CAR_Public/160324.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 24, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 60


                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Schithantrajah" Suit Claims
730 RESTAURANT INC: Violated NY Labor Law, "Sime" Suit Claims
A & E DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Marinated Salmon Products
ADVANCED MICRO: Securities Fraud Class Action Can Proceed
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Judge Set to Approve OT Class Action Settlement

AFFYMETRIX INC: "Douglas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger Deal
ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Deaborn Police Suit Ongoing
ANN'S STUDIO: Janitor Faces Class Action Over Hidden Camera
ANS INVESTMENTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Corporate Asset
APEX MERCHANT: Judge Sets Aside Remand Bid, Wants More Evidence

ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Phosphate Buffer Solutions
AUTOCAR: Recalls 2012 Vehicle Model Due to Crash Risk
BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Pointer" Suit Has Preliminary OK
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Securitized Accounts
BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: "Carroll" Suit Removed to D. South Carolina

BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Seeks Dismissal of Gun Range Class Action
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls B-Safe Travel Systems Due to Injury Risk
BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Strollers and Replacement Top Seats
BTS NORTH: "Plasencia" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wages
BUMBLE BEE: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna Due to Contamination

CALIFORNIA: "Thomasberger" Sues Over DMV Personal Data Access
CARDIAC SCIENCE: Recalls Defibrillation Pads
CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
CHICAGO, IL: To Vigorously Defend Red Light Camera Suit
CHINESE DAILY: Settles Labor Class Action for $7.8 Million

COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says
COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Dover Midstream Specimen Catch Kit
DENSO CORP: Class Action Certification Make Take a Year
DIRECT GENERAL: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida

DIRECT GENERAL: Faces Branch's Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls
DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: "Davis Neurology" Sues Over Unsolicited Fax
DODGE: Recalls Charger 2011 Model Due to Injury Risk
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Progress Energy Merger Has Final Order

DUKE ENERGY: DETM Reached Settlement of Price Reporting Cases
DUKE ENERGY: Faces "Newton" Class Action in Florida
DUKE ENERGY: April Hearing on Settlement Objections in Ohio Case
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Private Message Harvesting
FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Burke" Suit Claims
FLINT, MI: Congress Calls for Resignation of Governor Snyder
FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Philips" Suit
FORD MOTOR: Recalls Ranger 2014 Model Due to Defective Airbag
FRANKLIN FUELING: Recalls Gas Station Hose/Swivel Fitting Sets

GAMWYN-WILZIN: Faces "Hafter" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Breach
GE LIGHTING: Recalls High-Intensity Led Lamps
GEICO INDEMNITY: Judge Denies Insurer's Bid for Summary Judgment
GENERAL HOME: Faces "Arkin" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
GOOGLE INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Collection of Faceprints

H-E-B: Recalls Light Tuna in Oil Due to Contamination
H&R BLOCK: Judge Affirms Trial Court's Denial of Arbitration Bid
HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Seeks Back Wages and Damages
HEARTLAND INDUSTRIAL: State Court Suit v. Class Counsel Dismissed
HERBALIFE LTD: 3rd Amended Complaint in Securities Case Tossed

HONDA: Recalls Accord 2008 Model Due to Injury Risk
HONEST CO: Alba Says "Natural" Class Action Claims Without Merit
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Injections
HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Rates Suit Pending in Canada
HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Gold Price-Fixing Suit Up for Hearing

HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Silver Price-Fixing Suit Pending
HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Platinum Price-Fixing Action Sought
HSBC HOLDINGS: Gold Price-Fixing Suit Filed in Ontario
HSBC HOLDINGS: April 2016 Final Hearing on CDS Case Settlement
IC: Recalls CE and RE School Bus 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk

IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Gothem Floor and Table Lamps
INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC: Recalls Hammered Enamel Finish Products
I PLAY: Recalls Glass Food Storage Cubes Due to Injury Risk
JCPENNY CORP: Judge Grants 2nd Class Cert. Bid in "Garcia" Suit
JP SPORTS COLLECTIBLES: "Davis" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay

KIMBERLY CLARK: Judge Narrows Claims in Flushable Wipes Suit
KING OF DIAMONDS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
KRAFT HEINZ: Sued Over Misleading Cheese Product Advertising
LUNERA LIGHTING: Recalls LED Lamps Due to Electric Shock Hazard
MANASSEH JORDAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clarke" Suit Claims

MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fried Fish Balls Due to Egg
MASTERCARD: Two Florida Stores File Class Action Amid EMV Delay
MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Bars Late-Filed Seafood Claim
METLIFE INC: Westland Police Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
METLIFE INC: Birmingham Retirement Suit Remains Pending in Ala.

METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Owens" Class Action in Ga.
METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Robainas" Case Pending
METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending
METLIFE INC: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Fauley"
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Voshall" Suit in Calif.

METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Martin" Case in Calif.
METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Lau" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
MFA INCORPORATED: Recalls Rabbit Feed Due to Illness Risk
MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Cops' Suit Over Bargaining Deal Remanded
NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Proposes Class Action Settlement

NATIONAL AUTO: Judge Denied Defendants' Bid to Dismiss TCPA Case
NATIONAL FOODS: Recalls White Puffs Marshmallow Products
NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
NEWMAR: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
NOW HEALTH: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Mislabeling

PAN ASIA: Recalls Seafood Pancake Products Due to Egg
PANASONIC CORPORATION: Recalls Lithium-ion Computer Battery Packs
PHARMASYSTEMS INC: Recalls Digital Basal Thermometers
PIPER JAFFRAY: To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle MDL Action
POLISH TRADE: Recalls Paprykarz Szczecinski Products

POOL CORP: Portions of Expert Opinion Excluded in Antitrust Suit
PUBLIC STORAGE: "Perez" Sues over Insurance Overcharging
RACERMATE INC: Recalls CompuTrainer Blue Flywheels
SABRE INC: Opinion Shouldn't Be Classified as "Unpublished"
SEKISUI DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Acetaminophen L3K

SKYY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Repair Habitability Defects
SORIN GROUP: Recalls Dual Stage Venous Return Cannula
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOLAR: Faces "Buckman" Suit in California
SPOKEO INC: Article III Standing at Issue in Class Action
SPOTIFY: Law Firm Points Out Cons of Settlement in FAQ Sheet

SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp(R) Bicycle Quick Releases
SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp 88 Aluminum Front Hubs Due to Crash Risk
STARBUCKS COFFEE: Faces Class Action Over Cup Filling Issue
STONE & WOOD DESIGN: "Carrasquel" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: School Bus Drivers File Wage Class Action

TACO BELL: Bid to Modify Method to Calculate Damages Denied
TERRAFORM POWER: Four Law firms Mull Securities Class Actions
TERU SUSHI: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Chung" Suit Claims
TEXAS: Residents Meet to Discuss Potential Class Action v. SRA
TRAIL LINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees

TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Hayman" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna
TRIPLE E: Recalls Regency GT 2014 Model Due to Scalding Hazard
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Hold Trial This Summer
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Wants Class Action Trial to Proceed

TRUMPF MEDIZIN: Recalls iLED and TruLight Lighting Systems
TSC DIRECT: Recalls AquaRug Products Due to Fall Hazard
UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Jan. 2017 in "Morgate" Action
UNITED PARCEL: Apppeal in AFMS Case Pending
UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Action Remains Pending

UNITED PARCEL: New York Case Settlement Granted Final Approval
UNITED STATES: Gun Rights Class Action Against Two AGs Amended
VIVINT INC: "Noori" Sues Over Illegal Dismissal
VMWARE INC: Facing "Ford" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court
VOLKSWAGEN: Meeting Sought to Tackle EU Emissions Customer Claims

VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Q5 and Tiguan 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
WASHINGTON: WSP Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation
YOUR MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cenkus" Suit Claims

* Price Comparison Class Actions Likely to Pile Up in New York
* Scottish Gov't Plans to Introduce Class Action Procedure
* Tobacco Industry May Face More Punitive Damages After Ruling


                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Schithantrajah" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maslamani Schithantrajah, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sital Shah d/b/a 7-Eleven,
and any other related entities, the Defendant, Case No.
607260/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Nassau, S.D. Fla., November
6, 2015), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, spread of hours
compensation, and other wages, pursuant to the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) and the New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR).

Sital Shah is the sole proprietor of 7-Eleven Farmingdale, which
he owns and operates under the laws of New York, with a location
at 725 Fulton Street, Farmingdale, New York 11735.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


730 RESTAURANT INC: Violated NY Labor Law, "Sime" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Antonio Sime, and all others similarly situated, The Plaintiff,
v. 730 Restaurant Inc., d/b/a Woodcleft Crab Shack, Andrew
Drosinos and Joseph Drosinos, the Defendants, Case No. 608411/2015
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., County of Nassau, December 30, 2015), seeks to
recover required minimum wage, all hours worked in excess of 40
hours in a workweek, and additional hour pay, at the basic minimum
wage rate for each day, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendants were allegedly enriched by retaining benefits,
property, and monetary value that belonged to the Plaintiff by
paying Plaintiff in cash and retaining payments which should have
been contributed toward social security and Medicare, disability
insurance premiums, workers' compensation premiums and
unemployment contributions.

Woodcleft Crab Shack is a place of business that is owned,
controlled, operated, and maintained by Andrew Drosinos and Joseph
Drosinos located at 150 Woodcleft Avenue, Freeport, New York
11520.  It is a small family-owned and operated restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil M. Frank Esq.
          FRANK & ASSOCIATES, PC
          500 Bi-County Blvd., Suite 465
          Farmingdale, NY 11735
          Telephone: (631) 756 0400
          Facsimile: (631) 756 0547
          E-mail: Nfrank@laborlaws.com


A & E DISTRIBUTION: Recalls Marinated Salmon Products
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 30, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Listeria
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: A & E Distribution Inc.
Distribution: Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10361

A&E Distribution Inc. is recalling Fjord Laks brand Gravlax
marinated salmon from the marketplace due to possible Listeria
monocytogenes contamination. Consumers should not consume the
recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in Quebec.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

Food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes may not look or
smell spoiled but can still make you sick. Symptoms can include
vomiting, nausea, persistent fever, muscle aches, severe headache
and neck stiffness. Pregnant women, the elderly and people with
weakened immune systems are particularly at risk. Although
infected pregnant women may experience only mild, flu-like
symptoms, the infection can lead to premature delivery, infection
of the newborn or even stillbirth. In severe cases of illness,
people may die.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of this product

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name     Size    Code(s) on          UPC
  name     -----------     ----    product
  -----                            ----------          ---
  Fjord   Gravlax -        165 g   All Best Before     Variable
  Laks    Marinated                dates up to and
          Salmon (Dill             including February
          sauce included)          14, 2016.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/H14MLZ


ADVANCED MICRO: Securities Fraud Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that a lawsuit accusing U.S. chipmaker Advanced
Micro Devices of securities fraud for concealing problems with the
2011 launch of a new microprocessor can proceed as a class action,
a California federal judge has ruled.

In a decision on March 16, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez
Rogers rejected AMD's argument that a class should not be
certified because alleged misstatements by the company did not
affect its share price.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Judge Set to Approve OT Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Diana Novak Jones, writing for Law360, reports that an Illinois
federal magistrate judge indicated on March 17 she would sign off
on a $4.75 million settlement in a class action filed by a group
of nurses and physical therapists who claim Advocate Health Care
Network and its subsidiaries misclassified them as exempt from
overtime pay.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Sheila Finnegan said she approved of the
amounts paid to lawyers and plaintiffs in the settlement, which
puts to bed a hybrid collective and class action against the
Illinois health care giant claiming violations of the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act and the state minimum wage law.  Judge
Finnegan requested some minor adjustments to the language in the
agreement before approval.

"With the changes we discussed, I will expect to approve [the
settlement], once I see the forms that are going to be mailed
out," Judge Finnegan said.

The health care workers claim Advocate's payment scheme, which
combines both per-visit fees and hourly wages, doesn't meet FLSA
requirements to exempt them from receiving overtime.  The
caregivers routinely worked longer than 40 hours per week and
sometimes worked up to 60 hours, according to the preliminary
agreement.

The settlement does not require Advocate to admit any wrongdoing.

The suit, originally filed by Advocate nurse Judith Lukas in 2014,
includes 36 health care workers who opted in to the collective
action under the FLSA.  Its class action, filed under state
minimum wage laws and certified in 2015, includes any Advocate
home health clinician who was paid in the scheme between April
2011 and the date of judgment.

Each of the class members, which could be up to 333, will receive
an average of $9,700, according to the agreement.  The amount will
be calculated based on the number of estimated overtime hours they
worked.

Ms. Lukas and the 36 members of the collective action will receive
a 50 percent bonus in addition to their calculated payout, though
Lukas will not receive more than $15,000, according to the
agreement.

Attorneys' fees and expenses for plaintiff's counsel, Stephan
Zouras LLP, will be $1.43 million, the agreement said.

The settlement, which took four months to negotiate, provides for
a generous payout for the class and collective members considering
the expected difficulties should the case have proceeded to trial,
class counsel wrote in the agreement.

"Bona fide disputes exist as to whether named plaintiff and the
class members could credibly establish the hours of overtime they
worked and the weeks in which they worked overtime," they said.

The issue of whether combined fee and hourly-wage pay schemes
meets FLSA requirements for overtime would have been new for the
district, the attorneys said.

The final settlement approval is expected at the end of June.

The health care workers are represented by James B. Zouras, Ryan
F. Stephan and Teresa M. Becvar of Stephan Zouras LLP.

Advocate is represented by Michael J. Gray --
mjgray@jonesday.com -- and Efrat Schulman --
eschulman@jonesday.com -- of Jones Day.

The case is Judith Lukas et al v. Advocate Health Care Network and
subsidiaries, et al, case number 1:14-cv-2740 in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois.


AFFYMETRIX INC: "Douglas" Suit Seeks to Block Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Gerald Douglas, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Frank Witney, Nelson Chan, Gary Guthart,
Jami Nachtsheim, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines, Robert Trice,
and Affymetrix, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00921 (N.D.
Cal., February 24, 2016), seeks preliminary and permanent
enjoinment, and rescinding of merger, reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and expenses and such other and further equitable
relief for violation of Section 14(a), 20(a) and Rule 14a-9 of the
Securities and Exchange Act and for breach of fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, Affymetrix and Thermo Fisher entered
into a Merger Agreement which the Board approved without a bidding
process that could secure a more lucrative deal. The Plaintiff is
a shareholder of Affymetrix.

Affymetrix is into DNA chip technology, analyzing complex genetic
information that is used for research into the relationship
between genes and diseases. Frank Witney, Nelson Chan, Gary
Guthart, Jami Nachtsheim, Riccardo Pigliucci, Merilee Raines and
Robert Trice serve in the Board.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Barbara A. Rohr, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      10866 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1470
      Los Angeles, CA 90024
      Tel: (424) 256-2884
      Fax: (424) 256-2885
      E-mail: brohr@faruqilaw.com


ALIGN TECHNOLOGY: 9th Cir. Appeal in Deaborn Police Suit Ongoing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Align Technology, 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 a class action
plaintiff's appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals remains
pending.

The Company said, "On November 28, 2012, plaintiff City of
Dearborn Heights Act 345 Police & Fire Retirement System filed a
lawsuit against Align, Thomas M. Prescott ("Mr. Prescott"),
Align's former President and Chief Executive Officer, and Kenneth
B. Arola ("Mr. Arola"), Align's former Vice President, Finance and
Chief Financial Officer, in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California on behalf of a purported class
of purchasers of our common stock (the "Securities Action")."

"On July 11, 2013, an amended complaint was filed, which named the
same defendants, on behalf of a purported class of purchasers of
our common stock between January 31, 2012 and October 17, 2012.
The amended complaint alleged that Align, Mr. Prescott and Mr.
Arola violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and that Mr. Prescott
and Mr. Arola violated Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934. Specifically, the amended complaint alleged that
during the purported class period defendants failed to take an
appropriate goodwill impairment charge related to the April 29,
2011 acquisition of Cadent Holdings, Inc. in the fourth quarter of
2011, the first quarter of 2012 or the second quarter of 2012,
which rendered our financial statements and projections of future
earnings materially false and misleading and in violation of U.S.
GAAP. The amended complaint sought monetary damages in an
unspecified amount, costs and attorneys' fees.

"On December 9, 2013, the court granted defendants' motion to
dismiss with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended
complaint. Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint on January
8, 2014 on behalf of the same purported class. The second amended
complaint states the same claims as the amended complaint.

"On August 22, 2014, the court granted our motion to dismiss
without leave to amend.

"On September 22, 2014, Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals."

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

Align intends to vigorously defend itself against these
allegations. Align is currently unable to predict the outcome of
this amended complaint and therefore cannot determine the
likelihood of loss nor estimate a range of possible loss, if any.

The case is, CITY OF DEARBORN HEIGHTS ACT 345 POLICE & FIRE
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Plaintiff, v. ALIGN TECHNOLOGY, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 12-cv-06039-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Counsel to the Plaintiff:

     Darren Jay Robbins, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Tel: (619) 231-1058
     Fax: (619) 231-7423
     E-mail: darrenr@rgrdlaw.com

          - and -

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     Christopher Martin Wood, Esq.
     David Conrad Walton, Esq.
     Sunny September Sarkis, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN AND DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     One Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 288-4545
     Fax: (415) 288-4534
     E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
             ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Caz Hashemi, Esq.
     Douglas John Clark, Esq.
     Nicholas R. Miller, Esq.
     Kelley Moohr Kinney, Esq.
     WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
     650 Page Mill Road
     Palo Alto, CA 94304
     Tel: 650-849-3075
     Fax: 650-493-6811
     Email: chashemi@wsgr.com
            dclark@wsgr.com
            nmiller@wsgr.com
            kkinney@wsgr.com

Align Technology, Inc designs, manufactures and markets a system
of clear aligner therapy, intra-oral scanners and CAD/CAM
(computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing) digital
services used in dentistry, orthodontics, and dental records
storage.


ANN'S STUDIO: Janitor Faces Class Action Over Hidden Camera
-----------------------------------------------------------
Brian Lawson, writing for WHNT, reports that the former Huntsville
janitor who planted hidden cameras at Ann's Studio of Dance, WHNT
News 19's office and other area businesses is being sued by the
family of a dance student.

The lawsuit alleging negligence was filed on March 16 in Madison
County Circuit Court against Jeremy Joseph and Mr. Nelson's former
employer, James Starkey, owner of Sanitary Systems.

Mr. Starkey spoke briefly to WHNT News 19 and said he hasn't seen
the complaint.

The lawsuit also seeks to establish a class action claim involving
all minors who were students at Ann's Studio of Dance while Mr.
Nelson was a custodian at the school.

Mr. Nelson was arrested in 2014.  He pleaded guilty and in June
2015 was sentenced to 140 years in federal prison on child
pornography charges.

The lawsuit alleges the plaintiff, identified as Mary Doe, was a
minor student at Ann's School of Dance in August 2011.  The studio
had a contract with Starkey's company to provide cleaning
services.

"In his position as a custodian at the Studio, Mr. Nelson had
unsupervised access to the dressing rooms and restrooms," the
lawsuit claims.  "Utilizing his unfettered and unsupervised access
to the minor Plaintiffs changing areas, Mr. Nelson installed a
video surveillance system in restrooms and dressing rooms he was
paid to clean.

"The system he installed filmed and photographed Mary Doe and
other similarly-situated minor Plaintiffs without their
knowledge."

The lawsuit argues Mary Doe was a student at the dance studio for
nearly two years and Mr. Nelson recorded and distributed pictures
of her.

The lawsuit says Nelson's actions were "facilitated" by Starkey's
failure to properly hire, train and supervise his employees.

The company and Mr. Nelson are covered by an insurance policy for
the acts alleged, but the lawsuit argues the insurance funds won't
be enough to cover all the individual claims that could arise.  It
seeks to establish the class action so any potential plaintiffs
could receive a share of the settlement.

Attorney Eric Artrip estimates the number of dance students
affected ranges between 20 and 50 girls.

Mr. Nelson still faces state charges of production of child
pornography.  His trial is currently for June.

The lawsuit also alleges Starkey was negligent in retaining Nelson
as an employee and it further claims invasion of privacy.


ANS INVESTMENTS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Corporate Asset
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Madison Consulting Services, LLC and Mastiff Group, LLC,
derivatively on behalf of Priority Aviation, Inc. v. Peter
Minikes, Jonah Meer, ANS Investments, LLC, Arnon Epstein, GZ
Services, Guy Zahavi, and Priority Aviation, Inc., asserts
looting, waste and the usurpation and diversion of corporate
assets and corporate opportunity by the defendants of nominal
defendant Priority Aviation, Inc. and its minority shareholders
Madison Consulting Services, LLC and Mastiff Group, LLC.

ANS Investments, LLC operates an investment company and maintains
a principal place of business at 50 Battery Place, Suite 7F, New
York, NY 10280.

Priority Aviation, Inc. operates an aviation repair facility
located at 7 Rose Avenue, Great Neck, New York, 10021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark L. McKew, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF MARK MCKEW, PLLC
      1725 York Ave., Suite 29A
      New York, NY 10128
      Telephone: (212) 876-6783


APEX MERCHANT: Judge Sets Aside Remand Bid, Wants More Evidence
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case RUBEN AMAYA, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated, and on behalf of
aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act,
Plaintiff, v. APEX MERCHANT GROUP, LLC, dba EXPRESS PROCESSING, an
unknown entity; FIRST AMERICAN PAYMENT SYSTEMS, an unknown entity;
and DOES 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, CIV. No. 2:16-00050 WBS CKD
(E.D. Cal.), District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern
District of California asked the parties to submit more specific
evidence.

Plaintiff Ruben Amaya initiated a class action against defendants
Apex Merchant Group, LLC (Apex) and First American Payment Systems
(First American). Plaintiff was employed by defendants for
approximately one month in July 2015 and alleges that he and the
other sales consultants were misclassified as exempt employees.

Plaintiff asserts nine causes of action under California law: (1)
failure to pay overtime wages, Cal. Labor Code Sections 510, 1198;
(2) failure to provide meal periods and pay the meal period
premium Sections 226.7, 512(a); (3) failure to provide rest
periods and pay the rest period premium Section 226.6; (4) failure
to pay minimum wage Sections 1994, 1197, 1197.1; (5) failure to
pay owed wages at the time of discharge Sections 201, 202; (6)
failure to provide complete and accurate wage statements Section
226(a); (7) failure to reimburse necessary business-related
expenses and costs Section 2800, 2802; (8) Private Attorney
General Act of 2004 (PAGA) violations warranting a civil penalty,
Sections 2698 et seq.; (9) unlawful business acts and professions,
Cal. Bus. & Professions Code Sections 17200-17210.

The complaint does not allege a specific amount of damages. The
complaint merely states that the amount in controversy for the
named plaintiff, including but not limited to claims for
compensatory damages, restitution, penalties, wages, premium pay,
and pro rata share of attorney's fees, is less than $75,000.
Further, the complaint does not allege the frequency of the
alleged violations, stating only that violations occurred at all
material times set forth.

Defendant First American removed the action from Sacramento County
Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA),
28 U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Plaintiff moves to remand pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1447,
contending that defendant has not established that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000.

Judge Shubb ordered the parties to submit more specific evidence
regarding the amount in controversy within 30 days from the date
of the order. The court will rule on plaintiff's motion to remand
after reviewing any submitted evidence.

A copy of Judge Shubb's memorandum and order dated March 8, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/XhW8jRfrom Leagle.com.

Ruben Amaya, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Han --
dhan@justicelawcorp.com -- Shunt Tatavos-Gharajeh --
statavos@justicelawcorp.com -- at Justice Law Corporation

First American Payment Systems, Defendant, represented by Michelle
L. DuCharme -- ducharmem@gtlaw.com -- James M. Nelson --
nelsonj@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, LLP


ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Phosphate Buffer Solutions
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 21, 2016
Posting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57030
The label for ColorWright Phosphate Buffer Solutions distributed
in Canada lacks the manufacturer's name and address as required in
Canadian Medical Devices Regulations (sor/98-282), subsection:
Labelling Requirements 21 (1).

Affected products:
A. COLORWRIGHT PHOSPHATE BUFFER SOLUTION, PH 6.8 3.78L
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: ACC-SP5548

Manufacturer: ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED
              1224 FOREST PARKWAY, SUITE 200
              WEST DEPTFORD
              08066
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES

B. COLORWRIGHT PHOSPHATE BUFFER SOLUTION, PH 7.2
Lot or serial number: More than 10 numbers, contact manufacturer.
Model or catalog number: ACC-SPP5573

Manufacturer: ASTRAL DIAGNOSTICS, INCORPORATED
              1224 FOREST PARKWAY, SUITE 200
              WEST DEPTFORD
              08066
              New Jersey
              UNITED STATES


AUTOCAR: Recalls 2012 Vehicle Model Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 22, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Brakes
Units affected: 6
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016030TC
ID number: 2016030
Manufacturer recall number: ACX-1601

On certain vehicles equipped with dual drive right-hand-stand-up
cab configurations, the locking cotter pin securing the brake
pedal to it is mounting bracket may not have been properly
installed during assembly. As a result, the brake pedal could
loosen and detach from the mounting bracket, making it difficult
to apply the brakes which would increase the risk of a crash
causing injury and/or damage to property. Correction: Dealers will
inspect and repair affected vehicles.

  Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----        ----------------------
  AUTOCAR                    2012


BANK OF AMERICA: Settlement in "Pointer" Suit Has Preliminary OK
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller of the Eastern District of
California granted plaintiff's motion for preliminary approval of
class settlement and for provisional certification of the class in
the case IVAN DEXTER POINTER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, BANK OF AMERICA N.A., BANK OF AMERICA
NATIONAL ASSOC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-00525-KJM-CKD
(E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiff Ivan Pointer worked for Bank of America National
Association (BANA) as a non-exempt Home Service Specialist.
Pointer claims that BANA had a policy to exclude bonuses when
calculating overtime pay, so he and similarly situated Home
Service Specialists were wrongly underpaid. He also seeks
penalties under the California Private Attorneys General Act
(PAGA), California Labor Code Sections 2698 et seq.

Pointer filed the original complaint in Sacramento County Superior
Court in late 2013, but was removed to the present court in
February 2014. The court set a schedule for a hearing on a motion
for class certification, but the parties first reached preliminary
settlement after private mediation in March 2015.

Pointer moves for preliminary approval of a class settlement and
for provisional certification of the class. The motion is
unopposed.

BANA has agreed to pay a total of $1,750,000 to the class.

Judge Mueller granted plaintiff's motion and appoints Righetti
Glogoski, P.C. as class counsel. Ivan Dexter Pointer is appointed
class representative. Rust Consulting is approved as claims
administrator. The proposed settlement is preliminarily approved
on a class basis. Within seven days of the date the order,
plaintiffs' counsel shall file a proposed order setting a final
hearing schedule, which upon approval will become part of the
order.

A copy of Judge Mueller's order dated February 22, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/Inm8WDfrom Leagle.com.

Ivan Dexter Pointer, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti
-- matt@righettilaw.com -- John James Glugoski -- Michael C.
Righetti -- mike@righettilaw.com -- at Righetti Glugoski, PC

Bank of America N.A., Defendant, represented by Michael David
Mandel -- mmandel@mcguirewoods.com -- Regina A Musolino --
rmusolino@mcguirewoods.com -- Joanne Elizabeth MacMillan --
jmacmillan@mcguirewoods.com -- Matthew C. Kane --
mkane@mcguirewoods.com -- at McGuire Woods LLP


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Class Action Over Securitized Accounts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for insideARM, reports that a putative class
action suit was filed on March 16 against Bank of America (B of A)
alleging that that the bank has been improperly suing consumers
who owe on credit card debt after the bank had previously "sold"
that debt via a securitization of a pool of accounts and thereby
relinquishing its ownership interest in the account.  The case,
Willard v. Bank of America, et al., (Case No. 2:16-cv-01199) was
filed in the United States District Court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania.

The Allegations

The case was brought under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act,
15 U.S.C. Secs. 1692-1692p (FDCPA); and the statutes of the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (the Pennsylvania Fair Credit
Extension Uniformity Act (FCEUA), 73 P.S. Secs. 2270.1-227. The
complaint requests actual damages, punitive damages, treble
damages, statutory damages, declaratory and injunctive relief,
costs of suit, attorney's fees, and other appropriate relief from
defendants.

The summary allegations are that B of A has "engaged in a scheme
whereby they issue credit cards to consumers and, then seek to
collect the amounts allegedly due from each card holder's use of
the credit card, despite the fact that B of A has sold,
transferred, assigned or otherwise conveyed its beneficial
interest in each consumer's credit card account to a trust as part
of a financial transaction known as a credit card securitization.
Having relinquished its beneficial interest, B of A no longer has
a debt obligation owed to it by Plaintiff or the Class."

