued to sell flawed cars after discovering an ignition switch
defect in Chevy Cobalts and other small cars.  Since early 2014,
it has issued recalls affecting more than 30 million vehicles.

The switches can slip out of the on position, causing the cars to
stall, knocking out power steering and turning off air bags.  GM
says it has fixed the problem.

Randall Jackson, a lawyer for a man and woman involved in the
accident on a busy New Orleans bridge, urged jurors to hold GM
accountable, saying the car's ignition switch contributed to the
accident when she lost her steering and brakes.

But he spent most of his opening statement focusing jurors on the
company's failure for a decade to alert the public that it had
identified the ignition switch defect.

He called it a "case about broken promises by a broken company."

Mr. Jackson said his clients were seeking only a modest payout,
and the most important part of the jury verdict would be a finding
of what GM did and didn't do and what his clients didn't know
about the defect.

The man and woman are seeking unspecified compensatory damages for
the cost of medical care that they attribute to the accident, but
GM lawyer Mike Brock said evidence will show they would have been
over any minor aches and pains caused by the accident within days.

Mr. Brock also said he would prove that the January 2014 accident
was caused by ice rather than a faulty ignition switch.

He said the occupants of the 2007 Saturn were wearing their seat
belts, and the only damage to the car was some scrapes on a
bumper.

"Every accident is not somebody's fault. This accident is not GM's
fault," Mr. Brock said.  "This is a case about a car that didn't
even have a dent on it."

At a recent pretrial hearing, U.S. District Judge Jesse M. Furman
said five GM liability trials remaining for this year were
important to define legal boundaries because about 1,700 personal
injury and wrongful death cases remain to be resolved.

"A substantial amount of work remains," he said.

In September, GM announced it had reached a deal to settle 1,385
death and injury cases for $275 million and a class-action
shareholders' lawsuit for $300 million.

The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to
a fund it established.  Those claims covered 124 deaths and 275
injuries, though GM's fund rejected more than 90 percent of the
4,343 claims it received, according to figures the company
released in December.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: AIMCo Recovers USD219 Million for Investors
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alberta Investment Management Corporation ("AIMCo"), on behalf of
Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of Alberta, on
March 14 disclosed that it has reached an agreement in principle
to recover USD219 million on behalf of investors in Genworth
Financial, Inc., together with the Fresno County Employees'
Retirement Association ("Fresno").  The case is pending in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia,
and marks the largest securities class action recovery in that
jurisdiction.

AIMCo and Fresno serve as Co-Lead Plaintiffs in the class action
securities litigation In re Genworth Financial, Inc. Securities
Litigation and have prosecuted this case vigorously for nearly two
years.  They are gratified to have been able to achieve this
significant settlement for all class members.  AIMCo is
represented by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP ("BFA") and Fresno by
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP.

"This excellent result, after intense litigation and only two
months before trial, demonstrates AIMCo's resolve to vindicate the
rights of investors," says Kevin Uebelein, AIMCo Chief Executive
Officer.  "As a leader in the investment community, AIMCo is
committed to ensuring the integrity of the markets and taking
decisive action when warranted.  We are pleased to have recovered
this settlement on behalf of all applicable investors in
Genworth."

The lawsuit alleged that Genworth and certain senior executives
made false and misleading statements about Genworth's long-term
care insurance business and the company's financial statements
between October 30, 2013 and November 5, 2014.  During this
period, Genworth assured investors that it had conducted a deep
and thorough review of the reserves it had set aside to cover
long-term care claims and that the reserves were adequate.
However, beginning on July 29, 2014, Genworth disclosed that it
had not conducted an extensive review of its reserves.
Subsequently, on November 5, 2014, Genworth announced that it
would have to take a $531 million charge to shore up its long-term
care business and undertake further review of its reserves,
causing a substantial drop in the price of Genworth's securities.

AIMCo sought to be appointed Co-Lead Plaintiff in the prosecution
of claims to recover investors' losses.  AIMCo and Fresno, through
their counsel, conducted an investigation of the claims in the
action and overcame Defendants' motion to dismiss in
May 2014, when the Court sustained the vast majority of Lead
Plaintiffs' claims.

Once the case proceeded to discovery, Lead Plaintiffs' counsel
reviewed millions of pages of documents from defendants and third
parties, and conducted over 20 depositions of current and former
employees of Genworth, other key witnesses, and the parties'
experts.  Lead Plaintiffs also completed briefing on the motions
for class certification and partial summary judgment.  Trial was
scheduled to commence on May 9, 2016.

AIMCo's litigation counsel was led by BFA partners Joseph A.
Fonti, Javier Bleichmar, and Dominic J. Auld, who praised AIMCo's
leadership role in the action.  "This excellent recovery once
again demonstrates AIMCo's commitment to policing the financial
markets on behalf of its clients and obtaining substantial
recoveries," said Mr. Auld, adding "there can be no doubt that
AIMCo's engagement and persistence in this type of litigation
impacts the recovery for the entire class."

The settlement is subject to Court approval pursuant to a schedule
to be set by the Court.

   About Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo)

AIMCo -- http://www.aimco.alberta.ca-- is one of Canada's largest
and most diversified institutional investment managers with
approximately $90 billion of assets under management.  AIMCo was
established on January 1, 2008 with a mandate to provide superior
long-term investment results for its clients.  AIMCo operates at
arms-length from the Government of Alberta and invests globally on
behalf of 26 pension, endowment and government funds in the
Province of Alberta.


GENWORTH FINANCIAL: Settles Class Action, Two Suits Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Schwartz, writing for Richmond BizSense, reports that
looking to get one of several pending lawsuits off its back, local
insurance giant Genworth Financial announced on March 11 a nine-
figure settlement that will be paid to plaintiffs of a class
action case filed in late 2014.

The Henrico County-based company, which sells mortgage insurance,
long-term care insurance and other products, said it will pay $219
million to resolve the case filed by a Michigan retirement fund.
It accused Genworth, its CEO Thomas McInerney and CFO Martin Klein
of violations of federal securities laws by allegedly misleading
investors and making false statements about the health of its
long-term care insurance reserves, a line of business that has
fueled major losses at the company in recent years.

Of the total settlement amount, $150 million will be covered by
insurance policies the company holds, with $69 million coming from
Genworth directly.

As is typical with such settlements, Genworth continues to claim
the lawsuit is without merit but said it is "settling the lawsuit
to avoid the burden, risk and expense of further litigation."

Filed originally in October 2014 in Richmond federal court, the
original plaintiff was the City of Pontiac General Employees'
Retirement System, which was an institutional investor in Genworth
stock.  The case had been scheduled for trial in May but had gone
to mediation in the fourth quarter of 2015, through which the
proposed settlement was reached.

It's one of several lawsuits the company and its insiders have
faced in recent years related to the disclosures of the state of
its long-term care insurance, policies that provide coverage for
in-home care and stays at nursing homes and assisted living
facilities.  The company has struggled over the last couple of
years to properly predict the reserve cushion it needs for such
policies.

Genworth reported a net loss for 2015 of $413 million, an
improvement on its $1.04 billion loss in 2014.  Those losses were
fueled largely by the need for larger than expected LTC insurance
reserves.

At least two lawsuits are still pending against Genworth and its
top brass, both of which are class action lawsuits from retirement
funds that question its handling of its LTC business and an IPO of
its Australian mortgage insurance arm.  The lead plaintiffs in
those pending cases are the City of Hialeah Employees' Retirement
System and International Union of Operating Engineers Local No.
478 Pension Fund, the latter of which was filed in January.

Genworth says it will continue to "vigorously" defend itself in
the cases.

This latest settlement is still subject to court approval and is
expected to take several months to be finalized, the company said.


GGNSC HOLDINGS: Arkansas High Court Rules in Favor of Arbitration
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Emily Mongan, writing for McKnight's, reports that claims brought
against a nursing home by five former residents must be resolved
through arbitration, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled on
March 10.

Five former residents and their representatives filed a class
action lawsuit against GGNSC Holdings, LLC -- also known as Golden
Living -- in December 2011, alleging claims of negligence and
wrongful death at several of the company's Arkansas facilities.
GGNSC moved to compel arbitration of the residents' claims, but
was denied by an Arkansas circuit court in January 2014.

In its March 10 decision, the Arkansas Supreme Court ruled the
residents' arbitration agreements -- either signed by the
residents or on their behalf by representatives with the "required
authority" -- were valid, despite the unavailability of the
National Arbitration Forum to conduct the arbitration. The court
also said the agreements were not "unconscionable."

This is the second time in the past month the Arkansas Supreme
Court has overturned a previous court's ruling in favor of a
nursing home in an arbitration case.

The most recent court ruling also backs up previous cases in which
facilities' arbitration agreements relied on the NAF, which has
stopped settling consumer disputes.  Golden Living faced a setback
in a similar case, when the U.S. Supreme Court denied to review a
case where an arbitration clause was deemed unenforceable because
it relied on the NAF.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Paul Danielson said the
majority's decision is wrong, and "will ultimately eviscerate the
right to trial by jury guaranteed by our constitution."  In the
majority opinion, Justice Karen Baker called Danielson's words
"exceedingly dramatic" and "false."

"While our decision in no way infringes on the constitutional
right to trial by jury, it does recognize that parties are free to
contract to resolve their disputes by arbitration," Justice Baker
wrote.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Averts Avandia No-Injury Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
federal appeals court has shut down a no-injury class action
lawsuit filed against the maker of prescription diabetes drug
Avandia.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in a Feb. 12
ruling, upheld the decision of the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

The Third Circuit, in an opinion authored by Judge Robert E.
Cowen, said Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Cynthia M. Rule
was correct to grant GlaxoSmithKline LLC's motion to dismiss,
explaining that plaintiff Staci Laurino "received all the benefits
of taking Avandia without any harm" and suffered no ascertainable
loss.

"Laurino received the drug she was prescribed, the drug did the
job it was meant to do (i.e., controlled her blood sugar levels),
and it caused no apparent physical injuries," Judge Cowen wrote in
the seven-page opinion, joined by judges D. Michael Fisher and
Michael Chagares.

Ms. Laurino, a former Avandia user, alleged on behalf of a
putative class of similarly situated individuals that GSK violated
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, or MMPA.

According to her amended complaint, GSK, even though it had notice
of the "dangerous propensities" associated with Avandia, "engaged
in misrepresentations and failed to adequately advise consumers
and medical providers of the risks of Avandia, including but not
limited to the increased risk of heart attacks and deaths."

Ms. Laurino further alleged Avandia is not more efficacious than
other treatments for Type II diabetes and that the drug
"significantly" increases the risk of heart-related diseases.

"The actual value of Avandia was/is significantly less than the
value of Avandia as represented by GSK, and thus, Plaintiff and
other consumers suffered ascertainable loss when they purchased
Avandia," she alleged.

She sought damages equal to the difference between the drug's
actual value and the value of the drug had it been as represented
by GSK.

The initial complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Missouri.  The matter was transferred to the
Avandia MDL proceeding pending in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.

After Ms. Laurino filed an amended complaint, GSK moved to dismiss
for lack of standing and for failure to state a claim.

Relying on a non-precedential opinion considering a similar claim
arising out of this MDL proceeding, the district court indicated
Ms. Laurino had standing.  However, it then determined that
Ms. Laurino received all of the benefits of taking Avandia without
suffering any harm and thereby sustained no ascertainable loss.

Because she failed to state a claim under the MMPA -- and because
the district court believed that any further amendment would be
inequitable and likely futile -- it dismissed the amended
complaint with prejudice.

Under the MMPA, "[t]he act, use or employment by any person of any
deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise,
misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment,
suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with
the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce
. . ., in or from the state of Missouri, is declared to be an
unlawful practice.

"Any person who purchases or leases merchandise primarily for
personal, family or household purposes and thereby suffers an
ascertainable loss of money or property, real or personal, as a
result of" an unlawful practice may bring a civil action.

Ms. Laurino contested the district court's conclusion, arguing it
erroneously relied on the lack of physical injury and "misapplied
Missouri law providing that ascertainable loss can be established
through the benefit-of-the-bargain rule, 'which compares the
actual value of the item to the value of the item if it had been
as represented at the time of the transaction.'"

The Third Circuit didn't buy the arguments.

"Laurino received the benefit of the bargain and accordingly
sustained no ascertainable damages under the MMPA," Judge Cowen
concluded.

As to the district court's decision to dismiss her amended
complaint with prejudice, the Third Circuit again sided with the
lower court.

"She does not provide any indication that the fundamental
'ascertainable loss' deficiency identified by the District Court
could be corrected in a second amended complaint," Judge Cowen
wrote.  "Accordingly, the District Court did not abuse its
discretion by concluding that 'to allow any further amendment
would be inequitable and likely futile.'"


GOOGLE INC: Illegally Collects Biometric Data, "Weiss" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Weiss, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Google Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-02870 (N.D. Ill., March
4, 2016), is an action for damages that results from the illegal
actions of Google in collecting, storing and using the Plaintiff's
and other similarly situated individuals' biometric identifiers
and biometric without informed written consent.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Katrina Carroll, Esq.
      Kyle A. Shamberg, Esq.
      LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC
      211 West Wacker Drive, Suite 500
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 750-1265
      E-mail: kcarroll@litedepalma.com
              kshamberg@litedepalma.com

         - and -

      Robert Ahdoot, Esq.
      Tina Wolfson, Esq.
      Bradley King, Esq.
      AHDOOT & WOLFSON, PC
      1016 Palm Avenue West
      Hollywood, CA 90069
      Telephone: (310) 474-9111
      Facsimile: (310) 474-8585
      E-mail: radhoot@ahdootwolfson.com
              twolfson@ahdootwolfson.com
              bking@ahdootwolfson.com

         - and -

      David P. Milian, Esq.
      Frank S. Hedin, Esq.
      CAREY RODRIGUEZ  MILIAN GONYA, LLP
      1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 700
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 372-7474
      Facsimile:  (305) 372-7475
      E-mail: dmilian@careyrodriguez.com
              fhedin@careyrodriguez.com


GREEN CAB: Judge Slashed Attorneys' Fees
----------------------------------------
Chief District Judge P.K. Holmes III of the Western District of
Arkansas, Fayetteville Division granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion for costs and attorneys' fees in the case
CHRISTOPHER BURCHELL, Plaintiff, v. GREEN CAB COMPANY, INC.;
BRADLEY AUDRAIN; SARAH SPARKS DIEBOLD; MATT POWELL; and ANDREW
MILES, Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-05076 (W.D. Ark.)

Christopher Burchell filed a complaint on April 1, 2015 against
the defendants, alleging that the defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et seq. (FLSA) and the
Arkansas Minimum Wage Act, Ark. Code Ann. Section 11-4-201 et seq.
(AMWA) by failing to pay minimum and overtime wages as required by
law.

On July 16, 2015, a notice of acceptance of offer of judgment was
filed, indicating that Burchell had served notice on June 19,
2015, of an offer made by defendants on June 11, 2015.

The clerk entered judgment in favor of Burchell and against
defendants jointly in the amount of $1,750.00, plus costs and
attorney's fees. Plaintiff then moved for an assessment of
attorneys' fees and costs recoverable under 29 U.S.C. Section
216(b) and Rule 54(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Plaintiff seeks a total of $400 in costs and $14,519.75 in
attorneys' fees.

Chief Judge Holmes granted in part plaintiff's motion to the
extent that plaintiff is awarded attorney's fees in the amount of
$7,443.25 and costs in the amount of $400.00.

A copy of Chief District Judge Holmes's opinion and order dated
March 8, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/ilXlV0from
Leagle.com.

Christopher Burchell, Plaintiff, represented by Cheslee Denise
Mahan -- cheslee@sanfordlawfirm.com -- Josh Sanford --
josh@sanfordlawfirm.com -- at Sanford Law Firm PLLC

Defendants, represented by Matthew Scott Jackson --
Scott.Jackson@KutakRock.com -- Samantha B. Leflar --
Samantha.Leflar@KutakRock.com -- at Kutak Rock LLP


GROVE PLUMBING: Faces "Wesselhoff" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Wesselhoff, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Grove Plumbing, Inc., and Cyrus Khonsary, Case 5:16-
cv-00131-JSM-PRL (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Grove Plumbing, Inc., is a Florida corporation engaged in
providing plumbing services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew W. Birk, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF MATTHEW BIRK, LLC
     309 Northeast First Street
     Gainesville, FL 32601
     Telephone: (352) 244-2069
     Facsimile: (352) 372-3464


GUAM: 1st Green to Join Class Action Over Smart Meters
------------------------------------------------------
John O'Connor, writing for The Guam Daily Post, reports that
officials of a company challenging the Guam Power Authority's
billing using smart meters are not satisfied with the utility's
response to its complaint and may join a possible class action
lawsuit if its concerns are not addressed.

Rick Sparacio is the CEO and owner of 1st Green Solutions Guam
LLC, a company that specializes in products that reduce waste in
power usage.  Mr. Sparacio filed a complaint with the Public
Utilities Commission on Jan. 26.  His complaint alleges that GPA's
smart meters, which were installed in 2012, are incorrectly
calculating energy used by customers.

Mr. Sparacio asserted that the smart meters measure power factor,
or the ratio between energy used and apparent energy supplied to a
circuit, and utilized it in calculating the kilowatt hours used
for billing.

Apparent energy is represented by kilo Volt ampere hours (kVah).
GPA stated that it calculates power factor by dividing kilowatt
hours with kilo Volt ampere hours.  Power factor is essentially a
measurement of how efficient a system is in using power. The
average power factor on Guam is .85 or 85 percent.

Mr. Sparacio's complaint states that clients are not realizing the
full savings offered by the company's systems and that
discrepancies occurred with the changeover from analog meters to
GPA's digital smart meters.

GPA was ordered by the PUC to reveal the processes by which a
customers' bills are calculated.  In its response, the utility
stated the smart meters only measure kilowatt hours and kilo Volt
ampere hours.

The measurements are sent to a billing system which performs the
actual calculations. It added that no calculations are performed
in the smart meter.

Unconvinced

But Mr. Sparacio remains unconvinced that the utility is being
entirely honest with its response.  He stated that it seems the
smart meters are measuring kilo Volt amperes and multiplying this
with the power factor to obtain new kilowatt hours used in
charges.

While it is mathematically possible to calculate kilowatt hours
using the power factor formula GPA provided, the utility maintains
that kilowatt hours are measured, not calculated, and only power
factor is calculated.

Mr. Sparacio's clients are mainly large customers or schedule P
customers under GPA's billing schedule.  They can obtain a rebate
if they are above an 87 percent power factor or be penalized if
they are below an 83 percent power factor.

Mr. Sparacio said GPA should be using an additional adjustment
formula for the kilowatt hours it uses in its charges.  The
formula multiplies the measured kilowatt hours with the average
power factor, 85 percent. The product is then divided by the
customer's actual power factor to provide adjusted kilowatt hours.

The manufacturer of GPA's smart meters is Landis+Gyr.
Mr. Sparacio said he had not contacted them regarding the matter.
Currently, both GPA and Mr. Sparacio are waiting for the PUC to
make a decision on the issue.  The commission is expected to meet
near the end of the month.

If the matter cannot be settled with the PUC, Mr. Sparacio said he
may have to turn to legal recourse as another option.

"When and if a class action lawsuit is pursued, it will be from a
coalition of GPA power users forming under a group title
representing an expandable number of plaintiffs," Mr. Sparacio
said.  "The minimum amount will be in the $10 million range."


GUAM: Adelup Challenges Court Order in Tax Refunds Case
-------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Raymundo, writing for Pacific Daily News, reports that as
island taxpayers await the first release of tax refunds for their
2015 tax returns, the Calvo administration awaits a decision from
the U.S. Supreme Court on whether it will review Adelup's
challenge to the federal injunction that requires the government
to timely pay out tax refunds.

The federal court order was the result of a 2011 class-action
lawsuit prompted by decades of delayed refund payments.  The
District Court of Guam ruled that the local government must refund
all error-free tax returns within six months of a filing date.

Adelup has continued to challenge the court order, arguing that it
constricts the government's ability to manage its own finances.
Last year, the administration lost an appeal to the U.S. Ninth
Circuit Court, which upheld the District Court's ruling.

"Over the last three years, the government of Guam has proven its
ability to solve its own problems, to pay tax refunds within the
6-month period," the administration said in response to the Ninth
Circuit decision. "We do not need the federal government imposing
arbitrary timelines."

Attorneys representing Gov. Eddie Calvo and the territory brought
the case to the nation's highest court, filing a writ of
certiorari -- a petition requesting the Supreme Court to review
the case.

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy asked the plaintiffs of the
case to file a response to the writ by March 3.  However, Ignacio
Aguigui, the plaintiffs' attorney, said he filed a waiver of
response in order to preserve resources.

"Because we've prevailed so far on so many levels, why go through
another one? That's the gist of it," he said.

"The Supreme Court could deny cert.  If they don't hear from us,
they could still deny cert," Aguigui added. "Even if they request
(a response) from us doesn't mean they're going to grant (the
cert).  It just means they want to hear from us."

Nearly 12,000 tax returns for 2015 had been filed by the middle of
last month, according to the Department of Revenue and Taxation.
Out of those filings, 1,800 of them had been processed, amounting
to $8.57 million in tax refunds.

Phillip Blas, Department of Administration spokesperson, recently
told Pacific Daily News he's unsure when the government will begin
paying out refunds for 2015 tax returns, adding that tax refunds
will be paid when funding becomes available.

For the government of Guam, available funds are hard to come by
these days, as the administration is currently going through a
"cash crunch," according to the governor's fiscal team.

The government recently had to make large payments such as $13
million in cost-of-living-allowances to retirees.  Tax refunds
also have been delayed, according to Adelup officials, because of
debt services and operational expenses.


GUERVA USA: Faces Yesh Suit Over Alleged Copyright Infringement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yesh Music, LLC, and John K. Emanuele, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated copyright holders v. Guerva USA,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01654 (S.D.N.Y., March 4, 2016), arises
from the Defendant's systematic infringement of the Plaintiffs'
and the Putative Class' copyrighted musical compositions.

Guerva USA, Inc. is a Delaware corporation that operates an
interactive subscription music service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
      GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
      250 Park Avenue 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10177
      Telephone: (212) 300-5358
      Facsimile: (347) 218-9479
      E-mail: info@garbarinilaw.com


HAGAR TOWNSHIP: Judge Narrows Claims in "Krawczyk" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Janet T. Neff of the Western District of Michigan,
Southern Division, granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case MALGORZATA KRAWCZYK, Personal
Representative of Estate of Robert Klepacki, Plaintiff, v. HAGAR
TOWNSHIP et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:14-cv-914 (W.D. Mich.)

Malgorzata Krawczyk's husband, Robert Klepacki, drowned in a Lake
Michigan swimming accident at Hagar Park beach in Berrien County,
Michigan, on the afternoon of August 28, 2011, when the latter was
caught and pulled under water by rip currents.

Plaintiff filed an action on August 27, 2014 against defendants
Hagar Township, Izzy DiMaggio, the Hagar Township Supervisor and
Deborah L. Kelley, Hagar Township Clerk.  Plaintiff alleges that
the National Weather Service had issued both a small craft
advisory warning and a rip current warning that day for the area
of the beach where Robert went for a swim, and that defendants
knew or should have known about those two warnings, but posted no
red flags at the beach. Further, defendants did not have any
policy or system to warn beachgoers of the dangerous water
conditions that day, and no lifeguard was on duty.

Plaintiff's first amended complaint alleges Count I gross
negligence as to defendant DiMaggio; Count II gross negligence as
to defendant Kelley; Count III nuisance per se against the
Township and Count IV 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 against the Township.

Defendants move to dismiss all claims. In response to defendants'
motion, plaintiff concedes that her nuisance per se claim is
appropriately dismissed.

Judge Neff denied defendants' motion to dismiss as to Counts I and
II but granted as to Counts III and IV of plaintiff's first
amended complaint.

A copy of Judge Neff's opinion dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/9bQXGOfrom Leagle.com.

Malgorzata Krawczyk, plaintiff, represented by:

     John F. Turck, IV, Esq.
     Thomas Hugh Blaske, Esq.
     Blaske & Blaske, PLC
     500 South Main Street
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Telephone: 734-747-7055
     Facsimile: 734-747-8932

Defendants, represented by James M. Straub -- jstraub@lawssa.com -
- Sarah J. Hartman -- shartman@lawssa.com -- at Straub Seaman &
Allen PC


HALSTED FINANCIAL: "Holloway" Suit Transferred to D. Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Kayler Holloway, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Halsted
Financial Services, LLC, National Credit Adjusters, L.L.C., and
Convergent Outsourcing, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00158, was
transferred from the Middle District of Florida to the United
States District Court for the District of Connecticut (New Haven).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00373-AWT to
the proceeding.

The suit alleges violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

The Defendants operates a financial service firm that specializes
in the procurement of delinquent account receivables.


HAMILTON CO: "Zako" FLSA Suit Moved to Nev. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Zako v. Hamilton Company, Case No.
5:15-cv-03162, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for
the Northern District of California, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Nevada (Las Vegas). The Nevada District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00166-GMN-PAL to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and
costs as a result of Defendants alleged violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Hamilton Company engages in the design, manufacture, and marketing
of liquid handling, process analytics, robotics, and automated
storage solutions. The company offers syringes and needles;
dispensers and diluters; off-the-shelf and customized OEM
components for instrument manufacturers in clinical diagnostic,
chromatography, life science research, and other industries. The
Company is based in Reno, Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan H. Siegel, Esq.
          Heather Michelle Conger, Esq.
          SIEGEL LEWITTER MALKANI
          1939 Harrison Street, Suite 307
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 452 5000
          Facsimile: (510) 452 5004
          E-mail: jsiegel@sl-employmentlaw.com
                  hconger@sl-employementlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica L Woelfel, Esq.
          MCDONALD CARANO WILSON LLP
          100 W. Liberty Street, 10th Floor
          Reno, NV 89501
          Telephone: (775) 788 2000
          Facsimile: (775) 788 2020
          E-mail: jwoelfel@mcdonaldcarano.com


HAYNES TRUCKING: Appeal in Truck Drivers' Case Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Denise Clayton of the Court of Appeals of Kentucky granted
appellants' motion in the case HAYNES TRUCKING, LLC; AND L-M
ASPHALT PARTNERS, LTD, D/B/A ATS CONSTRUCTION Appellants, v. JAMES
MELVIN HENSLEY, DANNY LAINHART, JAMES D. FETTERS, TONY MITCHELL,
WILLIAM ABNEY, AND CHARLES BUSSELL ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED; AND HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY,
Appellees. and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE CO., Appellant, v. JAMES
MELVIN HENSLEY, DANNY LAINHART, JAMES D. FETTERS, TONY MITCHELL,
WILLIAM ABNEY, AND CHARLES BUSSELL ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Appellees. and HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE
CO.; HAYNES TRUCKING, LLC; AND L-M ASPHALTPARTNERS, LTD, D/B/A ATS
CONSTRUCTION, Appellants, v. JAMES MELVIN HENSLEY, DANNY LAINHART,
JAMES D. FETTERS, TONY MITCHELL, WILLIAM ABNEY, AND CHARLES
BUSSELL, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Appellees, Nos. 2013-CA-000190-ME, 2013-CA-000956-ME,
2013-CA-000329-ME, 2013-CA-000978-ME (Ky. Ct. App.)

James Melvin Hensley and other named plaintiffs (Hensley et al.)
brought a class action under Kentucky Rules of Civil Procedure
(CR) 23 to recover back pay and statutory damages as authorized
under Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 337.505 to 337.550. They
maintain that they, and other class members were not paid
prevailing wages, benefits, or overtime in connection with their
employment on public work projects in Kentucky between 1995 and
2010. Hensley and the other plaintiff-appellees worked as truck
drivers for Haynes Trucking on various public work projects.
According to them, they performed on-site labor at the projects
including milling work, rock laying, earth moving, and paving
without receiving the mandated prevailing wages.

L-M Asphalt Partners, Ltd. d/b/a ATS Construction (ATS) was the
general contractor, and Haynes Trucking provided trucking
services. Beginning in 1995, Haynes Trucking and ATS had a number
of contracts to transport material to the site of public work
projects in Lexington, Fayette County, Kentucky. The projects are
the South Limestone/Streetscape project, the Loudon Avenue
project, the Kentucky Horse Park project, and the Bluegrass
Airport project.

Hensley et al. filed their class action complaint in Fayette
Circuit Court.  They initially stated that the class consists of
any driver that drove for Haynes on-site at a public works project
within the last five years that was not paid the prevailing wage.
Further, in the complaint, Hensley, et al. maintains that the
class had an excess of seventy individuals.

An amended class action complaint was filed on February 14, 2011
and added an additional class representative and expanded the
period of the purported claims from five years to fifteen years,
asserting that in addition to the violations of the prevailing
wage act, the putative class members had breach of contract claims
based on a third-party beneficiary theory. Further, the amended
complaint changed the definition and scope of the putative class
by stating the plaintiffs were a putative class of individuals who
work or worked as dump truck drivers and in other construction-
related trades.

Haynes Trucking and ATS jointly filed a motion for partial summary
judgment arguing that the limitations period applicable to Hensley
and the other plaintiff-appellees' claims was five years rather
than the fifteen years because the Appellees are not third-party
beneficiaries on any of the public works contracts, and thus, the
claims for breach of contracts, which has a fifteen-year statute
of limitations, should be dismissed with prejudice.

On December 2, 2011, the trial court denied Haynes Trucking and
ATS's motion for partial summary judgment.

On March 1, 2012, Hensley et al. filed a motion for class
certification and the Fayette Circuit Court entered its first
order certifying the class action on January 23, 2013. Haynes
Trucking and ATS filed a joint notice of appeal from the original
certification order and the denial of the partial summary
judgment.

Hartford Fire Insurance Co. filed a separate notice of appeal of
the certification order, but unlike Haynes Trucking and ATS,
Hartford Insurance did not appeal the denial of the partial
summary judgment. Hartford Insurance filed a CR 60.02 motion
asking the trial court to clarify its class certification order.
Subsequently, the court held the original appeal in abeyance for
thirty days to allow the trial court to consider the CR 60.02
motion.

On May 10, 2013, the trial court granted Hartford Insurance's CR
60.02 motion and clarified that while Hartford Insurance was a co-
defendant, it should not have been included as a class defendant
in the original order certifying the class. Next, the trial court
entered an amended class certification order on May 23, 2013,
clarifying that the class defendants in the case consisted solely
of Haynes Trucking and ATS.

On May 31, 2013, Haynes Trucking and ATS filed a joint notice of
appeal for the following orders: the trial court's December 2,
2011 order denying Haynes Trucking and ATS's joint motion for
partial summary judgment, the January 23, 2013 certification
order, and the May 23, 2013 order. In addition, they are now
contesting the trial court's jurisdiction. Thereafter, Haynes
Trucking and ATS made a motion to consolidate the appeal,
designated No. 2013-CA-000956-ME, with No. 2013-CA-000190, and
consequently No. 2013-CA-000329-ME.

Likewise, on June 3, 2013, Hartford Insurance reasserted its first
appeal and filed a second notice of appeal for both the original
and amended class certification orders. On June 20, 2013, Hartford
Insurance filed a motion with our Court to consolidate Nos. 2013-
CA-000190-ME and 2013-CA-000329-ME.

Judge Clayton ordered that the motion to dismiss Haynes Trucking'
appeal of the Fayette Circuit Court's denial of partial summary
judgment is granted.

A copy of Judge Clayton's opinion and order dated March 11, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/KGqiqKfrom Lealge.com.

For appellants Haynes Trucking, LLC, et al., Robert E. Maclin, III
-- remaclin@mmlk.com -- Jon A. Woodall -- jwoodall@mmlk.com
-- Brendan R. Yates -- byates@mmlk.com -- Masten Childers, III --
mchilders@mmlk.com -- at McBrayer, McGinnis, Leslie & Kirkland,
PLLC

For appellants Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Susan C. Sears --
ssears@littler.com -- LaToi D. Mayo -- lmayo@littler.com -- Jay
Inman -- jinman@littler.com - at Littler Mendelson P.C.

For Appellees William R. Garmer -- info@garmerprather.com -- at
Garmer & Prather PLLC

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky panel consists of Judges Denise
Clayton, Joy A. Kramer and Janet L. Stumbo.


HERMES: Sales Associates File Class Action Over Unpaid Commission
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that Hermes has been named in a proposed
class action lawsuit, with two former New York-based sales
associates claiming that the Paris-based brand has failed to
adequately compensate them.

According to the lawsuit, which was filed in New York state court,
former Hermes sales associates, Ewern Chaney and Winifred Hu,
allege that Hermes has systematically failed to pay its sales
associates all of the commission they are owned and instead,
engages in acts of retaliation against those who inquire about how
commissions are calculated.

In his suit, Mr. Chaney, 28, alleges that he was fired after
asking his manager at Hermes' Madison Avenue location to clarify
exactly how commissions are calculated. According to the lawsuit,
Mr. Charney and other proposed class members were worried they
were not being paid the full commissions they were entitled to
under the 1.25-percent commission rate that new hires can
allegedly expect.  In particular, Mr. Chaney claims that in the
time he spent as a sales associate at Hermes, between November
2012 to March 2014, he generated $3.8 million in revenue but only
received $60,000 total in commissions and wages. He was paid a
wage of $19 an hour.

In addition to unspecified monetary damages, the named plaintiffs
are asking the court to certify their proposed class action
lawsuit, thereby allowing other similarly situated parties (read:
other sales associates that Hermes employed during the same or
similar time periods) to join in the case against the famed
fashion house, which is best known for its $10,000 Birkin and
Kelly bags.

In connection with the claims, Richard A. Roth, a lawyer
representing the two former salespeople, told the New York Post on
March 11: "Hermes is saying take what we give you -- we're Hermes
and you're not."


HOLDER PROPERTIES: ADESSO Suit Removed to S.C. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned ADESSO Homeowners Association,
ADESSO Horizontal Property Regime, William Durkin, Sam Vause, Jr.,
and Emad Tadros, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Holder Properties Inc., et al., Case No.
2016-CP-40-844, was removed from the Richland County Court of
Common Pleas to the U.S. District Court District of South Carolina
(Columbia). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
00710-JFA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for breach of contract.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Franklin J Smith Jr., Esq.
      Jared Hudson Garraux, Esq.
      RICHARDSON PLOWDEN AND ROBINSON
      PO Drawer 7788
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 771-4400
      Facsimile: (803) 799-7555
      E-mail: fsmith@richardsonplowden.com
              jgarraux@richardsonplowden.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Erik Tison Norton, Esq.
      Howard A VanDine III, Esq.
      Tara Cloer Sullivan, Esq.
      NELSON MULLINS RILEY AND SCARBOROUGH
      Meridian Building
      17th Floor, 1320 Main Street
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 255-9552
      Facsimile: (803) 255-5904
      E-mail: erik.norton@nelsonmullins.com
              howard.vandine@nelsonmullins.com
              tara.sullivan@nelsonmullins.com


HOME BOX OFFICE: "Lake" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2369
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Lake et al. v. Home Box Office et
al., Case No. 4:15-cv-01619, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The Central District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-00876-RGK-PLA to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants allegedly deceived the
consumers in connection with their purchase of the pay-per-view
broadcast of a boxing match by intentional false representations
and material omissions about Manny Pacquiao's health.

The Lake case is being consolidated with MDL 2639 in re: Pacquiao-
Mayweather Boxing Match Pay-Per-View Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on August 14, 2015. These actions share
factual questions arising from allegations that Defendant Pacquiao
suffered a severe torn rotator cuff injury to his right shoulder
approximately one month before the Fight. Plaintiffs in each of
the actions allege that Pacquiao and the other defendants failed
to disclose this injury to the public and, in fact, misrepresented
Pacquiao's health prior to the Fight, ostensibly so as not to risk
the alleged $300 million in revenue from pay-per-view purchases of
the Fight. In its August 14, 2015 order, the MDL panel found that
the these actions involve common questions of fact, and that
centralization of this litigation in the Central District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. R. Gary Klausner, United States
District Judge. The lead case is 2:15-ml-02639-RGK-PLA.

Home Box Office which is founded in 1972, is a streaming service
company, and delivers programs that include series, films,
documentaries, comedy, and sports to subscribers. Home Box Office
is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dominic M. Pontello, Esq.
          Isaac Joseph Bressler, Esq.
          PONTELLO LAW, LLC
          5988 Mid Rivers Mall Dr., Suite 114
          St. Charles, MO 63304
          Telephone: (636) 541-7673
          Facsimile: (636) 441-6881
          E-mail: dominicpontello@gmail.com
                  ibressler@pontellolaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bradley R. Hansmann, Esq.
          Robert L. Carter, Esq.
          BROWN AND JAMES, P.C.
          800 Market St., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 421-3400
          Facsimile: (314) 421-3128
          E-mail: bhansmann@bjpc.com
                  rcarter@bjpc.com

               - and -

          James W Quinn, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310 8000
          Facsimile: (212) 310 8007
          E-mail: james.quinn@weil.com

               - and -

          Mark B. Leadlove, Esq.
          BRYAN CAVE LLP
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 N. Broadway, Suite 3600
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 259 2000
          Facsimile: (314) 259 2020
          E-mail: mbleadlove@bryancave.com

               - and -

          Yehudah L Buchweitz, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGES LLP
          767 Fifth Avenue 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10153
          Telephone: (212) 310 8256
          Facsimile: (212) 310 8007
          E-mail: yehudah.buchweitz@weil.com

HOME LOAN SERVICING: "Oliveira" Suit Transferred to Fla. S.D. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Oliveira, et al. v. Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-00652, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 0:16-cv-60165-WPD to the proceeding.

Home Loan Servicing Solutions, together with its subsidiaries,
focuses on acquiring assets related to residential mortgages. The
company was founded in 2010 and is based in George Town, the
Cayman Islands. As of April 6, 2015, Home Loan Servicing
Solutions, Ltd. operates as a subsidiary of New Residential
Investment Corp.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jonathan Horne, Esq.
          Laurence Matthew Rosen, Esq.
          Phillip C. Kim, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 2603
          E-mail: JHorne@rosenlegal.com
                  lrosen@rosenlegal.com

               - and -

          Carl William Margrabe III, Esq.
          Curtis V. Trinko, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF CURTIS V. TRINKO
          16 W. 46th Street
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 490 9550
          Facsimile: (212) 986 0158

               - and -

          Joseph E. White III, Esq.
          Lester Rene Hooker, Esq.
          SAXENA WHITE PA
          Boca Center
          5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
          Boca Raton, FL 33486
          Telephone: (561) 394 3399
          Facsimile: (561) 394 3382
          E-mail: jwhite@saxenawhite.com
                  lhooker@saxenawhite.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Edward Soto, Esq.
          Gregory Stewart Silbert, Esq.
          Jonathan D. Polkes, Esq.
          Layne S.R. Behrens, Esq.
          Richard William Slack, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL & MANGES
          1395 Brickell Avenue, Suite 1200
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 577 3177
          Facsimile: (305) 374 7159
          E-mail: edward.soto@weil.com

               - and -

          Darrell Scott Cafasso, Esq.
          Henry Vaughn Hutten, Esq.
          Julia A. Malkina, Esq.
          Steven Robert Peikin, Esq.
          SULLIVAN & CROMWELL, LLP
          125 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 558 1674
          Facsimile: (212) 558 3588


HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES: No OT Pay for Underwriters, 6th Cir. Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GREGORY LUTZ; DOROTHY BECKER, Plaintiffs-
Appellants, v. HUNTINGTON BANCSHARES, INC.; HUNTINGTON NATIONAL
BANK, Defendants-Appellees, No. 14-3727 (6th Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit affirmed the district
court's ruling that the residential-loan underwriters of
Huntington Bancshares, Inc. and Huntington National Bank were
administrative employees exempt from the overtime-pay provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA").

Gregory Lutz and Dorothy Becker filed a class-action suit against
Huntington, alleging that the bank failed to pay overtime
compensation as required by the FLSA.  The plaintiffs moved to
conditionally certify a class of all current and former employees
whose primary job duty consisted of "underwriting," but the
district court certified a smaller class consisting only of
underwriters who worked with residential-loan products.

Both the plaintiffs and Huntington filed motions for summary
judgment.  Granting Huntington's motion, the district court ruled
that the underwriters were administrative employees within the
meaning of 29 U.S.C. Section 213(a)(1) and 29 C.F.R. Section
541.200(a), and therefore exempt from the overtime-pay provisions
because their job duties related to Huntington's general business
operations, and they exercised discretion and independent judgment
when performing those duties.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the district court in
finding that Huntington's underwriters perform work that falls
within the administrative exemption.  The appellate court found
that although the underwriters apply Huntington's guidelines,
lending criteria, and other pertinent regulations, the
underwriters still had authority to waive or deviate from the
guidelines in certain instances, and they still make decisions
that significantly impact the business and do determine the risk
Huntington will accept for any particular loan.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 2, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/szYP2Zfrom Leagle.com.

Michael J. Lingle -- mlingle@theemploymentattorneys.com -- THOMAS
& SOLOMON LLP, Rochester, New York, for Appellants.

Tracy S. Pyles -- tpyles@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.,
Columbus, Ohio, Andrew J. Voss -- avoss@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON, P.C., Minneapolis, Minnesota, for Appellees.


INDUSTRIAL COMPANY: "Taylor" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Bradley Taylor v. TIC - The
Industrial Company (TIC) et al., Case No. CIVDS1512285, was
removed from the San Bernardino Superior Court, to the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California (Eastern
Division - Riverside). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
5:16-cv-00186-VAP-SP to the proceeding.

TIC provides direct-hire construction services to traditional
industrial markets in the United States and internationally. It
offers services for power industry, including gas/combustion
turbine installations in combined and simple cycle operations;
large coal-fired and other fossil fueled plants, including sub-
critical boilers and supercritical steam generators; integrated
gasification combined cycle projects; and renewable energy
services, including wind, geothermal, solar, and hydroelectric
facilities. The company is based in Englewood, Colorado.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle R Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  Kyle@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com
                  piya@bamlawca.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Daniel Gene Valles, Esq.
          BAKER & MCKENZIE LLP
          660 Hansen Way
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 856 5595
          Facsimile: (650) 856 9299
          E-mail: daniel.valles@bakermckenzie.com


INDUSTRIAL STAFFING: "Cody" Settlement Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the Western District of
Missouri, Central Division, granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of the class action settlement in the case CORTEZ
CODY, Individually and on behalf of all others, Plaintiffs, v.
INDUSTRIAL STAFFING SERVICES, INC., Defendant, No. 2:15-cv-04009-
NKL (W.D. Mo.)

