CAR_Public/160323.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 23, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 59


                            Headlines


A & M CONTRACTORS: "Leyva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ABC CORP: "Vidal" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
AIR & LIQUID: Faces "Walker" Injury Suit in Delaware
ALL HARVEST: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes "Siadek" Class Suit to C.D. California

ANGEL'S I BAKERY: Fails to Pay Employees OT Wages, Action Claims
APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
APPLUS VELOSI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime Wages, Suit Says
BASTROP, TX: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Brown" Suit
BEAR GLASS: Sued in New Jersey Over Communications Act Violation

BHP BILLITON: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BUFFALO WILD WINGS: To Defend Against Employees' Suit in N.Y.
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Approval of "Marchese" Settlement
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Schedule Set for Summary Judgment Bids
CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Wandel" Suit

CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Gould" Suit
CANADA: First Nations Wants Sixties Scoop Class Action Settled
CASHCALL INC: Consumer Loans Fraudulent, "Sinclair" Suit Alleges
CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES: Violated Wage Orders, "Vargas" Suit Says
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Gas Leasehold Interests

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Pappas" Class Suit in S.D. California
CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
CLIFFS NATURAL: To Defend Vigorously Against Class Action
COGENT COMMS: Discovery in "Ambrosio" to Continue Until December
COM DEV USA: "Tom" Suit Alleges ERISA & FAA Violations

COMSCORE INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sommer" Suit Claims
CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
CVS HEALTH: Defends Supplements Amid Memory-Enhancer Class Action
DEJA VU: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
DENSO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Auto Parts Price-Fixing

DIRECT DIGITAL: Bid for Heightened Class Standard Review Nixed
DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in California
DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: "Shipkovitz" Suit Removed to Dist. Maryland
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cantamaglia" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Facenda" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hale" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL

DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hemrich" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hodge" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
EMCOR GROUP: Subsidiary Settles "Vasquez" Class Action
EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Maintenance Failure, "Sofia" Suit Claims

FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
FIFTH THIRD: Settles Stock-Drop Class Action for $6 Million
FIRSTMERIT CORP: "Wojno" Suit Seeks to Block Huntington Merger
GARDEN CITY, KS: "Market" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violation
GENERAL MOTORS: May Face Punitive Damages in Ignition Switch Case

GFC LENDING: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Violations of EFTA
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Layne" Suit Over Zofran Injuries
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "McClellan" Suit Over Zofran(R)
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Sumrall" Suit Over Use of Zofran
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: "Munoz" Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.

GRAPA LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Coleman" Suit Claims
HBLC: Appeals Court Reverses FDCPA Class Action Dismissal
HENRY HALL: Removes "Knight" Suit to Middle District of Georgia
HERMES OF PARIS: "Chaney" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Pay Under NYLL
HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over Online Portal's Pricing Tactics

HOME COUNTY: Faces "Arias" Class Suit in California Superior Ct.
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $625M in Claims Pending in "Jaffe" Case
HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules on Admission of Experts
HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Madoff Investors Case Pending
HSBC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Stockholder Class Action in Ontario

HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Iraq Terror Victims Suit Pending
HSBC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Deaths Due to Mexican Drug Cartels
HSBC HOLDINGS: CALSTRS's 2nd Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Euribor Suit in N.Y. Pending
HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss ISDAfix Rates Suit Pending

HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval
HSBC HOLDINGS: ERISA Action in Calif. Transferred to New York
INT'L COFFEE & TEA: Fails to Pay Bonus, "Hosseini" Suit Says
J.M. SMUCKER: Faces "Ocasio" Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices
KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY: Filed 6th Cir. Appeal in Retirees Suit

KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Product Misbranding
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Higens" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
KRANG GROUP: "Skiba" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under NYLL
LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Segev" Suit Over VTech Merger
LENDMARK FINANCIAL: "Figgs" Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Court

LORD & TAYLOR: Settles Charges Over Deceptive Instagram Posts
LOS ANGELES, CA: To Settle curfew Class Action for $30 Million
LUGG INC: Case Management Conference in "Sims" Set for July 27
LUMIX HIBACHI: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay OT

MATCH GROUP: IPO Documents Contain False Info, "Stein" Alleges
MDL 2672: "Noggle" Suit Consolidated in California
MDL 2677: "Carbone" Suit Transferred to Boston
MDL 2677: "Triantafylidis" Case Transferred from Missouri
MDL 2687: Environmental Research Suit Consolidated in N.J.

MDL 2687: "Flambeau" Suit Moved to N.J. Court
MDL 2687: Metropolitan Council Suit Moved to N.J. Court
MDL 2687: City of Rochester Suit Consolidated in D. N.J.
MIHOMECARE: Care Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action
MIRACLE MAIDS: Violated FLSA, CMWWA & CWCA, "Valdez" Suit Claims

MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
MONDAY SOCIAL: July 27 Case Management Conference in "Urrutia"
MOODY'S CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Commerzbank Claim
NATERA INC: "Cahoj" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act
NEW LAND CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation

NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lead Poisoning Victims Get Average $17,000 Each
NEW YORK: Feminine Hygiene Products to Be Exempted from Sale Tax
NOODLES & COMPANY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: April 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
P.F. CHANG'S: Violated Unruh Act, "Arroyo" Suit Claims

PIGGLY WIGGLY: "Spires" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
PIONEER ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Zimmerman" Suit Claims
PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Facing Line 901 Incident Suits in Cal, Tex.
PLANET EXPRESS CARGO: "Slebi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Wages
PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in "Garcia" Suit

PPG INDUSTRIES: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Jimenez" Suit Claims
PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Removes John Virga Suit to S.D. Florida
PTC THERAPEUTICS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
QUADAMI INC: "Sanchez-Herrera" Suit Seeks Spread of Hours Pay
RAMIREZ SEAFOOD: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Paez" Suit Claims

REB ENTERPRISES: "Mullen-Moore" FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
RUSHCARD: Prepares to Settle Prepaid Debit Card Class Actions
S. CARTER ENTERPRISES: Composers Sue TIDAL for Music Royalties
SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Peckham" Class Suit in N.D. New York
SAINT JOSEPH: Judge Approves $30MM Data Breach Settlement

SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SEPHORA USA: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Alyssa" Suit Says
SERENDIPITY 3 INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Velandia" Suit Claims
SITCO ENTERPRISES: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
STATE FARM: Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Class Certification

SUPER SHINE & DETAILING: Violated FLSA, "Canals" Suit Claims
SWEDISH MEDICAL: Hospital Worker Pleads Not Guilty
T.F. LOUDERBACK: "Tyrone" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under CLC
TACI INVESTMENTS: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
TEREX CORPORATION: Ace Class Suit Transferred to N. Dist. Georgia

TEXAS: Flooding Class Action Mulled v. Sabine River Authority
TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties, Pay
TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under PPPA
UBER: Prepares for Lengthy Trial in Drivers' Class Action
UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Case Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending

VERBOTEN: Sued Over "Sexually Hostile" Work Environment
VERTICAL HOLDINGS: Violated Mass. Law, "Frazier" Suit Claims
VISA INC: Judge Won't Halt "Liability Shift" Practices for Now
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Leonard" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Olney" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL

WABASHA COUNTY, WA: Intends to Defend "Safe Driving Class" Suit
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Product Misbranding
WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Violated FLSA, "Amador" Suit Claims
WHITE WAY: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yonjan" Suit Claims
WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action

YAHOO: E-mail Snooping Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK


                            *********


A & M CONTRACTORS: "Leyva" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Leyva, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons v. A & M Contractors, Inc., Palmera Construction
& Development, LLC, Mohammad Yousef, and Abdulhamid ("Abed")
Dumani, Case No. 4:16-cv-00631 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and
attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company located at
11111 Richmond Avenue, Suite 242, Houston, Texas 77082.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ABC CORP: "Vidal" Suit Alleges Labor Law Violations
---------------------------------------------------
Esperanza Vidal, individually and on behalf all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ABC Corp. dba Roni's Laundromat
dba Roni's Bright Laundromat, Jose Lucas, John Does and Jane Does
Nos. 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00979, (E.D.N.Y., February
26, 2016), alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Section 201 et seq., and the New York Labor Law, arising
from Defendants' various willful and unlawful employment policies,
patterns and/or practices.

ABC Corp. dba Roni's Laundromat dba Roni's Bright Laundromat owns
and operates a recycling business in Queens, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
     Flushing, New York 11354
     Tel: 718.353.8588
     Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


AIR & LIQUID: Faces "Walker" Injury Suit in Delaware
----------------------------------------------------
Jerry Lee Walker and Betty Walker, v. Air & Liquid Systems
Corporation, et al., Case No. N16C-03-153 ASB (Del. Super., March
16, 2016), alleges that Plaintiff was wrongfully exposed to and
inhaled, ingested, or otherwise absorbed asbestos fibers, an
inherently dangerous toxic substance emanating from certain
products which were manufactured, sold, distributed, or installed
by the Defendants.

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation is engaged in the specification,
mining, manufacturing, distribution, sales, licensing, leasing,
installation, removal, or use of asbestos and asbestos-containing
products.

The defendants are: Air & Liquid Systems Corporation, et al.,
individually and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Ampco-Pittsburgh
Corporation, individually and as successor in interest to Buffalo
Pumps; Amchem Products, Inc., n/k/a Rhone Poulenc AG Company,
n/k/a Bayer Cropscience Inc.; Armstrong International, Inc.;
Atwood & Morril Co., d/b/a Weir Valves & Controls USA, Inc.;
Aurora Pump Company; Borgwarner Morse Tec LLC; BW/IP Inc., as
successor to Byron Jackson Pumps; Carrier Corporation,
individually and as successor in interest to Bryant Heating &
Cooling Systems; CBS Corporation, a Delaware Corporation, f/k/a
Viacom, Inc., successor by merger to CBS Corporation, a
Pennsylvania Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation,
as successor in interest to The Bryant Electric Company; Copes-
Vulcan Inc.; Crane Co.; Federal-Mogul Asbestos Personal Injury
Trust, as successor to Felt Products Mfg. Co.;
Flowserve U.S. Inc., individually and solely as successor to Durco
Duriron, Anchor Darling, Superior Group, Edward Vogt, Vogt Valve,
Inc., and Rockwell Manufacturing Company; FMC Corporation,
individually and as successor through acquisition of Northern Pump
Company, Chicago Pump Company, and Peerless Pump Company;
Foster Wheeler LLC; Gardner Denver, Inc.; General Electric
Company; Georgia-Pacific LLC; Goulds Pumps, Incorporated; Grinnell
LLC; Honeywell International, Inc., f/k/a Allied Signal, Inc., as
successor in interest to the Bendix Corporation; ITT Corporation;
Jenkins Bros.; Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc.; Navistar, Inc., d/b/a
International Truck & Engine Corporation, f/k/a International
Harvester, Inc.; Pfizer, Inc.; Roper Pump Company; TDY Industries,
Inc., f/k/a Teledyne Industries, Inc., individually and as
successor of Farris Engineering; The Fairbanks Company; The
Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company; Union Carbide Corporation; Velan
Valve Corporation; Viking Pump, Inc.; Warren Pumps, LLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     A. Dale Bowers, Esq.
     Kenneth L. Wan, Esq.
     William J. P. Mulgrew, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF A. DALE BOWERS, P.A.
     203 North Maryland Avenue
     Wilmington, DE 19804
     Telephone: (302) 691-3786
     Facsimile: (302) 691-3790
     E-mail: dale@bowerslegal.com

          - and -

     Jason Yampolsky, Esq.
     WEITZ & LUXENBERG, P.C.
     700 Broadway
     New York, NY 10003
     Telephone: (212) 558-5500
     Facsimile: (212) 344-5461

Defense Coordinating Counsel is represented by:

     Rufo, Loreto P
     Rufo Associates PA
     1252 Old Lancaster Pike
     Hockessin, DE 19707
     Tel: (302) 234-5900
     E-mail: lrufo@rufolaw.com


ALL HARVEST: "Gonzalez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Melvin Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated v. All Harvest Trading, LLC and Henry L. Chea, Case No.
4:16-cv-00634 (S.D. Tex., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

All Harvest Trading, LLC owns and operates a seafood wholesale
company located at 11100 S. Wilcrest Dr., Houston, TX 77099.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


AMERICAN AIRLINES: Removes "Siadek" Class Suit to C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Siadek, et al. v. American
Airlines, Inc., Case No. BC607127, was removed from the Superior
Court of the State of California for the County of Los Angeles 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-01180 to the proceeding.

The lawsuit arose from labor-related issues.

American Airlines, Inc. operates as a passenger and cargo air
carrier.  The Company also offers freight and mail services.  The
Company operates hubs in Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas/Fort Worth,
Los Angeles, Miami, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, and
Washington.  As of December 31, 2015, the Company operated a fleet
of 946 aircraft.  The company was founded in 1934 and is based in
Fort Worth, Texas.


ANGEL'S I BAKERY: Fails to Pay Employees OT Wages, Action Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elia Martinez, on behalf of herself and other similarly situated
employees v. Angel's I Bakery, Inc., Mis Angelito's Bakery, Inc.,
d/b/a Angel's Bakery, and/or any other corporate entity doing
business as Angel's Bakery located at 4003 5th Avenue, Brooklyn,
New York 11232, and Eduardo Rosales, and Josefina Camarillo, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01202 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation for all
hours worked over 40 each workweek.

The Defendants own and operate Angel's Bakery located at 4003 5th
Avenue, Brooklyn, New York 11232.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Cilenti, Esq.
      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third A venue - 61h Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 209-3933
      Facsimile: (212) 209-7102
      E-mail: info@jcpclaw.com


APOLLO EDUCATION: Pomerantz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against Apollo Education Group, Inc. ("Apollo" or
the "Company") and certain of its officers.   The class action,
filed in United States District Court, District of Arizona, is on
behalf of a class consisting of all persons or entities who
purchased Apollo securities between June 26, 2013 and October 21,
2015 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This class action seeks to
recover damages against Defendants for alleged violations of the
federal securities laws under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased Apollo securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 13, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

Apollo owns and operates several for-profit educational
institutions throughout the United States.  Its largest is the
University of Phoenix, which the Company characterizes as "the
nation's largest regionally accredited private university."

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to
disclose material adverse facts about the Company's business,
operations, and prospects.  Specifically, Defendants made false
and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (i) 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
Barack Obama on April 27, 2012; (ii) 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; (iii) the
Defendants 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; and (iv) 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, which emphasized
Apollo's financial successes and strong financial prospects, the
price of the Company'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 offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation. Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


APPLUS VELOSI: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime Wages, Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Lacombe, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Applus Velosi America, LLC, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00062 (S.D. Texas, March 10, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime wages for all hours worked
over 40 in a workweek.

Applus Velosi America, LLC provides vendor inspection, third party
inspection, certification, testing and manpower services for the
oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Don J. Foty, Esq.
      KENNEDYHODGES,L.L.P.
      711 W.Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: dfoty@kennedyhodges.com

         - and -

      John Neuman, Esq.
      KENNEDY HODGES,L.L.P.
      711 W.Alabama St.
      Houston, TX 77006
      Telephone: (713) 523-0001
      Facsimile: (713) 523-1116
      E-mail: jneuman@kennedyhodges.com


BASTROP, TX: 5th Cir. Appeal Filed in "Brown" Suit
--------------------------------------------------
Terrence Brown v. Cheron Nash, et al., Case No. 16-50129 (5th
Cir.), is an appeal from a decision by the U.S. District Court for
the Western District of Texas, Austin, in Case No. 1:15-CV-689.

Mr. Brown is an inmate at a federal correctional institution in
Bastrop, Texas.  On behalf of all federal inmates similarly
situated, Mr. Brown sued Cheron Nash, the warden at F.C.I.
Bastrop; and Loretta Lynch, U.S. Attorney General.

Mr. Brown appears pro se.


BEAR GLASS: Sued in New Jersey Over Communications Act Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Morgan & Curtis Associates, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. Bear Glass, Inc., Bear Glass New
Jersey, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01349-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 12,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for violation of the
Communications Act.

The Defendants own and operate a glass fabrication company in
Brooklyn, NY.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aytan Yehoshua Bellin, Esq.
      BELLIN & ASSOCIATES LLC
      85 Miles Avenue
      White Plains, NY 10606
      Telephone: (914) 358-5345
      Facsimile: (212) 571-0284
      E-mail: aytan.bellin@bellinlaw.com


BHP BILLITON: April 26 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
Goldberg Law PC on March 16 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against BHP Billiton Limited ("BHP Billiton" or the
"Company").  Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired shares
between September 25, 2014 and November 20, 2015, (the "Class
Period"), are encouraged to contact the firm in advance of the
April 26, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

If you are a shareholder who suffered a loss during the Class
Period, click here to participate.  In addition, we advise you to
contact Michael Goldberg or Brian Schall, of Goldberg Law PC,
13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Suite 708, Marina Del Rey, CA 90292, at
800-977-7401, to discuss your rights without cost to you. You can
also reach us through the firm's website at
http://www.Goldberglawpc.comor by email at info@goldberglawpc.com

The class in this case has not yet been certified, and until
certification occurs, you are not represented by an attorney. If
you choose to take no action, you can remain an absent class
member.

According to the complaint, the Company allegedly issued
misleading statements concerning its implementation of safety
precautions despite knowing the dangerous condition of the Samarco
mine, a Brazilian mining operation jointly owned by BHP and Vale
S.A.

Goldberg Law PC -- http://www.Goldberglawpc.com-- represents
shareholders around the world and specializes in securities class
actions and shareholder rights litigation.


BUFFALO WILD WINGS: To Defend Against Employees' Suit in N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. intends to defend against a lawsuit by
two former employees, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 27, 2015.

"On June 2, 2015, two of our former employees (the "plaintiffs")
filed a collective action under the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA") and putative class action under New York state law
against us in the United States District Court for the Western
District of New York," the Company said.  "The claim alleges that
we have a policy or procedure requiring employees who receive
compensation in part through tip credits to perform work that is
ineligible for tip credit compensation at a tip credit rate in
violation of the FLSA and New York state law. We intend to
vigorously defend this lawsuit. We believe a loss is reasonably
possible, but we are currently unable to reasonably estimate the
amount of loss."

Buffalo Wild Wings, Inc. and its wholly owned and majority owned
subsidiaries operate Buffalo Wild Wings(R), R Taco(TM), and
PizzaRev(R) restaurants, as well as sell Buffalo Wild Wings and R
Taco restaurant franchises.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Awaits Approval of "Marchese" Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that a court decision on the motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement in the case, Marchese, et
al. v. Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC,
remains pending.

The Company is a defendant in a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey by several present and former
Cablevision subscribers, purportedly on behalf of a class of iO
video subscribers in New Jersey, Connecticut and New York. After
three versions of the complaint were dismissed without prejudice
by the District Court, plaintiffs filed their third amended
complaint on August 22, 2011, alleging that the Company violated
Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly tying the sale
of interactive services offered as part of iO television packages
to the rental and use of set-top boxes distributed by Cablevision,
and violated Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by allegedly
seeking to monopolize the distribution of Cablevision compatible
set-top boxes.  Plaintiffs seek unspecified treble monetary
damages, attorney's fees, as well as injunctive and declaratory
relief.

On September 23, 2011, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
third amended complaint.  On January 10, 2012, the District Court
issued a decision dismissing with prejudice the Section 2
monopolization claim, but allowing the Section 1 tying claim and
related state common law claims to proceed.

Cablevision's answer to the third amended complaint was filed on
February 13, 2012.  On January 9, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion
for class certification.

On December 7, 2015, the parties entered into a settlement
agreement, which is subject to approval by the Court. On December
11, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary approval of
the settlement, conditional certification of the settlement class,
and approval of a class notice distribution plan. A decision is
pending.

In the quarter ended September 30, 2015, the Company recorded
estimated charges associated with the settlement totaling
$12,800,000, of which $9,500,000 is reflected in selling, general
and administrative expense, and $3,300,000, representing the cost
of benefits to class members that are reasonably expected to be
provided, is reflected as a reduction to revenue, net. It is
possible that the amount ultimately paid in connection with the
settlement could exceed the amount recorded.

Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United
States based on the number of video customers.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Schedule Set for Summary Judgment Bids
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that a court has approved a schedule for filing
of summary judgment motions in the case, In re Cablevision
Consumer Litigation.

Following expiration of the affiliation agreements for carriage of
certain Fox broadcast stations and cable networks on October 16,
2010, News Corporation terminated delivery of the programming
feeds to the Company, and as a result, those stations and networks
were unavailable on the Company's cable television systems. On
October 30, 2010, the Company and Fox reached an agreement on new
affiliation agreements for these stations and networks, and
carriage was restored.

Several purported class action lawsuits were subsequently filed on
behalf of the Company's customers seeking recovery for the lack of
Fox programming. Those lawsuits were consolidated in an action
before the U. S. District Court for the Eastern District of New
York, and a consolidated complaint was filed in that court on
February 22, 2011. Plaintiffs asserted claims for breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, and consumer fraud, seeking
unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages and attorneys'
fees.

On March 28, 2012, the Court ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss, denying the motion with regard to plaintiffs' breach of
contract claim, but granting it with regard to the remaining
claims, which were dismissed. On April 16, 2012, plaintiffs filed
a second consolidated amended complaint, which asserts a claim
only for breach of contract. The Company's answer was filed on May
2, 2012.

On October 10, 2012, plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification and on December 13, 2012, a motion for partial
summary judgment. On March 31, 2014, the Court granted plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, and denied without prejudice
plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. On May 30, 2014, the
Court approved the form of class notice, and on October 7, 2014,
approved the class notice distribution plan. The class notice
distribution has been completed, and the opt-out period expired on
February 27, 2015.

Expert discovery commenced on May 5, 2014, and concluded on
December 8 and 28, 2015, when the Court ruled on the pending
expert discovery motions. On January 26, 2016, the Court approved
a schedule for filing of summary judgment motions.

The Company believes that this claim is without merit and intends
to defend these lawsuits vigorously, but is unable to predict the
outcome of these lawsuits or reasonably estimate a range of
possible loss.

Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United
States based on the number of video customers.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Wandel" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff in Arnold Wandel v.
Cablevision Systems Corp., et al., has filed a notice of dismissal
without prejudice, which the Court approved.

On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Cablevision, the Company's Board of Directors, Altice and
Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision's stockholders by
approving the sale of the Company to Altice for inadequate
consideration and by agreeing to preclude other potential
acquirers from tendering superior proposals, and that Altice aided
and abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks preliminary and
permanent injunctive relief blocking the closing of the Merger,
rescission of the Merger were it to close, costs, attorneys' fees,
and such other relief as the Court may deem just and proper. The
parties agreed to suspend the time to answer or otherwise respond
to the complaint until plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint.
On December 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of dismissal without
prejudice, which the Court approved on December 11, 2015. The
Company believes this matter is now concluded.

Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United
States based on the number of video customers.


CABLEVISION SYSTEMS: Plaintiff Dismisses "Gould" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Cablevision Systems Corporation and CSC Holdings, LLC, said in
their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that the Plaintiff in James R. Gould, Jr. v.
Cablevision Systems Corp., et al., has filed a notice of dismissal
without prejudice, which the Court approved.

On September 24, 2015, a putative shareholder class action lawsuit
was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
against Cablevision, the Company's Board of Directors, Altice and
Merger Sub. The complaint alleges that the Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to Cablevision's stockholders by,
among other reasons, failing to properly value the Company and
failing to take steps to maximize the value of Cablevision to its
public stockholders in connection with the sale of the Company to
Altice, and that Altice, Cablevision and Merger Sub aided and
abetted the breaches. The complaint seeks injunctive relief
blocking the closing of the Merger, unspecified damages, costs,
attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court may deem just
and proper. The parties agreed to suspend the time to answer or
otherwise respond to the complaint until plaintiff filed a
consolidated complaint. On December 9, 2015, plaintiff filed a
notice of dismissal without prejudice, which the Court approved on
December 11, 2015. The Company believes this matter is now
concluded.

Cablevision is one of the largest cable operators in the United
States based on the number of video customers.


CANADA: First Nations Wants Sixties Scoop Class Action Settled
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gloria Galloway, writing for The Globe and Mail, reports that
Indigenous people who say they lost their cultural identity when
they were removed as children from their homes on Ontario reserves
to be placed with non-aboriginal families are urging the federal
government to negotiate a settlement in a long-standing case that
will go before a judge later this year.

The class-action suit seeks redress for what the plaintiffs say
was the government's failure to ensure that, after being taken
from their communities by child-welfare authorities -- a wide-
scale practice known as the Sixties Scoop -- the children were
allowed to maintain their traditions and customs and to obtain the
benefits that flow to aboriginal people, such as free
postsecondary tuition.

The case was launched in 2009 on behalf of Marcia Brown Martel,
now the Chief of the Beaverhouse First Nation, who was taken from
her community north of North Bay in 1967 when she was four years
old and, after years in foster care, was adopted by a white family
in central Ontario.

Her lawyers estimate there are about 16,000 other indigenous
people in the province who were removed from their homes in
similar fashion between 1965 and 1984 -- the period covered by the
claim.

After seven years of delays, mostly as a result of appeals by
Ottawa, the two sides will have a chance to present their
arguments at a summary judgment hearing in the Ontario Superior
Court on Aug. 23.  Television ads will soon air on both the CBC
and the Aboriginal Peoples Television Network to advise other
indigenous people who were part of the Sixties Scoop that they
must opt out by April 22 if they don't want to be part of the
case.

The claim seeks combined damages of $100,000 for each person that
is part of the class action. Similar suits have been launched in
other provinces where the plaintiffs are waiting for the outcome
of the Ontario case.

"Canada, under the previous [Conservative] government, wouldn't
sit down to talk with us. They were instructed 'no dialogue, no
mediation, nothing,'" Jeffrey Wilson, the lawyer for Ms. Brown
Martel and the other class-action claimants, said in a telephone
interview on March 16.

Mr. Wilson said he had hoped that the Liberal victory in the
October election would lead to negotiations toward an out-of-court
settlement.  But, so far, he said, the new government has shown no
interest in talks.

The Indigenous Affairs Department suggested in an e-mail that the
impasse may be about to end.

"The government of Canada continues to prefer negotiation versus
litigation," a department spokeswoman said.  She pointed out that
Justice Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould is examining all litigation
on a case-by-case basis to ensure that it does not infringe upon
aboriginal rights.

"It would be premature, however, to speculate on how that review
may impact claims concerning the Sixties Scoop," she said.

While litigants in some other provinces argue that the government
should not have removed aboriginal children from their communities
and placed them with non-aboriginal families, the Ontario case
does not.

Instead, Mr. Wilson said, it asks "was there a duty, after they
were placed, to provide access to them, to give them information
to enable them to have access to their culture, if they so chose."

Ms. Brown Martel, who was abandoned by her adopted family at the
age of 17 and returned to a community to which she no longer had
ties, said she grew up believing she was wanted by no one.  "I was
suicidal when I was 7 and I stayed that way until my early 20s,"
she said.

The suit, Ms. Brown Martel said, was brought to ensure "that there
would come a time in Canada when it would be against the law to
remove children from their communities, forcing them to lose their
language, their cultural identity, their traditions."


CASHCALL INC: Consumer Loans Fraudulent, "Sinclair" Suit Alleges
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Sinclair, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Cashcall, Inc., WS
Funding, LLC, Delbert Service Corporation, and John Paul Reddam,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00456-CAB, (N.D. Ohio, February 26,
2016), seeks damages and injunctive relief against Defendants
arising from offering, funding, servicing and collecting on
fraudulent and illegal consumer loans made to Ohio borrowers.

CashCall is engaged in the business of offering, making,
purchasing, servicing, and collecting on consumer loans.