The complaint alleges very specific elements of the B of A "sale"
process from account creation through securitization; a process
that shows an account moving via "sale" from Bank of America to
Bank of America Consumer Credit Services to Bank of America
Funding LLC to Wilmington Trust Company.

The complaint then alleges, "Wilmington Trust Company then
underwrites a bond offering.  The bonds are placed into tranches
from senior debt to junior debt and each tranche has a certain
amount of assets.  Bank of America Consumer Credit Services still
services the account by sending out bills and accepts payment, but
Bank of America has given up ownership rights as required to
Wilmington Trust Company, therefore Bank of America and its
entities have given up its rights to sue its cardholders when they
default on their debt."

Finally, the complaint alleges, "Despite the fact that Bank of
America intentionally relinquished its beneficial interest in Bank
of America accounts, it has continued to pursue, along with its
affiliates and the defendant law firms, collection lawsuits
against Plaintiffs and members of the Class to recover the
obligations allegedly owed on the Bank of America accounts."

Plaintiff's attorneys are seeking class certification.

insideARM Perspective

This case demands continued scrutiny by all banks and the ARM
industry.  The securitization of pools of accounts is a wide-
spread process.  The case has the potential to dramatically impact
future collection practices regarding securitized accounts.  While
this particular case involves litigation on accounts that were
securitized, any "sale" of those accounts could be subject to the
same argument.

In fact, earlier this year, on January 26th, insideARM published
an article about another class action case that involved similar
allegations involving securitized accounts.  However, in that
case, (Cox, et al v. Sherman Capital LLC, et al. U.S. District
Court, Southern District of Indiana, 1:12-cv-01654-TWP-MJD) a
federal judge in Indianapolis ruled that a lawsuit alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
the United States Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organization Act
("RICO") against Sherman Financial Group, one of the country's
largest debt buyers, could not proceed as a class action because
circumstances vary too much among the class members.

Because of the high stakes involved, the Sherman case was
vigorously pursued by Plaintiff's attorney and subject to often
contentious interplay among the attorneys involved.  It is likely
that this new case will have similar activity.


BERKELEY COUNTY, SC: "Carroll" Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Candice Carroll, Thomas Mims,
Dimitar Stoilov, Stephen Gaskins, Christopher Brasseaux, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. H Wayne DeWitt,
and Berkeley County, Case No. 2016-cp-08-00255, was removed from
the Berkeley County Court of Common Pleas to the U.S. District
Court District of South Carolina (Charleston). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-00792-PMD to the proceeding.

The Plaintiffs assert claims for violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Berkeley County is a county in the U.S. state of South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marybeth E. Mullaney, Esq.
      MULLANEY LAW
      321 Wingo Way, Suite 201
      Mount Pleasant, SC 29464
      Telephone: (800) 385-8160
      Facsimile: (800) 385-8160
      E-mail: marybeth@mullaneylaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

      Christopher W. Johnson, Esq.
      Thomas Foster Haselden, Esq.
      GIGNILLIAT SAVITZ AND BETTIS
      900 Elmwood Avenue, Suite 100
      Columbia, SC 29201
      Telephone: (803) 799-9311
      Facsimile: (803) 254-6951
      E-mail: cjohnson@gsblaw.net
              fhaselden@gsblaw.net


BREVARD COUNTY, FL: Seeks Dismissal of Gun Range Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
R. Norman Moody, writing for Florida Today, reports that an
attorney for the Brevard County Sheriff's Office argued for the
dismissal of a suit asking for the relocation of a training gun
range that neighbors say is a noise nuisance.

Keith Kromash, an attorney representing the sheriff's office, in
part argued for dismissal, saying that the sheriff's office was
not in violation of an ordinance dealing with noise.

He said the Rev. Johnnie Dennis, who is representing himself, did
not state a cause of action in seeking an injunction against the
gun range, and failed to establish the class-action status he
sought.

In a hearing on March 15, Circuit Judge George Maxwell ordered
both sides to file legal briefs regarding whether the sheriff's
office should be immune to the petition against the range.

The other points of contention are dismissed

Rev. Dennis, an evangelist and civil rights advocate, said the
community has endured the noise for too long, and at night have
difficulties even being able to watch television without the
interruption of the gun blasts.

He said the neighborhood of 600 residents was established in 1964,
and the range started about 20 years later.

Documents show that the sheriff's office recently signed a new 10-
year lease with Brevard County, which owns the range property,
also used as a farm located in east of Interstate 95, off
Pluckemaun Road.

"People are paranoid," Rev. Dennis said.  "They are afraid to come
out at night for fear of bullets ricocheting.  In my case, I have
been severely injured.  I have hearing loss."

Other residents said they tried to compromise with the sheriff's
office, but got no results.  Shooting continues well into the
night.

Documents say "the range is available for training" from 7:30 a.m.
to 10 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from noon to 6:00 p.m. on
Sundays.

Sheriff's Cmdr. Jimmy Donn said in February that while operations
can go on until 10 p.m., it usually wraps up much earlier.

"They shoot until 1 or 2 o'clock," resident Robert Bray said.

Eastern Florida State College and police departments around the
county also use the range.

"When they are out there, you can hear the 'boom, boom,'" nearby
resident Willie Swinton said.

The briefs on statutory immunity issues must be presented to the
judge by April 5. He said he could call for another hearing if he
does not make a decision on the issue within 10 days of receiving
the legal briefs.


BRITAX CHILD: Recalls B-Safe Travel Systems Due to Injury Risk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 21, 2016
Posting date: January 21, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56686

This recall involves the carry handle on certain B-Safe 35 and B-
Safe 35/B-Agile Travel Systems manufactured between October 1,
2014 and July 1, 2015. The product can be used as a rear-facing
only car seat or as an infant carrier. It comes with a black shell
and base and a solid colored canopy. The Britax logo is printed on
both sides of the seat shell and on the carry handle grip.  Model
numbers are printed on a date of manufacturer (DOM) label located
at the back of the infant car seat shell.

In Canada, the infant car seats with the following model numbers
are included in the recall:

  Britax Infant Car Seats   Model Number   Dates of Manufacture
  and Travel Systems        ------------   (YYYY/MM/DD)
  -----------------------                  --------------------
  B-Safe 35                 E9LV13F,       October 1, 2014
                            E9LV15M,       (2014/10/01)
                            E9LV15P        through
                                           July 1, 2015
                                           (2015/07/01)
  B-Safe 35/B-Agile         S914300,
  Travel System             S914500,
                            S914700

The infant car seat carry handle can develop cracks and break
allowing the seat to fall unexpectedly, posing a risk of injury to
the infant.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these products.

Britax has received 74 reports (one in Canada) of the handle
developing fractures, cracks, or breaking while in use. These
incidents have resulted in one injury report in the United States
where the unit dropped to the ground and the infant received a
bump to their head.

Approximately 3,900 seats were sold in Canada and about 71,000
were distributed in the United States.

The recalled seats were sold from November 1, 2014 to January 1,
2016 at various children's stores and online.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Britax Child Safety, Inc.
              Fort Mill
              South Carolina
              UNITED STATES

Importer: Britax Child Safety, Ltd
          Saint John
          New Brunswick
          CANADA

Consumers should not lift or carry the car seat by the handle
until the repair is installed. All consumers who have registered
their product with Britax will automatically receive a free repair
kit. To verify registration or to receive a repair kit, consumers
can visit Britax recall page. Consumers can continue to safely use
the car seat when secured in a vehicle or on a stroller.

For more information, consumers may contact Britax by telephone at
1-800-683-2045 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. ET Monday through
Thursday and from 8:30 a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET on Friday, by email or
online at the Britax website and click on Safety Notice at the top
right, or the Britax recall page.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Consumers may view the release by Mexico's Consumer Protection
Federal Agency (PROFECO) on the Agency's website (Spanish only).

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ATmx0T


BRITAX CHILD: Recalls Strollers and Replacement Top Seats
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 21, 2016
Posting date: January 21, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56654

This recall involves the foam-padded arm bar on select B-Ready
Strollers and replacement B-Ready Top Seats manufactured between
April 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012.

The model numbers included in this recall are identified in the
table below.

  Product Type       Product Description    Model Number
  ------------       -------------------    ------------
  B-READY Stroller   B-READY Black          U281772
                     B-READY Green          U281773
                     B-READY Red            U281771
                     B-READY Silver         U281774
                     B-READY Twilight       U281768
                     B-READY Pink           U281784
                     B-READY Blue           U281767
                     B-READY 2012 Silver    U281794
                     B-READY 2012 Red       U281792
                     B-READY 2012 Navy      U281796
                     B-READY 2012 Black     U281793
                     B-READY 2012 Black/    U281795
                     Twilight               U281795
                                            U281797
  B-READY Top Seat   B-READY Top Seat       S845700
  Accessory          B-READY Top Seat       S845800
                     B-READY Top Seat       S845600
                     B-READY Top Seat       S845900
                     B-READY Top Seat       S855100
                     B-READY Top Seat       S855000
                     B-READY Top Seat       S856600
                     B-READY 2012 Top       S870200
                     Seat
                     B-READY 2012 Top       S870600
                     Seat
                     B-READY 2012 Top       S870300
                     Seat

NOTE: If your Britax product has a different model number than the
model numbers listed above or it was made after December 31, 2012
it is NOT included in this recall.

There should be a label with the stroller model number and date of
manufacture on the stroller's frame between the front wheels or on
the inside frame that connects to the back right wheel of the
stroller or on the right side tube above the adjuster button,
under the fabric cover of the top seat.

A child may bite and ingest a piece of the foam on the arm bar,
posing a choking hazard.

Health Canada has received one report of a child biting off a
piece of foam on the arm bar.  No injury was reported.

Britax has received nine reports in Canada and 117 reports in the
United States of children biting the foam arm bar.  There have
been no reports of injuries in Canada and five injuries in the
United States.

Approximately 11,320 B-Ready Strollers and/or Top Seats were sold
through various retailers in Canada and approximately 49,000 were
distributed in the United States.

The recalled strollers and top seats were sold between April 1,
2010 and December 31, 2012 in Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Britax Child Safety Inc.
              Fort Mill
              South Carolina
              UNITED STATES

Importer: Britax Child Safety Ltd.
          Saint John
          New Brunswick
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately remove and discontinue use of the
foam-padded arm bar and contact Britax for one free black,
zippered fabric arm bar cover and a warning label to apply to
their strollers or replacement top seat. Consumers can continue to
use their B-Ready strollers without the arm bar attached.
Consumers can visit the Britax recall website to request a kit
containing a zippered fabric arm bar cover and warning label.

For more information, consumers can also contact the Britax
Customer Service Department by telephone at 1-800-683-2045 from
8:30 a.m. to 5:45 p.m. ET Monday through Thursday and from 8:30
a.m. to 4:45 p.m. ET on Friday, by email or online at the Britax
website and click on Safety Notice at the top right, or the Britax
recall website for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8zTdoq


BTS NORTH: "Plasencia" Suit Seeks to Recover OT, Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Danay Rego Plasencia, Yazmin Chavez and other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. BTS North, Inc. and Philip Gori, Individually,
Defendants, Case No. 38207588 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade County,
February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime, minimum
wages, liquidated damages, declaratory relief and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

BTS North, Inc. is an adult club in Miami Dade operating as Booby
Trap owned by Phillip Gori. Plaintiffs work as dancers and accuse
the Defendants of not paying minimum wages and failing to pay
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


BUMBLE BEE: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna Due to Contamination
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bumble Bee Foods, LLC announced that it is voluntarily recalling 3
specific UPC codes of canned Chunk Light tuna due to process
deviations that occurred in a co-pack facility not owned or
operated by Bumble Bee. These deviations were part of the
commercial sterilization process and could result in contamination
by spoilage organisms or pathogens, which could lead to life-
threatening illness if consumed. It is important to note that
there have been no reports of illness associated with these
products to date. No other production codes or products are
affected by this recall.

There are a total of 31,579 cases that are included in the recall
which were produced in February 2016 and distributed nationally.
The products subject to this recall are marked with a can code
that starts with a "T" (example: TOA2BSCAFB) and have the
following "best by" dates:

  Label UPC     Product                "Best By" Dates"
  ---------     -------                ----------------
  8660000020   5oz Bumble Bee Chunk    02/10/2019, 02/16/2019,
               Light Tuna in Water     02/17/2019, 02/18/2019,
                                       02/22/2019, 02/23/2019,
                                       02/25/2019
  8660000021   5oz Bumble Bee Chunk    02/23/2019
               Light Tuna in Oil
  8660000736   4 Pack of 5oz Bumble    02/9/2019, 02/10/2019,
               Bee Chunk Light Tuna    02/22/2019, 02/29/2019
               in Water

The recall is being initiated out of an abundance of caution due
to the possible under-processing of the affected products
discovered by the co-packer during its routine quality audit.

Bumble Bee is working closely with the co-packer and the FDA to
expedite the removal of products from commerce.

Consumers are advised to throw away the recalled product.
Consumers looking for more information on reimbursement or whom
have questions about the recall may contact Bumble Bee at (888)
820-1947 between the hours of 9am and 6pm EST seven days a week or
visit www.bumblebee.com/recall-march-2016disclaimer icon.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/xPoCk1


CALIFORNIA: "Thomasberger" Sues Over DMV Personal Data Access
-------------------------------------------------------------
John Doe, Roberta Roe, Jerome Coe, Paul Poe, Richard Loe,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, and
Steve Thomasberger, Plaintiffs, v. Jean Shiomoto, Director of the
California Department of Motor Vehicles and Does 1-10, Defendants,
Case No. RG16805013 (Cal. Super., Alameda County, February 24,
2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, reasonable
attorney's fees and costs for violations of the California
Constitutional Right of Privacy, California Civil Codes, right to
due process, California Vehicle Code and California Labor Codes.

Plaintiff alleges that the DMV maintain personal records of
apprehensions long after the prescription period has expired;
making them accessible to private background checks from, but not
limited to, employers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Sarah Crowley. Esq.
      EAST BAY COMMUNITY LAW CENTER
      3130 Shattuck Avenue
      Berkeley, CA 94705
      Tel: (510) 269-6693
      Fax: (510) 548-2566
      Email: scrowley@ebclc.org

             - and -

      Peter Sheehan, Esq.
      THE SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW PROJECT
      449 15111 Street, Suite 301
      Oakland, CA 94612
      Tel: (510) 891-9794 Ext. 628
      Fax: (510) 891-9727
      Email: socialjusticelaw@hotmail.com


CARDIAC SCIENCE: Recalls Defibrillation Pads
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 27, 2016
Posting date: February 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57202

Cardiac Science has determined that the affected lot may exhibit
higher than expected electrical impedance over time.  If electrode
impedance becomes too high, the G3 AED will fail the electrode
self-test performed by the AED and it will not be rescue ready.

Affected products:
DEFIBRILLATION PADS
Lot or serial number: 141125-02
Model or catalog number: 9131

Manufacturer: Cardiac Science Corporation
              N7W22025 JOHNSON DRIVE
              WAUKESHA
              53186
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES


CHANNELADVISOR CORP: Motion to Dismiss Securities Case Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
ChannelAdvisor 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 motion to
dismiss the case, In re ChannelAdvisor Securities Litigation,
remains pending.

On January 23, 2015, plaintiff Justin Dice filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York (S.D.N.Y.), Dice v. ChannelAdvisor
Corporation et al., alleging violations of the federal securities
laws against us and certain of the Company's executive officers.
Plaintiff Dice alleges that the defendants engaged in a fraudulent
scheme to artificially inflate the price of the Company's common
stock by making false and misleading statements to investors
concerning the Company's financial guidance for the fourth quarter
of 2014.

On January 26, 2015, plaintiff David Gracia also filed a purported
class action complaint in the S.D.N.Y., Gracia v. ChannelAdvisor
Corporation et al., in which Plaintiff Gracia brings the same
claims, against the same named defendants, as in the action
brought by Plaintiff Dice.

On May 5, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. consolidated the Dice and Gracia
actions, captioned the actions as In re ChannelAdvisor Securities
Litigation, and appointed Plaintiff Dice as lead plaintiff for the
putative class. On July 2, 2015, the S.D.N.Y. granted the
defendants' motion to transfer the case to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina.

On September 28, 2015, the defendants moved to dismiss the case
and the outcome of the motion is pending.

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

ChannelAdvisor Corporation is a provider of SaaS solutions that
enable its retailer and branded manufacturer customers to
integrate, manage and optimize their merchandise sales across
hundreds of online channels.


CHICAGO, IL: To Vigorously Defend Red Light Camera Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Clayton Guse, writing for Time Out, reports that in February, a
ruling out of the Cook County Circuit Court denied a motion to
dismiss a lawsuit surrounding Chicago's controversial red light
and speed camera programs.  The suit claims that the city violated
its own municipal code by failing to give violators appropriate
notice before issuing late fees and other penalties. It's the
first suit in Chicago that has challenged the camera tickets that
hasn't been dismissed in court, and now the plaintiffs' attorney
is moving forward in a big way.

Jacie Zolna -- jzolna@cherry-law.com -- of Myron M. Cherry &
Associates, who is representing three initial plaintiffs in the
case, is now looking to get the case certified as a class action
lawsuit.  Mr. Zolna said that his firm has already applied for
class certification, and that he's hoping for the request to be
approved within the next few months.  After that, it's a matter of
discovering exactly how many people have been pinged with
unwarranted fines and tickets since Chicago's camera programs
first launched in 2003.

"The practices at issue won't affect every single [red light and
speed camera] ticket issued by the city," said Mr. Zolna.  "I know
it's going to be tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people . .
. it's going to be extremely large and it's going to impact a big
portion of all the tickets that were issued."

If you think that you were unjustly ticketed by a red light or
speed camera, you don't really have to do anything.  During
litigation, the law firm will get information from the city about
the identities of the people that are affected, and those people
will get a notice telling them about the lawsuit, what their
rights are and their options from there, Mr. Zolna said.

But if you've paid off a stack of questionable red light and speed
camera tickets, don't bank on getting them refunded in full.  The
amount that plaintiffs in the class action case will receive
depends on how the case gets resolved.  The city could settle, or
the case could go to judgment.  If the latter happens, Zolna says
the case could be too big to even collect on.  "We have a lot of
ideas on how to resolve this thing without bringing financial
Armageddon to the city," he said.

The city, however, isn't going to roll over on the case. " The
city continues to defend this case vigorously, as we believe that
the plaintiffs' claims are legally insufficient," said Law
Department spokesperson Bill McCaffrey.  "The plaintiffs do not
dispute that they violated the law and that they received notices
of these violations.  It is the city's position that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to any recovery, let alone any
refunds."

So, don't hold your breath while you wait for your red light or
speed camera ticket to be refunded.  This case could drag on for a
while, but rest assured that a team of lawyers is hard at work on
the behalf of Chicago's motorists.


CHINESE DAILY: Settles Labor Class Action for $7.8 Million
----------------------------------------------------------
Shan Li, writing for Los Angeles Times, reports that one of the
country's biggest Chinese-language newspapers has agreed to pay
$7.8 million to past and current employees to settle a long-
running class-action lawsuit involving allegations of multiple
labor violations.

The suit against Chinese Daily News, known in the Chinese
community as World Journal, stretches back to 2004, when three
employees sued over alleged abuses, including failure to pay
overtime and not giving meal and rest breaks. The paper is basedin
Monterey Park.

The three workers -- including a reporter and sales agent -- said
they were often forced to work 12-hour shifts six days a week
without the required rest break.  They were not paid overtime, nor
were they allowed to report the actual number of hours they
worked.

The suit was certified as a class action, eventually ballooning to
more than 200 newspaper workers, including reporters, salespeople
and other hourly employees from the Monterey Park and San
Francisco offices.

In 2008, a U.S. district judge in Los Angeles ordered the paper to
pay those workers more than $3.5 million in damages and penalties
in addition to more than $1.5 million interest. That followed a
2007 jury verdict in favor of the workers.

But the case got locked in appeals courts for years, said
Randy Renick, a plaintiff's lawyer.

"Chinese Daily News was going to fight this until the end of
time," he said.  "They appealed and appealed again."

Finally, after 12 years of litigation, Chinese Daily News decided
to settle "to avoid protracted litigation," said Yi-Chin Ho, an
attorney for the paper.

Chinese Daily News wanted to "focus on its core business of
producing the most widely circulated Chinese-language paper in the
U.S.," she said.  "It believes all wage and hour policies are
fully compliant with California and federal law."

One of the original plaintiffs, Lynne Wang, said the settlement
was a small measure of justice after what she described as years
of labor and wage abuses. Wang said managers and editors have long
had friction with the paper's rank-and-file staff. In 2001,
employees had voted to unionize.

After the vote, "they added to the workload," she said.  "After
you are done for the week, you had to come to the office at 10 or
11:00 p.m. to have a late-night meeting until midnight."

Ms. Wang worked at the newspaper for 18 years as a reporter; she
said she was terminated for refusing to switch to a position as a
translator.  She now works as a freelance writer and radio
broadcaster.

As part of the settlement, about $100,000 will be donated to fund
clinics to help Asian American workers at UCLA, Loyola Law School
and USC Gould School of Law, Renick said.

Ms. Wang said she wants other Asian immigrant workers to have
access to aid in the same way that she and her former co-workers
did when they pursued their own lawsuit.

"It's really difficult for Chinese immigrant workers to sue a
company," she said.  "So we want to help them."


COLUMBIA GAS: 6th Circuit Reverses Class Action Dismissal
---------------------------------------------------------
Mickey J. Lee, Esq. -- mlee@mauricewutscher.com -- of Maurice
Wutscher LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that The U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit recently reversed a
district court's dismissal of a putative class action lawsuit,
holding that while the district court was correct that the first-
to-file rule applied because of a previous class action involving
substantially the same parties and claims, it was an abuse of
discretion to dismiss the present case given the jurisdictional
and procedural hurdles the plaintiffs would face if forced to
become part of the earlier class action filed in another federal
judicial district.

A copy of the opinion is available at: http://is.gd/LF74HD

In March 2014, a group of landowners in Medina, Ohio sued a
natural gas company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of Ohio, alleging that the defendant stored natural gas
under their property without compensation in violation of the
Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 717f.

The defendant received a "Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)
permitting it to store natural gas in the "Medina Field," "a
naturally-occurring system of porous underground rock" into which
defendant pumped natural gas during the low-demand summer months
and extracted it in the winter, when demand is high.  In exchange
for the permit, the Natural Gas Act required the defendant to
compensate any landowner whose land forms part of the Medina
Field.  The Act also required the defendant to file an eminent
domain proceeding in the federal district court where the property
is located if it could not reach agreement with the landowners.

The defendant offered each owner $250 in exchange for an easement
allowing the natural gas storage under their land, which was
rejected.  The defendant did not file an eminent domain proceeding
thereafter as required by the Act.

Meanwhile, in 2012, another group of landowners had previously
filed a class action on behalf of all similarly situated Ohio
landowners against the same defendant in the U.S. District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio based on the same alleged
conduct of not compensating owners after storing natural gas under
their lands.

In response to the complaint in the present lawsuit, the defendant
filed a counterclaim in the first case in April 2014 seeking to
exercise its power of eminent domain over the entire putative
class, which included the landowners in the present case.

The defendant then moved to dismiss the present case, arguing that
under the so-called "first-to-file" rule the putative class
plaintiffs in the present case should litigate their claims in the
earlier case. The district court found that the first-to-file rule
applied and dismissed the present case, from which the plaintiffs
appealed.

On appeal, the Sixth Circuit, reviewing the dismissal under an
abuse of discretion standard, explained that the "first-to-file
rule is a prudential doctrine that grows out of the need to manage
overlapping litigation across multiple districts . . . [and]
provides that, 'when actions involving nearly identical parties
and issues have been filed in two different district courts, the
court in which the first suit was filed should generally proceed
to judgment.'"

Noting a scarcity of case law in the Sixth Circuit applying the
rule, the Court explained that other circuit courts "generally
evaluate three factors: (1) the chronology of events, (2) the
similarity of the parties involved, and (3) the similarity of the
issues or claims at stake."  If all three factors apply, the court
"must also determine whether any equitable considerations, such as
evidence of 'inequitable conduct, bad faith, anticipatory suits,
[or] forum shopping,' merit not applying the first-to-file rule in
a particular case."

The Court found that all three factors were satisfied in the case
at bar, and therefore that the first-to-file rule presumptively
applied.

The first factor was satisfied because it "simply asks which of
the two overlapping cases was filed first" and, although the Court
agreed with the plaintiffs that defendant never filed an eminent
domain action complaint, and its counterclaim in the first case
was not filed until after the present case was already pending,
the Court agreed with the defendant that the first case was filed
over a year before the plaintiffs here filed their case.

Turning to the second factor, similarity of the parties, the Court
explained that the "first-to-file rule applies when the parties in
the two actions 'substantial[ly] overlap,' even if they are not
perfectly identical."  It then found that even though the class in
the earlier case had not been certified, because "for purposes of
identity of the parties when applying the first-to-file rule,
courts have looked at whether there is substantial overlap with
the putative class even though the class has not yet been
certified . . .," the plaintiffs here "undoubtedly would be
members" of the class in the first case once certified. Even if
the class in the first case included additional class members not
parties to the present case, the overlap sufficed to satisfy the
second factor.

The Sixth Circuit reasoned that even if the plaintiffs here opted
out of the class once certified in the first action, this "would
undercut the purpose of the first-to-file rule: parties, not
courts, would determine when the rule could be applied and could
force resource-draining duplicative class actions to proceed
simultaneously.  This would unduly burden the courts, and could be
used as a vexatious litigation tactic.  While the opt-out right
may allow for (and perhaps anticipate) duplicative litigation, . .
. it should not prospectively prohibit courts' efforts to conserve
resources by applying the first-to-file rule."

Addressing the third factor, similarity of the issues, the Court
noted that, as with the second factor, "the issues need only to
substantially overlap in order to apply the first-to-file rule."
Because the plaintiffs here brought substantially the same claims
and were seeking the same relief as the landowners in the first
case, the Sixth Circuit found the third factor was satisfied.

The Sixth Circuit then addressed whether equitable considerations
weighed against applying the first-to-file rule, pointing out that
while "[c]ourts have repeatedly warned that the first-to-file rule
'is not a mandate directing wooden application of the rule without
regard to extraordinary circumstances, inequitable conduct, bad
faith or forum shopping . . . deviations from the rule should be
the exception, rather than the norm."  The Court found that the
defendant did not engage in forum shopping or other inequitable
conduct by trying to litigate all claims in the first case, and
thus "the equities to not clearly support finding that this is one
of those rare cases" where the first-to-file rule should not
apply.

Turning to the final issue, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the
district court that the first-to-file rule applied to the case at
bar and "[o]ther circuits have held that dismissal is an option
available to a district court when applying the first-to-file
rule" in some circumstances.  However, the Court found that the
case at bar was not one of those circumstances.

Relying on the fact that "[o]ther circuits have said that a
district court can abuse its discretion by dismissing a case under
the first-to-file rule when doing so could adversely affect a
party's interests," the Sixth Circuit concluded that the district
court abused its discretion by dismissing the second action.

The Court reasoned that both the plaintiffs in the present case
and the defendant argued that the class could not be certified in
the first case, and if this happened the plaintiffs here would not
be parties to that case, which could prejudice their ability to
have their claims heard on the merits.

By way of examples, the Sixth Circuit noted the statute of
limitations could pose a problem and, more importantly in the
Court's view, because the district court did not specify whether
the dismissal was with or without prejudice, meaning it would be
treated as an adjudication on the merits by default under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 41(b), "will be barred from pursuing their claims against
[the defendant natural gas company] if the class in the first case
is not certified, if it is certified and the plaintiffs here
choose to opt out, or if the plaintiffs here successfully
challenge being joined in the first case via the defendant's
counterclaim.

Because in the Court's view dismissal of the present case would
bar the plaintiffs "from fully protecting their interests, even
while [the first case] goes forward," the Court concluded that the
district court should have stayed the present lawsuit instead of
dismissing it.  The district court's dismissal order was
accordingly reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings
consistent with the Sixth Circuit's opinion.


COMMONWEALTH LIMOUSINE: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Hawkesworth, William Holmes, Julie Baker, David Ace, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v.
Commonwealth Limousine Service, Inc. d/b/a Commonwealth Worldwide
Chauffeured Transportation and Dawson A. Rutter, Jr., Case No.
1684CV00819 (Mass. Super. Ct., March 12, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work more
than 40 hours per week.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of providing
chauffeured transportation services throughout the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip J. Gordon, Esq.
      Kristen M. Hurley, Esq.
      GORDON LAW GROUP LLP
      585 Boylston Street
      Boston, MA 02116
      Telephone: (617) 536-1800
      E-mail: pgordon@gordonllp.com
              khurley@gordonllp.com


COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Dover Midstream Specimen Catch Kit
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 25, 2016
Posting date: February 12, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57108

Covidien received notification from third party manufacturer
Aplicare of a quality issue related to specific production lots of
Aplicare's Castile Soap Towelettes for which Aplicare has
initiated a recall. Aplicare has received user complaints stating
a perceivable malodor from the soap which has been determined to
be related to the presence of Nesterenkonia lacusekhoensis in the
soap.