Plaintiff Cortez Cody, a suit on behalf of himself and a putative
class asserting class claims against defendant Industrial Staffing
Services, Inc. under the Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C.
Section 1681, et seq. The lawsuit was removed to the present court
based on federal question jurisdiction.

After arm's-length negotiations, the parties entered into a
settlement agreement.  In her Order dated November 20, 2015,
available at http://is.gd/1w3LCMfrom Leagle.com, Judge Laughrey
granted the parties' amended joint motion for preliminary approval
of class action settlement. The Court conditionally certified for
settlement purposes a Disclosure Class defined as: "All employees
or prospective employees of the Defendant in the United States who
were the subject of a consumer report procured between December
29, 2012, and May 28, 2015, and who executed any one of the FCRA
disclosure forms attached to the parties' Joint Stipulation of
Settlement."

On March 2, 2016, the parties filed their motion for final
approval of class action settlement.  Judge Laughrey thereafter
granted the parties' motion and designated Charles Jason Brown and
Jayson A. Watkins as class counsel. Cortez Cody is designated as
representative for the class. Within 45 days from the date of the
order, the parties' settlement administrator shall mail a check
for the net settlement amount, as provided for in the parties'
settlement agreement, to each class member who has not opted out
of the class.

The parties' recommendation of U.S. Committee for Refugees and
Immigrants as the cy pres beneficiary is consistent with promoting
the rule of law and is approved. The court approves class
counsel's attorney fees and expenses in the amount of $57,750.00
and the named plaintiff shall receive an incentive award of $6,000
and is permanently barred and enjoined from instituting or
prosecuting any of the claims released in the settlement
agreement.

The requested payment for services provided by the Settlement
Administrator in the amount of $24,750.00, to be paid from the
Settlement Fund, is approved. The court retains continuing and
exclusive jurisdiction of the parties regarding all matters
relating to the lawsuit, including the administration,
consummation, and enforcement of the settlement agreement.

A copy of Judge Laughrey's order dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/aDEXXtfrom Leagle.com.

Cortez Cody, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
     Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
     Brown & Associates, LLC
     301 S. US 169 Highway
     Gower, MO 64454
     Telephone: 816-505-4529
     Facsimile: 816-424-1337

Industrial Staffing Services, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Jacob Lee Kurtz, Esq.
     Patric Shane Linden, Esq.
     Kevin D Case, Esq.
     Case Linden PC
     Two City Place Drive, 2nd Floor
     St. Louis, MO 63141
     Telephone: 314-812-4750
     Facsimile: 314-812-4755


JC CHRISTENSEN: Illegally Collects Debt, "Watson" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Watson, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01279-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., March 7, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

J.C. Christensen & Associates, Inc. owns and operates a credit
counseling service company headquartered at 200 14th Ave E,
Sartell, MN 56377.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JOE TEX: Faces "Crump" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------
Kevin Crump, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Joe Tex Xpress, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-00051-J (N.D.
Tex., March 11, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Joe Tex Xpress, Inc., is a Nevada transportation solution
provider, serving customers in the oil and gas industry, among
others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     James M. Loren, Esq.
     George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
     Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
     GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
     3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450
     Dallas, Texas 75201
     Telephone: (469) 412-4222
     Facsimile: (954) 585-4886
     E-mail: jloren@lorenlaw.com
             rrustmann@goldbergloren.com
             ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com


KNUDSEN & SONS: Plaintiff Successful in His Bid to Remand Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Carol E. Jackson of the Eastern District of
Missouri, Eastern Division granted plaintiff's motion to remand in
the case LAURA MCNAMEE, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated inMissouri, Plaintiff, v. KNUDSEN & SONS, INC.,
Defendant, No. 4:15-CV-572 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.)

Defendant Knudsen & Sons, Inc. manufactures various juice
products. One of its juice products contains a label that
prominently displays the words Blueberry Pomegranate above the
phrase An Apple, Blueberry, Pomegranate and Lemon Juice Blend with
Other Ingredients.

Plaintiff Laura McNamee alleges that the labels on bottles of
juice produced by defendant Knudsen & Sons, Inc., are misleading.
Plaintiff alleges that the prominent display of the words
Blueberry Pomegranate misleads consumers into believing that the
product is predominantly comprised of blueberry and pomegranate
juices when it actually contains more apple juice than either
blueberry or pomegranate juice.

Plaintiff brought a putative class action asserting claims under
the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA), Mo. Rev. Stat.
Sections 407.010 et seq., and for unjust enrichment. Plaintiff
seeks to certify a class consisting of all persons in Missouri who
purchased the juice in the five years preceding the filing of this
action. Plaintiff alleges that the total value of her claim, which
is typical of the claims of all class members, is the retail
purchase price of $3.49. Plaintiff seeks compensatory damages,
pre- and post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.
Plaintiff also alleges that she and class members do not seek to
recover punitive damages or statutory penalties. She further
alleges that the amount in controversy is not more than $75,000
per individual class member, and is less than $5 million for the
entire class.

Knudsen removed the matter to the present court, invoking
jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1332(a) and the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d). Plaintiff filed a motion to remand and
asserts that the amount in controversy requirement is not
satisfied and that the case must be remanded.

Judge Jackson granted plaintiff's motion to remand and sent the
case back to the Twenty-Second Judicial Circuit Court (City of St.
Louis) from which it was removed.

A copy of Judge Jackson's memorandum and order dated March 3,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/ndeyWrfrom Leagle.com.

Laura McNamee, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
     ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
     8816 Manchester Rd. No. 109
     St. Louis, MO 63144-2602
     Telephone: 314-258-0212

Knudsen & Sons, Inc., Defendant, represented by James Muehlberger
-- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- at SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP


KRAFT FOODS: Settlement in Wage & Hour Suit Has Initial OK
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the Eastern District of
California, Fresno Division grants preliminary approval of class
action settlement in the case JOSE RODRIGUEZ, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. KRAFT FOODS
GROUP, INC., a Virginia corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-01137-LJO-EPG (E.D. Cal.)

Jose Rodriguez, individually, and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, initiated a class action in the Fresno County
Superior Court alleging various wage and hour violations against
Defendant, Kraft Foods. On July 18, 2014, defendant removed the
case to the present court claiming federal jurisdiction is proper
pursuant to 28 Section 1332(d), the Class Action Fairness Act of
2005 (CAFA).

On November 4, 2015 plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement, which the defendant filed
a non-opposition. On December 4, 2015, Magistrate Judge Erica P.
Grosjean held a hearing on plaintiff's motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement and on February 8, 2016, the
Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations recommending
that the motion for preliminary approval be granted with some
modifications. The court has conducted a de novo review of the
case and finds that the Findings and Recommendations are supported
by the record and proper analysis.

Judge O'Neill adopted the findings and recommendations in full and
the motion for preliminary approval of class settlement is
granted.

The court approves the form and content of the Notice of Pendency
of Class Action filed on January 25, 2016, with modifications:

a. The first paragraph in Section 5 shall be amended to indicate
that District Court Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill, rather than
Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean, preliminary approved the
settlement; and

b. The second paragraph in Section 8, which explains the PAGA
claims, shall be deleted and the following language inserted (all
other paragraphs in that section shall remain as written):

     "If you timely request to be excluded from the settlement,
you will not be bound by anything that happens in this lawsuit and
will not receive payment under the Settlement. Except, if the
Settlement is approved, the Settlement will bar further claims
brought under the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004 (PAGA),
Labor Code Section 2399 et seq, which allows aggrieved employees
to bring civil actions to recover penalties for violations of the
Labor Code. An action under PAGA is an enforcement action, in
which an aggrieved employee acts as a private attorney general to
collect penalties from employers who violate labor laws. The
employees who file the actions may collect monetary penalties. The
penalties collected would be distributed as follows: 50% to the
General Fund, 25% to the agency for education, and 25% to the
aggrieved employee. A plaintiff may recover civil penalties under
this statue without satisfying class action certification
requirements. See, Arias v. Superior Court (2009) 46 Cal.4th 969.
Therefore, you will receive a payment from Kraft Heinz for the
amount of your individual share of the PAGA claim even if you ask
to be excluded from the class."

The court approves the procedures for class members to participate
in, to opt-out of, and to object to the settlement and directs the
mailing of the notice by first class mail to the class members in
accordance with the schedule. The dates selected for the mailing
and distribution of the Notice meet the requirements of due
process, provide the best notice practicable under the
circumstances, and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to
class members.

The class is certified for settlement purposes only. The court
appoints Jose Rodriguez as class representative, R. Duane Westrup
of Westrup & Associates, as class counsel for settlement purposes
only and also appoints CPT Group, Inc. as the claims
administrator.

A Final Fairness Hearing will be held on July 8, 2016 at 10:00
a.m. before Magistrate Judge Erica P. Grosjean.

The court expressly reserves the right to continue or adjourn the
final approval hearing without further notice to the class
members.

A copy of Judge O'Neill's order dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/uKxPcVfrom Lealge.com.

Jose Rodriguez, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Cat Nguyen Bulaon, Esq.
     Phillip R Poliner, Esq.
     R. Duane Westrup, Esq.
     Westrup Klick LLP
     444 W Ocean blvd #1614
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Telephone: 562-432-2551

Kraft Foods Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas J.
Farmer -- doug.farmer@ogletreedeakins.com -- Victoria Lyons
Tallman -- victoria.tallman@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree
Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart, P.C.


LAGO EXPRESS: Faces "Alvarado" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Francisco Vega Alvarado and all others similarly situated
v. Lago Express, Inc. and Jorge E. Lago, Case No. 1:16-cv-20463-
FAM (S.D. Fla., February 8, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Lago Express, Inc. was duly established under the laws of
the state of Florida on November 7, 2000, by its President,
Mr. Jorge Lago at the suggestion of Sunshine Gasoline
Distributors, Inc., to manage their gas stations in
the Miami, FL U.S. area such as Shell, Chevron, British
Petroleum, and CITGO.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LAWRENCE D. BRUDY: Judge Denies Bid for Conditional Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell of the Western District of
Pennsylvania denied plaintiff's motion for conditional
certification in the case JULIE L. SCHNECK, Plaintiff, v. LAWRENCE
D. BRUDY & ASSOCIATES, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-1058
(W.D. Pa.)

Julie L. Schneck filed an action in under the Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938, as amended (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 201 et
seq.(Count I), the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), 43 P.S.
Section 333.101 et seq. (Count II), Pennsylvania Wage Payment
Collection Law (Count III) and unjust enrichment (Count IV), to
recover damages for non-payment of overtime wages for Schneck and
all others similarly situated against defendant  Lawrence D. Brudy
& Associates, Inc. Schneck alleged she was a paralegal/secretary
for defendant The proposed class was defined as:

     "All individuals who are current or former employees of
defendant who performed work for Defendant in excess of 40 hours
per week and were not paid overtime."

On October 14, 2015, the court entered an initial Rule 16.1
scheduling order directing the parties to meet and devise a plan
for discovery and alternative dispute resolution.

In a stipulation regarding alternative dispute resolution, filed
on November 11, 2015, the parties agreed that, to preserve
resources and in the interests of judicial economy, in lieu of
plaintiff filing his motion to proceed as a collective action and
to facilitate Section 216(b) notice, defendant will stipulate to
conditional certification of the class defined as:

     "All individuals who are current or former employees of Brudy
who were paid a salary, excluding lawyers, including but not
limited to Paralegals, Secretaries, Receptionists, and those in
similarly titled positions who worked for Brudy from August 11,
2011 to the present."

On January 14, 2016, the court held a status conference at which
time the parties notified the court of the continued disparate
views on the appropriate provisional class definition in this
matter.

On January 15, 2016, plaintiff filed a motion to certify class
with brief in support.  Plaintiff's recent request varies from the
stipulated class definition which had previously been noticed and
sent to potential class members. Plaintiff seeks conditional class
certification for the purposes of notice to potential opt-in
plaintiffs and for pretrial discovery regarding their individual
claims as to:

     "All current or former employees and independent contractors
of Brudy who performed work for Brudy in the United States at any
time between August 11, 2011 and the present, and who were paid in
any manner, including but not limited to, a salary, hourly or flat
rate, excluding lawyers, including but not limited to Paralegals,
Secretaries, Receptionists, and those in similarly titled
positions."

Magistrate Judge Mitchell denied plaintiff's motion for
conditional certification and the case shall proceed as
conditional FLSA collective action.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Mitchell's memorandum and order dated
March 10, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/yeMHuLfrom
Leagle.com.

Julie L. Schneck, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Kenneth J. Hardin, II, Esq.
     Ashley Locker, Esq.
     HARDIN THOMPSON P.C.
     The Frick Building
     437 Grant Street, Suite 620
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Telephone: 412-944-2166
     Facsimile: 412-315-7386

Lawrence D. Brudy & Associates, Inc, Defendant, represented by
David M. Moran -- DMMoran@Moran-Law.com -- at Moran & Moran, P.C.


LG ELECTRONICS: "Hlavaj" Suit Moved to Cal. C.D. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Andy Hlavaj v. LG Electronics
Alabama, Inc., Case No. CIV DS 1516085, was removed from the San
Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for
the Central District of California (Eastern Division - Riverside).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-00232-KK to the
proceeding.

LG Electronics Alabama Inc. manufactures consumer electronics. The
Company offers television, radio, refrigerator, air conditioner,
washing machine, escalator, and elevator. LG Electronics Alabama
operates internationally, and is based in
Huntsville, Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Max Benowitz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF LOUIS BENOWITZ
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard Penthouse
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 844 5141
          Facsimile: (310) 492 4056
          E-mail: louis@benowitzlaw.com

               - and -

          David Pourati, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID POURATI APC
          12400 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 920
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 494 7900
          Facsimile: (310) 494 7901
          E-mail: David@Pourati.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Robin J Samuel, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785 4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785 4601
          E-mail: robin.samuel@hoganlovells.com

               - and -

          James J Ward, Esq.
          Jennifer Cecilia Won, Esq.
          Phoebe A. Wilkinson, Esq.
          HOGAN LOVELLS LLP
          1999 Avenue of the Stars Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 785 4600
          Facsimile: (310) 785 4601
          E-mail: joe.ward@hoganlovells.com
                  jen.won@hoganlovells.com
                  phoebe.wilkinson@hoganlovells.com


LIFELOCK INC: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to Cal. S.D. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sahakian v. LifeLock, Inc. et al.,
Case No. 37-02015-00042664-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from the
Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00222-
H-DHB to the proceeding.

LifeLock provides identity theft protection services for
consumers; and consumer risk management services for enterprises
in the United States. It operates in two segments, Consumer and
Enterprise. It protects consumer subscribers through monitoring
identity-related events, such as new account openings and credit-
related applications; and enterprise customers by delivering on-
demand identity risk, identity authentication, and credit
information about consumers. The company is based in Tempe,
Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Luanne Roberta Sacks, Esq.
          SACKS, RICKETTS & CASE, LLP
          177 Post Street, Suite 650
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 549 0580
          Facsimile: (415) 549 0640
          E-mail: lsacks@sacksrickettscase.com


LINCOLN NATIONAL: "Ramsey" ERISA Suit Moved to Ark. E.D. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Ramsey v. Lincoln National Life
Insurance Company, Case No. 63-cv-15-815-3, was removed from the
Saline County Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas (Little Rock). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00043-DPM to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover
benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of
1974, for breach of fiduciary duty, and for Declaratory Judgment.
The Defendant allegedly refuses to pay Plaintiff the benefits she
is lawfully due under the welfare benefit plan governed by ERISA.

Lincoln National Life Insurance Company provides insurance
services. The Company focuses on life insurance, annuities,
accident, health, dental, accident, critical illness, group
benefits, individual and group retirement plans. The Company
offers short-term and long-term insurances to customers throughout
the United States. It is based in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Luther Oneal Sutter, Esq.
          SUTTER & GILLHAM, PLLC
          Post Office Box 2012
          Benton, AR 72018
          Telephone: (501) 315 1910
          Facsimile: (501) 315 1916
          E-mail: luthersutter.law@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Byrne J. Decker, Esq.
          PIERCE ATWOOD, LLP
          254 Commercial Street
          Portland, ME 04101
          Telephone: (207) 791 1152
          E-mail: bdecker@pierceatwood.com

               - and -

          David M. Donovan, Esq.
          WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A.
          200 River Market Avenue, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1769
          Telephone: (501) 372 1406
          E-mail: david.donovan@wdt-law.com


LRI HOLDINGS: Faces "Elchert" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------
Chad Elchert, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. LRI Holdings, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:16-
cv-00564 (M.D. Tenn., March 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

LRI Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware corporation, and is a national
chain of approximately 234 casual restaurants throughout the U.S.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Charles Yezbak, Esq.
     YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
     2002 Richard Jones Rd. Suite B-200
     Nashville, TN 37215
     Telephone: (615) 250-2000
     Facsimile: (615) 250-2020

          - and -

     Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000
     Facsimile: (212) 977-4005

          - and -

     Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     1515 S. Federal Highway
     Boca Raton, Florida 33432
     Telephone: (561) 447-8888
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831

          - and -

     Michael J. Palitz, Esq.
     SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
     830 Third Avenue, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (800) 616-4000
     Facsimile: (561) 447-8831


MAC PRODUCTS: Faces "Rodas" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------
Nelsis Raul Rodas, et al., on behalf of themselves and others
similarly-situated v. MAC Products & Services Inc., MAC Productus
Company Inc., Patricia M. Richardson, and Raymond N. Richardson,
Case 1:16-cv-00279-LMB-IDD (E.D. Va., March 14, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MAC Products & Services Inc., is a corporation formed and existing
under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia which provides car
wash and automobile detailing services at various automobile
dealership in Virginia and Maryland.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas F. Hennessy, Esq.
     4015 Chain Bridge Road
     Suite 6
     Fairfax, Virginia 22030
     Telephone: (703) 865-8836
     Facsimile: (703) 865-7633
     E-mail: th@virginiawage.com


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: Faces "Gormley" Securities Class Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
James Gormley, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Magicjack Vocaltec Ltd., et al., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01869 (S.D.N.Y., March 11, 2016), alleges that magicJack and
certain of its former and current executive officers
misrepresented the Company's expected financial performance.
Specifically, the defendants understated the Company's Adjusted
EBITDA projection, thus depressing the Company's stock price.
This securities class action is brought on behalf of all persons
who sold magicJack shares between November 12, 2013 and March 12,
2014.

MagicJack Vocaltec Ltd., is a cloud communications company and the
inventor of the MagicJack devices and other magicJack products and
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
     Adam M. Apton, Esq.
     Michael B. Ershowsky, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY, LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 363-7500
     Facsimile: (212) 363-7171


MAGICJACK VOCALTEC: May 13 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who sold magicJack VocalTec Ltd.
("magicJack") between November 12, 2013 and March 12, 2014.  You
are hereby notified that a securities class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District of New York.
To get more information go to:

http://www.zlk.com/pslra/magicjack-vocaltec

or contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com
or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972.
There is no cost or obligation to you.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, magicJack
misrepresented the Company's expected financial performance in a
scheme to artificially deflate the price of magicJack's
securities.  Due to the misrepresentations made by defendants,
members of the Class sold or otherwise divested magicJack's common
stock at artificially deflated prices, thus incurring losses. When
the Company's alleged misrepresentations and fraudule nt conduct
became apparent, the price of magicJack's shares dramatically
increased, as the artificial depression was removed from the share
price.

If you suffered a loss in magicJack you have until May 13, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.

Levi & Korsinsky is a national firm with offices in New York,
New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and Washington D.C. The
firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and experience
representing investors in securities litigation, and have
recovered hundreds of millions of dollars for aggrieved
shareholders.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Joseph E. Levi, Esq.
30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free:  (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com


MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT: Settlement Okayed; Fees Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case DE IVORY SMITH, ET AL. v. MANHATTAN MANAGEMENT
COMPANY, LLC, ET AL. Section "B" (2), Civil Action No. 14-2623
(E.D. La.), Plaintiffs are residents/employees of the apartment
complex, located in the Algiers community of New Orleans,
Louisiana, and owned by the Forest Isles Apartment Complex.
Plaintiffs filed suit under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
claiming they were not properly paid overtime or minimum wage as
mandated by the Act.

After significant discovery and motion practice, the parties
reached a settlement agreement. However, they were unable to agree
on the appropriate amount of attorney's fees, thus submitting
their positions to the Court for resolution.

Plaintiffs seek $1,457.99 in costs and $51,500 in attorney's fees.

Both parties agree that the lodestar method is the correct means
for determining the appropriate amount of attorney's fees. Yet,
defendants contend that reductions to the amount of fees are
required due to the degree of success obtained, counsel's block-
billing practices, and counsel's failure to exercise billing
judgment among other reasons.

Plaintiffs counter that the lodestar amount is appropriate in
light of the results obtained because Plaintiffs prevailed on all
claims asserted and the settlement amount was not insignificant.
Finally, plaintiffs aver that their billing techniques were proper
and reasonable.

Before the court are the parties' joint motion for approval of
settlement and plaintiffs' motion to set attorneys' fees and
costs.

District Judge Ivan L.R. Lemell of the Eastern District of
Louisiana granted the motion for approval of settlement; but
granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motions to set
attorneys' fees and costs. Plaintiffs are due $37,931.99 in costs
and fees.

A copy of Judge Lemelle' order and reasons dated March 10, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/lK4Hx6from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Jody Forester Jackson, Esq.
     Mary Bubbett Jackson, Esq.
     JACKSON & JACKSON
     201 St. Charles Avenue, Suite 2500
     New Orleans, LA 70170
     Telephone: 504-599-5953

Defendants, represented by Loretta G. Mince --
lmince@fishmanhaygood.com -- Jeanette Amedee Donnelly --
jdonnelly@fishmanhaygood.com -- Rebecca Sha --
rsha@fishmanhaygood.com -- at Fishman Haygood


MARICOPA COUNTY, AZ: 9th Cir. Dismisses Untimely Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MANUEL DE JESUS ORTEGA MELENDRES; JESSICA
QUITUGUA RODRIGUEZ; DAVID RODRIGUEZ; VELIA MERAZ; MANUEL NIETO,
JR.; SOMOS AMERICA, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MARICOPA COUNTY,
Defendant-Appellant, and JOSEPH M. ARPAIO, Defendant, No. 15-15996
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
dismissed the appeal filed by Maricopa County for lack of
jurisdiction.

A class action was filed against Sheriff Joseph M. Arpaio, in his
official capacity, Maricopa County, and the Maricopa County
Sheriff's Office (MCSO), alleging that they violated federal law
by racially profiling Latino drivers and passengers and stopping
them under the guise of enforcing federal and state immigration
laws.  The parties, however, later stipulated to dismiss the
claims against Maricopa County, believing that the county is not a
necessary party for obtaining the complete relief sought.

After a bench trial, the district court concluded that Sheriff
Arpaio and MCSO acted unconstitutionally and permanently enjoined
them from conducting the racially discriminatory conduct.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit held that MCSO was a non-jural entity
that could not be sued, and thus was improperly named as a party.
The Ninth Circuit then ordered that "Maricopa County be
substituted as a party in lieu of MCSO" to assure a meaningful
remedy for the plaintiffs despite MCSO's dismissal.

A copy of that order, dated April 15, 2015, is available at
http://is.gd/adUdTJfrom Leagle.com.

In the same ruling, the Ninth Circuit upheld the district court's
class certification order, saying the lower court did not err in
holding that the named plaintiffs had standing to assert the
claims of absent class members who were stopped during non-
saturation patrols.  The Ninth Circuit, however, vacated
particular provisions of the lower court's order and directed the
district court to tailor them so as to address only the
constitutional violations at issue.

On May 15, 2015, Maricopa County filed an appeal purporting to
challenge several of the district court's orders.

The Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal as untimely.  The appellate
court found that the district court orders that Maricopa County
challenged were issued years ago, between 2011 and 2014, but
Maricopa County filed its notice of appeal only on May 15, 2015,
clearly beyond the 30-day deadline set out in the Rules of
Appellate Procedure.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 7, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/AOon82from Leagle.com.

Richard K. Walker (argued), Walker & Peskind, PLLC, Scottsdale,
Arizona, for Defendant-Appellant.

Stanley Young (argued) and Michelle L. Morin -- mmorin@cov.com --
Covington & Burling LLP, Redwood Shores, California; Cecillia D.
Wang, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project, San Francisco,
California; Dan Pochoda, ACLU Foundation of Arizona, Phoenix,
Arizona; Andre Segura, ACLU Foundation Immigrants' Rights Project,
New York, New York; Anne Lai, Irvine, California; Jorge Martin
Castillo, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Los
Angeles, California, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Flynn"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leslie E. Kobayashi granted in part and denied in part the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case captioned
MICHAEL KEVIN FLYNN; MARLA KAY FLYNN; and PATRICK R. FLYNN and
MARY KAY FLYNN, Trustees of the Flynn Family Trust, Plaintiffs, v.
MARRIOTT OWNERSHIP RESORTS, INC., a Delaware corporation; ET AL.,
Defendants,  Civil No. 15-00394 LEK-BMK (D. Haw.).

The class action complaint was filed on October 2, 2015, arising
from Marriott's operation of a traditional timeshare program
("Weeks-Based Program") and points-based timeshare program
("Point-Based Program") for its resorts.  The plaintiffs argued
that Marriot operates the programs "in a manner that sacrifices
the use right of one set of owners for the betterment of another
set" and that this practice "is inequitable and unlawful."  The
plaintiffs also argued that Marriott is unjustly enriched by the
maintenance fees the Point Owners pay because they reduce the
amount of maintenance fees that Marriott must pay for all of the
unsold timeshare units throughout the Marriott system which are
held in the MVC Trust.

Plaintiffs alleged the following claims:

          -- Count I: breach of contract against Marriott
             Vacations Club ("MVC"), MVC Exchange Company("MVC
             Exchange"), Marriott Ownership - Resorts, Inc.
             ("MORI"), Marriott Kauai Ownership Resorts, Inc.
             ("MKORI"), Kauai Lagoons LLC ("Kauai Lagoons"), and
             Marriott Resorts Hospitality Corporation ("Marriott
             Hospitality");

          -- Count II: breach of the implied covenant of good
             faith and fair dealing against MVC, MVC Exchange,
             MORI, MKORI, Kauai Lagoons, and Marriott Hospitality

          -- Count III: a claim for violations of Hawai'i
             consumer protection statutes against all Defendants;

          -- Count IV: a claim for violation of the Hawai'i
             timeshare statutes against the Developer Defendants;
             and

          -- Count V: unfair and deceptive acts and practices
             ("UDAP"), in violation of Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapters
             480 and 514E, against the Developer Defendants.

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that: the plaintiffs' claims
under Haw. Rev. Stat. Chapters 480, 481A, and 514E are time-
barred; the plaintiffs lack standing to bring Chapter 480 UDAP
claims because they are not "consumers"; each count fails to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted; and, to the extent that
any of the plaintiffs' claims remain, the only proper defendant is
MORI.

Judge Kobayashi granted the motion insofar as the court:

          -- CONCLUDES that the four-year limitations period in
             Haw. Rev. Stat. Section 480-24(a) applies to all
             claims in Counts III and V;

          -- DISMISSES as untimely all portions of Counts III and
             V except for the portions related to Patrick and
             Mary Flynn's interest in the Points-Based Program;

          -- DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE for lack of standing the
             portion of Count V alleging Sections 514E-11 and
             514E-11.1 violations related to Patrick and Mary
             Flynn's interest in the Points-Based Program;

          -- DISMISSES for failure to state a claim upon which
             relief can be granted the portions of Counts III and
             V alleging Chapter 480 violations related to Patrick
             and Mary Flynn's interest in the Points-Based
             Program;

          -- DISMISSES for failure to state a claim the portion
             of Count III alleging Chapter 481A violations
             related to Patrick and Mary Flynn's interest in the
             Points-Based Program;

          -- DISMISSES Count IV for failure to plead sufficient
             allegations to establish a violation of the One-to-
             One Rule;

          -- DISMISSES all portions of Count I for failure to
             state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and

          -- DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Count II because Hawai'i
             law does not recognize a claim for breach of the
             covenant of good faith and fair dealing in this
             context.

Judge Kobayashi, however, denied the motion insofar as:

          -- the dismissal of Counts I, III, IV, and V are
             WITHOUT PREJUDICE because it is arguably possible
             for the plaintiffs to cure by amendment all of the
             defects in those claims that the court has
             identified in its Order; and

          -- the court REJECTS the defendants' argument that MORI
             is the only proper defendant in this case.

A full-text copy of Judge Kobayashi's February 29, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/EWw383from Leagle.com.

Michael Kevin Flynn, Marla Kay Flynn, Patrick R. Flynn, Mary Kay
Flynn, Plaintiffs, represented by Erin Cassell Davis --
edavis@davislevin.com -- Davis Levin Livingston Grande, Joseph M.
Matthews -- joseph@colson.com -- Colson Hicks Eidson, pro hac
vice,Latoya C. Brown -- latoya@colson.com -- Colson Hicks Eidson,
pro hac vice, Mark S. Davis -- mdavis@davislevin.com -- Davis
Levin Livingston Grande, Michael K. Livingston --
mlivingston@davislevin.com -- Davis Levin Livingston & Seth Ian
Rubinson -- srubinson@rubinsonlaw.com -- Rubinson Law, pro hac
vice.

Marriott Ownership Resorts, Inc., Marriott Vacations Worldwide
Corporation, Marriott Resorts, Travel Company, Inc., Marriott
Resorts Hospitality Corporation, MVC Trust, Kauai Lagoons LLC,
Marriott Kauai Ownership Resorts, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Ian S. Marx -- marxi@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac
vice, Philip R. Sellinger -- sellingerp@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg
Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice & Lex R. Smith -- lrs@ksglaw.com --
Kobayashi Sugita & Goda.

First American Trust, FSB, Defendant, represented by Ian S. Marx,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice & Philip R. Sellinger,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, pro hac vice.


MATHESON TRI-GAS: $1,300,000 "Ambriz" Settlement Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Kronstadt of the Central District of
California approved a settlement in the case LARRY AMBRIZ,
SALVADOR CARRILLO, MARCO A. CHAVEZ, RANDALL COURTNEY, DANIEL
MALDONADO, MARK A. RODRIGUEZ, SR., ALEJANDRO VEGA, DOUGLAS VIVERO,
DAVID CINTAT, MANUEL SALAZAR, HERSCHEL SURVINE III, EDWIN
PUQUIRRE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated and on behalf of all other "aggrieved" employees,
Plaintiffs, v. MATHESON TRI-GAS, a New Jersey Corporation, and
DOES 1-10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV14-04546 JAK (JCx)
(C.D. Cal.)

Larry Ambriz and 11 other named plaintiffs brought an action
against defendant Matheson Tri-Gas, Inc. on behalf of a proposed
class of all current and former California-based truck drivers who
were employed by defendant. Plaintiffs advanced their claims that
arise under California law: (i) failure to provide meal periods;
(ii) failure to provide rest breaks; (iii) violation of Cal. Lab.
Code Section 2699; (iv) unfair competition in violation of Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200; and (v) waiting time penalties
under Cal. Lab. Code Sections 201-203.

The parties participated in a settlement process with Steven J.
Rottman and reached a proposed settlement. Pursuant to the deal,
the Defendant agreed to provide a maximum settlement fund of
$1,300,000 for the Class.

Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement but was denied for the first time and made a
renewal that was granted in part. On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a motion for final approval of the settlement. A hearing on
the motion was held on November 2, 2015, and the matter was taken
under submission.

Judge Kronstadt ordered that members of the class that are subject
to the final order and judgment are all current and former drivers
who were employed by defendant from March 5, 2010 through June 25,
2015. The court certifies the class for settlement purposes only.
The final order and judgment applies to all claims or causes of
action settled under the terms of the settlement agreement, and
shall be fully binding with respect to the class representatives,
Larry Ambriz, Marco A. Chavez, Randall Courtney, Daniel Maldonado,
Mark A. Rodriguez, Sr., Alejandro Vega, Douglas Vivero, Herschel
Survine III, Edwin Puquierre, Manuel Arias and David T. Newfield
and all class members who did not filed exclusion forms pursuant
to the order granting preliminary approval of class action
settlement entered by the court on June 25, 2015. Participating
class members shall be deemed to have and by operation of the
judgment, will have fully, finally and forever released,
relinquished and discharged all claims released by the class
representatives and all claims released by class members against
defendant.

All claims released by the class representatives and all claims
released by each class member shall be deemed to be conclusively
released and forever barred and enjoined from prosecution as
against the defendant. All claims and causes of action asserted by
class representatives and the class members are dismissed with
prejudice.

The court finds that Aashish Y. Desai, Esq., Desai Law Firm, P.C.
and Lee R. Feldman and Leonard H. Sansanowicz, Feldman Browne
Olivares, A.P.C., are qualified to represent the Settlement Class
and confirms their appointment as class counsel. The court grants
class counsel's request for an award of attorneys' fees in the
amount of $384,681.25 and reimbursement of costs in the amount of
$6,169.92 to be paid from the Maximum Settlement Amount. The court
finds and determines that the payment of $10,000 to the California
Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) in settlement of the
LWDA's share of the penalties alleged by plaintiff and compromised
under the settlement is fair and reasonable. The court gives final
approval to and orders that the payment of that amount be made to
the LWDA out of the Maximum Settlement Amount in accordance with
the terms of the Settlement.

The court finds that it is appropriate for the class
representatives to be paid a total amount of $7,700.00 as a
service enhancement in recognition of their contribution to the
litigation and service to the class, and as consideration of their
general release of all claims against defendant. Ambriz is awarded
$600, Chavez is awarded $700, Courtney is awarded $700, Maldonado
is awarded $1,000, Rodriguez is awarded $700, Vega is awarded
$700, Vivero is awarded $600, Survine is awarded $700, Puquirre is
awarded $700, Vega is awarded $700 and Newfield is awarded $700.
The Court approves the payment of settlement administration
expenses to CPT Group, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $20,000.

The court retains continuing jurisdiction over the parties for the
purpose of construing, enforcing and administering the final order
and judgment, and enforcing the settlement agreement, addressing
settlement administration matters, and addressing such post-
judgment matters as may be appropriate under court rules or
applicable law. The time to appeal from the Judgment shall
commence upon entry of the final order and judgment. Any portion
of the Net Settlement Amount remaining after distribution shall be
redistributed by the class administrator to the participating
class members. Any settlement checks uncashed 180 days after
issuance will be rendered to the State of California.

A copy of Judge Kronstadt's final order dated March 3, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/s2C0Mgfrom Leagle.com.

Larry Ambriz, Salvador Carrillo, Randall Courtney, Daniel
Maldonado, Mark A Rodriguez, Sr., Alejandro Vega, Douglas Vivero,
Marco A Chavez, Plaintiffs, represented by Aashish Y Desai --
aashish@desai-law.com -- Maria Adrianne De Castro --
adrianne@desai-law.com -- at Desai Law Firm PC; Alicia Olivares
-- alicia@fbo-law.com -- Lee R Feldman -- lee@fbo-law.com --
Leonard H Sansanowicz -- leonard@fbo-law.com -- at Feldman Browne
Olivares

Manuel Salazar, Herschel Survine, III, Edwin Puquirre,
Plaintiffs, represented by Aashish Y Desai -- aashish@desai-
law.com -- Maria Adrianne De Castro -- adrianne@desai-law.com --
at Desai Law Firm PC; Lee R Feldman -- lee@fbo-law.com --  Feldman
Browne Olivares APLC

Marc McDonald, Plaintiff, represented by Ronald W Makarem --
makarem@law-rm.com -- atg Makarem and Associates APLC

Marco A Chavez, Petitioner, represented by Aashish Y Desai --
aashish@desai-law.com -- Maria Adrianne De Castro --
adrianne@desai-law.com -- at Desai Law Firm PC; Alicia Olivares
-- alicia@fbo-law.com -- Lee R Feldman -- lee@fbo-law.com --
Leonard H Sansanowicz -- leonard@fbo-law.com -- at Feldman Browne
Olivares

David Cintat, Petitioner, represented by Aashish Y Desai --
aashish@desai-law.com -- Maria Adrianne De Castro --
adrianne@desai-law.com -- at Desai Law Firm PC; Lee R Feldman --
lee@fbo-law.com --  Feldman Browne Olivares APLC

Matheson Tri-Gas, Defendant, represented by Clint D Robison --
clint.robison@leclairryan.com -- Vickie V Grasu --
vickie.grasu@leclairryan.com -- at LeClairRyan LLP

Roy Van Kempen, Objector, represented by S Brett Sutton --
brett@suttonhague.com -- at Sutton Hague Law Corporation PC


MDL 1203: Denial of Kennedy Estate's Claim Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: DIET DRUGS (PHENTERMINE/
FENFLURAMINE/DEXFENFLURAMINE) PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS
DOCUMENT RELATES TO: SHEILA BROWN, et al. v. AMERICAN HOME
PRODUCTS CORPORATION, Civil Action No. 99-20593, No. 2:16 MD 1203
(E.D. Pa.), Judge Harvey Bartle, III affirmed the AHP Settlement
Trust's denial of the claim made by the Estate of Dennis J.
Kennedy for Matrix A-1 benefits and the related derivative claims
submitted by Mr. Kennedy's spouse.

The Estate, a representative claimant under the Diet Drug
Nationwide Class Action Settlement Agreement with Wyeth, sought
Matrix A-1, Level V benefits from the Trust in the amount of
$1,240,196.  The Trust, however, issued a post-audit determination
that the Estate was entitled only to Matrix B-1, Level V benefits.

On June 29, 2015, the court issued an order to show cause why the
Estate's claim should be paid, and referred the matter to the
Special Master for further proceedings.  The Special Master then
assigned a Technical Advisor to review the documents submitted by
the Trust and the Estate and to prepare a report for the court.

The Technical Advisor concluded that there was no reasonable
medical basis for finding that Mr. Kennedy did not have a
congenital bicuspid aortic valve.

Judge Bartle held that as the Estate has not established a
reasonable medical basis for finding that Mr. Kennedy did not have
a congenital bicuspid aortic valve, the Settlement Agreement
requires that the Estate's Level V claim be reduced to the B
Matrix.

A full-text copy of Judge Bartle's March 1, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/4vb1nhfrom Leagle.com.

ANGELA JENSEN, JOANN READ, Claimants, represented by STEVEN L.
BUNOSKI -- sbunoski@yostlaw.com.

JOYCE MAUDIE, Claimant, represented by MICHAEL L. HODGES, HODGES
LAW FIRM, CHARTERED.

CINDY SORENSON, Claimant, represented by WAYNE H. BRAUNBERGER,
BRAUNBERGER BOUD & DRAPER PC.


MDL 2325: Settlement Proceeds Don't Belong to Chapter 7 Estate
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re: Gregory B. Segura and Angela H.
Segura, Chapter 7, Debtors, Case No. 07-31907 (Bankr. N.D. Ohio),
Judge Mary Ann Whipple denied the motion to reopen case filed by
the Chapter 7 Trustee.

The Chapter 7 case was administratively closed on September 12,
2007.  On August 5, 2015, the Trustee was informed by letter that
Angela Segura has received a settlement offer, that she had
indicated to accept, from the American Medical Systems, Inc.,
Pelvic Repair System Products Liability Litigation, Multidistrict
Litigation ("MDL") No. 2325.  The settlement offer will provide
for recovery of $88,303.10 after deducting litigation costs and
attorney fees and before deduction for healthcare expenses
constituting liens against any recovery.

The Trustee then sought to reopen Gregory and Angela Segura's
bankruptcy case for the purpose of administering the settlement
proceeds for the benefit of the unsecured creditors of the
bankruptcy estate.

Judge Whipple found that the debtors' causes of action based upon
injuries resulting from the use of the pelvic mesh product are not
sufficiently rooted in their prebankruptcy past to be considered
assets of their bankruptcy estate.  The judge found that the
pelvic mesh product was implanted in Angela Segura prepetition,
but she credibly testified that she experienced no injury, that
is, no harmful effect, resulting therefrom until well after the
debtors' petition had been filed.

Accordingly, Judge Whipple concluded that the proceeds of the MDL
litigation to which the debtors may be entitled are not bankruptcy
assets that may be administered by the Trustee, and reopening the
case will thus serve no purpose.

A full-text copy of Judge Whipple's March 2, 2016 memorandum of
decision is available at http://is.gd/5YkJzIfrom Leagle.com.


MDL 2521: Endo Pharmaceuticals' Bid for Reconsideration Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re Lidoderm Antitrust Litigation, Case
No. 14-md-02521-WHO (N.D. Cal.), Judge William H. Orrick denied
the motion for reconsideration filed by Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
The judge also held that documents shared between Endo and Teikoku
concerning the Citizen Petition are not privileged.

Endo sought reconsideration of Judge Orrick's prior order
rejecting the application of the joint defense/common interest
privilege to defendants' discussions on how to allocate costs for
the Watson settlement between themselves.  Judge Orrick denied the
motion, holding that the cost allocation negotiations stemmed from
the parties' business relationship, not from their common interest
in defending the Watson litigation.

The parties also disputed whether discussions between Endo and
Teikoku about Endo's Citizenship Petition and its amendments are
covered by the common interest privilege, and whether any
applicable privilege has nonetheless been waived for
communications from and to third-party consultants by Endo.

Judge Orrick pointed out that the common interest privilege
protects documents shared between parties who have a common legal
interest, and does not extend to and cannot protect disclosure of
communications regarding a common business interest.  The judge
found that the defendants have not shown that they have a common
legal interest in the Citizen Petition and its amendments, thus,
all communications and documents regarding Endo's Citizenship
Petition and amendments that were shared between Endo and Teikoku
must be produced.