The case is assigned to Judge Christopher A. Boyko.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert R. Sparks, Esq.
     STRAUSS TROY CO., LPA
     150 East Fourth Street
     Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
     Tel: (513) 621-2120
     Fax: (513) 241-8259
     Email: rrsparks@strausstroy.com


CENTRAL FREIGHT LINES: Violated Wage Orders, "Vargas" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Vargas, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Central Freight Lines, Inc., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00507-L-JLB,
(C.D. Cal., February 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
employed and continue to employ Pick-Up and Delivery Drivers to
whom Defendants as a class wide policy and practice failed to pay
appropriate overtime pay, did not make statutory meal periods or
rest breaks available or failed to pay an hour's pay in lieu
thereof, failed to provide accurate, itemized wage statements, and
who were thus not paid all wages due consistent with California
law. Plaintiff further contends Defendants' failure to comply with
the California Labor Code, and Industrial Welfare Commission
("IWC") Wage Orders is an unlawful business practice within the
meaning of California Business and Professions Code, section
17200, et seq.

The case is assigned to Judge M. James Lorenz.

Plaintiff demands trial of his claims by jury to the extent
authorized by law.

CFL is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in
Waco, Texas. Within California CFL provides local pick-up and
delivery services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Christopher A. Olsen, Esq.
     OLSEN LAW OFFICES, APC
     1010 Second Ave., Ste. 1835
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 550-9352
     Fax: (619) 923-2747
     Email: caolsen@caolsenlawoffices.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Sued Over Oil and Gas Leasehold Interests
------------------------------------------------------------
Don Beadles, In Trust For The Alva Synagogue Church, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Chesapeake Energy
Corporation, Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by
merger to Chesapeake Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc.,
Tom L. Ward, and John Does 1-50, Case No. 5:16-cv-00238-HE (W.D.
Ok., March 10, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
conspiracy to rig bids and depress the amounts they paid to
property owners for the acquisition of oil and gas leasehold
interests and producing properties.

The Defendants own and operate a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company in Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William B. Federman, Esq.
      Carin L. Marcussen, Esq.
      FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
      10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
      Oklahoma, OK  73120
      Telephone: (405) 235-1560
      Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
      E-mail:  wbf@federmanlaw.com
               clm@federmanlaw.com

         - and -

      Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
      Andrew W. Ferich, Esq.
      CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
      361 W. Lancaster Avenue
      Haverford, PA  19041
      Telephone: (610) 642-8500
      Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
      E-mail:  bfj@chimicles.com
               awf@chimicles.com


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Faces "Pappas" Class Suit in S.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Chipotle Mexican
Grill, Inc.

The case is captioned Allison Pappas, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00612-MMA-JLB (S.D. Cal., March 10, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen B. Morris, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN B. MORRIS
      444 West C Street, Suite 300
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 239-1300
      Facsimile: (619) 234-3672
      E-mail: morris@sandiegolegal.com


CLIENT SERVICES: Accused of Violating Fair Debt Collection Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cathy El-Kallab, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Client Services, Inc., a foreign for-profit
corporation, Case No. 8:16-cv-00404-MSS-AEP (M.D. Fla., Feb. 19,
2016) accuses the Defendant of violating the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act.

Client Services, Inc. is a debt collection agency with
headquarters in St. Charles, Missouri.  The Company describes
itself as an accounts receivable management firm that collects
debt on behalf of businesses and organizations, including banks,
utility companies, municipalities, county governments, private
educational institutions, print publishers and medical providers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ian Richard Leavengood, Esq.
          LEAVENGOOD, DAUVAL, BOYLE & MEYER PA
          3900 First St. N, Suite 100
          St Petersburg, FL 33703-6109
          Telephone: (727) 327-3328
          Facsimile: (727) 327-3305
          E-mail: ileavengood@leavenlaw.com


CLIFFS NATURAL: To Defend Vigorously Against Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
John Funk, writing for The Plain Dealer, reports that investors
who still own stock in Cleveland-based Cliffs Natural Resources
face another round of bad news.

Their stock lost more than 12 percent of value on March 15,
closing at just $2.38 a share on the New York Stock Exchange,
after two investors who previously bought unsecured bonds in the
company filed a class action lawsuit.

The complaint, filed in a federal court in New York, alleges that
Cliffs, still the nation's larges iron ore mining company, gave
big institutional bondholders and banks an opportunity to exchange
their unsecured Cliffs notes for new unconditionally guaranteed
notes that pay an 8 percent rate of interest and come due in 2020.

The deal "created two classes of holders of Class Notes with very
unequal rights," the suit alleges, adding that individual
bondholders "were kept in the dark regarding the . . .[ details of
the company's] exchange offer."

What this means, says the suit, is that holders of the new notes
would come first if the company had to choose whom to pay, for
example in a bankruptcy proceeding.

The exchange of the old notes for the new bonds has "impaired the
Class members' [those holding the old notes] right to received
payment of the principal and interest . . . and the right to
institute suit to compel such payment," the suit argues.

Cliffs on March 15 issued the following statement without further
comment:

"Cliffs typically does not comment on litigation matters. However,
the company felt compelled to state its belief that this lawsuit
over the note exchanges in January 2016 is entirely without merit.
Cliffs fully intends to defend vigorously against the claims."

The sell-off of Cliffs shares on March 15 came right on the heels
of a 16 percent surge in the company's share price on March 14 on
news that it would restart iron ore production in Minnesota by
mid-May.  The restart decision came after the Commerce Department
said it would impose tariffs on imported steel.

And the exchange deal itself helped push Cliffs' share price up in
February because the point of the exchange was to reduce the
company's debt as it weathers the global decline in steel making
and demand for iron ore.

In the past five years, the value of Cliffs' stock has fallen from
about $100 a share in the spring of 2011 to $2.71 on
March 14, before losing another 33 cents to close at $2.38 a share
on March 15.


COGENT COMMS: Discovery in "Ambrosio" to Continue Until December
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg issued a Further Case Management
Scheduling order in the case, AMBROSIO v. COGENT COMMUNICATIONS,
INC., Case No. 14-cv-02182-RS (N.D. Cal.).

On or before December 2, 2016, all non-expert discovery shall be
completed by the parties. Additionally, the parties shall meet and
confer and submit to the Court a proposal regarding discovery
limits on or before March 25, 2016.

The disclosure and discovery of expert witnesses shall proceed as
follows:

     a. On or before September 30, 2016, parties will designate
experts in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
26(a)(2).

     b. On or before October 28, 2016, parties will designate
their supplemental and rebuttal experts in accordance with Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2).

     c. On or before December 2, 2016, all discovery of expert
witnesses pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(b)(4)
shall be completed.

A Further Case Management Conference shall be held on December 8,
2016, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. The
parties shall file a Joint Case Management Statement at least one
week prior to the Conference.

All dispositive pretrial motions shall be heard no later than
March 2, 2017.

The final pretrial conference will be held on May 4, 2017, at
10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse,
450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California. Each party or
lead counsel who will try the case shall attend personally.

A jury trial shall commence on May 22, 2017, at 9:00 a.m., in
Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate
Avenue, San Francisco, California.

A copy of the Court's March 17 Order is available at
http://bit.ly/22t5UMKfrom Leagle.com.


COM DEV USA: "Tom" Suit Alleges ERISA & FAA Violations
------------------------------------------------------
Curtis Tom, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Com Dev USA, LLC; Com Dev USA, LLC
Employee Benefit Plans Committee; Com Dev USA Retirement Plan,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01363, (C.D. Cal., February 26,
2016), alleges violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

Plaintiff also seeks relief under ERISA and the Federal
Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. Section 2, declaring that the
arbitration agreement Plaintiff was required to sign violates
ERISA and public policy, and is unconscionable and unenforceable.

Defendant, Com Dev USA Retirement Plan, is an "employee pension
benefit plan" and a "defined benefit plan" within the meaning of
ERISA Sections 3(2) and (35), 29 U.S.C. Sections 1002(2) and (35),
which was established and maintained for the purpose of providing
retirement to employees.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Peter K. Stris, Esq.
     Victor O'Connell, Esq.
     Thomas E. Logan, Esq.
     STRIS & MAHER LLP
     725 South Figueroa Street, Suite 1830
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 995-6800
     Fax: (213) 261-0299
     Email: peter.stris@strismaher.com
            victor.oconnell@strismaher.com
            tom.logan@strismaher.com


COMSCORE INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sommer" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Sommer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Comscore, Inc., Serge Matta, and
Melvin Wesley III, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01820
(S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act).

Comscore provides data, metrics, products, and services to clients
in the media, advertising, and marketing industries. The Company
delivers digital media analytics that help content owners and
advertisers understand and value the composition of consumer media
audiences, and help marketers understand the performance and
effectiveness of advertising targeted at these audiences. The
Company's technology measures consumer interactions with digital
media, including Web sites, apps, video programming, and
advertising.

On February 29, 2016, the Company filed a Notification of Late
Filing on Form 12b-25 with the SEC, disclosing that the Company
would be unable to file its Annual Report on Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 on time because the Company
required additional time to prepare its financial statements and
complete the external audit of those statements included in the
Form 10-K.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com
                  info@glancylaw.com


CREDIT CONTROL: Violates Fair Debt Collection Act, Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sheva Goldman, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers v. Credit Control, LLC, d/b/a Credit Control &
Collections, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00851 (E.D.N.Y., February 19,
2016) is brought over alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act.

Credit Control, LLC was founded in 2006.  The Company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CVS HEALTH: Defends Supplements Amid Memory-Enhancer Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that CVS
continues to stand behind both its store brands and its efforts to
comply with health and safety regulations in the wake of a class
action lawsuit filed over a supplement the pharmacy chain
manufactures and sells as a memory-enhancer.

"Our store brands are designed to maximize quality and assure the
products we offer for sale are safe, work as intended, comply with
regulations and satisfy customers," said Michael DeAngelis, senior
director for corporate communications at CVS Health.

"As this matter involves pending litigation, we cannot comment
specifically on the allegations within the complaint."

The class action was filed Feb. 1 in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of New York by Jeffrey Worth of New York and
Robert Burns of Florida.  They allege CVS violated the New York
General Business Law and the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade
Practices Act through the sale of a supplement called Algal-900
DHA.

CVS manufactures the product, which bears a label saying that it
has been "clinically shown to improve memory."

The lawsuit mentions that a 2014 article in the American Journal
of Clinical Nutrition, a peer-reviewed journal, concluded that
taking omega-3 fatty acids will not "promote cognitive function in
terms of composite memory, executive function and (mental)
processing speed domains."

The medical journal's meta-analysis involved nearly 13,000 people
spanning 34 studies.

The lawsuit charges that CVS relied exclusively on a single
discredited study by another supplement manufacturer to make the
claim about memory enhancement.

The Federal Trade Commission concluded that the study carried out
by supplement manufacturer Martek Biosciences does not in fact
affirm that products made from DHA -- an omega-3 fatty acid --
improve memory, the lawsuit contends.

Angal-900 DHA contains a proprietary blend of ingredients,
including high-oleic sunflower oil and sunflower lecithin.

Attorney Richard Raskin -- rraskin@sidley.com -- of Sidley Austin
LLP in Chicago, whose practice has focused on health care
litigation, said supplement manufacturers are, in general, more
and more becoming targets for litigation.

"Supplement makers are experiencing increasing scrutiny from
regulators, prosecutors and class action lawyers," Mr. Raskin
said.

He emphasized, however, that the supplements companies can take
steps to minimize their litigation risks, although he noted that
trying to "fly under the radar" is not a legitimate way to assure
compliance with regulations.

"Some risks are inherent to the industry, but there is no question
that supplement makers can take actions that will mitigate these
risks," Mr. Raskin said.

"In particular, it is critically important to build a strong
compliance function that vets labeling and marketing claims and
helps to ensure good manufacturing practices."

One part of the CVS lawsuit criticized the company for making
health claims on the front and back labels of its Algal-900 DHA
product but only placing the standard disclaimer on the back side.
Such disclaimers generally state, "These statements have not been
evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration.  This product is
not intended to diagnose, treat or prevent any disease."

The plaintiffs and others in the class action seek damages, fees
and other costs amounting to more than $5 million.


DEJA VU: Sued in Mich. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 1, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Deja Vu Consulting, Inc. d/b/a Deja Vu of Saginaw,
Inc., DV Saginaw, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-10877-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich.,
March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Deja vu night clubs in Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
      Rachael E. Kohl, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, PC
      117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      Facsimile: (248) 398-9804


DENSO CORP: Faces Class Action Over Auto Parts Price-Fixing
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Holmes, writing for CTV News, reports that a Winnipeg
lawyer wants to put money back in drivers' pockets.

Norman Boudreau launched a class action lawsuit against seven
international auto parts manufacturers on March 10.

"We're pleading that the auto part makers, and those are
international auto part makers, have been conspiring to raise the
price of the parts," Mr. Boudreau said.

Mr. Boudreau filed the suit claiming seven of the world's leading
automotive part manufacturers and their subsidiaries conspired to
fix the price of parts.

The suit claims those inflated prices were passed onto automobile
manufacturers and eventually people who bought or leased vehicles
between January 2000 and February 2010.

It affects parts used in some of the most popular vehicles sold in
Canada.

No dollar figure is established yet for the class action.

The suit has yet to be certified by the courts.

"I anticipate it's going to be quite significant.  These auto part
makers have already been fined by the competition bureau, Canada
Competition Bureau, over $50 million in Canada alone,"
Mr. Boudreau said.

The 200 page document lists guilty pleas made in the United States
by some of the companies listed in this suit.

The guilty pleas resulted in billion dollar criminal fines for
price-fixing and bid-rigging parts including starter motors,
heater control panels and break hoses, amongst others.

"This suit has been filed in British Columbia, now being filed in
Manitoba, we anticipate it being filed across Canada as well,"
said Mr. Boudreau.

For more information on the lawsuit, visit the Boudreau Law
website.

The defendants listed in the suit are:

Denso Corporation, Denso Manufacturing Canada, Inc., Denso Sales
Canada, Inc., Denso International America, Inc., Denso
International Korea Corporation, Asmo Co., Ltd., Asmo North
America, Llc, Asmo Manufacturing, Inc., Hitachi Automotive
Systems, Ltd., Hitachi Automotive Systems Americas, Inc. Hitachi
Metals, Ltd. (being successor in interest to Hitachi Cable, Ltd.),
Hitachi Metals America, Llc (being successor in interest to
Hitachi Metals America, Ltd.), Hitachi Cable America Inc., Hitachi
America, Ltd. (D/B/A Hitachi Canada), Mitsuba Corporation,
American Mitsuba Corporation, Sumitomo Electric Industries, Ltd.,
Sumitomo Electric Wintec America, Inc., Sumitomo Wiring Systems,
Ltd., Sumitomo Electric Wiring Systems, Inc., K&S Wiring Systems,
Inc., Sumitomo Wiring Systems (U.S.A.), Tokai Rika, Co. Ltd.,
Tram, Inc. D/B/A Tokai Rika U.S.A. Inc., Yazaki Corporation,
Yazaki North America, Inc., and Furukawa Electric Co., Ltd., And
American Furukawa, Inc.


DIRECT DIGITAL: Bid for Heightened Class Standard Review Nixed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Supreme Court recently declined a request for review by a
company arguing in favor of a "heightened" standard for
ascertaining class members in federal class actions.

The nation's high court denied Direct Digital LLC's petition for a
writ of certiorari, which was filed in October.

The company, which makes Instaflex Joint Support, a product aimed
at relieving joint discomfort, argued the case was an important
one because of an existing circuit split.

The question presented to the Supreme Court in Direct Digital LLC
v. Mullins: "Whether a court may certify a class under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) where the plaintiff fails to make
any showing of a reliable and administratively feasible means for
ascertaining class membership."

"Plaintiffs seek to certify classes whose claimed membership would
be determined based on nothing more than a consumer's vague
recollections," Direct Digital wrote in its petition.  "In the
absence of proof of purchase or other records showing who
purchased what product and when, plaintiffs suggest that class
membership can be established through self-identifying affidavits
-- simple boilerplate recitations, untested by cross-examination,
that claim a place in the class.  And inevitably, of course, this
method carries not only the risk of foggy memory, but can also
tempt outright fraud.

"If such claims were brought individually, a defendant would have
a due process right to test whether the plaintiff actually
purchased the defendant's product.  That fundamental right cannot
be compromised for the convenience of class plaintiffs and their
counsel."

The Supreme Court, in its Feb. 29 order list, did not provide an
explanation for its decision, as is customary.

However, Justice Antonin Scalia's death in February may have
played a part in Mullins.

The 79-year-old justice was found dead of natural causes at a
luxury hunting resort in West Texas Feb. 13.  He served on the
high court for nearly 30 years and had a significant impact on the
court's rulings in class action cases.

As Michael R. Carroll-- carrollm@ballardspahr.com -- a partner at
the New Jersey office of Ballard Spahr LLP, recently noted, in
four cases with five-justice majorities, Justice Scalia wrote for
a divided court that upheld contractual waivers of class
arbitration; questioned class-wide damages models; and required a
strict interpretation of what constitutes common questions of law
and fact sufficient to maintain a class action under Rule 23.

Rule 23 governs the procedure and conduct of class action suits
brought in federal courts.

Mr. Carroll said it may be that the remaining eight justices don't
want to take up cases that are likely to closely divide the court
until Scalia's replacement is confirmed.

The White House confirmed that President Barack Obama plans to
nominate Merrick Garland, chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit. Obama planned to make his
announcement March 16.

In Mullins, plaintiff Vince Mullins sued Direct Digital for
fraudulently representing that its product relieves joint
discomfort.  He alleges that statements on the Instaflex labels
and marketing materials -- "relieve discomfort," "improve
flexibility," "increase mobility," "support cartilage repair,"
"scientifically formulated" and "clinically tested for maximum
effectiveness" -- are fraudulent because the primary ingredient in
the supplement, glucosamine sulfate, is nothing more than a sugar
pill and there is no scientific support for the claims.

Mr. Mullins asserts that Direct Digital is liable for consumer
fraud under the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and similar consumer protection laws in nine other
states.

Mr. Mullins moved to certify a class of consumers "who purchased
Instaflex within the applicable statute of limitations of the
respective Class States for personal use until the date notice is
disseminated."  The district court certified the class under Rule
23(b)(3).

Rule 23(b)(3), in class action law, requires that judges not
certify or authorize a class unless he or she finds that common
issues of law or fact predominate.

Direct Digital filed a petition for leave to appeal under Rule
23(f) arguing that the district court abused its discretion in
certifying the class without first finding that the class was
"ascertainable."

Direct Digital also argued that the district court erred by
concluding that the efficacy of a health product can qualify as a
"common" question under Rule 23(a)(2).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in its July 28
opinion, affirmed class certification, concluding that the
company's ascertainability concerns are outweighed.

Such a heightened ascertainability requirement "upsets the
balance," the Seventh Circuit ruled.

"In effect, it gives one factor in the balance absolute priority,
with the effect of barring class actions where class treatment is
often most needed: in cases involving relatively low-cost goods or
services, where consumers are unlikely to have documentary proof
of purchase," the panel wrote.

Direct Digital argued in its petition to the Supreme Court that
the Seventh Circuit, in its ruling, didn't require Mullins to make
any showing that the class could actually be ascertained in a
feasible and reliable manner.

"The court explicitly acknowledged the other circuits that would
require such an ascertainability showing, but chose to reject
their approach," the company wrote.

"The Seventh Circuit's decision leaves Petitioner Direct Digital
facing potentially huge damages from the certified class, with no
assurances that it will ever be able to test whether any of the
would-be class members actually purchased Instaflex.

"The only winner, of course, is not the class members -- who stand
to recover little, if they can be identified at all -- but class
counsel -- who has now been handed extraordinary leverage to
negotiate a settlement and its fee."


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Accused of Violating FDCPA in California
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Sutphen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., and Does 1-100
and each of them, Case No. 3:16-cv-00465-GPC-BLM (S.D. Cal.,
February 19, 2016) accuses the Defendants of violating the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc., is a Coon Rapids, Minnesota
company specializing in debt collection services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOVENMUEHLE MORTGAGE: "Shipkovitz" Suit Removed to Dist. Maryland
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Samuel Shipkovitz and others
similarly situated v. Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc., Everhome
Mortgage, Inc., Thomas J. Curry, Richard Cordray, Edith Ramirez,
Case No. 413180V, was removed from the Circuit Court for
Montgomery County, Maryland to the U.S. District Court
District of Maryland (Greenbelt). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00712-The District Court Clerk assigned
to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Truth in Lending
Act.

Dovenmuehle Mortgage, Inc. operates a mortgage banking company
located at 1 Corporate Dr # 360, Lake Zurich, IL 60047.

Everhome Mortgage, Inc. operates a financial services company
providing banking, mortgages, and investing services.
Samuel Shipkovitz is a pro se plaintiff.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Michael Thomas Cantrell, Esq.
      MCCABE WEISBERG AND CONWAY PC
      312 Marshall Ave Ste 800
      Laurel, MD 20707
      Telephone: (301) 490-3361
      Facsimile: (301) 490-1568
      E-mail: MdFederalEfilings@mwc-law.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Cantamaglia" Suit Included in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Cantamaglia, et al. v. DraftKings,
Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-06073, was transferred from the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
(Boston).  The Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-10349 to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
          Andrew Ferich, Esq.
          Benjamin F. Johns, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          One Haverford Centre
          Haverford, PA 19401
          Telephone: (610) 642-8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649-3633
          E-mail: josephsauder@chimicles.com
                  awf@chimicles.com
                  bfj@chimicles.com

Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by:

          Franco A. Corrado, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market St.
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-5000
          E-mail: fcorrado@morganlewis.com

Defendant FanDuel Inc. is represented by:

          Ira N. Richards, Esq.
          TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS LLC
          226 W. Rittenhouse Square
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 731-9004
          Facsimile: (215) 731-9044
          E-mail: IRichards@trrlaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Facenda" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Jamie Facenda v. DraftKings,
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-08922, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10337-GAO to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrea R. Gold, Esq.
          Jeffrey D. Kaliel, Esq.
          TYCKO AND ZAVAREEI LLP
          1828 L Street NW, Suite 1000
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 973-0900
          Facsimile: (202) 973-0950
          E-mail: agold@tzlegal.com
                  jkaliel@tzlegal.com

               - and -

          Matthew J. Preusch, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK LLP
          1129 State Street, Suite 8
          Santa Barbara, CA 92101
          Telephone: (805) 456-1496
          Facsimile: (805) 456-1497
          E-mail: mpreusch@kellerrohrback.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James P. Fogelman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7234
          E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hale" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Daniel Hale v. DraftKings Inc, et
al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01879, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10339-GAO to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel S. Robinson, Esq.
          Kevin Frank Calcagnie, Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          19 Corporate Plaza Drive
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: drobinson@rcrsd.com
                  kcalcagnie@rcrlaw.net

               - and -

          Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.
          ROBINSON CALCAGNIE ROBINSON SHAPIRO DAVIS INC.
          620 Newport Center Drive, Seventh Floor
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 720-1288
          Facsimile: (949) 720-1292
          E-mail: mrobinson@rcrlaw.net

               - and -

          Michael I. Katz, Esq.
          Wayne R. Gross, Esq.
          GREENBERG GROSS LLP
          650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1750
          Costa Mesa, CA 92626
          Telephone: (949) 383-2800
          Facsimile: (949) 383-2801
          E-mail: mkatz@ggtriallaw.com
                  wgross@ggtriallaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hemrich" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Hemrich, et al. v. DraftKings,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00445, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Illinois to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10351
to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Anthony S. Bruning, Esq.
          Anthony S. Bruning, Jr., Esq.
          THE BRUNING LAW FIRM
          555 Washington Avenue, Suite 600
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 735-8100
          Facsimile: (314) 735-8020
          E-mail: tony@bruninglegal.com
                  aj@bruninglegal.com

               - and -

          Richard S. Cornfeld, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF RICHARD S. CORNFELD
          1010 Market Street, Suite 1720
          St. Louis, MO 63101
          Telephone: (314) 241-5799
          Facsimile: (314) 241-5788
          E-mail: rcornfeld@cornfeldlegal.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          James P. Fogelman, Esq.
          Timothy W. Loose, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7234
          Facsimile: (213) 229-6234
          E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com
                  tloose@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Austin Schwing, Esq.
          GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP
          555 Mission Street, Suite 3000
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 393-8200
          E-mail: aschwing@gibsondunn.com

               - and -

          Theodore J. MacDonald, Jr., Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          One Metropolitan Square
          211 North Broadway, Suite 2700
          St. Louis, MO 63102
          Telephone: (314) 241-6160
          Facsimile: (314) 241-6116
          E-mail: TJM@heplerbroom.com

               - and -

          W. Jason Rankin, Esq.
          HEPLERBROOM LLC
          130 North Main Street
          P.O. Box 510
          Edwardsville, IL 62025
          Telephone: (618) 307-1138
          Facsimile: (618) 656-1364
          E-mail: wjr@heplerbroom.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Hodge" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Hodge v. DraftKings, Inc., Case
No. 1:15-cv-03951, was transferred from the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The Massachusetts
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10334-GAO to the
proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher B. Hood, Esq.
          Taylor C. Bartlett, Esq.
          W. Lewis Garrison, Jr., Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON DAVIS LLC
          2224 1st Avenue North
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 326-3336
          Facsimile: (205) 326-3332
          E-mail: chood@hgdlawfirm.com
                  taylor@hgdlawfirm.com
                  wlgarrison@hgdlawfirm.com

               - and -

          James F. McDonough, III, Esq.
          HENINGER GARRISON & DAVIS, LLC
          3621 Vinings Slope, Suite 4320
          Atlanta, GA 30339
          Telephone: (404) 996-0869
          Facsimile: (205) 380-8076
          E-mail: jmcdonough@hgdlawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Chad Lennon, Esq.
          Frank M. Lowrey, IV, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE LLP
          1201 W Peachtree St., Suite 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881-4168
          Facsimile:  (404) 881-4111
          E-mail: lennon@bmelaw.com
                  lowrey@bmelaw.com


DRAFTKINGS INC: "Huizar" Suit Consolidated in Fantasy Sports MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Sergio Huizar v. DraftKings, Inc.,
et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-09956, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).  The
Massachusetts District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
10338-GAO to the proceeding.

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

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

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

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David C. Leimbach, Esq.
          Kiley Lynn Grombacher, Esq.
          Marcus J. Bradley, Esq.
          MARLIN AND SALTZMAN LLP
          29229 Canwood Street, Suite 208
          Agoura Hills, CA 91301
          Telephone: (818) 991-8080
          Facsimile: (818) 991-8081
          E-mail: dleimbach@marlinsaltzman.com
                  kgrombacher@marlinsaltzman.com
                  mbradley@marlinsaltzman.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian, II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN II
          18250 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609-0807
          Facsimile: (818) 609-0892
          E-mail: sahagii@aol.com

Defendant DraftKings Inc. is represented by:

          James P. Fogelman, Esq.
          GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
          333 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
          Telephone: (213) 229-7234
          E-mail: jfogelman@gibsondunn.com


EMCOR GROUP: Subsidiary Settles "Vasquez" Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
EMCOR Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that its subsidiary, USM,
Inc., has settled the class action lawsuit by Federico Vilchiz
Vasquez et al.

"One of our subsidiaries, USM, Inc. ("USM"), doing business in
California provides, among other things, janitorial services to
its customers by having those services performed by independent
janitorial companies. USM and one of its customers, which owns
retail stores (the "Customer"), were co-defendants in a federal
class action lawsuit brought by six employees of USM's California
janitorial subcontractors," the Company said.

The action captioned Federico Vilchiz Vasquez, Jesus Vilchiz
Vasquez, Francisco Domingo Claudio, for themselves and all others
similarly situated vs. USM, Inc. dba USM Services, Inc., a
Pennsylvania Corporation, et al., was commenced on September 5,
2013 in a Superior Court of California and was removed by USM on
November 22, 2013 to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California.

The employees alleged in their complaint, among other things, that
USM and the Customer, during a period that began before our
acquisition of USM, violated a California statute that prohibits
USM from entering into a contract with a janitorial subcontractor
when it knew or should have known that the contract did not
include funds sufficient to allow the janitorial subcontractor to
comply with all local, state and federal laws or regulations
governing the labor or services to be provided. The employees
asserted that the amounts USM paid to its janitorial
subcontractors were insufficient to allow those janitorial
subcontractors to meet their obligations regarding, among other
things, wages due for all hours their employees worked, minimum
wages, overtime pay and meal and rest breaks. These employees
sought to represent not only themselves, but also all other
individuals who provided janitorial services at the Customer's
stores in California during the relevant four-year time period.