Affected products
A. DOVER MIDSTREAM SPECIMEN CATCH KIT
Lot or serial number: Not applicable
Model or catalog number: 2090SA
                         4090SA

Manufacturer: Covidien LLC
              15 Hampshire Street
              Mansfield
              02048
              Massachusetts
              UNITED STATES


DENSO CORP: Class Action Certification Make Take a Year
-------------------------------------------------------
Geoff Kirbyson, writing for Winnipeg Free Press, reports that if
you drove a vehicle in Manitoba between 2000 and 2010, Norman
Boudreau wants you.

The Winnipeg-based lawyer has just launched a class-action lawsuit
against more than two dozen automobile parts manufacturers from
Canada, the U.S., Japan and South Korea, accusing them of price-
fixing and conspiracy.

The class action alleges the manufacturers' actions, including
bid-rigging, resulted in higher prices for consumers while also
suppressing competition from other companies.

He believes the artificially inflated prices that were paid by the
makers of both automobiles and components during the years in
question were passed on to consumers who bought or leased new
vehicles containing a variety of parts in question or who needed
their vehicles repaired with those parts.  They include cooling
systems, windshield washer systems, starters, alternators, power
window motors and air-conditioning systems.  Mr. Boudreau said the
goal of the class action is to return some of that money to the
vehicle owners.

"The defendants intentionally engaged in unlawful conduct for
their personal financial gain," the statement of claim reads. "The
conduct of the defendants was planned and deliberate. It lasted
for several years.  The defendants profited from their misconduct.
Their conduct was high-handed and represented a marked departure
from ordinary standards of decent behavior."

Mr. Boudreau said he's buoyed by the fact the Competition Bureau
of Canada has already fined the defendants more than $50 million
for the kinds of transgressions he has documented in the 200-page
statement of claim he has filed, along with Vancouver-based class-
action lawyer David Klein.

"So, you can imagine the amount of damages we can get from this
class action," Mr. Boudreau said.

Just how many Manitobans are eligible to participate remains to be
seen, but the drivers of "most of the cars on the streets of
Winnipeg" during the 10-year period will be eligible.

"The most affected ones are Honda and Toyota passenger vehicles,"
Mr. Klein said.

The unjustified markups on the various parts varies, but even if
it was small, because of the many thousands of vehicles involved,
Klein said the class action is still worth pursuing because the
amount of money attained illegally is likely into the hundreds of
millions of dollars.

The defendants include Hitachi Automotive Systems, Denso Corp.,
Yazaki North America and Furakawa Electric Co. A statement of
defense has not been filed.

The class action has been filed in Manitoba and B.C.  Interested
motorists can sign up for it at www.boudreaulaw.ca.

Vehicle owners shouldn't hold their breath, though, as it will
likely take at least a year for the class action to get certified.
At that point, it would have to work its way through the court
system.

Messrs. Klein and Boudreau have worked together in the past, most
notably on the class-action lawsuit against the Crocus Investment
Fund a decade ago, which secured a $13-million settlement on
behalf of unitholders.


DIRECT GENERAL: MSPA Class Suit Removed to S. Dist. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled MSPA Claims 1, LLC, on behalf of
itself and all other similarly situated Medicare Advantage
Organizations in the State of Florida v. Direct General Insurance
Company, Case No. 16-01330-CA-01, was removed from the 11th
Judicial Circuit Court in Miami Dade, Florida to the U.S. District
Court Southern District of Florida (Miami). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20901-DPG to the proceeding.

Direct General Insurance Company owns and operates an insurance
company headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Arlenys Perdomo, Esq.
      Brian Phillip Cournoyer, Esq.
      Christine Marie Lugo, Esq.
      Frank Carlos Quesada, Esq.
      Gustavo Javier Losa, Esq.
      John Hasan Ruiz, Esq.
      Timothy J. Van Name, Esq.
      MSP RECOVERY LAW FIRM
      5000 SW 75th Ave, #400
      Miami, FL 33155
      Telephone: (305) 614-2222
      Facsimile: (804) 840-3090
      E-mail: bcournoyer@msprecovery.com
              clugo002@fiu.edu
              fquesada@msprecovery.com
              glosa@lawofficeslaley.com
              jruiz@msprecovery.com
              tvanname@att.net

         - and -

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

         - and -

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

         - and -

      Rebecca Rubin-del Rio, Esq.
      JOHN H RUIZ PA
      5040 NW 7th Street, Suite PH1
      Miami, FL 33126
      Telephone: rdelrioruizlaw@aol.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Marcy Levine Aldrich, Esq.
      Valerie B. Greenberg, Esq.
      Stacy Jaye Rodriguez, Esq.
      AKERMAN LLP
      Three Brickell City Centre
      98 Southeast Seventh Street
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 374-5600
      Facsimile: 374-5095
      E-mail: marcy.aldrich@akerman.com
              valerie.greenberg@akerman.com
              stacy.harrison@akerman.com


DIRECT GENERAL: Faces Branch's Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls
--------------------------------------------------------------
Branch's Ranch, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons v. Direct General Insurance
Company, Direct General Insurance Agency, Inc., Direct General
Corporation, Direct Administration, Inc., Direct National
Insurance Company and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv-00590-JDW-
AEP(M.D. Fla., March 14, 2016), seeks to put an end to the
Defendants' practice of placing calls to consumer's wireless
telephone using an automatic dialing system.

The Defendants own and operate an insurance company headquartered
in Nashville, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


DIVERSIFIED MAINTENANCE: Faces "Soto" Suit Over Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------Carlos
Soto, Arely Lodge and other similarly situated H.R.
representatives, Plaintiff, v. Diversified Maintenance Systems,
Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00445-SDM-TGW (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade
County, February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and overtime pay, damages, declaratory relief and attorney fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiffs worked as H.R. Representatives for the Defendants and
claims to have rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without
overtime compensation.

Diversified Maintenance Systems is a janitorial service provider
in Hillsborough, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM: "Davis Neurology" Sues Over Unsolicited Fax
----------------------------------------------------------------
Davis Neurology, P.A. on behalf of itself and all other entities
and persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. DOCTORDIRECTORY.COM,
LLC, EVERYDAY HEALTH, INC. and JOHN DOES 1-10, intending to refer
to those persons, corporations or other legal Entities that acted
as agents, consultants, Independent contractors or
representatives, Defendants Case No. 4:16-cv095-BSM (E.D. Ark.,
February 24, 2016), seeks statutory damages for violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of sending unsolicited fax
messages for the purpose of advertising Defendants' services.

DoctorDirectory.com, LLC, is a North Carolina Corporation,
organized under Delaware law with principal office address of 1
Page Avenue Suite 280, Asheville, NC. It is a service that helps
match patients seeking medical services with the right Healthcare
Professionals and it also provides Healthcare Professionals the
opportunity to participate in Market Research and other programs
that help shape the healthcare industry.

Everyday Health, Inc. is a New York Corporation with address at
345 Hudson Street, 16th Floor New York, NY 10014. It provides
digital health and wellness solutions, and the company's portfolio
includes websites, mobile applications, and social media assets
that provide consumers and healthcare professionals with access to
health and wellness content.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alex G. Streett, Esq.
      James A. Streett, Esq.
      STREETT LAW FIRM, P.A.
      107 West Main
      Russellville, AR 72801
      Tel: (479) 968-2030
      Fax: (479) 968-6253

           - and -

      Joe P. Leniski, Jr., Esq.
      BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC
      227 2nd Avenue North, 4th Floor
      Nashville, TN 37201
      Tel: (615) 254-8801
      Email: jleniski@bransletterlaw.com


DODGE: Recalls Charger 2011 Model Due to Injury Risk
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 27, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 19005
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016039TC
ID number: 2016039
Manufacturer recall number: S03

Certain vehicles equipped with an original equipment spare tire,
the body-side sill assemblies may deform during tire jack use if
wheel chocks are not used as instructed in the Owner's Manual.
This could cause the vehicle to become unstable and cause the jack
to fail, which could result in injury to the operator. Correction:
Dealers will provide wheel chocks to vehicle owners. The wheel
chocks will be installed with the vehicle's spare tire in such a
manner that they must be removed before the spare tire is removed
from its stowed location.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  DODGE       CHARGER      2011


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement in Progress Energy Merger Has Final Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress
Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. 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 final order has been issued approving
the settlement in the Progress Energy Merger Shareholder
Litigation.

Duke Energy, the 11 members of the Board of Directors who were
also members of the pre-merger Board of Directors (Legacy Duke
Energy Directors) and certain Duke Energy officers are defendants
in a purported securities class action lawsuit (Nieman v. Duke
Energy Corporation, et al). This lawsuit consolidates three
lawsuits originally filed in July 2012 and is pending in the
United States District Court for the Western District of North
Carolina. The plaintiffs allege federal Securities Act of 1933 and
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) claims based on
allegations of materially false and misleading representations and
omissions in the Registration Statement filed on July 7, 2011, and
purportedly incorporated into other documents, all in connection
with the post-merger change in Chief Executive Officer (CEO).

On August 15, 2014, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle the litigation. On March 10, 2015, the parties filed a
Stipulation of Settlement and a Motion for Preliminary Approval of
the Settlement. The court issued an order for preliminary approval
of the settlement on March 25, 2015.

Under the terms of the agreement, Duke Energy agreed to pay $146
million to settle the claim. On April 22, 2015, Duke Energy made a
payment of $25 million into the settlement escrow account. The
remainder of $121 million was paid by insurers into the settlement
escrow account. Notice has been sent to members of the class and a
final approval hearing was held on August 12, 2015. The final
order approving the settlement was issued on November 2, 2015,
thus closing the matter.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


DUKE ENERGY: DETM Reached Settlement of Price Reporting Cases
-------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress
Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. 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 Duke Energy Trading and Marketing, LLC
(DETM), a non-operating Duke Energy affiliate, has reached
agreements in principle to settle pending lawsuits related to
price reporting.

DETM is a defendant, along with numerous other energy companies,
in four class-action lawsuits and a fifth single-plaintiff lawsuit
pending in a consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada. Each
of these lawsuits contains similar claims that defendants
allegedly manipulated natural gas markets by various means,
including providing false information to natural gas trade
publications and entering into unlawful arrangements and
agreements in violation of the antitrust laws of the respective
states. Plaintiffs seek damages in unspecified amounts.

On July 18, 2011, the judge granted a defendant's motion for
summary judgment in two of five cases. The U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed the lower court's
decision. On April 21, 2015, the Supreme Court affirmed the U.S.
Court of Appeals decision. The case has been reassigned to the
same consolidated federal court proceeding in Nevada for further
proceedings.

In February 2016, DETM reached agreements in principle to settle
all of the pending lawsuits. The class-action settlements will be
subject to court approval, which is pending. The settlement amount
is not material to Duke Energy.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


DUKE ENERGY: Faces "Newton" Class Action in Florida
---------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress
Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. 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 Newton, et al v. Duke Energy Florida, LLC
and Florida Power & Light Company, was filed on February 22, 2016,
in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on
behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and Florida
Power & Light Company's customers in Florida. Plaintiffs allege
that Florida's Nuclear Cost Recovery Statutes are unconstitutional
and are pre-empted by federal law. Duke Energy Florida has not yet
been served with the lawsuit.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


DUKE ENERGY: April Hearing on Settlement Objections in Ohio Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress
Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. 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 hearing is scheduled for April 2016 to
consider objections to the settlement in an Ohio class action
lawsuit.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial
and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio
in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their
withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan implemented in early 2005.

In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class
action. Plaintiffs allege claims for antitrust violations under
the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy
allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.

On October 21, 2015, the parties received preliminary court
approval for a settlement agreement. A litigation settlement
reserve was recorded for the full amount of $81 million and
classified in Other within Current Liabilities on Duke Energy
Ohio's Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2015. Duke
Energy Ohio recognized the full amount in (Loss) Income From
Discontinued Operations, net of tax in the Consolidated Statements
of Operations and Comprehensive Income for the twelve months ended
December 31, 2015. A hearing to consider objections to the
settlement is scheduled for April 2016.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Class Action Over Private Message Harvesting
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that an
attorney representing Facebook users on March 16 asked a federal
judge to certify a class action against the social network over
what he called its "continued systematic harvesting of private
message content."

Class attorney Michael Sobol said during the March 16 hearing that
"extensive and rather contentious and hard-fought discovery" has
led plaintiffs to believe that Facebook's source code is designed
so that private messages between users are scanned for content
that can then be used for advertising purposes, Courthouse News
Service reported.

"Every time a private message is sent with a URL attachment,
Facebook intercepts it, analyzes it and creates a user-specific
data structure out of the content of the private message," Mr.
Sobol told U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton, according to the
website.

"They have all this stuff sucked up in a vast database," he added.
"There needs to be a limitation here on what they're exploiting
under promises of privacy."

The suit was first brought on behalf of Facebook user Matthew
Campbell in 2013, who alleged violations of the federal Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, as well as California's Invasion of
Privacy Act and section 17200 of California's Business and
Professions Code.  Three years later, attorneys for the plaintiffs
are asking Judge Hamilton to certify a class of Facebook users who
can join the suit, potentially opening up the case to millions of
account holders who have communicated over the platform.

"Frankly, this case is about no less than the future of privacy on
the Internet," Courthouse News quoted Mr. Sobol as saying.

On Facebook's part, attorney Christopher Chorba argued "this case
is ill-suited for class treatment because there are a number of
individualized issues necessary to resolve plaintiffs' claims,"
the website reported.

"Unless we brought everyone through here, we couldn't possibly
know" whether they had consented to having their messages scanned,
Facebook's attorney added, according to The Recorder.

Companies are exempted from liability under the ECPA only if the
sender or receiver have consented to interception, The Recorder
noted.


FAIR HAVENS: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Flor Rodriguez, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Fair Havens Center, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, Defendant, Case No. 38196343 (Fla. Cir., Miami Dade
County, February 24, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and damages resulting
from unlawful, retaliatory discharge pursuant to the
Whistleblowers Act.

Plaintiff worked as a nurse for the Defendants and claims to have
rendered in excess of 40 hours per workweek without overtime
compensation and was terminated as a result of her complaints.

Fair Havens Center is a nursing home in Miami Springs, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FEDERAL NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Burke" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Burke, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons v. Federal National Mortgage Association, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00153-HEH (E.D. Va., March 12, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Federal National Mortgage Association is a government-sponsored
mortgage loan company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7570
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
              kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com


FLINT, MI: Congress Calls for Resignation of Governor Snyder
------------------------------------------------------------
NBC News reports that several members of Congress called for
Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder and the chief of the Environmental
Protection Agency to resign on March 17 in a tense hearing over
the Flint water crisis.

"In February is when you first arrived on the scene, and it wasn't
until January of the next year that you actually did something.
That's the problem," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House
Oversight Committee, said to EPA administrator Gina McCarthy.
"You didn't take action.  You didn't.  You could have pulled that
switch."

Both Ms. McCarthy and the governor expressed remorse for the water
crisis, but McCarthy said because it happened under a state-
appointed emergency manager, "that precluded us from being able to
jump in to the rescue."

""Wow. You just don't get it.  You just don't get it. You still
don't get it," a furious Chaffetz said, and asked her why she
hasn't resigned over the public health emergency.

"You didn't take action.  You didn't.  You could have pulled that
switch."

Ms. McCarthy said the agency "took action from that point
forward," adding it shouldn't have been "so trusting of the
state."

Rep. Brendan Boyle, D-Pa., called Flint "possibly the largest and
most glaring failure of government since Hurricane Katrina" and
asked Snyder why he didn't act sooner, either.

"When people reported rashes, hair loss, odor and even sewage,
your administration said the water was safe.  When E. coli and and
fecal bacteria were found in the water and boiled water alerts
were distributed, your administration said the water was safe," he
said.  "Governor, don't you have a moral responsibility to
resign?"

"I'm making a commitment to solve this problem," Snyder replied.

Mr. Snyder said he was given incorrect information about the water
for over a year.

"Not a day or night goes by that this tragedy doesn't weigh on my
mind -- the questions I should have asked, the answers I should
have demanded," he said.

Again and again. the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
insisted water from the Flint River was safe, Snyder said. It
wasn't until Oct. 1, 2015 -- nearly 18 months after the city
started taking its water from the Flint River as a cost-cutting
measure -- that Snyder said he learned the water was contaminated.

"Let me be blunt.  This was a failure of government at all
levels," he told the hearing.

Mr. Snyder told Congress he then took immediate action: sealing
damaged pipes, distributing water filters, and testing residents,
particularly children, for high lead levels.

Rep. Matt Cartwright, D-Pa., balked at that.

"I'm not buying that you didn't know about any of this until
October 2015," he said.  "You were not in a medically induced coma
for a year and I have had about enough of your false contrition
and your phony apologies."

"People who put dollars over the fundamental safety of people do
not belong in government, and you need to resign too, Governor
Snyder," he said.

Flint resident Broghan MacIntyre told the committee on March 17
the situation in Flint has stripped the city of basic modern
conveniences taken for granted by others.

"Just to brush our teeth -- we can't just use the faucet like we
do here in Washington," Mr.  MacIntyre said.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md., said while the EPA should have done
more, it was Snyder's administration that bears the majority of
the blame.

"The EPA should have done more, they should have rushed in sooner
to rescue the people of Michigan from Governor Snyder's vindictive
administration and his utter incompetence at every level," Mr.
Cummings said.

Flint began drawing water from the Flint River in April 2014. This
is the second time in a week the congressional panel has drilled
Michigan and EPA officials about the water.

In a hearing on March 15, former city and federal officials placed
the blame on each other, as a former EPA official who resigned
over the water crisis defended the agency's actions.

At the end of the March 17 session, Mr. Cummings reiterated his
call to Snyder.

"I've got to tell you: You've got to resign," he said.

Bishop Bernadel L. Jefferson, of Flint, told the hearing that she
wants action.

"I pray that what we've done today, what we've done this week, the
voices that have been heard, that change will come, that something
will happen," Ms. Jefferson said.  "And that's what hope looks
like to me."

"You don't know what it's like to live out of a bottle until you
have to do it," she said.


FORD MOTOR: Judge Denies Bid to Dismiss "Philips" Suit
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the Northern District of California,
San Jose Division denied defendant's motion to dismiss in the case
WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs William Philips, Jaime Goodman, and Alison Colburn
brought an action against defendant Ford Motor Company (Ford). On
June 27, 2014, plaintiffs filed their original complaint but made
an amended complaint (FAC) on September 8, 2014, which contained
fifty one causes of action. On October 24, 2014, Ford moved to
dismiss the FAC for failure to state a claim upon which relief
could be granted. At a hearing held on February 12, 2015, the
court granted Ford's motion to dismiss the FAC with leave to
amend.

The California Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint (SAC)
on March 27, 2015. The SAC asserted four causes of action under
California law: (1) violation of the unlawful and unfair prongs of
California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (2) violation of the
fraud prong of the UCL; (3) violation of California's Consumer
Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); and (4) common law fraudulent
concealment. California Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of
statewide consumers who purchased or leased Ford Fusion vehicles,
model years 2010 through 2014, or Ford Focus vehicles, model years
2012 through 2014. California Plaintiffs allege that the vehicles
are equipped with a defective Electronic Power Assisted Steering
(EPAS) system.

On April 30, 2015, Ford moved to dismiss the SAC, arguing that
California plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which
relief could be granted. On July 7, 2015, the court granted in
part and denied in part Ford's motion to dismiss the SAC.

On May 26, 2015, Ford announced a voluntary recall of 2011 and
2012 Fusions and according to Ford, approximately 422,131 vehicles
are subject to the recall. On October 28, 2015, Ford filed a
motion to dismiss and argues that the court should dismiss the
action because the recall provides California plaintiffs the
relief they seek under the prudential mootness and primary
jurisdiction doctrines, and because California plaintiffs do not
have standing to pursue their claims as to the 2012-2014 Focus and
2013-2014 Fusion.

A copy of Judge Koh's order dated February 22, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/ZN09WNfrom Leagle.com.

William Philips, Plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- John Ernst Tangren -- jtangren@gelaw.com --
Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A.; David Brian Fernandes -- dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark
Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Roland K. Tellis --
rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd, P.C.; Nathan Bowen
Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Niall A Paul --
npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC

Phillip Clay Cecil, Robert Halsey, Temple Halsey, Performance Fire
Protection, LLC, Jason Wilkinson, Plaintiffs, represented by Adam
J. Levitt -- alevitt@gelaw.com -- John Ernst Tangren --
jtangren@gelaw.com -- Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Mark Philip Pifko -- mpifko@baronbudd.com
-- Roland K. Tellis -- rtellis@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd,
P.C.; Nathan Bowen Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Niall A
Paul -- npaul@spilmanlaw.com -- at Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC

Alison Colburn, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes--
dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd PC; Mary Sikra Thomas --
mthomas@gelaw.com -- at Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Nathan Bowen
Atkinson -- natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle,
PLLC

Ian Colburn, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes--
dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd PC
Jaime Goodman, Plaintiff, represented by David Brian Fernandes--
dfernandes@baronbudd.com -- Mark Philip Pifko --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- at Baron Budd PC; Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- Mary Sikra Thomas -- mthomas@gelaw.com -- at
Grant & Eisenhofer P.A.; Nathan Bowen Atkinson --
natkinson@spilmanlaw.com -- Spilman Thomas and Battle, PLLC

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Amir M. Nassihi --
anassihi@shb.com -- Andrew L. Chang -- achang@shb.com --
Christopher Scott McRae -- cmcrae@shb.com -- Michael Kevin
Underhill -- kunderhill@shb.com -- at Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P.;
Dustin Alan Lane -- dustin.lane@bowmanandbrooke.com -- Todd Andrew
Croftchik -- todd.croftchik@bowmanandbrooke.com -- at Bowman and
Brooke LLP


FORD MOTOR: Recalls Ranger 2014 Model Due to Defective Airbag
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 25, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 29458
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016033TC
ID number: 2016033
Manufacturer recall number: 16S03

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the front driver airbag
inflator.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  FORD        RANGER       2004


FRANKLIN FUELING: Recalls Gas Station Hose/Swivel Fitting Sets
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Franklin Fueling Systems Inc., of Madison, Wis., announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,000 Gas station hose/swivel fitting
sets. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The swivel fitting can separate from the hose, causing fuel to
leak, posing a fire and explosion hazard.

This recall involves gas station hose and swivel fitting sets used
with gas station nozzles to dispense or transfer refined fuels
such as gasoline, diesel, ethanol blends and biodiesel blends. The
sets are made of at least one metal swivel fitting attached to
3/4-inch or 1-inch FLEX-ING(TM) brand FLEX-ON(TM) Hardwall, Marina
and Softwall hoses. The attached hoses were sold in varying
lengths. The size in inches and millimeters, and part number 559N
or 559NMP are printed on the sidewall of the hoses.

Hardwall hoses were sold in the colors black, blue, green, red and
yellow, and have "FLEX-ING FLEX-ON HW FR PREMIUM FUEL HOSE BY
FRANKLIN FUELING SYSTEMS" printed on the sidewall.

Marina hoses were sold in the color green and have "2 BD. STYLE BC
MARINA GASOLINE" on the sidewall.

Softwall hoses were sold in the color black and have "FLEX-ING
FLEX-ON SILVER SW PREMIUM FUEL HOSE BY FRANKLIN FUELING SYSTEMS on
the sidewall.

Sets that have swivel fittings with a date code in the following
range are being recalled:

  Hose Diameter     Date Code Range (MWWYY format)
  -------------     ------------------------------
  3/4-inch          M1615 to M3515
  1-inch            M2215 to M4115

The date code is stamped on the nut of the swivel fitting.

Franklin Fueling Systems has received reports of three incidents
in which a swivel fitting has separated from a hose causing a fuel
spill. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/9oUM7E

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and sold at
Distributors, contractors and gasoline stations nationwide from
April 2015 through September 2015 for swivel fittings with 3/4-
inch hoses and May 2015 through October 2015 for swivel fittings
with 1-inch hoses. The hose/swivel fitting sets were sold for
between $18 and $400.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled hose/swivel
fitting sets and contact the firm to receive a full refund or a
replacement hose/swivel fitting set.


GAMWYN-WILZIN: Faces "Hafter" Suit Over Civil Rights Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jo Cille Hafter and all others similarly situated v. Gamwyn-
Wilzin, LLC and Gamwyn-Wilzin Park Neighborhood Association, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00048-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss., March 21, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants over Civil Rights Act violation.

The Defendants operate a residential neighborhood in a park-like
setting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Brad Pigott, Esq.
      PIGOTT REEVES JOHNSON & MINOR, PA
      P.O. Box 22725
      Jackson, MS 39202
      Telephone: (601) 354-2121
      E-mail: bpigott@prjlawyers.com


GE LIGHTING: Recalls High-Intensity Led Lamps
---------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
GE Lighting, of Cleveland, Ohio, announced a voluntary recall of
about 35,000 High-intensity LED lamps (in addition, about 500 were
sold in Mexico). Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The lamp can separate from its base and fall onto consumers below,
posing an impact hazard.

This recall involves GE Lighting high intensity discharge (HID)
LED lamps. The lamps are used in lighting fixtures for warehouses,
schools and gymnasiums. The lamps are 5 1/2 inches in diameter by
11 1/2 inches long and weigh about 3 pounds. The lamps were sold
in a blue and white carton with "ED37/EX39 base" on the front and
"PC:21259" on the back above the bar code. Recalled lamps have the
GE logo and the following information on the white plastic base of
the lamp: LED165/M400/740, 165W, 4000K, 20000 Lumens, China and
date code K213 or K245.

The firm has received four reports of the lamp separating from the
lamp base. No injuries or property damage have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at GE
Lighting authorized dealers and electrical distributors
nationwide, including Crescent Electric Supply Company, Graybar
and W.W. Grainger Industrial Supply from September 2015 through
December 2015 for between $250 and $300.

Consumers should immediately contact GE Lighting for a free repair
kit and installation guide.


GEICO INDEMNITY: Judge Denies Insurer's Bid for Summary Judgment
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the District of Colorado
denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and brief in
support in the case LORI E. MORGAN, Plaintiff, v. GEICO INDEMNITY
COMPANY, Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03257-PAB-KLM (D.
Colo.)

In March 2008, plaintiff Lori Morgan insured her Honda motorcycle
with GEICO Indemnity Company (GEICO). GEICO issued the motorcycle
insurance policy to Ms. Morgan on March 15, 2008. The 2008 policy
had coverage for medical payments (Med Pay).

On August 6, 2013, plaintiff called GEICO to add a 1992 Harley-
Davidson motorcycle to her insurance policy. Plaintiff asserted
that she told GEICO she wanted the same coverage that she had on
her previous policy and denies that any discussion of Med Pay
coverage occurred, including any rejection of Med Pay coverage.
However GEICO's Policy Log for plaintiff's policy indicates that
plaintiff declined Med Pay coverage and that plaintiff declined
said coverage verbally.

Plaintiff was in an accident while driving her Harley-Davidson
motorcycle on June 28, 2014, suffered injuries and incurred
medical expenses as a result of the accident.

Following her accident, plaintiff's medical provider made a
request to GEICO for payment of plaintiff's medical expenses,
which GEICO rejected.

GEICO told plaintiff that she did not have Med Pay coverage and
that it is not mandatory to include Med Pay coverage under a
motorcycle policy in Colorado.

Plaintiff filed a class action complaint and jury demand in the
District Court for Boulder County, Colorado against GEICO alleging
several claims for relief related to GEICO's denial of Med Pay
coverage, but the defendant removed the case to the present court
on the ground that the court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. Section 1332(d).

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint and asserts four claims for
relief: (1) breach of insurance contract; (2) declaratory relief
stating that the GEICO policy contains Med Pay coverage of $5,000;
(3) violation of Colo. Rev. Stat. Section 10-3-1115; and (4)
common-law bad faith denial of insurance benefits.

GEICO filed a motion for summary judgment on all of plaintiff's
claims, argues that Ms. Morgan never had Med Pay coverage and
therefore GEICO's denial of Med Pay benefits under the policy is
not a breach of the policy as a matter of law. GEICO further
argues that, because the policy does not provide Med Pay coverage,
plaintiff's other common law and statutory bad faith claims fail.
Plaintiff responds that she never declined Med Pay coverage and
that the policy provides Med Pay coverage.

Judge Brimmer denied defendant's motion for summary judgment and
brief in support.

A copy of Judge Brimmer's order dated March 8, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/eJNtERfrom Leagle.com.

Lori E Morgan, Plaintiff, represented by:

     L. Daniel Rector, Esq.
     Terry Ernest Rector, Esq.
     RECTOR LAW FIRM
     131 S Weber
     Colorado Springs, CO 80903
     Telephone: 719-578-1106

Geico Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Gregory Keith
Falls -- gkf@dmkpc.com.com -- at Deisch, Marion, & Klaus, P.C.;
Meloney Cargil -- at Perry, Perry Law P.C.