A full-text copy of Judge Orrick's March 7, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/cCswksfrom Leagle.com.

United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1776 & Participating
Employers Health and Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla --
gasciolla@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards
-- drichards@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff -- jkodroff@srkw-law.com -- Spector
Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C.,Renae Diane Steiner --
rsteiner@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert
Samuel Kitchenoff kitchenoff@wka-law.com -- Weinstein Kitchenoff
and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson -- srobertson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,Vincent J. Esades --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew
Michael Purdy -- apurdy@saverilawfirm.com - Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Girard -- dcg@girardgibbs.com --
Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell -- davidm@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven --
davidn@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R.
Willig -- dwillig@wwdlaw.com -- Willig Williams &
Davidson,Domenico Minerva, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm,
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield,
Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James R.
Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney
General's Office, pro hac vice, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and
Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua
P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Krishna Brian Narine,
Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A.
Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller
Law LLC, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP,Natalie Finkelman Bennett,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan
Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B.
Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Rosemary Farrales
Luzon, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Scott M. Grzenczyk --
smg@girardgibbs.com -- Girard Gibbs LLP, Stephen E. Connolly,
Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz &
Richman,Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard Shadowen, LLP, William E.
Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC.

Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 178 Health & Welfare Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Local 17 Hospitality Benefit Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel
C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Joshua P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc &Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Steven Roller, Plaintiff, represented by Amanda Marie Friedman,
Krause Kalfayan Benink and Slavens LLP, Andrew Michael Purdy,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Christina H Sharp, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Ralph
B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens & Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Fraternal Order of Police, Fort Lauderdale Lodge 31, Insurance
Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Christina H Sharp, Girard
Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice & Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP.

NECA-IBEW Welfare Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O.
O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP,Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J.
Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey
L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane
Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff,
Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law
Offices of Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein,
Sellers and Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C., Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac
vice, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,
Domenico Minerva, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm,Elizabeth
Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr.,
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm,
Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew
Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, pro hac vice,
Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm Inc, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee Albert,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro
hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael Morris
Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Michael P. Thorton,
Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP,
Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen,
Hilliard Shadowen, LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC &
William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Rochester Drug Co-Operative, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Peter
Russell Kohn, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Archana Tamoshunas, Taus,
Cebulash & Landau, LLP, pro hac vice, Caitlin Goldwater Coslett,
Berger Montague PC,DAVID F. SORENSEN, BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.,
ELIZABETH SILVA, FARUQI & FARUQI LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph T.
Lukens, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, SARAH SCHALMAN-BERGEN, BERGER &
MONTAGUE PC, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

DROGUERIA BETANCES, INC., Plaintiff, represented by Bruce E
Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein & Fisher LLP, pro hac vice, Elena K
Chan, Garwin Gerstein Fisher, Erin R Leger, Smith Segura Raphael
LLP, Jonathan Gerstein, Garwin Gerstein etal, Joseph Opper, Garwin
Gerstein & Fisher LLP, pro hac vice, Keith J Verrier, Levin
Fishbein Sedran and Berman, Noah H Silverman, Garwin Gerstein &
Fisher LLP, pro hac vice, Peter Russell Kohn, Faruqi and Faruqi
LLP, Andrew Kelly, Odom & Des Roches, LLP, pro hac vice,
Christopher Letter, Odom & Des Roches, LLP, pro hac vice, David
Coleman Raphael, Jr., Smith Segura Raphael, LLP, pro hac vice,
Ephraim R. Gerstein, GARWIN GERSTEIN FISHER LLP, pro hac vice,
Miranda Jones, Heim, Payne Chorush,Russell A. Chorush, Heim, Payne
& Chorush, L.L.P., Stuart E. Des Roches, Odom & Des Roches, LLP,
pro hac vice, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

City of Providence, Rhode Island, Plaintiff, represented by Brian
O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP,Donald A. Migliori, Motley Rice LLC, Gregory S.
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector
Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills
& Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff
and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Deborah R.
Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Douglas R.
Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard
Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield, Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State
Attorney General's Office, pro hac vice,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift
and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Joshua P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Krishna Brian Narine,
Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A.
Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller
Law LLC,Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Mitchell M. Breit,
SIMMONS HANLY CONROY, LLC,Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,
Peter G.A.

Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan
Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Sarah S. Burns, Simmons Hanly Conroy, pro hac vice,Stephen E.
Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz
& Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard Shadowen, LLP, William E.
Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC.

Roofers Local 96 Health and Welfare Fund, on their behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, represented by
David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L.
Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane
Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,Vincent J. Esades, Heins
Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Greater Metropolitan Hotel Employers-Employees Health and Welfare
Fund, Plaintiff, represented by David Richard Woodward, Heins
Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman &
Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson,
P.L.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Minnesota Cement Masons Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented byDavid Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson,
P.L.C., Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff &
Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C.,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. & David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Painters District Council No.30 Health & Welfare Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by William J. O'Brien, Attorney at Law, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP,David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC.

PHILADELPHIA FEDERATION OF TEACHERS HEALTH & WELFARE FUND,
Plaintiff, represented by STEWART L. COHEN, COHEN TAUBER SPIEVACK
& WAGNER LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, MICHAEL COREN, COHEN PLACITELLA &
ROTH,Michael D. Donovan, Donovan Searles, LLC & Noah I. Axler,
Donovan Searles and Axler.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS LOCAL 22 HEALTH &
WELFARE FUND, Plaintiff, represented by Krishna Brian Narine,
Meredith Narine, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 115 HEALTH & WELFARE FUND, Plaintiff,
represented by MINDEE J. REUBEN, WEINSTEIN KITCHENOFF & ASHER
LLC,Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

IRENE KAMPANIS, Plaintiff, represented by Robert William Sink, Law
Offices of Robert W. Sink, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C. &
William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC.

Welfare Plan of the International Union of Operation Engineers
Locals 137, 137A, 137B, 137C, 137R, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H
Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Frank R. Schirripa, Hach Rose Schirripa &
Cheverie, LLP, Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J.
Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Jeffrey L.
Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Meghan Boone,
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll PLLC, Michael A. Rose, Hach Rose
Schirripa & Cheverie, LLP,Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills &
Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and
Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll
PLLC,Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel C.
Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,Domenico Minerva,
Donna M Evans, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC,Douglas R.
Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard
Shadowen LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf &
Blanchfield,Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State
Attorney General's Office, pro hac vice,Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift
and Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Joshua P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Justin Nicholas
Boley, Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Kenneth A. Wexler, Wexler
Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine,
Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller
Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael
Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Michael P. Thorton,
Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Scott Levy, Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP, Stephen C.
Richman, Markowitz & Richman,Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard Shadowen,
LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC & William H. London,
Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

Allied Services Division Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H
Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Gregory S.
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards, Cohen,
Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector
Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills
& Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff
and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP, David Baylis Franco, The Dugan Law Firm, APLC,
David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig
Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Douglas R. Plymale, The
Dugan Law Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP,
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield,
Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James R.
Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney
General's Office, pro hac vice, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and
Graf, P.C., Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua
P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Krishna Brian Narine,
Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A.
Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller
Law LLC, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP,Natalie Finkelman Bennett,
Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan
Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B.
Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells
& Gray LLP,Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D.
Shadowen, Hilliard Shadowen, LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift &
Graf PC & William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

TWIN CITY IRON WORKERS HEALTH AND WELFARE FUND, Plaintiff,
represented by Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff &
Willis,P.C.,Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Cesar Castillo, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Linda Phyllis
Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Bradley J Demuth, Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C.,Brent William Landau, Hausfeld LLP, Juan R. Rivera
Font, Juan R. Rivera Font LLC, Linda P. Nussbaum, Supreme Court,
State of New York, pro hac vice,Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

American Sales Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, John Radice, Radice Law
Firm, Thomas M. Sobol, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Gregory T
Arnold.

Government Employees Health Association, Inc, Plaintiff,
represented byTodd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio, Barbara J.
Hart, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart PC, David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Noelle Ruggiero, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen
and Hart P.C., Peter St. Phillip, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart
P.C., Robert Clarkson Griffith, Rawlings and Associates PLLC &
Uriel Rabinovitz, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen and Hart PC.

Iron Workers District Council of New England Welfare Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP,Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas
Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L.
Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Karin Elizabeth
Garvey, Labaton Sucharow LLP, Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills &
Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff and
Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP, David W.
Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,David S. Nalven, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams &
Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law
Firm, Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D.
Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob Alexander
Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan
Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, pro
hac vice, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, University
of San Francisco School of Law, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith
Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A. Fanning,
Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC,
Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Michael P.
Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP,
Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen,
Hilliard Shadowen, LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC &
William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 49 Health and
Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
David Richard Woodward, Heins Mills and Olson, P.L.C., Gregory S.
Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP,Heidi M Silton, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., J. Douglas Richards, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector Roseman & Kodroff &
Willis,P.C., Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, Kristen
G. Marttila, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Renae Diane Steiner,
Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Robert William Sink, Law Offices of
Robert W. Sink, Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and
Toll PLLC, Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, David W.
Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David S. Nalven,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig
Williams & Davidson, Domenico Minerva, Douglas R. Plymale, The
Dugan Law Firm,Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP,
Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield,
Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James R.
Dugan, II, The Dugan Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz
LLP, pro hac vice, John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney
General's Office, pro hac vice, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and
Graf, P.C.,Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua
P. Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Krishna Brian Narine,
Meredith Narine, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A.
Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller
Law LLC, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Michael P. Thorton, Thornton Naumes LLP, Natalie Finkelman
Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler,
Donovan Axler LLC, Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph
B. Kalfayan, Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells
& Gray LLP, Stephen C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D.
Shadowen, Hilliard Shadowen, LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift &
Graf PC, William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC &
Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP.

International Union of Operating Engineers Local 132 Health and
Welfare Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Brian O. O'Mara, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP,
Gregory S. Asciolla, Labaton Sucharow LLP, J. Douglas Richards,
Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,Jeffrey L. Kodroff, Spector
Roseman & Kodroff & Willis,P.C., Renae Diane Steiner, Heins Mills
& Olson, P.L.C., Robert Samuel Kitchenoff, Weinstein Kitchenoff
and Asher LLC, Robert William Sink, Law Offices of Robert W. Sink,
Sharon K. Robertson, Cohen, Milstein, Sellers and Toll PLLC,
Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, David W. Mitchell,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,David S. Nalven, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Deborah R. Willig, Willig Williams & Davidson,
Domenico Minerva, Douglas R. Plymale, The Dugan Law Firm,
Elizabeth Gentry Arthur, Hilliard Shadowen LLP, Garrett D.
Blanchfield, Jr., Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Jacob Alexander
Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., James R. Dugan, II, The Dugan
Law Firm, Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice,
John Andrew Ioannou, New York State Attorney General's Office, pro
hac vice, Joseph C Kohn, Kohn, Swift and Graf, P.C., Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P. Davis, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm Inc, Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine, Lee
Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law
LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller Law LLC, Michael
Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice, Michael P. Thorton,
Thornton Naumes LLP,Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Noah I. Axler, Donovan Axler LLC,
Peter G.A. Safirstein, Morgan & Morgan, Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Stephen E. Connolly, Connolly Wells & Gray LLP,Stephen
C. Richman, Markowitz & Richman, Steve D. Shadowen, Hilliard
Shadowen, LLP, William E. Hoese, Kohn Swift & Graf PC, William H.
London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC & Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP.

End-Payor Plaintiffs', Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael
Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Christina H Sharp,
Girard Gibbs LLP, Donna M Evans, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joshua P.
Davis, Joseph Saveri Law Firm Inc, Ryan James McEwan, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc. & Daniel C. Girard, Girard Gibbs LLP.

Walgreen Co, The Kroger Co., Safeway Inc., HEB Grocery Company LP,
ALBERTSONS LLC, Plaintiffs, represented by Anna Theresa Neill,
Kenny Nachwalter, P.A. & Scott Eliot Perwin, Kenny Nachwalter,
P.A..

Rite Aid Corporation, Rite Aid Hdqtrs. Corp., Plaintiffs,
represented by Anna Theresa Neill, Kenny Nachwalter, P.A., Daniel
Paul Thiel, Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin Schiller,Eric L Bloom,
Hangley Aronchick Segal Pudlin Schiller & Monica L. Rebuck,
Hangley Aronchick Segal & Pudlin.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Peter Russell Kohn,
Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP & David
S. Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Teikoku Pharma USA, Teikoku Seiyaku Co, Defendants, represented by
David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Joseph Anthony
Meckes, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Noriyuki Shimoda, Squire
Patton Boggs US LLP, Amy L. Brown, Squire Sanders, pro hac vice,
Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, Rafael Matias Langer-Osuna,
Squire Patton Bogg (US) LLP & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, pro hac vice.

Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc, Defendant, represented by Brigid M.
Carpenter, Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz, PC,
Daniel B. Asimow, Arnold & Porter LLP, John A. Tarantino, Adler
Pollock & Sheehan P.C.,Stephen J. McConnell, Reed Smith LLP, David
S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Emily H. Wood, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Jonathan L Stern, Arnold Porter LLP, pro hac vice,
MAHNU V. DAVAR, ARNOLD & PORTER LLP, Ryan J. Casamiquela, Arnold &
Porter LLP, Ryan Z. Watts, Arnold and Porter LLP,Steven G Reade,
Arnold and Porter LLP, pro hac vice & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP, pro hac vice.

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Watson Laboratories, Inc., Actavis
Plc., Anda, Inc, ANDA Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Valmed
Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Patrick
Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Daniel B. Asimow,
Arnold & Porter LLP, David S. Elkins, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Karen Hoffman Lent, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher Flom LLP, pro
hac vice, Sean M Tepe, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom LLP,
pro hac vice & Steven C. Sunshine, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and
Flom LLP, pro hac vice.

All Parties, Miscellaneous, represented by Daniel C. Girard,
Girard Gibbs LLP,Christina H Sharp, Girard Gibbs LLP & David S.
Nalven, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.


MDL 2657: "Ramos" Personal Injury Suit Filed in Boston
------------------------------------------------------
Isabel Ramos, individually and on behalf of her daughter, G.O. v.
Glaxosmithkline LLC, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Case
No. 1:16-cv-10520-FDS (D. Mass., March 14, 2016), is brought
against the defendants for the injuries to G.O. as a result of her
prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran.

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

Glaxosmithkline LLC, is a Delaware limited liability company
engaged in developing and delivering medicines, vaccines, and
other healthcare products for customers in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen Hunt, Jr., Esq.
     B. Kristian W. Rasmussen, Esq.
     Cory Watson, P.C.
     2131 Magnolia Avenue, Ste. 200
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Telephone: (205) 328-2200
     Facsimile: (205) 324-7896
     E-mail: shunt@corywatson.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bid
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge DeBorah K. Chasanow of the District of Maryland
ruled on the defendants' motion for summary judgment in the case
JAY CLOGG REALTY GROUP, INC., et al. v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, et al., Civil Action No. DKC 15-0493 (D. Md.)

Scott Storick, who worked for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
paid Robert Martino to send multitudes of faxes advertising life
insurance rates. Mr. Martino would send responses he received to
Mr. Storick, who would then follow-up and attempt to sell a life
insurance policy.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for Montgomery
County. Plaintiffs are 23 individuals and corporations who
received unsolicited faxes advertising life insurance policies.
Plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company and MetLife Group, Inc. (MetLife) violated the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and the Maryland equivalent, and
includes a list of plaintiffs' fax numbers that received
unsolicited faxes.

On March 4, 2015, the court entered a scheduling order stating
that discovery would conclude on July 17. On June 25, plaintiffs
filed a motion to extend discovery. On July 10, defendants filed a
motion for protective order. The court temporarily granted
defendants' protective order request and deferred ruling on
Plaintiffs' request for additional discovery.

On August 17, 2015, defendants filed a motion for summary
judgment. Plaintiffs asked the court to defer ruling on summary
judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d) due to a need
for additional discovery. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for leave
to file a surreply.

Judge Chasanow granted in part and denied in part defendants'
motion for summary judgment; and denied plaintiffs' motion to file
a surreply.  The Defendants' motion for summary judgment is
granted on Count I as to all Plaintiffs other than Plaintiff,
Kensington Physical Therapy, Inc., and on Count II as to all
Plaintiffs.

A copy of Judge Chasanow's memorandum opinion dated March 8, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/L7cw0Sfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Stephen Howard Ring -- shr@ringlaw.us
-- at Stephen H Ring PC

Defendants, represented by Robert Ross  Niccolini --
robert.niccolini@ogletreedeakins.com -- Joleen Okun --
joleen.okun@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart PC; Daniel Tramel Stabile -- dstabile@shutts.com -- at
Shutts & Bowen LLP


MF GLOBAL: Underwriters Settle Class Action for $29.825 Million
---------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick Fitzgerald, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports
that a group of well-known financial institutions have reached a
deal to settle a class-action lawsuit brought by former MF Global
Holdings Ltd. investors for $29.825 million.

In a March 11 filing with the U.S. District Court in Manhattan,
lawyers for the plaintiffs said the settlement with financial
institutions that served as underwriters -- among them Jefferies
LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Natixis Securities Americas LLC,
Lebenthal & Co. and U.S. Bancorp Investments Inc. -- for the sale
of MF Global's bonds before its collapse "dismisses and releases"
all claims against them in the suit.

The investors, now led by the Virginia Retirement System, sued the
financial institutions as part of a larger 2011 suit against
former MF Global Chief Executive Jon S. Corzine and other company
executives, accusing the parties of not disclosing the risks
associated with MF Global's European sovereign debt trades using
repurchase-to-maturity transactions.

The proposed underwriter settlement follows an earlier $74.9
million deal with a separate group of underwriters.  Another $64.5
million settlement resolved investors' claims against Mr. Corzine,
ex-finance chief Henri Steenkamp and several other former MF
Global directors.  In a fourth deal, accounting firm
PricewaterhouseCoopers agreed to pay $65 million to settle
investors' claims.  In all, the settlements will bring in more
than $235 million to the investors.

A judge must approve the settlement for it to take effect.  The
plaintiffs are asking for preliminary approval of the pact
quickly, with a final approval later.

MF Global imploded more than four years ago as investors fled the
firm after its bets on European sovereign debt came to light.  The
exodus created what was believed to be a $1.6 billion shortfall in
customer accounts that should have been segregated from MF
Global's money pool.

The shortfall has since been recovered and brokerage customers of
MF Global, with funds recovered by Securities Investor Protection
Act litigation, are set to receive roughly 95 cents on the dollar.

The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission is pursuing a civil
suit against Mr. Corzine.  The former Goldman Sachs Group Inc.
chairman and ex-New Jersey's governor has denied wrongdoing.


MKM OIL: "Franks" Suit Plaintiffs Win $336,000 in Attorneys' Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LAURA FRANKS, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. MKM
OIL, INC., Defendant, No. 10 CV 00013 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Mary M.
Rowland granted in part and denied in part the plaintiffs' motion
for attorneys' fees and costs and awarded the plaintiffs
attorneys' fees in the amount of $336,552.00, plus costs, in the
amount of $3,070.15.

A settlement agreement was entered in the case allowing the
plaintiffs' counsel, Mr. John Ireland, to petition for work
performed on the following matters: (1)the individual claims of
Laura Franks; (2)the individual claims of Sandra Jordan; (3)claims
of those who "opted-in" to the case before notice was sent out,
including work for Renee Kalmes, Daniel Sparks and Charlotte
Kubinski; and (4)the class members in the case; and (5)the three
opt-ins from the Kalmes case.  The fee petition covers billing
entries from 2009-2014.

Judge Rowland granted the fee petition in part, assessing
Ireland's rate to be $330 per hour, and the paralegal rate to be
$90 per hour.  The judge also reduced Ireland's requested 1,230.4
hours by 225 hours attributed to 1 hour for time with no
description; 46 hours for administrative work; 51.5 hours for
motions on collective and class actions; 113.8 hours for commuting
travel time; 5.7 hours for motion to strike defenses; 7 hours
labeled undesignated time/miscellaneous.  Judge Rowland added 53
hours at the paralegal rate.  The attorneys' fees amounted to
$336,552 plus costs, in the minimum amount of $3,070.15.

A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's March 7, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/NXlA8nfrom
Leagle.com.

Laura Franks, Sandra Jordan, individually and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated as class representative under Illinois
Law and/or as members of the Collective as permitted under the
Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiffs, represented by John Craig
Ireland, The Law Firm of John C. Ireland.

MKM Oil, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur B Sternberg --
asternberg@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Charles
Michael Poplstein -- cpoplstein@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson
Coburn LLP & Susan M Lorenc -- slorenc@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP.


MORGAN STANLEY: "Frazier" Suit Transferred to S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Frazier v. Morgan Stanley & Co,
LLC et al., Case No. 4:15-cv-04512, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00804-
ER to the proceeding.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC is a boutique investment banking firm
that offers financial advisory and security brokerage services.
The firm was founded in 1969 and is based in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as a subsidiary of Morgan
Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc. The Company is based in New York,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Schoen Gilbert, Esq.
          STOWELL AND FRIEDMAN, LTD.
          303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431 0888
          Facsimile: (312) 431 0228
          E-mail: JGilbert@sfltd.com

               - and -

          Suzanne Elaine Bish, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
          303 W. Madison, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431 0888
          Facsimile: (312) 431 0228
          E-mail: sbish@sfltd.com

               - and -

          Darci Elaine Burrell, Esq.
          Sharon Rachel Vinick, Esq.
          LEVY VINICK BURRELL HYAMS LLP
          180 Grand Avenue, Suite 1300
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 318 7702
          Facsimile: (510) 318 7701
          E-mail: darci@levyvinick.com
                  sharon@levyvinick.com

               - and -

          Linda D. Friedman, Esq.
          STOWELL & FRIEDMAN LTD.
          303 W. Madison Street, Suite 2600
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 431 0888
          E-mail: Lfriedman@sfltd.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Daryl Steven Landy, Esq.
          Mark S. Dichter, Esq.
          Andrew J Schaffran, Esq.
          Blair J. Robinson, Esq.
          Sacha Marie Steenhoek, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          600 Anton Blvd., Suite 1800
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (714) 830 0600
          Facsimile: (714) 830 0700
          E-mail: dlandy@morganlewis.com
                  mdichter@morganlewis.com
                  aschaffran@morganlewis.com
                  Blair.Robinson@morganlewis.com


MT GOX: Japanese Bank Must Face Bitcoin Class Action, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine and Braden Campbell, writing for Law360, report
that an Illinois federal judge on March 14 refused to dismiss a
proposed class action accusing a Japanese bank of defrauding
clients of the defunct bitcoin exchange Mt. Gox, but said the suit
needs to either add a new named plaintiff or transfer to
California.

U.S. District Judge Gary Feinerman denied Mizuho Bank Ltd.'s
motion to dismiss allegations that the bank contributed to
Mt. Gox's exchange by refusing to process outgoing transfers of
investors' funds while continuing to accept deposits.  Judge
Feinerman found that the bank had connected itself to the scheme
by accepting transfers it knew were made from California, but said
that the suit will be transferred to California unless the class
adds a named plaintiff who transferred funds to the bank from
Illinois.

The proposed class had shown that Mizuho "directed its conduct to
California" because "Mizuho knowingly accepted a deposit from a
California branch from somebody it knew to be a California
resident and placed that deposit into the financial equivalent of
a black hole," the judge said.

Mt. Gox users Gregory Greene of Illinois and Joseph Lack of
California slapped the exchange with a putative class action in
February 2014, accusing the company and embattled CEO
Mark Karpeles of pocketing investors' bitcoins, a type of virtual
currency maintained and traded on exchanges like Mt. Gox, and
blaming the heist on an unknown third party.

The company filed for bankruptcy shortly thereafter, claiming to
have lost 750,000 user bitcoins and 100,000 of the company's own
bitcoins, representing a total value of $425 million, according to
the Associated Press.

Weeks later, Messrs. Greene and Lack amended their complaint to
include Mizuho, claiming it continued to process wire transfers
from Mt. Gox as it turned a blind eye to the exchange's "illicit
activities and irregularities."  The suit further claimed Mizuho
had a duty to Mt. Gox's customers to disclose that it had imposed
sanctions on the exchange including refusing to process its
outgoing wire transfers, which Messrs. Greene and Lack argue
contributed to the exchange's ultimate collapse.

Mizuho filed a motion to dismiss the suit in January, saying it
had only a secondary relationship to Mt. Gox's clients and
therefore had no fiduciary duty to disclose the sanctions to them
and arguing the sanctions were incidental to Mt. Gox's ultimate
collapse.

Mizuho also said Japan and not Illinois is the proper venue for
the case, as both the bank and Mt. Gox are housed there, most
evidence produced for the case is likely to be in Japanese, and
the Japanese court system offers a much quicker resolution than
the U.S. system, among other arguments.

In the March 14 order, Judge Feinerman considered only whether the
court had jurisdiction over Mizuho, finding that jurisdiction
existed in California because the bank had accepted a $40,000 wire
transfer from Lack that came from a California bank account.

Mr. Lack had alleged that Mizuho accepted the transfer, which was
intended to fund a Mt. Gox account, without telling him that it
had stopped providing withdrawal services to Mt. Gox because it
was trying to continue earning deposit service fees on Mt. Gox-
related transfers, according to the order.

Because the transfer was part of the alleged scheme to mislead
investors and collect service fees, Judge Feinerman said, Mizuho
had subjected itself to jurisdiction in California.

But Judge Feinerman found that the Illinois court does not have
jurisdiction over the bank because Greene was not a member of the
sub-class that transferred cash to Mizuho for use in the Mt. Gox
exchange.

The judge said that the appropriate course of action would be to
transfer the case, noting that there "would be no point" to
dismiss the case only to require refiling in California, but said
he would give the putative class counsel three weeks to amend the
complaint to add a named plaintiff who had transferred cash to
Mizuho from Illinois.

Messrs. Greene and Lack agreed in May 2014 to a settlement with
Mt. Gox that would allow customers to revive the exchange.
Karpeles, who is now facing embezzlement charges in Japan
according to Mizuho's memo, was not part of that settlement and
remains a defendant.

Representatives for the investors and Mizuho did not respond on
March 14 to requests for comment.

The proposed class is represented by Jay Edelson, Ari J. Scharg,
Alexander T.H. Nguyen, Alicia Hwang and J. Aaron Lawson of Edelson
PC.

Mizuho is represented by Jonathan S. Quinn and Jason A. Frye --
jfrye@ngelaw.com -- of Neal Gerber & Eisenberg LLP and Jerome S.
Fortinsky, John A. Nathanson and Jeffrey J. Resetarits of Shearman
& Sterling LLP.

The case is Greene v. Mt. Gox Inc. et al., case number 1:14-cv-
01437, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Suit Challenges Student-Athlete Compensation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Pramuk, writing for CNBC, reports that Shabazz Napier
admitted he went to bed hungry some nights.

The University of Connecticut basketball star was leading a run
through the 2014 Division I men's basketball championship.  The
NCAA, meanwhile, was making about $700 million in television
rights for the event, known as March Madness.

"We do have hungry nights (when) we don't have enough money to get
food and sometimes . . .  money is needed," Mr. Napier, who now
plays for the Orlando Magic, said at the time, garnering headlines
that underscored a recurrent theme in college sports: Should
athletes be compensated?

For proponents of that idea, progress has been slow.

Two years after Mr. Napier's remarks, NCAA athletes can receive
unlimited meals and snacks.  Schools can also choose to cover
players' full "cost of attendance," which goes beyond tuition and
room and board to costs like transportation and academic supplies.
The organization most recently announced a one-time distribution
of $200 million to Division I schools, due in 2017, which must be
used for athlete programs like financial literacy, mental health
or academic support.

But as the NCAA prepares to kick off this year's March Madness on
March 15, some are urging the organization to give student-
athletes more control over how much of that cash pile they
receive.  A looming legal case will help to determine not only the
benefits that athletes get, but also the disparity between
powerful men's basketball and football programs and the rest of
the NCAA sports.

Student-athletes, classified as amateurs, typically saw
compensation capped at an academic scholarship and other smaller
benefits.  Rules govern outside benefits they can accept, and
prominent athletes from Reggie Bush to Terrelle Pryor have faced
punishment for breaking those guidelines.

Criticism of the traditional model has mounted in recent years,
and an antitrust lawsuit challenging the NCAA's use of player
likenesses eventually led to the cost-of-attendance option. Former
University of California, Los Angeles basketball player
Ed O'Bannon led the suit.

The NCAA faces another legal battle that could disrupt the
existing student-athlete model.  The so-called Jenkins case seeks
to remove the NCAA's compensation cap, effectively establishing
aspects of a free market for players.

"It's about freedom of choice.  It's not about mandating
anything," said Jeffrey Kessler, a partner at Winston & Strawn and
lawyer for the plaintiffs.

The class-action case is paired to another suit that seeks damages
from the NCAA.  It likely will not go to trial until next year,
Kessler said.

The NCAA, which declined to comment on the suit, has previously
said lifting the cap would send windfalls to some athletes at the
expense of others.  The proceedings could add to the already
contentious debate over the influence athletes should have in how
the NCAA's cash pile is split.

The NCAA reported $905.4 million in revenue for the fiscal year
ended Aug. 31, 2015.  The organization's revenue dipped from 2014,
driven by a $20.6 million loss on its investments.  It gained
$81.8 million on investments in 2014.

About $720 million of the NCAA's 2015 revenue came as part of a
14-year, $10.8 billion March Madness television rights deal with
CBS and Turner Broadcasting.  The payout climbs to $740 million
this fiscal year.

The NCAA pointed CNBC to its growing spending on athletes,
highlighting the cost-of-attendance payments and the $200 million
distribution.  The organization reported fiscal 2015 expenses of
$921.6 million, including $567.4 million distributed to Division I
schools.

Proponents of more compensation for athletes have called the cost-
of-attendance option a step in the right direction.  Still, the
additional payment is only a "minor nuisance" to the so-called
"Power Five" conferences, said John Vrooman, a Vanderbilt
University sports economist.

The average school in those conferences -- the Atlantic Coast
Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and Southeastern Conference
-- gives athletes roughly $1 million more per season, paying the
full cost of attendance, according to Mr. Vrooman's estimates. Top
programs can rake in annual football and basketball revenue,
combined, of more than $50 million.

The NCAA has a vested interest in keeping compensation as it
stands currently, said Randy Grant, a Linfield College economics
professor and co-author of "The Economics of Intercollegiate
Sports."

"As long as people keep paying for the product they'll keep doing
it because it's been a great financial model for them," Mr. Grant
said.

Employees or students?

Luke Bonner remembers missing classes for road trips, making up
exams with teammates when he returned.  Mr. Bonner, who played
basketball at the West Virginia University and University of
Massachusetts Amherst in the mid-2000s, stuck around in the summer
for voluntary workouts. He joked that the sessions were
"volandatory."

"You're at the school to be a basketball player, first and
foremost.  I wouldn't say I was a business management major at
UMass," Mr. Bonner said.  "That's your job, that's why you're
there, is to play basketball or football.  If you stop doing that,
you no longer have a scholarship."

Mr. Bonner, who now works at a sports and entertainment marketing
firm in New Hampshire, never reached the National Basketball
Association, and instead played professionally in Europe and in
the NBA's Development League.  Mr. Bonner said he had an
"entrepreneurial" mind at school, launching events like a charity
concert series.

But he always had to tread carefully around NCAA rules and
maintain his focus on basketball.

Mr. Bonner and many other NCAA athletes have struggled to find the
balance between player and student.  Some critics of the NCAA
wonder why athletes do not receive more compensation for their
time, especially as television rights revenues for NCAA events
like March Madness explode.

The NCAA's Division I Student-Athlete Advisory Committee conducted
a survey last year, finding that most student-athletes support at
least one day per week away from practice and competition.

More than 40 percent of men's and women's basketball players and
football players said they would prefer two days off per week.
About 30 percent of men's and women's basketball players said they
would want to eliminate mid-week games, which leave many players
traveling and missing class during the season.

The NCAA is now considering changes to give players a better
balance between academics and athletics. Bonner supports more
compensation for student-athletes but contends that representation
is more important.

"It's not about compensation, it's about having legitimate player
representation," Mr. Bonner said.

Some Northwestern University football players, led by former
quarterback Kain Colter, attempted to unionize in recent years,
arguing they are employees of the school.  The National Labor
Relations Board dealt a blow to the effort last year, dismissing
the players' petition but declining to rule on whether they were
employees.

"The attempt to unionize thus far has been a struggle," said Marc
Edelman, an associate law professor at Baruch College who consults
on sports antitrust law.

Messrs. Bonner and Colter now work with the College Athletes
Players Association, which was founded by former UCLA football
player Ramogi Huma.  The organization is pushing for various
initiatives, including guaranteed medical coverage of sports-
related expenses for current and former players, minimizing the
risk of brain injuries from sports and improving graduation rates.

If the compensation cap for athletes is lifted, though, new issues
could arise.  For one, it could exacerbate the gap between large
and small schools, making the Power Five conferences effectively
"semi-pro leagues," said Mr. Vrooman.

Larger schools have received more of the recent boom in TV rights,
and would have more money to offer top athletes, he said. For
example, the SEC received a $65.6 million payout for the College
Football Playoff in 2015, versus $23.5 million for the Mountain
West Conference.

It also creates a gender-equity problem, as universities operate
under Title IX rules that ensure equal benefits for women.

"I don't think anyone's really worked through the mechanics of how
it would be possible to pay the football and basketball players
without making comparable payments to women," Linfield's Grant
said.


NAT'L MEDICAL VENTURES: Trial Court Ruling in "Allison" Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RONALD ALLISON et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. NATIONAL MEDICAL VENTURES, Inc., et al., Defendants
and Respondents, No. H040411  (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of California affirmed the ruling of the trial court
granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants Litho I, its
former general partner National Medical Ventures, Inc. (NMV), and
NMV's parent company Tenet Healthsystems Hospitals, Inc. (TH
Hospitals) in a combination derivative and class action lawsuit
arising out of the alleged mismanagement and dissolution of Litho.

The lawsuit was filed by Ronald Allison, M.D. and other physician
limited partners in Litho, which is a California limited
partnership between a hospital corporation and a group composed
primarily of physicians.

After the trial court sustained several demurrers to the
plaintiffs' first and second amended complaints, the defendants
moved for summary judgment or summary adjudication on the
remaining causes of action.  The trial court granted the motion,
finding that the factual disputes that the plaintiffs identified
were either contradicted by the allegations of their complaint,
unsupported by citation to any evidence, or "mostly argument."
Thus, the trial court held that they were "not material disputes
that would justify denying summary judgment/adjudication."

On appeal, the plaintiffs contended that there remains a triable
issue with respect to NMV's transfer of Litho's funds to a bank
account controlled by Tenet Healthcare Corporation.  The
plaintiffs characterized the fund transfer as a "forced loan" to
Tenet, and that there remains a triable issue on the "appropriate"
rate of interest for Tenet's use of the funds.  The appellate
court found that the trial court properly concluded that there was
no evidence that the funds were considered to be a loan to Tenet.
Thus, plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue about the
"appropriate rate of interest" for Tenet's "use" of Litho's funds.
The appellate court also agreed that the plaintiffs could not
establish the required element of damages resulting from the
transfer of Litho's funds to the Tenet-controlled bank and thus
failed to raise a triable issue of fact relating to NMV's alleged
breach of fiduciary duty and alleged conversion.  The court also
found that the plaintiffs failed to produce evidence raising a
triable issue of fact about TH Hospital's alleged breach of
contract.

The plaintiffs also argued that NMV breached the partnership
agreement and its fiduciary duty by withholding of $500,000 to
defend and indemnify itself against a class action lawsuit filed
in January 2008 by limited partner and former Litho medical
director Domenico Manzone, M.D..  The appellate court, however,
found that Paragraph XI of the partnership agreement entitled NMV
to defend and indemnify itself against any liability "from any
source," including "without limitation, any . . . lawsuits
initiated by a Limited Partner . . . " and that this language is
broad enough to include indemnification for alleged breaches of
NMV's fiduciary duties.

Lastly, the plaintiffs contended that NMV breached the partnership
agreement, breached its fiduciary duty, and converted Litho's
property to its own or a third party's use when it "failed to
negotiate a reasonable figure for Litho's goodwill" and failed to
pay the limited partners their share of that figure on
dissolution.  The appellate court however, held that Litho
possessed no goodwill of its own because it was not "a
professional, commercial or industrial enterprise with assets,"
and thus, was not a "business" within the meaning of Business and
Professions Code section 14100.

The Court of Appeals of California also found that the trial court
properly sustained the defendants' demurrer to the plaintiffs'
first and second amended complaints.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 7,
2016 order is available at http://is.gd/vCkOthfrom Leagle.com.


NATIONAL SETTLEMENT: Faces "William" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Williams, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v.  National Settlement Services, Inc., et al., Case No.
8:16-cv-00370-SDM-TGW (M.D. Fla., February 17, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay overtime in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

National Settlement Services, Inc., is a Florida corporation that
specializes in negotiating settlement debts on behalf of debtors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Dennis A. Creed, III, Esq.
     FELDMAN LAW GROUP, PA
     1715 N. Westshore Blvd., Suite #400
     Tampa, FL 33607
     Telephone: (813) 639-9366
     Facsimile: (813) 639-9376
     E-mail: dcreed@ffmlawgroup.com


NATIONAL SPECIALTY: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. National
Specialty Insurance Company et al, Case No. 2015-CA-029864, was
removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20401-JEM to the proceeding.

National Specialty Insurance Co. (NSI) provides insurance
brokerage services. The firm offers insurance products for child
care, social services, and detective and security programs. It
also provides fidelity and surety information and employment
practices liability program. The firm caters to Wisconsin,
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Indiana, and Michigan markets. NSI is
based in Madison, Wisconsin. National Specialty Insurance Co. is a
subsidiary of West Bend Mutual Insurance Company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
          5000 SW 75th Ave., No. 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 479-0828
          E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew G. Krause, Esq.
          LUKS SANTANIELLO PETRILLO GOLD & JONES
          110 Southeast Sixth Street, 20th Floor
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 761 9900
          Facsimile: (954) 761 9940
          E-mail: MKrause@LS-LAW.COM


NEST LABS: Class Plaintiff Fails in Bid to Quash Subpoena
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul S. Grewal of the Northern District of
California denied plaintiff's motion to quash in the case entitled
IN RE NEST LABS LITIGATION, Case No. 5:14-cv-01363-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Joshua Beloff and Justine Darisse initially sued Nest separately,
but the parties later stipulated to consolidation, and Beloff and
Darisse filed an amended, consolidated class action complaint. The
consolidated complaint includes Beloff's allegations that he saw
Nest's allegedly misleading marketing representations, purchased
his NLT based on those representations, would not have purchased
the NLT but for those representations and lost money as a result.

After participating in litigation as a putative class plaintiff
for nearly a year, Beloff moved to withdraw as a named plaintiff,
citing personal and professional obligations. Nest did not oppose
but expressly reserved all rights with respect to the discovery
requests it had already served on Beloff several months earlier.

The court granted Beloff's motion to withdraw, but noted Nest's
reservation of its rights. Nest then subpoenaed Beloff, seeking
testimony and documents related to his allegations in the
operative complaint and issues related to class certification.

Leading plaintiff Darisse moved to quash Nest's deposition and
document subpoenas.

Judge Grewal denied plaintiff's motion to quash.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Grewal's order dated March 9, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/nQrrfefrom Leagle.com.

Justin Darisse, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher
-- ltfisher@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com --
Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Annick Marie
Persinger -- apersinger@bursor.com -- at Bursor & Fisher, P.A.;
Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com -- Jennifer W.
Sprengel -- jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com -- at Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP

Nest Labs, Inc., Defendant, represented by Bobbie Jean Wilson --
BWilson@perkinscoie.com -- Joshua A. Reiten --
JReiten@perkinscoie.com -- Sunita Bali -- SBali@perkinscoie.com
-- at Perkins Coie LLP


NEVADA PROPERTY 1: $14.5M "Mirkarimi" Deal Wins Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SASAN MIRKARIMI, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA PROPERTY 1,
LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 12cv2160 BTM (DHB) (S.D. Cal.),
Judge Barry Ted Moskowitz granted plaintiff Sasan Mirkarimi's
motion for final approval of a class action settlement and motion
for attorneys' fees, litigation expenses, and a class
representative enhancement.

Mirkarimi filed a class action complaint in state court against
Nevada Property 1, LLC, in July 2012, alleging that it violated
the California Privacy Act by recording telephone calls with
California residents without their consent.

In February 2015, the parties reached a preliminary settlement
agreement with a proposed class consisting of 100,541 individuals
and an agreed upon amount of $14,500,000.  Preliminary approval of
the proposed settlement was granted by the court on August 24,
2015.  Mirkarimi thereafter moved for final approval, and filed a
separate motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees, litigation
expenses, and a class representative enhancement.

Judge Moskowitz found that the settlement class is proper because
the proposed class members share common questions of law and fact,
meets the requirements of both Rule 23(a) and 23(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, and judicial economy favors a class
action.  The judge also found that the proposed settlement was
reached through vigorous arm's-length negotiations and is fair,
adequate, and reasonable.

Judge Moskowitz also found that the proposed award of $3,625,000
in attorneys' fees, calculated as 25% of the total settlement, is
reasonable both under the percentage-of-recovery method and under
the loadstar approach.

As to Mirkarimi's request for $106,064.78 in litigation expenses,
Judge Moskowitz found two expenses to be unreasonable, and reduced
the requested amount by $1,167.33.  Thus, Mirkarimi's request for
litigation expenses was granted for the amount of $104,897.45.

Finally, Judge Moskowitz found the requested $30,000 class
representative enhancement award to be proper and reasonable.

A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's February 29, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/TIS0f6from Leagle.com.

Sasan Mirkarimi, Plaintiff, represented by James T. Hannink --
jim.hannink@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink & Coveney LLP & Zachariah
Paul Dostart -- zdostart@sdlaw.com -- Dostart Hannink Coveney LLP.

Nevada Property 1 LLC, Defendant, represented by Allen P Lohse --
alohse@linerlaw.com -- Liner LLP & Angela C Agrusa --
aagrusa@linerlaw.com -- Liner LLP.