"We do not believe USM or the Customer violated the California
statute or that the employees could have brought the action as a
class action on behalf of other employees of janitorial companies
with whom USM subcontracted for the provision of janitorial
services to the Customer," the Company said.

The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that USM had violated
the California statute, monetary damages, including all unpaid
wages and interest thereon, restitution for unpaid wages, and an
award of attorneys' fees and costs.

USM and its Customer have settled the claims asserted in the class
action pursuant to the terms of a consent decree approved by the
federal judge in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California on February 16, 2016, which followed a
determination by the Court of the consent decree's fairness,
adequacy and reasonableness.

Under the terms of the consent decree, USM will:

     (a) pay an aggregate of $1.0 million (i) for monetary relief
         to the members of the class, (ii) for awards to the
         class representative plaintiffs, (iii) for California
         Labor Code Private Attorney General Act payments to the
         State of California for an immaterial amount, and (iv)
         for all costs of notice and administration of the claims
         process,

     (b) pay to counsel for the class an aggregate of $1.3
         million, of which $0.2 million has been allocated for
         their reimbursable costs and litigation expenses and
         $1.1 million has been allocated for attorneys' fees, and

     (c) monitor USM's California subcontractors providing
         janitorial services to its Customer in accordance with
         agreed upon procedures designed principally to ensure
         janitorial employees of those subcontractors are paid no
         less than minimum wage.

EMCOR is an electrical and mechanical construction and facilities
services firm.


EVOLUTION HOSPITALITY: Maintenance Failure, "Sofia" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sofia Sanchez, the Plaintiff, v. Evolution Hospitality, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. CIV537713 (Cal. Super. Ct., San Mateo County,
March 10, 2016), seeks to recover costs of suit, just and
equitable relief including compensatory damages and punitive
damages as a result of Defendant's negligence.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendant negligently owned, operated,
inspected, failed to inspect, maintained, managed, or otherwise
controlled property at the Marriott Hotel, located at 1770 S
Amphlette Blvd, in the city and county of San Mateo, State of
California.

Evolution Hospitality operates hotels. It offers rooms and suites,
a meeting/event space, a restaurant, a rooftop pool, a spa, and
bars. The Company was formerly known as Tarsadia Hotels, Inc., and
was founded in 1976 and is headquartered in San Clemente,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan M. Laskin, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ALAN M. LASKIN
          1810 S Street
          Sacramento, CA 95811
          Telephone: (916) 329 9010
          Facsimile: (916) 442 0444
          E-mail: LASKIN@LASKINLAW.COM


FALONI & ASSOCIATES: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Kenney, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC, LVNV Funding,
LLC, and John Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-01355-ES-JAD (D.N.J.,
March 10, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Law Offices of Faloni & Associates, LLC is a law firm located at
165 Passaic Ave #301b, Fairfield, NJ 07004.

LVNV Funding, LLC is a collection agency that works for creditors
to collect on charged-off debt accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIFTH THIRD: Settles Stock-Drop Class Action for $6 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Knaub and Ben James, writing for Law360, report that Fifth
Third Bancorp will pay $6 million to settle a class action lawsuit
brought by employees claiming the company's retirement plan lost
tens of millions of dollars by investing in the financial services
firm's own stock in 2007 despite its risky subprime lending,
according to a filing in Ohio federal court on March 15.

Under the terms of the deal, the Cincinnati, Ohio-based company
will freeze its stock fund and prohibit new 401(k) plan
participants from investing in it, continue its current practice
of matching contributions in cash rather than in stock for at
least eight years, and disseminate a yearly notice to plan
participants who have invested more than 20 percent of their
accounts in stock regarding the benefits of asset allocation and
diversification, among other things.

Each class member will receive a share of the $6 million, which
will be distributed directly to their retirement accounts,
according to their memorandum.

Participants in Fifth Third's 401(k) savings plan asked Ohio's
Southern District to approve the agreement.

"The certain and immediate benefits to the class as a result of
the settlement outweigh the possibility of obtaining a better
result at trial, particularly when factoring in the additional
expense and long delay inherent in prosecuting this complex
litigation through trial and appeal," the employees said in the
filing.

The workers -- who contended the plan's fiduciaries, including
bank CEO Kevin Kabat, had violated their duty to protect
participants from needless losses amid the company's 74 percent
stock drop from July 2007 to September 2009 -- said the "hard-
fought" deal is an excellent result for the class and resolves all
claims in the case, which wound its way up to the U.S. Supreme
Court.

The parties reached their agreement while the action, former
worker John Dudenhoeffer's Employee Retirement Income Security Act
stock-drop suit, was pending before the Sixth Circuit, where the
high court had remanded it, according to the brief.

The deal, under which Fifth Third admits no liability, also
provides for the payment of attorneys' fees, not to exceed one
third of the settlement fund, as well as case contribution awards
for named plaintiffs, according to court documents.

In June 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a Sixth Circuit
ruling challenged by Fifth Third that said fiduciaries of employee
stock ownership plans were entitled to a presumption they had
acted prudently but declined to apply it at the pleading stage.

Fifth Third had argued in favor of the defense-friendly
presumption that the decision to invest in employer stock was
reasonable, but the high court declared that "no such presumption
applies."

Fifth Third's petition for Supreme Court review came after the
three-judge Sixth Circuit panel reversed an Ohio federal court's
decision dismissing the case, finding that the employees had made
a plausible claim that the plan's fiduciaries, including bank
CEO Kabat, had breached their duty to protect participants from
needless losses in the staggering stock drop.

The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Sixth Circuit for
the appeals court to consider whether the complaint was up to
snuff under the pleading standards laid out in prior high court
cases, during which time the parties settled the case.

An attorney for Fifth Third declined to comment. An attorney for
plaintiffs did not respond on March 16 to a request for comment.

Fifth Third is represented by James E. Burke -- jburke@kmklaw.com
-- of Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL.

The plaintiffs are represented by Edward W. Ciolko --
eciolko@ktmc.com -- Mark K. Gyandoh -- mgyandoh@ktmc.com -- and
Julie Siebert-Johnson of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check LLP; Thomas
J. McKenna -- tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- and Gregory M. Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- of Gainey McKenna & Egleston; Maurice R.
Mitts of Mitts Law LLC; and Ronald R. Parry --
rrparry@strausstroy.com -- of Strauss Troy.

The case is John Dudenhoeffer et al. v. Fifth Third Bancorp, case
number 08-cv-538, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio Western Division.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: "Wojno" Suit Seeks to Block Huntington Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary H. Wojno, in her capacity as the trustee of the Mary h. Wojno
Revocable Trust, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FirstMerit Corporation, Huntington
Bancshares, Inc., West Subsidiary Corporation, Paul G. Grieg, John
C. Blickle, Phillip A. Lloyd, II, Terry L. Haines, R. Cary Blair,
Karen S. Belden, Robert W. Briggs, Richard Colella, Gina D.
France, J. Michael Hochschwender, Steven H. Baer, Russ M. Strobel,
Lizabeth A. Ardisana, Robert S. Cubbin, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-
cv-00461, (N.D. Ohio, February 26, 2016), seeks to enjoin the
merger of the Company and Huntington Bancshares, Inc., with
Huntington as the surviving entity.  The lawsuit contends that the
Proposed Transaction is the result of a flawed and unfair process
marred by conflicts of interest, not the least of which is that
the Company's Chairman of the Board, President, and Chief
Executive Officer and several of the Company's directors stand to
make millions in connection with the Proposed Transaction.
Meanwhile, the same Individual Defendants will be able to cash out
or convert otherwise illiquid blocks of stock, and four members of
the Board will become members of the Huntington board of
directors.

The case is assigned to Judge Benita Y. Pearson.

FirstMerit is a corporation organized and existing under the laws
of the state of Ohio with its principal executive offices located
at III Cascade Plaza, Akron, Ohio 44308.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Chris T. Nolan, Esq.
     PERANTINIDES & NOLAN CO., L.P.A.
     300 Courtyard Square
     80 South Summit Street
     Akron, OH 44308-1736
     Tel: (330) 253-5454
     Fax: (330) 253-6524
     Email: cnolan@perantinides.com

          - and -

     Michael J. Palestina, Esq.
     Christopher R. Tillotson, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington Street
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Tel: (504) 455-1400
     Fax: (504) 455-1498
     Email: Michael.Palestina@ksfcounsel.com
            Christopher.Tillotson@ksfcounsel.com


GARDEN CITY, KS: "Market" Suit Alleges Civil Rights Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jada J. Market, individually, and on behalf of a class of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Garden City, City of Kansas,
Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-01053-JTM-JPO, (D. Kan., February 26,
2016), allege civil rights violation.

The case is assigned to Chief Judge J. Thomas Marten and
Magistrate Judge James P. O'Hara for all proceedings.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Randall K. Rathbun, Esq.
     DEPEW GILLEN RATHBUN & McINTEER, LC
     8301 East 21st Street North, Suite 450
     Wichita, KS 67206-2936
     Tel: (316) 262-4000 ext 108
     Fax: (316) 265-3819
     E-mail: randy@depewgillen.com


GENERAL MOTORS: May Face Punitive Damages in Ignition Switch Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sudhin Thanawala, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
hundreds of millions of dollars in settlements and fines over
unintended acceleration in Toyotas and faulty ignition switches in
General Motors' vehicles provide a glimpse of what consumers and
the government might get from Volkswagen for cheating on diesel
emissions, legal scholars say.

But the Volkswagen case comes with a wild card that could
significantly drive up damages: The company's admission in
September that it intentionally defeated emissions tests and put
dirty vehicles on the road.

"It was fraudulent deception, and that makes the case susceptible
to a very substantial punitive damage award," said Robert Rabin, a
professor at Stanford Law School and expert in product defect
cases.

A more immediate concern for Volkswagen may be how to bring nearly
600,000 diesel cars polluting U.S. roads into compliance with
emissions standards.  A federal judge last month gave the company
until March 24 to report back on whether it has come up with an
engineering fix.  "It seems to me six months is long enough to
determine whether or not there is an engineering process that can
be utilized by Volkswagen and would be acceptable to the United
States government," Senior U.S. District Court Judge Charles
Breyer said.

But even with a fix, the company still faces lawsuits by angry
Volkswagen owners and the Department of Justice.  The owners were
duped into buying the vehicles with promises that they were high-
performing and fuel efficient yet still environmentally friendly,
attorneys for hundreds of owners said in a consolidated complaint
filed in February.  The suit seeks class action status on behalf
of all owners of affected vehicles across the country and demands
that Volkswagen buy the vehicles back.

The DOJ is asking for civil penalties that could exceed $18
billion.  Both cases are before Judge Breyer after a judicial
panel decided to consolidate suits against the car company in San
Francisco in part because there are so many Volkswagen dealers and
owners in California. Volkswagen and its executives could also
face separate criminal charges.

"VW in my mind is a numbers game. The only question is how much
they pay, not whether they'll pay," said Morris Ratner, a former
plaintiffs' attorney who teaches at the University of California,
Hastings College of the Law.  Mr. Ratner once was a partner at the
law firm handling the consolidated Volkswagen complaint, but is no
longer associated with it.

Mr. Ratner cautioned that Volkswagen owners may not get the full
vehicle refund they are looking for, pointing to the Toyota
unintended acceleration case as an example.

Toyota reached a $1 billion-plus settlement with owners who
complained their vehicles lost value.  The settlement included a
provision to outfit vehicles with brake override systems to ensure
they stop when brakes are applied, even if the accelerator pedal
is pressed.  But owners who were not eligible for or did not get
the brake override could receive no more than $125, according to a
website set up to advise people about the settlement.

GM paid nearly $600 million to settle more than 350 claims that
its ignition switch defect led to crashes.  The defect caused 124
deaths and 275 injuries as of August 2015, according to attorney
Kenneth Feinberg, who administered claims against GM.

If there is no way to fix Volkswagen vehicles, the court may
require the company to refund owners the difference between what
they were told they were buying and what they received, said
Gregory Keating, a University of Southern California law professor
who specializes in consumer fraud cases.  If there is a fix that
makes the vehicles compliant with air regulations but compromises
fuel economy or performance, the court may require compensation
for the greater expense of operating the cars in addition to their
loss in value, he said.

But experts say the Volkswagen litigation is different from the
Toyota and GM cases in that Volkswagen's fraud is clearer and more
egregious.  As part of criminal settlements with the DOJ, Toyota
and GM acknowledged that they misled consumers after defects were
discovered.

Volkswagen deliberately programmed cars to turn on pollution
controls during Environmental Protection Agency treadmill tests
and turn them off when the cars were on the road.

"As a practical matter, thinking from the perspective of potential
jurors, the active trickery looks much worse,"
Mr. Ratner said.

Toyota agreed to pay a $1.2 billion penalty.  GM agreed to a $900
million penalty.  Volkswagen says it has set aside more than $7
billion to pay fines, recall costs and legal settlements.


GFC LENDING: Faces "Anderson" Suit Alleging Violations of EFTA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Rene Anderson and Shercol Wilson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. GFC Lending LLC d/b/a Go
Financial, Case No. 2:16-cv-00463-ESW (D. Ariz., February 19,
2016) alleges violations of the Electronic Fund Transfer Act.

GFC Lending, LLC, doing business as GO Financial, provides
subprime auto finance products to dealers in the United States.
The Company was incorporated in 2011 and is based in Mesa,
Arizona.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Russell Snow Thompson, IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave., Suite D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388-8898
          Facsimile: (866) 565-1327
          E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Layne" Suit Over Zofran Injuries
------------------------------------------------------------
Brenden Layne, Individually, and Kaylyn Miller, as Parents and
Natural Guardian of P.L., A Minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-10340 (D. Mass., February 19, 2016) is brought for damages
arising from the alleged injuries to P.L. as a result of his
prenatal exposures to the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known
as ondansetron.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients, who were afflicted with the most severe nausea -- that
suffered as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline marketed Zofran "off label" as a safe and
effective treatment for pregnancy-related nausea and vomiting,
commonly called "morning sickness."

GlaxoSmithKline is a Delaware limited liability company.  GSK's
sole member is GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc., which is a Delaware
corporation, and which has identified its principal place of
business as Wilmington, Delaware.  GSK is the successor in
interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was
the sponsor of the original New Drug Application for Zofran.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Chris Cagle, Esq.
          THE CAGLE LAW FIRM, P.C.
          5300 Bee Cave Road
          Building 1, Suite 240
          Austin, TX 78746
          Telephone: (512) 371-6101
          Facsimile: (512) 597-3132
          E-mail: ccagle@caglefirm.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "McClellan" Suit Over Zofran(R)
----------------------------------------------------------
Tara McClellan and Jose Jimenez, individually and on behalf of
their daughter, T.J., a minor v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC d/b/a
GlaxoSmithKline, Case No. 1:16-cv-10502 (D. Mass., March 10,
2016), is an action for compensatory and punitive damages, and
such other relief deemed just and proper arising from the injuries
to T.J. as a result of her prenatal exposures to the prescription
drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

Zofran(R) is a prescription drug that is used to treat severe
nausea as a result of chemotherapy or radiation treatments in
cancer patients.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walter J. Lack, Esq.
      Elizabeth L. Crooke
      Brian D. Depew, Esq.
      Ann A. Howitt, Esq.
      ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK PC
      10100 Santa Monica Blvd., Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
      Telephone: (310) 552-3800
      Facsimile: (310) 552-9434
      E-mail: bcrooke@elllaw.com
              bdepew@elllaw.com
              ahowitt@elllaw.com


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: Faces "Sumrall" Suit Over Use of Zofran
------------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer Sumrall, individually and on behalf of C.S., her minor
child, Plaintiffs, v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, Defendant, Case 1:16-
cv-10412, (D. Mass., February 26, 2016), seeks compensatory and
punitive damages, and other relief deemed just and proper arising
from the injuries to C.S. as a result of her prenatal exposures to
the prescription drug Zofran(R), also known as ondansetron.

As a direct and proximate result of GSK's conduct, Plaintiff
Jennifer Sumrall and her child C.S. have suffered and incurred
harm including severe and permanent pain and suffering, mental
anguish, medical expenses and other economic and noneconomic
damages, and will require more constant and continuous medical
monitoring and treatment than had they not been exposed to Zofran.

Plaintiffs demand trial by jury pursuant to Rule 38 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure and the Seventh Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.

GSK is the successor in interest to Glaxo, Inc. and Glaxo Wellcome
Inc. Glaxo, Inc. was the sponsor of the original New Drug
Application ("NDA") for Zofran. Glaxo, Inc., through its division
Cerenex Pharmaceuticals, authored the original package insert and
labeling for Zofran, including warnings and precautions attendant
to its use. Glaxo Wellcome Inc. sponsored additional NDAs for
Zofran, monitored and evaluated post-market adverse event reports
arising from Zofran, and authored product labeling for Zofran. The
term GSK used herein refers to GSK, its predecessors Glaxo, Inc.
and Glaxo Welcome Inc., and other GSK predecessors and/or
affiliates that

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew J. McCauley, Esq.
     Parker Waichman Alonso LLP
     6 Harbor Park Drive
     Port Washington, New York 11050
     Tel: (516) 466-6500
     Fax: (516) 466-6665
     Email: mmccauley@yourlawyer.com


GOODWILL INDUSTRIES: "Munoz" Labor Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Beatriz Munoz, and other similarly situated non-exempt store
managers, Plaintiff, v. Goodwill Industries of South Florida,
Inc., and Joseph P. Lacher, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-20716-MGC, (S.D. Fla., February 26, 2016), alleges
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was originally filed in the 11th Judicial Circuit in and
for Miami Dade County, Case No. 16-001797-CA01, and removed to
federal district court on Feb. 26, 2016.

The case is assigned to Judge Marcia G. Cooke and U.S. Magistrate
Judge Edwin G. Torres.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     Courthouse Tower,
     44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Tel: (305) 416-5000
     Fax: (305) 416-5005
     Email: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com

          - and -

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

The Defendants are represented by:

     Susan Potter Norton, Esq.
     ALLEN NORTON & BLUE
     121 Majorca Avenue, Suite 300
     Coral Gables, FL 33134
     Tel: (305) 445-7801
     E-mail: snorton@anblaw.com


GRAPA LLC: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Coleman" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Coleman v. Grapa, L.L.C. and its subsidiary Vinology Wine
Bar of Ann Arbor, Case No. 2:16-cv-10878-LJM-MKM (E.D. Mich.,
March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 110 Main
Street, Arbor, MI 48104.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Megan A. Bonanni, Esq.
      Rachael E. Kohl, Esq.
      PITT MCGEHEE PALMER & RIVERS, PC
      117 W. Fourth Street, Suite 200
      Royal Oak, MI 48067
      Telephone: (248) 398-9800
      Facsimile: (248) 398-9804

         - and -

      Kevin Stoops, Esq.
      Jesse L. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, Suite 1700
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Telephone: (248) 355-0300
      E-mail: kstoops@sommerspc.com
              jyoung@sommerspc.com


HBLC: Appeals Court Reverses FDCPA Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Churney, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a man
who claimed someone had fraudulently run up more than $2,500 in
debt on a credit card opened in his name without his knowledge has
secured another chance to press a lawsuit against a suburban debt
collection agency, after a state appeals panel found the agency
may have broken federal debt collection laws by suing the man over
the contested debt after the statute of limitations had expired.

On March 4, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District
Appellate Court ruled in favor of Danny Egan, saying a lower court
had erred in dismissing his countersuit against debt collection
company HBLC over his claims HBLC should be held to account for
waiting too long to bring their debt collection action against
him.

The appellate opinion was authored by Justice Robert E. Gordon,
with concurrence from Justice Jesse Reyes and Justice Bertina E.
Lampkin.

More than four years ago, HBLC filed suit in Cook County Circuit
Court against Mr. Egan, alleging he failed to make payments on a
Credit One Bank credit card account, owing $2,545, plus
accumulating interest and legal fees.  Mr. Egan replied he had not
opened the account, but rather, someone had hijacked his personal
information and fraudulently opened and used the account.

Mr. Egan lodged a class-action counter-complaint, alleging HBLC
and its Chicago attorney, Steven J. Fink, disregarded the federal
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Illinois
Collection Agency Act by suing him in January 2012, even though
they were aware the five-year statute of limitations had expired.
Egan claimed the five years began running with the last activity
on the account, which was in September 2006.

Mr. Egan said HBLC and Mr. Fink filed more than 1,000 consumer
debt collection suits between 2011 and 2012 in Cook County Circuit
Court. HBLC is based in northwest suburban Cary.

Mr. Egan alleged HBLC and Fink used "unfair and deceptive means"
to collect the debt by misrepresenting to Mr. Egan he had to pay
the debt, although he was not obliged to do so, because of the
statute of limitations.  HBLC and Fink then filed a motion to toss
Mr. Egan's counter-suit, which Cook County Judge Kathleen Kennedy
granted in 2014. Egan then appealed.

The issue before the appellate court was whether HBLC and Fink
breached the FDCPA by knowing the statute of limitations had
expired, but going ahead and filing the suit.  The appellate court
found that, although the U.S. Supreme Court has not ruled on the
question, numerous federal courts have done so.

One of these rulings came in 2013 from the U.S. Seventh Circuit
Court of Appeals.  That ruling quoted from a 1987 Alabama federal
district decision, which in turn the Illinois First Appellate
Court quoted.

"Few unsophisticated consumers would be aware that a statute of
limitations could be used to defend against lawsuits based on
stale debts, such consumers would unwittingly acquiesce to such
lawsuits.  And, even if the consumer realizes that she can use
time as a defense, she will more than likely still give in rather
than fight the lawsuit because she must still expend energy and
resources," the Alabama district court observed.

The appellate court said it was satisfied prior rulings
established that a time-barred debt collection suit could violate
the FDCPA.  With that understanding in mind, the appellate court
addressed defendants' contention no violation occurred, because
there were no misrepresentations in the suit itself.

The appellate justices were not moved, pointing to rulings from
other courts, especially the nation's high court, which said
earlier this year, "The suggestion that the 'mere filing of a
lawsuit' cannot be abusive is either naive or disingenuous."

The appellate court went on to say, in its own words, "The knowing
filing of a time-barred lawsuit would be improper where, as here,
HBLC and Fink have not attempted to argue that there is a reason
why their claim is still viable."

As a result of these determinations, the appellate court reversed
the circuit court's dismissal, bringing Egan's case back to life.

Mr. Egan is represented by the firm of Keogh Law, of Chicago. HBLC
and Mr. Fink are represented by Hinshaw & Culbertson, of Chicago.


HENRY HALL: Removes "Knight" Suit to Middle District of Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Knight v. Henry J. Hall DVM PC, et
al., Case No. SC16CV24, was removed from the State Court of
Muscogee County to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Georgia (Columbus).  The District Court Clerk assigned Case No.
4:16-cv-00027-CDL to the proceeding.

Henry J. Hall DVM PC provides veterinary services in Columbus,
Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Heather Lynn Champion, Esq.
          5353 Veterans Pkwy., Suite A
          Columbus, GA 31904
          Telephone: (706) 323-5353
          Facsimile: (706) 323-0600
          E-mail: heather@hlchampionlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          William L. Tucker, Esq.
          PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER & FORD, P.C.
          P.O. Box 1199
          Columbus, GA 31902-1199
          Telephone: (706) 324-0251
          Facsimile: (706) 596-9992
          E-mail: wlt@psstf.com

               - and -

          Julie E. Dorchak, Esq.
          PAGE, SCRANTOM, SPROUSE, TUCKER & FORD, P.C.
          1111 Bay Ave., Third Floor
          Columbus, GA 31901
          Telephone: (706) 256-5304
          Facsimile: (706) 323-7519
          E-mail: jed@psstf.com

               - and -

          Samuel W. Oates, Jr., Esq.
          P.O. Box 20
          Columbus, GA 31902
          Telephone: (706) 327-8000
          E-mail: samoatesjr@aol.com


HERMES OF PARIS: "Chaney" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Pay Under NYLL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ewern Chaney and Winifred Hu, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Hermes Of Paris, Inc.,
Robert B. Chavez, Maureen Baltazar, Barbra Katz, Susan Dicecco,
Kelly Schoeler Elliot and Pana Diamantopoulos, the Defendants,
Case No. 651279/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New York -
Commercial Division, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unlawful
deduction from wages and commissions, for uniform violations,
failure to pay overtime and for other statutory penalties under
the New York Civil Practice Law and Rules and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Hermes is a manufacturer and retailer of high-end leather,
lifestyle accessories, perfumery and other luxury goods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard A. Roth, Esq.
          Jordan M. Kam, Esq.
          THE ROTH LAW FIRM, PLLC
          295 Madison Avenue, 22nd Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 542 8882
          E- mail: rich@rrothlaw.com
                   jkam@rrothlaw.com

               - and -

          Tisha Jackson, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF TISHA JACKSON
          1115 Broadway, 12th Floor
          New York, NY 10010
          Telephone: (212) 710 2651
          E-mail: jacksonlawnyc@gmail.com


HOMEAWAY: Faces Class Action Over Online Portal's Pricing Tactics
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tnooz reports that a vacation rental property owner has filed a
class action lawsuit against HomeAway over the online portal's
pricing tactics, after the company changed its fees and policies
in February.

In the case, owner Ivan Arnold of the Los Angeles-area says he has
been a customer of the Austin-based company since 2013. (He rents
out a home in Palm Springs to offset the cost of ownership.)
Arnold says he entered into his current year-long subscription
contract of $1,848 without him and other consumers being made
aware of coming fee changes.

The suit alleges that tens of thousands of consumers experienced a
loss because they might have otherwise purchased a cheaper service
from HomeAway or a rival vacation rental marketplace if they had
been aware of the fee changes in advance.  It claims that owners
face lost bookings because HomeAway's new service fee to travelers
has led to owners receiving fewer bookings than they would have
received otherwise.

For years, HomeAway's brands have charged yearly subscription fees
for the right to list homes for rent. That policy changed in
February, when the company, recently acquired by Expedia Inc,
rolled out new service fees to travelers, which range from 4% to
10% of the price of the rental.

Uncertain path

Unlike other suits, class actions in the US need a judge to
certify them before they can go ahead.  The bar for being
certified is typically high. So it is uncertain if HomeAway will
actually face this class action in court.

Since 2011, it's been allowed for companies to add language to
their terms of service that thwart most class actions. It's
unclear if this is the case for HomeAway's agreements.
Austin-based litigators Fritz, Byrne, Head & Fitzpatrick filed the
suit on Arnold's behalf.

The suit says:

"The contracts that Plaintiff and other owners entered into with
HomeAway specified that the charges in effect at the time
Plaintiff and other owners entered into their subscription
agreements with HomeAway would govern throughout the term of those
agreements (i.e., for one year).

To quote: "For subscription listings, the rates in effect at the
time of the member's next subscription renewal, new listing or a
member's upgrade or any other additional or new order of any
product or service will govern for such renewal or other order."
Meaning that, since the charges in effect at the time Plaintiff
and other owners entered into their subscription agreements did
not include fees to travelers, HomeAway was contractually
prohibited from charging fees to travelers during the year those
contracts were in effect."

The suit makes much of statements made by HomeAway CEO Brian
Sharples allegedly saying, "We will also by the way continue to be
free for travelers."

The suit also makes much of a recently resurfaced video of
Sharples speaking at a gathering of VBRO owners.)

The context of the Sharples quote was:

"We are going to be free to travelers.  TripAdvisor and Airbnb
have chosen to charge big fees to travelers.  Well, we're going to
have a pretty sizeable marketing budget in the next few years. And
we're going to be letting everybody know, when you come to our
platform and you don't pay a fee and we think that's a big deal."

It remains unclear if owners who want pro-rated refunds of their
subscriptions due to the policy change can receive ones.  The
company's terms of service around refund requests leaves that
vague, saying "Generally, no refunds are available unless a member
qualifies for a refund under any guarantee program we may have in
effect."