GENERAL HOME: Faces "Arkin" Class Suit in M.D. Florida
------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against General Home
Medical Supply, Inc.

The case is captioned Steven Arkin, individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. General
Home Medical Supply, Inc. and John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00589-SCB-EAJ (M.D. Fla., March 14, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON & WANCA
      Suite 760, 3701 Algonquin Rd
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


GOOGLE INC: Faces BIPA Class Action Over Collection of Faceprints
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The National Law Review reports that a Chicago resident brought a
putative class action against Google for allegedly collecting,
storing and using, without consent and in violation of BIPA, the
faceprints of non-users of the Google Photos service, a cloud-
based photo and video storage and organization app (Rivera v.
Google, Inc., No. 16-02714 (N.D. Ill. filed Mar. 1, 2016)).

Under BIPA, an entity cannot collect, capture, purchase, or
otherwise obtain a person's "biometric identifier" or "biometric
information," unless it first:

(1) informs the subject in writing that a biometric identifier is
being collected;

(2) informs the subject in writing of the specific purpose and
length of term for which a biometric identifier or biometric
information is being collected, stored, and used; and

(3) receives a written release executed by the subject.

The statute contains defined terms and limitations, and parties in
other suits are currently litigating what "biometric identifiers"
and "biometric information" mean under the statute and whether the
collection of facial templates from uploaded photographs using
sophisticated facial recognition technology fits within the ambit
of the statute.

The statute also provides that entities in possession of certain
collected biometric data post a written policy establishing a
retention schedule and guidelines for deleting data when the
initial purpose for collection has been satisfied.  Notably, BIPA
provides for a private right of action, and potential awards of
$1,000 in statutory damages for each negligent violation ($5,000
for each intentional or reckless violation), as well as injunctive
relief and attorney's fees.

In the suit against Google, the plaintiff alleges that the Google
Photos service created, collected and stored millions of
faceprints from Illinois users who uploaded photos (and, like the
plaintiff, the faceprints of non-users whose faceprints were
collected merely because their images appeared in users' uploaded
photos).  The plaintiff claims that, in violation of BIPA, Google
failed to inform "unwitting non-users who had their face templates
collected" of the specific purpose and length of term of
collection, failed to obtain written consent from individuals
prior to collection, or otherwise post publicly available policies
identifying their face template retention schedules.  Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief compelling Google to comply with BIPA, and
an award of statutory damages.

Since the named plaintiff claims to be a non-user of the Google
Photos service, Google may not be able to transfer the matter to
California based upon the forum selection clause in its terms of
service.  Yet, as with the prior suits against other providers,
Google will likely invoke jurisdictional defenses along with
multiple arguments about how the Illinois statute is inapplicable
to its activities based upon certain statutory exceptions.

We will continue to follow this dispute, along with the other
existing biometric privacy-related litigation.  Indeed, this past
week, the photo storage service Shutterfly, which is facing a
similar suit to Google, is seeking to send the matter to
arbitration based upon allegations that the unnamed Shutterfly
user who uploaded a photo depicting the plaintiff was actually his
fianc‚e (and current wife).


H-E-B: Recalls Light Tuna in Oil Due to Contamination
-----------------------------------------------------
H-E-B is voluntarily recalling 224 cases (10,752 cans) of Hill
Country Fare brand 5 oz. Chunk Light Tuna in Oil.

This recall has been initiated because the product, produced at a
co-packer, may have been undercooked due to an equipment
malfunction, which was uncovered during a routine inspection.
These deviations were part of the commercial sterilization process
and could result in contamination by spoilage organisms or
pathogens, which could lead to life-threatening illness if
consumed. There have been no reported illnesses to date, H-E-B is
issuing this voluntary recall in abundance of caution to ensure
the highest level of food safety and quality.

The Hill Country Fare brand 5oz. canned Chunk Light Tuna in Oil
was sold at H-E-B Texas stores in single cans between Feb. 24,
2016 and March 16, 2016.

The voluntary recall impacts the following product only:

Hill Country Fare Chunk Light Tuna in Oil
UPC code: 0 4122065335 5
Product lot code 6O9FZ SCEES
Best By date (printed on the bottom of the can) is 2/9/19.

Customers who purchased the product can return it to the store for
a full refund. Customers with any questions or concerns may
contact H-E-B Customer Service at 1-855-432-4438 Monday through
Friday from 8am to 5pm.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/DuBK1j


H&R BLOCK: Judge Affirms Trial Court's Denial of Arbitration Bid
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Cynthia L. Martin of the Court of Appeals of
Missouri, Western District, affirmed the district court's order
denying a motion to compel arbitration in the case MANUEL H.
LOPEZ, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
Respondent, v. H&R BLOCK, INC., ET AL., Appellants, No. WD78465
(Mo. Ct. App.)

On April 14, 2011, Manuel Lopez (Lopez) visited an H&R Block,
Inc.'s office in Kansas City to have his 2010 tax returns
prepared. Lopez was required to sign a standard form Client
Service Agreement (2011 CSA). The 2011 CSA was a single page
agreement that identified the professional services H&R Block
agreed to provide, and the documents and information Lopez agreed
to provide to permit H&R Block to perform its services. The 2011
CSA contained an arbitration provision. Lopez did not exercise his
right to opt-out of arbitration after signing the 2011 CSA.

On April 4, 2012, Lopez returned to an H&R Block to have his 2011
tax returns prepared. By then, Lopez had consulted with counsel,
and counsel had contacted H&R Block questioning a $2 compliance
fee Lopez was charged in 2011. When Lopez returned to H&R Block to
have his 2011 tax returns prepared, he was again required to sign
a Client Service Agreement (2012 CSA). This time, however, Lopez
timely exercised his right to opt-out of arbitration, using the
on-line address set forth in the 2012 CSA. He did so on April 13,
2012.

On April 16, 2012, Lopez filed a class action lawsuit against H&R
Block on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated H&R
Block customers in Missouri. The petition alleged that H&R Block
prepared Lopez's tax returns in both 2011 and 2012 and that Lopez
paid a $2 or $4 compliance fee both years. The petition alleged
that H&R Block engaged in a scheme in violation of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and state common law by
misrepresenting that the compliance fee was charged to comply with
IRS requirements. The petition acknowledged that H&R Block's
Client Service Agreement form contained an arbitration provision
but alleged that the provision is unconscionable and cannot be
enforced.

H&R Block filed a motion to compel arbitration of all of Lopez's
claims. Specifically, H&R Block alleged that although Lopez was
certainly aware of the opt-out clause -- indeed he was represented
by counsel who reviewed the arbitration clause during the opt-out
period when Lopez declined to opt-out. On October 24, 2012, H&R
Block filed a pleading advising the trial court that it had just
discovered that Lopez timely exercised his right to opt out of
arbitration following execution of the 2012 CSA. Based on a
stipulation between the parties, the trial court entered an order
on December 28, 2012, permitting H&R Block to withdraw its
original motion to compel arbitration. The stipulation and related
trial court order authorized H&R Block to re-file the identical
motion to compel and supporting suggestions, which H&R Block did
on January 3, 2013. The stipulation and related order also
required H&R Block to secure leave to file a revised motion to
compel, which H&R Block did on January 29, 2013. The revised
motion to compel arbitration was expressly limited to Lopez's
claims regarding the 2011 compliance fee and relied exclusively on
Lopez's execution of the 2011 CSA. H&R Block agreed that Lopez's
claims relating to the 2012 compliance fee are not subject to
arbitration.

On remand, Lopez and H&R Block argued the merits of the revised
motion to compel arbitration relying on evidence previously
submitted. On March 12, 2015, the trial court again denied H&R
Block's motion to compel arbitration, finding the arbitration
provision in the 2011 CSA to be unconscionable and unenforceable.
The trial court also concluded that the opt-out right described in
the arbitration provision was illusory.

H&R Block appealed the trial court's order denying its motion to
compel arbitration.

Judge Martin affirmed the trial court's order denying defendants'
motion to compel arbitration.

A copy of Judge Martin's opinion dated March 8, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/hPw1pqfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District panel consists
of Presiding Judge Cynthia L. Martin and Judges Mark D. Pfeiffer
and Karen King Mitchell.


HARBOR VILLAGE: "Medina" Suit Seeks Back Wages and Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Yesika Medina, and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. Harbor Village Inc. and Robert G. Niznik,
Individually, Defendant, Case No. 2016-004481-CA-01 (Fla. Cir.,
Miami Dade County, February 24, 2016), seeks all back wages,
liquidated and compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' fees
and such additional relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Harbor Village is a wellness treatment facility in Miami-Dade
where Medina was employed. She was terminated after she insisted
on her unpaid wages and overtime premium.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


HEARTLAND INDUSTRIAL: State Court Suit v. Class Counsel Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division reversed the
Law Division's order in the appealed case CHRISTINE SUAREZ LOURES,
Plaintiff-Respondent, v. WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ,
L.L.P., Defendant-Appellant, No. A-2095-14T4 (N.J. Super. Ct. App.
Div.)

Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP is a limited liability
partnership registered in New York, New York with offices in New
York, Chicago, Illinois, and San Diego, California. The Law Firm
has no offices in New Jersey and owns no property in New Jersey.

The Law Firm filed a federal securities class action entitled
Egleston v. Heartland Indus. Partners, L.P., No. 06-13555, 2009
U.S., in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of certain purchasers (the Egleston
class) of publicly-traded securities in Collins & Aikman, Inc.
(C&A). On July 10, 2006, the Law Firm was appointed lead counsel.

Plaintiff Christine Suarez Loures, was a member of the Egleston
class, having purchased 900,000 shares of C&A common stock during
the relevant time period. In February 2010, the Egleston parties
agreed to a settlement. Plaintiff returned her completed Proof of
Claim on June 3, 2010.  The Firm estimated a distribution of
twenty-eight cents per share. Acknowledging twenty-eight cents per
share was an approximation, plaintiff expressly reserved the right
to opt out in the event of fraud or other equitable grounds
despite the passage of the opt-out deadline. Plaintiff never opted
out of the settlement.

On June 10, 2010, the court entered an order approving both the
plan for allocating the settlement fund and defendant's request
for attorney's fees and expenses.  The order approved the plan of
allocation, finding and concluding the plan to be fair and
reasonable to the Egleston Class Members. That same day, the court
entered a final judgment certifying the class, certifying
defendant as class counsel, and directing the parties to
consummate the fair, reasonable, and adequate settlement. The
district court retained exclusive jurisdiction.

The court subsequently issued a settlement distribution order, and
plaintiff received the pro rata proceeds of her claim in May 2011.
Plaintiff did not, however, receive the estimated 28 cents per
share, but instead she received three cents per share.
Dissatisfied with the amount of the distribution, she filed this
legal malpractice action in the Law Division.

Plaintiff's malpractice action alleged the Law Firm had committed
legal malpractice, made a negligent misrepresentation, and
breached its fiduciary duty. The Law Firm filed a motion to
dismiss plaintiff's complaint for lack of jurisdiction and,
following oral argument, the court denied defendant's motion. The
court determined it had specific personal jurisdiction as well as
subject matter jurisdiction. The court declined to apply the
equitable doctrine of forum non conveniens.

On leave granted, the Law Firm appeals the Law Division order
denying its motion to dismiss the complaint based on lack of
personal jurisdiction, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and
the doctrine of forum non conveniens.

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division, reversed the
Law Division order and dismissed plaintiff's complaint without
prejudice.

"We conclude the federal court's retention of exclusive
jurisdiction over the parties for all matters relating to the
action requires plaintiff to file this action in that venue.
Accordingly, we reverse the order denying the Law Firm's dismissal
motion, and we dismiss the complaint without prejudice subject to
reinstatement should the federal district court decline
jurisdiction," the Appellate Division said.

A copy of Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division's per
curiam decision is available at http://goo.gl/8UzqEHfrom
Leagle.com.

For Appellant, Thomas H. Burt -- burt@whafh.com -- at Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz; Mark M. Tallmadge --
mtallmadge@bressler.com -- at Bressler, Amery & Ross

For respondent:

     Michael S. Kasanoff, Esq.
     Michael S. Kasanoff, Attorney at Law
     157 Broad St Ste 321
     Red Bank, NJ 07701
     Telephone: 732-747-5348

The Superior Court of New Jersey, Appellate Division panel
consists of Judges Carol E. Higbee and William E. Nugent.


HERBALIFE LTD: 3rd Amended Complaint in Securities Case Tossed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbalife Ltd. 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 a court has granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint with
prejudice in the case, In re Herbalife, Ltd. Securities Litigation
(formerly captioned Awad v. Herbalife Ltd., et al.).

On April 14, 2014, Herbalife Ltd. and certain of its officers were
named as defendants in a purported stockholder class action, filed
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
and asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
The complaint alleged that the Company and certain officers made
material misstatements concerning the Company's finances and
business practices, and contended that the Company is operating a
pyramid scheme. The initial complaint sought to represent a class
of investors that had purchased shares of the Company's common
stock between May 4, 2010 and April 11, 2014.

On July 30, 2014, the Court approved the appointment of different
shareholders as lead plaintiffs and approved their selection of
counsel. On September 18, 2014, these lead plaintiffs filed an
Amended Class Action Complaint for Violation of the Federal
Securities Laws against the Company, and certain of its officers.
The Amended Complaint brings claims for unspecified damages under
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, alleges that the
defendants made material misstatements that "fundamentally
misrepresented the nature, scope and legality of the Company's
business and operations to consumers and investors alike," and
further alleges that the Company is one of "the most sophisticated
pyramid schemes in history." The lead plaintiffs seek to represent
a class of all persons or entities that purchased shares of the
Company's common stock between February 23, 2011 and July 29,
2014.

On March 16, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
all claims in the Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint and dismissed one of the shareholders as lead plaintiff.
On May 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws against the
Company and one of its officers.

On July 28, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' motion to dismiss
the Second Amended Complaint with leave to file an amended
complaint by August 27, 2015. On August 27, 2015, the lead
plaintiff filed a Third Amended Complaint for Violation of the
Federal Securities Laws against the Company and one of its
officers. On November 23, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Third Amended Complaint with prejudice. No
appeal was filed and the judgment is final.

Herbalife is a global nutrition company founded in 1980 that
develops and sells weight management, healthy meals and snacks,
sports and fitness, energy and targeted nutritional products as
well as personal care products.


HONDA: Recalls Accord 2008 Model Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 25, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 23156
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016032TC
ID number: 2016032

On certain vehicles, over time, moisture could enter the
Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) controller and could cause a
fault in the airbag system. This could result in the airbag
controller becoming inoperative, which would prevent the airbag(s)
from deploying. Failure of an airbag to deploy during a crash
(where deployment is warranted) could increase the risk of
personal injury to the seat occupant. Correction: Dealers will
replace the SRS control module. Note: This condition would cause
the illumination of the SRS warning light.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  HONDA       ACCORD       2008


HONEST CO: Alba Says "Natural" Class Action Claims Without Merit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Bielanski, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that makers
of cosmetics could benefit from certain guidelines in order to
avoid class action lawsuits such as one filed in February against
actress Jessica Alba's brand, a St. Louis attorney says.

A class action lawsuit filed Feb. 12 by two consumers in New York
takes aim at The Honest Company, a maker of cosmetics and personal
care products, for its claims of being "all natural." The lawsuit
is built on New York law protecting against false or misleading
claims from product manufacturers.

According to attorney Cicely Lubben --
cicely.lubben@stinson.com -- of Stinson Leonard Street, the
lawsuit is likely one of what will be a growing number brought
against companies that claim their products are "natural" or
"organic."

Foods and certain products, she told Legal Newsline, have industry
guidelines that help to define when the word can be used, but
items like cosmetics lack such guidance.

"It seem like there's a gap for other non-food organic products,"
she said.  "And that's where I think it would be helpful for the
government or industry to provide more guidance."

Though a number of marketing terms have established guidelines
from the Federal Trade Commission, including "compostable" and
"non-toxic," it has not yet issued similar guidelines for
"natural" or "organic."

Ms. Lubben said The Honest Company will need to have an
established, scientific method for quantifying that its products
are as "natural" as they claim to be.

This could prove a moving target, as the defense would need to
address what a "reasonable consumer" would interpret by their
marketing statements.  That ambiguity, she said, is more likely to
favor the plaintiff than The Honest Company.

"(The government) is going to err on the side of telling companies
to disclose more information and to explain why they're calling
things 'natural,'" she said.  "They're going to protect the
consumer more."

Courts, however, are increasingly placing the burden of sifting
through misleading advertising on the consumer, according to
Ms. Lubben.  She wrote in a blog post that broadly stating that a
claim was misleading is not enough, requiring consumers to
"instead have to come forward with evidence to substantiate that a
particular 'natural' or 'organic' claim is false or misleading."

The most recent lawsuit is not the company's first over a similar
issue.  Last September, a class action lawsuit was filed over the
company's sunscreen.

In that suit, the named plaintiff claim that not only did the
product contain synthetic chemicals, but that it was inneffective
at avoiding sunburns.

Alba, co-founder of the company, told People magazine at the time
that the accusations were "baseless and without merit," and
pledged to increase education efforts to help people understand
the difference between chemical and mineral sunscreens.


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls Sodium Bicarbonate Injections
--------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., a Pfizer company, is voluntarily recalling one lot
of 8.4% Sodium Bicarbonate Injection, USP (NDC: 0409-6625-02, Lot
56-148-EV, Expiry 1AUG2017) at the hospital/retail level due to
the presence of a particulate within a single-dose glass fliptop
vial. The issue was identified through a confirmed complaint.
If the particulate is not observed prior to IV administration and
breaks off into smaller particulates, passing through the
catheter, it may result in localized inflammation, allergic
reaction, including anaphylaxis, granuloma formation or
microembolic effects (IV only). Larger particulates may block the
infusion of solution, potentially resulting in a delay in therapy.
The likelihood of risk to the patient is low due to the high
detectability of the particulate prior to or at the point of care.
Although serious in nature, the probability of harm in this case
is low due to the high detectability of the non-conformance.

To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events
associated with this issue for this lot. Hospira places the utmost
emphasis on patient safety and product quality at every step in
the manufacturing and supply chain process.

The product is packaged 50 mEq (1mEq/mL), 4.2 grams (84 mg/mL),
50mL, Single-dose, packaged 4 boxes of 25 vials per case. The lot
was distributed nationwide in the U.S. to wholesalers and
hospitals in December 2015. Hospira has initiated an investigation
to determine the root cause and corrective and preventive actions.

Sodium Bicarbonate Injection, USP is indicated in the treatment of
metabolic acidosis; in the treatment of certain drug
intoxications, in poisoning by salicylates or methyl alcohol and
in certain hemolytic reactions. Sodium bicarbonate also is
indicated in severe diarrhea, which is often accompanied by
significant loss of bicarbonate.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.
Inform Healthcare Professionals in your organization of this
recall. If you have further distributed the recalled product,
please notify any accounts or additional locations which may have
received the recalled product from you. Further, please instruct
entities that may have received the recalled product from you that
if they redistributed the product, they should notify their
accounts, locations or facilities of the recall to the
hospital/retail level. Hospira will be notifying its direct
customers via a recall letter and is arranging for impacted
product to be returned to Stericycle in the United States. For
additional assistance, call Stericycle at 1-888-965-6077 between
the hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday.


HSBC HOLDINGS: WM/Reuters Rates Suit Pending in Canada
------------------------------------------------------
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 two putative class
actions were filed in Canada against various HSBC entities,
including HSBC Bank Canada, and numerous other financial
institutions in September 2015, alleging that defendants conspired
to manipulate the WM/Reuters foreign exchange benchmark rates.
The cases make allegations under Canadian law.

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


HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Gold Price-Fixing Suit Up for Hearing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
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 hearing has been
scheduled this month on the motion to dismiss class actions over
alleged price-fixing of gold.

Beginning in March 2014, numerous putative class actions were
filed in the US District Courts for the Southern District of New
York, the District of New Jersey and the Northern District of
California, naming HSBC and other members of The London Gold
Market Fixing Limited as defendants. The complaints allege that,
from January 2004 to the present, defendants conspired to
manipulate the price of gold and gold derivatives during the
afternoon London gold fix for their collective benefit in
violation of US antitrust laws, the US Commodity Exchange Act
('CEA') and New York state law. The actions were subsequently
consolidated in the New York District Court. An amended complaint
was filed in March 2015, which defendants moved to dismiss. A
hearing has been scheduled for March 2016.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Bid to Dismiss Silver Price-Fixing 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 hearing has been
scheduled this month on the motion to dismiss class actions over
alleged price-fixing of silver.

Beginning in July 2014, numerous putative class actions were filed
in the US District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts
of New York, naming HSBC and other members of The London Silver
Market Fixing Ltd as defendants. The complaints allege that, from
January 1999 to the present, defendants conspired to manipulate
the price of silver and silver derivatives for their collective
benefit in violation of US antitrust laws, the CEA and New York
state law. The actions were subsequently consolidated in the New
York District Court. An amended complaint was filed in April 2015,
which defendants moved to dismiss. A hearing has been scheduled
for March 2016.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Dismissal of Platinum Price-Fixing Action Sought
---------------------------------------------------------------
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 defendants have filed a
motion to dismiss class actions over the alleged price-fixing of
platinum.

Between late 2014 and early 2015, numerous putative class actions
were filed in the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York, naming HSBC, and other members of The London Platinum
and Palladium Fixing Company Limited as defendants. The complaints
allege that, from January 2008 to the present, defendants
conspired to manipulate the price of platinum group metals ('PGM')
and PGM-based financial products for their collective benefit in
violation of US antitrust laws and the US Commodity Exchange Act
('CEA'). An amended complaint was filed in August 2015, which
defendants moved to dismiss.

No further updates were provided in HSBC's SEC report.


HSBC HOLDINGS: Gold Price-Fixing Suit Filed 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 a putative class action
under Canadian law was filed in December 2015 in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against various HSBC entities, including
HSBC Bank Canada, and other financial institutions. Plaintiffs
allege that, from January 2004 to March 2014, defendants conspired
to manipulate the price of gold and gold-related investment
instruments in violation of the Canadian Competition Act and
common law.

No further updates were provided in HSBC's SEC report.


HSBC HOLDINGS: April 2016 Final Hearing on CDS Case Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
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 final settlement
approval hearing is scheduled for April 2016 in the class action
lawsuits related to Credit default swap.

In July 2013, HSBC received a Statement of Objections from the
Commission relating to its ongoing investigation of alleged anti-
competitive activity by a number of banks and other market
participants in the credit derivatives market between 2006 and
2009. The Statement of Objections sets out the Commission's
preliminary views and does not prejudge the final outcome of its
investigation. HSBC submitted a response and attended a hearing in
May 2014. Following the hearing, the Commission decided in
December 2015 to close the case against all 13 banks, including
all of the HSBC entities; however, the Commission's investigation
relating to Markit and ISDA is ongoing.

HSBC Holdings, HSBC Bank plc and HSBC Bank USA were named as
defendants, amongst others, in numerous putative class actions
filed in the New York District Court and the Illinois District
Court. These class actions allege that the defendants, which
include ISDA, Markit and several other financial institutions,
conspired to restrain trade in violation of US antitrust laws by,
amongst other things, restricting access to credit default swap
pricing exchanges and blocking new entrants into the exchange
market. The plaintiffs in these suits purport to represent a class
of all persons who purchased credit default swaps from or sold
credit default swaps to defendants primarily in the US.

In October 2013, these cases were consolidated in the New York
District Court (the 'Consolidated Action'). In September 2015, the
HSBC defendants reached an agreement with plaintiffs to resolve
the Consolidated Action, subject to court approval. In October
2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the settlement.
The final settlement approval hearing is scheduled for April 2016.


IC: Recalls CE and RE School Bus 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 21, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: School Bus
Notification type: Compliance Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 23
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016027TC
ID number: 2016027
Manufacturer recall number: 16501

Certain school buses may not conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 131 - School Bus Pedestrian Safety
Devices. The STOP decal may not adhere properly to the stop sign
and could peel off without warning, which could cause it to fail
to meet the requirements of the standard. This could increase the
risk of injury for the passengers exiting the school bus.
Correction: Specialty Manufacturing Inc. will provide owners with
a replacement stop sign blade assembly. If owners are not
comfortable installing the blade assembly themselves, they can
take their vehicle to a dealer for the installation.

  Make    Model              Model year(s) affected
  ----    -----              ----------------------
  IC      CE SCHOOL BUS      2016
  IC      RE SCHOOL BUS      2016


IKEA NORTH AMERICA: Recalls Gothem Floor and Table Lamps
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
IKEA North America Services LLC, of Conshohocken, Pa., announced a
voluntary recall of about 30,600 Gothem floor and table lamps.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

Cables damaged during manufacturing can come in contact with the
metal body of the lamp, posing a shock hazard to consumers.

The lamps are brush-finished nickel plated and have a dimmer
switch.  The floor lamp is 49 inches tall, and the table lamps are
14 or 18 inches tall. "Gothem" and the IKEA logo are printed on
the label attached to the underside of each lamp base.

Three reports of minor shock have been received worldwide.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dP2rIR

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at IKEA
stores nationwide and online at www.ikea-usa.com from October 2015
through February 2016 for between $20 and $50.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled floor and
table lamps and return them to any IKEA store for a full refund.


INDUSTRIAL PLASTIC: Recalls Hammered Enamel Finish Products
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 27, 2016
Posting date: January 27, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Chemicals
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public

This recall involves Hammerite(R) Rust Cap(R) Hammered Enamel
Finish a self-priming, rust preventive coating.  The affected
product was sold in different container types: 946 mL (quart can),
3.8 L (gallon can) and aerosol and are listed below:

  Product Name                                     UPC Code
  ------------                                     --------
  Hammered Black Brush Grade Enamel                51652431407
  Hammered Black Aerosol Metal Finish              51652411409
  Hammered Gold Brush Grade Enamel Finish          51652431704
  Hammered Gold Aerosol Enamel Finish              51652411706
  Hammered Gray Brush Grade Enamel Finish          51652431452
  Hammered Gray Aerosol Enamel Finish              51652411454
  Hammered Light Blue Brush Enamel Finish          51652431452
  Hammered Light Blue Aerosol Enamel Finish        51652411508
  Hammered Mid Green Brush Grade Enamel Finish     51652431759
  Hammered Mid Green Aerosol Enamel Finish         51652411751
  Hammered Silver Gray Brush Grade Enamel Finish   51652431056
  Hammered Silver Gray Aerosol Enamel Finish       51652411058

Health Canada's inspection process has revealed that the products
do not meet labelling requirements for consumer chemical products
under Canadian law.

The consumer product does not have proper hazard labelling
required by the Consumer Chemicals and Containers Regulations,
2001 under the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act. The improper
labelling could result in unintentional exposure to these products
and lead to serious illness, injury, or death.

Neither Health Canada nor Industrial Plastics & Paints Ltd has
received any reports of consumer incidents related to the use of
this product.

42 units of the recalled products were sold in various retail
stores in British Columbia and Alberta.

The recalled products were sold in Canada from 2011 to 2015.

Manufactured in the United States.

Manufacturer: Masterchem Industries
              Imperial
              Missouri
              UNITED STATES

Importer: Industrial Plastic & Paints Ltd
          Victoria
          British Columbia
          CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recall product and
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact Industrial Plastic &
Paints toll-free at 1-800-667-1757 ext. 112 between 9 a.m and 5
p.m PST from Monday to Friday or visit the firm's website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.


I PLAY: Recalls Glass Food Storage Cubes Due to Injury Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2016
Posting date: January 28, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56872

The recalled glass food storage cubes are sold in a set of four
with coloured rubberized plastic lids and fit into one storage
tray. The cubes are sold in 2-ounce (60 mL) and 4-ounce (118 mL)
sizes.

The lid colours and trays of the affected lot of 2-ounce (60 mL)
cubes include blue, green and pink. The lid colours and trays of
the affected 4-ounce (118 mL) cubes include blue, green, pink and
yellow. "green sprouts" is molded into each plastic lid, on the
edges of the matching plastic storage tray and on the bottom of
each quadrant of the storage tray. "green sprouts(R) by i play.,
Inc."  and "Made in China" are molded into the bottom of each
glass cube.

On the bottom of the plastic storage tray is a tracking dial with
one of the following markings:

An arrow that points to "11" and the numbers on the sides of the
arrow read "4" on the left of the arrow and "1" on the right.
An arrow that points to "5" and the numbers on the sides of the
arrow read "1" on the left of the arrow and "5" on the right.

The glass containers can break unexpectedly, posing a risk of
injury.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of these products.

In the United States, i play. has received 15 reports of
incidents, and the CPSC is aware of eight additional incidents
from online reviews. No injuries were reported.

Approximately 239 of the recalled glass food cubes were sold in
Canada through various retailers. Approximately 68,400 of the
recalled glass food cubes were sold in the United States through
various retailers.