NEW WEST: Bid to Remand "Rolan" Suit Granted
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DANA ROLAN, Plaintiff, v. NEW WEST HEALTH
SERVICES, Defendant, No. CV 15-51-H-CCL (D. Mont.), Judge Charles
C. Lovell granted the motion filed by Dana Rolan to remand all or
part of the case to Montana state district court.

In February 2010, Rolan, who is a beneficiary of her mother's
group health plan, filed suit in the First Judicial District,
alleging that New West Health Services, the plan's insurer,
violated her made-whole rights under Montana law.  Rolan sought
restitution of approximately $100,000 in medical benefits that she
asserts should have been paid by New West, and compensatory and
punitive damages for unfair claims settlement practices.

New West initially did not defend under the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), but on October 23, 2013,
New West changed its position and moved to amend its Answer to
allege the plan in question was an ERISA plan after all.  The
state district court allowed New West to amend its Answer, and on
May 5, 2014, New West moved for summary judgment, "arguing that
state courts have no jurisdiction over ERISA plans."

Rolan filed an Amended Complaint, now stating both state law
claims and ERISA claims.  New West then removed the Amended
Complaint to the federal district court pursuant to the court's
original jurisdiction under the ERISA.  Rolan filed a motion to
remand, seeking relief in the form of a remand to state court "on
the ground that ERISA preemption does not apply."

Judge Lovell found that the rights claimed by Rolan pursuant to
Montana law are dependent upon the existence of the ERISA plan.
Thus, the judge concluded that Rolan's state causes of action fall
within the scope of ERISA 502(a)(1)(B), and are therefore
completely preempted by ERISA and removable to federal district
court.

However, Judge Lovell found that New West's removal was untimely,
considering that four years have elapsed between the filing of the
original complaint in state court and the filing of the removal
papers.  The judge cited provisions under 28 U.S.C. section
1446(b), which provide that removal must occur within 30 days
after formal service of process on the removing defendant, or, in
a case that was not initially removable, the removal must be
accomplished within 30 days after receipt by the defendant,
through service or otherwise, of a copy of an amended pleading,
motion, order or other paper from which it may first be
ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable.

A full-text copy of Judge Lovell's February 29, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/U80Dabfrom Leagle.com.

Dana Rolan, Plaintiff, represented by Erik B. Thueson, THUESON LAW
OFFICE.

New West Health Services, Defendant, represented by Peter J.
Arant, GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP & Robert C. Lukes,
GARLINGTON, LOHN & ROBINSON, PLLP.


NRG RESIDENTIAL: "Gennarini" Suit Moved to New Jersey Dist. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Gennarini v. NRG Residential Solar
Solutions, LLC, Case No. MER-L-15-02808, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey Mercer County, to the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey (Trenton).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00628-MAS-LHG
to the proceeding.

NRG Residential Solar Solutions provides solar systems on lease
for homeowners. It offers its services through dealers in the
United States. The company was incorporated in 2011 and is based
in Carlsbad, California with operations in Arizona, California,
Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, Vermont, and Washington,
D.C. NRG Residential Solar Solutions LLC operates as a subsidiary
of NRG Energy, Inc. The Company is based in Emeryvill, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stefan Louis Coleman, Esq.
          1072 Madison Ave., Ste 1
          Lakewood, NJ 08701
          Facsimile: (877) 333 9427
          E-mail: law@stefancoleman.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick J. Perrone, Esq.
          KIRKPATRICK & LOCKHART PRESTON GATES ELLIS LLP
          One Newark Center, 10th Floor
          NEWARK, NJ 07101
          Telephone: (973) 848 4034
          Facsimile: (973) 848 4001
          E-mail: patrick.perrone@klgates.com


OMNI LIMOUSINE: Judge Narrows Defendant's Discovery Bid
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe of the District of Nevada granted
in part and denied in part defendant's motion to compel in the
case CHRISTY McSWIGGIN, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. OMNI LIMOUSINE,
Defendant(s), Case No. 2:14-cv-02172-JCM-NJK (D. Nev.)

Plaintiffs filed a collective and class action complaint against
defendant, alleging various claims for unpaid wages. On July 16,
2015, the District Judge found that plaintiffs met the threshold
burden to conditionally certify the class and circulate notice of
pendency in the action to prospective class members. However, on
November 10, 2015, plaintiffs' counsel informed the court that he
inadvertently neglected to provide the agreed upon third party
administrator with the approved FLSA notice, and thus, no notice
or opportunity to opt in to the litigation has been given to the
class members.

The Defendant propounded interrogatories on August 26, 2015.
Served separately on each plaintiff, the interrogatories fall in
two categories: those pertaining to the damages claimed and those
pertaining to wages, tips, bonuses, and income received by
plaintiffs as well as allegedly unpaid wages. Plaintiffs responded
with host of objections and explained that supplemental
information would follow.

On November 23, 2015, the defendant's counsel wrote to the
plaintiffs' counsel, initiating the meet and confer process. On
November 30, plaintiffs' counsel responded to that letter,
explaining that, by December 4, he would be able to more fully
respond to the letter, and to provide supplemental discovery.
After further discussions, the parties agreed that plaintiffs
would provide supplemental discovery responses no later than
December 3.

On December 3, 2015, plaintiffs provided supplemental responses.
The next day, plaintiffs' counsel wrote defendant's counsel,
stating that plaintiffs expect that their supplemental responses
adequately resolve all of defendant's issues. On December 9, the
final day of the discovery period, the parties discussed the
issues raised in defendant's motion during a meet and confer
teleconference.  That same day, defendant filed a motion to
compel.

Magistrate Judge Koppe granted in part and denied in part the
Defendant's motion to compel. The Judge said:

     1. The Defendant's general reliance on cases where
        plaintiffs failed to provide any specificity regarding
        damages disclosures is misplaced as they do not address
        the issue here: whether Plaintiffs have provided adequate
        specificity regarding their alleged damages as that
        information became available.  Because the Court finds
        that Plaintiffs' responses are sufficient, Defendant's
        motion to compel, as to this issue, is denied.

     2. The Plaintiffs misread Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 33(d) and,
        therefore, fail to comply with its requirements. Since
        Rule 33(d) applies only where the answers to
        interrogatories may be found in the business records of
        the party upon whom the interrogatories have been served,
        the Plaintiffs cannot answer the Defendant's
        interrogatories by referring the Defendant to its own
        business records. Rather, as the responding party, the
        Plaintiffs' permissible use of Rule 33(d) is limited to
        their own business records, if any. Accordingly, the
        Plaintiffs' invocation of Rule 33(d) is misguided, and
        The Defendant's motion to compel on this issue is
        granted.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Koppe's order dated March 10, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/t1r1Tqat Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Joshua D Buck, Esq.
     Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Joshua R. Hendrickson, Esq.
     Thierman Buck, LLP
     7287 Lakeside Dr.
     Reno, NV 89511-76520
     Telephone: 775-284-1500
     Facsimile: 775-703-5027

Omni Limousine, Defendant, represented by Anthony L. Hall --
ahall@hollandhart.com -- Rico Cordova -- rncordova@hollandhart.com
-- at Holland & Hart LLP


PAGEDALE CITY, MO: Judge Narrows Residents' Ticketing Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Rodney W. Sippel of the Eastern District of
Misourri, Eastern Division, ruled on the defendant's motions in
the case VALARIE WHITNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF PAGEDALE,
Defendant, No. 4:15 CV 1655 RWS (E.D. Mo.)

Plaintiffs Valarie Whitner, Vincent Blount, and Mildred Bryant
reside in Pagedale, which is located in St. Louis County,
Missouri. The City of Pagedale is a Missouri municipal
corporation.

Plaintiffs allege, in essence, that the City is a ticketing
machine that unduly relies on revenue from fines and fees
generated by its code enforcement and municipal court system,
incentivizing the city to ticket, convict, and fine Pagedale
residents for lawful, harmless activities and conditions.
Plaintiffs filed suit against the City of Pagedale, seeking relief
under 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 for alleged violations of their
federal constitutional rights.

Plaintiffs brought four claims for relief under section 1983:

     Count I alleges a number of harms from the City's
institutional reliance on revenue from fines and fees, claiming
this reliance incentivizes the City's unconstitutional conduct of
ticketing, convicting, and fining defendants in order to generate
revenue, which violates the Fourteenth Amendment due process
rights of the plaintiffs and a proposed class.

     Count II alleges the City imposes and threatens fines for
harmless activities and conditions, in violation of the Excessive
Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment.

     Count III alleges the due process clause prevents the
government from declaring that lawful and harmless activities and
conditions constitute nuisances when such activities and
conditions are not, in fact, nuisances and the city's policy,
practice, and custom of fining Pagedale residents for harmless
activities and conditions violates plaintiffs' Fourteenth
Amendment due process rights.

     Count IV alleges the City's policy, practice, and custom of
treating harmless activities and conditions as nuisances and
fining Pagedale residents for harmless activities and conditions
exceeds the City's police powers and causes irreparable injury to
plaintiffs' constitutional rights."

The Defendant moves to dismiss Count IV under Fed.R.Civ.P.
12(b)(6), arguing plaintiffs have not pleaded a cognizable section
1983 claim because they have not identified a specific right
secured by federal law or the U.S. Constitution that the City has
violated by allegedly acting in excess of its police powers.  The
Defendant also moves to dismiss Bryant's claims in Counts I, II,
and III under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing Bryant lacks standing and her
claims are not ripe.

Judge Sippel ordered that Pagedale's motion to dismiss Count IV
and plaintiff Bryant's claims from plaintiffs' civil rights class
action complaint, as construed in part as a motion for judgment on
the pleadings pursuant to Rule 12(c), is granted in part and
denied in part. Count IV of the plaintiffs' complaint is
dismissed. The Defendant's motion is otherwise denied.

A copy of Judge Sippel's memorandum and order dated March 10,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/vFMZMbfrom Leagle.com.

Valarie Whitner, Plaintiff, represented by J. Bennett Clark, BRYAN
CAVE LLP, Joshua House, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, William R. Maurer,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & Michael Brendan Lanahan, BRYAN CAVE LLP

Vincent Blount, Plaintiff, represented by J. Bennett Clark, BRYAN
CAVE LLP, Joshua House, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, William R. Maurer,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & Michael Brendan Lanahan, BRYAN CAVE LLP
Mildred Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by J. Bennett Clark, BRYAN
CAVE LLP, Joshua House, INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE, William R. Maurer,
INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE & Michael Brendan Lanahan, BRYAN CAVE LLP
City of Pagedale, Defendant, represented by Timothy J. Reichardt,
BEHR AND MCCARTER, P.C., Andrew T. Tangaro, BEHR AND MCCARTER,
P.C. & Joseph C. Vitale, BEHR AND MCCARTER, P.C.


PENNSYLVANIA: Dismissal of "Thompson" Suit Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Anthony R. Thompson, Kahmir Delapara,
Rashaun Garner, Michael Richards, and John Thomas, v. Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania, John E. Wetzel, and Michael Overmeyer. Appeal of:
Anthony R. Thompson, No. 1909 C.D. 2015 (Pa. Cmmw.), Judge
Rochelle S. Friedman affirmed the order of the Court of Common
Pleas of the 37th Judicial District dismissing Anthony R.
Thompson's complaint and denying his application for leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

On September 8, 2015, Thompson, who is presently incarcerated at
the State Correctional Institution at Forest (SCI-Forest) in
Marienville, Pennsylvania, filed the class action complaint
asserting that his incarceration is illegal because the Department
of Corrections does not possess a court commitment form DC-300B or
a sentencing order that cites statutory authority.  Thompson also
filed an application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

On September 15, 2015, the trial court denied Thompson's complaint
and his application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis as
frivolous.

On appeal, Judge Friedman affirmed the trial court's ruling,
holding that "[F]ailing to cite a statute does not automatically
result in a sentence being illegal where the court otherwise had
statutory authority to sentence the defendant."

A full-text copy of Judge Friedman's March 8, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/0aGrfMfrom Leagle.com.


PETER J. LISKA: Illegally Collects Debt, "Billups" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Billups, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Peter J. Liska, LLC and John Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01269-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., March 7, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Peter J. Liska, LLC operates a law firm located at 766 Shrewsbury
Ave, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
      MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
      1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
      Ocean, NJ 07712
      Telephone: (347) 526-4093
      Facsimile: (732) 298-6256
      E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


POWERCET CORPORATION: "George" Sues Over Defective Steel Tubing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie George, Ed Mckinzie, Tim Worstel, Cedar Deraps, Casey
Wasser and Tammy Volkart, plaintiffs, v. Powercet Corporation, Gas
Technology Institute (GTI), Omega Flex, Inc., Ward Manufacturing,
LLC and Titeflex Corporation, Defendants, Case 2:16-cv-04056-MDH
(W.D. Mo., February 11, 2016), seeks disgorgement and restitution,
declaratory and injunctive relief, interest on monies wrongfully
obtained, attorney's fees, expenses and recoverable costs and such
further relief arising from conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

Defendants are manufacturers of corrugated stainless steel tubing.
Plaintiff alleges that defects in the said product constitute a
fire hazard due to the accelerated disintegration of its jacket.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David Steelman, Esq.
      Stephen F. Gaunt, Esq.
      901 N. Pine Street, Ste. 110
      P.O. Box 1257
      Rolla, MO 65402
      Tel: (573) 341-8336
      Fax: (573) 341-8548
      Email: dsteelman@steelmanandgaunt.com
             sgaunt@steelmanandgaunt.com

           - and -

      Scott A. Kamber, Esq.
      KAMBERLAW LLC
      100 Wall Street, 23rd floor
      New York, NY 10005
      Tel: (646) 964-9600
      Fax: (212) 202-6364
      Email: skamber@kamberlaw.com


PRIMED PHARMACEUTICALS: Family Medicine Awarded $500 in TCPA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned FAMILY MEDICINE PHARMACY, LLC, Plaintiff, v.
PRIMED PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC, Defendant, Civil Action No. 15-00188-
KD-B (S.D. Ala.), Judge Kristi K. DuBose granted in part and
denied in part the motion for default judgment filed by the
plaintiff Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC.

On April 7, 2015, a class action complaint was filed against
Primed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. containing a one count allegation
that it violated the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991
(TCPA) when it sent facsimile communications to Family Medicine's
business.  On July 15, 2015, a default judgment was entered
against Prime Pharmaceuticals for failure to plead, answer, or
otherwise defend.  Family Medicine then moved for default
judgment, seeking damages "for itself and all others similarly
situated who or which received unauthorized faxes."

Judge DuBose found it improper to enter default judgment on behalf
of a non-existent class because Family Medicine has not moved for,
nor has a class been certified in this matter.  Thus, the judge
evaluated and entered judgment only regarding to the named
plaintiff.

Family Medicine sought a total award of $3,428.75 comprised of
$1,500 for its receipt of an unsolicited fax from Primed
Pharmaceuticals, $1,500 for its receipt of an unsolicited fax that
failed to provide a proper opt-out provision, and $428.75 in
litigation expenses.

As to the transmission of unsolicited fax, Judge DuBose found that
the appropriate award would only be $500 as the plaintiff has
provided no evidence of actual damages.  Judge DuBose denied
relief based on the alleged opt-out violation because Family
Medicine failed to provide any support for its allegation that a
failure to include an opt-out provision, standing alone, amounts
to a violation of the statute.  Judge DuBose also denied Family
Medicine's request for litigation expenses because it has provided
no evidence of these expenses to the court.

A full-text copy of Judge DuBose's March 7, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/bipvDzfrom Leagle.com.

Family Medicine Pharmacy, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Diandra
S. Debrosse & James H. McFerrin, The McFerrin Law Firm.


PRIMERO MINING: Faces "White" Securities Class Action in Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andre White, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Primero Mining Corp., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01095
(C.D. Cal., February 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for issuing public statements that were materially false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times
which caused significant losses and damages to Plaintiff.  This is
a federal securities class action brought on behalf of a class
consisting of all persons and entities, other than defendants and
their affiliates, who purchased or otherwise acquired the
securities of Primero from October 5, 2012 to February 3, 2016,
Inclusive.

Primero Mining Corp., is a Canadian-based gold mining company
which operates mines in Canada and Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     468 North Camden Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90210
     Telephone: (818) 532-6499
     E-mail: jpafiti@pomlaw.com

          - and -

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, 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

          - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     Ten South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Telephone: (312) 377-1181
     Facsimile: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Court Stays "Ramcharitar" Flushable Wipes Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy S. Black granted Procter & Gamble Company's motion
to stay the case captioned KARLA RAMCHARITAR, et al., On behalf of
themselves and all others similarlysituated, Plaintiffs, v. THE
PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-457 (S.D.
Ohio).

The plaintiffs sought to enjoin P&G from selling and marketing
Charmin Freshmates Flushable Wipes as flushable, claiming that
P&G's representations are false and misleading because Freshmates
do not disperse or disintegrate like toilet paper.

P&G sought to stay the action because United States District Judge
Weinstein of the Eastern District of New York ordered a stay in a
similar case and referred the issue of an appropriate definition
of 'flushable' wipes and related issues to the Federal Trade
Commission ("FTC").  Judge Weinstein also subsequently stayed all
cases before him that challenged other manufacturers' flushable
wipes.

Judge Black noted that Judge Weinstein is adjudicating six
separate cases involving different manufacturers' flushable wipes,
and has thus developed extensive knowledge about the factual and
legal nature of the plaintiffs' challenges to those products.
Accordingly, Judge Black found it is highly appropriate to defer
to Judge Weinstein, and granted P&G's motion to stay.

A full-text copy of Judge Black's March 1, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/Q2RLQJfrom Leagle.com.

Karla Ramcharitar, Gloria Wiltrakis, Cheryl Senko, Plaintiffs,
represented by Stuart E Scott -- sscott@spanglaw.com --
Spangenbert, Shibley & Liber, LLP, Lorenzo B. Cellini --
lcellini@tslegal.com -- Tycko and Zavareei LLP & Daniel Frech,
Spangenberg Shibley & Liber LLP.

Procter & Gamble Company, Defendant, represented by Henry B Liu --
hliu@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP & Emily Johnson Henn --
ehenn@cov.com -- Covington & Burling LLP.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Wolf Popper LLP Files Class Action Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Popper LLP on March 14 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against PTC Therapeutics, Inc., and certain of its
officers, in the United States District Court for the District of
New Jersey, on behalf of all persons who purchased PTC securities
on the open market and/or pursuant to a Registration Statement,
during the period May 7, 2014 through February 29, 2016, and were
damaged thereby.  This action alleges claims for violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

If you are a member of the Class, you may file a motion no later
than May 2, 2016 to be appointed a lead plaintiff.  A lead
plaintiff is a representative party acting on behalf of other
class members in directing the litigation.  Investors who
purchased PTC securities during the Class Period and suffered
losses are urged to contact Wolf Popper to discuss their rights.

The Complaint charges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued a series of false and misleading statements that
misrepresented that PTC's new drug application ("NDA"), for its
lead product candidate Translarna, was on track for review by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  Defendants represented that
Translarna "was efficacious" and that the "totality of the
clinical data from two large, placebo-controlled clinical trials
across over 400 patients demonstrate Translarna's ability to slow
disease progression."

Defendants failed to disclose, among other things, that the: (i)
NDA was not sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review
by the FDA as PTC failed to provide substantial scientific
evidence of Translarna's effectiveness; (ii) retrospective
subgroup analysis in the Phase 2b trial failed to demonstrate
efficacy; and (iii) Company made a post hoc adjustment in its
Phase 3 trial by eliminating data from a majority of enrolled
patients.

On February 23, 2016, PTC disclosed that it had received a Refusal
to File letter, which stated that the "application was not
sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review."  On this
disclosure, PTCT shares declined $17.42 per share or 62%.

On February 29, 2016, PTC's CEO further revealed that, according
to the FDA, the Company did not provide substantial scientific
evidence of effectiveness as it eliminated "data from a majority
of enrolled patients."  As a result, PTCT shares declined an
additional $2.43 per share or 30% on March 1, 2016.

Wolf Popper -- http://www.wolfpopper.com-- has successfully
recovered billions of dollars for defrauded investors.   The
firm's reputation and expertise have been repeatedly recognized by
the courts, which have appointed the firm to major positions in
securities litigation.

For more information, please contact:

Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
Tel.: 877.370.7703
Fax: 877.370.7704
Email: irrep@wolfpopper.com
Website: www.wolfpopper.com


RELIANT BANK: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Kelly" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------
Sean Kelly, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Reliant Bank, Commerce Union Bancshares,
Inc., and Devan Ard, Jr., Case No. 1:16-cv-01913 (S.D.N.Y., March
14, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
the proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act, Maryland Minimum Wage and Overtime Act, and
the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law.

Reliant Bank provided mortgage banking services to consumers in
the State of New York, the State of Maryland, and elsewhere.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Erik H. Langeland, Esq.
     733 3rd Avenue, 15 Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Telephone: (212) 354-6270
     Facsimile: (212) 898-9086
     E-mail: elangeland@langelandlaw.com


RUNG CHAROEN: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Romero" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------
Juan Martinez Romero, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Rung Charoen Sub Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01239 (E.D.N.Y., March 12, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay proper wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

Rung Charoen Sub Inc., is a New York corporation which own,
operate, and control a Thai Restaurant under the name 8 Paet Rio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces 2nd Tainted Water Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew H. Roiter, writing for Albany Business Review, reports that
Two Hoosick Falls, New York, residents have filed a lawsuit
against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell
International Inc. over the presence of the toxic chemical
perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA, in the village's drinking water.
The class action lawsuit was filed against the two companies,
which the state says are potentially responsible for the
contamination, on behalf of Hoosick Falls residents Lisa Tifft and
Marilyn Peckham.  Jeremiah Frei-Pearson of the White Plains law
firm Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson & Garber LLP will
represent Tifft and Peckham.

The suit alleges that manufacturing plants operated by Saint-
Gobain and previously Honeywell (then AlliedSignal Laminate
Systems) contaminated drinking water in the town.  It also alleges
that the companies neglectfully and dangerously handled PFOA.

"We look forward to obtaining justice for Ms. Tifft, Ms. Peckham
and all the people in Hoosick Falls who were given unsafe water,"
said Frei-Pearson.

Gov. Andrew Cuomo visited Hoosick Falls to announce that levels of
PFOA had dropped to undetectable levels in the municipal water
supply.

Saint-Gobain issued the following statement:

"While Saint-Gobain has acted quickly and openly since learning of
the presence of PFOA in the drinking water supply in the village
of Hoosick Falls, we respect the right of individuals to pursue
their claims in a court of law.  Saint-Gobain has, and will
continue to work with the local, state and federal agencies to
investigate the source of the PFOA in the drinking water.

"Saint-Gobain, as a member of this community and the largest
employer, remains committed to funding clean drinking water --
from providing bottled water for the community to most recently,
funding the installation of a temporary water filtration system,
which should be fully online in the coming days.  Saint-Gobain has
also agreed to fund a long-term filtration system in the village
which, pending the approval of the design implementation by the
New York State Department of Health, is scheduled to be installed
later this year."


SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "Ruggiero" Over Misleading Ads
------------------------------------------------------
Timothy Ruggiero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., and Reynolds
American Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00493-RDM (D.D.C., March 14,
2016), is brought against the Defendants by falsely advertising
and marketing the Natural American Spirit cigarettes as "Additive
Free," "100% Additive Free," "Natural" and "Organic," when in
fact, the cigarettes are engineered to deliver a higher level of
nicotine, and contain additives and flavorings.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc., is a New Mexico
corporation which manufacture, market, and sell Natural American
Spirit cigarettes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Steven W. Teppler, Esq.
     Madison L. Kvamme, Esq.
     ABBOTT LAW GROUP, P.A.
     2929 Plummer Cove Road
     Jacksonville, FL 32223
     Telephone: (904) 292-1111
     Facsimile: (904) 292-1220
     E-mail: steppler@abbottlawpa.com
                       mk@abbottlawpa.com

          - and -

     John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
     Scott W. Weinstein, Esq.
     Marisa K. Glassman, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
     201 N. Franklin Street, 7th Floor
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Telephone: (813) 223-5505
     Facsimile: (813) 222-2434
     E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                       sweinstein@forthepeople.com

          - and -

     Keith R. Mitnik, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 North Orange Avenue, Suite 1600
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Telephone: (407) 849-2383
     Facsimile: (407) 245-3381
     E-mail: kmitnik@forthepeople.com

          - and -

     Gregory D. Prysock, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     76 South Laura Street, Suite 1100
     Jacksonville, FL 32202
     Telephone: (904) 398-2722
     Facsimile: (904) 398-2334
     E-mail: gprysock@forthepeople.com


SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES: Rimkus' Counsel Must Submit Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RAIMA RIMKUS, on behalf of her minor child
GIEDRE RIMKEVICIUTE, individually on their own behalf and on
behalf of all other members of proposed classes of passengers,
Plaintiffs, v. SCANDINAVIAN AIRLINES SYSTEM, a foreign
corporation, Defendant, Case No. 16 C 2013 (N.D. Ill.), Judge
Milton I. Shadur struck the existing complaint filed by counsel
for Raina Rimkus, with leave granted to file a suitable Amended
Complaint on or before March 25, 2016.

Rimkus' counsel had filed what he characterized as a purported
Class Action Complaint at Law together with what he purports to be
a forwarding letter to the court dated February 9.  For one thing,
Judge Shadur found the filing of the complaint, comprising fully
87 pages and 353 paragraphs, to be monstrous and Rule-violative.
The judge also found nothing in Rimkus' complaint that suggests
any even arguable predicate for linking Scandinavian Airline
System's delays in an ill-fitting suit on the premise that each
such delay, with the different causes and different circumstances
involved, can qualify for coupling a claimed "Class of Passengers"
under the Class Fairness Act or Rule 23 or otherwise.

A full-text copy of Judge Shadur's March 2, 2016 memorandum order
is available at http://is.gd/qlRPjkfrom Leagle.com.

Raima Rimkus, Giedre Rimkeviciute, Plaintiffs, represented by
Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky, Law Offices of Vladimir M. Gorokhovsky.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Court Okays Settlement in Defective Washers Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re: SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO. FRONT-LOADING
WASHER PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, Case No. 06 C 7023,
Consolidated with Case Nos. 07 C 0412 and 08 C 1832 (N.D. Ill.),
Judge Mary M. Rowland granted the parties' joint motion for final
approval of the CCU Settlement Agreement.

Lawsuits were filed against Whirlpool and Sears, asserting that
their front-load washing machines suffered two types of defects:
(1) the "Biofilm defect," which caused mold and mildew to grow
inside the machines; and (2) the "CCU defect," which caused the
machines' Central Control Unit to malfunction.  The parties in
both the Sears and Whirlpool cases eventually settled all claims,
agreeing to a "CCU Settlement" and a "Biofilm Settlement."  The
CCU Settlement papers, resolving CCU claims against both Sears and
Whirlpool, were filed in the District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois.

On August 21, 2015, the court entered an order granting
preliminary approval to the CCU Class Action Settlement Agreement,
which provided that Sears and Whirlpool will pay full monetary
compensation to class members who suffered out-of-pocket expenses
for repairs related to the CCU problem.

The plaintiffs, Sears, and Whirlpool thereafter joined to ask the
court for final approval.

Judge Rowland found that notice to the settlement class members
was sufficient and that the requirements for class certification
were met.  Judge Rowland further found that the CCU Settlement
Agreement is fair, reasonable and adequate.  Thus, the judge
concluded that final approval of the parties' settlement is
appropriate.

Judge Rowland also granted an incentive award of $4,000 to each of
the nine representative plaintiffs for a total of $36,000.

The amount of compensation to which class members are entitled
depends on the amount of repair costs they incurred and the proofs
they submit. As a general matter, however, class members will
receive a minimum of $150 for a valid claim.  This is not a
"limited fund" settlement, meaning there is no cap on the total
amount that defendants may ultimately be required to pay for valid
claims; nor is there a cap on how much an individual class member
may receive.

The compensation scheme is:

     (A) Reimbursement for Paid Qualifying Repairs

         Eligible Settlement Class Members will receive the full
amount -- with no cap -- of any documented costs for their First
Paid Repair for any Performance Problems within 3 years of
purchase. Moreover, to the extent Settlement Class Members can
provide sufficient documentary proof for their First Paid Repair
but the proof does not show the amount paid for that repair, such
Settlement Class Members will nonetheless receive $150.  Class
members can also get additional compensation (on the same terms)
for a Second Paid Repair (as long as the repair occurs less than
54 months after purchase).

     (B) Reimbursement for Replacement

         If the Settlement Class Member chose to replace, rather
than repair, the Washer or otherwise took it out of service after
contacting Whirlpool, Sears, or an Authorized Service Technician
about a Performance Problem, the Settlement Class Member will be
reimbursed for the amount that sufficient documentary proof shows
the Settlement Class Member actually paid for the replacement
clothes washer up to a maximum of $300.

     (C) Compensation for Qualifying Service Contracts

         Class Members who effected repairs of performance promise
by purchasing a warranty service contract will be reimbursed $100
to partially offset the cost of the service contract. The
slightly-reduced amount reflects that the service contract
provided value in addition to the cost of repairing the CCU
Performance Problem.

     (D) Compensation for Excessive Repairs

         Settlement Class Members [who] had the CCU replaced by a
Service Technician on three occasions within four years of
purchase will receive the greater of (i) the purchase price of the
Washer or (ii) the aggregate cost for the three repairs.

     (E) Offsets

         The above compensation is subject to an offset if
Whirlpool or Sears previously provided compensation for CCU
Performance Problems (e.g., a policy-adjust cash payment, a
partial refund, a discount off the regular price of a new clothes
washer, a coupon applicable to the purchase of a new clothes
washer that was redeemed, etc.).

With regard to how the "compensable amounts" payable to class
members is actually panning out under the Settlement Agreement,
Kurtzman, Carson Consultants, LLC, the Claims Administrator,
reports that, so far, the average amount for valid claims is about
$277.

A full-text copy of Judge Rowland's February 29, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/NKbrYZfrom
Leagle.com.

Larry Butler, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford
-- rak@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A
Schwartz -- steveschwartz@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis,
Colin H Dunn -- chd@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices, Eric
H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law
Office, James J Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe, Jason Louis
Lichtman -- jlichtman@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens --
jspragens@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Jonathan D. Selbin -- jselbin@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann
& Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P.
Chalos -- mchalos@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Michael J Flannery -- mflannery@cuneolaw.com --
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London -- slondon@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A.
George, Seeger Weiss LLC & Shannon Marie McNulty --
smm@cliffordlaw.com -- Clifford Law Offices.

Joseph Leonard, Kevin Barnes, Victor Matos, Plaintiffs,
represented by Paul M. Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke,
Quantum Legal LLC, Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C.,
Steven A Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H Dunn, Clifford
Law Offices, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,
Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C., Mark P. Chalos, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Michael J Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George, Seeger Weiss LLC &
Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices.

Alan Jarashow, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos --
mark@pathtojustice.com -- Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos
and Lehrman, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, pro hac vice, Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards
Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz -- ta@aronovitzlaw.com --
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

Lauren Crane, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC, Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate
Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Mark S. Fistos,
Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and Lehrman, Sarah R.
London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice,
Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman,
Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J Rosemergy,
Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Lawrence L'Hommedieu, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss,
Quantum Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, John Tate Spragens,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice,Steven R. Jaffe,
Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman, Tod N. Aronovitz,
Aronovitz Trial Lawyers & James J Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

John Bettua, Derral Howard, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr,
Shea Law Group, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J
Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Giuseppina P. Donia, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis,Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro
hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office,Glenn Edward Orr, Shea
Law Group, Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
Llp, pro hac vice, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Ronald S Kravitz, Law Offices of Ronald S.
Kravitz,Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
pro hac vice &James J Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Denise Miller, Vic Pfefer, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Louis
Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP,
pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr,
Shea Law Group, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J Rosemergy, Carey,
Danis and Lowe.

Charles Napoli, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Douglas P. Dehler, Shepherd Finkelman Miller
& Shah, LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac vice, George
K. Lang, Lang Law Office, Glenn Edward Orr, Shea Law Group, James
E. Miller, Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, James C. Shah,
Shepherd Finkelman Miller & Shah, John Tate Spragens, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Joseph Patrick Shea, Law
Offices of Joseph Patrick Shea, Karen M. Leser-Grenon, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLP, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd
Finkelman Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J
Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and Lowe.

Jeffrey A. Robinson, Sandra K. Robinson, Plaintiffs, represented
by Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Steven A Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis,Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss
LLP, pro hac vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office,Glenn Edward
Orr, Shea Law Group, John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Llp, Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd Finkelman
Miller & Shah, LLC, pro hac vice, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & James J Rosemergy, Carey,
Danis and Lowe.

Alfred Blair, Martin Champion, Plaintiff, represented by Paul M.
Weiss, Quantum Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC,
Robert A. Clifford, Clifford Law Offices, P.C., Steven A Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis, Colin H Dunn, Clifford Law Offices, Eric C.
Brunick, Brunick LLC, Eric H. Jaso, Seeger Weiss LLP, pro hac
vice, George K. Lang, Lang Law Office, James J Rosemergy, Carey,
Danis and Lowe, Jason Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP,Jerome Mayer-cantu, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein Llp, pro hac vice,John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan D. Selbin, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf, P.C.,
Mark P. Chalos, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, Llp,Michael
J Flannery, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice, Scott A. George,
Seeger Weiss LLC, Shannon Marie McNulty, Clifford Law Offices &
Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos & Lehrman.

Karen Freeman, Peggy Lemley, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason
Louis Lichtman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Steven A
Schwartz, Chimicles & Tikellis,John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, Llp & James J Rosemergy, Carey, Danis and
Lowe.

Victoria Poulsen, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Louis Lichtman,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Paul M. Weiss, Quantum
Legal LLC,Richard J. Burke, Quantum Legal LLC, Steven A Schwartz,
Chimicles & Tikellis & John Tate Spragens, Lieff Cabraser Heimann
& Bernstein, Llp.

Sears Roebuck & Co., Defendant, represented by Bradley B. Falkof -
- brad.falkof@btlaw.com -- Barnes & Thornburg, Evan B. Stephenson,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Galen D. Bellamy --
bellamy@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Hugh Quan
Gottschalk -- gottschalk@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'donnell
Llp, Joel Steven Neckers -- neckers@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell LLP, Michael T. Williams -- williams@wtotrial.com --
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell LLP, Sarah R. London, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, pro hac vice & Theresa R. Wardon --
wardon@wtotrial.com -- Wheeler Trigg O'donnell Llp.

Whirlpool Corporation, Intervenor Defendant, represented by
Rebecca Weinstein Bacon -- rweinstein.bacon@bartlit-beck.com --
Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Asha L.I. Spencer --
asha.spencer@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar &
Scott, Eric Reuel Olson -- eric.olson@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit
Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP & John C. Fitzpatrick --
john.fitzpatrick@bartlit-beck.com -- Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar
& Scott Llp.

Service List, represented by David R. Cohen --
david@specialmaster.law -- David R. Cohen Co. Lpa, pro hac vice,
Mark S. Fistos, Farmer, Jaffe, Weissing, Edwards, Fistos and
Lehrman,Steven R. Jaffe, Farmer Jaffe Weissing Edwards Fistos &
Lehrman & Tod N. Aronovitz, Aronovitz Trial Lawyers.


SECURE TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Rivera" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ferdinand Rivera, individually and on behalf of other individuals
similarly situated v. Secure Transportation Company, Inc. and Does
1through 25, inclusive, Case No. BC612784 (Cal. Super. Ct., March
4, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Secure Transportation Company, Inc. provides ground transportation
services in the United States, Europe, and Asia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Young W. Ryu, Esq.
      Kelly Kim, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF YOUNG W. RYU
      A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION
      9595 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 900
      Beverly Hills, CA 90212
      Telephone: (888) 365- 8686
      Facsimile: (800)576-1170
      E-mail: young.ryu@ywrlaw.com
              kelly.kim@ywrlaw.com


SKY UNION: Faces Class Action Over "Castle Clash" Game
------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bielanski, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a mobile
app maker facing a class action lawsuit over allegations that its
game was a form of "gambling" won a dismissal Jan. 26 in Chicago
federal court.

Plaintiffs alleged that "Castle Clash," made by Sky Union, was
violating various consumer protection laws in California, Illinois
and Michigan. They claimed that the in-game purchasing made the
app a form of gambling.

Specifically, they targeted the ability to purchase "gems" that
could be used to upgrade various aspects of a user's world made
that world more valuable for sale on an open market.

But in his ruling, Judge Matthew F. Kennelly pointed out that
making money off of the increased in-game value required players
to go outside of the game and sell their entire account.  And the
value of those accounts being sold cannot be quantified, he said.

"Ultimately, players who use their purchased gems to play . . .
are not paying for the chance to win anything of measureable
value," Judge Kennelly wrote.

The dismissal comes after a string of similar rulings across the
country.  In Maryland and Washington, cases were dismissed
involving online games that used virtual currency to replicate a
casino.  Purchases within the game, the judges ruled, were only to
extend playtime and not for an expected cash payout or other
reward of value.

Attorney Jeff Ifrah, of Ifrah Law in Washington, D.C., has
consulted for defendants on class action suits within the mobile
gaming industry.  He said the ruling will likely deter similar
cases in the future.

"Class action firms are obviously in the business of making
money," Mr. Ifrah told Legal Newsline.  "After this string of
lawsuits, I assumed they're going to abandon attempt at further
refining or reinventing these arguments."

Normally, similar cases against the defendant would be viewed as a
"nuisance" to be settled out of court, Mr. Ifrah said.  The
problem with settlements in these cases, he said, is that a
settlement typically requires the company to stop the alleged
misconduct.

In the case of the app makers, that would result in a virtual
shutdown of the game.

"How do you do that when the entire nature of your game depends on
you doing that every day, every second," Mr. Ifrah said.  "It's
kind of a problem that precludes settlement."

Mr. Ifrah said it was unlikely that the complaints would result in
an increase in regulations.  The mobile gaming industry lacks any
clearly defined consumer protection standard, he said.

And because of that, he said, there hasn't been any noticeable
push for further regulation. He opined that potential legislation
would likely focus on limiting access to in-game purchases.

"If there was some form of regulation, I expect it would take the
form of age restriction . . . or there might be limitation on how
many purchases can be made, for example, at one time," Mr. Ifrah
said.  "Something to try and limit some sort of addiction or
something like that."


SMARTPAY LEASING: Judge Approves Limited Discovery in "Arviso"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of
California denied defendant's motion to stay discovery in the case
LINDA ARVISO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SMARTPAY LEASING, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-04087-THE (N.D. Cal.)

Defendant Smartpay Leasing (Smartpay) is a former business line of
Billfloat, Inc., and operated as Billfloat's subsidiary.

Plaintiff Linda Arviso filed a complaint and eventually made an
amended complaint against defendant, alleging violations of the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and California's
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (Rosenthal Act).
Plaintiff alleges that defendant contacted members of the putative
class using an automatic telephone dialing system, or autodialer,
without their prior express consent, in violation of the TCPA.
Plaintiff alleges that defendant's campaign of harassment in an
attempt to coerce payment of consumer debts constituted abusive,
deceptive and unfair practices in violation of the Rosenthal Act.

Defendant contends that plaintiff entered into a written agreement
with Billfloat for the lease-purchase of a cell phone, and that
because the agreement contained an arbitration clause, plaintiff's
claims must be resolved in arbitration. Defendant filed a motion
to compel arbitration on December 28, 2015, accompanied by a
declaration from Alan Crystal, Billfloat's Vice President of
Finance.

Plaintiff's counsel emailed a Deposition Notice to defendant's
counsel, seeking to depose Mr. Crystal. On January 5, 2016,
Plaintiff emailed a set of interrogatories and document production
requests to defendant's counsel. On January 19, 2016, defendant
filed a motion to stay discovery while the motion to compel
arbitration is pending.

Judge Henderson denied defendant's motion to discovery.  The judge
said discovery shall proceed, but strictly limited to the issue of
contract formation. After limited discovery, the parties shall
meet and confer regarding a proposed briefing schedule for
defendant's motion to compel arbitration, as well as proposed
hearing dates. The parties shall file a stipulation, if possible,
no later than 10 days after completion of the discovery setting
forth a proposed briefing schedule and hearing date. If the
parties are unable to agree upon dates, they shall file separately
their proposed dates.

A copy of Judge Henderson's order dated March 3, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/LrbDf9from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Annick Marie Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com --
Yeremey O. Krivoshey -- ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- at Bursor &
Fisher, P.A.

Defendant, represented by Benjamin Nicholas Hutnick --
info@bermanrabin.com -- at Berman & Rabin, P.A.; Harijot Singh
Khalsa -- hskhalsa@sessions.legal -- at Sessions Fishman Nathan &
Israel


SPOKEO: Supreme Court Has Yet to Tackle Issue Over FCRA Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
David S. Hendrix and Alissa M. Ellison, writing for Daily Business
Review, report that by agreeing to hear Spokeo v. Robins, it seems
as though the U.S. Supreme Court would finally tackle an issue it
had previously dodged: Whether Congress may confer Article III
standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm and who
therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal
court,by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare
violation of a federal statute.

The facts of Spokeo are simple and straightforward. Thomas Robins
sued Spokeo "a people search engine" for alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. Robins claimed that Spokeo violated the
FCRA by publishing inaccurate information about him and that as a
result he had been unsuccessful in seeking employment and was
concerned that his future ability to obtain credit would be
impacted.  Robins filed his case as a putative class action.

The FCRA allows recovery of any actual damages or statutory
damages ranging from $100 to $1,000. Because actual damages are
difficult to prove, however, FCRA claims often seek recovery of
statutory damages.

In Spokeo, the court is considering whether a plaintiff can bring
a lawsuit in federal court without having to show any "real" harm
resulting from a statutory violation.  Accordingly, the court's
ruling could significantly impact not only the prosecution of
claims under the FCRA but also claims brought pursuant to other
similar statutes such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Telephone Consumer Practices Act, which also allow for the
recovery of statutory damages without showing a "real" harm.