HomeAway did not return a request for comment on a few hours'
deadline notice.  But we will update this story if we hear from
the company.


HOME COUNTY: Faces "Arias" Class Suit in California Superior Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Home County
Pizza Inc. and Hishmeh Enterprises Inc.

The case is captioned Camille Arias an individual on behalf of
herself and all similarly situated current and former employees v.
Home County Pizza Inc. and Hishmeh Enterprises Inc., Case No. 56-
2016-00479208-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. ct., March 13, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate franchised Domino's Pizza in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shoham J. Solouki, Esq.
      SOLOUKI SAVOY, LLP
      316 W. 2nd Street, Suite 1200
      Los Angeles, CA 90012
      Telephone: (213) 814-4940
      Facsimile: (213) 814-2550
      E-mail: info@soloukisavoy.com


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: $625M in Claims Pending in "Jaffe" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that there is approximately
$625 million in remaining claims, prior to the imposition of pre-
judgement interest, that are still subject to objections that have
not yet been ruled upon by the Illinois District Court in the
case, Jaffe v. Household International, Inc., et al.

As a result of an August 2002 restatement of previously reported
consolidated financial statements and other corporate events,
including the 2002 settlement with 46 states and the District of
Columbia relating to real estate lending practices, Household
International, Inc. ('Household International') and certain former
officers were named as defendants in a class action lawsuit, Jaffe
v. Household International, Inc., et al., filed in August 2002 in
the US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (the
'Illinois District Court'). The complaint asserted claims under
the US Securities Exchange Act and alleged that the defendants
knowingly or recklessly made false and misleading statements of
material fact relating to Household International's Consumer
Lending operations, including collections, sales and lending
practices, some of which ultimately led to the 2002 state
settlement agreement, and facts relating to accounting practices
evidenced by the financial restatement. Ultimately, a class was
certified on behalf of all persons who acquired and disposed of
Household International common stock between July 1999 and October
2002.

A jury trial concluded in April 2009, which was decided partly in
favour of the plaintiffs. Various legal challenges to the verdict
were raised in post-trial briefing.

In December 2011, following the submission of claim forms by class
members, the court-appointed claims administrator reported to the
Illinois District Court that the total number of claims that
generated an allowed loss was 45,921, and that the aggregate
amount of those claims was approximately $2.2 billion. The
Illinois District Court directed further proceedings before a
court-appointed Special Master to address certain issues and
objections regarding the remaining claims.

In October 2013, the Illinois District Court entered a partial
final judgement against the defendants in the amount of
approximately $2.5 billion (including pre-judgement interest). The
defendants appealed that partial final judgement.

In addition to the partial judgement that has been entered, there
are also approximately $625 million in remaining claims, prior to
the imposition of pre-judgement interest, that are still subject
to objections that have not yet been ruled upon by the Illinois
District Court.

In May 2015, the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
issued a decision reversing the partial final judgement of the
Illinois District Court and remanding the case for a new trial on
loss causation, which may entail a reassessment of the quantum of
damages. On remand to the Illinois District Court, the case was
reassigned to a different judge, who has issued various rulings on
certain preliminary issues and has entered a scheduling order that
includes a trial date in June 2016.


HOUSEHOLD INTERNATIONAL: Court Rules on Admission of Experts
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LAWRENCE E. JAFFE PENSION PLAN, on behalf of itself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HOUSEHOLD
INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 02 C 5893 (N.D.
Ill.), District Judge Jorge L. Alonso denied three motions: (1)
plaintiffs' motion to preclude defendants from substituting
experts; (2) plaintiffs' motion to strike the rebuttal reports of
defendants' experts; and (3) defendants' Daubert motion to exclude
the testimony of plaintiff's expert, Professor Fischel.

A copy of the Court's February 1, 2016 Memorandum Opinion and
Order is available at http://is.gd/hqAzfdfrom Leagle.com.

Phillip S. Stenger, Special Master, represented by:

     Kay Griffith Hammond, Esq.
     Laura Dawn Duston, Esq.
     Stenger & Stenger PC
     2618 East Paris
     Grand Rapids, MI 49546
     Tel: 616-940-1190
          888-305-7775
     Fax: 616-940-1192

Lawrence E Jaffe, Pension Plan, on behalf of itself and all others
similary situated, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Gary L. Specks, Esq.
     Frederic S. Fox, Esq.
     Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP
     850 Third Avenue, 14th Floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (800) 290-1952
          (212) 687-1980
     Fax: (212) 687-7714
     E-mail: ffox@kaplanfox.com
             gspecks@kaplanfox.com

Glickenhaus Institutional Group, Glickenhaus Inst Grp, Plaintiff,
represented by Spencer A Burkholz -- spenceb@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Azra Z Mehdi, The Mehdi Firm,
PC, Daniel S. Drosman -- dand@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, David Cameron Baker, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Jason C. Davis -- jdavis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Keith F. Park -- keithp@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Luke O Brooks -- LukeB@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Marvin Alan Miller --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC, Maureen E. Mueller,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael J. Dowd, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Patrick J Coughlin, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & William S Lerach, Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman &
Robbins.

Household International Inc., Defendant, represented by Nathan P.
Eimer -- neimer@eimerstahl.com -- Eimer Stahl LLP, Andrew J Fuchs
-- andrew.fuchs@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom,
LLP CH, Christine M. Johnson -- andrew.fuchs@skadden.com -- Eimer
Stahl LLP, Craig S. Kesch, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Dane H.
Butswinkas -- dbutswinkas@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, David
R. Owen -- dowen@cahill.com -- Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Donna L.
McDevitt -- donna.mcdevitt@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate
Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Howard G. Sloane, Cahill, Gordon &
Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP, Jason M.
Hall -- jhall@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason A.
Otto -- jotto@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John
Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Greenblatt --
jgreenblatt@cahill.com -- Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Joshua M.
Newville -- jnewville@cahill.com -- Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,
Kim Smith, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Landis C Best, Cahill,
Gordon & Reindel, Laura C. Fraher, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,
Lauren Perlgut, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Leslie Cooper
Mahaffey, Williams & Connolly Llp, Luke DeGrand, DeGrand & Wolfe,
P.C., Mark Edward Rakoczy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
CH, Michael Wernke, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Patricia Farren,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Patrick Joseph Fitzgerald, Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC,
Paul Millen, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Scott Watnik, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Steven M. Farina, Williams & Connolly LLP, Susan
Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Thomas J Kavaler, Cahill,
Gordon & Reindel, Tracey L. Wolfe, DeGrand & Wolfe, P.C. & Yafit
Cohn, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

Arthur Andersen, L.L.P., Defendant, represented by Stanley J.
Parzen -- sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Christine M.
Johnson, Eimer Stahl LLP, Debra L Bogo-Ernst --
dernst@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Jason M. Hall, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Laura C. Fraher, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Mark
Douglas Brookstein -- mbrookstein@gouldratner.com -- Gould &
Ratner, Marshall J. Hartman, Patricia Farren, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Paul Vizcarrondo, Jr -- PVizcarrondo@wlrk.com --
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Sheila Marie Finnegan, Mayer Brown
LLP.  It is also represented by:

     Eric S. Palles, Esq.
     Gary Jay Ravitz, Esq.
     Ravitz & Palles, P.C.
     203 N LaSalle
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Tel: (312)558-1689

W F Aldinger, Defendant, represented by Gil M. Soffer --
gil.soffer@kattenlaw.com -- Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Nathan P.
Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom, LLP CH, Christine M. Johnson, Eimer Stahl LLP, Craig S.
Kesch, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, David R. Owen, Cahill, Gordon &
Reindel, Dawn Marie Canty, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Howard G.
Sloane, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel, LLP, Jason M. Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John
Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Greenblatt, Cahill,
Gordon & Reindel, Joshua M. Newville, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP,
Landis C Best, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Mark Edward Rakoczy,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Paul D. Clement,
Bancroft PLLC, Susan Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Thomas
J Kavaler, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel.

Gary Gilmer, Defendant, represented by David S. Rosenbloom --
DRosenbloom@mwe.com -- McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Nathan P.
Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom, LLP CH, Caitlin Maeve Kendall, Mcdermott Will & Emery,
Howard G. Sloane, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel, LLP, John Kenneth Theis, Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua
M. Newville, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Mark Edward Rakoczy,
Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP CH, Paul D. Clement --
pclement@bancroftpllc.com -- Bancroft PLLC & Susan Buckley, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP.

D A Schoenholz, Defendant, represented by Nathan P. Eimer, Eimer
Stahl LLP, R. Ryan Stoll, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
CH, Tim S. Leonard, Jackson Walker L.l.p., Christine M. Johnson,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Craig S. Kesch, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, David
R. Owen, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Howard G. Sloane, Cahill,
Gordon & Reindel, Janet A. Beer, Cahill Gordon & Reindel, LLP,
Jason M. Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, John Kenneth Theis,
Eimer Stahl LLP, Joshua M. Greenblatt, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel,
Joshua M. Newville, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Landis C Best,
Cahill, Gordon & Reindel, Laura C. Fraher, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Mark Edward Rakoczy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, LLP
CH, Paul D. Clement, Bancroft PLLC, Stewart Theodore Kusper,
Kusper Law Group Ltd, Susan Buckley, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP &
Thomas J Kavaler, Cahill, Gordon & Reindel.

Carl A. LaSusa, Respondent, represented by Craig Allen Varga --
cvarga@whdlaw.com -- Whyte Hirschboeck Dudek S.C..

Wells Fargo & Company, Respondent, represented by George Robert
Dougherty -- gdougherty@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, John
F. Kloecker -- kloecker@lockelord.com -- Locke Lord LLP, Sally
Weiss Mimms, Locke Lord LLP & Robert Lee Schnell, Jr., Faegre &
Benson.

State of Vermont, Movant, represented by Brudget C. Asay.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss Madoff Investors Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision is pending on
HSBC's motion to dismiss a class action by investors in Bernard L.
Madoff Investment Securities LLC.

In December 2014, three actions were filed in the US. The first is
a purported class action brought in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York (the 'New York
District Court') by direct investors in Madoff Securities who were
holding their investments as of December 2008, asserting various
common law claims and seeking to recover damages lost to Madoff
Securities' fraud on account of HSBC's purported knowledge and
alleged furtherance of the fraud. HSBC moved to dismiss this
action in November 2015 and a decision on that motion is pending.

The other two actions were both filed by SPV Optimal SUS Ltd ('SPV
OSUS'), the purported assignee of the Madoff-invested company,
Optimal Strategic US Equity Ltd. One of these actions was filed in
New York state court and the other in New York District Court. In
January 2015, SPV OSUS dismissed its federal lawsuit against HSBC.
The state court action against HSBC remains pending.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Still Faces Stockholder Class Action in Ontario
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend class action lawsuit in Ontario by persons who purchased
HSCB common shares.

In July 2014, a claim was filed in the Ontario Superior Court of
Justice against HSBC Holdings and a former employee purportedly on
behalf of a class of persons who purchased HSBC common shares and
American Depositary Shares between July 2006 and July 2012. The
complaint, which seeks monetary damages of up to CA$20 billion,
alleges that the defendants made statutory and common law
misrepresentations in documents released by HSBC Holdings and its
wholly owned subsidiary, HSBC Bank Canada, relating to HSBC's
compliance with  US Bank Secrecy Act (the 'BSA'), anti-money
laundering ('AML') rules, sanctions and other laws.

No further updates were provided in the Company's SEC report.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Iraq Terror Victims Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a decision is pending on
the motion to dismiss a New York lawsuit by representatives of US
persons killed or injured in Iraq.

In November 2014, a complaint was filed in the US District Court
for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of representatives
of US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in Iraq
between April 2004 and November 2011. The complaint was filed
against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Bank
Middle East, as well as other non-HSBC banks and the Islamic
Republic of Iran. The plaintiffs allege that defendants violated
the US Anti-Terrorism Act ('US ATA') by altering or falsifying
payment messages involving Iran, Iranian parties and Iranian banks
for transactions processed through the US. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss in May 2015, and a decision on that motion is
pending.

                           *     *     *

HSBC Holdings plc also said in its Form 20-F Report that a
complaint was filed in November 2015 in the US District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois on behalf of representatives of
four US persons alleged to have been killed or injured in
terrorist attacks on three hotels in Amman, Jordan in 2005. The
complaint was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HNAH,
HSI, HSBC Finance, HSBC USA Inc. and HSBC Bank Middle East, as
well as a non-HSBC bank. The plaintiffs allege that the HSBC
defendants violated the US ATA by failing to enforce due diligence
methods to prevent its financial services from being used to
support the terrorist attacks.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Sued Over Deaths Due to Mexican Drug Cartels
-----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed in
February 2016 in the US District Court for the Southern District
of Texas by representatives of US persons alleged to have been
killed or injured in Mexico by Mexican drug cartels. The complaint
was filed against HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank USA, HSBC M‚xico SA,
and Grupo Financiero HSBC. The plaintiffs allege that defendants
violated the US Anti-Terrorism Act ('US ATA') by providing
financial services to individuals and entities associated with the
Mexican drug cartels. Defendants have not yet been served with
process.


HSBC HOLDINGS: CALSTRS's 2nd Cir. Appeal Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal by the
California State Teachers Retirement System to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit remains pending.

HSBC and other panel banks have been named as defendants in two
putative class actions filed in the New York District Court on
behalf of persons who transacted in financial instruments
allegedly related to the euroyen Tokyo interbank offered rate
('Tibor') and/or Japanese yen Libor. The complaints allege,
amongst other things, misconduct related to euroyen Tibor,
although HSBC is not a member of the Japanese Bankers
Association's euroyen Tibor panel, as well as Japanese yen Libor,
in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act
('CEA'), and state law.

The first of the two actions was filed in April 2012, and HSBC
responded by filing a motion to dismiss. In March 2014, the New
York District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims under US
antitrust law and state law, but sustained their claims under the
CEA. In June 2014, the plaintiffs then moved for leave to file an
amended complaint adding new claims and parties. That motion was
denied in March 2015, except insofar as it granted leave to add
certain defendants not affiliated with HSBC and reserving on the
question of whether the California State Teachers Retirement
System ('CALSTRS') may intervene and be added as a plaintiff. In
October 2015, the New York District Court denied the motion of
CALSTRS to intervene.

In November 2015, CALSTRS filed an appeal of that ruling to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which
remains pending.

The second action was filed in July 2015. In February 2016, HSBC
and the other banks named in the complaint filed a motion to
dismiss the action, and a decision on that motion is pending.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Euribor Suit in N.Y. Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a class action related to Euro futures contracts remains
pending.

In November 2013, HSBC and other panel banks were named as
defendants in a putative class action filed in the New York
District Court on behalf of persons who transacted in euro futures
contracts and other financial instruments allegedly related to
Euribor. The complaint alleges, amongst other things, misconduct
related to Euribor in violation of US antitrust laws, the US
Commodity Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. The court
previously stayed proceedings until May 2015. After the stay
expired, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. In October
2015, HSBC filed a motion to dismiss the action, which remains
pending.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Motion to Dismiss ISDAfix Rates Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss a
class action related to ISDAfix rates remains pending.

In September and October 2014, HSBC Bank plc and other panel banks
were named as defendants in a number of putative class actions
that were filed and consolidated in the New York District Court on
behalf of persons who transacted in interest rate derivatives or
purchased or sold financial instruments that were either tied to
US dollar International Swaps and Derivatives Association fix
('ISDAfix') rates or were executed shortly before, during, or
after the time of the daily ISDAfix setting window. The complaint
alleges, amongst other things, misconduct related to these
activities in violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity
Exchange Act ('CEA'), and state law. In February 2015, plaintiffs
filed a second consolidated amended complaint replacing HSBC Bank
plc with HSBC Bank USA. A motion to dismiss that complaint was
filed in April 2015, and a decision is pending.


HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Case Settlement Awaits Final Approval
---------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a New York court has not
yet set a date for the final approval hearing on the settlement
reached in the consolidated class action related to WM/Reuters
foreign exchange benchmark rates.

In late 2013 and early 2014, HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC
North America Holdings Inc. ('HNAH') and HSBC Bank USA were named
as defendants, amongst other banks, in various putative class
actions filed in the New York District Court. In March 2014, the
plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint alleging,
amongst other things, that defendants conspired to manipulate the
WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates (the 'Consolidated
Action'). Separate putative class actions were also brought on
behalf of non-US plaintiffs (the 'Foreign Actions').

Defendants moved to dismiss all actions. In January 2015, the
court denied defendants' motion to dismiss the Consolidated
Action, but granted defendants' motion to dismiss the Foreign
Actions.

Five additional putative class actions were subsequently filed in
the New York District Court making similar allegations on behalf
of persons who engaged in foreign exchange futures transactions on
a US exchange, and those additional actions were subsequently
consolidated with the Consolidated Action.

In July 2015, the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action filed a
further amended complaint that, amongst other things, added new
claims and parties, including HSBC Securities (USA), Inc.

In September 2015, HSBC reached an agreement with plaintiffs to
resolve the Consolidated Action, subject to court approval. In
December 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and HSBC made payment of the agreed settlement amount
into an escrow account. The court has not yet set a date for the
final approval hearing.


HSBC HOLDINGS: ERISA Action in Calif. Transferred to New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
HSBC Holdings plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action
was filed in the New York District Court in June 2015 making
similar allegations on behalf of Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974 ('ERISA') plan participants, and another
complaint was filed in the US District Court for the Northern
District of California in May 2015. HSBC filed a motion to
transfer the California action to New York, which was granted in
November 2015.


INT'L COFFEE & TEA: Fails to Pay Bonus, "Hosseini" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Luisa Hosseini, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. International
Coffee & Tea, LLC, a California limited liability company, doing
business as The Coffee Bean & Tea Leaf; and DOES 1 through 100,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC612020, (Cal. Super., February
26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants consistently and
systemically failed to include the monthly non-discretionary bonus
amount when calculating Plaintiff and similarly situated
employees' regular and overtime rate of pay; and failed to pay
Plaintiff and other similarly situated employees all wages owed
upon the separation of their employment, including the unpaid
overtime and other wages.

Plaintiff requests a trial by jury.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
     Olivia D.Scharrer, Esq.
     AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
     AProfessional Law Corporation
     1156E. Green Street, Suite 200
     Pasadena, California 91106
     Tel: (213)674-6080
     Fax: (213)674-6081


J.M. SMUCKER: Faces "Ocasio" Suit Over Deceptive Sales Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bernice Ocasio, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. The J.M. Smucker Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 9:16-cv-80359-DMM (S.D. Fla., March 10, 2016), seeks
redress for the alleged pervasive pattern of fraudulent,
deceptive, false, and otherwise improper advertising, sales, and
marketing practices that Defendant engages in regarding its Creamy
Supreme Milk Chocolate frosting product (frosting), under the
Florida Law and the FDA Law.

The J.M. Smucker manufactures, markets, and sells ready-to-use
frosting in a variety of flavors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan C. Zipperian, Esq.
          SHEPHERD, FINKELMAN, MILLER & SHAH, LLP
          1640 Town Center Circle, Suite 216
          Weston, FL 33326
          Telephone: (954) 515-0123
          Facsimile: (866) 300-7367
          E-mail: nzipperian@sfmslaw.com


KELSEY-HAYES COMPANY: Filed 6th Cir. Appeal in Retirees Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Kelsey-Hayes Company, TRW Automotive Holdings Corporation and TRW
Automotive, Inc. on Feb. 26, 2016, lodged an appeal before the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit from a decision by the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in a
class action lawsuit.

The lower court case is, United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber,
Manufacturing Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers
International Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, Nald D. Strait, Danny O.
Stevens, for themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Kelsey-Hayes Company, TRW Automotive, Inc., TRW Automotive
Holdings Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 11-cv-15497 (E.D.
Mich.).

Plaintiffs Strait and Stevens represent a class of retirees who
worked at the Kelsey-Hayes manufacturing plant in Jackson,
Michigan, which closed in July 2006.  They sued after the
Defendants discontinued group coverage insurance for eligible
retirees and spouses, age 65 and older, and replaced it with an
HRA (health reimbursement accounts) funding program.

On Jan. 28, 2016, District Judge Gershwin A. Drain entered an
"OPINION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT [100] AND GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO REAFFIRM PRIOR
GRANT OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION [101]".  A copy
of Judge Drain's decision is available at http://bit.ly/1LDuWBr
from Leagle.com.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John G. Adam, Esq.
     LEGGHIO & ISRAEL
     306 S. Washington
     Suite 600
     Royal Oak, MI 48067
     Tel: (248) 398-5900

          - and -

     Stuart M. Israel, Esq.
     Law Office
     306 S. Washington, Suite 600
     Royal Oak, MI 48067-0000
     Tel: 248-398-5900

The Defendants are represented by:

     Todd A. Dawson, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER
     1900 E. Ninth Street
     Suite 3200
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Tel: (216) 621-0200

          - and -

     Gregory Valentin Mersol, Esq.
     BAKER & HOSTETLER
     1900 E. Ninth Street, Suite 3200
     Cleveland, OH 44114
     Business: (216) 621-0200
     Personal: (216) 861-7935


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Ellison" Suit Over Product Misbranding
----------------------------------------------------------
Chauncy Ellison, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 2:16-cv-01136-JS
(E.D. Penn., March 10, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been
manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of
its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan &
Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years,
in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

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


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Higens" Suit in Ill. Over Product Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Higens and Ryan Schmidt, individually and as the
representatives of a class of similarly situated persons v.  Kraft
Heinz Foods Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-03016 (N.D. Ill., March 10,
2016), alleges that the Defendant has been manufacturing,
marketing, distributing and selling containers of its 100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan & Romano Cheese product
throughout the United States for many years, in an unlawful,
false, misleading and deceptive manner.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      James M. Smith, Esq.
      Julia L. Titolo, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St,, Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 658-5500
      E-mail: phil@bockhatchllc.com
              jim@bockhatchllc.com
              julia@bockhatchllc.com


KRANG GROUP: "Skiba" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, Benefits Under NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Damian Skiba, Celso Cabrera, Luis Cabrera, and Pawel Poliwka
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
who were employed by Krang Group, Inc. and AFL Construction Co.,
Inc., along with other entities affiliated or controlled by. Krang
Group, Inc. and AFL Construction Co., Inc. with respect to certain
Public Works Projects awarded by The City Of New York And The
State Of New York, the Plaintiffs, v. Krang Group, Inc. and AFL
Construction Co., Inc. and John Doe Bonding Companies 1-20, the
Defendants, Case No. 152072/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of New
York, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid prevailing wages
and/or supplemental benefits which they are statutorily and
contractually entitled to receive for their services performed at
the Public Works Project, under the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Krang Group is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the
State of New York, with its principal location at Brooklyn, New
York. Krang is engaged in the construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LEAPFROG ENTERPRISES: Faces "Segev" Suit Over VTech Merger
----------------------------------------------------------
Raha V. Segev and Richard Farias, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Leapfrog
Enterprises, Inc., William B. Chiasson, John Barbour, Thomas J.
Kalinske, Stanley E. Maron, E. Stanton McKee, Jr., Joanna Rees,
Randy 0. Rissman, Caden C. Wang, Stephen M. Youngwood, VTech
Holdings Limited, and Bonita Merger Sub, L.L.C., Defendants, Case
No. RG16805569, (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016), challenges a
transaction wherein VTech Holdings Limited will acquire all
outstanding shares of LeapFrog common stock in an all-cash
transaction valued at an aggregate of approximately $72 million.
The Proposed Transaction is the product of a flawed process
designed to ensure the sale of LeapFrog to VTech at a price
substantially below the fair and inherent value of LeapFrog and
under terms and conditions preferential to VTech and other
defendants, but detrimental to LeapFrog's public stockholders, the
lawsuit claims.

LeapFrog designs, develops, and markets technology-based learning
roducts and related proprietary content for children worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David E. Azar, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     3 10866 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 600
     Los Angeles, California 90024
     Tel: (213) 915-8870
     Email: dazar@milberg.com

          - and -

     Kent A. Bronson, Esq.
     MILBERG LLP
     One Pennsylvania Plaza, 50th Floor
     New York, New York 10119
     Tel: (212) 594-5300

          - and -

     J. Elazar Frucher, Esq.
     WOHL & FRUCHTER LLP
     570 Lexington A venue, 16th floor
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 758-4000


LENDMARK FINANCIAL: "Figgs" Suit Removed to Maryland Dist. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sherryl Figgs, individually and on behalf of others Similarly
Situated, v. Lendmark Financial Services, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
24-C-15-005716 OC, was removed on Feb. 26, 2016, from the Circuit
Court for Baltimore City to the District Court for the District of
Maryland and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00566-JFM.  The case is
assigned to Judge J. Frederick Motz.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jane Santoni, Esq.
     WILLIAMS AND SANTONI LLP
     401 Washington Ave Ste 200
     Towson, MD 21204
     Tel: (410) 938-8666
     Fax: (410) 938-8668
     Email: jane@williams-santonilaw.com

          - and -

     Kathleen Hyland, Esq.
     Williams & Santoni, LLP
     401 Washington Avenue
     Suite 200
     Towson, MD 21204
     Tel: (410) 938-8666
     Fax: (410) 938-8668
     Email: kat@williams-santonilaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Brian L Moffet, ESq.
     Miles & Stockbridge, P.C.
     100 Light Street
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Tel: (410) 385-3656
     Email: bmoffet@milesstockbridge.com

          - and -

     Zachary Schultz, Esq.
     Miles & Stockbridge P.C.
     100 Light Street
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Tel: (410) 385-3657
     Email: zschultz@milesstockbridge.com


LORD & TAYLOR: Settles Charges Over Deceptive Instagram Posts
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Lord & Taylor will settle U.S.
charges that it deceived customers when it paid for Instagram
posts and also a website article to promote a new clothing line
without disclosing that they were advertisements.

The department store chain gave 50 popular trendsetters on
Instagram a free dress and paid them as much as $4,000 to post a
picture of them wearing it, the Federal Trade Commission said on
March 14.  The posts reached more than 11 million Instagram users
and the dress sold out, according to the FTC.

Lord & Taylor also paid the pop-culture magazine Nylon to post an
article online about the new line.

"Consumers have the right to know when they're looking at paid
advertising," said FTC's director of consumer protection bureau,
Jessica Rich.

Lord & Taylor said it never tried to deceive customers and that it
corrected the posts and article when the FTC raised the issue a
year ago.

Nylon declined to comment.

In settling the charges, Lord & Taylor is prohibited from
"misrepresenting" paid ads in the future.  If it does, the
department store chain could pay civil penalties, the FTC said.

Lord & Taylor has 50 stores around the country.  It is owned by
Hudson's Bay Co. of Toronto, which also owns Saks Fifth Avenue.


LOS ANGELES, CA: To Settle curfew Class Action for $30 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zusha Elinson, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Los Angeles will pay as much as $30 million to settle a class-
action lawsuit brought against the city over its practice of
enforcing curfews for alleged gang members as part of an effort to
crack down on gang crime.

The unusual resolution stems from L.A.'s use of gang injunctions,
a popular law enforcement tool. Under the injunctions, those
identified as gang members or associates can be prohibited from
gathering, staying out late or wearing certain clothing.

The agreement was approved on March 16 by the Los Angeles City
Council to resolve the suit filed on behalf of nearly 6,000
Angelenos identified by police as gang members and subjected to
gang injunctions.

The city payout will help fund job training for people who were
forced to stay indoors at night under the injunction.

The suit accused Los Angeles police of enforcing the curfew even
though a similar provision in Oxnard, Calif., had been previously
ruled unconstitutionally vague by a state court in 2007.

Gang injunctions have been used widely, especially on the West
Coast, as a way to combat gang violence.  But civil-rights
attorneys have challenged them for trampling on constitutional
rights.

The settlement "provides a very real opportunity for folks who've
been marginalized to make their lives better," said Olu K. Orange,
attorney for the plaintiffs.

The city will pay as much as $7.5 million for four years to
nonprofits to provide job training, counseling, life skills and
tattoo removal to the plaintiffs or their families.

Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer said it "creates an
innovative pathway for individuals served with gang injunctions to
gain the job skills they need to turn their lives around."