The recalled products were sold from June 2015 through December
2015 in Canada and the United States.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: i play., incorporated
             Asheville
             North Carolina
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled food cubes
and contact i play. for instructions on receiving a coupon for the
retail price good toward the purchase of a new i play. product and
shipping.

For more information, consumers can contact i play. Toll-free at
800-876-1574 from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET, Monday through Friday,
excluding holidays. Consumers may also contact the company by
email or online at the i play website and click on the "Health &
Safety" link at the bottom of the right side of the homepage under
the Support column for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jbo7Tw


JCPENNY CORP: Judge Grants 2nd Class Cert. Bid in "Garcia" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joan B. Gottschall of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification in the case LAURA GARCIA and LORE REDNOUR,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JCPENNEY CORPORATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-
cv-3687 (N.D. Ill.)

Plaintiffs Laura Garcia and Lore Rednour, for themselves and on
behalf of the class they seek to represent brought a lawsuit
against JCPenney Corporation, Inc. (JCPenney), alleging violations
of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS
Section115/1, et seq., and Illinois Department of Labor (IDOL)
regulations. Plaintiffs, on behalf of a putative class consisting
of former JCPenney part-time non-management associates (PTNMA),
claim that they did not receive vacations benefits earned pursuant
to JCPenney's "My Time Off" vacation policy (MTO vacation policy).

From November 17, 2005 to June 28, 2009, Garcia worked for
JCPenney in Illinois as a part-time non-management associate.
During her entire 188 weeks of employment she worked 3,796.7 hours
and averaged 20.2 hours per week. Garcia did not receive any
vacation benefits under the MTO vacation policy.

From November 26, 2007 until October 3, 2010, Rednour worked for
JCPenney in Illinois as a part-time non-management associate.
Rednour averaged 29.47 hours per week during the first 48 weeks of
her employment and received the MTO vacation days she accrued
during that time period on a pro rata basis on the first day of
each month during her second year of employment. Rednour alleged
that she averaged more than 25 hours per week during the first 48
weeks of her second year of employment in 2009 as calculated by
JCPenney. Rednour did not receive the MTO benefits she accrued in
2009 that were due in November and December 2010 because her
employment terminated on October 30, 2010. Rednour also claims she
did not receive any MTO benefits for the hours she worked during
the period between January 1, 2010 and October 30, 2010.

Plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which the court
denied because plaintiffs' motion for class certification was not
based on an action pending in the district and the proposed class
definition suffered from a number of deficiencies.

Plaintiffs filed their Third Amended Complaint (TAC) in the
district alleging a violation of the IWPCA by JCPenney. The TAC
contains a proposed class of all former PTMNAs employed by JC
Penney in Illinois and terminated between January 1, 2004 through
the date of entry of an order certifying the instant action as a
class action. Plaintiffs moved for class certification.

Judge Gottschall this time granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification. Plaintiffs' IWPCA claims are certified as a class
action. The parties are ordered to meet and confer regarding the
names, dates of employment, and other pertinent information for
all persons in the class defined by plaintiffs. The parties are
also ordered to meet and confer regarding a mutually agreeable
notice that is to be submitted to the court on or before April 5,
2016. The matter is set for status on April 6, 2016 at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of Judge Gottschall's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 8, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/KVXLC6from
Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Sheldon A Ostroff, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON A. OSTROFF
     1441 State St.
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-544-0881

          - and -

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 W Washington St #1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: 312-419-1008

          - and -

     James C Kostas, Esq.
     HUFFMAN & KOSTAS
     1441 State St.
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: 619-544-0880

J.C. Penny Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine
Anne Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Andrew George Pappas --
apappas@gibsondunn.com -- Karl G. Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com
-- Olivia A Adendorff -- oadendorff@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson
Dunn & Crutcher LLP


JP SPORTS COLLECTIBLES: "Davis" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Davis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. JP Sports Collectibles Inc., John E. Peery
and Jolean Peery, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00154-UA-CM (M.D.
Fla., February 23, 2016), seeks minimum wages, overtime premium,
liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and costs and pre-
judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked in the Defendants' Florida store as a team
leader, cashier, sales floor, stocker, packing and shipping and
customer service attendant and was paid below the mandatory
minimum wage rate and was not compensated for hours in excess of
40 per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KIMBERLY CLARK: Judge Narrows Claims in Flushable Wipes Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Elizabeth Kovachevich of the Middle District of
Florida, Tampa Division, granted in part and denied in part
defendants' motions to dismiss, or in the alternative for summary
judgment in the case DENNIS PATRICK SWEENEY, JR., On behalf of
themselves and all other similarly situated and HEATHER RENEE
COPHER-SWEENEY, On behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. KIMBERLY-CLARK CORPORATION, WAL-MART
STORES, INC., and ROCKLINE INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendants, Case No.
8:14-cv-3201-T-17EAJ (M.D. Fla.)

Plaintiffs commenced an action by filing a class action complaint
against Kimberly-Clark Corporation, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and
Rockline Industries, Inc. on December 24, 2014. On March 26 and
30, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint
for failure to state a claim. On September 15, 2015, the court
entered an order dismissing the complaint without prejudice.

Plaintiffs filed a first amended class action complaint on October
9, 2015. The amended complaint consists of:

     Count I    -- Violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair
                   Trade Practices Act, (FDUTPA);
     Count II   -- Breach of Express Warranty;
     Count III  -- Breach of Implied Warranty of
                   Merchantability;
     Count IV   -- Negligence;
     Count V    -- Negligent Misrepresentation;
     Count VI   -- Negligent Failure to Warn;
     Count VII  -- Strict Liability Failure to Warn; and
     Count VIII -- Unjust Enrichment.

In addition, the plaintiffs seek class action certification on
behalf of all Florida residents who purchased Cottonelle and
Equate brand flushable wipes between December 24, 2010 and the
present, as well as sub-class certification for all similarly
situated persons who have suffered damages or paid costs to repair
clogs, blockages, or other adverse plumbing consequences to their
on-site plumbing or wastewater conveyance and treatment system(s).

Defendants Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
filed a joint motion to dismiss or, alternatively, for summary
judgment, and a motion to strike class allegations. Rockline
Industries, Inc. also filed a motion to dismiss, or in the
alternative motion for summary judgment and motion to strike class
allegations together with Kimberly-Clark Corporation and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc.

Through the motions, the defendants primarily assert that the
first amended complaint should be dismissed, and/or that summary
judgment should be granted in their favor, due to the fact that
(i) the plaintiffs' lack standing to assert a price premium theory
of damages under FDUTPA, and (ii) the record does not contain
sufficient evidence that either defendant caused the plaintiffs'
plumbing damages. In addition, the defendants ask the court to
strike the plaintiffs' class allegations due to an inability to
establish, among other things, predominance under Fed.R.Civ.P.
23(b)(3).

Judge Kovachevich granted, in part, and denied, in part,
defendants' motions. Summary judgment is granted in favor of the
defendants on count I of the first amended complaint, and denied
without prejudice as to Counts II through VIII. The defendants are
directed to answer the first amended complaint within 21 days from
entry of the order.

A copy of Judge Kovachevich's order dated February 22, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/8SCTWkfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Anthony Garcia -- Anthony@aglawinc.com
-- at AG Law, Inc.; Christopher D. Boutwell --
chris.boutwell@beasleyallen.com -- J. Ryan Kral --
ryan.kral@beasleyallen.com -- Rhon E. Jones --
rhon.jones@beasleyallen.com -- at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin,
Portis & Miles, PC

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, represented by Gregory W. Kehoe
-- kehoeg@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig, P.A.; Kara L. McCall
-- kmccall@sidley.com -- at Sidley Austin, LLP

Rockline Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by -- Douglas B.
Brown -- dbrown@rumberger.com -- J. Richard Caldwell, Jr. --
dcaldwell@rumberger.com -- Jessica Aileen Tetrick --
jtetrick@rumberger.com -- at Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, PA


KING OF DIAMONDS: "Curtis" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kiara Curtis, Plaintiff, v. AK "N" ELI, LLC d/b/a King Of
Diamonds, a Florida limited liability company, Kodrenyc, LLC, a
Florida Limited Liability Company; Movement Events LLC, an
Illinois limited liability company, Elliot Kunstlinger,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-20682-MGC (S.D. Fla., February 24,
2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime pay,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs of suit and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201-219.

King of Diamonds is a lounge and adult entertainment club located
in Miami where Plaintiff works as a waitress. She claims to have
rendered in excess of 40 hours per work week without overtime
compensation.

Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KRAFT HEINZ: Sued Over Misleading Cheese Product Advertising
------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Cook
County woman is suing Kraft Heinz, Target, and SuperValu, alleging
they misleadingly advertise their grated Parmesan and Romano
cheese products.

Ann Yankee of Cook County, individually and for all others
similarly situated, filed a class action lawsuit March 4 in U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against Kraft
Heinz Foods Company, Target Corporation and SuperValu, alleging
violations of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, breach of express and implied warranties, negligent
misrepresentation, fraud and unjust enrichment.

The suit alleges the defendants advertise their respective grated
Parmesan and Romano cheese products are 100 percent cheese.
However, the lawsuit states, these cheese products contain
cellulose, an ingredient derived from wood fiber and the Target
product also contains corn starch.

Yankee and others in the class seek compensatory and punitive
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and disgorgement, attorney
fees and other costs of the suit, plus a jury trial. They are
represented by attorneys Carol V. Gilden --
cgilden@cohenmilstein.com -- and Andrew N. Friedman of Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll in Chicago and Washington, D.C., Lori G.
Feldman, Courtney E. Maccarone, and Andrea Clisura of Levi &
Korsinsky in New York, and Janine L. Pollack of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz in New York.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois Case
number 1:16-CV-02873


LUNERA LIGHTING: Recalls LED Lamps Due to Electric Shock Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 27, 2016
Posting date: January 27, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard, Electrical Hazard, Burn Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56838

This recall involves Lunera 13 watt Helen GX23 LED lamps with date
codes ranging from 1525 to 1552. The dimmable lamps are white and
measure 6 inches long by 1.25 inches wide by 0.75 inches thick.
The Lunera logo is printed on the front on the lamp at one end.
Model numbers HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-2700-G3, HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3000-
G3, HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3500-G3 and HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-4000-G3
appears on the back of the connector. The date code is stamped on
the bottom of the connector.

The following model numbers and UPC Codes are affected by this
recall:

  Model Number                    UPC
  ------------                    ---
  HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-2700-G3       853483006003
  HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3000-G3       853483006013
  HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-3500-G3       853483006027
  HN-H-UNV-GX23-13W-4000-G3       853483006034

The lamps can overheat causing the lens to dislodge, posing fire,
burn and electric shock hazards.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries related to the use of these lamps.

Lunera Lighting, Inc. has received 11 reports of lamps failing
with an audible pop, followed by a foul odor, in some cases
causing the lens of the lamp to dislodge. No injuries or property
damage have been reported.

Approximately 1,000 units were sold in Canada, and approximately
60,000 units were distributed in the United States.

The recalled Lamps were sold in December 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Lunera Lighting, Inc.,
             Santa Clara
             California
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled Lamps.

For more information, consumers may contact Lunera Lighting, Inc.
toll free at 1-855-637-3089 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. PST, Monday
through Friday. Consumers may also visit the company's website and
click on "Recall" for more information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/1rs4Ku


MANASSEH JORDAN: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Clarke" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Clarke and Ruth Maki, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Yakim Manasseh Jordan, Manasseh Jordan
Ministries, Inc., and Prophet Manasseh Products, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01859-VEC (S.D.N.Y., March 14, 2016), seeks to put an end to the
Defendant's practice of making unsolicited calls.

The Defendants operate a religious organization with its plaice of
business located at PO Box 3320, New York, NY 10163.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joshua David Arisohn, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (646) 837-7150
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: jarisohn@bursor.com


MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fried Fish Balls Due to Egg
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10359

Mannarich Food Inc. is recalling Mannarich Food brand Fried Fish
Balls from the marketplace because it contains egg which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not
consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled product
as it may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand       Common name   Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name        -----------   ----    product
  -----                             ----------   ---
  Mannarich   Fried Fish    240 g   AL 15 2017   0 68636 03052 5
  Food        Balls

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lKh7Y1


MASTERCARD: Two Florida Stores File Class Action Amid EMV Delay
---------------------------------------------------------------
CBSNews reports that two small Florida stores filed a lawsuit
seeking class action status, saying their bill for fraudulent
transactions has increased perhaps 20-fold since the October
deadline and the EMV delay -- playing out in smaller stores across
the country -- is costing them big money.  The lawsuit names
payment networks like Visa and Mastercard, along with large
payment processing firms.  Both Visa and Mastercard said they were
reviewing the claims in the lawsuit.

It turns out that getting new hardware into stores was just the
first step in the conversion process, and in many cases, the
easier step.  New software comes next, and that's been causing
holdups, experts said.

"Just because you see an EMV slot on a terminal, doesn't mean it
works," said Michael Moeser, director of payments at Javelin
Strategy and Research.  "Getting the terminal to accept EMV cards
is a two-part process. First, the merchant either needs to load
newly developed software or integrate new software from a third
party into its back office systems to allow the terminal to accept
EMV.  Second, then the new terminals and the merchant need to
undergo a certification process with each of the card networks,
typically done in combination with its merchant acquiring bank.
The certification queue is currently very long as you can imagine
that there are a number of merchants seeking to roll out EMV at
the same time."

While that delay is annoying to shoppers -- "what do I do, swipe
or insert?" -- some merchants say it's killing business. According
to the merchant lawsuit, Milam's Market and Grove Liquors in
Florida faced 88 chargebacks for fraudulent transactions totaling
$9,200 from MasterCard and Visa since the Oct. 1 liability shift,
plus $5 chargeback fees for each item. During the same span last
year, the firms faced only four chargebacks, the lawsuit said.

The stores say they purchased EMV hardware long ago, and are
simply waiting for their terminals to be certified.  The lawsuit
says the stores have been told the queue for certification is so
long they have no idea when it might come.

"Tellingly, nothing Milam's Market could have done -- short of
making the business-crippling decision to stop accepting Visa
cards -- could have prevented this outcome," the lawsuit says.
"Class members such as the plaintiffs here, could not timely
comply with the standard, no matter what they did, because the
Defendants refused to, or were unable to, 'certify' the new
equipment by the deadline -- or, indeed, the 'certification'
process would take years after the . . . Liability Shift was
imposed."

The debit sticking point

Shifting the way America uses plastic was bound to encounter
snafus, but Randy Vanderhoof, EMV Migration Chairman, said the
American payment market faced particular challenges because of the
way debit cards are processed.  Federal law designed to promote
competition in debit card processing requires that merchants have
a choice of networks for processing payments, but that made
writing software for EMV debit cards much more complex.

"We have a regulatory environment which requires that every card
issued has to support at least two unrelated payment networks for
processing," he said.  "So software and certification testing on
debit was more complicated and later to arrive."

Since the specifications for EMV debit card processing came late
in the game, some in the payment industry decided to delay their
conversion work.  Otherwise, stores and processors would have
found themselves supporting EMV for credit cards, but magnetic
stripes for debit cards, potentially frustrating consumers and
causing two hardware and software conversions.

"That is not an ideal consumer experience," Mr. Vanderhoof said.
"You could have the same customer using debit in one transaction
(and swiping) and then credit in another (and inserting a chip
card).  You can start to appreciate it is not a simple thing."

The merchant lawsuit makes this point too, quoting Terry Crowley,
CEO of TranSend, which makes EMV software. He says that writing
code to make the terminals work has become infinitely more complex
in recent years. According to the lawsuit:

"Crowley said that while software code for card-accepting devices
was historically simple enough to be written on the back of a
business card. 'Now with EMV, that same software wraps around the
walls of a room three times . . . hundreds of thousands of lines
of code.' With the Liability Shift deadline having passed, Crowley
says, suddenly there is a 'fire drill' to replace all of this
simple software, compounded by the facts that the EMV code is hard
to write, harder to certify and that few EMV software developers
understand the U.S. market."

Mobile in the mix

Complicating matters more, the switch to chip cards is hardly the
only change happening in the way consumers pay for things at
checkout.  Stores are trying to be ready to accept mobile
payments, like Apple Pay or Samsung Pay, also.

"A number of merchants have decided to rollout other payments
technologies at the same time of an EMV rollout which creates a
more complex -- time consuming -- deployment," Mr. Moeser said.

Mr. Vanderhoof is optimistic that the problem is temporary, and
the payment industry will work through the backlog in fairly short
order.  The EMV Migration Forum believes 50 percent of terminals
will be enabled by the end of this year, and 90 percent by the end
of 2017.

But for now, many merchants are blaming the banking industry --
and the Florida store lawsuit accuses banks of knowingly
conspiring to hand them the bill for fraud.

"What defendants knew, but Milam's Market, Grove Liquors and the
rest of the Class did not and could not know, was that purchasing
new (point of sale) equipment and training their staff was not
going to be enough," the lawsuit says.  "Requiring working EMV
hardware and software by the Oct. 1 deadline were conditions, it
would turn out, which were impossible for the Class members to
meet and which the Networks, the Issuing Banks and (industry) knew
were impossible to meet."

Consumers generally aren't held liable for unauthorized charges,
but that doesn't mean you shouldn't monitor your financial
accounts regularly for fraud.  You can also monitor your credit if
you have reason to believe your personal information was
compromised alongside your payment information.  A sudden drop in
credit scores can be a sign identity theft is occurring.


MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Bars Late-Filed Seafood Claim
------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the
district court's judgment in the appealed case entitled In Re:
DEEPWATER HORIZON. LAKE EUGENIE LAND; DEVELOPMENT, INCORPORATED,
ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. BP EXPLORATION; PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED;
BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, P.L.C., Defendants-Appellees,
v. JOHNNY SEXTON, Claimant-Appellant.

Johnny Sexton worked as a deckhand on a fishing vessel out of
Santa Rosa Beach, Florida. He hired a law firm to file a Seafood
Claim on his behalf.

The Seafood Compensation Fund is a $2.3 billion fund intended to
compensate fishermen, crew, and other seafood industry
participants for any decline in revenue they suffered as a result
of the Deepwater Horizon explosion and oil spill.  The settlement
agreement set a much earlier bar date for claims on the Seafood
Compensation Fund as opposed to other types of claims. The
settlement agreement specified what needed to be filed for a
Seafood Claim to be processed. These included a sworn claim form
and documentation to support the claimant's past income and
availability for employment during the months of the oil spill.

Sexton's Seafood Claim filing was handled by a legal assistant at
the firm. The day before the bar date, the legal assistant filed a
registration form and certain supporting documentation for Sexton.
The legal assistant did not file a sworn claim form for Sexton,
and later explained that he did not realize he needed to.
Two months after the January 2013 bar date, when the legal
assistant's error was discovered, Sexton's law firm reached out to
the claims administrator to explain the error and request an
extension. The claims administrator announced a policy for dealing
with late-filed Seafood Claims or the Untimely Seafood Claims
Procedure. The policy concluded that the bar for excusing a
claimant's or claimant's counsel's neglect will necessarily be
high.

Pursuant to the policy, the program denied the law firm's request
for an extension on Sexton's Seafood Claim. The law firm sought
reconsideration within the program. When that was unsuccessful,
the law firm filed a motion for relief with the district court.
The motion was styled as a motion for extension, but both parties
have treated it as a motion for discretionary review under
Paragraph 6.6 of the Settlement Agreement.

The district court summarily denied the motion without responsive
briefing or a hearing.

Sexton appealed, asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth
Circuit to provide the extension that the program and the district
court did not. He faults the program and the district court for
not properly applying the excusable neglect standard in his case
and not treating the filing of his registration form and
supporting documents as the filing of a timely claim.

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's denial of the
motion.  A copy of the Fifth Circuit's judgment dated March 8,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/BFILVHfrom Leagle.com.

The United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge Carl E. Stewart and Circuit Judges Priscilla R.
Owen and Gregg J. Costa.


METLIFE INC: Westland Police Suit Remains Pending in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the Company continues to
defend the case, City of Westland Police and Fire Retirement
System v. MetLife, Inc., et. al. (S.D.N.Y., filed January 12,
2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common shares between February 2, 2010, and October 6, 2011,
the plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging that
MetLife, Inc. and several current and former directors and
executive officers of MetLife, Inc. violated the Securities Act of
1933 ("Securities Act"), as well as the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-
5 promulgated thereunder by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements concerning
MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of dollars in
insurance benefits that should have been paid to beneficiaries or
escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory
damages and other relief.

On September 11, 2015, the court issued an order dismissing all
claims under the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, and dismissing all
claims under the Securities Act except for those based on alleged
misrepresentations of mortality ratios. Following the court's
September 11, 2015 order, the plaintiff filed a third amended
complaint that supplemented the factual allegations of the second
amended complaint. The defendants intend to continue to defend
this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Birmingham Retirement Suit Remains Pending in Ala.
---------------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the Company continues to
defend the case, City of Birmingham Retirement and Relief System
v. MetLife, Inc., et al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County
Alabama, filed July 5, 2012).

Seeking to represent a class of persons who purchased MetLife,
Inc. common equity units in or traceable to a public offering in
March 2011, the plaintiff filed an action alleging that MetLife,
Inc., certain current and former directors and executive officers
of MetLife, Inc., and various underwriters violated several
provisions of the Securities Act related to the filing of the
registration statement by issuing, or causing MetLife, Inc. to
issue, materially false and misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning MetLife, Inc.'s potential liability for millions of
dollars in insurance benefits that should have been paid to
beneficiaries or escheated to the states. Plaintiff seeks
unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

On March 31, 2015, a federal court granted plaintiff's motion to
remand this action to state court. On October 14, 2015, the state
court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
defendants intend to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: Still Defends "Owens" Class Action in Ga.
------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the Company still
defends the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

MLIC is a defendant in a lawsuit related to its use of retained
asset accounts, known as TCA, as a settlement option for death
benefits.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom MLIC established a TCA to pay death benefits
under an ERISA plan. The action alleges that MLIC's use of the TCA
as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under some
group life insurance policies violates MLIC's fiduciary duties
under ERISA. As damages, plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits
that MLIC realized on accounts owned by members of the putative
class. The court denied MLIC's motion to dismiss the complaint.
The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Robainas" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the appeal in the case,
Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December
16, 2014), remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by MLIC from 2009 through 2014 (the "Policies").
Two similar actions were subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., January 12, 2015) and International
Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015).

Both of these actions were consolidated with the Robainas action.
The consolidated complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately
disclosed in its statutory annual statements that certain
reinsurance transactions with affiliated reinsurance companies
were collateralized using "contractual parental guarantees," and
thereby allegedly misrepresented its financial condition and the
adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit sought recovery under
Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty
in the amount of the premiums paid for the Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint, finding that plaintiffs lacked Article III
standing because they did not allege any concrete injury as a
result of the alleged conduct. Plaintiffs appealed this decision
to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

A copy of the dismissal order is available at http://is.gd/odBP43
from Leagle.com.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Patrick Joseph Gennardo, Esq.
     Sandra Denise Hauser, Esq.
     Dentons US LLP
     1221 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10020-1089
     Tel: 212 768 6700
     Fax: 212 768 6800
     E-mail: Patrick.Gennardo@dentons.com
             Sandra.Hauser@dentons.com

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


METLIFE INC: 2nd Cir. Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the appeal in the case,
Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2015),
remains pending.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with MLIC from 2009 through 2015 (the "Annuities"). The court
consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case, and the consolidated,
amended complaint alleges that MLIC inadequately disclosed in its
statutory annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions
with affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities.

The Court granted MLIC's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning
of the Robainas decision.

Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.

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


METLIFE INC: Objectors Appeal Settlement Order in "Fauley"
----------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 objectors have appealed
the approval order of the settlement in the case, Fauley v.
Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et al. (Circuit Court of the 19th
Judicial Circuit, Lake County, Ill., July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including MLIC
and a former MetLife financial services representative, alleging
that the defendants sent unsolicited fax advertisements to
plaintiff and others in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, as amended by the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47
U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued a final order certifying a
nationwide settlement class and approving a settlement under which
MLIC has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as to
fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014. Objectors
to the settlement have appealed the approval order.

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


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Voshall" Suit in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, Inc. said it intends to defend against the case, Voshall
v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Los Angeles, April 8, 2015), according to
MetLife's Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on February 25, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by MLIC to public entities in
California between April 8, 2011 and April 8, 2015. Plaintiff
alleges that MLIC improperly reduced benefits by including cost of
living adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.

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


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Martin" Case in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the Company intends to
defend against the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company, (Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Contra Costa, filed December 17, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by MLIC in life insurance policy and/or premium
loan balances within the last four years. Plaintiffs allege that
MLIC has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount. The
Company intends to defend this action vigorously.


METLIFE INC: To Defend Against "Lau" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
MetLife, 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 the Company intends to
defend against the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co.
(S.D.N.Y. filed, December 3, 2015).

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in MetLife's "Group Annuity Contract Stable
Value Funds" within the past six years. The suit alleges breaches
of fiduciary duty under ERISA and challenges the "spread" with
respect to the stable value fund group annuity products sold to
retirement plans. The allegations focus on the methodology MetLife
uses to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under
which plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a
stable value option to another investment option, the procedures
followed if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of
disclosure provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief, as well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company
intends to defend this action vigorously.


MFA INCORPORATED: Recalls Rabbit Feed Due to Illness Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
MFA Incorporated announced the recall of bagged and bulk MFA 16%
and 17% rabbit feed. The product was distributed to MFA retail
stores in southwest Missouri.

MFA Incorporated became aware of a potential problem with the feed
after a consumer complaint of animal illness and deaths.
Investigation into the complaint revealed three lots that tested
high for salt.

Symptoms of excess salt intake in rabbits include but are not
limited to depressed feed intake, weakness and increased thirst.
If your animals show these symptoms, contact your MFA feed
representative.

Specifically, three lot numbers tested for excess salt: lots
#214865, #216032 and #217178. Lot numbers appear on the feed tag
which is attached to the bags.

Because MFA is a farmer and rancher-owned cooperative, in an
abundance of caution to protect members and their livestock, MFA
is recalling those above lot numbers in addition to lot #213802 of
bagged MFA 16% rabbit pellets and MFA 17% rabbit pellets lots
#213877, #216427 and #217549.

MFA customers with rabbit pellets bearing any of the above numbers
should return the feed to the store where it was purchased for
credit or replacement.

In addition, MFA is also recalling bulk rabbit feed delivered from
Jan. 15 up to March 1. Customers receiving bulk feed during that
timeframe should contact the MFA location at which they purchased
the feed for credit or replacement.

Bulk feed lot numbers are: 213207, 213898, 214890, 217243, 218665
and 218666.

MFA store personnel will follow up with customers who purchased
the feed. MFA personnel stress that any individual who has already
fed the products should make certain the rabbits have ready access
to water in order to flush the salt through their systems.

Dr. Alan Wessler, vice president of feed operations and animal
health for MFA, said, "Our customers and their animals are
priorities at MFA. We are a cooperative built by and for farmers
and ranchers. While we identified only three lots of feed, we
extended the recall to exert a high degree of caution."


MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MD: Cops' Suit Over Bargaining Deal Remanded
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of Maryland vacated and remanded to the Court
of Special Appeals the judgment in the case FRATERNAL ORDER OF
POLICE, et al. v. MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND, et al., No. 45,
September Term, 2015 (Md. Ct. Spec. App.)

"The mandate of the Court of Special Appeals was to reverse the
Circuit Court judgment. The legal conclusions reached by the
appellate court were correct, but its judgment was technically
incorrect," said Alan M. Wilner, (Retired, Specially Assigned),
who wrote the opinion of the Court.  "Counts 1 through 6 sought
declaratory judgments, and declaratory judgments were, in fact,
issued on those counts. Even though they were legally in error,
the correct remedy is not simply to reverse them but to vacate
them and remand the case for the entry of proper declaratory
judgments. As to Counts 7 through 10, the Circuit Court found
wrongdoing on the part of Leggett and Lacefield but denied relief
because of its finding of qualified immunity. The denial of relief
was correct, but for the wrong reason. We think that a more
structured mandate is required."

Sections 33-75 through 33-85 of the Montgomery County Code provide
for collective bargaining between the county and the certified
representative of county police officers below the rank of
lieutenant. The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) is the certified
representative of the county police officers.

On January 31, 2011, the Montgomery County Organizational Reform
Commission, created in 2010 by County Council Resolution to
recommend changes that would increase the efficiency of county
operations, filed its Final Report which, in Recommendation 21,
urged that Section 33-80(a)(7) be amended to make it consistent
with the scope of bargaining for firefighters and other county
employees. The Commission noted that, in practice, effect
bargaining has become the exception that makes most management
decisions subject to bargaining and has hampered the ability of
the Police Department to issue directives to govern how police
officers must operate. It added that FOP has recently delayed the
implementation of all directives by refusing to respond to them.