It also seemed that the stage was set for a potential significant
overhaul in the consumer class action arena.  If the court
ultimately determines in Spokeo that a plaintiff must show a real
concrete harm in order to obtain Article III standing, it will be
difficult -- if not impossible -- for potential class
representatives to establish the commonality necessary to obtain
class certification, as any such harm would likely be highly
individualized. Such a ruling would not only be a significant
victory for financial institutions and creditors, but would also
serve as a significant blow to the plaintiff's bar.

Death of a Justice

The court heard oral argument in Spokeo on November 2015, prior to
the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia.  The questions posed by the
court to the parties during oral argument indicated that Chief
Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Scalia were of
the opinion that standing should be limited to those instances
where the plaintiff has alleged some form of concrete harm as
opposed to a mere statutory violation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg seemed to take
the opposite position, indicating that an allegation of a
statutory right was sufficient to obtain standing.  In contrast,
Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer seemed to believe that,
in Robin's particular case, there was a sufficient actual injury.

The fate of the decision originally seemed to lie with Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, and it was widely speculated that he would
align himself with the conservative justices on this issue.  The
sudden passing of Scalia has caused great uncertainty as his vote
was paramount to obtaining a majority opinion holding that a
plaintiff must still show concrete harm to establish standing.
It is unclear as to whether the court will proceed with issuing a
ruling or list the case for reargument after a new justice is
confirmed.  Without Justice Scalia's vote, however, it is unlikely
that a majority opinion will be issued.

If a 4-4 opinion is issued, it will have no precedential value,
and this issue will likely be addressed again at some point in the
future.  Such a result would do nothing to resolve the uncertainty
facing businesses who are reckoning with an increased number of
consumer claims.  In the meantime, expensive class action claims
where no actual damages are at issue will continue to cause the
business community significant resources.

It is clear that the ultimate resolution of this issue -- whenever
that may be -- will impact how plaintiffs can sue companies for
statutory damages.  It is equally as clear that this issue is of
vital importance to companies who are being subjected to an
onslaught of statutory class action cases where there are no
actual or "real" damages.

While consumers and businesses alike originally believed that the
court's decision in Spokeo would conclusively resolve this issue,
there is now widespread uncertainty as to when these questions
will be definitively answered.


TACO BELL: Jury May Decide on Waiting Time Penalties, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case
No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Boone denied
the defendants' request to preclude the jury from deciding waiting
time penalties.

A jury trial on the case commenced on February 22, 2016.  On March
6, 2016, the defendants filed a brief regarding penalties under
Labor Code Section 203.

The defendants contended that the failure to pay meal and rest
period premium under Labor Code Section 226.7 cannot serve as a
basis for waiting time penalties under Section 203.  Judge Boone,
however, found that the defendants' request as it relates to the
waiting time penalties should have been raised in a pretrial
motion in compliance with the scheduling order.  Thus, the judge
held that this issue has been waived by failing to bring the
motion prior to trial.

The defendants also argued that penalties are only triggered if
the employer's failure to pay was willful, and that willfulness
cannot be decided on a class-wide basis.  Judge Boone, however,
held that where all the nonpayment would be due to an adopted
policy, willfullness in this instance can be found on a class-wide
basis without individualized inquiry into each class member's
circumstances.

The defendants further contended that waiting time penalties are
not triggered where there is a good faith dispute whether the
wages are owed.  For this case though, Judge Boone held that there
is no good faith belief that employees are not owed premium
payments if the Labor Code is violated.  The judge pointed out
that it cannot be disputed that the premium payments are owed if
the employer violates California law.

Lastly, the defendants argued that if the waiting time penalties
are to be submitted to the jury, the correct limitations period is
September 7, 2003 to August 5, 2007.  Judge Boone denied the
defendants' request to amend the class period for the waiting time
penalties, explaining that the defendants have not shown good
cause for the court to consider a motion to limit the plaintiffs'
claims which was raised as the trial entered its last day.

A full-text copy of Judge Boone's March 7, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/JbVqnhfrom Leagle.com.

Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Capstone Law Group, Jonathan Sing
Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Monica Balderrama -- mbalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- Initiative
Legal Group APC, Raul Perez -- raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat --
rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,Robert J.
Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler & Matthew
Thomas Theriault - @capstonelawyers.com --
matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy,
Capstone Law Group & Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC.
Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Timothy Donahue, Law Offices
Of Timothy Donahue.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee, Capstone Law APC, Marc Primo
Pulisci, Initiative Legal Group LLP, Matthew Thomas Theriault,
Capstone Law APC &Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC.

Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth
H. Yoon, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Peter M.
Hart, Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone
Law APC & Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group.

Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase,
LLP, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone
Law APC & Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC.

Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle, Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs,
represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew
Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC,
Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone
Law APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich,Mark
Yablonovich, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich & Patrick Joseph
Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich.

Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., Defendant,
represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton & Tracey Adano Kennedy --
tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


TACO BELL: Workers Obtain Favorable Ruling in Meal Break Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Sparks, writing for Blue Maumau, reports that a federal jury
ruled in favor of 134,419 Taco Bell restaurant workers, finding
the fast-food chain had underpaid them for meal breaks, a
violation of California law.  The "special verdict" filed on March
9, 2016, awarded the employees $495,913, stating that Taco Bell
had a standardized company-wide policy that underpaid premiums to
staff for meal periods.

The class action lawsuit, led by former crew member Lisa Hardiman
and former shift manager Sandrika Medlock, began in 2007 and was
consolidated with other lawsuits in 2009.  The jury trial finally
commenced on February 22, 2016.

Not only did the jury find that Taco Bell only paid workers for
30-minutes time of "unworked 30-minute meal breaks" instead of
one-hour wages as required by law for the period 2003 to 2007,
they also determined that from 2003 to 2013, Taco Bell failed to
provide meal breaks to employees before their fifth hour of work
during shifts of longer than six hours.  The company also only
gave staff one 10-minute break for shifts lasting up to seven
hours, instead of two breaks.

The jury did not find sufficient evidence in the employees' favor
on certain allegations such as unpaid overtime, unpaid minimum
wages, unreimbursed business expenses, vested accrued vacation
wages and other claims. Court records show Magistrate Judge
Stanley A. Boone set a hearing for March 16, to determine
penalties.

According to BigClassAction.com, a $2.5 million settlement was
awarded in September 2013 to Taco Bell employees who filed an
unpaid overtime class action against the chain.  The lawsuit
alleged the company inaccurately categorized assistant general
managers as supervisors in order to deny them overtime pay.  Taco
Bell claimed that the assistant managers were exempt from overtime
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Taco Bell Corporation, founded in 1962, is a subsidiary of Yum
Brands Inc., which also encompasses KFC and Pizza Hut.  Taco Bell
has approximately 6,200 locations, 20 percent company-owned. At
the end of 2014, Taco Bell had system-wide sales of $8.2 billion.


TARGET CORP: "Thompson" Suit Moved to Cal. C.D. Ct.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Stacy Thompson v. Target
Corporation et al., Case No. BC474522, BC475813, was removed from
the Los Angeles County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00839-R-AGR to the proceeding.

Target Corporation operates general merchandise discount stores.
The Company focuses on merchandising operations which includes
general merchandise and food discount stores and a fully
integrated online business. Target also offers credit to qualified
applicants through its branded proprietary credit cards. The
Company is based in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Allen W Graves, Esq.
          THE GRAVES FIRM
          122 N Baldwin Avenue Main Floor
          Sierra Madre, CA 91024
          Telephone: (626) 240 0575
          Facsimile: (626) 737 7013
          E-mail: allen@gravesfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chase W Ensign, Esq.
          Claire A Hoffmann, Esq.
          Lin Zhu, Esq.
          Jeffrey D Wohl, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          55 Second Street 24th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 856 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 856 7100
          E-mail: chaseensign@paulhastings.com
                  clairehoffmann@paulhastings.com
                  jeffwohl@paulhastings.com


TERRAFOAM GLOBAL: Judge Remands "Fraser" Suit to State Court
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted plaintiff's motion to remand
in the case SIMON FRASER, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN WUEBBELS, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06326-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Simon Fraser filed a securities fraud class action complaint on
October 23, 2015 in California Superior Court, County of San
Mateo, against defendants, TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm),
SunEdison, TerraForm officers and directors, and underwriters of
TerraForm's initial public offering (IPO).  The complaint alleges
violations of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sections 77k and 77o, and asserts claims on behalf of Fraser both
individually and as a representative of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired TerraForm Class A common stock
pursuant or traceable to the company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with TerraForm's IPO.
On December 30, 2015, defendants removed the action to the present
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). Fraser filed a motion
to remand the matter back to state court.

Judge Freeman granted plaintiff's motion to remand and sent the
case back to San Mateo County Superior Court.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/LThZYpfrom Leagle.com.

Simon Fraser, Plaintiff, represented by Ex Kano S. Sams, II --
esams@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -
- Lesley F Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent
Prongay -- rprongay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP

Brian Wuebbels, Terraform Global, Inc., SunEdison, Inc., Carlos
Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong,
Defendants, represented by Sara B. Brody -- sbrody@sidley.com --
Jaime Allyson Bartlett -- jbartlett@sidley.com -- Norman J. Blears
-- nblears@sidley.com -- Sarah Alison Hemmendinger --
shemmendinger@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche
Bank Securities, Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital, LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Patrick David Robbins -- probbins@shearman.com -- Stephen D.
Hibbard -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Judge Remands Iron Workers' Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the Northern District of
California, San Jose Division granted plaintiff's motion to remand
and for payment of fees in the case IRON WORKERS MID-SOUTH PENSION
FUND, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-6328-BLF (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund (Iron Workers) filed
a securities fraud class action complaint on December 3, 2015 in
California Superior Court, County of San Mateo, against
defendants, TerraForm Global, Inc. (TerraForm), SunEdison,
TerraForm officers and directors, and underwriters of TerraForm's
initial public offering (IPO).  The complaint alleges violations
of Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections
77k and 77o, and asserts claims on behalf of Iron Workers both
individually and as a representative of a class of persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired TerraForm Class A common stock
pursuant or traceable to the company's Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with TerraForm's IPO.

On December 30, 2015, defendants removed the action to the present
court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1441(a). Iron Workers filed a
motion to remand the matter back to state court and requested
attorneys' fees and costs.

Judge Freeman granted plaintiff's motion to remand back to San
Mateo County Superior Court; plaintiff's request under 28 U.S.C.
Section 1447(c) for attorneys' fees and expenses is also granted.
Plaintiff is given leave to file a motion seeking fees and costs
no later than 30 days from the date of the order.

A copy of Judge Freeman's order dated March 3, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/rMyVGsfrom Leagle.com.

Iron Workers Mid-South Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Brian J. Robbins -- brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com -- George Carlos
Aguilar -- gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- Jay Nabil Razzouk --
jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com -- at Robbins Arroyo LLP

Brian Wuebbels, Terraform Global, Inc., SunEdison, Inc., Carlos
Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong,
Defendants, represented by Sara B. Brody -- sbrody@sidley.com --
Jaime Allyson Bartlett -- jbartlett@sidley.com -- Norman J. Blears
-- nblears@sidley.com -- Sarah Alison Hemmendinger --
shemmendinger@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin LLP

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche
Bank Securities, Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital, LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Patrick David Robbins -- probbins@shearman.com -- Stephen D.
Hibbard -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP


THUNDERBIRD COLLECTION: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Walsh, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Thunderbird Collection Specialists Incorporated, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00601-ROS (D. Ariz., March 6, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Thunderbird Collection Specialists Incorporated operates a debt
collection firm located at 3200 N Hayden Rd #100, Scottsdale, AZ
85251.

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
      E-mail: david@westcoastlitigation.com

         - and -

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


TOWER HILL PRIME: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S. Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill
Prime Insurance Company, Case No. 15-029859-CA-01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20459-
KMM to the proceeding.

Tower Hill Prime Insurance provides Florida homeowners insurance.
The Company is based in Gainesville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
          JOHN H RUIZ PA
          5040 NW 7th Street, Suite PH1
          Miami, FL 33126
          E-mail: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caitlin Marie Trowbridge, Esq.
          Nicole Sieb Smith, Esq.
          Joshua D. Lerner, Esq.
          RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358 5577
          Facsimile: (305) 371 7580
          E-mail: ctrowbridge@rumberger.com
                  nsmith@rumberger.com
                  jlerner@rumberger.com


TOWER HILL PRIME: MSPA Claims 1 Suit Moved to S. Dist. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled MSPA Claims 1, LLC v. Tower Hill
Prime Insurance Company, Case No. 15-029781-CA-01, was removed
from the 11th Judicial Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, to
the U.S. District Court for Southern District of Florida (Miami).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20460-MGC to
the proceeding.

Tower Hill Prime Insurance provides Florida homeowners insurance.
The Company is based in Gainesville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arlenys Perdomo, Esq.
          Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
          5000 SW 75th Ave., No. 400
          Miami, FL 33155
          Telephone: (305) 479-0828
          E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

               - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Caitlin Marie Trowbridge, Esq.
          Nicole Sieb Smith, Esq.
          Joshua D. Lerner, Esq.
          RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
          80 SW 8th Street, Suite 3000
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 358 5577
          Facsimile: (305) 371 7580
          E-mail: ctrowbridge@rumberger.com
                  nsmith@rumberger.com
                  jlerner@rumberger.com


TRANS-CONTINENTAL: "Beltre" Cries Harassment over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joselyn Beltre, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trans-Continental Credit and Collection
Corp., Defendant(s)., Case 1:16-cv-00975 (S.D.N.Y. New York
County, February 9, 2016), seeks damages and declaratory and
injunctive relief for violation of the Fair Debt Collections
Practices Act.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent the Plaintiff a
harassing written communication containing threatening, malicious
and untrue statements stated for the singular purpose of causing
alarm, distress and fear.

Trans-Continental Credit and Collection Corp. is a New York
corporation engaged in the business of debt collection with an
office address at 44 South Broadway, Suite 401, White Plains,
NewYork 10601.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD B. GELLER
      1053 Saw Mill River Road, Ste., LL1
      Ardsley, NY 10502
      Tel: (914) 473-6783


TWITTER INC: Huang's Bid to Challenge Contract Provision May Fail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Rosenblatt, writing for Bloomberg News, report that an
ex-Twitter Inc. engineer who sued over alleged gender bias
probably won't get to expand her case to challenge a contract
provision barring departing employees from recruiting their
colleagues.

That would let Twitter and other Silicon Valley companies dodge a
bullet because, while non-solicitation clauses are widespread in
the technology industry, it's questionable whether they are
enforceable under California law, said Orly Lobel, a law professor
at the University of San Diego.

Allowing a challenge to Twitter's provision "would be a positive
development to signal to employers who pervasively continue to
demand such contracts in California," Mr. Lobel, who specializes
in labor and employment issues, said in an e-mail.

Silicon Valley's use of contract agreements designed to keep
people from poaching former colleagues have been the subject of
intense scrutiny and court fights as companies compete for top
prospects.

A San Francisco state judge tentatively ruled on March 14 that
gender discrimination and recruiting restrictions are too
different to be lumped together in the same lawsuit.  At the same
time, the judge said she will probably allow Tina Huang, who
claims she was denied promotions and ultimately forced out of
Twitter because she's a woman, to broaden her case to include more
women in engineering jobs at the social networking company.
Worldwide Attention

Ms. Huang filed her case last year as Silicon Valley's male-
dominated culture gained worldwide attention in a discrimination
trial involving the venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield
& Byers.

Ms. Huang sought to broaden the case after her lawyers said she
and a former colleague identified as a sympathetic witness were
both threatened with legal action by Twitter for allegedly
violating non-solicitation agreements with the company.

Twitter's lawyer, Lynne Hermle, said in a court filing that she
never threatened to sue Huang's former colleague,
Sam Pullara, who now works at the venture capital firm Sutter Hill
Ventures, where Ms. Huang is now an entrepreneur in residence.

Ms. Hermle told California Superior Court Judge Mary Wiss at a
hearing on March 14 that the company had no intention of suing
Huang for a non-solicitation breach.

"Well, of course they don't want to bring a non-solicitation
claim," Mr. Lobel said after the hearing.  "They worry that those
clauses are void for public policy and if they show that they are
actively enforcing them, then worse for them."

'Chilling' Effect

The professor said such clauses have a "chilling" effect on
employees wanting to change jobs.

"Employees are most likely risk-averse -- if they get a letter
like the one Twitter sends out, they are likely to fold and not
risk litigation," Mr. Lobel said.

Over Twitter's objection, Judge Wiss tentatively ruled that
Ms. Huang can seek class-action status for women in all levels of
engineering positions.  The judge didn't indicate when she will
make a final decision.

Ms. Huang hasn't formally requested class-action status yet,
though that's likely to be hotly contested by Twitter.

'Women Engineers'

Jason Lohr, an attorney for Huang, said after the hearing that "we
are hopeful that we will ultimately be able to represent all women
engineers at Twitter."

Nu Wexler, a Twitter spokesman, didn't immediately respond to an
e-mail seeking comment on the tentative ruling.

In her complaint, Huang said men dominated senior positions in the
software-engineering group where she worked.  After complaining to
then-Chief Executive Officer Dick Costolo, she was placed on
indefinite leave while Twitter looked into her claims. She
resigned in May 2014.

Twitter has denied her allegations.  The company argued that Huang
shouldn't be allowed to sue on behalf of all female engineers
because she never worked at the lower levels of employees she
seeks to represent.

The case is Huang v. Twitter Inc., CGC-15-544813, California
Superior Court (San Francisco).


U.S. SECURITY: "Stone" Suit Moved to N.D. Georgia Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Robert Stone v. U.S. Security
Associates, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00391, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California, to the U.S. District Court for the District of.
Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The Northern District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00371-AT-JSA to the
proceeding.

U.S. Security Associates provides uniformed security, consulting
and investigations, and specialized security solutions. It offers
unarmed and armed security services; security officer recruitment
and selection; and training services. It offers consulting and
investigation services in the areas of due diligence; occupational
fraud and abuse investigations; personal protection and threat
assessments; security vulnerability and risk assessments;
intellectual property protection; security management program
audits and performance analysis; electronic security system design
and operational integration; litigation support and expert witness
testimony; and travel security intelligence. The Company is based
in Roswell, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Durham Holmes, Esq.
          Lonnie Clifford Blanchard III, Esq.
          HOLMES LAW GROUP, APC
          3311 East Pico Boulevard
          Los Angeles, CA 90023-3714
          Telephone: (310) 396 9045
          Facsimile: (970) 497 4922
          E-mail: lonnieblanchard@gmail.com

               - and -

          Peter Roald Dion-Kindem, Esq.
          THE DION-KINDEM LAW FIRM
          21550 Oxnard Street, Suite 900
          Woodland Hills, CA 91367
          Telephone: (818) 883 4900
          Facsimile: (818) 883 4902
          E-mail: peter@dion-kindemlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rod M. Fliegel, Esq.
          Alison S. Hightower, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, SF
          650 California Street, 20th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94108-2693
          Telephone: (415) 433 1940
          E-mail: rfliegel@littler.com
                  ahightower@littler.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Razak" Suit Moved to E.D. Penn.
---------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Razak et al. v. Uber Technologies,
Inc. et al., Case No. 160100404, was removed from the Philadelphia
Court of Common Pleas (CCP), to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00573-MMB to the proceeding.

Uber Technologies provides e-commerce services for car hire. The
company offers a website that allows users to request a car for
hire from any mobile device text message. Uber serves customer
worldwide and is based in San Francisco California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy E. Abay, Esq.
          Sacks Weston Diamond, LLC
          1845 Walnut Street, Suite 1600
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 928 8200
          Facsimile: (267) 639 5422
          E-mail: jabay@sackslaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew J Hank, Esq.
          Paul C. Lantis, Esq.
          Wendy Buckingham, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          Three Parkway
          1601 Cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321
          Telephone: (267) 402 3000
          Facsimile: (267) 402 3131
          E-mail: mhank@littler.com
                  plantis@littler.com
                  wbuckingham@littler.com


UNITED PARCEL: "Sahakian" Suit Moved to S.D. Cal. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sahakian v. United Parcel Service,
Inc. et al., Case No. 37-02015-00042682-CU-MC-CTL, was removed
from the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, to the
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California (San
Diego). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00223-
W-BGS to the proceeding.

United Parcel Service, a package delivery company, provides
transportation, logistics, and financial services in the United
States and internationally. It operates in three segments: U.S.
Domestic Package, International Package, and Supply Chain &
Freight. The Company is based in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          MORRISON AND FOERSTER
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2675
          Telephone: (415) 268 7000
          Facsimile: (415) 268 7522
          E-mail: tcheung@mofo.com


UNITED STATES: Inmate Suit Sent to Magistrate Judge for Pretrial
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Michael J. Reagan of the Southern District of
Illinois referred to the United States Magistrate Judge the case
William Coustin, # 15159-097, Plaintiff, v. J.S. WALTON, UNKNOWN
PARTIES, WILLIAM MAYS, BRAD WEESEL, and RUNGY, Defendants, Case
No. 15-cv-1218-MJR (S.D. Ill.)

William Coustin is an inmate in the United States Penitentiary in
Marion. An issue of Christian History Magazine that was addressed
to Coustin was rejected by prison officials because it contained
depictions of nudity or sexually explicit content.

Defendants John/Jane Doe #5 and/or #6 searched the publication and
determined that it should not be delivered to Coustin. Defendant
Rungy, head of the Publication Review Committee, along with
committee members defendants John/Jane Doe #2, #3, and #4, then
reviewed the magazine and rejected it. Finally, defendant Walton
(Marion Warden) reviewed the publication, and similarly rejected
it.

Plaintiff filed a grievance over the rejection of his magazine.
Defendant John/Jane Doe #1 the Administrative Remedy Coordinator,
however, informed Coustin that appeals of the warden's grievance
decision must be received within twenty days of the warden's
response. Coustin, however, was not seeking to appeal the warden's
response, but to receive an initial response by the warden as to
his grievance. Plaintiff asked defendant counselor William Mays
about the Administrative Remedy Coordinator's response. Mays told
Coustin that he was wasting everyone's time and refused to provide
Coustin with a BP-10 grievance appeal form.

Coustin brought an action for alleged violations of his
constitutional rights by persons acting under the color of federal
authority. Coustin argues that each of the Defendants ignored or
acted outside of established case law, the controlling program
statement, and the Code of Federal Regulations when they rejected
his publication and his grievances. Coustin seeks compensatory,
punitive, and nominal damages. Further, he has filed a motion for
a temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction
directing defendants to follow the regulations at C.F.R 540 and
Bureau of Prisons policy statement 5266.11. Coustin has also filed
a motion for injunctive and declaratory relief, directing
defendant Mays to refrain from engaging in retaliatory conduct
against him.

Chief District Judge Reagan dismissed counts II and III without
prejudice for failure to state a claim upun which relief may be
granted. Defendants Weesel, Mays and Jane/John Doe #1 are
dismissed from the action without prejudice.

As to service of process on defendants Walton and Rungy, service
must be effectuated within the 120 day time limit imposed by
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). If plaintiff desires to
request the appointment of the United States Marshal to serve
process on the defendants, plaintiff shall file a motion for
service of process at government expense, within 35 days of the
date of entry of the order.

Plaintiff is advised that it is his responsibility to provide the
court with the names and service addresses for these individuals.
Plaintiff is ordered to serve upon defendants or, if an appearance
has been entered by counsel, upon that attorney, a copy of every
pleading or other document submitted for consideration by this
court. Plaintiff shall include with the original paper to be filed
a certificate stating the date that a true and correct copy of the
document was mailed to each defendant or defendant's counsel.

With respect to a defendant who no longer can be found at the work
address provided by plaintiff, if the United States Marshal is
appointed to serve process pursuant to a motion by plaintiff, the
employer shall furnish the United States Marshal with the
defendant's current work address, or, if not known, the
defendant's last-known address.

Defendants are ordered to timely file an appropriate responsive
pleading to the complaint and shall not waive filing a reply
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1997e(g).

Pursuant to Local Rule 72.1(a)(2), this action is referred to a
United States Magistrate Judge for further pre-trial proceedings.
The entire matter shall be reffered to a United States Magistrate
Judge for disposition, pursuant to Local Rule 72.2(b)(2) and 28
U.S.C. Sec. 636(c), if all parties consent to such a referral.
Finally, plaintiff is advised that he is under a continuing
obligation to keep the Clerk of Court and each opposing party
informed of any change in his address; the Court will not
independently investigate his whereabouts. This shall be done in
writing and not later than 7 days after a transfer or other change
in address occurs.

A copy of Chief District Judge Reagan's memorandum and order dated
March 9, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/WJQVvWfrom
Leagle.com.

William Coustin, Plaintiff, Pro Se


UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS: Rape Victim Sue Over Dorm Safety Concerns
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kaileen Gaul, writing for Newsy, reports that the parents of an
alleged rape victim filed a lawsuit against the University of
Kansas, claiming they were misled into believing the student
housing was safe.

A former KU student says she was assaulted at Jayhawker Towers by
a football player in the fall of 2014.  She withdrew from the
university in January 2016.

Her parents claim KU lied about the student housing being safe and
if they had known otherwise, they wouldn't have let their daughter
attend the university.

The victim's mother said in a written statement, "In addition to
the horrific assault of our daughter, we are concerned for the
safety of all students at KU.  We believe there are many more
victims of on-campus crimes in the dorms."

The lawsuit reportedly cites eight different alleged sexual
assault crimes over three years on KU's campus.  Two led to the
arrest of football players.

In a statement to the Dallas Morning News, the university called
the claims "baseless," saying the claims don't represent the
safety of the campus accurately.

After she reported the attack, the victim told the paper she
didn't feel welcome on the rowing team.

She also claims her alleged attacker harassed her on campus and
KU's Office of Institutional Opportunity & Access didn't do enough
to make her feel safe.  Her alleged attacker is still a student at
the university.

This video includes images from Getty Images and clips from The
University of Kansas.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces Securities Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on March 14
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against Vanguard
Natural Resources, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York.  The plaintiff brings the complaint on
behalf of all persons who beneficially held 7.875% Senior Notes
due 2020 from February 10, 2016 to the present, for the alleged
violations of the Securities Act of 1933 by Vanguard's officers
and directors.  Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC, through its
subsidiaries, acquires and develops oil and natural gas properties
in the United States.

Vanguard Natural Resources Officials Accused of Unjust Enrichment

According to the complaint, on January 8, 2016, Vanguard announced
a proposed private debt exchange through which it would exchange
and replace certain 2020 Notes for newly-issued 7.0% Senior
Secured Second Lien Notes due 2023 ("the Exchange Offer").
Notably, only Qualified Institutional Buyers -- generally those
that own and invest at least $100 million in securities -- and
persons located outside of the U.S. were eligible to participate
in the Exchange Offer.  The plaintiff and class members could
therefore not participate, nor did they receive documents
informing them of how the Exchange Offer would affect their
interests.  Importantly, the risk of the Exchange Offer was not
disclosed by the company in its offering prospectus for the 2020
Notes, nor could it have been foreseen by the class members at the
time they purchased their 2020 Notes.

The complaint alleges that although Vanguard officials knew that
the Exchange Offer would negatively impact the liquidity,
marketability, and market price of the 2020 Notes, they concealed
that information from the class members.  The Exchange Offer
allowed Vanguard officials to enrich themselves at the expense of
the class members, whose 2020 Notes declined in value.
Additionally, Vanguard's decision to pursue the transaction
benefiting only a minority of 2020 Note holders allegedly violated
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Finally, the
obligations in the 2020 Notes were made subordinate to the
obligations in the 2023 Notes, impairing class members' right to
receive payment of the principal and interest under the 2020 Notes
and the right to sue to compel such payment.

Vanguard Natural Resources Noteholders Have Legal Options

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

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


VISA: Supreme Court Files Suit Over Chip Card Shift
---------------------------------------------------
Megan Geuss, writing for Ars Technica, reports that a Florida-
based supermarket and liquor store chain has sued a variety of
card networks and card issuers -- including Visa, MasterCard,
American Express, Wells Fargo, and a number of others -- over a
recent shift in credit card technology that took place in the US
last fall.

While the rest of the world has been migrating from insecure,
magnetic stripe cards to relatively more secure chip-embedded
cards for more than a decade, card networks and card-issuing banks
in the US are only now demanding that retailers stop running mag
stripe cards in favor of EMV cards. (EMV is eponymous for EuroPay,
MasterCard, and Visa, the three corporations that developed the
chip card standard.) The card networks decided years ago that by
October 1, 2015, all retailers had to accept chip cards.  If
retailers couldn't accept chip cards, then any time someone
fraudulently used a card to make a purchase at that retailer, the
retailer would have to pay for the chargeback instead of the
issuer paying for the chargeback, as is common.

The liability shift was supposed to be the stick that would
incentivize business owners to buy new terminals to accept chip
cards. But Florida's B&R Supermarket, which owns Milam's Market
and Grove Liquors, says it did all that -- it bought new NCR
Equinox L5300 card readers "well prior to the Liability Shift,"
installed them, and trained its staff to use them. But it never
got "EMV certified" by the card-network consortium that has been
managing the rollout, despite having notified the card networks
and issuers that B&R Supermarket companies were ready to be
certified.  B&R Supermarket charges that this delay is part of
MasterCard and Visa's plan to make small businesses pay for fraud
liability as long as possible.

"The 'certification' process is controlled by the very entities
that benefit from the Liability Shift and it is the primary means
through which defendants' illegal conduct has been able to
flourish," the Florida-based market writes.  "The result has been
massively increased costs for chargebacks being laid at the feet
of the Class members, while the Issuing Banks have been spared
those same costs and the Networks have continued profit -- just as
defendants knew would happen."

B&R Supermarket is asking the Northern California District Court
to let it sue the card networks and card issuers in a class action
suit, saying that other small businesses like it have suffered
under the boot of a slow certification process, despite having all
the new tech in working order.

"While very large retailers such as Target, Walmart, and others
quickly had their EMV-processing systems 'certified' -- thus
sparing them the Liability Shift -- the members of the Class are
at the mercy of defendants," the complaint states.  "Merchants
like Milam's Market and Grove Liquors have no control over the
'certification' process. All they can do is request
'certification' and wait for it to occur. And no one can say when
that will be."

Ars contacted EMVCo, the standards body that's responsible for
managing the specifications and rollout of chip-enabled cards in
the US, which is collectively owned by American Express, Discover,
JCB, MasterCard, UnionPay, and Visa. EMVCo said it is "unable to
provide comment at this time."

Update, 6:48pm ET: In a statement to Ars, a MasterCard
spokesperson said, "We're currently reviewing the claims. What I
can say at this point is what we've said since introducing our
roadmap in early 2012.  There was never a requirement for any
party -- issuer or merchant -- to move to EMV. Using insights from
merchants, issuers, and others, our roadmap and the related
liability shift provided incentives to prompt for the most secure
ways to pay.  We have and continue to work with parties across the
industry -- merchants, issuers, processors, manufacturers -- to
assist in this migration."

Ars also contacted Visa, which has not responded to our request
for comment.

B&R Supermarket said that since the shift, it racked up $10,000 in
liability for fraud, chargebacks, and chargeback fees in just
four-and-a-half months. The company said that that number is so
high because the bank not only makes it pay to reimburse the
customer for fraud, but "Milam's Market and Grove Liquors must
also pay a 'chargeback fee' of five dollars, a fee assessed
against the merchant each time it is made liable for a chargeback
by MasterCard and Visa," the company said.  "For some merchants,
these fees are as high as $30 per incident."  Thus, a fraudulent
purchase of $17.99 means the market has to pay $22.99 to settle
the liability.

Before the liability shift, the complaint stated, Milam's Market
and Grove Liquors had only ever been forced to pay for four
chargebacks.

"Tellingly, nothing Milam's Market could have done -- short of
making the business-crippling decision to stop accepting Visa
cards -- could have prevented this outcome," the complaint added,
suggesting that the cost of this liability shift among other
companies like B&R Supermarkets "certainly runs into billions of
dollars -- with the Issuing Banks having been enriched by the same
amount."

The market is suing the card networks and issuers for violating
antitrust laws, alleging that the banking entities conspired to
force this liability shift on merchants that are paying for the
bulk of the costs of a shift in technology that they never wanted
in the first place.  As the complaint alleges:

The cost of the transition to EMV chip cards in the United States,
as borne by merchants who accept the cards (and who, for example,
must purchase new POS equipment that can process chip card
transactions at a cost of $100 to $600 per machine) is expected to
be between $6 billion and $8 billion.  Of that amount, 75% is
likely to be paid by merchants, making the transition three times
as expensive for them as for defendants.
The plaintiffs say that the card issuers and networks knew that
this shift would never happen on October 1, 2015, because rollout
in other countries has been slow, too.  Indeed, in February,
market research company The Strawhecker Group wrote that only 37
percent of retailers were ready to process chip-embedded cards in
the US after the holidays.

"In exchange for this newly bestowed, unavoidable liability,
Milam's Market, Grove Liquors and the Class members have receive .
. . nothing," the complaint says.  "Interchange fees, which
defendants have said exist in part to pay for fraud, are still
paid for by the merchant, and have not decreased.  The Liability
Shift was unilaterally imposed to the benefit of defendants, with
no compensation, consultation or consideration of any kind made to
the Class members."

Besides asking the court to certify the lawsuit as a class-action
suit, Milam's Market and Grove Liquors also asked for a
preliminary injunction (PDF) ordering the card issuers and
networks "to halt imposition of the so-called 'Liability Shift' .
. . until all class members who have sought to comply with
Defendants' announced Liability Shift receive the promised
'certifications' which designate Plaintiffs as compliant with the
new standards."


VIZIO INC: Smart TVs Illegally Collect Data, "Thomson" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Thomson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Vizio, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:16-cv-00276 (C.D.
Cal., February 17, 2016),  alleges that Defendants' "Smart TVs"
spy on consumers without their knowledge and gather information
about the purchaser and registered user of the Smart TVs; they
also gather information about other family members and guests of
the consumer's household regardless of their age; Defendants then
sell this information, without the consent or knowledge of Vizio
Customers, to third parties.

Vizio, Inc., is a California corporation which manufactures and
sells flat-screen televisions, including the Vizio Smart TVs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1129 State Street, Suite 8
     Santa Barbara, CA 93101
     Telephone: (805) 456-1496
     Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
     E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

          - and -

     Gretchen Freeman Cappio, Esq.
     Cari Campen Laufenberg, Esq.
     Amy N.L. Hanson, Esq.
     KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
     1201 Third Ave., Suite 3200
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Telephone: (206) 623-1900
     Facsimile: (206) 623-3384
     E-mail: gcappio@kellerrohrback.com
             claufenberg@kellerrohrback.com
             ahanson@kellerrohrback.com


VOLKSWAGEN: Investors Launch Class Action in Braunschweig Court
---------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Miller, writing for The Times, reports that Volkswagen's
woes deepened last night after a group representing investors
worldwide launched a multibillion-euro suit over the emissions
cheating scandal.

Almost 280 institutional shareholders, including German insurers
and Calpers, the California public employees pension fund, filed a
class action seeking damages of EUR3.3 billion against the
carmaker alleging breaches of capital markets duty.

The paperwork was lodged at a regional court in Braunschweig, in
VW's home state of Lower Saxony on March 14.

Tisab, a German law firm, is leading the litigation, which covers
the period from June 2008 to September last year when the
emissions cheating was exposed.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions Suits to Face Uphill Battle in EU
----------------------------------------------------------
James Panichi, writing for Politico, reports that European drivers
hoping to get even with Volkswagen are stuck in a legal slow-lane.

Unlike Americans, European VW owners lack the legal tools to set
up a pan-EU class-action lawsuit.  Not only that, Volkswagen has
made it clear it has no intention of offering them the $1,000
goodwill gift it is handing to U.S. drivers affected by the
emissions scandal.

Now lawyers and legal organizations across Europe are busy looking
for ways to cash in on the scandal, seeing a business opportunity
in the disparity between the treatment dished out to VW consumers
on opposite sides of the Atlantic.

One of them is Michael Hausfeld, a Washington attorney working on
the VW class action in the U.S., who said he plans to take on the
German car-maker on its home turf and has lined up several
clients.

"We have been retained by a number of [European] businesses to
represent their interests," said Mr. Hausfeld, who built his
reputation on extracting payouts for consumers worth billions from
the energy industry, pharmaceutical companies and even Swiss banks
on behalf of plaintiffs who have been affected by industry
decisions.

Mr. Hausfeld said he will push to get the same deals for Europeans
as American VW owners and investors, starting with the $1,000
payment that VW has ruled out for car owners on this side of the
Atlantic.  "There is no justification for not having similar
payments for European consumers because the damage they have
suffered is the same," he said in a phone interview.

Mr. Hausfeld's law firm, which specializes in cross-border
disputes, opened a Berlin office this year and announced it had
built up a EUR30 million war-chest with the help of Burwood
Capital, a global finance firm that backs lawsuits.  The firm says
German VW customers alone could be entitled to claim up to EUR2.5
billion in damages.

Mr. Hausfeld, and any consumer wanting to take action against VW
in a European court, faces an uphill road.  While class actions
are entrenched in the U.S. legal system, they are much more
difficult to put together in the many different legal
jurisdictions of the EU.

"The irony is that when it comes to consumer rights, the situation
is usually better in the EU than it is in the U.S.," said Ursula
Pachl, the deputy director-general of the European consumer
umbrella group BEUC.  "But when it comes to enforcing those
rights, the EU simply doesn't have a uniform collective redress
tool."

Ms. Pachl said the European Commission's 2013 recommendation that
EU member countries introduce what is called "collective redress,"
the EU definition of class action, went largely unheeded.  As a
result, fewer than half of the Union's 28 justice systems allow
for anything that would enable consumers to band together.

The weakness of the recommendation, BEUC argued, left European
consumers more vulnerable than their U.S. counterparts.  "It is
not justified that EU consumers be treated so differently because
they have suffered the same damage," Ms. Pachl said.  "VW should
compensate European consumers in the same way."

The collective alternative

Since the emissions scandal broke in September 2015, VW has made
it clear it has no plans to extend to European car owners the
conciliatory approach it used in the U.S.

VW argues the legal chasm between the EU and the U.S. means it
cannot apply a one-size-fits-all approach and the class action
filed in the United States District Court in San Francisco has no
bearing on Europe.

When pressed on compensation for consumers during two meetings
with Elzbieta Bienkowska, the European industry commissioner,
Volkswagen said the situation in the U.S. was "not automatically
comparable" to other markets.

"[The compensation scheme] cannot simply be rolled out in other
markets," Volkswagen said in a statement, prompting
Ms. Bienkowska to vow to keep up the political pressure on the
company to compensate EU consumers.

Lawyers working on the issue in Brussels said European consumers
are unlikely to ever file a class action lawsuit similar to the
one lodged in the San Francisco federal district court in
February, which accused VW, Audi and Porsche of having created a
"fraudulent scheme" to sell diesel cars.

That doesn't mean European consumers have no means of redress.
Under one possible scenario, competing law firms could band
together to shepherd thousands of individual claims into a
coherent, manageable group.

"These are not group actions, but firms cooperating with each
other to aggregate their claims," said Laurent Geelhand --
lgeelhand@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld's Brussels managing partner.

In Germany the legal process is accelerating, slowly.  In a
victory for the industry, a district court in the western German
city of Bochum ruled that a VW dealership was not obliged to take
back a diesel car it had sold a customer, given that the deceptive
software problem could be fixed in 30 minutes.

Although marginal in its significance, this was the first of what
are likely to be many cases referring to Dieselgate to make its
way to a German court.

In other parts of the EU, VW customers are taking what few class
action provisions they can find, although this legal route is
difficult.

Italian consumer group Altroconsumo is spearheading a complex
class action brought against VW in a Venetian court.  That legal
action ran into problems when a judge threw out the case,
prompting an appeal by Altroconsumo, which has used the situation
to highlight what is says are the weaknesses of Italian class
action provisions.

Lawyers working on the issue in Brussels said legal action brought
by car owners is only the beginning.

"This is not just the moms and dads," said Mr. Geelhand, a lawyer
who specializes in the auto industry and the former European
general counsel for Michelin.  "You will see fleet holders,
shareholders, suppliers, suppliers of suppliers coming forward.
It will be very damaging not just for VW, but the entire car
industry."

Shareholders unite

European shareholders in VW -- who have seen the value of their
investments fall as a result of the manufacturer's decision to
install illegal software to deceive official emissions tests --
are on firmer legal ground than the average owner, although
shareholders are also uncertain they will be able to take legal
action as a group.

One Netherlands-based shareholder challenge, the Dutch Volkswagen
Settlement Foundation, is the European chapter of a shareholder
lawsuit which is being managed in the U.S. by law firm Bernstein
Litowitz Berger & Grossmann (BLBG).  The American lawsuit refers
to U.S.-traded securities while the Dutch Foundation targets
investors with shares listed in Frankfurt.

"We are in a very strong position," said the foundation's senior
adviser, Anatoli van der Krans.  "We have the backing of BLBG and
their approach is not to settle in the U.S., but to achieve a
global settlement. And I think it is in Volkswagen's interests to
do so."

Mr. Van der Krans says the foundation was established in the
Netherlands because it is "the only legal system in the world in
which a settlement can be declared globally binding" and,
therefore, provides aggrieved investors with their best chance of
redress.

"We are calling on institutional and retail investors," he said.
"But regardless how many sign our petition, they will still be
entitled to compensation."

Meanwhile, for investors who hope to take action through the
German court system, time could be running out. "What you have to
keep in mind . . . is the statute of limitations," said Juergen
Kurz, from the German private investor association Deutsche
Schutzvereinigung fuer Wertpapierbesitz.

The worst-case scenario, Kurz said, is that the statute of
limitations could kick in as soon as September 2016, meaning
anyone who had not filed a lawsuit before then would be "out of
the game."

However, a German court may also rule that multiple claims could
be gathered into one, which would be more cost-effective for
complainants and would turn the process into a de facto class
action.

Volkswagen appears determined to scupper any class action put
forward by shareholders as a group. Earlier this month the auto
company submitted a statement to the Braunschweig District Court
challenging a shareholders' claim its management board had
violated disclosure obligations under capital markets law.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces False Advertising Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
John Suayan, writing for South East Texas Record, reports that a
class action lawsuit accuses Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. of falsely
advertising one of its dairy products.