A spokesman for Mr. Feuer said the city has stopped enforcing the
curfew on suspected gang members but continues to use the other
provisions in the gang injunctions because "we find that they are
an effective tool."

The case stemmed from the 2009 arrest of Christian Rodriguez for
being out after a 10 p.m. curfew. Mr. Rodriguez had been tagged by
police as being a member of a gang called the Culver City Boys.

But Mr. Orange said Mr. Rodriguez wasn't in the gang and was a
standout high-school student.  The attorney said he never got to
the bottom of how his client ended up on the list of gang members.

Criminal charges against Mr. Rodriguez for violating curfew were
eventually dropped.

"They daisy-chain the list -- you're on the list if you hang out
with a certain person," Mr. Orange said.  "A running joke we had
during this case was they were going to put me on the list for
hanging out with these guys as their attorney."

Mr. Rodriguez, who now works as an emergency medical technician,
said "because I was wrongly labeled as a gang member, I couldn't
even be outside helping my mom with the groceries at night."  He
called gang injunctions "a form of psychological abuse on a whole
generation of young people of color."

Attorneys for the city argued during the litigation that Mr.
Rodriguez was part of the gang, a spokesman for the city attorney
said.

Police and prosecutors maintain that gang injunctions helped bring
down violence in Los Angeles over the years.  Gang killings had
dropped in the city until recently.

"It prevents them from terrorizing parks and different places,"
said Wes McBride, executive director of the California Gang
Investigators Association, who worked for the Los Angeles County
Sheriff's Department's gang unit. "When they gather together they
either conspire to commit crime or they become the victims of
other gangs."


LUGG INC: Case Management Conference in "Sims" Set for July 27
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference is scheduled for July 27, 2016, in
the case, Josh Sims, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Lugg, Inc., Defendant, Case No. CGC 16
550654 (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016).  The case is assigned to
Judge John K. Stewart.


LUMIX HIBACHI: Faces "Liu" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Feng Wen Liu, Yun Jian Tang and Yun Bin Wang, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Lumix Hibachi
Restaurant Inc. d/b/a Lumix Hibachi, Qi Lin, Mei Yu Zhang, Jian
Xiong Chen, Tommy Wang, John Doe and Jane Doe # 1-10, Case No.
1:16-cv-01216 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant in Nassau County
located at 693 Sunrise Hwy, Lynbrook, NY 11563.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANFREDINI LANDSCAPING: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Failure to Pay OT
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fermin Cardona, on behalf of himself and all other Plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Manfredini Landscaping Company, d/b/a
Manfredini Landscaping & Design, also d/b/a Manfredini Landscaping
& Design Co., and Enrico Manfredini, Case No. 1:16-cv-03018 (N.D.
Ill., March 10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of providing landscaping,
gardening, snowplowing, and maintenance services, and building
custom fireplaces and outdoor kitchens.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John W. Billhorn
      BILLHORN LAW FIRM
      53 W. Jackson Blvd. Suite 840
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 853-1450

         - and -

      Meghan A. VanLeuwen, Esq.
      FARMWORKER AND LANDSCAPER ADVOCACY PROJECT
      33 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 900
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 784-3541
      E-mail: mvanleuwen@flapillinois.org


MATCH GROUP: IPO Documents Contain False Info, "Stein" Alleges
--------------------------------------------------------------
David M. Stein, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Match Group, Inc., Gregory R. Blatt, Gary
Swidler, Michael H. Schwerdtman, Gregg J. Winiarski, Joseph M.
Levin, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Allen & Company LLC, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank
Securities Inc., BMO Capital Markets Corp., Barclays Capital Inc.,
BNP Paribas Securities Corp., PNC Capital Markets LLC, Cowen and
Company, LLC, SG Americas Securities, LLC, Fifth Third Securities,
Inc., and Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00549-L (N.D. Tex., February 26, 2016), alleges that the
Registration Statement for the Company's IPO was inaccurate and
misleading, contained untrue statements of material facts, omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and omitted to state material facts.

Match Group provides dating products. It operates a portfolio of
approximately 45 brands, including Match, OkCupid, Tinder,
PlentyOfFish, Meetic, Twoo, OurTime, and FriendScout24. Match
Group offers its dating products through its websites and
applications in 38 languages in approximately 190 countries. It
also provides various test preparation, academic tutoring, and
college counseling services. The company was incorporated in 2009
and is headquartered in Dallas, Texas. Match Groupis a subsidiary
of IAC/InterActiveCorp.

The case is assigned to Judge Sam A Lindsay.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Roger L. Mandel, Esq.
     Bruce E. Bagelman, Esq.
     LACKEY HERSHMAN, L.L.P.
     3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 777
     Dallas, Texas 75219
     Tel: (214) 560-2201
     Fax: (214) 560-2203
     Email: rlm@lhlaw.net
            beb@lhlaw.net

          - and -

     Thomas J. McKenna, Esq.
     Gregory M. Egleston, Esq.
     GAINEY McKENNA & EGLESTON
     440 Park Avenue South, 5th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Tel: (212) 983-1300
     Fax: (212) 983-0383
     Email: tjmckenna@gme-law.com
            gegleston@gme-law.com


MDL 2672: "Noggle" Suit Consolidated in California
--------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Chelsea Noggle, individually and
on behalf of others similarly suited, v. Volkswagen Group of
America, Inc., A New Jersey Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-00031,
was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the District of
Idaho, to the U.S. District Court for the District of California
Northern District (San Francisco). The Northern District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00713-CRB to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks damages,
injunction relief, and equitable relief as a result of
Volkswagen's conduct related to the Defeat Device, and other
defects, including but not limited to defects related to emission
levels in the Affected Vehicles.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Noggle case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard H. Greener, Esq.
          Fredric V. Shoemaker, Esq.
          Loren K. Messerly, Esq.
          GREENER BURKE SHOEMAKER OBERRECHT P.A.
          950 West Bannock Street, Suite 950
          Boise, ID 83702
          Telephone: (208) 319 2600
          Facsimile: (208) 319 2601
          E-mail: rgreener@greenerlaw.com
                  fshoemaker@greenerlaw.com
                  lmesserly@greenerlaw.com


MDL 2677: "Carbone" Suit Transferred to Boston
----------------------------------------------
Giancarlo Carbone and Jeremy Huard, on their own behalf and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FanDuel
Inc., and DraftKings Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10410, (D.
Mass., February 26, 2016), alleges fraud.

The case was originally filed on Nov. 25, 2015 (D. Conn. Case No.
3:15-cv-01740).  It was transferred to Boston on Feb. 26, and
consolidated in In re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL No. 2677.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Bruce E. Newman, Esq.
     BROWN, PAINDIRIS & SCOTT, LLP
     747 Stafford Avenue
     Bristol, CT 06010
     Tel: (860) 583-5200
     Fax: (860) 589-5780
     Email: bnewman@bpslawyers.com

          - and -

     Cody Nolan Guarnieri, Esq.
     BROWN PAINDIRIS & SCOTT LLP
     100 Pearl Street, Suite 1100
     Hartford, CT 06103
     Tel: (860) 522-3343
     Fax: (860) 533-2490
     Email: cguarnieri@bpslawyers.com

          - and -

     Zak A. Jazlowiecki, Esq.
     JAZLOWIECKI & ASSOCIATES
     11 Lincoln Avenue
     Forestville, CT 06010
     Tel: (860) 674-8000
     Fax: (860) 585-1561
     Email: zjazlowiecki@jazlowiecki.com

Defendant, Fanduel, Inc., is represented by:

     Wystan M. Ackerman, Esq.
     ROBINSON & COLE, LLP
     280 Trumbull St.
     Hartford, CT 06103-3597
     Tel: (860) 275-8388
     Fax: (860) 275-8299
     Email: wackerman@rc.com


MDL 2677: "Triantafylidis" Case Transferred from Missouri
---------------------------------------------------------
Petros Triantafylidis, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FanDuel Inc., Defendant, was
transferred on Feb. 26, 2016, from the Western District of
Missouri, Case No. 15-01007 to the U.S. District Court in Boston,
and consolidated in In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports Marketing and
Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2677.  The Boston case is assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-10408.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alexander Thomas Ricke, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Ave.
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     E-mail: atr@edgarlawfirm.com

          - and -

     Boyce N. Richardson, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     E-mail: bnr@edgarlawfirm.com

          - and -

     John F. Edgar, Esq.
     EDGAR LAW FIRM LLC
     1032 Pennsylvania Avenue
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816) 531-0033
     Fax: (816) 531-3322
     E-mail: jfe@edgarlawfirm.com

Defendant, Fanduel, Inc., is represented by:

     Daniel Hodes, Esq.
     ROUSE, HENDRICKS, GERMAN, MAY, PC
     1201 Walnut St., 20th Floor
     Kansas City, MO 64106
     Tel: (816) 471-7700
     Fax: (816) 471-2221
     E-mail: danh@rhgm.com


MDL 2687: Environmental Research Suit Consolidated in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Environmental Research And Design,
Inc., individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
v. General Chemical Corporation; General Chemical Performance
Products, LLC; Chemtrade Logistics Inc.; Chemtrade Chemicals
Corporation; Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC; Gentek, Inc.; Geo
Specialty Chemicals, Inc.; and Frank A. Reichl, Case No. 2:15-cv-
06421, was transferred from the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the U.S. District Court for
the District of District of New Jersey (Newark). The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00735 to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks treble damages,
costs of suit, and other relief as maybe determined as just and
proper, under the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. The
Defendants' allegedly conspired and agreed to fix, raise, inflate,
maintain or stabilize prices of liquid aluminum sulfate, rig bids
and allocate customers for liquid aluminum sulfate supplied to
municipalities, pulp and paper companies, agricultural companies
and all other direct purchasers in the United States.

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

The Environmental case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re:
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual
questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to
fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and
independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices
designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S.
between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O.
Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R.
David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16-
md-02687-JLL-JAD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony J. Bolognese, Esq.
          BOLOGNESE & ASSOCIATES, LLC
          1500 JFK Blvd., Suite 320
          Philadelphia, PA 19102
          Telephone: (215) 814 6750
          Facsimile: (215) 814 6764
          E-mail: ABolognese@bolognese-law.com

               - and -

          Paul J. Geller, Esq.
          David W. Mitchell, Esq.
          Patrick J. Coughlin, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423
          E-mail: PGeller@rgrdlaw.com
                  DavidM@rgrdlaw.com
                  PatC@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Robert C. Gilbert, Esq.
          VKOPELOWITZ OSTROW FERGUSON WEISELBERG GILBERT
          200 S.W. 1ST Avenue, 12th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525 4100
          Facsimile: (954) 525 4300
          E-mail: gilbert@kolawyers.com

               - and -

          Kenneth G. Oertel, Esq.
          OERTEL, FERNANDEZ, BRYANT & ATKINSON, P.A.
          2060 Delta Way
          Tallahassee, FL 32303
          Telephone: (850) 521 0700
          Facsimile: (850) 521 0720
          E-mail: koertel@ahfc.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Richard H. Epstein, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC
          One Riverfront Plaza
          12th Floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 643 7000
          E-mail: repstein@sillscummis.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Reiss, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGUS L.L.P.
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153

               - and -

          James Howard Mutchnik
          KIRKLAND & ELLIS
          200 E. Randolph Drive
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 861 2350

               - and -

          Michael B. Himmel, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC
          6 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597 6172
          E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Kaplan, Esq.
          JARVE & KAPLAN, LLC
          10 Lake Center Executive Park
          401 Route 73 North, Suite 204
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 235 9500
          E-mail: makaplan@hotmail.com


MDL 2687: "Flambeau" Suit Moved to N.J. Court
---------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Flambeau River Papers, LLC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation; General Chemical
Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc., and Chemtrade Logistics
Inc., Case No. 2:15-cv-06422, was transferred from the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, to the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The New Jersey
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00737 to the
proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' allegedly conspired
and agreed to fix, raise, inflate, maintain or stabilize prices of
liquid aluminum sulfate, rig bids and allocate customers for
liquid aluminum sulfate supplied in the US in violations to the
Sherman Act and Clayton Act.

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

The Flambeau case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re:
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual
questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to
fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and
independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices
designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S.
between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O.
Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R.
David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16-
md-02687-JLL-JAD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Howard J. Sedran, Esq.
          Keith Verrier, Esq.
          LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
          510 Walnut Street, Suite 500
          Philadelphia, PA 19106-3697
          Telephone: (215) 592 1500
          E-mail: hsedran@lfsblaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael B. Himmel, Esq.
          LOWENSTEIN SANDLER, PC
          6 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 597 6172
          E-mail: mhimmel@lowenstein.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Kaplan, Esq.
          JARVE & KAPLAN, LLC
          10 Lake Center Executive Park
          401 Route 73 North, Suite 204
          Marlton, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 235 9500
          E-mail: makaplan@hotmail.com

               - and -

          Richard H. Epstein, Esq.
          SILLS CUMMIS & GROSS PC
          ONE RIVERFRONT PLAZA
          12th floor
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 643 7000
          E-mail: repstein@sillscummis.com

               - and -

          Steven A. Reiss, Esq.
          WEIL GOTSHAL AND MANGUS L.L.P.
          767 Fifth Avenue
          New York, NY 10153


MDL 2687: Metropolitan Council Suit Moved to N.J. Court
-------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled Metropolitan Council, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, GenTek, Inc.,
Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC,
Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04266, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00733-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
due to Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, by allegedly
conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition
in the market for liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) sold to
Plaintiff. The conspiracy included but was not limited to their
agreement to circumvent competitive bidding and independent
pricing for Alum contracts and to submit artificially inflated
bids.

The Alum is a versatile chemical that can function as a coagulant,
flocculant, precipitant, and emulsion breaker. Alum removes
turbidity, suspended solids, total organic carbon, and biochemical
oxygen demand. Alum is used in both municipal and industrial
applications.

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

The Metropolitan case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in re:
Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was created
by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share factual
questions arising out of allegations that Defendants conspired to
fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive bidding and
independent pricing; and committed other anticompetitive practices
designed to unlawfully fix, raise, maintain and stabilize the
prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate was sold in the U.S.
between 1997 and 2010, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman
Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the MDL Panel found that these
actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization
of this litigation in the District of New Jersey will serve the
convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and
efficient conduct of this litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation are Hon. Sarah S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O.
Rendell, Hon. Lewis A. Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R.
David Proctor, and Hon. Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16-
md-02687-JLL-JAD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street #2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Emily E Chow, Esq.
          Richard A Duncan, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St Ste 2200
          Minneapolis, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766 7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766 1600


MDL 2687: City of Rochester Suit Consolidated in D. N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit titled City of Rochester, Minnesota,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v.
Hawkins, Inc., Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, Gentek, Inc.,
Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics, Inc., GEO
Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., USALCO, LLC,
Thatcher Group, Inc., Kemira Chemicals, Inc., and John Does 1-50,
Case No. 0:15-cv-04266, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the District of Minnesota, to the U.S. District Court
for the District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00733-JLL-JAD to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff seeks to recover damages
due to Defendants' violation of the Sherman Act, by allegedly
conspiring to increase prices and otherwise restrain competition
in the market for liquid aluminum sulfate (Alum) sold to
Plaintiff. The conspiracy included but was not limited to their
agreement to circumvent competitive bidding and independent
pricing for Alum contracts and to submit artificially inflated
bids.

The Alum is a versatile chemical that can function as a coagulant,
flocculant, precipitant, and emulsion breaker. Alum removes
turbidity, suspended solids, total organic carbon, and biochemical
oxygen demand. Alum is used in both municipal and industrial
applications.

Hawkins, Inc. blends, manufactures, and distributes various
chemical products. The company operates in two segments,
Industrial and Water Treatment. The Company is based in Roseville,
Minnesota. General Chemical Corporation manufactures specialty
chemicals. The Company provides refinery and chemical sulfuric
acid regeneration services. General Chemical serves the
photographic, water treatment and pharmaceutical industries. The
Company is based in Parsippany, New Jersey.

The City of Rochester case is being consolidated with MDL 2687 in
re: Liquid Aluminum Sulfate Antitrust Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on February 4, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising out of allegations that Defendants
conspired to fix prices; conspired to circumvent competitive
bidding and independent pricing; and committed other
anticompetitive practices designed to unlawfully fix, raise,
maintain and stabilize the prices at which liquid aluminum sulfate
was sold in the U.S. between 1997 and 2010, in violation of
Section 1 of the Sherman Act. In its February 4, 2016 Order, the
MDL Panel found that these actions involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization of this litigation in the District
of New Jersey will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. The Panel on Multidistrict Litigation are Hon. Sarah
S. Vance, chairman, Hon. Marjorie O. Rendell, Hon. Lewis A.
Kaplan, Hon. Ellen Segal, Hon. Huvelle R. David Proctor, and Hon.
Catherine D. Perry. The lead case is 2:16-md-02687-JLL-JAD.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
          Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South 6th Street #2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
                  dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Emily E Chow, Esq.
          Richard A Duncan, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP
          90 S 7th St Ste 2200
          Mpls, MN 55402-3901
          Telephone: (612) 766 7000
          Facsimile: (612) 766 1600


MIHOMECARE: Care Workers File Minimum Wage Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Zoe Conway, writing for BBC News, reports that a major care
company could be facing a bill for hundreds of thousands of pounds
for non-payment of the minimum wage.

MiHomecare could face a group action lawsuit by care workers after
it paid GBP1,250 to a carer in an out of court settlement.
Caroline Barlow had sued the company for not paying for her travel
time.

The company says that since last year, they have been correcting
carers' pay where it has been found to be wrong.
They add that they are "disappointed Caroline chose to take a
formal route".

Ms Barlow said she was delighted by the outcome and is urging
other carers to fight for the money they are owed.

"I'm hoping it will make other people realise that you can take on
a big company and you can win," she said.

'Appalled'

The law firm Leigh Day, which brought this case, is now
considering bringing a group action against MiHomecare and is
appealing for other care workers to come forward.  They say
hundreds of carers -- both current and former employees of
MiHomecare -- could now be owed thousands of pounds for unpaid
travel time.

Care workers who look after people in their homes, helping them to
wash, dress, eat and take medication, have long argued that they
have been paid less than the minimum wage because they were not
being paid for the time it took them to travel between clients.

Ms. Barlow worked for MiHomecare in Devon where the roads she
drove down were often narrow country lanes.  It could take her
more than half an hour to travel between her elderly clients.
That's why she was owed more than GBP1,000 despite having worked
for the company for less than six months.

Analysis of Ms. Barlow's timesheets show that on one day in
January 2015 she travelled 38 miles between two clients.  Beyond
mileage, she was not paid for making these journeys.

She says she is "appalled" that she had to resort to legal action,
but that "as time went on it became more a matter of principle
than the actual money I was receiving".

In January, MiHomecare paid 100 carers in South Wales up to
GBP2,500 each for previously unpaid travel time.

The company is owned by the outsourcing giant Mitie.  It employs
4,500 care workers who look after 10,000 elderly and disabled
people in England and Wales.

Mihomecare says that following a review in June last year it has
"revised all pay rates that required adjustment and amended care
rosters to ensure that they complied with relevant legislation."
More generally, HM Revenue and Customs, which is responsible for
enforcing the minimum wage, says it is investigating more than 100
care providers "as part of this we are taking targeted action
against some of the biggest social care providers."


MIRACLE MAIDS: Violated FLSA, CMWWA & CWCA, "Valdez" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Aida Leonor Valdez, on her own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Miracle Maids, LLC, and
George R. Capaldo, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00582 (Dist.
Col., March 10, 2015), seeks to recover minimum overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the Colorado Minimum
Wages of Workers Act (CMWWA), the Colorado Minimum Wage Order
(Wage Order), and the Colorado Wage Claim Act (CWCA).

Miracle Maids offers cleaning services including janitorial
cleaning services to other businesses or commercial firms.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew H. Turner, Esq.
          BUSECHER, KELMAN, PERERA & TURNER, P.C.
          600 Grant Street - Suite 450
          Denver, CO 80203
          Telephone: (303) 333 7751
          Facsimile: (303) 333 7758
          E-mail: aturner@laborlawdenver.com


MOBILEIRON INC: Calif. Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
MobileIron, the leader in mobile enterprise security, on March 16
disclosed that the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California has dismissed, with prejudice, the Panjwani
v. MobileIron, Inc., et al. securities class action that was filed
on May 1, 2015 against the Company and certain of the Company's
officers.

The lawsuit alleged that the company violated the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934 by issuing a false and misleading forecast
for the first quarter of 2015.  The Company moved to dismiss the
case. On February 22, 2016, the District Court issued an order
granting MobileIron's motion to dismiss finding that the Company's
forecast was a forward-looking statement accompanied by meaningful
cautionary language.

The Court's order permitted Plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint within 21 days.  However, on March 11, 2015, Company and
Plaintiffs filed a stipulation agreeing that Plaintiffs would not
file an amended complaint or otherwise appeal the Court's order
and that Plaintiffs' case would be dismissed with prejudice. No
money was exchanged as part of this agreement.  On March 14, the
Court dismissed this federal case.

                    About MobileIron

MobileIron -- http://www.mobileiron.com-- provides the secure
foundation for companies around the world to transform into Mobile
First organizations.


MONDAY SOCIAL: July 27 Case Management Conference in "Urrutia"
--------------------------------------------------------------
A case management conference is scheduled for July 27, 2016, in
the case, Millie Urrutia, as an individual and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Muse Lifestyle Group,
LLC, Monday Social, Inc., Does 1 through 50, inclusive, and 1624
Las Palmas, LLC dba Sound Nightclub, Defendant, Case No. CGC 16
550655 (Cal. Super., February 27, 2016).  The case is assigned to
Judge John K. Stewart.


MOODY'S CORP: 2nd Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Commerzbank Claim
----------------------------------------------------------------
Moody's Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Second Circuit has affirmed the dismissal of
Commerzbank's claim in a class action lawsuit.

On August 25, 2008, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank filed a purported
class action in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York asserting numerous common-law causes of
action against two subsidiaries of the Company, another rating
agency, and Morgan Stanley & Co. The action related to securities
issued by a structured investment vehicle called Cheyne Finance
(the "Cheyne SIV") and sought, among other things, compensatory
and punitive damages. The central allegation against the rating
agency defendants was that the credit ratings assigned to the
securities issued by the Cheyne SIV were false and misleading.

In early proceedings, the court dismissed all claims against the
rating agency defendants except those for fraud and aiding and
abetting fraud. In June 2010, the court denied plaintiff's motion
for class certification, and additional plaintiffs were
subsequently added to the complaint.

In January 2012, the rating agency defendants moved for summary
judgment with respect to the fraud and aiding and abetting fraud
claims. Also in January 2012, in light of new New York state case
law, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file an amended
complaint that reasserted previously dismissed claims against all
defendants for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, and related aiding and abetting claims.

In May 2012, the court, ruling on the rating agency defendants'
motion to dismiss, dismissed all of the reasserted claims except
for the negligent misrepresentation claim, and on September 19,
2012, after further proceedings, the court also dismissed the
negligent misrepresentation claim.

On August 17, 2012, the court ruled on the rating agencies' motion
for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' remaining claims for fraud
and aiding and abetting fraud. The court dismissed, in whole or in
part, the fraud claims of four plaintiffs as against Moody's but
allowed the fraud claims to proceed with respect to certain claims
of one of those plaintiffs and the claims of the remaining 11
plaintiffs. The court also dismissed all claims against Moody's
for aiding and abetting fraud.

Three of the plaintiffs whose claims were dismissed filed motions
for reconsideration, and on November 7, 2012, the court granted
two of these motions, reinstating the claims of two plaintiffs
that were previously dismissed.

On February 1, 2013, the court dismissed the claims of one
additional plaintiff on jurisdictional grounds. Trial on the
remaining fraud claims against the rating agencies, and on claims
against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud and for
negligent misrepresentation, was scheduled for May 2013.

On April 24, 2013, pursuant to confidential settlement agreements,
the 14 plaintiffs with claims that had been ordered to trial
stipulated to the voluntary dismissal, with prejudice, of these
claims as against all defendants, and the court so ordered that
stipulation on April 26, 2013. The settlement did not cover
certain claims of two plaintiffs, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
Public School Employees' Retirement System ("PSERS") and
Commerzbank AG ("Commerzbank"), that were previously dismissed by
the Court.

On May 23, 2013, these two plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to
the Second Circuit, seeking reversal of the dismissal of their
claims and also seeking reversal of the trial court's denial of
class certification. According to pleadings filed by plaintiffs in
earlier proceedings, PSERS and Commerzbank AG seek, respectively,
$5.75 million and $69.6 million in compensatory damages in
connection with the two claims at issue on the appeal.

In October 2014, the Second Circuit affirmed the denial of class
certification and the dismissal of PSERS' claim but reversed a
ruling of the trial court that had excluded certain evidence
relevant to Commerzbank's principal argument on appeal. The Second
Circuit did not reverse the dismissal of Commerzbank's claim but
instead certified a legal question concerning Commerzbank's
argument to the New York Court of Appeals.

The New York Court of Appeals subsequently agreed to hear the
certified question, and on June 30, 2015, the Court of Appeals
ruled in Moody's favor. The case was then returned to the Second
Circuit for final disposition of the appeal.  On February 23,
2016, the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of Commerzbank's
claim.

Moody's is a provider of (i) credit ratings, (ii) credit, capital
markets and economic related research, data and analytical tools,
(iii) software solutions and related risk management services,
(iv) quantitative credit risk measures, financial services
training and certification services and (v) outsourced research
and analytical services to financial institution customers.


NATERA INC: "Cahoj" Suit Seeks Damages Under Securities Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mika Cahoj, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz,
Jonathan Sheena, Hermrosenman, Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens,
Edward C. Driscoll, Jr., James I. Healy, John Steuart, SC
Management, LLC, Sequoia Capital XI, LP, Lightspeed Ultimate
General Partner VIII, Ltd., Lightspeed Venture Partners VIII, LP,
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Cowen And Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray &
Co., Robert W. Baird & Co. Incorporated, Wedbush Securities Inc.,
and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV537717 (Cal.
Super. Ct., County of San Mateo, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover
damages under the Securities Act, in connection with their
purchases of stock.

Plaintiff alleges that the Registration Statement and Prospectus
issued in connection with the Defendant's IPO contained materially
incorrect or misleading statements and/or omitted material
information that was required to be disclosed.

Accordingly, Plaintiff who hold the common stock issued pursuant
to the Prospectus have the right to rescind and recover the
consideration paid for their shares, and hereby tender their
common stock to Defendants sued.

Natera, a genetic testing company, develops and commercializes
non-invasive methods for analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in
the United States and Europe. The company primarily offers
Panorama, a non-invasive prenatal test for fetal chromosomal
abnormalities; Horizon test; and pre-implantation genetic
screening and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis tests under the
Spectrum brand to analyze chromosomal anomalies or inherited
genetic conditions during an in vitro fertilization. The Company
is based in San Carlos, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Esq.
          Albert Y. Chang, Esq.
          Yury A. Kolesnikov, Esq.
          BOTTINI & BOTTINI, INC.
          7817 Ivanhoe Avenue, Suite 102
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 914 2001
          Facsimile: (858) 914 2002
          E-mail: fbottini@bottinilaw.com
                  achang@bottinilaw.com
                  ykolesnikov@bottinilaw.com


NEW LAND CONTRACTING: "Garcia" Suit Alleges FLSA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------
Erik H. Garcia, individually; Erik H. Garcia, on behalf of others
similarly situated; Enrique Hernandez, individually; and Enrique
Hernandez, on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
New Land Contracting, Inc., dba New Land Contracting; IFM
Contracting Inc., dba New Land Contracting; Larry Cami, aka Larry
Latif; Imer Cami; and Ferrit Cami, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01505 (S.D.N.Y., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiffs are representing themselves.


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Lead Poisoning Victims Get Average $17,000 Each
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard A. Webster, writing for NOLA.com, reports that Bridgette
Kinard remembers the men in the "white suits."  They came to her
apartment in the B.W. Cooper housing development in the 1990s,
wrapped head to toe in specialized clothing to protect them from
hazardous materials.  They were testing for lead, a toxic metal
once found throughout the city's public housing complexes.