Responding to the Commission's recommendation, the County Council
President introduced Bill No. 18-11 in June 2011 to amend Section
33-80(a)(7) by limiting "effect bargaining" to the amelioration of
the effect on employees when the county's exercise of rights under
Section 33-80(b) causes a loss of jobs in the bargaining unit. The
bill also deleted the special impasse procedure under Section 33-
81(c) with respect to effect bargaining. The bill was passed by
the County Council in July 2011 and was signed by the County
Executive on August 1 and the law took effect on October 31, 2011.

Bill No. 18-11 was slated to appear on the ballot at the November
6, 2012 general election as Question B, whether the bill should
become law. A "yes" answer would sustain the law; a "no" vote
would nullify it. Both sides commenced their respective campaigns
to capture the hearts and minds of the county voters.

The County Executive, Isiah Leggett directed an effort by the
County government to encourage county voters to vote "yes" on
Question B. The effort was managed in large part by Patrick
Lacefield, Director of the County Office of Public Information.
Leggett authorized Lacefield to spend up to $200,000 from the
funds appropriated by the County Council to his office in
furtherance of the effort.

Lacefield ultimately spent $122,350, which went for such things as
putting ads in buses, displaying posters in county libraries and
bumper stickers on county cars, purchasing ads in the local media,
producing and distributing flyers and lawn signs, posting a "Vote
for Question B" on the county website, including advocacy
materials in its electronic newsletter distributed to about
125,000 county residents, mass mailings to more than 163,000
households in the county, employing political and media
consultants, and hiring individuals to distribute campaign
literature. Leggett enlisted the support of both the Democratic
and Republican Central Committees.

FOP, which contemporaneously was running a vigorous campaign to
defeat the new law, objected to the county's advocacy and, in
particular, to the use of county funds and personnel in
furtherance of it. FOP complained to the American Civil Liberties
Union, the County Inspector General, the State Prosecutor, and the
United States Attorney for the District of Maryland, and when it
received no relief from them, filed a lawsuit on November 5, 2012,
one day before the election. The next day, the voters approved
Question B, 58 percent voting yes and 42 percent voting no.

FOP's complaint was brought both individually and as a class
action. The class being Montgomery County police officers below
the rank of lieutenant, against the county, Leggett, and
Lacefield. As amended, it contained ten counts. Counts 1 through 6
sought declaratory and injunctive relief and sought costs and
other unspecified general relief. Counts 7 through 10 sought
declaratory relief but money damages as well.

After a 10-day bench trial, the circuit court entered a memorandum
and order, followed a week later by a series of declaratory
judgments. The heart of its decision were declarations by the
court that the county, Leggett, and Lacefield had no authority to
do what they did and that their conduct violated the State and
local laws, as alleged by petitioners. It declared inapplicable
the doctrine of government speech, which the county asserted
permitted governmental entities to promote or oppose legislative
measures, including ballot questions that may affect its
operations.

Cross appeals ensued and the respondents objected to the
declaratory judgments denying the county's authority to advocate
for or against ballot issues that may have an impact on the
operation of the county government and finding that Leggett and
Lacefield violated the various laws in implementing the county's
efforts to have the law sustained. They also renewed their
defenses of lack of standing and laches. Petitioners were unhappy
with the court's finding of immunity on the part of Leggett and
Lacefield. FOP was seeking reimbursement for the money it claimed
it was required to spend in response to the county's campaign.

The Court of Special Appeals reversed the Circuit Court judgments.
It affirmed, however, the Circuit Court's rejection of the
county's standing and laches defenses.  Petitioner then filed a
petition for certiorari, while respondents filed a conditional
cross-petition seeking review of the rejection of their standing
and laches defenses.

The Maryland Appeals Court vacated the judgment of the Court of
Special Appeals and remanded the case with instructions to reverse
the judgment entered by the Circuit Court on all counts.

The Appeals Court panel consists of Chief Judge Mary Ellen
Barbera, and Judges Clayton Greene Jr., Sally D. Adkins, Robert N.
McDonald, Shirley M. Watts, Irma S. Raker (Retired, Specially
Assigned); and Wilner, (Retired, Specially Assigned). A copy of
Judge Wilner's opinion dated February 23, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/kRkobWfrom Leagle.com.


NATIONAL AUSTRALIA: Law Firm Proposes Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that law firm Maurice
Blackburn has applied to the federal court for a $6.6 million
settlement of a class action against the National Australia Bank
(NAB).

The settlement stems from federal court proceedings taken against
nine Australian banks, including NAB, Commonwealth Bank and
Westpac over unfair fees.

A High Court decision over action against the ANZ bank is still
pending.

In November 2014, the federal court approved orders for settlement
with the NAB after that bank said it was exploring ways to resolve
the matter.

"If the settlement is approved by the Federal Court, NAB will make
a payment of $6.6 million in settlement of the action," Maurice
Blackburn said in a statement on March 18.

Maurice Blackburn national head of class actions, Andrew Watson,
said the NAB's approach was a sensible way for the bank to resolve
the ongoing litigation.

"This settlement provides the opportunity for some financial
redress for late payment fees on credit cards paid by NAB clients
who registered in the class action," Mr. Watson said.

In the same statement, NAB group executive governance and
reputation Michaela Healey said: "NAB is pleased to have reached
agreement on this matter and provide certainty for our customers
and shareholders".

The Federal Court will allocate a time and date for the hearing of
the application for settlement approval.

The class action has been supported by litigation funder IMF
Bentham.


NATIONAL AUTO: Judge Denied Defendants' Bid to Dismiss TCPA Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Anne E. Thompson of the District of New Jersey
denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case FREDERICK EVANS,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL AUTO DIVISION, L.L.C., ARIEL FREUD, and
DOES 1-25, Defendants, Civ. No. 15-8714 (D.N.J.).

Frederick Evans had received numerous telephone calls to his
cellular telephone from defendants National Auto Division, L.L.C.
and Ariel Freud using an automatic telephone dialing system in the
month of November year 2015. Evans knew that the calls were made
using an automatic telephone dialing system based on the calls'
frequency and the persistence of the calls, as well as the fact
that on many of the calls, there was a brief and unnatural period
of silence after Evans answered the call. The calls appeared to be
attempts to sell vehicle service contracts or extended warranties
on vehicles. Evans did not provide his prior express consent to
defendants for the calls, and even after he asked defendants to
stop calling him, the calls continued. Consequently, Evans alleges
that defendants' behavior violates the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA), 47 U.S.C. Section 227. Evans asserts that
defendants have made and continue to make similar calls to
thousands of cellular telephones nationwide. Therefore, Evans
filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of all persons within the
United States who received similar calls from defendant without
having provided their prior, express consent.

A copy of Judge Thompson's opinion dated March 8, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/vHvqZwfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff, represented by JEREMY M. GLAPION -- jmg@glapionlaw.com
-- at The Glapion Law Firm

Defendants, represented by CRAIG A. OLLENSCHLEGER -- co@olss.com
-- JEFFREY M. GARROD -- jmg@olss.com -- at ORLOFF, LOWENBACH,
STIFELMAN


NATIONAL FOODS: Recalls White Puffs Marshmallow Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: National Foods Canada Inc.
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10351

  Brand      Common name   Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name       -----------   ----    product
  -----                            ----------   ---
  Candyland  White Puffs   175 g   03 HP        0 870572 007987
             Marshmallow


NEW FLYER: Recalls Multiple Bus Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 22, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Seats And Restraints
Units affected: 144
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016031TC
ID number: 2016031

Certain buses equipped with a Recaro ERGO-M driver seats may be
missing welds on the seat structure. As a result, the seatbelt
anchorage assembly could separate from the seat structure in the
event of a crash, which would increase the risk of injury.
Correction: Dealers will inspect for missing welds and if required
replace the J-brackets.

  Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----        ----------------------
  NEW FLYER     D40LF        2010
  NEW FLYER     D40LFR       2010
  NEW FLYER     XDE40        2010
  NEW FLYER     D60LFR       2010
  NEW FLYER     XD40         2011
  NEW FLYER     XN60         2011
  NEW FLYER     XE40         2015
  NEW FLYER     XD60         2014


NEWMAR: Recalls Motorhome 2016 Models Due to Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 25, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Label
Units affected: 9
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016034TC
ID number: 2016034

Certain Motorhomes may fail to comply with the requirements of
Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 120 - Tire Selection and
Rims. The certification label may not contain the correct front
axle tire pressure information. Incorrect tire pressure could lead
to tire failure, resulting in loss of vehicle control increasing
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Manufacturer will mail out revised labels indicating
120 PSI (827 kPa) maximum front axle tire inflation pressure.

  Make        Model                   Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----                   ----------------------
  NEWMAR      DUTCH STAR CLASS A      2016
              MOTORHOME
  NEWMAR      VENTANA CLASS A         2016
              MOTORHOME


NOW HEALTH: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Mislabeling
----------------------------------------------------------
NOW Health Group, Inc. is voluntarily recalling limited quantities
of six dietary supplements that are mislabeled due to a printing
error from the label supplier. The recall affects approximately
165 total units that were distributed nationally and sold in
retail stores and online. No other NOW products are affected or
are involved in this recall.
Specific products and lots include:

  --- NOW(R) Elderberry 500mg 60 VegCaps - Product Code 4667, Lot
      #1966914 (57 units)
  --- NOW(R) Andrographis Ext 400 mg 90 VegCaps - Product Code
      4591, Lot #1966914 (8 units)
  --- NOW(R) Gingko Biloba 60mg 120 VegCaps - Product Code 4687,
      Lot #1969778 (77 units)
  --- NOW(R) Burdock Root 430mg 100 Caps - Product Code 4608, Lot
      #1969778 (8 units)
  --- NOW(R) Goldenseal Root 500mg 100 Caps - Product Code 4692,
      Lot #1961645 (12 units)
  --- NOW(R) Cranberry Ext Caps 90 VegCaps - Product Code 4632,
      Lot #1961645 (3 units)

Two of the products, Goldenseal Root 500mg 100 caps - Product Code
4692, Lot #1961645 and Cranberry Ext Caps 90 VegCaps - Product
Code 4632, Lot #1961645, have undeclared allergens (SOY). People
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to soy run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
these products. Consumers should contact their physician or
healthcare provider if they believe they have experienced any
adverse events related with the use of these products. No other
health hazards exist associated with the use of any of the other
recalled products.

The product code is located on the label and the lot number is
located on the bottom of the bottle. The bottle is white plastic
with a purple lid and an orange NOW label. A limited number of
units were sold between February 2, 2016 and March 11, 2016.
Consumers who have purchased these recalled products should stop
using the product immediately and return it to place of purchase
for a full refund. Receipt is not required for refund.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

NOW has provided information on this voluntary recall to all its
retailers who purchased this product and has encouraged retailers
to make every effort to contact their customers to facilitate the
return of affected products.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact NOW's
Customer Service Department by phone at 888-NOW-FOODS (888-669-
3663) Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. Central Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7JExVC


PAN ASIA: Recalls Seafood Pancake Products Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 29, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Pan Asia Food Co.
Distribution: Ontario, Possibly National, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10368

Pan Asia Food Co. is recalling Sura brand Seafood Pancake product
from the marketplace because it may contain egg which is not
declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should not
consume the recalled product described below.

The following product has been sold in Ontario and Quebec and may
have been distributed in other provinces or territories.

Check to see if you have recalled products in your home. Recalled
products should be thrown out or returned to the store where they
were purchased.

If you have an allergy to egg, do not consume the recalled
products as they may cause a serious or life-threatening reaction.

This recall was triggered by Canadian Food Inspection Agency
(CFIA) test results. The CFIA is conducting a food safety
investigation, which may lead to the recall of other products. If
other high-risk products are recalled, the CFIA will notify the
public through updated Food Recall Warnings.

The CFIA is verifying that industry is removing recalled product
from the marketplace.

  Brand    Common name      Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name     -----------      ----    product
  -----                             ----------   ---
  Sura     Seafood Pancake  453 g   All codes    0 87703 15140 6
                                    where egg
                                    is not
                                    declared on
                                    the label

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



PANASONIC CORPORATION: Recalls Lithium-ion Computer Battery Packs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Panasonic Corporation of North America, of Newark, N.J., announced
a voluntary recall of about 387 Lithium-ion Computer Battery Packs
(in addition, 110 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

Conductive foreign material was mixed into the battery cells
during manufacturing, posing a risk of fire.

This recall involves Panasonic six-cell lithium-ion (Li-ion)
battery packs sold in Panasonic CF-S10 Series laptop computers.
"Panasonic" and "CF-S10" are on the surface of the laptop on the
left side below the keyboard. Battery packs with the following
model numbers and production lot numbers are being recalled:

  Model Numbers      Lot Numbers
  -------------      -----------
  CF-VZSU61U         BAW, BBX, BC, C1, C2
  CF-VZSU61R

The model number and lot number are located on the battery pack
nameplate.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dG6KIu

The recalled products were manufactured in Japan and sold at
Panasonic dealers from December 2011 through August 2013 for about
$2,000 for the laptop.

Consumers should immediately stop using the laptop computer with
the recalled battery, power off the device, remove the battery
pack and contact Panasonic for a free replacement battery pack.


PHARMASYSTEMS INC: Recalls Digital Basal Thermometers
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2016
Posting date: February 12, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57120

The product was received from supplier correctly labelled as
16I15. But, on receiving at Pharmasystems warehouse, the "I" in
the lot number was misread as "L" in lower case and the master
shipping carton and inner storage carton were labelled as 16L15.
This wrong lot number was used to enter the product into the
system and on customer documents. The actual product and the
immediate packaging used to sell the product to consumer were
labelled correctly.

Affected products
A. PharmaSystems Digital Basal Thermometer
Lot or serial number: 16I15
Model or catalog number: PS780

Manufacturer: PHARMASYSTEMS INC
              151 TELSON ROAD
              Markham
              L3R 1E7
              Ontario
              CANADA


PIPER JAFFRAY: To Pay $9.8 Million to Settle MDL Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Piper Jaffray Companies will be required to pay $9.8 million to
settle the Municipal Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, it 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.

Several class action complaints were brought on behalf of a
purported class of state, local and municipal government entities
in connection with the bidding or sale of municipal investment
contracts and municipal derivative products directly from one of
the defendants or through a broker, from January 1, 1992, to the
present. The complaints, which have been consolidated into a
single nationwide class action entitled In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1950 (Master Docket No.
08-2516), allege antitrust violations and are pending in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York under the
multi-district litigation rules. The consolidated complaint seeks
unspecified treble damages under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Several California municipalities also brought separate class
action complaints in California federal court, and approximately
eighteen California municipalities and two New York municipalities
filed individual lawsuits that are not as part of class actions,
all of which have since been transferred to the Southern District
of New York and consolidated for pretrial purposes. All three sets
of complaints assert similar claims under federal (and for the
California and New York plaintiffs, state) antitrust claims.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action and Piper Jaffray
entered into a settlement agreement for In re Municipal
Derivatives Antitrust Litigation on February 22, 2016. The
settlement is subject to court approval after notice to the class.
If approved, Piper Jaffray will be required to pay $9.8 million to
settle the MDL class action. Litigation in the separate California
and New York cases is ongoing.

Piper Jaffray Companies ("Piper Jaffray") is an investment bank
and asset management firm, serving the needs of corporations,
private equity groups, public entities, non-profit entities and
institutional investors in the U.S. and internationally.


POLISH TRADE: Recalls Paprykarz Szczecinski Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Gluten, Allergen - Mustard, Allergen -
Wheat
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Polish Trade Centre
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10347

  Brand    Common name    Size     UPC             Code(s) on
  name     -----------    ----     ---             product
  -----                                            ----------
  Losos    "Paprykarz     170 g   5 901069 000336  All codes
           Szczecinski"                            where wheat is
                                                   not declared
                                                   on the label
  Losos    "Paprykarz     180 g   5 901069 001432  All codes
           Szczecinski"                            where wheat is
                                                   not declared
                                                   on the label
  Losos    "Paprykarz     310 g   5 901069 000404  All codes
           Szczecinski"                            where wheat is
                                                   not declared
                                                   on the label
  Losos    Spicy Mackerel 180 g   5 901069 001449  All codes
           Salad                                   where wheat is
                                                   not declared
                                                   on the label
  Losos    Sprats in      175 g   5 901069 000756  All codes
           Tomato Sauce                            where mustard
                                                   is not
                                                   declared on
                                                   the label
  Losos     Mackerel      175 g   5 901069 000817  All codes
            Fillets in                             where mustard
            Tomato Sauce                           is not
                                                   declared on
                                                   the label


POOL CORP: Portions of Expert Opinion Excluded in Antitrust Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sarah S. Vance of the Eastern District of Louisiana
granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion in the case
entitled IN RE: POOL PRODUCTS DISTRIBUTION MARKET ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES MDL No. 2328, (E.D.
La.)

Pool Corporation, SCP Distributors LLC, and Superior Pool Products
(Pool) is the country's largest distributor of products used for
the construction and maintenance of swimming pools (Pool
Products). Hayward Industries, Inc. (Hayward), Pentair Water Pool
and Spa, Inc. (Pentair), and Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc. (Zodiac)
are the three largest manufacturers of Pool Products in the United
States.

The direct-purchaser plaintiffs (DPPs) and indirect-purchaser
plaintiffs (IPPs) filed an antitrust case against Pool and the
manufacturers. DPPs have filed two consolidated amended
complaints, the first on June 29, 2012 and the second on June 21,
2013 each of which defendants moved to dismiss. The Court issued
orders on both rounds of motions to dismiss. Following the orders,
DPPs were left with the following five claims: (1) a Section 1
claim under the per se rule involving a horizontal agreement
between the manufacturer defendants and Pool to fix free freight
minimums; (2) three Section 1 claims under the rule of reason
involving three separate vertical conspiracies (one between Pool
and each Manufacturer Defendant) to exclude Pool's competitors;
and (3) a Section 2 attempted monopolization claim against Pool.
Defendants have moved for summary judgment on these five claims.
In addition, DPPs have moved for class certification. The Court
has dismissed DPPs' Section 1 per se claim on summary judgment.

DPP presented Dr. Gordon C. Rausser as an expert witness for them.
DPPs rely on Dr. Rausser's opinions to support their antitrust
claims and their motion for class certification.

Defendants Pool Corporation, SCP Distributors LLC, and Superior
Pool Products move to exclude the testimony of Dr. Gordon C.
Rausser and challenge five aspects of Dr. Rausser's opinion.

Judge Vance granted in part and denied in part defendants' motion
to exclude the testimony of Dr. Rausser. The Court excludes Dr.
Rausser's opinion about (1) spatial integration, including his
cointegration test; and (2) aggregate causation to demonstrate the
effect of the alleged vertical conspiracies.

A copy of Judge Vance's order and reason dated February 22, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/iQVYyWfrom Leagle.com.

Richard C Stanley, Special Master, represented by Richard C.
Stanley -- rcs@stanleyreuter.com -- Stanley, Reuter, Ross,
Thornton & Alford, LLC

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff,
represented by Russ M. Herman -- rherman@hhklawfirm.com -- Herman,
Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff,
represented by Thomas J. H. Brill, Law Office of Thomas H. Brill
Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Arnold
Levin, Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Daniel W. Krasner, Wolf,
Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, LLP, Douglas G. Thompson,
Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Jay L. Himes, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, pro
hac vice, Linda P Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Matthew B.
Moreland, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett,
Beard & Arsenault, Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP,
Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard LLP, Russ M. Herman, Herman,
Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP, Scott R. Bickford, Martzell & Bickford
& Vincent J. Esades, Heins, Mills & Olson, PLC

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Jay L.
Himes, Labaton Sucharow, LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N. Kaplan,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Ronald J. Aranoff, Bernstein Liebhard
LLP & Russ M. Herman, Herman, Herman, Katz & Cotlar, LLP
Defendants' Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented by William
Bernard Gaudet, Adams & Reese, LLP

Defendants' Lead Counsel, Defendant, represented by David H.
Bamberger -- david.bamberger@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP &
Deana L. Cairo -- deana.cairo@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper, LLP, pro
hac vice

Manufacturer Defendants' Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented
by Wayne J. Lee, Stone, Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC
Federal Trade Commission, Movant, represented by Lisa Zeidner
Marcus, U.S. Dept of Justice, Civil Div


PUBLIC STORAGE: "Perez" Sues over Insurance Overcharging
--------------------------------------------------------
Carolina Perez, individually, and on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Public Storage, a
Maryland Real Estate Investment Trust, Defendants, Case No.
BC611584 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, February 24, 2016),
seeks an injunction requiring Defendant to disclose its retention
of insurance premiums, general, actual and compensatory damages,
restitution of all insurance premiums paid, injunctive and
declaratory relief, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs resulting from breach of
contract and covenant of fair dealing, violation of California
Consumer of Legal Remedies, California Civil Code, California
Unfair Competition Laws and Business and Professions Code.

Public Storage is in the business of renting storage space to
consumers throughout California and requires its customers to
maintain insurance for the items they store at its facilities.
The Plaintiff accuses the Defendant of overcharging insurance
premiums for the items that they place in their storage.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William M. Audet, Esq.
      Steven R. Weinmann, Esq.
      AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
      711 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 500
      San Francisco, CA 94102-3229
      Tel: (415) 568-2555
      Fax: (415) 568-2556
      Email: waudet@audetlaw.com
             sweinmann@audetlaw.com


RACERMATE INC: Recalls CompuTrainer Blue Flywheels
--------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
RacerMate Inc., of Seattle, Wash., announced a voluntary recall of
about 25,000 CompuTrainer Blue Flywheels. Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The blue flywheel can shatter while in use and throw metal pieces
into the air. This poses a risk of injury from impact to the rider
and any bystanders.

This recall involves blue CompuTrainer Flywheels manufactured
before 2008. The CompuTrainer Flywheels are used to make bicycles
stationary for indoor training. The blue flywheel is a die casting
made of zinc. It measures 4.75 inches in diameter and weighs 1.1
pounds. Flywheels manufactured after 2008 are silver in color, and
are not included in this recall.

RacerMate has received five reports of flywheels that have
shattered, including three reports of injuries, including
lacerations and leg bruises.

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S.A. and sold at
RacerMate and bicycle stores nationwide from November 1997 through
November 2008 for about $1,500.

Consumers should immediately stop using and remove the recalled
blue flywheels. Consumers can contact RacerMate for instructions
on receiving a free, silver replacement flywheel.


SABRE INC: Opinion Shouldn't Be Classified as "Unpublished"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an opinion
out of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit about a
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) case didn't deserve to be
classified as "unpublished," a defense attorney says.

Unpublished opinions are not unusual in very clear cases when
reaching a decision is very easy and there doesn't appear to be
much to gain from issuing a lengthy opinion, said Christine M.
Reilly, a partner at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips in Los Angeles and
co-chair of its TCPA Compliance and Class Action Defense practice
group.

Unpublished opinions are not to be cited in other cases.  But
Ms. Reilly seems some value in the opinion.

"I'll be citing it," Ms. Reilly said.

The Ninth Circuit handed down its unpublished opinion Feb. 3,
affirming a lower court ruling dismissing the class action lawsuit
Baird vs Sabre, Inc.

"It seems that the Ninth Circuit just didn't consider this to be a
difficult, tough or even unclear decision," she said.

Despite that, the case does merit a closer look as there are some
valuable lessons to be gained in the case, Ms. Reilly said.  These
include, she says:

  -- Differences between information and marketing text messages;

  -- Affirmation that consent to receive text messages from one
company extends to the company's contractor; and

  -- The sobering realization of how little is required to file a
putative class action lawsuit.

The lawsuit was filed Feb. 11, 2013 by Shaya Baird, who previously
booked flights online for herself and her family on Hawaiian
Airlines' website.  Prompted by the statement "At least one phone
number is required," Ms.Baird entered her cell phone number.

A few weeks later, about one month before the flight, Baird
received a text message from Sabre, Inc., a global technology
company contracting with Hawaiian Airlines to provide flight
notification services.  The text message asked if she would like
notifications about her upcoming Hawaiian Airlines flight and to
reply "yes" if she did.

Ms. Baird did not respond to the text message on her phone, but
she did file a putative class action lawsuit in U.S. District
Court for Central California alleging that Sabre violated the TCPA
when it sent the one unsolicited text message.

Ms. Baird's case had a rough time from the start.  That summer,
the federal judge in the case threw out the lawsuit, saying
Ms. Baird failed to show she suffered any economic injury from the
text message or that she had standing to bring a California Unfair
Competition Law claim.  She was, however, given two weeks to amend
her complaint, which she did.

The case was dismissed early the following year.  In its Jan. 28,
2014, order granting Sabre's motion for summary judgment, the U.S.
District Court for Central California agreed with Sabre's argument
that Baird consented to receive the text message.

Sabre argued Baird did that by voluntarily providing her cell
phone number during her online reservation with Hawaiian Airlines.
This was true, Sabre argued, despite the fact she'd provided her
cell phone number to Hawaiian Airlines, not to Sabre.

Baird then appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In
its unpublished opinion, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower
court's ruling that dismissed class action lawsuit, agreeing that
the defendant was not liable under the statute because Baird had
provided consent to be contacted.

To reach that affirmation, the court relied upon the Federal
Communications Commission's 1992 Order that prescribed TCPA
regulations.  Those regulations dictate that anyone who knowingly
releases their phone numbers also provides their consent to be
called at that number unless they give instructions otherwise.

"Baird expressly consented to the text message in question when
she provided Hawaiian Airlines with her cellphone number," the
ruling said.

"Baird knowingly released her phone number to Hawaiian Airlines
while making a flight reservation. She did not provide any
'instructions to the contrary' indicating that she did not 'wish
to be reached' at that number."

Ms. Baird's next stop, if she chooses to appeal, would be the U.S.
Supreme Court, but that isn't likely, Ms. Reilly said.  Even if
Baird were to appeal, it's unlikely the high court would hear the
case because it doesn't call into question any constitutional or
legally conflicting questions, Ms. Reilly said.

However, examining the case could bring up some interesting
observations in terms of more solidly defining consent when it
comes to text messages. In addition to TCPA regulation, the Ninth
Circuit has had only two cases to refer to in such matters.

The first was the 2009 Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc,
mentioned in the unpublished opinion.  In that case, the Ninth
Circuit concluded that consenting to receive calls from one
business does not constitute consent to receive calls from a
different business.

That would seem to support Baird, but the unpublished opinion
indicates the court didn't see it that way.

"A similar situation exists here," the unpublished opinion said.
"Baird provided her phone number to Hawaiian Airlines, but was
contacted by Sabre.  However, unlike in Satterfield, Sabre is a
vendor for Hawaiian Airlines and contacted Baird regarding her
reservation.

"The district court made no distinction between Sabre and Hawaiian
Airlines because of the relationship between the companies, and
Baird does not make any argument based on this distinction."

The other case, Emanuel v. The Los Angeles Lakers, Inc., was
another putative class action lawsuit.  This case was brought by a
ticket holder who accused the basketball franchise of sending him
unsolicited text messages. That case ended when the plaintiff
withdrew his own appeal.

The Baird case does point out two lessons, Ms. Reilly said.  The
first is that the text messages in question contained information
and were not for marketing purposed.

"The ruling would have been very different if the messages had
been marketing in nature," she said.

The second lesson is that consent to receive text messages is not
only to the first business but also extends to whoever the
business contracts with to handle those text messages.

"I think that definitely provides some comfort for defendants,"
Ms. Reilly said.

A final lesson in this case is that it points out how easy it is
to file a class action lawsuit, Ms. Reilly said.

"This was, literally, over one text message," she said.  "She
filed a class action lawsuit over one text message.  It takes only
one text message launch a class action complaint in this country."


SEKISUI DIAGNOSTICS: Recalls Acetaminophen L3K
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 25, 2016
Posting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57012

In Sept 2015, Sekisui began receiving complaints of crystal
formation on R2 when left on-board an automated analyzer for an
extended period. Sekisui has confirmed through testing that the
chromophore used in the R2 will come out of solution and form a
crystal when left on-board and exposed to air.

Affected products
A. Acetaminophen L3K
Lot or serial number: 47649
                      47650
                      47662
                      47663
                      47694
                      47695
                      48253
                      48294
                      48385
                      48386
Model or catalog number: 506-10
                         506-30

Manufacturer: Sekisui Diagnostics P.E.I. Inc.
              70 Watts Avenue
              Charlottetown
              C1E 2B9
              Prince Edward Island
              CANADA


SKYY PROPERTIES: Sued Over Failure to Repair Habitability Defects
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney White, Anthea Gooden, Deborah Adams and Tawana Robinson v.
Skyy Properties, LLC, Ernie Byal and Does 1-30, Case No.
RG16807110 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 10, 2016), is brought on behalf
of the tenants who suffered emotional distress, physical injury,
over-payment of rent, and out-of-pocket expenses as a result of
the Defendants' failure and refusal to make repairs of the
habitability defects to subject premises.

The Defendants own and operate a real estate agency doing business
in the County of Alameda, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SORIN GROUP: Recalls Dual Stage Venous Return Cannula
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 25, 2016
Posting date: February 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57204

Sorin Group USA became aware that the instructions for use (IFU)
included with the low profile, One Piece Dual Stage Venous Return
Cannula was for another part number. The IFU included with the
parts was for an Arterial Cannulae (catalogue number RA-XXXX).
This issue affects this device model and lot only.