The suit, filed Mar. 9 in Houston federal court by Spring resident
Kenneth Manfredi, claims Wal-Mart's Great Value branded "100%
Grated Parmesan Cheese" products do not contain 100 percent
parmesan.

"Independent laboratory testing shows, however, that such products
are not in fact '100%'

Parmesan, but rather contain significant amounts of adulterants
and fillers," court papers say.

"In fact, testing shows that at least 7.8 percent of the
purportedly '100%' Parmesan consists of cellulose, a filler and
anti-clumping agent derived from wood pulp."

Mr. Manfredi says he bought and consumed the items in question on
numerous occasions in the previous year.

According to the suit, Wal-Mart "has made, and continues to make,
unlawful, false, fraudulent, and misleading claims on the food
labels."

Consequently, Mr. Manfredi and the class members seek unspecified
monetary damages and a jury trial.

They are represented by attorneys Fletcher V. Trammell, John J.
Driscoll and Philip Sholtz of the law firm The Driscoll Firm, P.C.
in Houston and St. Louis, Mo.

Houston Division of the Southern District of Texas Case No. 4:16-
CV-00612


WEIGHT WATCHERS: "Roberts" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Roberts v. Weight Watchers
International, Inc., Case No. 650073/2016, was removed from the
Supreme Court of the State of New York, to the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00913-JGK to the proceeding.

Weight Watchers International provides weight management services
worldwide. The company operates in four segments: North America,
United Kingdom, Continental Europe, and Other. It offers a range
of products and services comprising nutritional, exercise,
behavioral, and lifestyle tools and approaches. The company also
engages in the meetings business, which presents weight management
programs, as well as allows members to support each other by
sharing their experiences with other people experiencing similar
weight management challenges. The Company is based in New York,
New York.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chanakya Arjun Sethi, Esq.
          WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP
          725 12th Street N.W.
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 434 5000
          Facsimile: (202) 434 5029
          E-mail: csethi@wc.com


WILDCAT SERVICES: Faces "Wright" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Wright, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Wildcat Services, LLC, et al., Case No. 7:16-cv-00048
(W.D. Tex., February 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Wildcat Services, LLC, is a Texas limited liability company
specializing in hydro-excavating, water well drilling, water well
pump service and surface rental equipment for the oil and gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Josh Borsellino
     BORSELLINO, P.C.
     1020 Macon St., Ste. 15
     Forth Worth, Texas 76102
     Telephone: (817) 908-9861
     Facsimile: (817) 394-2412
     E-mail: josh@dfwcounsel.com


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Court Won't Lift PSLRA Discovery Stay
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CITY OF BIRMINGHAM RETIREMENT AND RELIEF
SYSTEM, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. ALAN S. ARMSTRONG, FRANK T. MACINNIS, JOSEPH R.
CLEVELAND, KATHLEEN B. COOPER, JOHN A. HAGG, JUANITA H. HINSHAW,
RALPH IZZO, ERIC MANDELBLATT, KEITH A. MEISTER, STEVEN W. NANCE,
MURRAY D. SMITH, JANICE D. STONEY, LAURA A. SUGG, THE WILLIAMS
COMPANIES, INC., ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY L.P., ENERGY TRANSFER CORP
LP, ENERGY TRANSFER CORP GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC, and ENERGY TRANSFER
EQUITY GP, LLC, Defendants, Civ. No. 16-17-RGA (D. Del.), Judge
Richard G. Andrews denied the motion for expedited discovery and
expedited proceedings filed by the plaintiff City of Birmingham
Retirement and Relief System.

The City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System brought a
class action for security fraud, alleging that the individual
defendants, who are officers and directors of Williams Companies,
Inc., breached their fiduciary duties and violated Sections 14(a)
and 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by causing
Williams to file a preliminary proxy statement on November 24,
2015 that contained incomplete and materially misleading
information.

The defendants filed motions to dismiss for failure to state a
claim.

The plaintiff then sought to lift the automatic stay imposed by
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA) so that it
can conduct expedited discovery to support an anticipated filing
of a motion to enjoin a proposed merger whereby Williams will
merge with and into an affiliate of Energy Transfer Equity, L.P.
(ETE) named Energy Transfer Corp LP (ETC), with ETC remaining as
the surviving entity.  The plaintiff argued that the stay should
be lifted to prevent undue prejudice resulting from an uninformed
stockholder vote on the proposed transaction.

Judge Andrews, however, noted that several courts have rejected
the argument that the risk of an uninformed stockholder vote on a
proposed transaction by itself creates undue prejudice. In
addition, the judge stated that any inherent policy considerations
applicable to stockholder class actions, if they exist, are
adequately protected, considering that the case is only one of
seven actions which have been filed seeking to enjoin the proposed
merger.  Judge Andrews thus concluded that the plaintiff has not
shown that it will suffer undue prejudice if the discovery stay is
not lifted and denied its motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Andrew's March 1, 2016 memorandum order
is available at http://is.gd/VEhdXpfrom Leagle.com.

City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System, Plaintiff,
represented by Pamela S. Tikellis -- pamelatikellis@chimicles.com
-- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP, A. Zachary Naylor --
zn@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis, LLP & Tiffany Joanne
Cramer -- tiffanycramer@chimicles.com -- Chimicles & Tikellis,
LLP.

Alan S. Armstrong, Frank T. Macinnis, Joseph R. Cleveland,
Kathleen B. Cooper, John A. Hagg, Juanita H. Hinshaw, Ralph Izzo,
Eric Mandelblatt, Keith A. Meister, Steven W. Nance, Murray D.
Smith, Janice D. Stoney, Laura A. Sugg, The Williams Companies,
Inc., Defendants, represented by Antony L. Ryan --
aryan@cravath.com -- pro hac vice,Jonathan A. Choa --
jchoa@pottersonanderson.com -- Potter Anderson & Corroon, LLP &
Sandra C. Goldstein -- sgoldstein@cravath.com -- pro hac vice.

Energy Transfer Equity L.P., Energy Transfer Corp LP, Energy
Transfer Corp GP, LLC, LE GP, LLC, Energy Transfer Equity GP, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com --
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP.


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: May 6 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on March 14 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Oklahoma on behalf of purchasers of Williams
Partners L.P. common stock during the period between May 13, 2015
through June 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors
with losses in excess of $100,000 who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until May 6, 2016 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in Company common stock during the Class Period.
Members of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and
counsel chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been
certified in the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that The Williams
Companies, Inc. ("WMB") was considering alternative strategic
transactions that could prevent completion of WMB's acquisition of
WPZ.

According to the complaint, following an announcement by Energy
Transfer Equity L.P. that its offer to acquire WMB was conditioned
on termination of WMB's acquisition of WPZ, the value of WPZ units
declined significantly.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in WPZ common stock
purchased on or after May 13, 2015 and held through the revelation
of negative information during and/or at the end of the Class
Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and your
ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or
obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html

You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

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


WINN-DIXIE STORES: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a
Jefferson Parish woman is suing a grocery store chain over claims
it did not pay her overtime.

Kathy Chaves, individually and for all others similarly situated,
filed a class-action lawsuit March 7 in U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Louisiana against Winn-Dixie Stores,
alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The suit states that during the time Ms. Chaves and others in the
class worked in Winn-Dixie's supermarket operations as mid-level
managers, they routinely worked more than 40 hours per week.

The suit alleges Ms. Chaves and others did not receive an overtime
premium for hours worked over 40 hours per week, as the defendant
allegedly misclassified them as exempt employees.

Ms. Chaves and others in the class seek to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, attorney fees and costs.  They are
represented by attorneys George B. Recile, Patricia E. Pannell,
Preston L. Hayes and Matthew A. Sherman of Chehardy, Sherman,
Williams, Murray, Recile, Stakelum & Hayes in Metairie.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana Case
number 2:16-CV-01933-JCZ-DEK


WISCONSIN: Deal Drives Reforms at Women's Prison
------------------------------------------------
Lisa Neff, writing for Wisconsin Gazette, reports that Wisconsin
has satisfied the terms of a settlement requiring reforms in
medical and mental health care at the state's largest women's
prison, clearing the way to an end to a longstanding class-action
lawsuit.

Flynn v. Walker was filed in 2006 on behalf of women prisoners at
Taycheedah Correctional Institution, according to the ACLU of
Wisconsin.

The lawsuit alleged the prison system put the lives of women
prisoners at risk by providing women with grossly deficient mental
health treatment -- far inferior to that provided to men in
Wisconsin prisons.

Also alleged was that the prison system failed to provide
reasonable accommodations to allow prisoners with disabilities to
access basic prison services.

"After years of needless suffering due to inadequate health care,
Taycheedah has the staff, services and facilities necessary to
address prisoners' medical and mental health needs, fulfilling its
constitutional obligation to the women incarcerated there," said
Gabriel B. Eber, senior staff counsel with the ACLU National
Prison Project.

Mr. Eber said the state has come into compliance, and the ACLU
hopes "the reforms won under the settlement agreement will
continue once the litigation is dismissed."

Larry Dupuis, legal director for the ACLU of Wisconsin, said, "It
was a long and sometimes contentious process, but Taycheedah has
made good on its promises to deliver decent care to the women
living at the institution.  Of course, the impetus for the
improvements at the prison was the litigation. But the medical
leadership team has demonstrated a commitment to improving the
quality of care that we expect them to maintain in the future."

Wisconsin had sought to have the federal case dismissed, a motion
denied by U.S. District Judge Rudolph T. Randa in 2009.  Judge
Randa entered a preliminary injunction, ordering changes to how
the prison administered medications to prisoners.

In 2010, a settlement required Wisconsin officials to implement
significant structural improvements aimed at providing
constitutionally adequate levels of care for all Taycheedah
prisoners and providing female prisoners with the same level of
mental health care as male prisoners.  The settlement also
required equal access to programs and services for prisoners with
disabilities.

The agreement required the prison's medical program meet
"performance standards," which would be verified by an independent
expert.

The ACLU said an expert, after 11 visits to the prison over five
years, certified that Taycheedah had met the targets.


* Bernstein Named to National Law Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernstein Liebhard LLP has been named to The National Law
Journal's "Plaintiffs' Hot List."  This year's nomination marks
the thirteenth year the firm has been named to this prestigious
annual list.

The National Law Journal selected twelve firms that "scored big
recoveries for plaintiffs."  This year's list recognizes firms
that "tapped their deep benches for high-stakes litigation battles
in courts across the country."

Bernstein Liebhard was recognized for its work on two cases in
particular that were led by Partners Stanley D. Bernstein and U.
Seth Ottensoser -- Ottensoser@bernlieb.com

The first, a securities fraud class action against Kinross Gold
Corp, where discovery was conducted across the globe, yielded a
$33 million recovery.  The second, a derivative action with
Freeport-McMoRan Inc., resulted in a $137 million cash settlement
to be distributed to the company's shareholders in the form of a
special dividend.

The National Law Journal noted that these types of hard-fought
cases fit with the firm's style, a sentiment echoed by Partner
Stanley D. Bernstein:  "We take cases to the end, we're
relentless.  We're not a volume shop.  We're selective in the
cases we take, and we work them to get the maximum value for the
client."

The National Law Journal also quoted Robert J. Giuffra, Jr. --
giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, who
represented Kinross Gold Corp.:  "Stan Bernstein is a highly
respected member of the plaintiffs' bar.  He's a tough advocate
for his clients."

Other firm highlights this year include a $50 million settlement
on behalf of the Public Employees Retirement of Association of New
Mexico, in an individual action against its former securities
lending agent for breach of contract and breach of fiduciary duty,
and a $20.5 million settlement of a class action against Tower
Group International Ltd.

Established in 1993, Bernstein Liebhard LLP represents plaintiffs
in various types of class action and complex litigation and has
pursued hundreds of securities, consumer, and shareholder rights
cases, resulting in over $3.5 billion in recoveries for its
clients and the classes it has represented.


* CFPB Targets Financial Firms' Arbitration Clauses
---------------------------------------------------
Deon Roberts, writing for The Charlotte Observer, reports that you
might skip over the fine print from your bank when opening an
account, but a federal regulator continues to cast a wary eye on
the arbitration clauses that are sometimes embedded in such
contracts.

Richard Cordray, director of the Consumer Financial Protection
Bureau, in a speech reiterated his agency's plans to issue rules
targeting policies at banks and other financial firms that
restrict consumers' ability to sue the companies.  Although it's
unclear what the new rules will look like, last fall the bureau
said it was considering banning financial firms from using
arbitration clauses to block class-action lawsuits by consumers.

Typically, such clauses steer customer disputes with a bank to
privately appointed arbitrators, keeping the matters out of court.
Supporters of forced arbitration argue, among other things, that
the practice can be faster and less expensive than class-action
suits. Critics, though, claim arbitration tends to favor
corporations over individuals.

In a separate speech, Mr. Cordray complained that blocking class
actions strips consumers of a tool for causing much-needed changes
in business practices.

"By inserting an arbitration clause into their contracts,
companies can sidestep the legal system, avoid big refunds and
continue to pursue profitable practices that may violate the law
and harm consumers," he said.

Originally, arbitration was largely used in commercial disputes
between businesses to create tailored contracts, Mr. Cordray said.
The practice was rarely used in disagreements between businesses
and consumers.

But Mr. Cordray said that changed in the past 20 years or so, as
banks started inserting the clauses into their consumer contracts.
Attorneys who sought to persuade banks to adopt arbitration
clauses specifically noted they could be used to block class
actions, he said.

Some, but not all, banks continue to fold such clauses into their
consumer account agreements.

For example, San Francisco-based Wells Fargo's account agreement
says consumers waive their right to a jury trial or a trial in
front of a judge.  But consumers may still take a dispute to a
small-claims court.

Wells says it follows federal law in providing terms and
conditions to customers when they open an account.

Bank of America in 2009 abandoned a rule that had forced consumers
into arbitration to resolve disputes.

Mr. Corday's agency is studying arbitration clauses of financial
firms as it seeks to comply with a requirement in the 2010 Dodd-
Frank financial overhaul.  Dodd-Frank banned the inclusion of such
clauses in some residential mortgage loan contracts. The act also
gave the Securities and Exchange Commission authority to ban or
restrict the use of the clauses for certain disputes.

Mr. Cordray said that arbitration clauses remain "pervasive" in
consumer agreements with financial firms, especially large banks.
Tens of millions of customers are covered by such clauses with
lenders, he said, but the vast majority of Americans do not know
the clauses exist.

The bureau's proposed rule eliminating restrictions against class
actions would apply to arbitration clauses involving a wide range
of products and services, such as credit cards, checking and
deposit accounts, certain auto loans, payday loans and private
student loans, Mr. Cordray said.

Financial firms would still be allowed to use arbitration clauses
under the proposal, but the clauses would have to explicitly say
they do not apply to cases brought on behalf of a class.


* Scalia's Death to Impact Arbitration, Consumer Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
J. Austin Moore, writing for Missouri Lawyers Weekly, reports that
in the wake of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's death, many
pundits debated his impact on hot-button issues like affirmative
action, the Second Amendment, and same-sex marriage.

But largely absent from this dialogue was a discussion on the area
of law where Scalia had perhaps the greatest impact over the last
decade: consumer rights. Historically, when consumers fell victim
to unfair or abusive business practices, they could fight back by
joining together in court as part of class action lawsuit
permitting for one or a few individuals to sue on behalf of a
larger group of individuals who were harmed in a similar manner.
For example, say your cell phone provider, X-Wireless, included a
hidden fee of 25 cents on your cell phone bill each month for a
year.  While overcharges totaling $3 seem relatively
inconsequential on an individual basis, if X-Wireless charged the
same hidden fee to each of its 50 million customers over the same
period, then X-Wireless would walk away with $150 million in ill-
gotten profits in just one year.  Pursuing a case against
X-Wireless as a class action permits the customers to combine
their efforts and resources to pursue claims they would not pursue
individually, and level the playing field by attracting capable
attorneys willing to take on their case.  Perhaps more
importantly, X-Wireless is disincentivized from continuing to
charge the hidden fee and X-Wireless's competitors are deterred
from charging a similar fee.

But today, the fine print in the X-Wireless customer contract
would prohibit you from participating in this type of class
action.  In fact, it would prohibit you from even taking your
dispute with X-Wireless to court.  Instead, you would be forced to
submit all disputes with X-Wireless to a private arbitrator
instead of a judge.  While private arbitration can be an efficient
alternative to court when it is negotiated between sophisticated
parties with equal bargaining power, arbitration agreements
contained in consumer contracts are presented to consumers on a
take-it-or-leave-it basis.  Historically, courts have refused to
enforce arbitration agreements that contain one-sided or unfair
terms, such as waiving a party's right to participate in a class
action.

Beginning in 2010, however, Justice Scalia authored a series of
controversial opinions, each on behalf of the same 5-4 majority,
effectively using arbitration as means to eliminate most consumer
class actions.  The most significant was Scalia's majority opinion
in the 2011 case AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which held that
courts must enforce arbitration agreements even when they contain
language prohibiting individuals from participating in class
actions (known as "class action waivers").  In 2013, Scalia wrote
for the majority in American Express Co. v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, which went a step further and held that arbitration
agreements must be enforced even if the cost of pursuing an
individual arbitration outweighs the individual's maximum possible
recovery.

Thus, in our fictional example above, the only recourse a customer
has against X-Wireless for its $150 million theft is to pursue an
individual arbitration worth $3.  Even then, the cost of
initiating the arbitration would far outweigh the individual's
possible recovery -- making it economically unviable for customers
to try and hold X-Wireless accountable.  As appellate judge and
economist Richard Posner observed: "The realistic alternative to a
class action is not 17 million individual suits, but zero
individual suits, as only a lunatic or a fanatic sues for $30."
So X-Wireless's only incentive relating to the hidden fee is to
increase it, knowing that its competitors will do the same and its
customers are contractually prohibited from joining together and
seeking recourse in court.

Unsurprisingly, companies are now incentivized to include
arbitration agreements with class action waiver clauses in just
about everything.  If you look closely when you sign up for a cell
phone, book a hotel room, accept a new job, update iTunes, or even
shop online, you will almost assuredly see an arbitration
agreement and class action waiver lurking in the fine print.
While this deprivation of consumer rights largely went unnoticed
by the general public, the non-judicial branches of government
have taken note.  In 2015, the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau
(CFPB) released a 410-page study concluding that consumers benefit
from class actions far more than arbitration and that arbitration
is being used by companies as a means to insulate themselves from
liability.  The CFPB has hinted that it is in the process of
promulgating rules that will prohibit arbitration agreements in
consumer financial contracts.  As recently as February 2016,
members of the Senate introduced a bill seeking to "prevent
companies from imposing forced arbitration in cases covered by
consumer protection laws, as well as in employment discrimination
and other civil rights matters."

But with a divided Congress, the best hope for consumers wanting
to regain their access to court may lie with Justice Scalia's
replacement on the Supreme Court. Indeed, the liberal wing of the
Supreme Court has been highly critical of Concepcion and Italian
Colors, with Justice Ginsburg stating in a recent dissent that:
"These decisions have predictably resulted in the deprivation of
consumers' rights to seek redress for losses" and Justice Kagan
referring to the Scalia-majority's use of arbitration as a
"betrayal" of Supreme Court precedent and a mechanism to "insulate
wrongdoers from liability."  With the Supreme Court currently at a
4-4 ideological split, whoever replaces the late justice could
have a meaningful impact on consumer rights for years to come.


* U.S. Wants Class Actions v. For-Profit-Colleges Easier to File
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jillian Berman, writing for Marketwatch, reports that the U.S.
government wants to make it easier for student loan borrowers to
sue their colleges when they believe they've been wronged.

The Department of Education released a proposal on March 11 that
would make it more difficult for colleges to require students to
settle disputes in arbitration, a private, closed-door process
that critics say prevents students from getting a fair shake when
they raise issues about their schools.

"The Department is working to ensure that no college can dodge
accountability by burying 'gotchas' in fine print that blocks
students from seeking the redress they're due," Ted Mitchell, the
undersecretary for the Department said in a release.

Critics say for-profit colleges regularly include so-called
mandatory pre-dispute arbitration clauses -- or provisions that
require students to litigate claims in arbitration instead of
going to court -- in the agreements they require students to sign
when they enroll at the school.  In addition to barring students
from taking their claims to court, the clauses also can prohibit
students from bringing claims as a group.  Those provisions can
have a chilling effect on student suits, critics say, because
individuals have to bear the often expensive cost of arbitration
alone.

Businesses of all types increasingly deployed arbitration clauses
in cellphone plans, credit card agreements, employment contracts
and other areas (including banks) over the past several years.
Companies and their lawyers often argue that class-action lawsuits
are more about enriching plaintiffs' lawyers and less about
helping consumers.  In addition, they say, arbitration provides a
cheap and efficient way for consumers to get relief. Thanks to two
Supreme Court decisions in 2011 and 2013, the agreements and the
class action bans that often come with them are typically
difficult to challenge in court, forcing consumers to settle
disputes over bills, employment discrimination and other issues
through the arbitration process.

Critics of mandatory arbitration say the clauses have no place in
higher education. "I just don't think that there's a plausible
justification for using these provisions in an educational context
and I think that becomes clear the more you examine the way that
they work," said Eileen Connor, the director of litigation at the
project on predatory student lending at Harvard Law School, who
pushed the Department to curb schools' use of mandatory
arbitration clauses.

The Department's proposal regarding mandatory arbitration is part
of a larger, months-long rulemaking process to set clear standards
for how and when borrowers should have their federal student loans
forgiven if they believe they've been defrauded by their schools.
In the wake of the collapse of for-profit college chain,
Corinthian Colleges, last year amid scandal, borrowers have been
clamoring for debt forgiveness.  Ms. Connor, who previously
submitted a proposal on behalf of the legal aid community as part
of the negotiated rulemaking process that would ban schools that
use mandatory arbitration agreements from receiving federal
financial aid dollars, called the Department of Education's
proposals on arbitration "fantastic."

Steve Gunderson, the CEO of the Association of Private Colleges
and Universities, disagreed, saying he was disappointed with the
Department's proposal. Gunderson noted that arbitration clauses
have been a part of higher education since the 1970s to protect
faculty as part of collective bargaining agreements.

"Our attitude has always been to try to find a way to protect
students," he said. "Lawyers are the ones who make the money" off
class action suits, he added.

The Department proposed two possible routes to curbing mandatory
arbitration in a draft rule it released ahead of the final
negotiating session with stakeholders.  Both would make it easier
for students to bring claims together.  One would require a
student to give consent to move a claim to arbitration. The other
would require that any arbitration proceedings be open to the
public and recorded. Since arbitration sessions are typically held
behind closed doors, any violations of law discussed in the
sessions rarely come to light.

Julie Murray, a staff attorney at Public Citizen, a nonprofit
advocacy group that submitted a petition to the Department asking
the agency to make a rule barring schools that use mandatory pre-
dispute arbitration clauses from receiving federal financial aid
funding, said the option that requires a student's consent to move
to arbitration goes further to protect students than the
Department's other proposal.

The other proposal "gets at some of the most egregious aspects of
(arbitration clauses) without getting at the root of the problem,
which is putting students into arbitration at all," she said.
"That being said, we're pleased to see what the Department said on
March 11 and we'll be intrigued to see how the negotiations
unfold."  Regardless of whether either of the Department's
proposals are included in any new rules, the Department still has
to respond separately to Public Citizen's petition, Ms. Murray
said.

The Department's proposal is just the first step of many before
the provisions actually become law and there's a chance that won't
even happen.  At the final negotiating session next week,
stakeholders will discuss the arbitration proposal, among others.
If the group, which includes consumer advocates, for-profit
college representatives and others, reaches a consensus, the
Department will put forward a proposed regulation for comment.  If
the negotiators don't reach a consensus, the Department has to
decide whether to move forward with the regulations.

"I'm delighted that the Department listened to the proposal and
really hopeful that we'll see something in the final rule along
these lines," Ms. Connor said.


                        Asbestos Litigation


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ex-Workers Sue Over Exposure at Nassau Coliseum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Three former workers of the New York Islanders Hockey Club, L.P.,
filed three separate lawsuits with the Supreme Court of the State
of New York, Nassau County, alleging that they were exposed to
asbestos and asbestos-containing materials while in the
performance of their work at the Nassau Coliseum.

The Plaintiffs each allege that as a result of this exposure, they
developed a progressive, debilitating asbestos-related illness.

The Plaintiffs each seek $10 million in compensatory damages
against each Defendant and $10,000,000 in punitive damages.

The cases are:

   * JOHN L. ARMENTANO, Plaintiff, against COUNTY OF NASSAU,
COUNTY OF NASSAU DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, NEW YORK ISLANDERS
HOCKEY CLUB, L.P., and SMG, Defendants, Index No. 601607/2016;

   * WILLIAM GEIGER, Plaintiff, against COUNTY OF NASSAU, COUNTY
OF NASSAU DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, NEW YORK ISLANDERS HOCKEY
CLUB, L.P., and SMG, Defendants, Index No. 601608/2016; and

   * FRANK O'BRIEN and MICHELLE O'BRIEN, Plaintiffs, against
COUNTY OF NASSAU, COUNTY OF NASSAU, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS,
NEW YORK ISLANDERS HOCKEY CLUB, L.P. and SMG, Index No.
601609/2016.

The Plaintiffs in the three lawsuits are all represented by:

         Jose G. Dell, Esq.
         DELL & DEAN, PLLC
         1225 Franklin Avenue, Suite 450
         Garden City, NY 11530
         Tel: (516) 880-9700


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Time to Perfect NYCal Appeals Enlarged to Dec.
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First
Department, in a decision dated March 3, 2016, enlarged the time
to perfect respective appeals to the December 2016 Term in IN RE
NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION, 2016 NY Slip Op 65879(U)(N.Y.
App. Div.).

A full-text copy of the Decision is available at
http://is.gd/h7qHypfrom Leagle.com.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Council Chief Resigns After Contamination Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Dalzell and Raveen Hunjan, writing for ABC News,
reported that a Sydney council chief executive has succumbed to
pressure to resign amid allegations he misled the public about
asbestos contamination in the area, the ABC understands.

Multiple sources have told the ABC that Liverpool Council CEO Carl
Wulff offered his resignation in a letter distributed to
councillors at a closed session of an extraordinary meeting last
night, but Mayor Ned Mannoun has denied that.

The ABC understands a motion to accept the resignation was passed
last night, however Cr Mannoun this morning has maintained that Mr
Wulff remains the council's chief executive.

"I can confirm that Carl Wulff is still the CEO of Liverpool
Council and has not resigned," Cr Mannoun said.

A majority of councillors had been calling for Mr Wulff's
resignation, accusing him of mismanaging asbestos contamination in
the region in the wake of several ABC reports on the issue.

The New South Wales Environment Protection Authority has been
investigating up to 15 sites possibly affected by contaminated
landfill, which could have come from the council's soil storage
facility at Kemps Creek.

It was standing room only at the meeting last night after more
than 100 workers and residents gathered to await Mr Wulff's fate.

The council meeting went into a closed session for several hours
to discuss Mr Wulff's position, when the ABC understands the
resignation letter was tendered.

Cr Mannoun said while he was unable to go into detail about what
happened during the closed session, he was confident Mr Wulff
would remain the council CEO.

"Council's independent performance reviewer and the panel found
that Carl Wulff was exceeding standards in all performance
criteria only 6 months ago," Cr Mannoun said.

"He's been doing an outstanding job and he remains the CEO of
Liverpool Council."

Multiple sources have told the ABC that Mr Wulff then offered his
resignation, and it was accepted.

The ABC understands the resignation will be publicly confirmed at
the next council meeting on March 30, where an interim CEO will be
appointed.

'The Wulff of George Street'

Mr Wulff, who ratepayers have dubbed "The Wulff of George Street",
has been at the centre of a dispute within the council for months,
with seven out of Liverpool's 11 councillors wanting him gone.

However, this morning, Cr Mannoun has said all of the councillors
agreed Mr Wulff was not responsible for the asbestos issue.

"He's been doing an outstanding job and he remains the CEO of
Liverpool Council," Cr Mannoun said.

"Any indication that he resigned, especially due to asbestos is a
lie that's being peddled by the unions.

"Council's independent performance reviewer ... found that Carl
Wulff was exceeding standards in all performance criteria only 6
months ago."

Councillor Peter Ristevski put forward a motion to remove the
chief executive, which was backed by the majority of the council.

The meeting erupted into fiery scenes as Mayor Ned Mannoun ejected
Cr Ristevski before the issue could be debated, with several
councillors alleging they were threatened and intimidated by one
of the Mayor's supporters.

About 20 police officers were called to the council, and escorted
people to their cars.

The NSW Government has since launched a review of the meeting.

When asked about the council's CEO resigning today, NSW Premier
Mike Baird said he did not know any details about the meeting.

"The Local Government Minister is looking at these issues closely,
obviously," Mr Baird.

"If he feels he needs to act he will, but he is monitoring the
situation."

Councillor tells Mayor to 'man up'

Prior to the closed session, Cr Mannoun, who is one of the chief
executive's supporters, said Mr Wulff had turned the council's
financial position around.

He has previously credited Mr Wulff with putting the council
budget in the black, transforming a $4 million deficit into an $8
million surplus.

"The CEO was employed on the basis to get the skeletons out of the
closet and fix up the council," he said.

"What do you want the CEO to do regarding the asbestos?"

The question was rhetorical, however one local shouted out
"breathe it in," prompting laughter from the gallery.

Tensions between Cr Mannoun and Cr Ristevski escalated during the
meeting, with Cr Ristevski at one point telling the Mayor to "man
up".

"Do not play games this evening, you are not taking this council
as hostage," Cr Ristevski said.

"Show some maturity. I'm tired of these games from you."

Independent councillor Peter Harle also joined in, drawing
rapturous applause from the gallery.

"I normally don't get involved in political nonsense, but in this
case it's gone too far," he said.

"We never had a deficit, and we don't have much of a surplus.
Let's stick to the truth."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Parents Threaten Legal Action in Asbestos Row
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kirkintilloch Herald reported that parents are removing their
children from a nursery and threatening legal action due to health
fears over toxic asbestos.

The asbestos removal work was due to start at Holy Family Primary
School, which closed last summer because of structural damage.

Primary pupils have been moved into the former Lairdsland Primary
School building nearby, but around 100 nursery pupils remain on
site.

Education chiefs insist that the asbestos removal can be done
safely, with the areas near to the nursery being dealt with during
the Easter holidays.

But a number of parents have slammed the timing, saying that NONE
of the work should be done while the children are at nursery.

Parents Simon and Stephanie McKerrell are considering taking legal
action and took their child out of the nursery.

Simon said: "We, and at least three other families, will now be
removing our children.

"The response has been entirely procedural and inadequate, and
none of the key duty holders have addressed the central issue
which is the clear risk to very young children from asbestos
removal even within the legal framework for asbestos removal by
'qualified contractors'.

"There is ample evidence available across the UK of accidental
contaminations and health problems in situations where qualified
asbestos removal has been undertaken.

"Why on earth can the asbestos removal not be scheduled when the
children are on vacation and not on site?"

In a letter to the council he added: "I cannot see how, under any
circumstances, that the relatively small financial gains of
advancing this work by a couple of months, can in any way justify
putting very young children and staff at risk of mesothelioma,
asbestosis, other health problems and in many cases death."

Grace Irvine, the council's director of neighbourhood services,
said: "I understand that parents of nursery children at Holy
Family Primary School are concerned about the removal of asbestos
from the school building on Boghead Road, but I would like to
assure them that these essential works pose no threat to the
health and safety of the children or staff members.

"The council is legally responsible for the maintenance of the
school site and all materials will be removed in accordance with
the Control of Asbestos Regulations 2012 by Clarkes Environmental
Ltd, the approved contractor undertaking the work.

We have responded to Mr and Mrs McKerrell to address their
concerns and reassure them that works will be carried out in
accordance with health and safety legislation."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Pa. County Suffers from High Asbestos Deaths
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justin Heinze, writing for Perkiomen Valley Patch, reported that
the legacy of asbestos in the Philadelphia region is one of the
worst in the country, according to a new study.

Annual mortality rates from asbestos-triggered diseases are far
higher than the national average, the Environmental Working Group
Action Fund found.

Across the country, about 5 deaths out of every 100,000 are caused
from diseases associated with exposure to the deadly carcinogen,
the report shows.

In Delaware County, that rate jumps to an astronomic 12.9 deaths
per 100,000, where 1,078 of its residents have passed away from
asbestos illnesses from 1999 to 2013.

Other counties in the region that bear a larger than average
burden for asbestos-caused disease include:

   -- Montgomery County: 1,272 deaths (1999-2013), 10.8 annual
mortality rate

   -- Philadelphia County: 1,345 deaths (1999-2013), 5.9 annual
morality rate

   -- Bucks County: 747 deaths (1999-2013), 8.0 annual mortality
rate

   -- Chester County: 439 deaths (1999-2013), 6.1 annual mortality
rate

Pennsylvania ranks third among all 50 states for the most deaths
during that 14 year period, with more than 14,200 residents of the
Keystone State succumbing to diseases triggered by asbestos. Of
those, nearly 5,000 occurred in the five Pennsylvania counties
highlighted above.

Only California and Florida saw more residents die during that
same period of time, 1999-2013, from asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: French Court Limits Damages for Anxiety Injuries
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Benoit Charot, Esq. -- bcharot@reedsmith.com -- and Olivier
Rivoal, Esq. -- orivoal@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith, in an
article for JD Supra Business Advisor, wrote that in a judgment
rendered on 3 March 2015, the French Supreme Court limited
compensatory damages for injuries resulting from anxiety to
workers fulfilling the conditions laid down in Article 41 of the
Law of 23 December 1998 and the ministerial order registering an
establishment on the official list of establishments that
potentially entitles asbestos workers to claim early retirement
(ACAATA, or Allocation de cessation anticipee d'activite des
travailleurs de l'amiante).

As a result of this judgement, workers of non-classified
establishments launched a claim for compensation for injury
resulting from exposure, allegedly distinct from the injury caused
by anxiety, which would "necessarily be caused to the worker due
to the employer's failure to fulfil its due care".

These claims clearly sought to circumvent the French Supreme
Court's restrictive position, either because the workers worked in
a non-classified establishment, or because they did not meet the
requirements of the classification decision, or because the
establishment was ACAATA-classified after its official
receivership was ordered. This would result in the de facto non-
existence of compensation given the lack of cover for injury
caused by anxiety provided by the Association pour la gestion du
regime de Garantie des creances de Salaires (AGS), or wage
guarantee insurance scheme.

This issue was addressed in a judgement rendered by the French
Supreme Court on 27 January 2016. In this judgement, a company was
included on the list of establishments entitling workers to
benefit from the ACAATA, but only after the company's official
receivership. Therefore, because the AGS guarantee is triggered
only with respect to claims filed before the institution of
bankruptcy proceedings (French Labour Code, Art. L. 3253-8), these
workers' claims for compensatory damages for injury caused by
anxiety could not be considered.

Faced with this situation, the workers dropped their claims for
compensatory damages for anxiety. Instead, they filed claims for
"injuries distinct from the injury of anxiety resulting [from] the
failure to provide safety rather than from awareness of the
danger".

The French Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding that "a
worker's non-pecuniary damage resulting from the risk of
developing an illness caused by that worker's exposure to asbestos
consists only of those injuries caused by the anxiety, for which
compensation redresses all of the psychological injuries resulting
from the awareness of such risk". (French Supreme Court, Social
Division, 27 January 2016, no. 15-10640 et seq.)

The French Supreme Court therefore rejected compensation claims
for non-pecuniary damage "presented as distinct" from the injury
of anxiety, for workers claiming injuries resulting from exposure
to inhalation of asbestos dust.

This approach must be extended to non-classified establishments,
as has already been held by a number of courts of appeal. (Court
of Appeal of Bordeaux, Social Division, Section A, 20 May 2015,
no. 13/04422; Court of Appeal of Aix-en-Provence, 18th Division,
B, 3 July 2015, no. 13/22769; Court of Appeal of Chambery, Social
Division, 9 July 2015, no. 14/02860)

Indeed, since the French Supreme Court holds, on the one hand,
that the injury caused by anxiety redresses all the psychological
injuries suffered by a worker who was exposed to asbestos and, on
the other, limits compensation of this injury to workers of
classified establishments, the workers from establishments not
included on the list of those benefiting from the ACAATA scheme
can therefore not claim any damages.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Calif. Appeals Court Revives Exposure Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kennedy, writing for Law360, reported that a California
appellate court revived a Golden State man's lawsuit accusing a
local electrical company of exposing him to asbestos, finding that
the trial court erred in ruling that he could not claim negligence
if he was not physically impaired.

The three-judge panel said that the lower court should never have
ruled on, much less granted, Collins Electrical Co.'s summary
judgment motion, which was rendered moot when Robert J. Hanson
filed an amended complaint.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Chesterfield Electrician Dies of Mesothelioma
--------------------------------------------------------------
Derbyshire Times reported that the family of a former Chesterfield
electrician and engineer worker who died of an asbestos-related
cancer are appealing for his former colleagues to come forward
with information which will support their search for answers
regarding his death.

Father-of-two Norman Rhodes died aged 87 in 2015 but it was not
until after his death that his family discovered he had been
suffering with mesothelioma -- a cancer of the lining of the lung
caused by asbestos exposure decades earlier.

In the time before his death, Norman suffered from regular chest
infections, chest pains and also difficulty breathing. He worked
at a number of companies in the Chesterfield area, including at
Markham & Co between 1943 and 1953 as an apprentice maintenance
electrician, before moving to Chesterfield Royal where he worked
until 1975 as a maintenance electrician.

His daughter Christine said: "Nearly eight months on, the whole
family are still in complete shock and to know he died from an
asbestos-related illness is heart-breaking. We now need to know
how this happened."

Mr Rhodes' widow, Norma, and children, Andrew and Christine, have
instructed specialist asbestos-related disease lawyers at Irwin
Mitchell to help them find answers.

Helen England, a specialist asbestos related disease lawyer at
Irwin Mitchell, representing the family, said: "Mesothelioma is an
aggressive and incurable cancer and has devastating consequences
for sufferers and their loved ones. Sadly, despite employers
knowing how dangerous it is, many in the past did not do enough to
manage the risks of asbestos exposure to protect their employees."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Whitley Bay Grandad Diagnosed with Cancer
----------------------------------------------------------
Sonia Sharma, writing for Chronicle Live, reported that a former
teacher who watched his own father die of asbestos-related cancer
has spoken of his devastation at finding out he has the same
disease.

Adrian Starr was diagnosed with the terminal illness,
mesothelioma, in October last year and says his only hope now is
if medics are able to find a cure.

The 67-year-old, a dad of two and granddad of three, is a retired
teacher who worked at various schools across the North East, but
believes his exposure to the deadly fibres may date back as far as
the 1970s when he worked for one summer at the same paper mill as
his father in Kent.

Adrian, from Whitley Bay, said: "I was only there for a short
period, but that is where my father was exposed to asbestos dust.

"He was a maintenance engineer and worked in dirty, dusty areas
where pipes lagged with asbestos ran across the ceiling and
underneath the floor.

"I worked in a different area, but I remember often having tea
from a flask we'd brought from home sitting with my dad at his end
of the factory.

"I don't know whether the damage was done there or at one of the
schools where I worked."

Adrian spent the summer of 1970 at Albert E Reed and Company
Limited in Aylesford, Maidstone, while on holiday from doing a
geography degree at Newcastle University.

He went on to work as a teacher at King's School in Tynemouth from
1972 to 1981, Hirst High School in Ashington until 2003, at
schools in the Byker area until 2005 and Princess Louise School in
Blyth until 2008.

Adrian said he had never heard of mesothelioma until dad Reginald
was diagnosed. He died, aged 76, in 1981.

He added: "I first began to feel ill in July last year. I was
playing tennis with my grandson and I was so out of breath that I
couldn't run around.

"I'd always been an active sort of person and I'd never smoked,
but I found I just couldn't do the same things I used to. I
couldn't even walk up a hill without having to stop.

"At first I just assumed it was my age and I pushed it to the back
of my mind, but by the end of July it had become so bad that I
went to see the doctor.

"Things moved very quickly from that date and the diagnosis was
finally made in October."

Adrian, who is currently having chemotherapy, said: "I do feel a
sense of anger because the dangers of asbestos have been known
since the 1950s, yet it's only in the last 20 years or so that
Britain has got round to banning its use and in certain countries
it's still being mined.

"Treatment has improved so much. It was too late for my dad, but
now I am having chemotherapy with two of the most advanced drugs
in the cancer world. That's the only thing I have got to hang on
to."

He is now appealing for former colleagues who remember working
with him in areas where they may have been exposed to asbestos to
get in touch with his lawyer, David Thompson, of Newcastle-based
Slater and Gordon.

Mr Thompson said: "Mesothelioma is a terrible disease for which
sadly there is currently no cure.

"It has come as a huge shock to Adrian and his family who now
simply want to find out when and where it happened.

"It was a long time ago, but if anyone does remember working with
him in areas where there may have been asbestos we would urge them
to get in touch with us as soon as possible."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cal. App. Ruling Tarnishes Reputation
------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reported that the
head of an industry-sponsored group that advocates for legal
reform in California says a recent state appeals court decision
against Kaiser Gypsum Company Inc. -- awarding the plaintiffs
nearly $4 million in punitive damages alone -- continues to
tarnish the state's civil justice reputation.

Kim Stone, president of the Civil Justice Association of
California, said in an interview with Legal Newsline that the Jan.
21 decision by the First Appellate District, Division Four,
cements the state's title as the nation's No. 1 "Judicial
Hellhole."

"There are many, many asbestos cases being filed in California,"
Stone said. "They're usually complex, have multiple defendants,
multiple alleged exposures, etc. This case was no different.

"But in this case, it felt like the jury nailed them (Kaiser
Gypsum) a little bit more than what they really deserved."

Kaiser Gypsum, a former manufacturer of building products,
including drywall, joint compounds and cements, appealed to the
First Appellate District from a judgment entered in favor of
plaintiffs John Casey and Patricia Casey on claims for personal
injuries and loss of consortium stemming from John Casey's alleged
bystander exposure to a Kaiser Gypsum product containing asbestos
and subsequent diagnosis with mesothelioma -- a disease typically
associated with asbestos exposure.