"It's five, six, seven, eight people at one time coming into your
unit, and they're all covered up and you're not and you're
wondering, 'Am I contaminated? Is there something wrong with me?'"

The lead levels in Ms. Kinard's apartment registered high enough
that the Housing Authority of New Orleans decided to relocate her
family, including her four young children.  But instead of moving
them to another part of the city, Ms. Kinard said, HANO simply
gave them the keys to a different unit in the same complex.

Today, two of her children struggle with upper respiratory issues,
stomach ailments, and attention deficit disorder,
Ms. Kinard said.  These are all common symptoms of lead poisoning,
according to the Mayo Clinic.  "My son is still suffering from it.
He can't keep food down," she said.

Ms. Kinard said she had little hope of receiving financial
assistance until 2011, when insurance companies for HANO settled a
long-running class action lawsuit over lead poisoning for $67
million. It seemed like a significant victory for thousands of
public housing families facing a lifetime of mounting medical
bills.

But it didn't quite work out that way. A NOLA.com/The Times-
Picayune review of hundreds of pages of court documents has
discovered that the roughly 2,000 eligible victims of lead
poisoning in the city's public housing developments received, on
average, no more than $17,000.  Meanwhile, three lawyers appointed
by the court to help administer the settlement fund were paid, in
total, almost $2 million, with one of them making almost half a
million dollars for four months of work.

Ms. Kinard's children didn't receive a dime.  Their medical
records had been lost during Hurricane Katrina.

"We might as well have just floated away with the water,"
Ms. Kinard said.  "I don't know what situation my children will
face in their life, dealing with what's inside of them."

In the coming months, the courts are expected to consider the last
of multiple challenges to the settlement, bringing the 21-year-old
case to an end. But instead of feeling closure, some public
housing residents say they feel cheated and disillusioned with a
class action system that lets attorneys make millions of dollars
while the real victims walk with barely enough money to pay for a
few years of therapy and medical care.

Dolfinette Martin, who lived in B.W. Cooper from when she was just
a child in 1973 to Hurricane Katrina, said five of her children
tested positive for the toxic metal.  Her daughter, Theone,
suffered the worst.  Theone was born prematurely and couldn't hear
or speak until age 6, Martin said.  Today, at the age of 20, she
can't read or tell time, all common symptoms of lead poisoning.

"I am so tired of every time there's something to gain, low-
income, public housing residents, we're the poster child for that
cause," Ms. Martin said.  "But the minute that money trickles in,
that money does not touch the lives of one person (who is) from
poverty-stricken neighborhoods.

"To give these children a $17,000 check and say, 'We did right by
you,' is criminal."

The federal government has taken steps to diminish the effects of
lead, banning its use in paint since 1978 and gasoline since 1996.
In 1987, Congress approved the Housing and Community Development
Act, requiring public housing agencies to remove all traces of
lead from their properties to protect their tenants.

Eleven years later, however, a Tulane University study found that
almost a third of children in New Orleans public housing continued
to have dangerously high levels of lead.  HANO officials at the
time refused to provide Tulane researchers with information on how
they were complying with federal regulations to remove lead from
their housing complexes.

Omega Ellis, however, said she witnessed firsthand what she
described as HANO's remediation efforts. Like Kinard, Ellis, 36,
said the men in hazmat suits came to her family's apartment in the
B.W. Cooper housing development in the early 1990s and determined
that it, too, was full of lead.

But unlike Ms. Kinard, Ms. Ellis said, the agency didn't offer to
relocate her family.  Instead, workers shaved some paint off the
porch railings, leaving piles of contaminated chips in the dirt.
And that was it.

"They feel like poor black kids, that's what we're used to growing
up in poverty. 'Why should we help them?'" said
Ms. Ellis, who added that she suffers from bronchitis and a heart
murmur, both symptoms of lead poisoning. "Nobody cares. Nobody
worries."

Lawyers, however, began to take notice.  In 1991, HANO settled
more than 60 individual lead-poisoning suits for a total of $1
million.

Three years later, a team of attorneys filed a class-action suit
against the Housing Authority in Orleans Parish Civil District
Court.  The case dragged on for years, enduring numerous delays
caused by the withdrawal and recusal of multiple judges, the
deaths of two defense attorneys and one plaintiffs' attorney,
frequent continuances and Hurricane Katrina, according to court
documents.

Finally in 2011, the plaintiffs and their attorneys got the
breakthrough they wanted: HANO's seven insurance companies agreed
to settle for $67 million.  When deciding how to distribute the
money, the presiding judge at the time, Joseph Tiemann, determined
that 50 percent of the money would go to the affected families.
That's $33.5 million.

Of the rest, 40 percent would go toward the fees of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, 5 percent to the plaintiffs' attorneys'
legal expenses, and 5 percent would be reserved for court costs.

Two more years passed without a single check being sent to the
affected families.  So in 2013, Civil District Court Judge Tiffany
Chase took over the case from Tiemann, who had been serving on a
temporary basis.  One of her primary objectives was to fast-track
settlement payments to the lead-poisoning victims.

To that end, Judge Chase looked to appoint someone as special
master, to help her oversee and manage the distribution of money.
She chose two men she knew for years: Scott Bickford and James
Williams.

The special masters

Special masters are typically appointed by judges to resolve
disputes and enforce judicial orders in complex, unwieldy
lawsuits.  They act on behalf of the judge and serve as officers
of the court.

Given their pedigrees, Messrs. Bickford and Williams appeared to
be suited for the work.

Mr. Bickford is a partner at the Martzell & Bickford law firm,
where he has served as counsel in several class-action cases
involving asbestos exposure and large oil spills, including the
2010 BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

In less than a year as special master in the lead poisoning case,
Mr. Williams made $503,449.67.  To date, Mr. Bickford has made
$771,391.63.  The court paid them with money from the settlement
fund, with most of their money coming from the portion set aside
for the children.

In comparison, the nine attorneys who represented the public
housing residents and secured the $67 million settlement are set
to split roughly $27 million for an average of $3 million per
lawyer.  Several of those attorneys worked on the case for more
than two decades.

'A sweet deal for lawyers'

Ed Sherman, a Tulane University law professor, said that in a
relatively small legal community such as New Orleans, it's common
for judges to appoint people they know and trust as special
masters.  The job requires the dedication of a significant amount
of time in addition to a vast wealth of legal knowledge and
expertise.

And the appointments of Bickford and Williams appeared to pay off.
Five months after they were brought on the case, the court began
to send out the first settlement checks to lead-poisoned
residents.

But Mr. Sherman said such appointments must be made carefully as
they can raise questions of impropriety and political pay-offs,
especially among the plaintiffs who might feel as if they were
treated unfairly.  He cited a section of the Louisiana Code of
Judicial Conduct that states judges "shall act at all times in a
manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and
impartiality of the judiciary," and that judges "shall not allow
family, social, political or other relationships to influence
judicial conduct or judgment."

The code also states a "judge should avoid appointments which tend
to create the appearance of impropriety.  A judge shall not
approve the compensation of appointees beyond the fair value of
services rendered."

"These kinds of perks that judges can hand out, like appointing
close friends or former law firm members to receiverships, that's
a sweet deal for lawyers," said Mr. Sherman, a student of complex
litigation and civil trials. "Those kinds of things are done quite
a bit in Louisiana, and it has something to do with the fact that
judges are elected and therefore judges do favors for attorneys.
They have to raise money for re-elections somehow. It's certainly
troubling."

Further, "if, ultimately, the payment to the class members is
siphoned off with all kinds of fees (given to special masters),
then you're undermining the purpose of the class action," he said.

In the lead poisoning suit, several plaintiffs' attorneys filed
motions protesting the amount paid to Williams, specifically
$221,510 worth of invoices he filed between December 2013 and
March 2014.  These were for phone calls that Williams said were
handled by the staff at his law firm, according to an August 2014
motion filed by plaintiffs' attorney Peter Sloss.

In one of the invoices, Mr. Williams said his staff handled 1,490
calls, each lasting 20 minutes, on a single day, according to
Mr. Sloss' motion. That's 497 hours for which Williams charged $85
per hour, for $42,245.

"To support those numbers, (the law firm) would have had to have
62 staff members using 62 phone lines doing nothing but handling
telephone calls for 8 hours," Mr. Sloss stated in the motion.
"These numbers are astounding. Whatever the explanation may be,
the class is entitled to an explanation."

Mr. Sloss asked that the court audit Mr. Williams' billings. Judge
Chase has yet to issue a ruling.

Messrs. Bickford and Williams would not comment for this story.
They cited the pending litigation.  Judge Chase did not respond to
requests for comment.

Before the court could disburse the settlement money, it had to
create tutorships, or legal guardianships, for about 300
plaintiffs who received more than $10,000 and were still minors.
Typically the plaintiffs' attorneys would have handled the job,
but by that point they had splintered.  Infighting made it
impossible for them to work together on the tutorships, attorney
Joe Bruno said in court documents.  So at some point, it was
suggested that the court hire an outsider to perform the work.

"Our relationship had, by that time, deteriorated to the point
where no one could rise and become the leader, and you need to
have a quarterback," Mr. Bruno said in court documents.

Gill-Jefferson became that quarterback.

A 'flat rate bonanza'

On Nov. 13, 2013, Ms. Gill-Jefferson started working on the case
for her requested payment amount.  For a flat fee of $1,500 per
child she would complete more than 300 tutorships in 14 days.
That's about $450,000 for two weeks' work.

Yet no one will say whose idea it was to hire Gill-Jefferson.
Several of the plaintiffs' attorneys said in court documents they
thought Chase was responsible. But Chase wrote in a per curiam, or
court decision, that she "took no part in this decision" and was
under the belief that the attorneys agreed to hire Ms. Gill-
Jefferson.

Despite the uncertainty, Gill-Jefferson got the job.  When it was
finished four months later, instead of the two weeks estimated,
Judge Chase approved Ms. Gill-Jefferson's requested fee of
$463,606.99, which was paid out of the settlement fund from the
pot of money set aside for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees.

Gary Gambel and Jennifer Willis, two of the nine plaintiffs'
attorneys, filed motions objecting to the payment.  In addition to
the fee being high, they said, Gill-Jefferson mainly sat on the
sidelines, providing little more than oversight, while they and
other attorneys handled the bulk of the work.  Ms. Gill-Jefferson
did little more than fill out forms with information collected
from the plaintiffs by their attorneys, something "any competent
secretary could (do) in ten minutes or less, probably more like
five minutes," Ms. Willis stated in her motion.

Mr. Gambel and Ms. Willis estimated that Gill-Jefferson deserved
no more than $30,000, according to court documents.

"Those in the middle with unknown motive were pressing for the
engagement of Ms. Gill-Jefferson.  If Ms. Gill-Jefferson wants
more, she should seek it from those who promised it, and they
should be liable for the fees, expenses and costs of this
objectionable endeavor," Mr. Gamble said.  He added that he and
"the court were the pawns in this self-interested appointment
process perpetrated by others," describing Gill-Jefferson's fee as
a "flat rate bonanza."

Mr. Gambel didn't name "those in the middle" or the "others" in
his motion.

Mr. Bruno, another plaintiffs' attorney, came to Ms. Gill-
Jefferson's defense, calling her fee "reasonable," according to
court records.  "Trying to mobilize, organize and get everything
done was an enormous undertaking, not the simplistic task that
(Gambel and Willis) allege it was."

On Aug. 4, 2014, the matter went before Chase.  She dismissed
motions to cancel the payment, saying Gill-Jefferson took on a
"herculean" task, and that she "personally observed Ms. Gill-
Jefferson, herself, walking over boxes of files for signature."

Two weeks later, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal reversed the
decision, vacated Gill-Jefferson's payment and sent the case back
to Chase.  "We find no evidence of reasonable efforts made by
trial court to determine the extent of effort expended by Ms.
Gill-Jefferson to authenticate such a significant fee," stated the
ruling.

Less than a year later, Judge Chase reduced Ms. Gill-Jefferson's
payment by $6,000. In January, the Fourth Circuit upheld Chase's
ruling, stating that "despite the apparently very high legal fee
award, we cannot find under the peculiar circumstances of this
case that the trial judge abused her discretion."

Ms. Gill-Jefferson's attorney, Richard Stanley, stated in court
documents that "the results achieved by" his client "speak for
themselves. In a relatively-short period, she performed over 300
tutorships that the (plaintiffs' attorneys) had not undertaken for
roughly two decades, thus facilitating the timely disbursement of
over $5 million in settlement proceeds."

Mr. Gambel appealed Judge Chase's ruling again.  The issue is now
before the state Supreme Court.

Ms. Gill-Jefferson would not comment for this story.  She cited
the pending litigation.

'You get paid, and here I get zero'

"How in the hell (do) you get half a million to hand a person a
check?" asked Ms. Martin, the former B.W. Cooper resident who
raised five children in public housing.

Ms. Kinard, who also lived in B. W. Cooper with her four children,
raised the same objection, saying she feels victimized twice.
First there was HANO, for failing to protect its residents; then
came the courts.

"I'm the one ... living back here. I'm the one ... running back
and forth to the doctor with my kids.  I'm the one ... up all
night with my kids," Ms. Kinard said. "You get paid, and here I
get zero. Once they get what they want, you're pushed to the side.
You no longer exist, like I'm trash."

To qualify for money from the settlement fund, families must have:

   -- Lived in or visited public housing before 2001
   -- Been born after 1987
   -- Medical documents showing they were poisoned by lead at the
      age of 6 or younger.

The children of Ms. Martin and Ms. Kinard didn't qualify.  Their
medical records were lost during Katrina.

"The lady next door to me qualified, her and her children," Ms.
Kinard said.  "We lived in the same building, in the same
courtway.  Our kids went to the same school.  The only thing we
didn't do is go to the same doctor."

Ms. Ellis, who grew up in B. W. Cooper and now said she suffers
from a heart murmur, also didn't qualify since she was born before
1987.

"I'm angry. I'm upset," Ms. Ellis said.  "I feel like the
forgotten child."

Ms. Martin said that giving people a few thousand dollars to make
up for a lifetime of serious health issues is an insult.  But the
court never had to worry about most of the public housing
residents contesting the amount of their settlement checks, Martin
said: "You give a 19-, 20-, 21-year-old a $17,000 check? In this
'hood? They feel they hit the lottery. Of course they're going to
accept that check. They've never seen that amount of money at one
time."

Ms. Martin did contest the settlement.  Over the course of three
weeks in 2014 she said she collected more than 60,000 signatures
from former public housing residents who said their families were
affected by lead poisoning and were shut out from the lawsuit. She
said she wants to use the petition to reopen the case, but that so
far she has been unsuccessful.

"I think about the fact that not only did my kids, five of them,
not receive any of the settlement money, it's as if my children
don't even exist," Ms. Martin said.  "I don't know one person
(who) received a check who received more than $20,000.  And I know
at least 20 families personally that didn't receive a dime who
lived in public housing, who raised their children in public
housing, who deserved not just the money but to know you were done
an injustice."


NEW YORK: Feminine Hygiene Products to Be Exempted from Sale Tax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nina Bahadur, writing for SELF, reports that earlier this month,
five women brought a class-action lawsuit against the state of New
York protesting the "tampon tax."  Previously, under New York law,
feminine hygiene products like tampons, sanitary pads, and
menstrual cups were not classified as "medical necessities," and
were subject to a 4 percent sales tax.  There are approximately 10
million women of childbearing age in the state of New York, and
they pay roughly $14 million per year in taxes on tampons and
pads.  The suit argued that this was unconstitutional, because it
taxed women for simply being women, and called for the state to
end the tax and provide millions in restitution for women who had
been paying it.  Clearly, the suit and other activism about the
tampon tax has made an impact: on March 16, news broke that New
York's Assembly passed legislation to exempt feminine hygiene
products from New York state sales taxes.  The legislation will
now move to the Senate.

Actress Margo Seibert is one of the women who brought the original
tampon tax suit against the state of New York.  She helps run an
organization called Racket that helps low-income and homeless
women get access to period supplies, which are often not available
in shelters.   When Ms. Seibert spoke to activist Jennifer Weiss-
Wolf and learned that feminine hygiene products were not
considered medical necessities, she knew that she had to take part
in the class-action lawsuit activists Jennifer Moore, Catherine
O'Neil, Natalie Brasington, and Taja-Nia Henderson were filing.

"It is a bold statement to file a class-action lawsuit and to say
that this is a tax that is discriminatory against women, because
women are the people who use this product," Ms. Seibert tells
SELF.  "I realized we could take quite a stand together to get
money back for the women where it really does count."

Zoe Salzman, an attorney representing the suit, tells SELF that
tampons and pads should absolutely be exempt from state taxes
given the way the state of New York categorizes what is and is not
medically necessary.

"The way that the New York tax law defines necessities is
extremely broad," she says.  "It's really any item that's used to
preserve human health.  And the list of items that the Department
of Taxation and Finance considers to fall within that broad
definition is very long.  It includes things like Rogaine--used to
prevent and treat thinning hair loss in men.  It includes dandruff
shampoo, chapstick, foot powder used to prevent sweaty feet, and a
long list of other things. But those are some of the most
egregious examples."

Ms. Seibert and Ms. Salzman both made it clear that they don't
consider periods an illness, but that feminine hygiene products
are still medically necessary because of what happens when women
do not have access to these items.

"Having a period is not being sick or having a disease, but
there's no question that tampons and pads are used to preserve
women's health," Ms. Salzman explains.  "There's a very common
sense argument that if women are free bleeding, that's not
particularly good for women's health or, actually, public health.
There's a whole list of health and hygiene concerns with that."


NOODLES & COMPANY: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages & Damages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Castillo, Anastassia Letourneau, and Jacquelyn Myhre, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Noodles
& Company, Case No. 1:16-cv-03036 (N.D. Ill., March 10, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Noodles & Company operates a chain of approximately 492 "fast
casual" restaurants throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Swartz, Esq.
      Christopher M. McNerney, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 245-1000
      Facsimile:  (646) 509-2060

         - and -

      Relic Sun, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center, 38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (415) 638-8810

        - and -

      Paul W. Mollica, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      203 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2100
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Telephone: (312) 924-4888
      Facsimile: (646) 509-2075

         - and -

      Gregg I. Shavitz, Esq.
      Alan Quiles, Esq.
      SHAVITZ LAW GROUP, P.A.
      1515 S. Federal Highway
      Boca Raton, FL 33432
      Telephone: (561) 447-8888
      Facsimile: (561) 447-8831
      E-mail: gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com
              aquiles@shavitzlaw.com


OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER: April 29 Class Action Opt-Out Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Master Docket No. 09-md-02063-JLK-KMT
IN RE: OPPENHEIMER ROCHESTER FUNDS GROUP
SECURITIES LITIGATION
This Document Relates To: The Oppenheimer California Municipal
Fund

SUMMARY NOTICE OF CLASS CERTIFICATION

To:      All persons and entities that purchased or acquired A, B,
or C shares of the Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund ("the
Fund") between September 27, 2006 and November 28, 2008 (the
"Class Period").

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado, that the lawsuit that is now
pending in that court under the caption In re: Oppenheimer
Rochester Funds Group Securities Litigation, Master Docket No. 09-
md-02063-JLK-KMT (D. Col.) relating to the Oppenheimer California
Municipal Fund (the "Action") has been certified as a class action
on behalf of the Class as set forth in the full printed Notice of
Class Certification ("Notice").

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THIS ACTION.  The full printed Notice is currently being mailed to
known Class Members.  If you have not yet received the Notice, you
may obtain a copy of the Notice by contacting the Administrator:

Oppenheimer California Municipal Fund
Notice Administrator
PO Box 3719
Portland, OR 97208-3719
888-299-1179
www.OppenheimerCalMuniLitigation.com
info@OppenheimerCalMuniLitigation.com

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to the
lawyers representing the Class:

Alan W. Sparer
Marc Haber
Michael L. Gallo
Sparer Law Group
100 Pine Street, 33rd Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 217-7300
Lead Class Counsel

Daniel C. Girard
Dena C. Sharp
Elizabeth A. Kramer
Girard Gibbs LLP
601 California Street, 14th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94108
(415) 981-4800
Class Counsel

If you are a Class Member, you have the right to decide whether to
remain a member of the Class.  If you choose to remain a member of
the Class, you do not need to do anything at this time. You will
automatically be included in the Class and all orders or judgments
in the Action will apply to you.  If you do not wish to remain a
member of the Class, you must take steps to exclude yourself from
the Class.  If you are a Class Member and do not exclude yourself
from the Class, you will be bound by the proceedings in the
Action, including all past, present and future orders and
judgments of the Court, whether favorable or unfavorable.

If you ask to be excluded from the Class, you will not be bound by
any order or judgment in the Action, but you will not be eligible
to receive a share of any money which might be recovered for the
benefit of the Class.  To exclude yourself from the Class, you
must submit a written request for exclusion postmarked on or
before April 29, 2016 in accordance with the instructions set
forth in the full printed Notice.  There may be a second
opportunity to request exclusion from the Class if there is a
future settlement in the Action.

Further information may be obtained by contacting the
Administrator.

Please Do Not Call the Court with Questions.

Dated: March 17, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
United States District Court
District of Colorado


P.F. CHANG'S: Violated Unruh Act, "Arroyo" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Arroyo, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
d/b/a P.F.CHANG'S, the Defendant, Case No. BC613340 (Cal. Super.
Ct., County of Los Angeles, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover
statutory damages and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs under
statutes of California, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, California
Code, and the California Disabled Persons Act, California Civil
Code.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, through its subsidiaries, engages in
the ownership and operation of restaurants in the United States.
The company owns and operates two restaurant concepts, P.F.
Chang's China Bistro and Pei Wei Asian Diner. As of January 1,
2012, it owned and operated 204 full service Bistro restaurants
and 170 quick-casual Pei Wei restaurants; and operated 15 Bistro
restaurants in Mexico, the Middle East and Puerto Rico under
development and licensing agreements. P.F. Chang's China Bistro,
Inc. was founded in 1996 and is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. As
of July 2, 2012, P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc. was taken
private.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534-2590
          Facsimile: (310)247-0160


PIGGLY WIGGLY: "Spires" Suit Alleges ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------
Dana Spires, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, and Glenn Grant, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. David R Schools, William
A. Edenfield, Jr., Robert G. Masche, Joseph T. Newton, III, Burton
R. Schools, Piggly Wiggly Carolina Company Inc. & Greenbax
Enterprises Inc. Employee Stock Option Plan and Trust Plan
Committee, Joanne Newton Ayers, Mark A. Ayers, Marion Newton
Schools, Scott Schools, Stephen M. Schools, John Kizer, and John
Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00616-CWH (D.S.C.,
February 26, 2016), alleges violation of ERISA.

The case is assigned to Honorable C. Weston Houck.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alice W Parham Casey, Esq.
     WYCHE LAW OFFICE
     801 Gervais Street, Suite B
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Tel: (803) 254-6542
     Fax: (803) 254-6544
     Email: tparham@wyche.com

          - and -

     Eric Bauman Amstutz, Esq.
     WYCHE LAW OFFICE
     44 E Camperdown Way
     Greenville, SC 29601
     Tel: (864) 242-8201
     Fax: (864) 241-8900
     Email: eamstutz@wyche.com

          - and -

     Henry L Parr, Jr., Esq.
     WYCHE LAW OFFICE
     44 E Camperdown Way
     Greenville, SC 29601
     Tel: (864) 242-8209
     Fax: (864) 235-8900
     Email: hparr@wyche.com

          - and -

     John C Moylan, III, Esq.
     WYCHE LAW OFFICE
     801 Gervais Street, Suite B
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Tel: (864) 254-6542
     Email: jmoylan@wyche.com

          - and -

     Wade S Kolb , III, Esq.
     WYCHE LAW OFFICE
     44 E Camperdown Way
     Greenville, SC 29601
     Tel: (864) 242-8306
     Email: wkolb@wyche.com


PIONEER ENERGY: Violated FLSA, "Zimmerman" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Zimmerman on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Pioneer Energy Services Corp. and
Pioneer Wireline Services, LLC d/b/a Penkota Wireline Services,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00048-DLH-CSM (D. North Dakota,
Western Div. March 10, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Pioneer Energy Services Corp., formerly Pioneer Drilling Company,
provides drilling and production services to independent oil and
gas exploration companies. The Company is based in Austin, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Tim Newsom,
          LOVELL, LOVELL, NEWSOM & ISERN, L.L.P.
          Eagle Centre Building
          112 West Eighth Avenue, Suite 1000
          Amarillo, TX 79101-2314
          Telephone: (806) 373 1515
          Facsimile: (806) 379 7176
          E-mail: tim@lovell-law.net

               - and -

          Jeremi K. Young, Esq.
          Collin Wynne, Esq.
          THE YOUNG LAW FIRM, P.C.
          1001 S. Harrison, Suite 200
          Amarillo, TX 79101
          Telephone: (806) 331 800
          Facsimile: (806) 398 9095
          E-mail: jyoung@youngfirm.com
                  collin@youngfirm.com


PLAINS ALL AMERICAN: Facing Line 901 Incident Suits in Cal, Tex.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is defending class action lawsuits in California and Texas
related to the Line 901 Incident.

"In May 2015, we experienced a crude oil release from our Las
Flores to Gaviota Pipeline (Line 901) in Santa Barbara County,
California," the Company said.  "A portion of the released crude
oil reached the Pacific Ocean at Refugio State Beach through a
drainage culvert.

"Following the release, we shut down the pipeline and initiated
our emergency response plan. A Unified Command, which includes the
United States Coast Guard, the EPA, the California Office of Spill
Prevention and Response and the Santa Barbara Office of Emergency
Management, was established for the response effort. Clean-up and
remediation operations with respect to impacted shoreline and
other areas has been determined by the Unified Command to be
complete, subject to continued shoreline monitoring. The cause of
the release remains under investigation.  Our current "worst case"
estimate of the amount of oil spilled, representing the maximum
volume of oil that we believed could have been spilled based on
relevant facts, data and information, is approximately 2,935
barrels.

"As a result of the Line 901 incident, several governmental
agencies and regulators have initiated investigations into the
Line 901 incident, various claims have been made against us and a
number of lawsuits have been filed against us. We may be subject
to additional claims, investigations and lawsuits, which could
materially impact the liabilities and costs we currently expect to
incur as a result of the Line 901 incident.

"Shortly following the Line 901 incident, we established a claims
line and encouraged any parties that were damaged by the release
to contact us to discuss their damage claims. We have received a
number of claims through the claims line and we are processing
those claims as we receive them.

"In addition, we have also had seven class action lawsuits filed
against us, all of which have been administratively consolidated
into a single proceeding in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California. In general, the plaintiffs are
seeking to establish different classes of claimants that have
allegedly been damaged by the release, including potential classes
such as persons that derive a significant portion of their income
through commercial fishing and harvesting activities in the waters
adjacent to Santa Barbara County or from businesses that are
dependent on marine resources from Santa Barbara County, retail
businesses located in historic downtown Santa Barbara, certain
owners of oceanfront and/or beachfront property on the Pacific
Coast of California, and other classes of individuals and
businesses that were allegedly impacted by the release.

"There have also been two securities law class action lawsuits
filed on behalf of certain purported investors in the Partnership
and/or PAGP against the Partnership, PAGP and/or certain of their
respective officers, directors and underwriters.  Both of these
lawsuits have been consolidated into a single proceeding in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
In general, these lawsuits allege that the various defendants
violated securities laws by misleading investors regarding the
integrity of the Partnership's pipelines and related facilities
through false and misleading statements, omission of material
facts and concealing of the true extent of the spill.  The
plaintiffs claim unspecified damages as a result of the reduction
in value of their investments in the Partnership and PAGP, which
they attribute to the alleged wrongful acts of the defendants.

"The Partnership and PAGP, and the other defendants, deny the
allegations in these lawsuits and intend to respond accordingly.
Consistent with and subject to the terms of our governing
organizational documents (and to the extent applicable, insurance
policies), we are indemnifying and funding the defense costs of
our officers and directors in connection with these lawsuits; we
are also indemnifying and funding the defense costs of our
underwriters pursuant to the terms of the underwriting agreements
we previously entered into with such underwriters.