Affected products
DUAL STAGE VENOUS RETURN CANNULA
Lot or serial number: 1529300018
Model or catalog number: LRD-61046

Manufacturer: Sorin Group USA Inc.
              14401 W. 65TH WAY
              ARVADA
              80004
              Colorado
              UNITED STATES


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOLAR: Faces "Buckman" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Southern
California Solar Inc.

The case is captioned Joshua Buckman, individually and On Behalf
of all Others Similarly Situated v. Southern California Solar
Inc., Case No. 56-2016-00479241-CU-OE-VTA (Cal. Super. Ct., March
13, 2016).

Southern California Solar Inc. is a producer of solar technologies
in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
      GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
      15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (213) 542 2135
      Facsimile: (213) 542 2101
      E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com


SPOKEO INC: Article III Standing at Issue in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that if the
U.S. Supreme Court decides in the coming weeks -- even in the wake
of Justice Antonin Scalia's death -- to issue an opinion ruling
certain plaintiffs who can't show actual damages or some type of
concrete harm do not have a legal right to sue, plaintiffs'
lawyers could be in for a challenge.

Noah Axler, a partner at the Donovan Axler law firm in
Philadelphia, says Spokeo v. Robins, along with two other class
action cases, Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez and Tyson Foods Inc. v.
Bouaphakeo, are "highly relevant" to plaintiffs and class action
attorneys such as himself.

"In Spokeo, if the court were to decide that a plaintiff seeking
solely statutory damages for violation of a federal statute can't
bring a case because he or she doesn't have Article III standing,
that would impact a lot of class actions," said Mr. Axler, who has
represented clients in numerous class actions, as well as
contract, patent and trademark cases.

At issue in Spokeo is whether a person may bring a lawsuit when a
company violates a federal privacy law.

In order to invoke the jurisdiction of federal courts under
Article III, a plaintiff must have "standing," or a legal right,
to sue.

The petitioner, Spokeo Inc., argues the case should be dismissed
because the plaintiff, Thomas Robins of Virginia, did not prove
that the publication of inaccurate personal information in
violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act was a concrete "injury"
under Article III.

Spokeo -- a "people search engine," so to speak -- discloses to
the public personally identifiable information, including contact
information, marital status, age, occupation and economic health.
Some of this information is subject to protection under federal
privacy laws.

Mr. Robins sued Spokeo for willful violations of the FCRA,
charging that the website disclosed inaccurate information about
him that harmed his employment prospects and violated his rights
under the federal law.

Spokeo sought to dismiss the case, claiming there was no "injury-
in-fact." But a federal district court rejected that argument,
finding the allegation of the FCRA violation was sufficient for
the case to go forward.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit agreed, again
denying Spokeo's motion to dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.

In particular, the Ninth Circuit found that Congress' "creation of
a private cause of action to enforce a statutory provision implies
that Congress intended the enforceable provision to create a
statutory right."

"If the [Supreme Court] rules for the plaintiff in Spokeo, then it
will likely preserve the status quo," Mr. Axler said.

"But a decision the other way could curtail class actions seeking
statutory damages."

Jim Sturdevant, another plaintiffs attorney, says it's difficult
to predict exactly how the court will rule in the case.

Based on the oral arguments held in November, he says the court
seemed fairly divided on the question.

"I would probably say it was a 5-4 split, with Justice Scalia in
the majority," said Mr. Sturdevant, who has his own law firm in
San Francisco.  "But given his death, I would expect it to be
affirmed 4-4 with a brief order, having the case returned to the
circuit from where it came."

Justice Scalia, 79, was found dead of natural causes at a luxury
hunting resort in West Texas Feb. 13.  The justice served on the
high court for nearly 30 years.

Justice Scalia's death leaves eight justices on the court, split
4-4 between being fairly conservative and fairly liberal, amid a
presidential election year.

President Barack Obama said he plans to nominate Merrick Garland,
chief judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit, to the high court, despite the U.S. Senate's
continued resistance.

All 11 Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee
recently signed a letter, refusing to hold hearings on any
replacement until a new president is inaugurated.

"Presidents have a right to nominate, just as the Senate has its
constitutional right to provide or withhold consent," Senate
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said in a floor speech.
"In this case, the Senate will withhold it."

Given the standoff, cases that were not decided before Scalia's
death could go one of two ways: be decided by the remaining
justices or be held for rehearing after a new justice is
confirmed.

In the first scenario, if the court issues a 4-4 ruling, the court
will not publish a written opinion; instead, the ruling of the
lower court will be upheld and the Supreme Court's decision will
have no precedential effect.

Wystan Ackerman, a partner at the Hartford, Conn., office of
Robinson+Cole, says he expects the court will try to find a way to
resolve Spokeo, pointing to the impasse over Scalia's replacement.

"It could be the court wants to get its own business done without
holding a bunch of cases," said Mr. Ackerman, who chairs the
firm's class action team and writes the blog Class Actions
Insider.

While a 4-4 deadlock is a real possibility, he argues that a
majority ruling still is achievable.

"My guess is that, if Justice Scalia's vote was decisive, the
remaining justices might now find their way to a majority in favor
of a narrower decision that corrects what they seemed to pretty
much all think was wrong about the Ninth Circuit's opinion, while
resolving this case on narrow grounds, leaving some issues for
another day," he said.

"If that happens, it could be a small victory for class action
defendants."

Indeed, some legal observers believe it's unlikely that the
majority of justices -- even without Justice Scalia -- will issue
a ruling that plaintiffs like Robins only have to allege a
violation of a right created by a statute, without any need to
show a concrete harm from the violation.

Jason Johnston, a law professor at the University of Virginia who
teaches courses on contracts, economic regulation and torts, among
others, says the Supreme Court, itself, has "clearly said" in many
cases that a plaintiff must allege he or she has suffered injury
to have constitutional standing to bring a lawsuit.

"In the FCRA expiration date cases, plaintiffs could not allege
harm, and these cases would be unconstitutional to bring, unless
the Supreme Court holds that Congress can just create standing by
creating a cause of action for statutory damages," Mr. Johnston
said.  "If the court were to say this -- that Congress can, in
effect, create standing this way -- then all of these no-harm
lawsuits under statutory damage statutes could continue.

"In my view, this would be a very bad thing, because all these
cases do is transfer money to class counsel -- there is no harm to
compensate for, no future harm to deter, and hardly any actual
plaintiffs get any payments at all."

Mr. Johnston says before Justice Scalia's death, such a "bad
outcome" was unlikely.

"Were he alive, I believe the court would hold that even in cases
brought under statutes that award statutory damages with no proof
of harm, the plaintiff still has to allege that he or she suffered
harm," he said.  "Now, I think that a 4-4 vote is more likely."

Mr. Johnston argues that such a decision would "perpetuate" the
filing in federal court of class actions that "do no social good"
and serve only to enrich class counsel.


SPOTIFY: Law Firm Points Out Cons of Settlement in FAQ Sheet
------------------------------------------------------------
The law firm handling Cracker frontman David Lowery's class action
suit against Spotify has offered up an FAQ for songwriters and
publishers ahead of an imminent settlement between the streaming
service and the National Music Publishers Association, or NMPA.
The rub? Little is known about the proposed deal, from its dollar
amount to how it would be processed, so think hard -- and call
your legal rep, obviously -- before opting in.

First, a little background on the NMPA settlement.  As previously
reported, the deal is said to involve a payment of $5 million in
damages as well as mechanical royalties owed to publishers,
smaller companies and songwriters who publish their own work.
Sources have told Billboard that a database would be established
as publishers file their royalty claims and that after publishers
match their claims against play counts, the NMPA would dole out
payment to publishers according to that accounting.  Any money
left over after those claims, with the addition of the $5 million
penalty, would then be distributed to publishers according to
market share.

Alternately, the $150 million class-action brought by Lowery, one
of the loudest voices in the effort to ensure streaming services
pay mechanical royalties accurately, is still in the proposal
stage.  In a few weeks a judge will decide whether to consolidate
Lowery's suit with a second class-action against Spotify, filed by
singer-songwriter Melissa Ferrick.

Back to the FAQ sheet, written by Mona Hanna -- mhanna@mrllp.com -
- of Michelman & Robinson, LLP.  In it, Hanna addresses common
questions about the NMPA settlement and its "potential
ramifications" as it also pertains to the class-action suit.  She
points out that settlement is being hammered out in secret and
that the NMPA's role is to shepherd it through -- and then
recommend it to its members.  Those who sign on are being asked to
trust the brokers without following along with the details as they
unfold.  If that doesn't sound good to you, there's this class-
action suit Hanna wants to tell you about.

"It is impossible to determine the true benefit to songwriters
because the settlement negotiations between NMPA and Spotify have
been conducted without Court oversight," Ms. Hanna writes.  "In
stark contrast, a class action settlement requires the class
counsel -- the attorneys representing the songwriters -- to submit
the settlement terms to a Court and provide the Court with
evidence that the settlement was reached in an arms-length
transaction."

Ms. Hanna also warns that if publishers/songwriters accept the
NMPA settlement, they'll likely be barred from being a part of
this (and possibly future) class action against Spotify.  "If you
accept the settlement that NMPA has negotiated, you will not be
able to recover any monetary sum from the $150 Million class
action suit against Spotify," she notes.  "In addition, you will
likely be required to waive any claims you have, or will have,
against Spotify, eliminating your ability to sue them in the
future."

As to whether the Spotify settlement is similar to the NMPA-
brokered deal with YouTube in 2011, Ms. Hanna points out that that
was part of a class action and approved by an independent court.


SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp(R) Bicycle Quick Releases
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SRAM LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about
6,400 Zipp(R) bicycle quick releases. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The quick releases can fail to engage in the closed position,
posing crash and injury hazards to the rider.

This recalls involves SRAM's Zipp stainless steel or titanium
quick releases. They were sold as aftermarket components or as
part of the 202 DB V2, 303 DB V2, 404 Firestrike V2, 202 Firecrest
V3, 303 Firecrest V3, 404 Firecrest V3, 808 Firecrest V3 or 808
NSW wheel sets. The quick release has a curved, black lever. Zipp
appears on the lever. Only quick releases without a marking at the
center of the underside of the lever, below the Zipp logo are
included on this recall.

The firm has received three incident reports of the quick release
failing. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/cIeNy3

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Specialty bicycle stores nationwide from March 2015 through
December 2015 for about $47 for the stainless steel quick release
and about $84 for the titanium quick release. Wheel sets equipped
with the quick releases were sold for between $1,000 and $3,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using any bicycles equipped with
the recalled quick releases and contact SRAM or their local
bicycle dealer for a free replacement quick release.


SRAM LLC: Recalls Zipp 88 Aluminum Front Hubs Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SRAM LLC, of Chicago, Ill., announced a voluntary recall of about
54,000 Zipp 88 aluminum front hubs (In addition, about 2,900 were
sold in Canada) . Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

The hub flanges on the front hubs can fail, posing a crash and
injury hazard.

This recall includes SRAM's Zipp bicycle wheel hubs. The model
names of the affected hubs are ZIPP 88v6, 88v7 and 88v8. The Z
logo is printed on the hub. The wheel hubs come in black, silver
and falcon grey. The diameter of the clinch nut is approximately
1.46 inches. Some of the hubs were sold as part of wheel sets
installed on new bicycles. SRAM will post a list of affected
bicycle brands and models on its website at www.sram.com.

SRAM has received one report in the U.S. of hub flange failure
that could have led to wheel collapse. No injuries have been
reported in the U.S.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in U.S. and Spain and sold
at Speciality bicycle stores nationwide from May 2010 through
January 2015. The front hubs sold for about $215. Complete front
wheels with the hubs sold for between $1,035 and $1,325. The front
wheel was also sold as a wheel set with a rear wheel for between
$2,300 and $2,950.

Consumers should immediately stop using bicycles equipped with the
recalled front hubs and contact SRAM or local bicycle dealer for a
free replacement hub.


STARBUCKS COFFEE: Faces Class Action Over Cup Filling Issue
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBSLA.com reports that two Californians have filed suit against
Starbucks Corp. alleging the coffee giant underfills its lattes
and therefore saved "countless of millions of dollars in the cost
of goods sold," according to the complaint.

Siera Strumlauf of San Francisco and Benjamin Robles of Carlsbad
filed the proposed class-action in California federal court on
March 16.

Both allege they purchased Grande-size lattes, believing such
would contain 16 fluid ounces based on Starbucks' menu.

Yet, according to the complaint, "Starbucks lattes are uniformly
underfilled pursuant to a standardized recipe."

The suit claims that four steps go into making a Starbucks latte
of which three leave no discretion to the barista to individually
determine the amount of fluid or flavoring that's used.

The final step, the suit alleges, involves the barista pouring
steamed milk into a serving cup with espresso based on a recipe,
then topping the beverage with a quarter-inch of milk foam
"leaving at least (a quarter-inch) of space below the rim of the
serving cup."

The complaint states attorneys for the plaintiffs purchased and
measured Starbucks lattes at stores and in several states and
found that "each latte was underfilled by approximately 25
percent."

"By underfilling its lattes, thereby shortchanging its customers,
Starbucks has saved countless millions of dollars in the cost of
goods sold and was unjustly enriched," the suit claims.

In a statement issued to CBS Los Angeles, Starbucks said it was
aware of the plaintiffs' claims.

"We are aware of the plaintiffs' claims, which we fully believe to
be without merit," a Starbucks spokesperson said.  "We are proud
to serve our customers high-quality, handcrafted and customized
beverages, and we inform customers of the likelihood of
variations."

The suit sets forth multiple counts, including fraud, breach of
express warranty, and breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability.

The plaintiffs are now seeking to have their class certified,
among other relief.


STONE & WOOD DESIGN: "Carrasquel" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Dima De Jesus Ronda Carrasquel and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, v. Stone & Wood Design, Inc.,
and Manuel E. Miguel, Defendants seeks recovery of overtime wages,
double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a granite installer from
June 10, 2014, through February 8, 2016, and claims to have
rendered in excess of 40 hours per week without overtime
compensation.

Stone & Wood Design Inc. is an interior designer in Hialeah,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


STUDENT TRANSPORTATION: School Bus Drivers File Wage Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
group of school bus drivers has delivered a potential class action
lawsuit to another school bus company, claiming the provider of
transportation services to school students in Chicago's suburbs
has stiffed them on wages and overtime, by allegedly paying them
only for the time they were on their routes, and not for the 15-45
minutes of work they claim they did each day before and after.

On March 17, a group of nine school bus drivers filed a complaint
in Chicago federal court against Student Transportation of America
(STA), identified as its Illinois registered corporate entity,
Positive Connections Inc., which the complaint said operates two
school bus yards in suburban Markham.

STA is a local affiliate of Wall, N.J.-based Student
Transportation Inc.

Named plaintiffs in the action include Sophia Bailey and Oscar
Davis, both of South Holland; Ca Shae Hayes, of Glenwood; Gloria
Jackson, of Calumet City; Erica McGriff, of Country Club Hills;
Rhonda O'Connor, of Lansing; Patricia Price, of Matteson; Ronald
Sweatt, of Park Forest; and Charmaine Reed, of Phoenix, Ill.

According to the complaint, they believe their claims could be
extended to include a potential class of as many as 300 additional
plaintiffs, or more.

The complaint said drivers, before 2015, were ordered to complete
and submit timesheets to STA showing only "the number of hours
(STA) estimated it should have taken the drivers to complete their
routes."

This, the complaint said, meant drivers' timesheets only included
7.5 hours each day, "regardless of the amount of time  . . .
actually spent completing (a) route or performing other work."

Further, the complaint alleged STA management would "strike out
portions of the time sheet," should drivers indicate they worked
more than the amount of time the company believed their route
should take, "and were not paid for the extra time worked."

However, the drivers said they routinely were expected to arrive
at the STA yards in Markham and perform such tasks as "starting
their bus, making sure it is clean, getting gas and filling out
paperwork."  They said the company expected them to perform
similar tasks upon returning to the bus yards at the end of their
routes.

And they said STA refused to pay them for the time spent on those
tasks, the complaint said.

They also specifically alleged the company did not reimburse
drivers for cleaning supplies purchased for the buses, or pay them
for the time spent "cleaning and maintaining their buses."

The complaint estimated, on average, drivers would spend about 15-
45 minutes each day on the pre- and post-route chores.

Should drivers be allowed to mark more than 40 hours in a work
week on time sheets, the complaint alleged STA, before October
2015, would pay them only their regular hourly wage for any time
over 40 hours, and not the time-and-a-half required under wage and
hour labor laws.

The complaint, for instance, alleged McGriff was paid only regular
hourly wages for 52 hours of work,, and not 12 hours of overtime
at time-and-a-half.  Davis also alleged that, since STA estimated
his route should take 48.75 hours to complete one week, he was
paid only 48.75 hours at his regular hourly wage rate, and did not
receive 8.75 hours of overtime pay.

They alleged STA attempted to obscure its practices, in part, by
paying workers every two weeks, allowing the company to reflect in
some instances that a driver had worked an average of 40 hours per
week, even though the driver may have worked more than 40 hours
during one of the weeks, and less than 40 hours the following
week.

The plaintiffs asked the court to certify two classes of
additional plaintiffs to include drivers employed by STA who
weren't properly paid overtime, and an additional class of drivers
who they alleged were not paid for the pre- and post-route work.

Plaintiffs said they believed each class likely would include more
than 300 people.

The plaintiffs have asked for damages including back pay and
unpaid overtime dating back to 2013, unspecified "liquidated
damages" equal to the amount of unpaid wages and overtime
allegedly owed under the complaint, and statutory damages under
applicable state and federal law, plus attorney fees.

They are represented in the action by attorneys with the firm of
Caffarelli & Associates, of Chicago.

The STA complaint marked the second such class action lawsuit
brought against a school bus company operating in Illinois in
recent months.

In the fall of 2015, a group of more than five dozen drivers sued
First Student, alleging similar violations of federal and state
labor laws against that company. That case remains pending in
Chicago federal court.

In February, however, U.S. District Judge James Zagel dismissed
all but one of the counts in that complaint, saying the driver
plaintiffs in that case failed to show the bus company did not
follow the minimum wage laws by not paying them for work before
and after their routes, nor did such policies necessarily violate
the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.  Judge Zagel said the
plaintiffs in that case could be allowed to try again with new
claims under Illinois wage laws, but not their claims for
uncompensated regular work time under the federal law.

Judge Zagel did not rule on the First Student drivers' claims
regarding uncompensated overtime.


TACO BELL: Bid to Modify Method to Calculate Damages Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07-
cv-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Plaintiffs alleged that Taco Bell
violated California law by failing to provide meal periods before
the beginning of the fifth hour of work, failing to provide a
second ten minute rest period for employees who worked more than
six but less than seven hour, and paid a one half hour meal
premium when employees were owed a full hour of meal premium pay.

On March 4, 2016, plaintiffs filed a brief in the matter of jury
instruction no. 35, seeking to instruct the jury that it may use
minimum wage in calculating damages to the class or that
plaintiffs may prove damages by just and reasonable inference.
Plaintiffs did not raise these issues prior to trial.  Plaintiffs
argue that the evidence presented at trial demonstrates that Taco
Bell failed to keep accurate records and therefore the requested
instructions should be provided.

Magistrate Judge Stanley E. Boone of the Eastern District of
California denied plaintiffs' request to modify jury instruction
no. 35.  A copy of Magistrate Judge Boone's order dated March 8,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/2a0Z4Yfrom Leagle.com.

Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jennifer
Renee Bagosy -- jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Jonathan
Sing Lee -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez --
Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat --
Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault --
Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC;
Monica Balderrama -- MBalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- at
Initiative Legal Group APC; Stuart Rowe Chandler --
stuart@chandlerlaw.com -- at Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy --
jennifer.bagosy@capstonelawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault
-- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC
Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski -
- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez --
Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat --
Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault --
Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC;
Timothy Donahue -- tdonahue@attorneydonahue.com -- Law Offices Of
Timothy Donahue

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski
-- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew Thomas Theriault --
Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC;
Monica Balderrama -- MBalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- Marc Primo
Pulisci -- MarcPrimo@InitiativeLegal.com -- at Initiative Legal
Group APC

Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Matthew
Thomas Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul
Perez -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat --
Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Kenneth
Yoon -- at Law Offices Of Kenneth H. Yoon; Peter M. Hart --
hartpeter@msn.com -- at Law Offices of Peter M. Hart; Larry W. Lee
-- lwlee@diversitylaw.com -- at Diversity Law Group
Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski
-- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez --
Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat --
Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC;
Jerusalem F. Beligan -- jbeligan@bisnarchase.com -- at Bisnar
Chase, LLP

Christopher Duggan, Debra Doyle and Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs,
represented byAndrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Raul Perez
-- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Maria Labat --
Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert J. Drexler --
Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone Law APC; Joseph
Hoff -- Mark Yablonovich -- mark@yablonovichlaw.com -- Patrick
Joseph Clifford -- patrick@yablonovichlaw.com -- at Law Offices of
Mark Yablonovich

Defendants, represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Nora K. Stiles --
nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Tracey Adano Kennedy --
tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter &
Hampton LLP


TERRAFORM POWER: Four Law firms Mull Securities Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allison Gatlin, writing for Investors.com, reports that four law
firms are investigating whether SunEdison yield company TerraForm
Power (TERP) violated securities laws in conjunction with its
annual report filing delays. Two say their probes concern the
fraud and insider trading sections of the Securities and Exchange
Act of 1934.

TerraForm Power is facing a series of potential investor class
action lawsuits and could be delisted from the Nasdaq if it
doesn't come into compliance.  The SunEd yieldco has until May 16
to regain compliance or submit a plan to do so, though it could be
granted an extension until Sept. 12.

Goldberg Law Firm said it is investigating whether TerraForm Power
violated securities rules by issuing "misleading" information to
investors and cites "claims of potential misrepresentations" by
the company.  Its investigation is focusing on Terraform's Feb. 29
announcement that it would delay filing its form 10-K annual
report with the SEC.  Rosen Law Firm; the Pomerantz law firm; and
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman launched TerraForm Power
investigations too.

On Feb. 29, SunEdison said it needed more time to wrap an audit
into its liquidity stance, stemming from allegations from former
and current employees of financial misconduct.  Early on
March 16, the firms again delayed their 10-Ks, but SunEd said it
found no "material weaknesses" thus far.

TerraForm Power blamed its parent company for the holdup, saying
its accounting systems are tied to SunEd's.  On this news,
TerraForm Power "fell sharply during intraday trading on March
16," Rosen Law Firm said in a press release.

"Rosen Law Firm is investigating a potential class action lawsuit
to recover losses suffered by TerraForm Power investors," the firm
wrote.


TERU SUSHI: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Chung" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Jiyun Chung v. Teru Sushi, Studio Sushi, Inc., and Does 1-
100, inclusive, Case No. BC611774 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 10,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay all
wages due, failure to provide meal and rest periods, failure to
pay overtime wages, and for violation of the California Labor
Code.

The Defendants own and operate a sushi restaurant located 11940
Ventura Boulevard, Studio City, California 91604.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert A. Kahn, Esq.
      Jonathan D. Roven, Esq.
      KAHN ROVEN, LLP
      1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 610
      Los Angeles, CA 90035
      Telephone: (213) 738-0708
      E-mail: rkahn@kahnroven.com
              jroven@kahnroven.com


TEXAS: Residents Meet to Discuss Potential Class Action v. SRA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Haley Bull, writing for KFDM.com, reports that hundreds of
residents in Orange and Newton Counties are demanding answers from
the Sabine River Authority after a record-breaking water release
left the area with catastrophic flooding.  The view of
devastation, destruction and damage is a scene that's become a
grim reality for countless families.  On March 17, they met with
an Austin based attorney who said he is considering whether to
pursue a class action lawsuit.

"They put so many people's lives and homes and livestock in
jeopardy and they are refusing to take any responsibility for it
whatsoever," Linda Villegas said.

Her property flooded, as did Floyd Williford's.

"Something's wrong for them not to control the water when they
knew all this rain was coming," he said.

The record-breaking release at the Toledo Bend Reservoir included
9 gates open 22 ft. each after a massive rainfall.  It left homes
flooded and residents outraged, one pointing a finger at SRA
leadership.

"I would like for somebody to take him out and tie him to an ant
bed and pour syrup all over him and let the ants take care of
him," Larry Addison said.  "He knew, we got a camp up there south
of Zoilee, LA and he knew all that water was coming because it was
pouring down up there for two days and what'd he do? He wasn't
worried about it."

Mr. Addison and the other residents gathered for a meeting in
Deweyville listening to the attorney.  He's looking at whether to
pursue a class action lawsuit.

"Our basic argument is that the SRA acting under whatever
authority they have actually taken damage and destroyed these
private owners of the property destroyed their property without
compensation, that's, it violates the Texas constitution,"
attorney Don Grissom said.

The SRA said it did everything it could to minimize damage and
that Toledo Bend is not a flood control dam.  It operates based on
actual lake levels and follows guidelines approved by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission to determine when gates open and by
how much.Galassi said SRA was granted its permit in 1968 and was
re licensed for 50 more years in 2014.

Ann Galassi with the Sabine River Authority said it does not hold
water for recreational purposes.

"We did the best we could with the guides that we have and we
really feel for the people in the downstream, the people in
Deweyville, our hearts go out to them," she said.

She said after the record event, the regulatory commission could
review the guidelines and the SRA would welcome that.


TRAIL LINES: Sued in Cal. Over Failure to Properly Pay Employees
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ivan Retana, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Trail Lines, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Case No.
BC613561 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 11, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay all wages due, failure to provide
meal and rest periods, failure to pay overtime wages, and
violation of the California Labor Code.

Trail Lines, Inc. owns and operates a trucking company located at
5550 Ferguson Dr., Commerce, CA 90022.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      John P. Kristensen, Esq.
      David L. Weisberg, Esq.
      KRISTENSEN WEISBERG, LLP
      12304 Santa Monica Boulevard, Suite 100
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Telephone: (310) 507-7924
      Facsimile: (310) 507-7906
      E-mail: john@kristensenlaw.com
              david@kristensenlaw.com


TRANSWORLD SYSTEMS: "Hayman" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Lori Hayman, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Transworld Systems,
Inc., Case No. 160200142, was removed from the Court of Common
Pleas of Philadelphia to the U.S. District Court Eastern District
of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-01152-HB to the proceeding.

Transworld Systems, Inc. operates a financial service company that
provides cash flow management by providing fixed fee accounts
receivable solutions and collections.

The Plaintiff asserts claims for violation of the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel A. Deliberty, Esq.
      THE DELIBERTY LAW FIRM
      2809 W. Chester Pike, Suite 100
      Broomall, PA 19008
      Telephone: (610) 353-0322
      E-mail: dan@delibertylaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Ross S. Enders, Esq.
      SESSIONS FISHMAN NATHAN & ISRAEL LLC
      2303 Oxfordshire Rd
      Furlong, PA 18925
      Telephone: (215) 794-7207
      Facsimile: (215) 794-5079
      E-mail: renders@sessions-law.biz


TRI-UNION SEAFOODS: Recalls Canned Chunk Light Tuna
---------------------------------------------------
Tri-Union Seafoods LLC is voluntarily recalling a 2,745 cases
(equal to 107,280 cans) of Chicken of the Sea brand 5 oz. canned
chunk light tuna in oil and 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in
water.

This recall has been initiated because the product may have been
undercooked due to an equipment malfunction, which was uncovered
during a routine inspection. These deviations were part of the
commercial sterilization process and could result in contamination
by spoilage organisms or pathogens, which could lead to life-
threatening illness if consumed. There have been no reported
illnesses to date connected with the affected products, and Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC is issuing this voluntary recall to ensure the
highest level of safety and quality.

The UPC code, Best By date and lot codes are used to determine the
products involved. The UPC code (also known as the bar code) is
found on the label of the product. The Best By date is printed on
the bottom of the can. The product lot codes that are part of this
voluntary recall can also be found on the bottom of the can.

The specific products being recalled are as follows:

Chicken of the Sea 5 Oz. Canned Chunk Light Tuna in Oil

Chicken of the Sea Brand 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in oil sold
at retailers nationwide in single cans between Feb. 10, 2016 and
March 16, 2016.

The UPC code is 0 4800000195 5 and the Best By date is 2/10/19.

  LOT CODE        BEST BY DATE
  --------        ------------
  6OA3Z SCEES     2/10/19
  6OAAZ SCEES     2/10/19
  6OABZ SCEEB     2/10/19
  6OACZ SCEEB     2/10/19

Chicken of the Sea 5 Oz. Canned Chunk Light Tuna in Water
Chicken of the Sea Brand 5 oz. canned chunk light tuna in water
sold at retailers nationwide in single cans between Feb. 18, 2016
and March 16, 2016.