Following a two-and-a-half-month-long trial, the jury returned
special verdicts finding Kaiser Gypsum 3.5 percent comparatively
at fault for the plaintiffs' injuries and awarding the plaintiffs
nearly $21 million in compensatory damages.

The jury, however, could not reach a verdict with respect to
whether Kaiser Gypsum acted with malice, oppression or fraud.

The trial court -- San Francisco Superior Court -- then ordered a
limited retrial on the issue of malice, oppression or fraud, and,
if necessary, the amount of punitive damages.

The second jury awarded the plaintiffs $20 million in punitive
damages, which the trial court reduced to just under $4 million.

On appeal, Kaiser Gypsum argued reversal was required because the
trial court committed evidentiary and instructional errors;
improperly limited the scope of the retrial; and miscalculated the
amount of settlement credits.

Kaiser Gypsum also claimed the evidence of malice or oppression
was insufficient to support an award of punitive damages.

On cross-appeal, the plaintiffs challenged the trial court's
reduction of the amount of punitive damages.

The First Appellate District not only upheld the nearly $4 million
in punitive damages, but also almost $1.6 million in compensatory
damages.

By definition, punitive damages -- sometimes referred to as
exemplary damages -- are those intended to reform or deter a
defendant and others from engaging in conduct similar to that
which formed the basis of the lawsuit. Punitive damages often are
awarded where compensatory damages are deemed an inadequate
remedy.

Justice Timothy Reardon authored the appeals court's 56-page
opinion. He was joined by Presiding Justice Ignazio Ruvolo and
Associate Justice Maria Rivera.

The panel seemed to believe the awards were warranted.

"For a 10-year period, Kaiser Gypsum took various precautions to
protect its employees. By contrast, Kaiser Gypsum did nothing to
inform its customers that its joint compound contained asbestos,
to provide guidance for minimizing risk to the tradesmen working
for them," Reardon explained in the court's decision. "As a
result, tradesmen, as well as bystanders like Mr. Casey, were
utterly unprotected, with no air monitoring, no respirators, and
no cleanup precautions."

The judge continued, "The evidence showed that as late as 1973,
Kaiser Gypsum refrained from giving its sales staff any warnings
to convey to customers about the known hazards of asbestos. We
conclude that the evidence was sufficient to show malice, that is,
despicable conduct coupled with a conscious disregard for the
safety of others."

Reardon, pointing to the company's compliance with the OSHA
regulations regarding its own workplace, said Kaiser Gypsum "fully
understood" that asbestos dust endangered workers.

"Indeed, although Kaiser Gypsum informed its employees that
breathing in asbestos dusts was hazardous to their health,
customers were unaware of such risks," the judge wrote.

Stone, after reading the appeals court's decision, countered that
the facts in the case didn't make Kaiser Gypsum look "particularly
reprehensible."

"It's kind of like a defendant's worst nightmare," she said of the
court's ruling.

"Here, (Kaiser) didn't feel like they were that responsible, so
they went to trial."

Unfortunately, that's why most companies choose to settle, Stone
said. Especially those that are the targets of asbestos
litigation, she said.

"California is home to a large number of asbestos cases. The San
Francisco and Los Angeles dockets are pretty heavy," Stone
explained. "We already have known problems with asbestos trust
issues, with the lack of transparency. Plus, California is the No.
1 'Judicial Hellhole.'

"We have a civil justice system that is found to be the least fair
in the country and decisions like this support that belief."

The state's courts ranked as the "most unfair" in the nation in
their handling of civil litigation, according to the American Tort
Reform Association's 2015-16 report.

"... A lengthy book could be written each year about the state's
irrepressibly plaintiff-friendly lawmakers and judges, and its
often preposterous lawsuits and sometimes incredible court
decisions that only encourage still more litigation," the report
states.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Only 3% of VI State Schools are Asbestos-Free
--------------------------------------------------------------
Timna Jacks and Henrietta Cook, writing for The Age, reported that
only 3 per cent of Victorian state schools were asbestos-free at
the start of last year, according to audits revealing the
prevalence of the toxic material.

But the Andrews Government insisted it would still meet its
election promise of eradicating the dangerous substance from all
schools by 2020.

It hasidentified high-risk asbestos in almost a third of the
state's schools and removed it.

An analysis of asbestos audits obtained by the Opposition through
Freedom of Information early last year, reveal that just 39 of
1440 audited schools -- or nearly 3 per cent -- were asbestos-
free.

Opposition education spokesman Nick Wakeling questioned whether
the government would fulfil its election pledge.

"After 15 months, Daniel Andrews still has no clear plan on how he
will deliver on this election commitment".

The Andrews government set aside $42 million in last year's budget
to demolish or replace asbestos-riddled portables, has almost
finished auditing all schools and will remove the material during
works to modernise 67 schools.

It has also rolled out a training program for school staff on how
to manage asbestos.

Education Minister James Merlino said the Opposition set aside "a
measly $7.5 million" to remove asbestos in schools in itslast
budget, and called the efforts "pathetic".

"I acknowledge there is no quick fix to this problem, but we won't
stick our heads in the sand like the former government, and are
working hard towards our goal of asbestos free schools."

But Bruce Armstrong, an emeritus professor at the University of
Sydney's school of public health, said it was unlikely students
and teachers would receive health benefits from the removal of
asbestos cement products.

He chaired a committee in Western Australia which concluded there
was no material hazard from the asbestos sheeting that is
prevalent in schools.

But he acknowledged it was an emotive issue and its removal could
"alleviate public anxiety".

He said people struggled to distinguish between workplace exposure
to asbestos which led to deaths and asbestos prevalent in everyday
life.

Removing asbestos cement products could in fact aggravate the
situation by exposing workers, he said.

The education department said experts worked out of school hours
to remove the substance, and restricted access to staff and
students.

Footscray Primary School parent Kristin Roberts received a nasty
surprise when she reached into her daughter's schoolbag to look
for notes last August.

A piece of asbestos coated in grey powder was sitting in the front
pocket.

Weeks earlier, her 10-year-old daughter Halle had been collecting
"pretty rocks" in the school year.

She handed the material to the school's principal and it was sent
for testing where it was confirmed as asbestos.

Asbestos was found on the school's oval four times during an 18
month period, leading to the area being fenced off by the
Education Department.

It has now been removed and Ms Roberts said the principal had been
very understanding.

"I think it needs to be removed as quickly as possible because
children should not be bringing home asbestos," she said.

   * What makes asbestos toxic? Asbestos is not generally
considered dangerous unless it is exposed and its fibres can be
inhaled.

   * Is all asbestos toxic? Asbestos poses varying degrees of
threat. High-priority asbestos may be friable or crumble easily
and can be located in a boiler, fan or in pipework and require
immediate removal. Asbestos in less accessible areas, may simply
need to be sealed off and inspected regularly.

   * How much will it cost? So far, the government has spent $42
million.

   * What was promised? Labor promised to remove asbestos from
1200 schools by 2020 under an ambitious $100 million plan.

   * How is asbestos removed? Asbestos contractors removing the
substance restrict access to asbestos, or remove the substance
altogether outside of school hours.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Leads Filings Decline in EDPA
-------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reported
that overall criminal and civil case filings in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania have been on a
downward slope since 2010, while in the Middle and Western
districts there hasn't been much fluctuation, according to the
most current court statistics.

The statistics range from June 2010 to June 2015. Throughout that
period, the Eastern District had the highest amount of filings,
while the Middle and Western districts had thousands fewer cases
than their eastern counterpart.

On June 30, 2010, the Eastern District had 54,140 filings. On the
same day in 2011, the number had dropped to 48,942 filings; in
2012 there were 37,983; 2013 had the steepest drop in filings,
dipping to 11,723; there was a slight bump in filings in 2014 to
12,080; and in the last recorded year, 2015, the number dropped to
10,596 filings.

Eastern District Clerk of Courts Michael Kunz attributed the
dropoff to a decrease in multidistrict litigation filings year
after year, especially in asbestos litigation.

The Middle District and Western District, which have far fewer
case filings compared to the Eastern District, have had comparable
numbers to each other and have not seen a drastic spike or decline
in filings.

Starting again in June 2010, the Middle District had 3,502
filings; 3,354 in 2011; the number dropped to 3,082 in 2012, with
its most significant uptick occurring in 2013 with 3,800 filings.
In 2014, the number dropped again to 3,221, and then in 2015,
there were 3,126 filings.

In the Western District there were 3,097 filings in 2010; in 2011
there were 3,084; in 2012 there were 3,160; in 2013 there were
3,313; in 2014 there were 3,336; and in 2015 there were 3,307.

The trend across districts applied to pending cases as well. From
year to year in the Eastern District, the number of pending cases
continued to drop from 1,843 in 2010, to 1,177 the following year,
to 760, to 519, to 515, and finally to 391 in 2015.

The Middle and Western districts stayed largely flat. In the
Middle District, the number of pending cases in 2010 was 513; 525
in 2011; 519 in 2012; jumping to 632 in 2013; dropping to 564 in
2014; and leveling off at 552 in 2015.

In the Western District, the number of pending cases for 2010 and
2011 held at 287. In 2012 the number was 278, dropping by one to
277 in 2013. In 2014, there were 270 pending cases and in 2015
there were 262.

Last year, there were 1,331 civil cases over three years old in
the Eastern District; the number decreased markedly from 8,195 in
2010. Last year in the Middle District there were 193 such cases
and in the Western District there were 80.

The Eastern and Western districts are currently operating with
judicial vacancies; three in the Western and one in the Eastern.
Four nominees are currently going through the U.S. Senate to be
confirmed to the court.

Those candidates are Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge John
Milton Younge, nominated to fill a seat on the Eastern District
bench; and Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas Judge Robert
John Colville, U.S. Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter and
Butler County Court of Common Pleas Judge Marilyn Jean Horan, all
nominated to fill seats on the Western District bench.

Baxter and Horan were OK'd by the Senate Judiciary Committee
during an executive session Jan. 28. But the committee skipped
over Younge and Colville.

The Eastern District is home to 18 multidistrict litigations,
while the Middle and Western handle one and two, respectively.
The Middle District is home to the Shop-Vac Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation and the Western District has the Maxim
Integrated Products Patent Litigation as well as the Community
Bank of Northern Virginia Mortgage Lending Practices Litigation.
The Eastern District is host to multiple pharmaceutical MDLs,
including those surrounding drugs like Avandia, Tylenol and
Zoloft.

In October of last year, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation gave the go-ahead to centralize all claims stemming
from the May 2015 derailment of Amtrak Train 188 in federal court
in Philadelphia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined Over Waste Dump in Walking Trail
-----------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Hough, writing for The Advertiser, reported that a man has
been fined and apologised to a judge after admitting to illegally
dumping tonnes of asbestos-contaminated waste along an Adelaide
Hills walking trail.

Geoffrey Michael Ashurst, 29, was convicted of the unlawful
disposing of almost 65 tonnes of household waste and dirt on the
Kidman Trail, near his property in the Adelaide Hills.

The Environmental, Resources and Development Court heard the waste
included soil, fibreglass sheeting, bricks, PVC piping, tyres,
milk packaging, aluminium guttering, stone and concrete.

The waste, some of which was contaminated with asbestos, was
dumped on a public reserve on February 7 last year, at Pyrites
Road, and Dawes Bridge, McIntyre Road, Dawesley, near the South
Eastern Freeway, east of Hahndorf.

A neighbour became suspicious of Ashurst while he excavated and
removed the waste, because he returned with an empty truck quicker
than it took to return to a nearby depot.

Scott Edwards, a professional photographer, followed his
neighbour, witnessed the dumping and contacted Mt Barker council,
which subsequently fined Ashurst.

But before the expiation was issued, the council called in the
Environment Protection Agency, which inspected the area and found
four dump sites.

Ashurst, who earns $100,000 a year driving concrete trucks for BHP
at its Olympic Dam mine, near Roxby Downs, in the state's far
north, then paid the $13,000 clean-up bill, forcing him to delay
building his house.

At his first court appearance, the father of two admitted two
counts of unlawful disposal of waste. He faced a maximum penalty
of a $120,000 fine, two years' jail or both.

Ashurst, who is currently living in a rented property at Nairne
with his fiancee while they build on his Dawesley property, was
fined $7200, ordered to pay a $160 victims' of crime levy as well
as $800 prosecution costs.

In published reasons, Judge Jack Costello dismissed claims the
offences were trivial after the court heard the dumping occurred
because Ashurst could not afford waste fees.

He accepted Ashurst's good character and references that painted
him as a hardworking, trustworthy employee and loving family man
who was unlikely to reoffend.

But he added: "As such, they stand in stark contrast to the
somewhat cavalier attitude to the law and his responsibilities to
the environment, which he displayed when committing these
offences.

"(He) was aware that the method he used to dispose of the waste
was contrary to law and his actions demonstrated a blatant
disregard for (it)."

Ashurst then stood up in court and apologised to the judge for
wasting his time, triggering praise from the judge, who added: "I
would not expect I would see you here or in any other court and I
trust that be the case. I wish you all the best for the future."

Ashurst declined to comment outside court.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Goodyear Fails to Show Asbestos Needed in Brakes
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kat Greene, writing for Law360, reported that Goodyear's role as a
government contractor can't get it out of a California state court
lawsuit alleging the company was partially responsible for the
cancer death of a man who was exposed to asbestos on his aircraft
and auto mechanic father's clothes, a federal judge ruled.

The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. had tried to shake off the suit by
the family of John Finazzo by saying it was merely following
government specifications and had no say in whether asbestos was
used in its equipment or how it warned workers about the asbestos
in its products, court records show.

U.S. District Judge David O. Carter rejected the theory, remanding
the suit to state court and finding that Goodyear hadn't produced
enough evidence to show that the government and not the company
chose the materials it used in making brakes for Army National
Guard aircraft worked on by Finazzo's father.

Goodyear had cited an expert's report that said the aircraft parts
were required to follow government specifications, but Judge
Carter found that the statements weren't enough to kill the suit,
and that a long list of specifications filed to the court was
insufficient.

"These statements are too vague and conclusory to amount to a
showing of reasonably precise specifications," Judge Carter said.
"These exhibits contain at least hundreds of pages. It is not the
court's task to 'scour the record' in search of competent
evidence."

Finazzo filed suit in Alameda County Superior Court in December
2014 alleging Goodyear and a slew of other companies were to blame
for his mesothelioma acquired when his father would come home
after working on the brakes of aircraft and on friends'
automobiles, but several companies had the suit removed to federal
court in January 2015, court records show.

Finazzo died of complications of the aggressive cancer in March
2015, leaving the suit to be carried on by his wife, Lorna Walek,
and three minor children, court records show.

In January the family filed to have the suit moved back to state
court, but Goodyear resisted, saying the company was acting as a
federal officer or extension of the government on the base where
Finazzo's father worked, court records show.

The company didn't have much say in whether asbestos was used in
its products, because the materials it used were subject to a
"thorough" review by the military and all specifically approved,
Goodyear argued.

And addressing claims that it failed to warn Finazzo's father of
the dangers of wearing asbestos home, the company contended that
it was bound by the Air Force's requirements for labeling and had
followed those.

The family responded that Goodyear's evidence "at best shows that
the Air Force required Goodyear to supply brakes that met certain
performance requirements," but that there was no evidence that the
military required the company to use asbestos in its brakes, court
records show.

Judge Carter said that Goodyear's expert report -- called the
McCaffery Report -- on the materials used was too vague to show
that Goodyear had no say in whether asbestos was used and how it
was labeled in the workplace. And the company hadn't gone far
enough to pull what evidence it did present into the court's
spotlight, he said.

"Simply stating, '[t]he McCaffery Report includes voluminous
specifications,' and that '[t]here is no reasonable argument that
these are not detailed or precise,' is insufficient, particularly
given that defendants merely direct the court to Exhibits R
through V of the McCaffery Report without any further
explanation," Judge Carter said.

Representatives for the parties didn't immediately respond to
requests for comment.

Finazzo's family is represented by Carole M. Bosch, Ian Wilfred
Alido Rivamonte, Justin Bosl, Michael Thomas Stewart and Ted
William Pelletier of Kazan McClain Satterley & Greenwood PLC.

Goodyear is represented by Michael J. Pietrykowski, Christopher D.
Strunk, Deborah A. Smith, Kathryn J. LaFevers and Robert A. Rich
of Gordon & Rees LLP and Philip F. Downey and William D. Kloss Jr.
of Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease LLP.

The cases are John J. Finazzo et al. v. The Boeing Co. et al.,
case number 5:15-cv-00309, in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California and Finazzo v. 3M Co. et al., case
number RG14752443, in the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Alameda.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: U.S. Chamber Urges Tenn. Gov. to Sign HB2234
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa A. Rickard, president of the U.S. Chamber Institute for Legal
Reform (ILR), made the following statement about the Tennessee
legislature's passage of a bill to curb "double dip" claims
against asbestos bankruptcy trusts and in the tort system, and
urging Governor Bill Haslam to sign HB 2234 into law:

"The Tennessee legislature's new bill aimed at stopping
plaintiffs' lawyer 'double dipping' -- filing inconsistent claims
with multiple trusts and in the tort system for the same claimant
-- is a significant step to combat asbestos lawsuit fraud and
abuse. This bill will ensure that companies and bankruptcy trusts
both pay their fair share of recoveries to claimants. It will also
help Tennessee manufacturing companies and protect jobs by
ensuring that no more companies are bankrupted by abusive claims.

"Tennessee can join a growing number of states including Arizona,
Ohio, Oklahoma, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin that have
recently enacted such laws to bring transparency to the asbestos
compensation system.

"We especially commend Representative Jon Lundberg and Senator
John Stevens for their tireless work on this bill, and urge
Governor Haslam to swiftly sign it into law."

ILR seeks to promote civil justice reform through legislative,
political, judicial, and educational activities at the national,
state, and local levels.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce is the world's largest business
federation representing the interests of more than 3 million
businesses of all sizes, sectors, and regions, as well as state
and local chambers and industry associations.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Fibrosis Deaths in UK May be Due to Asbestos
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia Inacio, writing for Pulmonary Fibrosis New Today,
reported that in a a recent study titled "UK asbestos imports and
mortality due to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis," researchers
highlighted the need for more accurate and specific methods of
diagnosing and separating asbestosis from idiopathic pulmonary
fibrosis. The study was published in the journal Occupational
Medicine.

The World Health Organization considers a history of asbestos
usage and exposure to be a significant risk factor for mortality
due to mesothelioma and asbestosis (a chronic interstitial lung
disease that may develop in people exposed to asbestos for
prolonged periods). In the United Kingdom, mortality due to
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis has sharply increased in the last
decades, for reasons that largely remain elusive. Interestingly,
this increase is associated with a similar trend in an established
asbestos-related disease, mesothelioma.

By comparing the mortality rates between asbestosis and idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis, the research team investigated the
relationship between mortality and national asbestos imports.
Researchers also analyzed the data for mesothelioma deaths in
England and Wales, and the history of U.K. asbestos imports. They
analyzed each set of data separately and how it correlated with
asbestos imports 48 years earlier.

Researchers observed a significant linear relationship between
reported deaths of both men and women each year and historic U.K.
asbestos imports. This linear relation was detected in
mesothelioma mortality in both genders. This trend, however, was
only observed in males due to asbestosis (no significant rise in
female asbestosis mortality was observed during the period
analyzed, as well as no significant association with asbestos
imports).

Moreover, the team observed that mortality in men and women due to
idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis was increasing in parallel with that
of mesothelioma. This number also significantly correlated with
previous U.K. asbestos imports.

In conclusion, the results were in agreement with the hypothesis
that a proportion of the increase in pulmonary fibrosis, currently
diagnosed as idiopathic, may be associated with a previous
exposure to asbestos. Therefore, a significant proportion of
asbestosis is potentially being misclassified as idiopathic
pulmonary fibrosis, and increased effort is needed for a
differential diagnosis of the conditions.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Asbestos Should Be Part of Ajax Studies
--------------------------------------------------------
Daryl Abraham, in a letter to News Kamloops, said when asbestos
was still being mined, two major asbestos companies were
conducting exploration activities in the Kamloops area.  Both
Canadian Johns-Manville and Asbestos Corp. had offices in Kamloops
during the late 1960's.

Those asbestos exploration activities shut down when health
concerns related to asbestos (mesothelioma, asbestosis, lung
cancer) resulted in most products using asbestos being banned.
Asbestos occurs in several forms including chrysotile ( which
occurs in serpentine rock ) and actinolite. The Ajax application
mentions the presence of both serpentine rock and actinolite in
Appendix 3 , Geochemical characterization study.  Actinolite is
mentioned 68 times and serpentine is mentioned 35 times.

In light of the fact that two major asbestos companies had
targeted the Kamloops area for asbestos  exploration and the
admitted presence of serpentine and actinolite in the rock that
Ajax will be blasting, it seems more than likely that the dust
produced by the Ajax blasting could release asbestos into the air.
The key issue is that the skilled laboratory analysis required to
identify the dangerous forms of asbestos have not been done. Why
has asbestos not been included in the non-target minerals for
study,  particularly in light of its extreme detriment to public
health?

What is particularly shameful is that the Ajax proponent has not
been required to disclose complete original core data, including
the assay techniques used in deriving the data.  Interpretations
of the core data (such as selected samples) is not sufficient as
it is possible to skew the selective data and hide the real risks
to human health and other environmental victims.

The public should have the right to know what is in the rock Ajax
will be blasting.  It is not a transparent process without that
assay data, particularly when there is the possibility of asbestos
release to the air.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: REINSW Calls for Mandatory Asbestos Disclosure
---------------------------------------------------------------
Phil McCarroll, writing for Your Investment Property, reported
that the disclosure of whether asbestos is located within a
property should become mandatory in New South Wales according to
one of the state's peak real estate bodies.

The Real Estate Institute of New South Wales (REINSW) has called
for the state government to introduce an Asbestos Act, which would
result in a specific government agency tasked with developing a
state-wide plan to manage and remove the material.

This would include requiring property owners to disclose to any
potential buyers or tenants whether a property contains any form
of asbestos.

REINSW chief executive officer Tim McKibbin said the move would
allow buyers to make informed decisions about an issue that could
seriously affect their lives.

"Asbestos is a potentially fatal issue and we think there should
be a report presented before somebody purchases or rents a
property that outlines whether it contains asbestos or not,"
McKibbin said.

"In our opinion people who are making a decision that could have
serious health repercussions in the future should have all the
relevant information in front of them. If you want to sell a house
that has a swimming pool you have to be able to show that it's
compliant and we think there should be a similar requirement for
asbestos," he said.

According to NSW Fair Trading, property owners will be required to
disclose in the future if a property contains loose-fill asbestos,
a type of crushed asbestos used for insulation, but McKibbin
believes the government should go further than that.

"In instances where asbestos has been used in building products it
is effectively safe until it's disturbed and the fibres get into
the air, but people should be warned that they, or somebody else
could be in danger if they decide to cut into a wall or something.

"I've known people who have been absolutely set on buying a
property only to decide not to when a building report comes back
and says it has something like a structural issue that could cause
problems down the track and they should have that same opportunity
if there's asbestos present."

While he agrees that requiring people to disclose the presence of
asbestos in a property could hurt a property's resale value or its
attractiveness as rental accommodation, McKibbin believes it's a
necessary step.

"I do feel sorry for those people who may have unknowingly bought
a house with asbestos in it and would see some of its value
decrease, but I don't think people should just be able to keep
passing any potential problem onto others. Asbestos is too big of
an issue for that and at some point we have to say we're going to
really do something about it.

"If we require people to disclose asbestos it's really going to
help us map out where it is and that means we'll be able to make
better decisions on how to deal with the problem."

NSW Fair Trading is currently operating the Loose-fill Asbestos
Implementation Taskforce, which is offering free testing to owners
of property built before 1980 in 28 local government areas where
it is believed loose-fill asbestos was used as insulation.

Owner of properties identified to be containing loose-fill
asbestos are then able to participate in a voluntary buyback
problem.

Whether you are looking to buy your first home, move home,
refinance, or invest in property, a mortgage broker can help.
Access loans from all the major lenders, get help with paperwork -
plus there is no charge for this service. Get help from a local
mortgage broker.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford Motor to Face Asbestos Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
Heidi Turner, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reported that a
San Francisco family who filed an asbestos lawsuit against Ford
Motor Co. has been given the go ahead to continue their lawsuit
against Ford and two other defendants. A state appeals court
reinstated the lawsuit finding that the family provided enough
evidence that a jury should decide whether or not Ford was
responsible for the victim's asbestos exposure, which resulted in
his developing mesothelioma.

Gene Lepore's asbestos story began in 1974, when he was hired as a
civilian trainer at the Coast Guard base in Port Hueneme,
according to SF Gate (2/9/16). During that time, Lepore's duties
involved regularly stopping at a vehicle repair shop to oversee
the work of mechanics. It was at the vehicle repair shop that he
was allegedly exposed to asbestos from vehicle brakes.

In 2010, Lepore died of mesothelioma, a fatal lung condition
linked to asbestos exposure. Before he died, however, Lepore filed
a lawsuit against Ford and other defendants, alleging his exposure
to asbestos in their products resulted in his mesothelioma. In
2012, that lawsuit was dismissed, with the Superior Court Judge
finding that the plaintiffs did not prove that Lepore was in the
vicinity when Ford products, or the products of other defendants,
were being repaired. But an appeals court recently disagreed with
that finding and reinstated the lawsuit against Ford, Navistar and
Kelsy-Hayes. The dismissal of the suit against Gibbs International
was upheld.

Lawsuits were reportedly initially filed against more than 12
companies, with many of those already reaching settlements with
Geraldine Lepore and her children.

Asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral that is used in a
variety of products, including insulation for pipes, vehicle
brakes and building materials. It has been linked to mesothelioma,
asbestosis and lung cancer. According to OSHA (Occupational Safety
& Health Administration), there is no safe level of asbestos
exposure and use of asbestos is regulated by OSHA and the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency).

"Asbestos exposures as short in duration as a few days have caused
mesothelioma in humans," OSHA notes. "Every occupational exposure
to asbestos can cause injury of disease; every occupational
exposure to asbestos contributes to the risk of getting an
asbestos related disease."

Workers who have been exposed to asbestos as part of their job
duties have filed lawsuits against their employers and the makers
of products that contain asbestos, alleging they were not properly
warned about the risks of asbestos and were not provided proper
protection from asbestos exposure.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: PEI Schools Found with Asbestos in Ceiling
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reported that low levels of asbestos have been found in
the ceiling tiles of seven schools in Prince Edward Island.

The schools are Three Oaks High School, East Wiltshire
Intermediate School, Eliot River Elementary School, St.Louis
Elementary School, Glen Stewart Primary School, Central Queens
Elementary School and Queen Elizabeth Elementary.

English Language School Board acting superintendent Bob Andrews
said inspections were carried out in 28 schools after low levels
of asbestos in the tiles were found at Three Oaks High School.

Crews found the asbestos while doing preparation work for
renovations at the high school.

The 28 schools where ceiling tiles had been installed before 1990
were inspected and the tiles in seven schools tested positive.

"We have been assured by Health Canada that there is no
significant health risk if the materials containing asbestos, in
this case our acoustic lay-in tiles, are properly managed and
maintained in good condition," said Andrews.

"We have asked staff not to move or alter any ceiling tiles and if
we do need to move or alter any ceiling tiles that we would have
authorized staff who are trained to do so, to do any of the
alterations or moving of them," he said.

He said if that protocol is followed, there is no risk to students
or staff.

Letters were sent home to parents advising them of the situation.

Andrews said the school board is working with other government
departments to develop the best course of action.

The situation will be monitored to determine if leaving the tiles
will be OK, or if the tiles will eventually need to be replaced.

Andrews said if the board felt there was a risk to students,
further measures would be taken.

According to Health Canada's website "breathing in asbestos fibres
can cause cancer and other diseases," but the site also says,
"There are no significant health risks if materials containing
asbestos in your home are: tightly bound in products and are in
good condition, sealed behind walls and floorboards, isolated in
an attic, left undisturbed."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Grandma of 3 Diagnosed with Mesothelioma
---------------------------------------------------------
Hannah Rodger, writing for Evening Times, reported that Jane
Capaldi has planned spending her retirement looking after her
grandchildren, making up for lost time away from them having
worked across Scotland and abroad as a social worker.

But her life came to a standstill in June last year when the 63-
year-old was diagnosed with mesothelioma, a debilitating form of
cancer usually caused by exposure to asbestos fibres.

The grandmother-of-three from Kilbirnie had developed a cough that
wouldn't go away, but she had dismissed it initially until she
visited her GP.

She was referred to specialists at Crosshouse and the Golden
Jubilee hospitals where she had a biopsy and spent four days in a
ward after tests detected something was seriously wrong.

Jane said: "The doctor just put it bluntly. He told me I had a
serious illness called mesothelioma.

"He wrote it down. . . I was absolutely floored.

"I was told I'd never be able to go on holiday. I was absolutely
gobsmacked.

"I still am to be honest. . .I had a full life until this.

"I was told I would never work again, it put a stop to
everything."

Jane believes she was exposed to the deadly chemical during her
time working at W&J Knox, a fishing net factory in Kilbirnie, or
at J&P Coats, a weaving factory in Paisley, when she was younger.

However, when she first went to the doctor she was asked about her
husband's work in the shipyards, not her own employment.

Jane explained: "The doctor was talking about my ex-husband
Domenic, and that he had worked in the shipyards, and asked me if
I had ever shook his clothes.

"I told him I wasn't married to him at the time - he worked there
in 1963 doing an apprenticeship. I was only 10.

"Nothing was mentioned about asbestos but then it dawned on me,
that was what he was talking about."

Jane said she is still coming to terms with her illness, and has
accepted the fact her plans for later life will no longer be
possible.

She said: "It has totally changed my life.

"I had intended when I retired to go down to London, look after my
grandchildren for my two daughters and help them with the
childcare.

"That's now gone...I couldn't go down to London now with all the
fumes.

"I was signing up for voluntary service overseas, that's gone.

"Walking through town is difficult, I can't breathe with the
fumes. It's embarrassing.

"You get phlegm and things, people are looking at you as if there
is something wrong...It really takes its toll."

The former social worker has been helped by Glasgow charity
Clydeside Action on Asbestos to cope with her diagnosis, and she
wants to raise more awareness about the fact women may have been
exposed to the toxic fibres in their own work places.

Jane said: "Women have always worked and there should be more
recognition of that, and that women can be exposed to asbestos in
their own right.

"Women have worked in these places, it's not always from their
husband's overalls that they are exposed to asbestos. Even in
typically male industries, women worked in

Phyllis Craig, the CEO of Clydeside Action on Asbestos, is backing
Jane's call for more awareness and said recognition that women
could have been exposed at work has an impact on legal challenges
they may pursue.

The charity helps people who have been diagnosed with asbestos-
related conditions, and campaigns for changes in the law and
policy to help those affected.

Phyllis said: "When GPs consider an asbestos-related condition to
bear in mind that women didn't always get an asbestos condition
from washing overalls and so forth.

"They have always worked.

"We would like them to be considered in terms of the person who
worked directly with asbestos.

"It can be detrimental to their civil case for compensation if
it's recorded that their exposure is indirect, i.e. from their
husband's overalls.

"It needs to be recognised that women can have exposure in their
own right."

The Evening Times contacted both W&J Knox and J&P Coats but they
did not respond to our request for comment.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Man Fined for Potentially Exposing Public
----------------------------------------------------------
Builder & Engineer reported that Peter Wade has been fined more
than GBP250 for potentially exposing members of the public to
asbestos fibres during the refurbishment of a residential property
on South Parade, Croft on Tees, County Durham.

Darlington Magistrates' Court heard how Wade of Staindrop, was
converting an integrated garage into a bedroom at the property.
While he was visiting the property for a quote, the home owners
mentioned the possibility of asbestos in the garage.

While working in the loft space of the garage, the garage ceiling
collapsed and Peter Wade proceeded to pull the remainder of the
ceiling down, break it up and place in waste bags. It was not
until he removed the material that he discovered it contained
asbestos.

An investigation by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) into the
incident which occurred on March 14, 2015, found that Peter Wade
failed to ensure an asbestos survey was carried out prior to any
work taking place.

Peter Nigel Wade (trading as P.N. Wade Building and Civil
Engineering contractor), of Winston Road, Staindrop, County
Durham, pleaded guilty to breaching Regulation 5(1) of the Control
of Asbestos Regulations 2012, and was fined GBP267 and ordered to
pay costs of GBP1,765.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Louisiana Court Remands Action
-----------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that a Louisiana federal court
has remanded an asbestos action, concluding that the plaintiffs
had presented enough evidence to show that its claims against one
of two in-state defendants were viable.

In the March 3 ruling, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Louisiana did find, however, that the plaintiffs had
not demonstrated that they could recover on their claims against
the second defendant.

Plaintiff Julius David Burke originally file in the Louisiana
Civil District Court for the Orleans Parish.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ind. Product Liability Act Unconstitutional
------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Liljestrand, Esq. -- cliljestrand@hinshawlaw.com -- at
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, in an article for JD Supra Business
Advisor, wrote that on March 2, 2016, Justice Brent E. Dickson of
the Indiana Supreme Court ruled on three appeals involving the
constitutionality of the Indiana Product Liability Act statute of
repose. Myers v. Crouse-Hinds Division of Cooper Industries, Inc.
2016 WL 825111 (Ind. 2016). Plaintiffs were exposed to materials
containing asbestos while working as electricians for multiple
decades, and they brought suit against several defendants after
developing mesothelioma. In a 3-2 decision, the majority found
Section 2 of Chapter 3 of the Indiana Product Liability Act
unconstitutional and that the statute of repose did not bar the
plaintiffs' claims.

The principal issue was whether plaintiffs' claims were barred
under AlliedSignal, Inc. v. Ott, 785 N.E.2d 1068 (Ind. 2003), in
which the Indiana Supreme Court interpreted Sections 1 and 2 of
the Indiana Product Liability Act's Chapter 3. Section 1 applies
to product liability actions generally and contains a statute of
repose, while Section 2 applies to asbestos-related actions and
does not contain a statute of repose. Ott held that Section 2
applies only to asbestos claims against defendants who both mined
and sold raw asbestos, leaving those who only sell asbestos-
containing products within the ambit of Section 1. Plaintiffs
urged the court to abandon that interpretation and follow the
interpretation presented by the Ott dissent. The court, however,
declined to alter Ott's holdings with respect to statutory
construction, finding it settled under the doctrines of stare
decisis and legislative acquiescence.

Plaintiffs' key argument was that the statute of repose
provisions, as explicated in Ott, violated two provisions of the
Indiana Constitution: its Rights to Remedy Clause, Article 1,
Section 12, and its Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause,
Article 1, Section 23. The court primarily addressed the Equal
Privileges and Immunities Clause challenge.

In Ott, the court upheld Section 1 and Section 2 against this
challenge, finding that the statutory distinction between asbestos
victims and other victims under the product liability act did not
harm asbestos victims because they are either subject to the same
Section 1 statute of repose as non-asbestos victims, or have an
exception under Section 2. Based on its finding that "asbestos
plaintiffs do not suffer any cognizable harm" as compared to non-
asbestos plaintiffs, the Ott court declined relief without
addressing whether the disparate treatment constituted a
constitutionally prohibited disparate privilege.

The court acknowledged that while the case at bar was factually
similar to Ott, plaintiffs' claim was a different constitutional
challenge that required new analysis. Instead of comparing
asbestos victims to non-asbestos victims, plaintiffs compared two
separate types of asbestos victims. They argued that, given Ott's
statutory interpretation, Section 2 draws a constitutionally
impermissible distinction between asbestos plaintiffs who were
injured by defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos and
asbestos plaintiffs who were injured by defendants outside that
category.

The court stated that, in analyzing an Equal Privileges and
Immunities Clause challenge, a disparate classification alleged by
a challenger warrants review as long as the alleged classes have a
sufficient basis in the challenged legislation. The court stated
that the classifications identified by plaintiffs had such a
legislative basis. Section 2 is titled "Asbestos-related actions"
and governs those actions brought by asbestos victims. Because the
legislation "applies only to product liability actions against. .
.persons who mined and sold commercial asbestos," Section 2 is
prescribing disparate treatment for the classes at issue. Those
asbestos victims who are injured by defendants who did not both
mine and sell raw asbestos must sue those defendants under Section
1, where they may be barred by the statute of repose, while the
asbestos victims who are injured by defendants who did both mine
and sell raw asbestos may sue those defendants under Section 2,
where no statute of repose applies.

The court quoted its decision in Collins v. Day, 644 N.E.2d 72
(Ind. 1994), to articulate the standard for determining whether a
statute complies with Indiana's Equal Privileges and Immunities
Clause. To satisfy the constitutional requirement: (1) the
disparate treatment accorded by the legislation must be reasonably
related to inherent characteristics which distinguish the
unequally treated classes, and (2) the preferential treatment must
be uniformly applicable and equally available to all persons
similarly situated.

Under the first element, the disparate treatment must be
reasonably related to the inherent differences that distinguish
the unequally treated classes. The court found that no such
characteristic existed in this case. The disparately treated
classes were identically comprised of asbestos victims, and
Section 2 did not differentiate between them based on any single
characteristic of theirs - inherent or otherwise. Thus, because
the disparate treatment was not reasonably related to an inherent
difference of the unequally treated classes, the court found that
the statute violates the first Collins factor.

The court then continued its analysis under the second element,
which requires any preferential treatment to be uniformly
applicable and equally available to all persons similarly
situated. The court found that the two classes of asbestos victims
were similarly situated (both being victims of asbestos illness or
disease), yet only one of them (the class seeking damages from
defendants who both mined and sold raw asbestos) was completely
excepted from the statute of repose. Thus, the court found that
Section 2 created a preference and established an inequality among
a class of citizens whom are equally meritorious, violating the
second Collins factor. Therefore, the court held that the unequal
treatment under Section 2 violates the Equal Privileges and
Immunities Clause of Article 1, Section 23 of the Indiana
Constitution on two separate and independent bases.

The court noted that, in crafting Section 2, the General Assembly
expressly included a non-severability clause, and because it found
Section 2 partially unconstitutional, it must invalidate all of
Section 2. Therefore plaintiffs' claims all fell under the statute
of repose provision in Section 1.

The court stated that it interpreted Section 1 in Covalt v. Carey
Canada, Inc., 543 N.E.2d 382 (Ind. 1989), and held that a
plaintiff may bring suit within two years after discovering a
disease and its cause, notwithstanding that the discovery was made
more than ten years after the last exposure to the product that
caused the disease. This holding, however, was limited to cases
where an injury to a plaintiff is caused by a disease which may
have been contracted as a result of protracted exposure to a
foreign substance. As stated in Covalt, the "statute of repose
[is] inapplicable to cases involving protracted exposure to an
inherently dangerous foreign substance which is visited into the
body."

The court acknowledged that Ott had partially overruled Covalt,
but the overruling was predicated on the intervening enactment of
Section 2. Because it was finding Section 2 void due to its
partial unconstitutionality, the court held that Covalt is
restored as the controlling precedent, and as a result, the
Product Liability Act statute of repose does not apply to cases
involving protracted exposure to an inherently dangerous foreign
substance. Thus, applying this standard, the court found that the
Indiana Product Liability Act's statute of repose provision did
not apply to bar plaintiff's claims for asbestos injury and
illness.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Widow Alleges Dozens Caused Husband's Death
------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that
the widow of a man exposed to asbestos throughout his working life
is suing more than two dozen companies, alleging negligence among
other counts.

Marguerite Lenoir, individually and as special administrator of
the estate of Randolph Lenoir, filed the lawsuit Jan. 13 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against CBS Corporation, Illinois
Central Railroad Co., Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., and 3M Company,
among other listed defendants, as well as Metropolitan Life
Insurance Co.

According to the complaint, Randolph Lenoir, worked as a milk
truck driver and then a carman at Illinois Central Railroad, where
he came into contact with asbestos. He also was exposed through is
father and his brother, who both worked at Illinois Central
Railroad, the suit says.

At various times during his working life, the lawsuit states,
Lenoir was exposed to and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
large amounts of asbestos fibers. His exposure occurred at
different times and not necessarily throughout his entire career
or specific to any one defendant, the suit says.

The complaint alleges Metropolitan Life is guilty of conspiracy.
The suit says Met Life was among a group of companies that
conducted research about the health risks of asbestos but the
study was altered, and Met Life knew it. Further, the lawsuit
states, the defendant tried to discredit scientists working on the
study and also actively suppressed publication about the dangers
of asbestos, the suit alleges.

On Aug. 13, 2012, Lenior was diagnosed with lung cancer, the suit
states, and the defendants should have known of the dangers of
asbestos and prevented the deceased's exposure to it. Lenior
eventually died of lung cancer, the suit says

Marguerite Lenior seeks at least $50,000 from each defendant. She
is represented by attorneys Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of
Gori, Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-27


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Mayor Keen to Help Asbestos-Affected Residents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet Howie, writing for The Border Mail, reported that Albury
Council will explore any assistance it can give to home owners
affected by loose-fill asbestos.

Mayor Henk van de Ven said he had been asked at the information
forum about development applications should an owner wish to
rebuild on a block where an affected house had been demolished.

"It's an issue I'm going to raise with council at the first
opportunity," Cr van de Ven said.

"Because obviously there's some financial support available for
people that do have to have their house demolished and I'll be
talking to council to see what we can do along the same lines."

About 140 people attended the NSW loose-fill asbestos taskforce
community forum at Albury's Commercial Club, with club staff
required to bring in more chairs as numbers grew.

Earlier in the day, 22 people attended a session for real estate
agents while 20 went to the home builders event.

At the evening forum, taskforce head Joe D'Ermilio outlined the
government program and how loose-fill asbestos had come to affect
homes in NSW.

The questions asked involved who conducted the free sample test,
how a property was valued and the details of the demolition
process.