Plains All American Pipeline, L.P. owns and operates midstream
energy infrastructure and provides logistics services for crude
oil, natural gas liquids ("NGL"), natural gas and refined
products.


PLANET EXPRESS CARGO: "Slebi" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime & Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos J. Slebi, and other similarly, situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Planet Express Cargo and Courier Corp., Alvaro
Cortes, and Olga Aya, Defendants, Case No. Case 1:16-cv-20711-DPG
(S.D. Fla., February 26, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for
unpaid overtime and minimum wages and for retaliation under the
laws of the United States, and for Retaliation under Florida
Statutes Section 440.205.

Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.

The case is assigned to Judge Darrin P. Gayles.

Defendants are a Florida Profit corporation and Florida resident,
respectively, having their main place of business in Miami-Dade
County, Florida, and are engaged in interstate commerce.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
     Brandon Gibson, Esq.
     SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
     20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
     Aventura, Florida 33180
     Tel: (305) 503-5131
     Fax: (888) 270-5549
     Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com
            bgibson@saenzanderson.com


PPG INDUSTRIES: Settlement Reached in "Garcia" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge William H. Orrick granted a stipulation to shorten
the time for hearing on the plaintiffs' unopposed motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and for approval
of the FLSA collection action settlement in the case, HECTOR
GARCIA, ROBERT CAHIGAL, BRIAN HOLLIDAY AND TINA DIEMER, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PPG INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant, Case No. C 15-00319 WHO (N.D.
Cal.).

A copy of the Court's March 16, 2016, Order is available at
http://bit.ly/1WEkFFHfrom Leagle.com.

Hector Garcia, et al. represented by Laura L. Ho, Goldstein Borgen
Dardarian & Ho, Andrew J. Horowitz, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell and
Hippel LLP, pro hac vice, Bruce C. Fox, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell
Hippel LLP, Byron R. Goldstein, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho
& William Copley Jhaveri-Weeks, Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho.

PPG Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by:

     Sophia Behnia, Esq.
     Karin Morgan Cogbill, Esq.
     Littler Mendelson, P.C.
     50 West San Fernando Street, 15th Floor
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Tel: (408) 795-3490
     E-mail: kcogbill@littler.com

The Plaintiffs just finalized the settlement agreement as of March
10, 2015.

The Court scheduled a status hearing in this case for March 22,
2016.

The Stipulation provides that the hearing on the Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement was scheduled to
take place at the status hearing on March 22, 2016, at 2:00 p.m.


PPG INDUSTRIES: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Jimenez" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. PPG Industries, Inc., a Pennsylvania
corporation, Seaton, LLC, doing business as Staff Management
Solutions, LLC., an Illinois limited liability company, the
Defendant, Case No. BC613324 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los
Angeles, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover wages and reasonable
attorney fees, pursuant to California Labor Code, IWC Wage Orders,
California Business and Professions Code, and the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).

PPG is a global supplier of paints, coatings, optical products,
specialty materials, glass and fiber glass. It owns and operates
businesses in the County of Los Angeles and throughout the State
of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 90017
          Fax: (213) 542-2101
          Phone: (213) 542-2100

                - and -

          Marshall A. Caskey, Esq.
          Daniel M. Holzman, Esq.
          Thomas L. Dorogi, Esq.
          CASKEY & HOLZMAN
          240525 Park Sorrento, Ste.400
          Calabasas, CA 91302
          Telephone: (818) 657 1070
          Facsimile: (818) 297 1775


PROGRESSIVE AMERICAN: Removes John Virga Suit to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled John S. Virga D.C., P.A. v.
Progressive American Insurance Company, Case No. CACE-16-000617,
was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit in and for Broward
County, Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Florida (Ft. Lauderdale).  The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60329-BB to the proceeding.

Progressive American Insurance Company is a Florida-domiciled
insurance corporation.  The Company operates as a subsidiary of
Drive Insurance Holdings, Inc., and is authorized to transact
certain insurance coverage in Florida, including medical
malpractice, private passenger auto liability, commercial
automobile liability, private passenger auto physical damage Ÿ
surety and commercial auto physical damage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Herbert Zebersky, Esq.
          ZEBERSKY PAYNE, LLP
          110 S.E. 6th Street, Suite 2150
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 989-6333
          Facsimile: (954) 989-7781
          E-mail: ezebersky@zpllp.com

               - and -

          Jay Martin Klitzner, Esq.
          300 NW 82nd Avenue
          Executive Pavilion Suite 415
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 922-9100
          E-mail: jaychin@aol.com

               - and -

          Mark S. Fistos, Esq.
          Steven R. Jaffe, Esq.
          FARMER, JAFFE, WEISSING, EDWARDS, FISTOS & LEHRMAN P.L.
          425 N. Andrews Avenue, Suite 2
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 524-2820
          Facsimile: (954) 524-2822
          E-mail: mark@pathtojustice.com
                  steve@pathtojustice.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
          Bryan Thomas West, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          Three Brickell City Centre
          98 Southeast Seventh Street
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 374-5600
          Facsimile: (305) 374-5095
          E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
                  bryan.west@akerman.com

               - and -

          Ross Elliot Linzer, Esq.
          AKERMAN LLP
          One Southeast Third Avenue, Suite 2500
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 982-5643
          E-mail: ross.linzer@akerman.com


PTC THERAPEUTICS: Sued in N.J. Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kosin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., Stuart W. Peltz, and Shane
Kovacs, Case No. 2:16-cv-01383-KM-MAH (D.N.J., March 10, 2016),
alleges that the Defendants made false and misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.

PTC Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company focused on
the discovery, development and commercialization of orally
administered, small molecule therapeutics targeting an area of
ribonucleic acid ("RNA") biology, known as post-transcriptional
control.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey W. Herrmann
      COHN LIFLAND PEARLMAN HERRMANN & KNOPF LLP
      Park 80 West - Plaza One
      250 Pehle Ave., Suite 401
      Saddle Brook, NJ 07663
      Telephone: (201) 845-9600
      E-mail: jwh@njlawfirm.com

         - and -

      Robert C. Finkel, Esq.
      Fei-Lu Qian, Esq.
      WOLF POPPER LLP
      845 Third Avenue, 12th Floor
      New York, NY 10022
      Telephone: (212) 759-4600
      E-mail: rfinkel@wolfpopper.com
              fqian@wolfpopper.com


QUADAMI INC: "Sanchez-Herrera" Suit Seeks Spread of Hours Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gustavo Sanchez-Herrera, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Quadami Inc. d/b/a Vincent's
Clam Bar , Anthony Marisi, and Robert Marisi, Defendants, Case No.
1507/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., February 26, 2016), seeks payment of
spread-of-hours pay under the New York Labor Law and the
supporting regulations, 12 NYCRR Section 146-1.6.

Quadami Inc., is a domestic corporation with its principle place
of business located at 179 Old Country Rd. Carle Place New York
11514.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steven John Moser, Esq.
     3 School Street, Suite 207B
     Glen Cove, NY 11542
     Tel: (516) 671-1150
     Fax: (516) 882-5420
     Email: smoscr@moseremplovmentlaw.com


RAMIREZ SEAFOOD: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Paez" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Jose Abreu Paez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, Ramirez Seafood Route Inc. (d/b/a Ramirez
Seafood), and Belarminio Ramirez, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01206 (E.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Ramirez Seafood is a seafood wholesaler owned by Belarminio
Ramirez, located in Brooklyn, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


REB ENTERPRISES: "Mullen-Moore" FLSA Suit Removed to E.D. Pa.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Mullen-Moore, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REB Enterprises, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00935-MMB (E.D. Pa., February 26,
2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was removed by REB Enterprises, Inc. from the Common
Pleas Philadelphia, case number 151104693, on Feb. 26, 2016.  The
case is assigned to Honorable Michael M. Baylson.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Daniel C. Levin, Esq.
     LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN & BERMAN
     510 Walnut Street
     Suite 500
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Email: dlevin@lfsblaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

     Lee C. Durivage, Esq.
     MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
     2000 Market St., Suite 2300
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215) 575-2584
     Email: lcdurivage@mdwcg.com


RUSHCARD: Prepares to Settle Prepaid Debit Card Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mandi Woodruff, writing for Yahoo! Finance, reports that six
months after a botched systems upgrade left hundreds of thousands
of RushCard prepaid debit card users locked out of their accounts,
the company is preparing to settle several lawsuits stemming from
the debacle, according to court documents.

In a motion filed March 15, a Manhattan court agreed to put the
brakes on a pair of class action lawsuits filed by RushCard users
in the Southern District of New York while they work out a group
settlement with RushCard.  A RushCard spokesperson and the
company's attorneys did not immediately respond to a request for
comment.  It's highly unlikely the terms of the settlement, which
should be finalized by the end of May, will be made public.  It's
possible the settlement could encourage other consumers to file
their own complaints.

But even with this settlement, the company will still face the
possibility of an investigation by federal agencies.  After news
of the fiasco made headlines in late October, the Consumer
Financial Protection Bureau promised to look into RushCard to see
if any violations occurred. The CFPB received hundreds of
complaints in the wake of the outage, making RushCard the most
complained-about prepaid card issuer for the three-month period
from September to November.

Russell Simmons, the music mogul who co-founded the company over a
decade ago, publicly apologized for the outage on social media In
a statement to Yahoo Finance in December, Simmons said he is
intent on restoring his customers' faith in his product: "We
realize that we did not live up to those high standards over the
past two weeks, which is why we are committed to doing the right
thing and learning from this experience, so we can restore trust
with our current and future customers."

Prepaid debit cards like the RushCard are popular with low-income
consumers who may not otherwise qualify for a regular checking or
savings account. That made the service outage all the more
painful, as many RushCard users lost access to their only
available cash.  We spoke with dozens of affected consumers, some
of whom fell behind on rent, had their cars repossessed and were
skipping meals.  In the class action complaint, plaintiffs said
they weren't able to pay for basic necessities and faced
additional fees imposed by RushCard when they sought to replace
their prepaid cards.  One of the plaintiffs said she was charged
between 50 cents and $2.50 each time she tried and failed to
access her RushCard funds from an ATM.

Of the estimated 442,000 cardholders impacted by the outage,
17,000 came from Ohio, according to state Sen. Sherrod Brown.  He
co-authored a letter in December calling for a federal
investigation.

"RushCard owes it to the almost 17,000 Ohioans who were affected
by this breakdown to cooperate with the investigation and ensure
that this problem doesn't happen again," said Mr. Brown.  "The
thousands of RushCard customers who couldn't access their accounts
to get their paychecks, buy groceries, pay bills, or pay rent
deserve a much better explanation of how the company will make
amends."

The CFPB filed documents in November saying that RushCard
representatives have been slow to respond to requests for
information.  At the time, RushCard spokesperson Larry Kopp told
Yahoo Finance the company asked for more time to comply.  "We are
producing information and continue to work with the CFPB to
address all of its concerns and, to that end, have agreed to a
modified scope and timeframe for the Bureau's information requests
that will enable RushCard to comply in a timely manner," he said.

A CFPB spokesperson said the agency does not comment on pending
investigations.


S. CARTER ENTERPRISES: Composers Sue TIDAL for Music Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Yesh Music, LLC, and John K. Emanuele, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated copyright holders, Plaintiffs, v.
S. Carter Enterprises, LLC, Black Panther Bidco, LTD, and Aspiro
AB, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01521 (E.D.N.Y., February 27,
2016), asserts that Plaintiffs' "mechanical rights" for registered
musical compositions were improperly infringed by Defendants'
unlicensed and/or unauthorized reproduction and/or distribution of
copyrighted compositions, and their failure to properly calculate
royalties, and provide monthly statements detailing every track.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are liable for their intentional
infringement of each of the 118 registrations in the amount of
$150,000 per registration, but in no case less than $30,000 per
registration and/or Defendants' profits, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

Plaintiffs are the beneficial rights holders to 118 copyright
registrations covering 148 musical recordings which Defendants
have reproduced and distributed through the TIDAL Music Service
without a license.

S. Carter Enterprises, LLC, is a New York limited liability
company with a headquarters located at 1411 Broadway, 39th Floor.
New York, NY 10018.  Carter controls the operations of the TIDAL
Music Service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Richard M. Garbarini, Esq.
     GARBARINI FITZGERALD P.C.
     250 Park Avenue, 7th Floor
     New York, New York 10177
     Tel: (212) 300-5358
     Fax: (347) 218-9478


SAINT-GOBAIN: Faces "Peckham" Class Suit in N.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a
Allied-Signal Inc.

The case is captioned Marilyn Peckham, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Saint-Gobain Performance
Plastics Corp. and Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a Allied-
Signal Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00292-BKS-TWD (N.D.N.Y., March 13,
2016).

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp. is a producer of
engineered high performance polymer products for virtually every
industry around the globe, including automotive, medical,
pharmaceutical, chemical, food, beverage, airline, truck
manufacturing, appliances, construction, and microelectronics.

Honeywell International Inc. is a conglomerate company that
produces a variety of commercial and consumer products,
engineering services and aerospace systems for a wide variety of
customers, from private consumers to major corporations and
governments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas G. Blankinship, Esq.
      Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Telephone: (914) 298-3281
      Facsimile: (914) 824-1561
      E-mail: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com
              jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com


SAINT JOSEPH: Judge Approves $30MM Data Breach Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Tom Renner, writing for White Plains, reports that Judge Kim G.
Dunning recently approved what she described as the largest per-
person data breach settlement on record, an agreement that
provided over $30 million in value to 31,000 Saint Joseph Health
System (SJHS) patients.

The patients alleged that their medical information was wrongfully
disclosed.  Judge Dunning appointed Jeremiah Frei-Pearson --
jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com -- a partner at the White Plains class
action law firm of Finkelstein, Blankenship, Frei-Pearson and
Garber, LLP (FBFG), a Plaintiffs class action law firm, as co-lead
class counsel in this landmark case.

The per-person agreement is the largest known to date under
California's Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.  The case
settled on the eve of trial, after plaintiffs won several
significant motions the appellate court rejected the defendant's
appeals.  In addition FBFG and their co-counsel are also the only
counsel to win a contested class certification motion under the
Act.

Data breaches have become endemic in modern society. Too often,
the companies who are responsible for data breaches have used
legal technicalities to avoid liability.  However in the SJHS
case, Plaintiffs' counsel fought to obtain a more just result. In
the end, the defendant financially compensated the victims and
also agreed to spend approximately $17 million to improve its
cyber-security, which should prevent future data breaches.

"This settlement is noteworthy because it provides Saint Joseph's
patients with the highest dollar amount per person in any known
data breach case and it also requires SJHS to spend a
significant amount in improving its cyber-security,"
Mr. Frei-Pearson said.  "The goal of data breach lawsuits is to
compensate the victims and prevent future breaches, and I am very
happy that in this instance we accomplished these goals."


SAN JOSE MEXICAN: Faces "Galvan" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Luis Antonio Arellano Galvan, Jose Alfredo Avila Torres and Rafael
Aaron Brito Martinez, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. San Jose Mexican Restaurant of NC, Inc., San
Jose Mexican Restaurant #2 of Lumberton, Inc., San Jose Mexican
Restaurant of Pembroke, NC, Inc., Alberto Flores Toledano and
Edgardo Flores Perez, Case No. 7:16-cv-00039-FL (E.D.N.C., March
10, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate Mexican restaurants in North
Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clermont F. Ripley, Esq.
      Carol L. Brooke, Esq.
      NORTH CAROLINA JUSTICE CENTER
      P.O. Box 28068
      Raleigh, NC  27611
      Telephone: (919) 856-2154
      Facsimile: (919) 856-2175
      E-mail: clermont@ncjustice.org
              carol@ncjustice.org


SEPHORA USA: Violated Labor Code & UCL, "Alyssa" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Burnthorne-Martinez, Alyssa An Individual, on behalf of herself,
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sephora USA,
Inc., A Delaware Corporation, Does 1-50, Inclusive , the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 550894 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of San
Francisco, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, actual
wages, liquidated wages, restitution, declaratory relief,
prejudgment interest, statutory penalties, civil penalties, cost
of suit, and reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to the Labor
Code and Unfair Competition Law (UCL).

Sephora USA owns and operates a chain of perfume and cosmetics
stores worldwide. The company offers makeup products, skin care
products, fragrances, hair care products, bath and body products,
nail products, professional tools and brushes, men's products,
gifts, and more. It also provides beauty services, including
custom makeover and personal one-on-one services. In addition, the
company offers beauty classes, as well as a client loyalty
program, which provides clients with access to gifts, event
invitations, and select products. Further, it sells products
through its online store. The company was founded in 1970 and is
based in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (3l0) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com


SERENDIPITY 3 INC: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Velandia" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Irwing Velandia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Serendipity 3, Inc., doing business
as: Serendipity 3, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01799-AJN
(S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
minimum damages, misappropriated tips, and unlawful deductions,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor
Law.

Serendipity 3, often written Serendipity III, is a restaurant
located at 225 East 60th Street, between Second and Third avenues
in New York City, founded by Stephen Bruce in 1954. The restaurant
has been the scene of several films, including the 2001 romantic
comedy Serendipity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Louis Pechman, Esq.
          Pechman Law Group PLLC
          488 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 583 9500
          Facsimile: (212) 308 8582
          E-mail: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


SITCO ENTERPRISES: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Blanca Alvarez and all others similarly situated v. Sitco
Enterprises, LLC d/b/a Summit Work Apparel and Mehriar Kaviani
Espili, a/k/a Mark Kaviani, Case No. 4:16-cv-00632 (S.D. Tex.,
March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a machinery and equipment company
located in Sugar Land, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Telephone: (713) 868-3388
      Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


STATE FARM: Court Issues Mixed Ruling on Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Damon Durbin, Esq. -- ddurbin@bakerlaw.com -- of BakerHostetler,
in an article for JDSupra, reports that the court in Thompson v.
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30308 (D. Ga.
2016), recently issued a mixed ruling on class certification
regarding diminished value claims for Georgia homeowners.  The
plaintiffs sought certification for breach of contract claims
against an insurer, as well as claims for breach of duties created
by the homeowners insurance policy.  The court certified a class
of insureds for claims based on the insurer's alleged breach of
duty to assess damaged property for diminished value, but declined
to certify a class on a separate claim for breach of duty to pay
for diminished value.

In Thompson, the lead plaintiffs owned a Georgia townhouse insured
by State Farm under a homeowners policy. The plaintiffs' home
suffered water damage from a burst pipe, and State Farm paid for
repairs to the damaged areas.  State Farm did not, however, assess
whether the repaired home was diminished in value after the
repairs were made, and refused to pay for any alleged diminished
value.  The plaintiffs filed an alleged class action of Georgia
insureds, arguing that State Farm's policy insuring "for
accidental direct physical loss" created a duty for State Farm to
assess and pay for diminished value.

In deciding the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, the
court substantially agreed with the plaintiffs' reliance on two
Georgia Supreme Court cases, finding that State Farm could not get
around Mabry's holding that "insurance companies have a duty to
assess for diminished value and that when they fail to perform
that assessment, their insureds have a remedy." State Farm Mut.
Auto. Ins. Co. v. Mabry, 556 S.E.2d 114 (2001). The Thompson court
also pointed toward Royal Capital Dev., LLC v. Md. Cas. Co., 728
S.E.2d 234 (2012), as extending Mabry's holding to homeowners
insurance.

The Thompson court did, however, decline to certify a class for
alleged breach of duty to pay for diminished value.  Unlike the
alleged breach of duty to assess for diminished value, the court
found that the issue of diminished property value was not a common
question among insureds, but rather would require a claim-by-claim
analysis.  The court said, "There is only a breach if in fact a
class member's property decreased in value notwithstanding full
repair," and "even after adjudicating the issue of coverage,
significant questions concerning State Farm's liability would
remain for each class member."

This decision heightens the risk of class action litigation for
homeowners claims where the insurer fails to assess for diminished
value after repairs have been completed, at least in those states
requiring payment of diminution in value.  Thompson suggests that
insurers may be subject to class action lawsuits for alleged
breach of duty to assess for diminished value, even when the
insurer denies that it offers such coverage.  While the Thompson
court denied certification for alleged breach of duty to pay for
diminished value, insurers may be best served by expressly
excluding coverage for diminished value under homeowners'
policies.


SUPER SHINE & DETAILING: Violated FLSA, "Canals" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Gisela Canals, Donald R. Johnson and other similarly situated non-
exempt employees, the Plaintiff(s), v. Super Shine and Detailing,
Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation and Craig A.
Greenberg, individually, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-006087-CA-
01 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Miami-Dade County, March 10, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, additional equal
amount as liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


SWEDISH MEDICAL: Hospital Worker Pleads Not Guilty
--------------------------------------------------
Clyde Hughes, writing for newsmax, reports that a hospital worker
who may have exposed patients to Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C, and HIV
is at the center of a class-action federal lawsuit against a
Colorado medical center, which plaintiffs say acted negligently in
hiring the 28-year-old surgical technologist.

Rocky Allen was indicted in February on two federal counts after
he was caught allegedly stealing a syringe filled with fentanyl
from an operating room at Swedish Medical Center in Denver,
according to The Denver Post. He has pleaded not guilty.

The lawsuit claims that Mr. Allen, who court documents say is
carrying an unknown bloodborne pathogen, was fired from four other
hospitals for stealing fentanyl and was court martialed in 2011
while serving in the Navy, The Post said.  Because of his history,
he never should have been hired at Swedish, the plaintiffs argue.

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

Three plaintiffs are named in the suit, but it extends to all
individuals who had surgery at Swedish Medical Center between Aug.
17 and Jan. 22, The Denver Post reported.  The three who are named
have tested negative for the viruses but are encouraged to
continue routine testing.

The suspect, who investigators say is a drug addict, worked for a
short time at the Northwest Hospital and Medical Center in Seattle
in 2012 before he was fired, according to KIRO-TV.  The facility
recently notified more than 1,300 patients that they may have been
exposed to Hepatitis B, C, and HIV during Allen's tenure there.

"Court documents say Allen worked at Northwest Hospital in early
2012 and at the Naval hospital in Bremerton from 2007 to 2011,"
KING-TV reported.  "Investigators also found Allen had stolen
fentanyl from a hospital in San Diego, lied on job applications
and, at one point, tested positive for marijuana.

"Washington's Department of Health said on March 15 two more
medical facilities in the Puget Sound region would be named, and
up to 700 more patients will be encouraged to test themselves as
well," the station continued.


T.F. LOUDERBACK: "Tyrone" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Under CLC
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Windham, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
T.F. Louderback, Inc. d/b/a Bay Area Beverage Company, a
California Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. RG1016807164 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, March 10,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, unpaid meal period
premiums, unpaid rest period premiums, unpaid wages, restitution
under, unpaid minimum wages, pursuant to the California Labor Code
(CLC) and Unfair Competition/Unfair Business Practices.

T. F. Louderback distributes domestic and imported beverages in
California. The company offers gourmet sodas, juices, teas,
waters, spirits, wine, and craft and specialty beverages. It also
rents jockey box systems, picnic pumps, beer trailers, and refer
trucks, as well as sells cups and banners. T. F. Louderback, Inc.
was founded in 1969 and is based in Richmond, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Douglas Han, Esq.
          Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh, Esq.
          Daniel J. Park, Esq.
          JUSTICE LAW CORPORATION
          411 N. Central A venue, Suite 500
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 230 7502
          Facsimile: (818) 230 7259


TACI INVESTMENTS: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------
Yana Anderson, Individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs, v. Taci
Investments, Inc., Kamal P. Singh, Sanjay Mehra, Mohammad H. Tily
and Refeick Ali, individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00126-
JJB-RLB (M.D. La., February 25, 2016), seeks to recover, unpaid
overtime wages, liquidated damages, costs, attorneys' fees and
declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b).

Defendants operate KFC Fried Chicken, Long John Silver and Taco
Bell franchise restaurants all over the U.S.  Plaintiff worked as
an Assistant Manager for one of their franchise restaurants and
claim to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garner J. Wetzel, Esq.
      JAMES K. WETZEL & ASSOCIATES
      1701 24th Avenue
      Post Office Box 1
      Gulfport, MS 39502
      Tel: (228) 864-6400
      Fax: (228) 863-1793
      Email: gjwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com

             - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, Tennessee 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


TEREX CORPORATION: Ace Class Suit Transferred to N. Dist. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Ace Tree Surgery, Inc.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Terex Corporation, Terex South Dakota, Inc., and Terex Utilities,
Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01120, was transferred from United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut to the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (Atlanta). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00775-SCJ to the
proceeding.

The case asserts product liability-claims.

The Defendants are in the business of manufacturing lifting and
material handling solutions for a variety of industries, including
construction, infrastructure, quarrying, recycling, energy,
mining, shipping, transportation, refining and utilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam J. Levitt, Esq.
      Edmund S. Aronowitz, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER, P.A.
      Suite 2350, 30 North LaSalle Street
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 214-0000
      Facsimile: (312) 214-0001
      E-mail: alevitt@gelaw.com
              earonowitz@gelaw.com

         - and -

     Andrew E. Brashier, Esq.
     Archie Irwin Grubb II, Esq.
     BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES-AL
     P.O. Box 4160, 218 Commerce Street
     Montgomery, AL 36103-4160
     Telephone: (334) 269-2343
     Facsimile: (334) 954-7555
     E-mail: Andrew.Brashier@BeasleyAllen.com
             archie.grubb@beasleyallen.com

        - and -

     Kathleen L. Nastri, Esq.
     KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
     350 Fairfield Ave.
     Bridgeport, CT 06604
     Telephone: (203) 336-4421
     Facsimile: (203) 368-3244

The Defendant is represented by:

     James I. Glasser, Esq.
     John Matthew Doroghazi, Esq.
     Kim E. Rinehart, Esq.
     WIGGIN & DANA
     One Century Tower
     265 Church Street P.O. Box 1832
     New Haven, CT 06508-1832
     Telephone: (203) 498-4313
     Facsimile: (203) 782-2889
     E-mail: jglasser@wiggin.com
             jdoroghazi@wiggin.com
             krinehart@wiggin.com

        - and -

     Kevin M. Smith, Esq.
     TRENAM KEMKER SCHARF BARKIN FRYE O'NEILL & MULLIS
     P.O. Box 1102, 101 East Kennedy Boulevard
     Barnett Plaza, Suite 2700
     Tampa, FL 33601-1102
     Telephone: (813) 223-7474
     E-mail: info@trenam.com


TEXAS: Flooding Class Action Mulled v. Sabine River Authority
-------------------------------------------------------------
KHOU.com reports that flood victims from across Newton County are
discussing a a potential class action lawsuit against the Sabine
River Authority.

The SRA is the agency that runs the Toledo Bend Reservoir and
controls the releases from the damn that flooded the Sabine River
Basin.

While many in Newton County are working to deal with the flooding
there are some that are planning legal action.

A group of people on Facebook were planning a meeting on March 17
to discuss plans for a class action suit against the SRA.

The group maintains that the water release from Toledo Bend was
mismanaged and that this was a key factor in the flooding along
the Sabine River.


TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT: "Scott" Suit Seeks to Recover Penalties, Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Scott, on behalf of all similarly situated aggrieved
employees, the Plaintiff, v. Traffic Management, Inc., a
California Corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC613316 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, March
10, 2016), seeks to recover civil penalties, paid rest pay,
reasonable attorney's fees and costs, under the Labor Code.

Traffic Management offers traffic control services. The Company
provides services including job surveys, engineering plans, permit
negotiation, and traffic control set-ups, as well as retails
products including vehicles, traffic signs, channelization
devices, barricades, barriers, beacons, fencing, and roadway
marking products. The Company is based in Signal Hill, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Tel.: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Bruce Kokozian, Esq.
          KOKOZIAN LAW FIRM APC
          9440 South Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 510
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210-4608
          Telephone: (323) 857 5900
          Facsimile: (310) 275 6301
          E-mail: BKokozian@kokoziahlawfirm.com


TRUSTED MEDIA BRANDS: "Taylor" Suit Seeks Damages Under PPPA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shannon Taylor, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Trusted Media Brands, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-01812 (S.D.N.Y., March 10, 2016),
seeks (a) an injunction requiring Defendant to obtain consent from
Michigan subscribers prior to the disclosure of their Personal
Reading Information as required by the Preservation of Personal
Privacy Act (PPPA), (b) actual damages, including disgorgement, or
$5,000.00, whichever is greater, and (c) costs and reasonable
attorneys' fees pursuant to PPPA.