The UPC code is 0 4800000245 7. The Best By dates are:

  2/18/19
  2/22/19
  2/23/19
  2/25/19
  3/2/19
  3/3/19

  LOT CODE        BEST BY DATE
  --------        ------------
  6OJEB SCAEB     2/18/19
  6OJCB SCAFB     2/18/19
  6ONEB SCAIB     2/22/19
  6OOFZ SCAFB    2/23/19
  6ORDB SCAFB    2/25/19
  6ORAB SCAFB    2/25/19

  LOT CODE        BEST BY DATE
  --------        ------------
  6L2CB SCAFB     3/2/19
  6L32B SCAEB     3/3/19
  6L33B SCAEB     3/3/19
  6L35B SCAEB     3/3/19
  6L3CB SCAEB     3/3/19

"The health and safety of our consumers is our number one
priority. As soon as we discovered the issue, we took immediate
steps to initiate this voluntary recall, alerting our retail
customers that received the product and instructing them to remove
it from store shelves," said Shue Wing Chan, president of Tri-
Union Seafoods LLC.

No other codes of these products or other Chicken of the Sea
products are affected by this voluntary recall.

Consumers may return the product to the store where they purchased
it for a full refund. Anyone with questions or concerns about this
recall should call the 24-hour recall information line at 1-866-
600-2681

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


TRIPLE E: Recalls Regency GT 2014 Model Due to Scalding Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 26, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Motorhome
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Accessories
Units affected: 1
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016037TC
ID number: 2016037

On certain motorhomes, a defect in the on-demand hot water heater,
manufactured by Atwood Mobile Products, could result in a risk of
scalding injury due to excessive hot water temperature.
Correction: Owners will be provided with instructions from Atwood
Mobile Products on how and where to have repairs completed.

  Make        Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----        ----------------------
  TRIPLE E    REGENCY GT   2014


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiffs Want Judge to Hold Trial This Summer
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Maggie Severns and Josh Gerstein, writing for Politico.com, report
that the plaintiffs in a years-long legal battle against Trump
University are making a play for a trial date that could put
Donald Trump on the witness stand around the time of the
Republican National Convention.

In a new court filing, they asked the judge to hold a trial this
summer on parts of the class-action case against Trump University
that could be tried without a jury.  Lawyers from both sides
acknowledged that arguing the case before a jury this summer --
when the polarizing GOP front-runner will surely be in the
spotlight -- would be extremely difficult.  But Rachel Jensen of
San Diego, who represents the plaintiffs, argued that there should
be at least a partial trial this summer.

Two of three claims now pending against Trump could be reviewed by
U.S. District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel at that time, Jensen
wrote.  The 2010 case has dragged on too long, she said, to the
point where one plaintiff is so old that "time is of the essence"
when it comes to settling the dispute over whether Trump defrauded
students who paid for his real estate seminars.

To keep putting off the trial while former students are trying to
pay off thousands of dollars in credit card debt stemming from
Trump University would "be as prejudicial as a loss," Ms. Jensen
said in the filing.

Mr. Trump's lawyers made the opposite case during a hearing: The
class-action fraud case against Trump University "will be a zoo if
it goes to trial" in August, Trump's lawyer Daniel Petrocelli
said.  And he accused the plaintiffs' lawyers of dumping the
filing on the eve of a presidential debate in order to fan media
attention.

To that claim, the plaintiffs' lawyers threw Trump's words back at
him.

"Trump recently testified that he is 'dying to go to court on this
case,' so defendants should be amenable," the plaintiff's lawyers
wrote.

Excerpts from a sworn deposition also filed on March 17 show Trump
at times baiting the lawyers questioning him by telling them he's
eager for his day in court and saying he's "been waiting for it
for a long time."

Judge Curiel has another key decision to make soon on Trump
University as well: Whether to let one of the lead plaintiffs,
Tarla Makaeff, exit the case.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff Wants Class Action Trial to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.W. August, writing for NBC San Diego, reports that  attorneys
for a plaintiff in a federal class-action lawsuit against Trump
University have asked a San Diego judge to allow the trial to
proceed, with or without a jury.

On March 16, Jason Forge, attorney for plaintiff Tarla Makaeff,
said she may be willing to forego a jury trial in order to speed
things up, depending on what attorneys for Donald Trump request.

Ms. Makaeff was the first to bring the suit against Mr. Trump's
Trump University.  The class-action suit is scheduled to be heard
in a San Diego courtroom.

Two different lawsuits allege Mr. Trump's school engaged in
deceptive practices and scammed thousands of students who enrolled
in response to claims the school would make them rich in the real
estate market.  Mr. Trump has denied all allegations.

Her attorneys argue that Sonny Low, one of the other plaintiffs,
and other seniors, "need resolution before it is too late" and the
case should not depend on the "political process or the level of
publicity this case garners, which is out of their control."
Forge said they would make their case simple, explaining that
"people were promised an actual university, and they didn't get
one.  And they were promised an actual university with which
Donald Trump was integrally involved, and he wasn't.  It's that
simple," according to court filings.


In another filing late on March 16 from the plaintiffs, a brief
printed excerpt from Donald Trump's videotaped deposition was
released.

Mr. Trump, identified as "The Witness" is quoted as saying, "I am
dying to go to court on this case", when he asked about whether he
has given "praise to someone because you may need their help for a
deal."

The brief ends with a question from Forge: "And you won't answer
the question as pertaining to Jeb Bush?" To which Trump responds,
"This is politics." His attorney says, "I won't allow him to
answer the question." It is unclear what the question pertained
to.

On March 18, Ms. Makaeff asked a San Diego judge to allow her to
withdraw from the case.  The judge has still not made a decision.
Her attorneys previously said she never thought she would be
publicly ridiculed by the GOP candidate on the campaign trail.
U.S. Federal Judge Gonzalo Curiel said on March 18 in court that
he needed more time to review the case before making a decision.

Mr. Trump's lawyers argue that the lawsuit should be dismissed if
Ms. Makaeff is allowed to be excused because the suit hinges on
her testimony.


TRUMPF MEDIZIN: Recalls iLED and TruLight Lighting Systems
----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2016
Posting date: February 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57186

Manufacturer has received information stating the iLED and
TruLight lighting systems have fallen from the central axis. The
reported incidents occurred while the lights were being positioned
for surgical procedures and have been involved in one injury to a
user. The investigation of this issue has determined the root
cause is due to the improper installation of the snap ring that
can occur when a spring arm is attached to the central axis. The
snap ring is located inside the interface and holds the spring arm
in place. If the snap ring is installed improperly, the spring arm
of the lighting system can descend over time, and eventually fall
from the central axis. When the snap ring has been installed
properly, the potential for the lighting system to fall does not
exist.

Affected products:
TRULIGHT 3000 SURGICAL LIGHT
Lot or serial number: All Lots
Model or catalog number: TE300H
                         TE330
                         TE551-2

Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg,
              Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9,
              Saalfeld,
              07318
              GERMANY

B. TRULIGHT 5000 SURGICAL LIGHT
Lot or serial number: All Lots
Model or catalog number: T131
                         T300
                         T310
                         T500
                         T510
                         T510-2
                          T530
                         T531
                         T550

Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg,
              Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9,
              Saalfeld,
              07318
              GERMANY

C. ILED 3 SURGICAL LIGHT
Lot or serial number: All Lots
Model or catalog number: 1300
                         1310
                         1320
                         1330
                         1331
                         1340
                         1430
                         337540
                         337542
                         337550
                         337618

Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg,
              Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9,
              Saalfeld,
              07318
              GERMANY

D. ILED 5 SURGICAL LIGHT
Lot or serial number: All Lots
Model or catalog number: 1500
                         1500-2
                         1510
                         1510-2
                         337541
                         337547
                         337556

Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg,
              Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9,
              Saalfeld,
              07318
              GERMANY

E. TRUVIDIA
Lot or serial number: All Lots

Manufacturer: Trumpf Medizin Systems GmbH T Co. Kg,
              Karl-Zeiss-Str. 7-9,
              Saalfeld,
              07318
              GERMANY


TSC DIRECT: Recalls AquaRug Products Due to Fall Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 28, 2016
Posting date: January 28, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56846

This recall involves AquaRug with four plastic suction cups. The
rugs are intended to provide a slip-resistant surface in the
shower or bathtub. The rugs were sold in beige and clear, and in
two sizes: 29.5 inches by 17.25 inches for use in the bathtub, and
21.75 inches by 19.75 inches for use in a shower stall. The rugs
have a plastic border and only four plastic suction cups, one
affixed to the underside of each corner of the rug. "AquaRug" and
"As Seen On TV" are printed on the front of the cardboard
packaging.

The four suction cups on the underside of the rugs can fail to
prevent slipping, posing a fall hazard to the user.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to the use of this product.

Tristar Products has received 60 reports of consumers falling in
the shower or bathtub while on the recalled rugs including 30
reports of injuries such as bruises, cuts and fractured or broken
bones.

About 70,000 rugs were sold in Canada and about 1.4 million rugs
were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from July 2012 to September 2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Tristar Products Inc.,
             Fairfield
             New Jersey
            UNITED STATES

Distributor: TSC Direct, a division of Rogers Media Inc.
             Toronto
             Ontario
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled shower rugs
and contact Tristar Products for instructions on how to dispose of
the rugs and to obtain a free replacement rug.

For more information, consumers can contact Tristar Products at 1-
888-770-7125 from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. CT Monday through Friday or
visit the firm's website and click on "Aqua Rug Recall" for more
information.

Consumers may view the release by the US CPSC on the Commission's
website.

Please note that the Canada Consumer Product Safety Act prohibits
recalled products from being redistributed, sold or even given
away in Canada.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/7cSv5J


UNITED PARCEL: Trial Scheduled for Jan. 2017 in "Morgate" Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 trial is
scheduled for January 2017 in the "Morgate" class action.

UPS and its subsidiary The UPS Store, Inc., are defendants in
Morgate v. The UPS Store, Inc. et al. an action in the Los Angeles
Superior Court brought on behalf of a certified class of all
franchisees who chose to rebrand their Mail Boxes Etc. franchises
to The UPS Store in March 2003. Plaintiff alleges that UPS and The
UPS Store, Inc. misrepresented and omitted facts to the class
about the market tests that were conducted before offering the
class the choice of whether to rebrand to The UPS Store. Trial is
scheduled for January 2017.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company.


UNITED PARCEL: Apppeal in AFMS Case Pending
-------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 plaintiff's
appeal from the dismissal of the AFMS LLC case is pending.

In AFMS LLC v. UPS and FedEx Corporation, a lawsuit filed in
federal court in the Central District of California in August
2010, the plaintiff asserts that UPS and FedEx violated U.S.
antitrust law by conspiring to refuse to negotiate with third-
party negotiators retained by shippers and by individually
imposing policies that prevent shippers from using such
negotiators. UPS and FedEx have moved for summary judgment.

The Court granted these motions on April 30, 2015, entered
judgment in favor of UPS and FedEx, and dismissed the case.

On May 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal to the Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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

"The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice ("DOJ")
has an open civil investigation of our policies and practices for
dealing with third-party negotiators," the Company said.  "We have
cooperated with this investigation. We deny any liability with
respect to these matters and intend to vigorously defend
ourselves."

United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company.


UNITED PARCEL: Ontario Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 the Company is
defending one remaining class action lawsuit in Ontario.

"In Canada, four purported class-action cases were filed against
us in British Columbia (2006); Ontario (2007) and Quebec (2006 and
2013)," the Company said.  "The cases each allege inadequate
disclosure concerning the existence and cost of brokerage services
provided by us under applicable provincial consumer protection
legislation and infringement of interest restriction provisions
under the Criminal Code of Canada."

"The British Columbia class action was declared inappropriate for
certification and dismissed by the trial judge. That decision was
upheld by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in March 2010,
which ended the case in our favor.

"The Ontario class action was certified in September 2011. Partial
summary judgment was granted to us and the plaintiffs by the
Ontario motions court. The complaint under the Criminal Code was
dismissed. No appeal is being taken from that decision. The
allegations of inadequate disclosure were granted and we are
appealing that decision.

"The motion to authorize the 2006 Quebec litigation as a class
action was dismissed by the motions judge in October 2012; there
was no appeal, which ended that case in our favor. The 2013 Quebec
litigation also has been dismissed.

"We deny all liability and are vigorously defending the one
outstanding case in Ontario.

"There are multiple factors that prevent us from being able to
estimate the amount of loss, if any, that may result from this
matter, including: (1) we are vigorously defending ourselves and
believe that we have a number of meritorious legal defenses; and
(2) there are unresolved questions of law and fact that could be
important to the ultimate resolution of this matter," the Company
said.  "Accordingly, at this time, we are not able to estimate a
possible loss or range of loss that may result from this matter or
to determine whether such loss, if any, would have a material
adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations
or liquidity."

United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company.


UNITED PARCEL: New York Case Settlement Granted Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Parcel Service, 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 a court has
granted final approval of the settlement of a class action against
freight forwarders in New York.

In January 2008, a class action complaint was filed in the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
alleging price-fixing activities relating to the provision of
freight forwarding services. UPS was not named in this case.

In July 2009, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
naming numerous global freight forwarders as defendants. UPS and
UPS Supply Chain Solutions are among the 60 defendants named in
the amended complaint.

After two rounds of motions to dismiss, in October 2014, UPS
entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiffs to settle
the remaining claims asserted against UPS for an immaterial
amount. The court entered an order granting final approval of the
settlement in January 2016.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is a package delivery company.


UNITED STATES: Gun Rights Class Action Against Two AGs Amended
--------------------------------------------------------------
On March 15, 2016, attorneys Michael E. Zapin and Herman A. Saitz
filed a Class Action lawsuit against Loretta Lynch as Attorney
General of the United States and Thomas E. Brandon, as Deputy
Director and Head of the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives on behalf of their client, Barry Michaels
and millions of others similarly situated.

Barry Michaels is a Democrat running for United States Congress in
Nevada's 3rd District.  Mr. Michaels is a non-violent felon whose
conviction dates back nearly twenty years.  Under current federal
law, he is unable to possess a firearm to protect himself and his
family.

Since completing his sentence, Michaels returned to school and
graduated from the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, with a
bachelor's degree in political science and a master's degree in
public administration. He has over fifty years of business
experienceand continues to be involved in several business
ventures including Avatar Airlines, an ultra low-fare national
airline currently in the startup phase.

Mr. Michaels alleges a provision of the Federal Gun Control Act as
applied to him and millions of other similarly situated law-
abiding citizens, violate their constitutional right under the
Second Amendment, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms,
shall not be infringed."

The statute in question is 18 U.S.C. Section 922(g)(1), which
makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment, for
"every" person "who has been convicted in any court of a crime
punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year. . . to
possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition."

Mr. Michaels alleges that the statute's original purpose was to
protect the public from violent offenders.  He believes that the
statute is too broad as written and should have been narrowly
tailored to meet the government's compelling interest to prevent
violence.

"There is no justification for applying the statute to non-violent
felons that have been law-abiding for more than five years, since
there is no data to suggest that they are any more dangerous or
any more likely to commit a violent crime, than any other law-
abiding citizen," Mr. Michaels argues.

The complaint also addresses several other questions of law as
applied to the class:

  -- What constitutes a "law-abiding citizen?"

  -- What constitutes punishment?

  -- Is the statute in fact an unlawful Bill of Attainder?

  -- Does the statute violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth
Amendment?

  -- Does a lifetime ban violate the cruel and unusual punishment
clause of the Eighth Amendment?

There are approximately 20 million felons representing over 8% of
our country's population and nearly half of them are non-violent
offenders.  There is no logical argument which can be made, nor
empirical data presented, to indicate a direct correlation between
the public's safety and the non-violent offenders.  The lawsuit is
as much about civil liberties and the constitution, as it is about
Mr. Michaels' desire to own a firearm for self-protection and
other lawful purposes.

Mr. Michaels states, "it makes no sense to me that I'm able to
serve in Congress or even become President of the United States,
but 'me and Martha Stuart' are both barred for the rest of our
lives from owning a firearm to protect ourselves and our loved
ones.  Something is wrong with this picture. The idea of creating
second class citizens contradicts the clear language of the Second
Amendment."

A copy of the complaint can be viewed and printed at:
www.michaelsvslynch.com

Class Members can join at:

www.americansforcivilrights.org/join-the-class-action

there is no cost to members.

For more information or to schedule an interview call:

Michael E. Zapin, Esq.
LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL E. ZAPIN
Counsel for Plaintiffs
20283 State Rd. 7 Suite 400
Boca Raton, FL 33498
Tel. No. 561-330-5732
zapinclass@gmail.com

Barry Michaels, DC, MPA
9708 Gilespie St, Suite 104
Las Vegas, Nevada 89183
Cell Phone: (702) 415-0905
www.nevadaonly@yahoo.com


VIVINT INC: "Noori" Sues Over Illegal Dismissal
-----------------------------------------------
Frank Noori, as an individual and on behalf of the putative class,
Plaintiff(s), v. Vivint, Inc. and Does 1-10 inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. BC611434 (Cal. Super., Los Angeles County, February 24,
2016), seeks statutory, compensatory, special, general and
punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, injunctive relief
and such other and further relief under California Labor Laws.

Vivint, Inc. is a private home security, home automation and
energy management services provider in the United States, Canada
and New Zealand. Noori was hired as a field service professional
but was illegally dismissed due to his past history of domestic
violence.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Devin Fok, Esq.
      DHF LAW, APC
      234 E. Colorado Blvd., 8th Floor
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Tel: (310) 430-9933
      Fax: (818)484-2023
      Email: devin@devinfoklaw.com


VMWARE INC: Facing "Ford" Class Action in Del. Chancery Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
VMWare, 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 Francis M. Ford, a
VMware Class A stockholder, filed on November 17, 2015, an action
in the Delaware Chancery Court against certain current and former
VMware directors, among others, alleging that the directors
breached their fiduciary duties in connection with the proposed
acquisition by Dell of EMC, and the proposed issuance of tracking
stock that is intended to track the performance of VMware. The
plaintiff does not assert claims directly against VMware, but
purports to bring class claims on behalf of other VMware Class A
stockholders and derivative claims on behalf of VMware. While
VMware does not believe that the case represents a material
adverse exposure, no assurances can be given that the litigation
will not have any adverse consequences for the company or the
directors named in the suit.

VMware, Inc. ("VMware") pioneered the development and application
of virtualization technologies with x86 server-based computing,
separating application software from the underlying hardware.


VOLKSWAGEN: Meeting Sought to Tackle EU Emissions Customer Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that U.S. law firm Hausfeld said it plans to
pursue claims of European customers harmed by Volkswagen's
emissions scandal.  The move came as lawyers and legal
organizations across Europe are busy looking for ways to cash in
the scandal. The European VW customers lack the legal tools to set
up a pan-EU class action lawsuit.

According to Reuters, in a letter to the German carmaker's top
management and chairman, Hausfeld has called on the company to
meet before the end of March to discuss potential European
customer claims.

In a letter to Chief Executive Matthias Mller and Supervisory
Board Chairman Hans Dieter P”tsch, Hausfeld and his firm's German
partner, Christopher Rother, requested the meeting to begin a
process of dialogue with the company, The Wall Street Journal
reports.

Michael Hausfeld, a Washington attorney, is one of 22 lawyers
appointed by U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer to work on the
Volkswagen class action in the U.S. The scandal consolidates more
than 500 civil suits filed across the country.

The carmaker admitted in September 2015 that it installed "defeat
devices" to cheat emissions test in about 11 million diesel cars
across the globe. Volkswagen announced two months later a $1,000
compensation program for U.S. customers.

U.S. District Judge Breyer told the company in February that he
wanted a firm answer by March 24 on how the carmaker plans to fix
the affected vehicles.

Mr. Hausfeld said he will push to get the same deals for Europeans
as American customers and investors.  He said the deal starting
with $1,000 goodwill compensation that VW has ruled out for U.S.
car owners.

In a phone interview reported by Politico, Mr. Hausfeld said there
is no justification for not having similar payments for European
customers because the damage they have suffered is the same.

Mr. Hausfeld's law firm said German VW customers alone could be
entitled to claim up to 2.5 billion euros ($2.8 billion) in
damages.

German law firm TISAB said 278 institutional investors in
Volkswagen filed a 3.26 billion euros ($3.62 billion) lawsuit
against the carmaker. The investors sued VW for what they see as
breaches of its capital markets duty in the scandal.

Rother said the best way for Volkswagen to resolve the issue with
its German customers would be to engage in negotiations on a
compensation scheme as suggested by Ken Feinberg for U.S.
customers. Rother said that he and Hausfeld offer to Volkswagen to
initiate such a dialogue in order to avoid litigation.

The carmaker has so far declined any request for a negotiated
settlement in such cases in Germany.


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Q5 and Tiguan 2015 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: January 27, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety Mfr
System: Airbag
Units affected: 218
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016041TC
ID number: 2016041
Manufacturer recall number: 69L9 / 69M1

On certain vehicles, the driver and/or right front passenger seat-
mounted airbag inflator could produce excessive internal pressure
during airbag deployment. Increased pressure may cause the
inflator to rupture, which could allow fragments to be propelled
toward vehicle occupants, increasing the risk of injury. This
could also damage the airbag module, which could prevent proper
deployment. Failure of either of the seat-mounted airbags to fully
deploy during a crash (where deployment is warranted) could
increase the risk of personal injury to the seat occupant.
Correction: Dealers will replace the affected driver and/or
passenger seat side airbag modules with new production modules.

  Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----        ----------------------
  AUDI          Q5           2015
  VOLKSWAGEN    TIGUAN       2015


WASHINGTON: WSP Sued Over Prisoner Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Wm Bailey v. Tim Thrasher, Donald Holbrook, and Dustin
Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Case No. 4:16-cv-05025-JLQ (E.D. Wa., March 11, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the Prisoner
Civil Rights.

Washington State Penitentiary is a Washington State Department of
Corrections men's prison located in Walla Walla, Washington.

Bradley Wm Bailey is a pro se plaintiff.


YOUR MARKETING: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Cenkus" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brett Cenkus, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Your Marketing Source, Inc. d/b/a Internet Local
Listings and Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-00475
(C.D. Cal., March 11, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants'
practice of making unsolicited calls.

Your Marketing Source, Inc. operates a marketing consulting firm
helping business with direct marketing.

Brett Cenkus is a pro se plaintiff.


* Price Comparison Class Actions Likely to Pile Up in New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacqueline K. Matthews, Esq. of Baker & Hostetler LLP, in an
article for Lexology, reports that common retail practice of
comparing an item's current price with a higher "original,"
"regular," or "MSRP" price has recently come under increasing fire
from consumers, who say the higher comparison price is often
fictitious and misleads shoppers into believing they are getting a
better bargain than they really are.  Over the past two and a half
years, more than 50 putative class actions have been filed in
courts across the country, seeking relief under state consumer
protection statutes for purchases made in reliance on these
allegedly misleading price comparisons.

Until recently, these class actions had been concentrated in
California, where plaintiffs can take advantage of state statutes
that do not require a consumer to show that they sustained an
actual economic loss in order to state a claim.  Under each of
California's three consumer protection statutes, plaintiffs
sufficiently plead an injury so long as they allege they would not
have made the purchase but for the misleading price comparison.
Hinojos v. Kohl's, 718 F.3d 1098, 1107 (9th Cir. 2013). That is,
even if the items they purchase are worth no less than what
consumers paid for them, the California statutes still permit
consumers to obtain relief in the form of restitution or an
injunction.

New York state and federal courts have expressly rejected this
theory of injury under New York's consumer protection statutes,
holding that some difference between the value and the price paid
is necessary to plead injury. See, e.g., Weisblum v. Prophase
Labs, Inc., 88 F. Supp. 3d 283, 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2015). New York
might therefore be assumed to be a less attractive forum for price
comparison class action plaintiffs. Nevertheless, five separate
putative class actions alleging false or misleading price
comparisons have been filed in the Southern District of New York
against five different retailers in the past six weeks alone.

It's clear that at least a subset of the New York plaintiff's bar
has caught the scent of these price comparison claims, and the
class action filings are likely to continue piling up.  Retailers
operating in New York, whether they deal in clothing, electronics,
furniture, or anything in between, need to be prepared to defend
their pricing policies against this type of attack.


* Scottish Gov't Plans to Introduce Class Action Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------
Siobhan Sullivan, Esq., of Brodies LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that class actions do not yet exist in Scotland,
however recommendations from the Scottish Law Commission to
introduce this type of procedure to the Scottish Courts are being
considered by the Scottish Government.

Class actions may benefit those making claims in respect of faulty
products, since these claims quite often have common issues.  The
English Courts have used this procedure to good effect in cases
alleging faulty products, ranging from metal on metal hip implants
and PIP breast implants to motor vehicles, cosmetics, toys and
even McDonald's coffee cups!

From the claimant's point of view, the main advantage to joining a
class action is that "unity is strength".  A claim that would have
been difficult to bring on your own is made easier if you are one
of 500 people who can help with the heavy-lifting.  The lack of an
equivalent Scottish procedure (for now) isn't necessarily a
barrier to gaining strength in numbers.  The largest class action
(or "group litigation") so far in England involved over 4,000
claimants who suffered burns from chemicals in leather sofas.

Our specialist product liability team handled a number of the
Scottish leather sofa cases, and through the established networks
we have with the English solicitors leading the group litigation,
we were able to ensure that the Scottish claimants achieved a
successful outcome.


* Tobacco Industry May Face More Punitive Damages After Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
News4JAX reports that in a defeat for the tobacco industry, the
Florida Supreme Court on March 17 opened cigarette makers to more
potential punitive damages in lawsuits stemming from smokers'
illnesses or deaths.

The ruling came in an Alachua County case that involved the 1992
death of a smoker, but it also would apply to other tobacco
lawsuits that have flooded the legal system during the past
decade.  Those lawsuits are known in the legal world as "Engle
progeny" cases and are an outgrowth of a 2006 Florida Supreme
Court decision that established crucial findings about the dangers
of smoking and misrepresentation by cigarette makers.

Resolving conflicting decisions from lower courts, the Supreme
Court on March 17 found that plaintiffs in the cases can seek
punitive damages against tobacco companies based on legal claims
of negligence and strict liability.  In doing so, the court
rejected the arguments of R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., which said
punitive damages should be limited to issues involving concealment
and conspiracy.

"We conclude that there is no legal or principled basis for
denying Engle progeny plaintiffs the right to pursue punitive
damages on all properly pled counts," said the 33-page ruling,
written by Justice Barbara Pariente and joined fully by Chief
Justice Jorge Labarga and justices R. Fred Lewis, Peggy Quince,
Ricky Polston and James E.C. Perry. Justice Charles Canady agreed
in the result but did not sign on to the opinion.

The Alachua County case was filed by Lucille Soffer, whose
husband, Maurice, died in May 1992 because of lung cancer, the
Supreme Court ruling said. A jury found R.J. Reynolds liable based
on negligence and strict liability and awarded $5 million in what
are known as "compensatory" damages.  The jury, however, said
Maurice Soffer was 60 percent at fault, so the judgment against
R.J. Reynolds was set at $2 million.

Lucille Soffer appealed, arguing that the trial judge improperly
prevented the jury from awarding punitive damages based on strict
liability and negligence.  The 1st District Court of Appeal upheld
the judge's decision, though it also asked the Supreme Court to
take up the issue.  The 2nd District Court of Appeal ruled
differently in another case.

Punitive damages are a form of punishment and can multiply the
amounts of money awarded in compensatory damages.  The Supreme
Court ruling doesn't detail the reasons for the compensatory
damages in the Soffer case, but generally they are geared toward
compensating plaintiffs for such things as financial losses or
injuries.

R.J. Reynolds argued, at least in part, that Soffer should not be
able to seek punitive damages for negligence and strict liability
because of details of an original class-action lawsuit that led up
to the 2006 Supreme Court "Engle" ruling.  That lawsuit, filed in
1994, did not include punitive damages for negligence and strict
liability.

"(Allowing) progeny plaintiffs to pursue expanded claims for
strict liability and negligence would be profoundly unfair to the
Engle defendants,'' the company said in a 2014 court filing.  "Two
decades ago, the Engle (class action) complaint put defendants on
notice that they faced only compensatory damages on the class'
claims for strict liability and negligence, and that they faced
vastly broader exposure to punitive damages only on the class'
intentional-tort (concealment and conspiracy) claims."

In that filing, R.J. Reynolds said more than 8,000 Engle progeny
cases had been filed, with more than 4,000 pending at the time in
state and federal courts.

In its ruling on March 17, the Supreme Court sent the Soffer case
back to circuit court for a trial limited to whether punitive
damages should be awarded on the negligence and strict-liability
claims.

"We emphasize that Soffer still must satisfy the statutory
requirements to demonstrate entitlement to punitive damages under
these theories, including that the trier of fact must find, based
on clear and convincing evidence, that R.J. Reynolds was
'personally guilty of intentional misconduct or gross
negligence,'" Justice Pariente wrote, quoting part of state law.



                            *********

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  * * *