Cr van de Ven said the mood of the meeting matched "where you'd
normally be when you're dealing with a very emotive issue like
your house, the potential sale and demolition of your house".

"There were some robust conversations around the process and how
long it's taken to get to this stage," he said, adding it was more
important to look to the future rather than the past.

"We've got a clearly defined set of actions to happen now," he
said.

"There's a lot of money on the table from the NSW government to
try and fix the problem for all of those impacted.

"And I think we just need to focus on that without worrying about
the whys and wherefores and how long it took to get to this
point."

More information about the NSW government voluntary purchase and
demolition program is available at loosefillasbestos.nsw.gov.au.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Libby, Troy Residents Still Refuse Inspections
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dax VanFossen, writing for KPAX.com, reported that hundreds of
residents in Libby and Troy are refusing free asbestos inspections
from the EPA.

Now officials are reminding people that the final cleanup deadline
is looming.

The Environmental Protection Agency announced that they would be
wrapping up their work in Libby and Troy. Now officials want to
re-emphasize that there is a limited amount of time for residents
to take advantage of the free asbestos inspections before they are
done at the end of this year.

EPA Project Manager in Libby Mike Cirian tells us he hopes those
who have refused will join the ones already in progress.

Cirian estimates that there are currently around 700 properties
that are still refusing inspection.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Ford, MetLife Named in Couple's Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
married couple is suing over the husband's longtime exposure to
asbestos that allegedly led to his diagnosis of cancer.

Joe Coates and Patricia Coates filed the suit on Jan. 26 in St.
Clair County Circuit Court against many named defendants,
including Aurora Pump Company, Ford Motor Company, Special
Electric Company and Union Carbide Corporation. Singled out as a
defendant is Metropolitan Life Insurance Company.

From 1957 to the 1990s, Joe Coates worked in various laborer
capacities. During those years, the suit alleges he was exposed to
and inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed large amounts of
asbestos fibers emanating from certain products he was working
with and around. Those products were manufactured, sold,
distributed or installed by the defendants.

Joe Coates was diagnosed with lung cancer, which can be an
asbestos-induced disease, on Sept. 30, 2015.

According to the complaint, the defendants knew or should have
known that the asbestos fibers in the products had a toxic effect
on those who worked around it.

Joe Coates seeks a judgment of at least $50,000 from various
defendants alleging negligence, willful and wanton conduct,
battery, negligent and willful and wanton spoilation of evidence,
infliction of emotional distress, and fraudulent
misrepresentation.

The count against Metropolitan Life is for alleged conspiracy in
regards to its active role in suppressing information about the
dangers of asbestos exposure. The plaintiff seeks an amount in
excess of $50,000 as a result.

Patricia Coates seeks an excess of $50,000 for the loss of
consortium of her husband because she and other family members
have been deprived of his companionship, society and services.

They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori,
Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-49


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Couple Seeks Damages for Husband's Exposure
------------------------------------------------------------
Molly English-Bowers, writing for Madison Record, reported that a
husband and wife are suing over his exposure to asbestos during
the course of his work life.

Michael Yoch and Karen Yoch filed the suit on Jan. 6 in St. Clair
County Circuit Court against Dow Chemical Company, Georgia-Pacific
LLC, Union Carbide Corporation and numerous other defendants.
Metropolitan Life Insurance is also listed as a defendant.

The plaintiff was allegedly exposed to asbestos from 1965 to 2012,
his working years, and also experienced second-hand exposure
through his father, who worked as a farmer and teamster.

The plaintiff allegedly inhaled, ingested or otherwise absorbed
large amounts of asbestos fibers emanating from certain products
he was working with and which were manufactured, sold, distributed
or installed by the defendants, the lawsuit states. That exposure
is not specific to any one job or any one defendant, but rather
occurred at different times and at different locations.

On Jan. 27, 2014, the plaintiff learned that he had developed lung
cancer, which can be caused by asbestos exposure.

Among the allegations against the defendants: willful and wanton
conduct, fraudulent misrepresentation, battery, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and spoilation of evidence.

Metropolitan Life is included in the suit for conspiracy because
it allegedly withheld information about the dangers of asbestos
fibers.

Michael Yoch seeks at least $50,000 from each defendant listed
under specific counts, compensatory damages from some defendants,
and punitive damages from some in an amount the court deems
sufficient to punish specific defendants. Karen Yoch seeks
judgment against the defendants for loss of consortium of at least
$50,000. They also seek court costs.

They are represented by Randy L. Gori and Barry Julian of Gori,
Julian & Associates PC in Edwardsville.

St. Clair County Circuit Court case number 16-L-9


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Survivors Lose Out in Insurers' Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
The Buffalo News reported that for those who harbor doubts about
regulation of business, this is where government oversight starts
and why it is necessary: Insurance companies on the hook for
millions of dollars in judgments owed to suffering individuals
made backdoor deals allowing them to avoid liability.

It's disgusting conduct, unworthy of decent business leaders. They
need to be made to pay up and, more than that, government needs to
act to prevent anything like this from happening again. And it
wouldn't hurt if somebody wound up in jail.

The tragedy began with mesothelioma, attributed to asbestos
exposure 40 years ago. Joe Muir died of the disease, but not
before a Buffalo jury awarded him $5.7 million. His widow, Nancy
Muir, hasn't been able to collect that money because of deals that
insurance companies cut, allowing them to avoid having to pay the
money they would otherwise owe. The companies insured the asbestos
manufacturer, Hedman Resources Inc., but decided after people
started getting sick that they didn't want to live up to the
obligations of that business decision.

Too bad. The courts need to force the insurers to pay up and then
punish them for their deviousness. And then state governments and
Congress need to crack down on this kind of conduct, which ought
to be criminal.

Now, Nancy Muir and three other women facing the same corporate
atrocity are suing the insurers to claim the judgments owed them
from their successful action against Hedman Resources, which
provided raw asbestos to Durez Plastics Corp. in North Tonawanda,
where their loved ones worked.

The failure to pay is why the women are suing. The heart of their
complaint is their allegation that the insurers made the
agreements after analyzing hundreds of pending asbestos cases
against Hedman and didn't like the potential for having to pay
tens of millions of dollars in claims.

"The agreements were entered into in an effort to hinder, delay
and avoid paying our clients," said John N. Lipsitz, a lawyer for
the widows. The deals "don't pass the smell test," said Michael A.
Ponterio, another lawyer in the case. "We've never come across it
in 30 years."

The companies are Lamorak Insurance, Seaton Insurance and One
Beacon American Insurance. In 2012, they struck agreements they
say are legal and that insulate them from liability in the case.
That is to say, years after making a deal to insure a company,
they decided they didn't like the look of it anymore and squirmed
their way out. They don't have to pay up, they insist, even though
the company they elected to insure has been found to have blood on
its hands.

The insurers deny all of this, of course. It's just coincidence
that Muir and the other women are being denied $13 million in
settlement payments owed.

"Their hope is you'll give up," Muir said. "They just carry on and
snub their nose at you while you sit back and confront death."

It's a terrible abuse, the kind of activity that can give an
entire industry a bad name and that prompts government officials
to intervene. That should be happening. Federal and state
lawmakers need to look into what these companies have done, and so
should New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

And, after looking, they should respond. Ferociously.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Canada Admits to Using Asbestos in New Bldgs.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Beth Swantek, writing for Asbestos.com, reported that the argument
to ban asbestos in Canada is growing stronger after government
officials admitted using the carcinogen in the renovation and
construction of federal buildings.

Members of the nation's trade union association also say the
importation of asbestos-containing materials, specifically
asbestos cement pipes installed in government buildings, is on the
rise.

"That they're continuing to use a known carcinogen in the
workplace is just unbelievable," said Laura Lozanski, occupational
health and safety officer at the Canadian Association of
University Teachers.

Government officials with Public Services and Procurement and the
Canada Review Agency acknowledged the use of asbestos in federal
buildings -- even as the government is undergoing asbestos
abatement projects -- after the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
(CBC) news agency confirmed the findings.

Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer primarily caused by workplace
exposure to asbestos. The news of the government's asbestos use is
especially alarming because the number of new mesothelioma cases
in Canada is on the rise.

Statistics Canada, a federal economic, social and census database,
shows there were 560 new mesothelioma cases in 2012 (the latest
figures) -- a 67 percent increase from 2000.

Canadian Government Downplays Asbestos Dangers

More than 40 countries, including all members of the European
Union, have banned asbestos. But its use in Canada is not
forbidden. The U.S. government also hasn't banned asbestos despite
repeated efforts.

Canadian government officials say asbestos can be used safely
under controlled conditions.

"Its use is limited to non-friable forms (not easily broken into
smaller pieces) and is strictly controlled under the Asbestos
Products Regulations," Canada Revenue Agency spokesman Philippe
Brideau told CBC.

But Lozanski refutes Brideau's claim.

"This continued putting forward that it's non-friable, and it's
safe, is complete nonsense and should not be used by people who
should know better," Lozanski said.

A 2015 report in the Globe and Mail shows Canada imported more
than $100 million worth of asbestos brake pads and linings in the
past decade and more than $250 million worth of raw asbestos or
asbestos products during that time.

Canada also exports 96 percent of the mined mineral to Asian
countries.

Unions, Health Advocates Push to Ban Asbestos

Canada Public Health Association Executive Director Ian Culbert
doesn't believe "asbestos is a legal product for the building
trades anymore."

"You'd think the federal government would be the last landlord to
be using that kind of a product," Culbert said.

The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates more than 125
million people around the world are exposed to asbestos in the
workplace annually.

WHO leaders recommend:

   -- Banning all types of asbestos.
   -- Replacing the mineral with safer products.
   -- Taking steps to prevent exposure during abatement.
   -- Improving early diagnosis and treatment.

Hassan Yussuff, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, the
nation's trade union association, hopes the government "will do a
serious review, and hopefully the labor minister will consider
bringing in a unilateral ban on all forms of asbestos products
that are having an impact on human health in this country."

As a minor step, unions want the Canadian government to create a
public registry that identifies public buildings containing
asbestos products.

Ban Asbestos Canada, a coalition of health, environmental and
labor groups, sent a letter to Canadian Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau asking to ban the use, export and import of asbestos-
containing products.

"This practice needs to be ceased immediately," said Denis St-
Jean, a national safety officer for the Public Service Alliance of
Canada (PSAC). PSAC is part of Ban Asbestos Canada. "We're also
asking that the use of any asbestos-containing material be
withdrawn from any federally funded infrastructure projects from
the federal government."

Some Canadian Government Officials Support Asbestos Ban

New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Sheri Benson asked
lawmakers to put an end to asbestos use in new construction.

She says this is an opportunity for the federal government to play
a leadership role and announce future projects will no longer use
asbestos.

Minister of Public Services and Procurement Judy Foote said the
government "will undertake a review to make sure that asbestos is
not a product that's used on an on-going basis."

Maryann Mihychuk, federal minister of employment, workforce
development and labor said Canada is "monitoring the situation."

"We're considering the ban, but we're not there yet."


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cancer Expert Sceptical on Talc Powder Concerns
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Borg, writing for Times of Malta, reported that cancer
expert Stephen Brincat has sought to allay concerns that the use
of Johnson & Johnson talcum powder may be linked to ovarian
cancer.

The American multinational was ordered by a Missouri state jury to
pay EUR65 million in damages to the family of a woman whose death
from ovarian cancer was linked to her use of Johnson & Johnson's
talc-based Baby Powder and Shower to Shower for several decades.
Contacted by The Sunday Times of Malta, Dr Brincat said: "From a
medical scientific point of view there is no hard evidence of any
link between the use of this particular talcum powder and ovarian
cancer. Apart from that, Johnson & Johnson has since changed the
formula of that particular talcum powder."

Dr Brincat explained that talcum powder can migrate from the
pelvic area into the ovaries.

"Although there is no proven link to ovarian cancer, if you want
to err on the side of caution, my advice is do not use it," Dr
Brincat said.

The American Cancer Society says that in its natural form, some
talc may contain asbestos, which is known to cause cancer.

However, modern domestic talcum powder does not contain asbestos.
"When talking about whether or not talcum powder is linked to
cancer, it is important to distinguish between talc that contains
asbestos and talc that is asbestos-free. Talc that has asbestos is
generally accepted as being able to cause cancer if it is inhaled.
This type of talc is not used in modern consumer products. The
evidence about asbestos-free talc, which is still widely used, is
less clear.

According to the American Cancer Society many studies in women
looked at the possible link between talcum powder and cancer of
the ovary. Findings have been mixed, with some studies reporting a
slightly increased risk and some reporting no increase.

"Many case-control studies have found a small increase in risk.
But these types of studies can be biased because they often rely
on a person's memory of talc use many years earlier," it said.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Weyerhauser Inks Deal with Asbestos Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that plaintiffs in one of several
cases filed against Weyerhaeuser Co. for alleged non-occupational
asbestos exposure have reached a settlement agreement with the
remaining defendants, just days before trial was scheduled to
start, according to recent court documents.

In a one-page order entered on March 11, the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin explained that the action
had been settled and the case was thereby dismissed.

The settlement came two days after the court issued an order
detailing its rulings on pending in limine motions, noting that
trial was scheduled to begin on March 14.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Bethel Public Schools Have Asbestos
----------------------------------------------------
Wendy Ann Mitchell, writing for Bethel Patch, reported that Bethel
Public Schools sent out an announcement to parents to notify them
that some of the public schools contain "small amounts of
asbestos."

Below is the letter sent by the Office of the Superintendent.

"Dear Parents/Guardians, Staff, and Community Members:

The Bethel Public Schools, in accordance with federal regulation
40 CFR, Part 763, of the Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response Act
(AHERA) each year is required by statute to issue a notice to
update all students and staff concerning the existence of asbestos
in the school building.

Currently, two of the five buildings are classified as "Asbestos
Free Schools" they are Frank A. Berry School and Bethel Middle
School.

The other three school buildings, Anna H. Rockwell, R.M.T.
Johnson, and Bethel High School contain small amounts of the
material. The material is encapsulated or enclosed in concrete and
are inaccessible to students and staff.

An Asbestos Management Program has been developed to ensure that
asbestos-containing materials are maintained in a condition in
which they do not pose a health hazard. As part of this program,
these areas are periodically inspected.

Anyone wishing additional information about our Asbestos
Management Program can contact the office of Facility & Security
Operations at 203-794-8609. Information can also be found on our
website at www.bethel.k12.ct.us under Office of Business,
Facility, and Security Operations.

Sincerely, Bob Germinaro Supervisor of Facility & Security


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Junks Manufacturer from Take-Home Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reported that an Illinois federal court
has dismissed a defendant from a take-home asbestos exposure suit,
saying that while the plaintiff had established that the exposure
was foreseeable, she had failed to refute the defendant's position
that enforcing the duty of ordinary care would be unduly
burdensome.

In the March 10 opinion, the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois noted that the Illinois Supreme Court and
relevant appellate courts have failed to weigh in on the public
policy considerations in take-home asbestos exposure cases and, as
such, it was forced to adopt the "narrower" interpretation.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Dismissal of Garlock's Suit vs. Widow Affirmed
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Kentucky affirmed the ruling of the
Jefferson Circuit Court dismissing Garlock Sealing Technologies,
LLC's complaint against Delores Ann Robertson for failure to state
a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Robertson, in her executrix and individual capacities, sued
Garlock, E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, and a number of other
defendants claiming that the exposure of her husband, Thomas E.
Robertson, to asbestos-containing products, including Garlock
gaskets, had contributed to his illness and led to his death. The
matter culminated in a jury verdict in Robertson's favor. On
December 1, 2008, the circuit court entered judgment against
Garlock and ordered it to pay compensatory and punitive damages to
the estate and to Robertson. The judgment was affirmed by the
Court of Appeals of Kentucky. Garlock's subsequent motion for
discretionary review was also denied by the Supreme Court.

On July 26, 2012, Garlock filed a CR 60.03 independent action in
Jefferson Circuit Court attacking the original judgment on the
basis of CR 60.02(d) fraud affecting the proceedings. Garlock
pleaded that Robertson committed fraud when she failed "to
disclose during pretrial discovery the decedent's known asbestos
exposure from at least four (4) other manufacturer' products."
Robertson filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted by the
circuit court on August 13, 2013. The circuit court found that
Garlock's fraud allegations did not qualify as "fraud affecting
the proceedings" and Garlock's complaint was not filed within one
year after judgment was entered, and therefore was untimely.

The Court of Appeals of Kentucky agreed with the circuit court's
conclusion that Garlock's allegations describe nothing more than
"perjury or falsified" evidence under CR 60.02(c) and, therefore,
the independent action under CR 60.03 was subject to a one-year
limitations period. Thus, the appellate court held that Garlock's
independent action is time-barred and the circuit court was
correct in so ruling.

The case is GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, Appellant, v.
DELORES ANN ROBERTSON, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE
OF THOMAS E. ROBERTSON, Appellee, No. 2013-CA-001546-MR (Ky. Ct.
App.).

A full-text copy of the the Court of Appeals of Kentucky's March
4, 2016 ruling is available at http://is.gd/MY8mGYfrom
Leagle.com.

Garlock Sealing Technologies, LLC is reprsented by:

Trevor W. Wells, Esq.
300 East Main Street, Suite 360
Lexington, KY 40507-1564
Tel: (859)281-0077
Fax: (859)957-1889
Email: twells@millerwells.com

-- and -

Casey Hinkle, Esq.
710 West Main Street, 4th Floor
Louisville, KY 40202
Tel: (502)416-1630
Fax: (502)540-8282

AMICUS CURAE, OFFICIAL COMMITTEE OF ASBESTOS PERSONAL INJURY
CLAIMANTS OF GARLOCK SEALING TECHNOLIGIES, LLC is

Trevor W. Swett III, Esq.
One Thomas Circle, NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20005-5802
Tel: (202)862-5000
Fax: (202)429-3301
Email: tswett@capdale.com

Appellee is represented by:

Kevin C. Burke, Esq.
2200 Dundee Rd
Jefferson County
Louisville, KY 40205
Tel: (502)709-9990

-- and -

Hans G. Poppe, Esq.
Warner T. Wheat, Esq.
Scarlette R. Burton, Esq.
Justice Plaza
8700 Westport Road
Louisville, KY 40242
Tel: (502)895-3400
Fax: (502)895-3420
Email: hans.poppelawfirm.com


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Celanese Continues to Face Exposure Suits
----------------------------------------------------------
Celanese Corp. continues to be involved in legal and regulatory
proceedings, lawsuits, claims and investigations that relates
various matter, including asbestos exposure, according to
Celanese's Form 10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company is involved in legal and regulatory proceedings,
lawsuits, claims and investigations incidental to the normal
conduct of business, relating to such matters as product
liability, land disputes, commercial contracts, employment,
antitrust, intellectual property, workers' compensation, chemical
exposure, asbestos exposure, trade compliance, prior acquisitions
and divestitures, claims of legacy stockholders, past waste
disposal practices and release of chemicals into the environment.
The Company is actively defending those matters where the Company
is named as a defendant. The Company does not believe any of the
potential outcomes from these matters would be material to our
results of operations, cash flows or financial position.

Celanese Corporation, a technology and specialty materials
company, manufactures and sells value-added chemicals,
thermoplastic polymers, and other chemical-based products
worldwide. The company was founded in 1918 and is headquartered in
Irving, Texas.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Cabot Faces 37,000 Claimants at Dec. 31
--------------------------------------------------------
Cabot Corp. faces an approximate of 37,000 claimants in pending
asbestos-related cases, according to the company's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015.

Cabot has exposure in connection with a safety respiratory
products business that a subsidiary acquired from American Optical
Corporation ("AO") in an April 1990 asset purchase transaction.
The subsidiary manufactured respirators under the AO brand and
disposed of that business in July 1995. In connection with its
acquisition of the business, the subsidiary agreed, in certain
circumstances, to assume a portion of AO's liabilities, including
costs of legal fees together with amounts paid in settlements and
judgments, allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to the
1990 purchase by the Cabot subsidiary. In exchange for the
subsidiary's assumption of certain of AO's respirator liabilities,
AO agreed to provide to the subsidiary the benefits of: (i) AO's
insurance coverage for the period prior to the 1990 acquisition
and (ii) a former owner's indemnity of AO holding it harmless from
any liability allocable to AO respiratory products used prior to
May 1982. As more fully described in the 2015 10-K, the respirator
liabilities generally involve claims for personal injury,
including asbestosis, silicosis and coal worker's pneumoconiosis,
allegedly resulting from the use of respirators that are alleged
to have been negligently designed and/or labeled. Neither Cabot,
nor its past or present subsidiaries, at any time manufactured
asbestos or asbestos-containing products. At no time did this
respiratory product line represent a significant portion of the
respirator market.

As of December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015, there were
approximately 37,000 and 38,000 claimants, respectively, in
pending cases asserting claims against AO in connection with
respiratory products. Cabot has a reserve to cover its expected
share of liability for existing and future respirator liability
claims. At December 31, 2015 and September 30, 2015, the reserve
was $10 million and $11 million, respectively. Cash payments
related to this liability were $1 million in the first three
months of both fiscal 2016 and 2015.

Cabot Corporation operates as a specialty chemicals and
performance materials company. The company offers carbon black, a
form of elemental carbon used to enhance the physical properties
of the systems and applications in which it is incorporated; and
rubber blacks for use as a rubber reinforcing agent and
performance additive in tires, hoses, belts, extruded profiles,
and molded goods. Cabot Corporation was founded in 1882 and is
headquartered in Boston, Massachusetts.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Carlisle Continues to Defend Exposure Lawsuits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carlisle Companies Inc. continues to be a defendant in alleged
injury lawsuits in various state courts due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brake, according to the company's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

Over the years, the Company has been named as a defendant, along
with numerous other defendants, in lawsuits in various state
courts in which plaintiffs have alleged injury due to exposure to
asbestos-containing brakes, which Carlisle manufactured in limited
amounts between the late-1940's and the mid-1980's. In addition to
compensatory awards, these lawsuits may also seek punitive
damages.

Generally, the Company has obtained dismissals or settlements of
its asbestos-related lawsuits with no material effect on its
financial condition, results of operations or cash flows. The
Company maintains insurance coverage that applies to the Company's
defense costs and payments of settlements or judgments in
connection with asbestos-related lawsuits.

At this time, the amount of reasonably possible additional
asbestos claims, if any, is not material to the Company's
financial position, results of operations, or operating cash flows
although these matters could result in the Company being subject
to monetary damages, costs or expenses, and charges against
earnings in particular periods.

Carlisle Companies Incorporated operates as a diversified
manufacturing company in the United States and internationally. It
markets its products to original equipment manufacturers and
distributors, as well as directly to end-users. Carlisle Companies
Incorporated was founded in 1917 and is headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: General Dynamics Still Facing Asbestos Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
General Dynamics Corp. continues to face various claims and other
legal proceedings such as pending issues on asbestos-related
claims, according to General Dynamics Form 10-K filing with the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

The Company states "Various claims and other legal proceedings
incidental to the normal course of business are pending or
threatened against us. These matters relate to such issues as
government investigations and claims, the protection of the
environment, asbestos-related claims and employee-related matters.
The nature of litigation is such that we cannot predict the
outcome of these matters. However, based on information currently
available, we believe any potential liabilities in these
proceedings, individually or in the aggregate, will not have a
material impact on our results of operations, financial condition
or cash flows."

General Dynamics Corporation operates as an aerospace and defense
company worldwide. It operates through four business groups:
Aerospace; Combat Systems; Information Systems and Technology; and
Marine Systems.  The company was founded in 1899 and is based in
Falls Church, Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Steris Still Facing PI, Product Exposure Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
Steris plc continues to be involved in a number of legal
proceedings and claims such as personal injuries or product
exposure to asbestos, according to the company's Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarterly
period ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states "We are, and will likely continue to be,
involved in a number of legal proceedings, government
investigations, and claims, which we believe generally arise in
the course of our business, given our size, history, complexity,
and the nature of our business, products, Customers, regulatory
environment, and industries in which we participate. These legal
proceedings, investigations and claims generally involve a variety
of legal theories and allegations, including, without limitation,
personal injury (e.g., slip and falls, burns, vehicle accidents),
product liability or regulation (e.g., based on product operation
or claimed malfunction, failure to warn, failure to meet
specification, or failure to comply with regulatory requirements),
product exposure (e.g., claimed exposure to chemicals, asbestos,
contaminants, radiation), property damage (e.g., claimed damage
due to leaking equipment, fire, vehicles, chemicals), commercial
claims (e.g., breach of contract, economic loss, warranty,
misrepresentation), financial (e.g., taxes, reporting), employment
(e.g., wrongful termination, discrimination, benefits matters),
and other claims for damage and relief."

Steris Plc provides infection prevention, contamination control,
surgical, and critical care technologies worldwide. Steris Plc was
founded in 1985 and is headquartered in Leicester, United Kingdom.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: WestRock Faces 713 PI Litigation at Dec. 31
------------------------------------------------------------
WestRock Co. continues to defend itself from 713 asbestos-related
personal injury litigation, according to WestRock's Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarterly period ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states "As with numerous other large industrial
companies, we have been named a defendant in asbestos-related
personal injury litigation. Typically, these suits also name many
other corporate defendants. To date, the costs resulting from the
litigation, including settlement costs, have not been significant.
As of December 31, 2015, there were approximately 713 lawsuits. We
believe that we have substantial insurance coverage, subject to
applicable deductibles and policy limits, with respect to asbestos
claims. We have valid defenses to these claims and intend to
continue to defend them vigorously. Should the volume of
litigation grow substantially, it is possible that we could incur
significant costs resolving these cases. We believe that the
resolution of pending litigation and proceedings is not expected
to have a material adverse effect on our consolidated financial
condition or liquidity. In any given period or periods, however,
it is possible such proceedings or matters could have a material
effect on the results of operations."

WestRock Company manufactures and sells paper and packaging
solutions for the consumer and corrugated markets in North
America, South America, Europe, and Asia. WestRock Company is
based in Richmond, Virginia.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Markel Records $20.4MM Underwriting Loss for A&E
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Markel Corp. was able to record an underwriting loss of $20.4
million for the year ended December 31, 2015, as part of its loss
reserve development on asbestos and environmental exposures,
according to the Companies 8-K Form filed on February 10, 2016.

The Company states "The Other Insurance (Discontinued Lines)
segment produced an underwriting loss of $20.4 million for the
year ended December 31, 2015 compared to an underwriting loss of
$28.0 million in 2014. The underwriting loss in 2014 included
$27.2 million of loss reserve development on asbestos and
environmental (A&E) exposures resulting from our annual review of
these exposures. During our 2015 annual review, which occurred in
the third quarter, we determined that no adjustment to loss
reserves was required. During our 2014 annual review, we increased
our expectation of the severity of the outcome of certain claims
subject to litigation. As the ultimate outcome of known claims
increases, our expected ultimate closure value on unreported
claims also increases. As a result of these developments, we
increased prior years' loss reserves accordingly. A&E loss
reserves are subject to significant uncertainty due to potential
loss severity and frequency resulting from an uncertain and
unfavorable legal climate.

"In March and October 2015, we completed two retroactive
reinsurance transactions through which we ceded a significant
portion of our A&E exposures to a third party. Reserves for unpaid
losses and loss adjustment expenses ceded by these transactions
that were attributable to A&E exposures represented approximately
55% of our A&E reserves for unpaid losses and loss adjustment
expenses as of December 31, 2014. The first transaction resulted
in a gain of $5.1 million, which was deferred and will be
recognized in earnings in proportion to actual reinsurance
recoveries received pursuant to the transaction. The second
transaction resulted in an underwriting loss of $10.1 million,
which was recognized during the fourth quarter of 2015. Following
the October 2015 retroactive reinsurance transaction, our
actuaries increased their estimate of the ultimate losses on the
remaining A&E claims and management increased prior years' loss
reserves by $15.0 million. Without the diversification of a larger
portfolio of loss reserves, there is greater uncertainty around
the potential outcomes of the remaining claims, and management
strengthened reserves accordingly."

Markel Corporation markets and underwrites specialty insurance
products in the United States and internationally. It operates
through three segments: U.S. Insurance, International Insurance,
and Reinsurance. Markel Corporation was founded in 1930 and is
headquartered in Glen Allen, Virginia.


ASBESTOS ALERT: HCP May Be Liable for Injuries from Sites
---------------------------------------------------------
HCP Inc. discloses that the Company may be held liable for damages
and injuries caused by environmental contamination emanating from
its real-estate sites which may include the release of asbestos-
containing materials into the air, according to HCP's Form 10-K
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company states "Environmental compliance costs and liabilities
associated with our real estate-related investments may be
substantial and may materially impair the value of those
investments.

"Federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations may
require us, as a current or previous owner of real estate, to
investigate and clean up certain hazardous or toxic substances or
petroleum released at a property. We may be held liable to a
governmental entity or to third parties for property damage and
for investigation and cleanup costs incurred by the third parties
in connection with the contamination. The costs of cleanup and
remediation could be substantial. In addition, some environmental
laws create a lien on the contaminated site in favor of the
government for damages and the costs it incurs in connection with
the contamination.

"Although we currently carry environmental insurance on our
properties in an amount that we believe is commercially reasonable
and generally require our tenants and operators to indemnify us
for environmental liabilities they cause, such liabilities could
exceed the amount of our insurance, the financial ability of the
tenant or operator to indemnify us or the value of the
contaminated property. As the owner of a site, we may also be held
liable to third parties for damages and injuries resulting from
environmental contamination emanating from the site, including the
release of asbestos-containing materials into the air. We may also
experience environmental liabilities arising from conditions not
known to us. The cost of defending against these claims, complying
with environmental regulatory requirements, conducting remediation
of any contaminated property, or paying personal injury or other
claims or fines could be substantial and could have a materially
adverse effect on our business, results of operations and
financial condition.

"In addition, the presence of contamination or the failure to
remediate contamination may materially adversely affect our
ability to use, sell or lease the property or to borrow using the
property as collateral."

HCP, Inc. is an independent hybrid real estate investment trust.
The fund invests in real estate markets of the United States. HCP,
Inc. was formed in 1985 and is based in Irvine, California with
additional office in Nashville and San Francisco.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: "Cesarin" Remanded to Calif. State Court
---------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Richard Cesarin and Donna Cesarin filed a motion to
remand.  Defendant Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., removed the action
on the grounds of diversity jurisdiction.  The Plaintiffs argue
that remand is proper because ACL removed the action outside of
the one-year time limit for removal of diversity actions.  ACL
responds that their untimeliness is excused because the Plaintiffs
acted in bad faith in order to prevent removal by maintaining
claims against a non-diverse defendant, despite knowing that those
claims were untenable.

In an Order dated February 24, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/xk23dvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr., of the United States District Court for the Northern District
of California granted the Plaintiff's Motion to Remand and
remanded the entire action back to the Superior Court of
California for the County of Alameda.

The Court finds that ACL has not met its burden of showing that
the Plaintiffs acted with bad faith such that the untimely
exercise of federal diversity jurisdiction is warranted.

The case is RICHARD CESARIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASBESTOS
CORPORATION LIMITED, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06056-HSG
(N.D. Calif.).

Richard Cesarin, Plaintiff, is represented by Mahzad Kazempour
Hite, Esq. -- mhite@levinsimes.com -- LEVIN SIMES LLP, Sean P.
Worsey, Esq. -- sworsey@levinsimes.com  -- LEVIN SIMES & William
A. Levin, Esq. -- wlevin@levinsimes.com -- LEVIN SIMES LLP.

Donna Cesarin, Plaintiff, is represented by Mahzad Kazempour Hite,
LEVIN SIMES LLP, Sean P. Worsey, LEVIN SIMES & William A. Levin,
Levin Simes LLP.
Asbestos Corporation Limited, Defendant, is represented by Robert
G. Engel, Esq. -- robert.engel@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser
Moskowitz Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Bo W.
Kim, Esq. -- BKim@perkinscoie.com  -- Perkins Coie LLP & David T.
Biderman, Esq. -- DBiderman@perkinscoie.com -- Perkins Coie LLP.

J.T. Thorpe & Son, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Reshma
Amarlal Bajaj, Esq. -- Attorney at Law, E. Reno Cross, Esq. --
rcross@behblaw.com -- Bassi, Edlin, Huie & Blum LLP & Jeffery J.
Fadeff, Esq. -- jfadeff@behblaw.com -- Bassi Edlin Huie & Blum
LLP.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: District Court Denies Bid to Remand "Colletti"
---------------------------------------------------------------
This case arises out of Plaintiff David Colletti's alleged
exposure to asbestos.  The Plaintiff, a citizen of Mississippi,
originally filed suit in Civil District Court for the Parish of
Orleans, State of Louisiana, naming the following entities as
defendants: (1) Asbestos Corporation Ltd., a Canadian corporation
with its principal place of business in Quebec, Canada; (2)
Burmaster Land & Development Co., LLC, a Louisiana citizen; (3)
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, a New York corporation with
its principal place of business in New York; (4) Honeywell, a
Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in New
Jersey; and FCA US, LLC, a citizen of Delaware and/or Michigan.1
Rec. Doc. 1 at 1-2.  Accordingly, complete diversity of
citizenship exists with only one defendant, Burmaster, a resident
of the forum state.

Honeywell filed a notice of removal Court on January 13, 2016, on
the basis of diversity jurisdiction, claiming that removal was not
barred by the forum-defendant rule because the forum-resident
defendant Burmaster had not yet been served. The Plaintiff
thereafter filed the present Motion to Remand on January 14, 2016.

Colletti maintains that Honeywell was not permitted to remove the
action under the forum-defendant rule because Burmaster is a
resident of the forum state. Second, he claims that Honeywell
"jumped the gun" by removing the case before being served, making
removal altogether improper. Finally, Colletti asks this Court to
award him costs and attorney's fees upon remand to state court.

Honeywell maintains that it properly removed this matter in all
respects as the removal is not barred by the forum-defendant rule
because the forum-defendant was not yet served when the Notice of
Removal was filed. Second, Honeywell contends that service was
effectuated on its registered agent prior to removal.
Nevertheless, Honeywell argues that service of process on the
removing party is not a prerequisite to removal. Finally, even if
the case is remanded, Honeywell claims that costs and attorney's
fees are not proper.

In an Order dated February 29, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/FoPlyafrom Leagle.com, Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle of
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Louisiana denied the Motion to Remand.

The case is DAVID W. COLLETTI v. BENDIX, ET AL. SECTION "B" (3),
Civil Action No. 16-308 (E.D. La.).

David W. Colletti, Plaintiff, is represented by Mickey P. Landry,
Esq. -- Landry & Swarr, LLC, Amanda Jones Ballay, Esq. -- Landry &
Swarr, LLC, Frank J. Swarr, Esq. -- Landry & Swarr, LLC, Matthew
C. Clark, Esq. -- Landry, Swarr & Cannella, LLC & Philip C
Hoffman, Esq. -- Landry & Swarr, LLC.

Honeywell International, Inc., Defendant, is represented by Eric
Shuman, Esq. -- eshuman@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey Stafford,
PLLC & Sarah Elizabeth McMillan, Esq. -- smcmillan@mcglinchey.com
-- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.

Burmaster Land & Development Co., LLC, Defendant, is represented
by Kevin John Webb, Esq. -- kevinwebb@curryandfriend.com -- Curry
& Friend, APLC, Ashley E. Gilbert, Esq. --
ashleygilbert@curryandfriend.com -- Curry & Friend, APLC, Heather
M. Valliant, Esq. -- heathervalliant@curryandfriend.com --  Curry
& Friend, APLC & Lauren E. Godshall, Esq. --
laurengodshall@curryandfriend.com -- Curry & Friend, APLC.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, is represented by
Jay Morton Jalenak, Jr., Esq. -- jay.jalenak@keanmiller.com --
Kean Miller & Patrick Dale Roquemore, Esq. -
patrick.roquemore@keanmiller.com -- Kean Miller.
FCA US LLC, Defendant, is represented by Deirdre Claire
McGlinchey, Esq. -- dmcglinchey@mcglinchey.com -- McGlinchey
Stafford, PLLC & Jose L. Barro, III, Esq. -- jbarro@mcglinchey.com
-- McGlinchey Stafford, PLLC.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Court Recommends Dismissal of "Dooley"
-------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Gary Mohr, et al., filed a Motion to Dismiss a lawsuit
initiated by Armondo Dooley.

The Plaintiff filed a Motion for Service of Process of the Writ of
Subpoena Duces Tecum and the Defendants filed a Response in
Opposition.  Although the Court granted the Plaintiff a four-month
extension of time to respond to the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss,
the Plaintiff has not filed a response in opposition.

The Plaintiff brings his suit against Gary Mohr, Director of the
Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Charlotte Lewis,
Warden of the Chillicothe Correctional Institute, John/Jane Doe
Health Care Coordinator/Director of CCI, and John/Jane Doe Mental
Health Care Coordinator/Director of CCI. According to the
Complaint, officials at CCI knowingly exposed the Plaintiff to
histoplasmosis and asbestos in the CCI living area. The Plaintiff
states that the exposure resulted in "Plaintiff being subjected to
a known health risk, causing serious potential for serious
physical harm, unnecessary, unwarranted infliction of great
emotional distress, duress and anxiety, causing panic attacks,
head palpitations and labored breathing, also headaches." The
Plaintiff further claims that the Defendants engaged in
"deliberate indifference to his mental health needs by
undertrained staff, and informal prison policies." According to
the Plaintiff, he received "arbitrary forms of punishment for
exercising protected conduct to chill his desire to complain."
Specifically, the Plaintiff states that he was placed in
segregation "without due process, and in retaliation for filing
grievance." As a result, the Plaintiff believes that, without
appropriate redress, he will "face even more punishment contrary
to his rights."

In an Order and Report dated February 23, 2016, which is available
at http://is.gd/fWTk4lfrom Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth
A. Preston Deavers of the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio, Eastern Division, recommended that the
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be granted, and the Plaintiff's
Motion for Service of Process of the Writ of Subpoena Duces Tecum
is denied as moot.

The case is ARMONDO DOOLEY, Plaintiff, v. GARY MOHR, et al.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:15-cv-2459 (S.D. Ohio.).

Armondo L. Dooley, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gary Mohr, Defendant, is represented by Gene D Park, Ohio Attorney
General.

Charolette Jenkins, Defendant, is represented by Gene D Park, Ohio
Attorney General.

CCI Health Care Coordinator/Director Jane/John Doe, Defendant, is
represented by Gene D Park, Ohio Attorney General.
CCI Mental Health Coordinator/Director Jane/John Doe, Defendant,
is represented by Gene D Park, Ohio Attorney General.


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Union Carbine Loses Bid to Dismiss "Bartolone"
---------------------------------------------------------------
In this asbestos personal injury action, defendant Union Carbide
Corporation moves for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's
complaint and any cross-claims against it based on the lack of
product identification and the lack of any evidence or expert
opinion that exposure to a Union Carbide product caused
plaintiff's illness and death.

Plaintiff Maria Rosa Bartolone, as personal representative of the
Estate of Gaetano Bartolone, asserts that defendant is not
entitled to summary judgment because defendant failed to meet its
burden to demonstrate that plaintiff was not injured by Union
Carbide's Calidria Asbestos or its asbestos-containing phenolic
molding compound, and plaintiff has raised issues of fact for
trial.

Union Carbide maintains that plaintiff's allegations that he was
exposed to a Union Carbide asbestos-containing product are
predicated on mere speculation. Although at his deposition
plaintiff identified a Union Carbide product resembling black
powder, defendant asserts that summary judgment is warranted
because plaintiff did not identify the type of product or state
that it contained asbestos. Further, although plaintiff's co-
worker Nick Campanella described at his deposition white and black
balls spilling from dusty paper bags at Brooklyn's Pier 39 where
he worked with plaintiff for seven years, and black writing on the
bags, summary judgment should be granted because Campanella did
not testify that he saw "Union Carbide" or "asbestos" printed on
any bag. Union Carbide also points to the fact that it made
asbestos-free products.

Plaintiff argues that Campanella's and plaintiff's own description
of the products that they encountered while working together match
the description of Calidria Asbestos and asbestos-containing
phenolic molding compound.

In a Decision and Order dated February 22, 2016, which is
available at http://is.gd/FYREnTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Peter H.
Moulton of the Supreme Court, New York County, denied Union
Carbide's Motion for Summary Judgment in its entirety.

The case is IN RE NEW YORK CITY ASBESTOS LITIGATION. MARIA ROSA
BARTOLONE, as personal representative of the Estate of GAETANO
BARTOLONE, Plaintiff, v. AIR & LIQUID SYSTEMS CORPORATE, et al.,
Defendants, Docket No. 190398/2014, Motion Seq. No. 003, 2016 NY
Slip Op 30306(U).


ASBESTOS UPDATE: Liberty Mutual Ordered to York's Defense Costs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Defendant Liberty Mutual Insurance Company filed objections to
Plaintiff York International Corporation's requests for payment of
defense and indemnification costs pursuant to insurance contracts
between the parties.

On May 26, 2011, the court ordered the Defendant, the insurer of
the Plaintiff's predecessor corporate entity, York Corporation, to
defend and indemnify the Plaintiff against asbestos-related
actions filed throughout the United States that name either the
Plaintiff or York Corporation as a defendant and allege an injury
caused by a York Corporation product during the coverage period
provided by four consecutive one-year insurance policies between
the parties, which ranged from October 1, 1952 through October 1,
1956.

On October 28, 2014, after continued disagreement between the
parties as to which asbestos complaints triggered the Defendant's
duties of defense and indemnification, the court ordered the
parties to submit a stipulation as to the list of cases for which
the Plaintiff sought either defense or indemnification, and
ordered the Plaintiff to disclose its costs in those cases as well
as documents sufficient to support a finding that the Defendant
had a duty to defend or indemnify in each case.

In a Memorandum dated February 29, 2016, which is available at
http://is.gd/dYGkY8from Leagle.com, Judge Sylvia H. Rambo of the
United States District Court for the Middle District of
Pennsylvania overruled the Defendant's objections and ordered the
Defendant to pay the defense and indemnification costs.

The case is YORK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Civ. No. 1:10-CV-0692.
York International Corporation, Plaintiff, is represented by Lee
M. Epstein, Esq.



                            *********

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  * * *