The Defendant allegedly sold personal information about
Plaintiff's magazine subscription to list brokers, including for
example, NextMark, Inc., which in turn sold her information to
telemarketers and other aggressive advertisers. As a result, Ms.
Taylor is being inundated with a barrage of unwanted junk mail and
telephone solicitations.

Trusted Media Brands publishes cooking, gardening, and country
lifestyle magazines across digital, print, and social media. The
company's brands include magazines include Best Health, a healthy
lifestyle magazine for Canadian women; More of Our Canada, a
companion magazine; online content and social media communities;
EnrichU, an online learning portal; Taste of Home Online Cooking
School that features videos with step-by-step recipe instructions,
cooking tricks, and kitchen advice from culinary experts; and Stop
& Drop Diet Online Course that serves as a companion to the new
book. The Company is based in White Plains, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
          Joseph I. Marchese, Esq.
          Philip L. Fraietta, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          Facsimile: (925) 407 2700
          E-Mail: scott@bursor.com
                  jmarchese@bursor.com
                  pfraietta@bursor.com


UBER: Prepares for Lengthy Trial in Drivers' Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that don't
expect a settlement in a closely watched lawsuit against the
ridesharing company Uber that contends drivers should be
classified as employees rather than independent contractors, a New
York attorney says.

Richard J. Reibstein, a partner at Pepper Hamilton who has been
following class action lawsuits filed against Uber over the past
year, says the company is readying itself for a lengthy trial,
which is scheduled to begin this summer in San Francisco federal
court.

If the court classifies drivers as employees instead of
independent contractors, Mr. Reibstein says the company will face
a major liability issue.

"That's because employees are entitled to a full array of
statutory benefits," including those earmarked in safety and wage
laws, he told Legal Newsline.

And such a liability would hurt the company's ability to provide
profits for its investors, he said.

In some class action lawsuits involving the independent contractor
designation, the focus has been on minimum-wage laws, while others
focus on worker overtime.

In the Uber case, a key issue might be unpaid expenses for owning
and maintaining a vehicle, Mr. Reibstein said, adding that the
federal lawsuit before the Northern District of California also
includes claims that drivers are entitled to the full amount of
tips they receive.

"There are a number of cases around the country dealing with
Uber," Mr. Reibstein said, noting that many different kinds of
companies have been subjected to independent contractor
misclassification lawsuits in recent years, including food
manufacturers and companies involved in the home health care
industry.

"Independent contracting has proliferated," he said.  "People want
independent income and to be their own bosses. And many business
models are built on hiring independent contractors."

In the Uber case in California, Judge Edward Chen has allowed
plaintiffs to pursue reimbursements based on the Internal Revenue
Service's mileage rate.

The Uber business model uses cell phone apps to quickly match
those customers who need rides with nearby company drivers and to
provide fast, convenient service.

Mr. Reibstein stressed that to help avoid litigation problems
resulting from the use of independent contractors, companies can
effectively practice prevention through a proprietary process
called IC Diagnostics.

"Companies need to examine the manner in which they structure
independent contractor relationships to determine where they have
maximum compliance with state and federal independent contractor
laws," he said.

Under such a scenario, some independent contractors might be
reclassified as W-2 employees to better ensure legal compliance.

"IC Diagnostics is intended to accomplish that result -- minimize
the likelihood of a lawsuit being filed and, if filed, minimize
the likelihood of the lawsuit succeeding," Mr. Reibstein said.


UMPQUA HOLDINGS: Case Dismissal Appeal Remains Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Umpqua Holdings Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal from
the dismissal of a class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company assumed, as successor-in-interest to Sterling, the
defense of litigation matters pending against Sterling. Sterling
previously reported that on December 11, 2009, a putative
securities class action complaint captioned City of Roseville
Employees' Retirement System v. Sterling Financial Corp., et al.,
No. CV 09-00368-EFS, was filed in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Washington against Sterling and
certain of its current and former officers.

On June 18, 2010, lead plaintiff filed a consolidated complaint
alleging that the defendants violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 by making
false and misleading statements concerning Sterling's business and
financial results. Plaintiffs sought unspecified damages and
attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 30, 2010, Sterling moved to dismiss the Complaint, and
the court granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice on
August 5, 2013.

On October 11, 2013, the lead plaintiff filed an amended
consolidated complaint with the same defendants, class period,
alleged violations, and relief sought.

On January 24, 2014, Sterling moved to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint, and on September 17, 2014, the court
entered an order dismissing the amended consolidated complaint in
its entirety with no further leave to amend.

On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal to the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the district
court's order granting the motion to dismiss the amended
consolidated complaint.

Appellant filed its opening brief on April 3, 2015 and the Company
filed its reply brief on June 17, 2015; additional appellate
briefing was filed in the third quarter 2015.

Umpqua Holdings Corporation has two principal operating
subsidiaries, Umpqua Bank (the "Bank") and Umpqua Investments,
Inc. ("Umpqua Investments").


VERBOTEN: Sued Over "Sexually Hostile" Work Environment
-------------------------------------------------------
Simone Wilson, writing for Williamsburg-Greenpoint Patch, reports
that sixteen former employees of the relatively new Williamsburg
night (and day) club Verboten, housed in an old metal shop on
North 11th Street at Kent, are suing the club's owners, husband
and wife John Perez and Jen Schiffer, for creating a "sexually
hostile work environment" and otherwise "committing a staggering
number of unlawful acts against their employees."

The 85-page class-action lawsuit was filed on March 15 in Brooklyn
Federal Court. Verboten's owners did not immediately return calls
and emails from Patch seeking their side of the story.

In the suit, former employees go into disturbing detail about
Ms. Schiffer's alleged management style.

Ms. Schiffer is accused of constantly gabbing to subordinates
about her sex life; pressuring them to have sex with her and her
boyfriend, Verboten employee Dylan Schwartz; turning a blind eye
and even "retaliating" when Mr. Schwartz sexually harassed them;
withholding their pay; stealing their tips; and heaps of other
sick stuff.

Former cashier and ticket girl Catherine Papamanousakis, for
example, said Mr. Schwartz touched her boobs and lower back, and
said stuff like: "if you want a good sexual experience, I am a
master at eating pussy"; "Why haven't you called me for sex yet?";
and "who's f*cking you so good that you don't need to call me?"

Perhaps more disturbing still is the lawsuit's claim that "the way
in which Ms. Schiffer treats her employees is not inconsistent
with the way she treats the patrons of Verboten."

Ms. Schiffer and her boyfriend, Mr. Schwartz, are accused of
making sexually degrading comments behind customers' backs,
including calling "dibs" on certain females and bragging about
exploits from the night before.

The former employees also claim Verboten management has been
"filling premium liquor bottles with well liquor in order to trick
customers."

Finally, one of the most damning allegations against
Ms. Schiffer, verbatim from the lawsuit:

Defendants' penchant for unlawful conduct and discrimination
towards protected groups is also demonstrated in that they
systematically discriminate against their Black customers. Indeed,
when Plaintiff Darrin Morda booked a private event that was
attended by a number of Black patrons, Ms. Schiffer became furious
and screamed at Mr. Morda:

"What are all these Black people doing here?"

"You cannot book a . . . Black people party!"

Mr. Morda repeatedly objected, but Ms. Schiffer insisted that
Black customers would not be permitted to hold and attend private
events at Verboten, in part because she purportedly told
Brooklyn's Community Board No. 1:

"We are not having Black people parties!"

Ms. Schiffer and Ms. Perez founded the Verboten brand more than a
decade ago as a pop-up techno festival held in event spaces
throughout NYC.  Their opening of a permanent outpost near
Williamsburg's booming Wythe Avenue in 2014 symbolized a party-kid
renaissance/apocalypse for the neighborhood, depending which side
of the YIMBY/NIMBY debate you were on.

The New York Times called it a "dance club with a Teutonic theme
and a strong European lean" -- and, on a larger scale, a jewel in
the crown of the "newly anointed night life concourse" in
northwest Williamsburg, aka Little Berlin.  The indie blog Free
Williamsburg, meanwhile, called it a "douchey velvet-rope sh*tf*ck
Jersey Shore cologne tourist trap electro dance club."

In a video interview for Red Bull's YouTube channel (embedded
below), Ms. Schiffer said: "We're trying to bring new culture to
this city that means so much to us.  And so I feel totally lucky.
I hope when I look back on it, I'm part of a really great music
movement at a really amazing time."

In addition to this new class-action suit, Ms. Schiffer and
Ms. Perez are reportedly fighting public allegations levied in
January by 14 of Verboten's investors.

One of these investors, Brian Edward McGuinness, accused
Verboten's owner(s) of "significant mismanagement and outright
fraud" in a letter sent to other Verboten investors and employees,
according to Vice.  The situation would best be mitigated, he
wrote, by removing Ms. Schiffer and Mr. Perez and fostering "a
more positive work culture" under new management.


VERTICAL HOLDINGS: Violated Mass. Law, "Frazier" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Terrance Frazier, Harold Gay, Joseph Monroe, & Eric Lott, Sr., on
their own behalf and on behalf of all those similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Vertical Holdings Unlimited, LLC & Lisa
Bythewood, the Defendants, Case No. 1684CV00811 (Mass. Super. Ct.,
Suffolk County, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages for
compensable working time, non-discretionary treble damages and
attorney fees, relief as Law and Justice requires, including
interest and costs, pursuant to the Massachusetts Wage and Hour
Laws.

Vertical Holdings is a Florida limited liability company with a
principal place of business in Odessa Florida, which performs
package delivery and/or courier services in Massachusetts, and
hires Massachusetts individuals as employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael J. Bace. Esq.
          BACE LAW GROUP. LLC
          PO Box 9316
          Boston, MA 02114
          Telephone: 508-922-8328
          E-mail: mjb@bacelaw.com

               - and -

          John R. Bita III, Esq.
          BITA LAW
          35 India Street. 3rd Fl
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: 617-538 5407
          E-mail: jrh@bitalaw.com


VISA INC: Judge Won't Halt "Liability Shift" Practices for Now
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup denied B & R Supermarket, Inc., and
Grove Liquors LLC's request for preliminary injunction against
credit card issuers, Visa Inc., Mastercard International Inc., et
al.

The motion seeks to enjoin -- nationwide -- implementation of the
so-called Liability Shift on a class basis.

Judge Alsup said the Plaintiffs' motion is "so deficient that it
would be a monumental waste of resources to require the eighteen
defendants to respond and oppose the motion."

In this antitrust action, a set of markets in Florida is suing all
of the major credit card companies and major banks in America
alleging a conspiracy in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act
by reason of a joint imposition upon merchants of a so-called
"Liability Shift" effective last October, whereby merchants are
allegedly more liable for fraudulent credit card transactions than
before the shift. To avoid the greater liability, the merchants
allegedly must install new EMV Reader equipment and get the gear
"certified." The alleged bugaboo is that defendants have dragged
their feet in granting certifications so it is impossible,
according to the complaint, to avoid the extra charge-backs.

"There is no need to incur the expense of opposing this motion.
These resources should be saved for the merits," Judge Alsup said.

He clarified that his order is without prejudice to a renewed
motion on a proper record.

"This order in no way blesses the challenged combination and in no
way rules that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief
(except to note that a Florida business is unlikely to have any
claim for relief under California's Cartwright Act)," he said.

Judge Alsup added that the hearing set for April 21, 2016, be
converted to a case management conference at 11 a.m.  Not less
than seven days prior, counsel is directed to submit a joint case
management conference statement not to exceed ten pages.

Judge Alsup also reminded all defendants: "Please do not pursue
any Rule 12 motion based upon documents for which you will seek
judicial notice. Almost always, as the defense bar usually
presents them, these are ill-advised, improper, and a waste of
resources. These should be brought only on a Rule 56 summary
judgment motion, perhaps an early one but nevertheless as a
summary judgment motion. This subject may be addressed at the
April 21 case management conference."

A copy of Judge Alsup's March 16 Order is available at
http://bit.ly/1MyGZdZfrom Leagle.com.

The case is B & R SUPERMARKET, INC. v. VISA, INC., No. C 16-01150
WHA. (N.D. Cal.).

Other defendants are: American Express Company; Discover Financial
Services; Bank of America, N.A.; Barclays Bank Delaware; Capital
One Financial Corporation; Chase Bank USA, N.A.; Citibank (South
Dakota), N.A.; Citibank, N.A.; PNC Bank, N.A.; USAA Savings Bank;
U.S. Bancorp, N.A.; Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.; EMVCo, LLC; JCB Co.,
LTD; and Unionpay, a Chinese bank association.

Visa has tapped as counsel:

     Robert John Vizas, Esq.
     Sharon D. Mayo, Esq.
     Arnold & Porter LLP
     10th Floor
     Three Embarcadero Center
     San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
     Tel: 415.471.3311
     E-mail: bob.vizas@aporter.com
             sharon.mayo@aporter.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Leonard" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Drew Leonard, et al. v. Porsche
Cars North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00447, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California (San Francisco).  The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00840-CRB to the proceeding.

The transfer is pursuant to the Transfer Order entered in In re:
Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015.  The Hon.
Charles R. Breyer oversees In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL,
Case No. 3:15-md-02672-CRB (JSC) (N.D. Calif.), and at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe Court Clerk is making
additional information about this proceeding available to
practitioners and the public.

The cases in the litigation primarily concern certain 2.0 and 3.0
liter diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group of
America, Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly
contain software designed to engage emissions controls only when
the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the
engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal limits.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Colin Yuhl, Esq.
          Eric F. Yuhl, Esq.
          YUHL CARR LLP
          4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 550
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (310) 827-2800
          Facsimile: (310) 827-4200
          E-mail: cayuhl@yuhlcarr.com
                  eyuhl@yuhlcarr.com

               - and -

          Michael H. Artinian, Esq.
          BRIDGFORD GLEASON AND ARTINIAN
          26 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 250
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 831-6611
          Facsimile: (949) 831-6622
          E-mail: artinian@bridgfordlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Kent, Esq.
          Patrick McNicholas, Esq.
          MCNICHOLAS & MCNICHOLAS LLP
          10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90024
          Telephone: (310) 474-1582
          Facsimile: (310) 475-7871
          E-mail: mjk@mcnicholaslaw.com
                  mel@mcnicholaslaw.com

               - and -

          Richard Kevin Bridgford, Esq.
          BRIDGFORD AND GLEASON
          85 Enterprise, Suite 470
          Aliso Viejo, CA 92656
          Telephone: (949) 831-6611
          Facsimile: (949) 831-6622
          E-mail: richard.bridgford@bridgfordlaw.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Olney" Suit Consolidated in Clean Diesel MDL
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Eric Olney v. Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-08347, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Central District of
California to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (San Francisco).  The Northern District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00838-CRB to the proceeding.

The transfer is pursuant to the Transfer Order entered in In re:
Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2672, on Dec. 8, 2015.  The Hon.
Charles R. Breyer oversees In re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" MDL,
Case No. 3:15-md-02672-CRB (JSC) (N.D. Calif.), and at
http://www.cand.uscourts.gov/crb/vwmdlthe Court Clerk is making
additional information about this proceeding available to
practitioners and the public.

The cases in the litigation primarily concern certain 2.0 and 3.0
liter diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group of
America, Volkswagen AG and affiliated companies, which allegedly
contain software designed to engage emissions controls only when
the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the
engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess of legal limits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Arshan Amiri, Esq.
          ROBBINS UMEDA LLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 525-3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
          E-mail: arshan@amirifirm.com

               - and -

          Jason Aaron Whooper, Esq.
          JASON WHOOPER, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          6363 Greenwich Drive, Suite 140
          San Diego, CA 92122
          Telephone: (619) 957-5169
          Facsimile: (619) 717-2111
          E-mail: Jason@JasonWhooper.Com

               - and -

          John H. Gomez, Esq.
          Deborah S. Dixon, Esq.
          GOMEZ IAGMIN TRIAL ATTORNEYS
          655 W Broadway, Suite 1700
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 237-3490
          Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
          E-mail: john@gomeztrialattorneys.com
                  Ddixon@gomeztrialattorneys.com


WABASHA COUNTY, WA: Intends to Defend "Safe Driving Class" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Rogers, writing for Winona Post, reports that after a
judge's decision in February, Wabasha County and the cities of
Plainview, Wabasha, and Lake City could be sued by thousands of
people for a total of nearly $450,000.  On February 18, Judge
Robert Birnbaum ordered that individuals who participated in the
county's "safe driving class" could join a class-action lawsuit
against the county and the three cities.  The class was ruled
unlawful in 2014 by Wabasha County District Court Judge James
Fabian.

For years, the Wabasha County Sheriff's Office and police
departments in Plainview, Wabasha, and Lake City operated a safe
driving class as an alternative to state traffic citations.
Normally, when drivers are cited for traffic violations, local
officers write a ticket, the charge is tracked on drivers'
records, and part or all of the fine collected by local
authorities is turned over to the state.  Instead, from 2003-2014,
Wabasha County deputies gave thousands of drivers an option: get a
ticket on their record and pay a stiff fine to the state, or pay
the county a smaller amount to take the Wabasha County Safe
Driving Class.  The county charged $125 per class. Police
departments from the three cities' would later join the program.
Over the years, they collected around $450,000, according to
attorney for the plaintiffs Erick Kaardal.

So-called traffic diversion programs such as the Wabasha County
Safe Driving Class have been offered by scores of local
governments across the state for over a decade.  State authorities
have been denouncing them for nearly as long.  Even though the
Minnesota Attorney General issued an opinion in 2003 stating that
cities and counties lacked the legal authority to conduct such
programs and the Minnesota State Auditor issued admonitions
against the programs in 2008 and 2013, dozens of cities and
counties across the state still offer them. Wright County offers
one called Drive Wright, for instance.  Around $600,000 was
collected through such programs across the state in 2012,
according to the State Auditor. Wabasha County only got rid of its
program in 2014 after the court ordered it to stop.

Wabasha County and the cities of Wabasha, Plainview, and Lake City
ignored warnings from the state and made citizens believe that
these programs were lawful when they knew or should have known
they were illegal, Mr. Kaardal wrote in the initial complaint
filed in 2014.  The suit asks for the governments to give citizens
back the money they were charged for the class.

Judge Birnbaum's order in February was a partial victory for Mr.
Kardaal and his clients: a handful of citizens who took part in
the safe driving class and the local citizen group the Association
for Government Accountability (AGA), which filed the suit.  The
decision means that over 3,000 people who participated in the safe
driving class will be able to join the lawsuit and demand refunds
for fees they paid.  If Judge Birnbaum had not granted the case
class-action status, the plaintiffs' case could have been ruined
because their small, individual claims -- each person only paid
$125 per class --would not have been worth the cost of litigation,
Mr. Kaardal explained.

However, Mr. Kaardal and his clients had been hoping to make the
lawsuit a statewide case.  Mr. Kaardal had asked Judge Birnbaum to
allow citizens in dozens of counties and cities across Minnesota
where similar traffic diversion programs are operated to join in
one big class-action suit against all of those governments.  Judge
Birnbaum rejected that request.

Still, Mr. Kaardal hopes the case will have statewide
significance. In an interview, he said the point of the suit is
not so much to get citizens their $125 dollars back, but rather to
create a financial disincentive for governments to operate such
programs in the future.  If Wabasha County is forced to return all
of the money it got through the program, maybe governments across
the state will think twice about their own programs, Mr. Kaardal
explained.  Ideally, the state would have sued these local
governments itself -- after all, it is the state whose traffic
laws and fines are being circumvented -- but state authorities
were too timid to do so, Mr. Kaardal stated.  "The AGA is
committed to hunting down every one of these sheriffs and police
chiefs," Mr. Kaardal said of law enforcement leaders in places
like Wright County, Minn., where similar traffic diversion
programs are still being operated.  "Minnesotans don't want to
live in this world where law enforcement officers violate the
law," he added.

For their part, Plainview, Wabasha, and Lake City deny any
wrongdoing.  In a memo filed this month, attorneys for the cities
refuted Mr. Kaardal's claims, arguing that the diversion programs
were a good faith effort by the cities and part of the cities'
prosecutorial discretion to choose whether to issue formal traffic
citations.

Attorney for Wabasha County Jason Kuboushek also disputed
Mr. Kaardal's claims in an interview.  "They [the plaintiffs] have
to show that they did not receive a benefit from the class, and
the county thinks the fact that they did not receive a criminal
citation and didn't have their insurance increase is a benefit,"
he said.

Early this month, attorneys for the cities asked Judge Birnbaum to
reconsider his decision to grant the plaintiffs class-action
status. In a March 3 memo to Judge Birnbaum, attorney
Jessica Schwie was pointed in her criticism of the decision.  She
explained it was unfair to lump the cities in with Wabasha County
because, unlike the county, their programs were never ruled
illegal by a judge.  The court's class-action order assumes that
the programs were similarly illegal, and that, she argued, "is not
only erroneous, but is a manifest injustice that deprives the city
defendants of their rights of due process."

In a March 4 letter to Judge Birnbaum, Mr. Kuboushek also asked
the judge to reconsider, arguing that the proper resolution would
be for the county to hand over the money it got from the safe
driving class to the state -- where the fines would have gone, if
the county had issued criminal citations -- instead of paying the
money back to the plaintiffs.

Judge Birnbaum has not responded to the defendants' requests yet.

"Wabasha County was disappointed by the decision but we're ready
to defend the suit moving forward," Mr. Kuboushek said.  "This is
just the first step in this litigation," he added.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Product Misbranding
------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Jones, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-01135-JHS
(E.D. Penn., March 10, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been
manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of
its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan &
Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years,
in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. operates a retail corporation that operates
a chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET & KILPELA, LLP
      1133 Penn Avenue, 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

         - and -

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


WALGREENS SPECIALTY: Violated FLSA, "Amador" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Mario Miguel Leyva Amador, and other similarly situated non-exempt
employees, the Plaintiff, v. Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy, LLC, a
Foreign Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-
006090-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade County, March 10, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages, an
additional equal amount as liquidated damages, obtain declaratory
relief, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, and damages
exceeding $15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Walgreens Specialty Pharmacy offers specialty pharmacy services in
the United States and Puerto Rico. The company distributes
specialty medications and supplies, including injectable
medications and specialty biotech therapies that are used to treat
chronic, life-threatening, or rare conditions, such as cancer,
Crohn's disease, growth hormone disorders, multiple sclerosis,
psoriasis, rheumatoid arthritis, and others. The company is based
in Carnegie, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416-5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
          E-mail: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


WHITE WAY: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Yonjan" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------
Sunmaya Yonjan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. White Way Threading LLC, a/k/a
Threading Station, the Defendants, Case No. 702881/2016 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., County of Queens, March 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages, costs and attorney's fees, declaratory and
injunctive relief pursuant to the New York Minimum Wage Act
(NYMWA), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

White Way Threading is a New York for-profit Limited Liability
Company. It is engaged in the beauty salon business in the New-
York Tri-State Area. The Defendant owned and operated
approximately 35 or more locations including a location at 850 8th
Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Abdul K. Hassan, Esq.
          ABDUL HASSAN LAW GROUP, PLLC
          215-28 Hillside Avenue
          Queens Village, NY 11427
          Telephone: (718) 740 1000
          Facsimile: (718) 742 2000


WILLIAMS PARTNERS: Law Firm Mulls Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Casey Smith, writing for Tulsa World, reports that Goldberg Law PC
is investigating claims of potential misrepresentations by
Williams Partners L.P., according to a press release from the
California-based law firm that specializes in securities class
action suits and shareholder rights litigation.

The investigation focuses on whether Williams Partners and its
officers violated securities laws by issuing misleading
information to investors, according to the release.

Last spring, Williams announced a deal under which Williams Cos.
would purchase all publicly held Williams Partners common units.
The May 13 announcement was, according to the release, made
without disclosing that Williams Cos. management was also in
discussions with Energy Transfer Equity regarding a proposed
acquisition that would require Williams Cos. to terminate its
merger with Williams Partners.

The law firm is inviting any investors who acquired units of
Williams Partners between May 13 and June 19 to contact the firm
and join a class action suit.

June 19 was the final day that markets were open before Williams
Cos. announced June 21 it had turned down a merger offer from ETE.

Brian Schall, an attorney with Goldberg Law, said that at this
time the firm has a "no-comment policy" on the investigation.
A spokesman for Williams said that it is the company's policy not
to discuss litigation.

A class action from Goldberg wouldn't be the first.

On March 7, Michael Erber filed a class action lawsuit U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma with Williams
Cos., Williams Partners, Williams Partners GP LLC, Williams CEO
Alan Armstrong and Williams CFO Don Chappel listed as defendants.

Mr. Erber alleges that during the period May 13 and June 19 he and
other members of the class action suit were duped into purchasing
common units of Williams Partners at artificially inflated prices
by material misrepresentations related to the agreement that was
later forged between Williams Cos. and ETE.

In January, John Bumgarner filed a class action complaint in the
Northern District Court of Oklahoma against Williams Cos. and ETE
alleging that material misrepresentations and omissions from the
defendants warrant the issuance of a preliminary and a permanent
injunction on the merger.

Williams Cos. and ETE filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Bumgarner's
suit on Feb. 19.  Mr. Bumgarner's response to that motion is due
by March 21.


YAHOO: E-mail Snooping Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Ethan Bardon, writing for siliconbeat, reports that Yahoo has
agreed to stop snooping into the emails of non-customers -- until
it has the correspondence on its servers. The agreement came out
of the company's settlement in a class-action lawsuit.  On
March 15, a U.S. District Court judge in San Jose gave preliminary
approval to the settlement between Yahoo, and four individuals and
the class the plaintiffs represented.

The four were not Yahoo Mail customers, and claimed that Yahoo's
interception, scanning and storage of their correspondence with
Yahoo customers violated their right to privacy and broke
California wiretap law.  Yahoo, like Google, scans email content
in order to sell ads targeted at individual people.  The case did
not reveal if and how Yahoo uses the contents of non-customers'
emails.

Yahoo's terms of service allow the firm to scan and analyze emails
between both parties to a correspondence.  But of course when one
party is not a Yahoo Mail user, they're unable to consent to the
terms.

In an earlier ruling, Judge Lucy Koh had thrown out the privacy
claim, leaving only the illegal-interception issue.

Under the settlement terms, Yahoo "will now only analyze emails
for content when these emails are no longer in transit and after
these emails reach a Yahoo Mail user's inbox or outbox," Judge
Koh's ruling said.  Because alleged violation of privacy was taken
off the table, the settlement addressed only Yahoo's information
harvesting from in-transit emails; the firm is free to continue
scanning and analyzing non-customers' emails, once they arrive in
a customer's Yahoo Mail box.

Once the settlement is finalized -- a final approval hearing is
set for Aug. 25 -- Yahoo is to adopt new email architecture
reflecting the agreed-upon protocol, and keep it in place for
three years. In the settlement, the company said it would continue
to use the new architecture after the three years, Judge Koh's
ruling said.

The preliminary approval follows nearly two and a half years of
legal wrangling.  Plaintiffs in October 2013 had filed six class-
action lawsuits against Yahoo over essentially the same
allegations, and later that year the court consolidated them into
one suit.

Yahoo has agreed not to oppose any request to the court that it
pay plaintiffs' legal fees, up to $4 million.  Plaintiffs receive
no money under the settlement, but the settlement would not
preclude future monetary claims, Judge Koh said in her ruling.

In 2014, Google came before Judge Koh over similar lawsuits about
collection of email contents, and Judge Koh refused to allow a
class-action lawsuit to go ahead. Google ended up in a
confidential settlement with plaintiffs, news website Ars Technica
reported.

Yahoo did not respond immediately to a request for comment.



                            *********

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  * * *