CAR_Public/160328.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, March 28, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 62


                            Headlines


ADVOCARE INT'L: Appeal in "Kamel" Suit Dismissed
AETNA INC: Summary Judgment Motion in "Roche" Granted in Part
AIR NZ: Australian Regulator Wins Appeal in Cargo Cartel Case
AMARIN CORP: Still Defends Securities Class Action in N.J.
AMERICAN MEDICAL: Cal. App. Won't Revive Paramedic's Wage Suit

AMERICAN MUTUAL: 8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Amend Suit
AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Denies Employee Discrimination Claims
AMSPEC SERVICES: "Atanassov" Suit Moved from N.J. to S.D. Texas
APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Hodges" Class Action
ARCHANA BUSINESS: "Masihuddin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Mendez" Class Suit in N.J. Dist. Ct.
AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Seek $30MM Damages in Retta Dixon Abuse Case
AVANTE USA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
AVENTURA RESTAURANT: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Pay
BALDWIN RESTAURANT: M.D. Fla. Judge Won't Hear State Law Claim

BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY: "Jefferson" Suit Filed in Cal Super. Ct.
BENCO DENTAL: Faces Cornerstone Suit Over Dental Supplies
BEST BUY: Faces "Truong" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
BEST MIYAKO: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
BEST MIYAKO: Faces 2nd "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages

BLUESTEM BRANDS: Violated 1996 Act, "Elizabeth" Suit Claims
BLUE VICTORY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
BMW NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Catalano" Action
BRITISH PETROLEUM: "Townsend" Suit Goes to N.D. Alabama
BURCH EQUIPMENT: Court Grants Class Certification in "Velasquez"

CALIFORNIA: Inmate Loses Bid to Disqualify Judges
CANADA: Faces Class Action in Regina Over Tax Shelter
CAPITAL ONE: Settlement in "Watson" Case Approved
CAPITAL ONE: 11th Cir. Upholds Judgment in Credit Card Suit
CARLTON MANOR: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinney" Held in Abeyance

CARRINGTON TEA: "Boulton" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Dist. Ct.
CB1 INC: Oral Argument Held in "Wittman" FDCPA Lawsuit
CBS CORP: ABS's Pre-1972 Recordings Infringement Claims Nixed
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in "Novoa" Has Initial OK
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 3

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Master" Class Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Deal Reached in "Garcia" Action
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Guglielmo" Lawsuit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Brown" Class Action Still Ongoing
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Tagalogon" Class Action

CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Faces Royalty Litigation
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Earthquakes
CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Court Won't Strike Deposition Changes
CLARK COUNTY, KY: Court Tosses "Jones" Suit Over Prison Fees
CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Still Faces Product Liability Cases

COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: Court Shelves Class Cert. Bid in "Feamster"
CORAL SPRINGS, FL: Clerk of Court Dropped From "Zoba" Case
CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Ex-Students Face Challenges Despite Closure
COUSINS SUBMARINES: "Nuchell" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
CREDIT MANAGEMENT: "Reynolds" FDCPA Suit Goes to Trial

CVS CAREMARK: $48M Settlement in "Medoff" Has Final Approval
CWPSC INC: Cal. App. Declines to Send "Carbajal" to Arbitration
D-J ENGINEERING: $100,000 Settlement of "Swartz" FLSA Suit Okayed
DATASCAN FIELD: Court Narrows Claims in "Stevens" Class Suit
DIOCESE OF NEWTON: Hid Child Sexual Abuse, "Jane" Suit Claims

DKL VENTURES: Court Stays Action, Equitably Tolled FLSA Statute
DLP ENTERPRISES: "Stephenson" Has Conditional Class Certification
DOLLAR THRIFTY: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinnon" Denied a 2nd Time
DOLLAR THRIFTY: "Lee" Class Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo
DYNAMIC PET: Bid for Discovery Conference in "Reed" Suit Denied

ECOLAB INC: Class Certification Granted in "Martino" Wages Suit
EDMOND PLUMBING: Faces "Guertin" Class Suit in Massachusetts
EMC CORPORATION: 15 Merger-Related Cases Filed as of Feb. 23
EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN: "Ramsey" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
EVERCORE TRUST: Court Dismisses "Coburn" ERISA Suit

FENSTER-MARTENS: Suit by Western Wayne Urgent Care May Proceed
FIRST NIAGARA: Class Settlement Approval Stayed Pending Spokeo
FLYDUBAI: To Provide Hardship Payments to Crash Victims' Families
GATEWAY FRONTLINE: "Ash" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Phenix City" Suit Asserts Alum-Price Fixing

GENOVA PRODUCTS: "Blanyar" Suit Over Chemical Exposure Dismissed
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Gesin" Sues over Zofran Side-Effects
GULF INTERSTATE: Must Defend Against "Sloane" Labor Suit
GURLEY MOTOR: Court Grants in Part Summary Judgment in "Yazzie"
HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates "Balser" Labeling Suit

HALL RENDER: April 6 Case Conference in "Gartmann" Suit
HANOVER INSURANCE: Durand Litigation Still Pending
HAWAII: Court Awards Fees to Plaintiff's Counsel in Suit v. DOE
HBLC INC: Ill. App. Court Revives Egan FDCPA Counterclaim
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: "Campbell" Sues Over Discontinued Commissions

HORMEL FOODS: Wisconsin High Court Affirms Judgment in Union Case
HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL: Bid for Attorneys' Fees Granted in Part
HYATT RESIDENTIAL: "Morera" FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
ILLINOIS TOOLS: Court Grants Continuance of Phase 1 Discovery
IU HEALTH: Supreme Court May Look Into Health Care Pricing

JACK IN THE BOX: Violated IWC Wage Order, "Ruiz" Suit Claims
JMJ CATERERS: "Zaldivar" Has Conditional Class Certification
JP MORGAN: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in "Salveson" Case
KANSAS HOSPITAL: Missouri Judge Moves "Simpkins" to D. Kansas
KRAFT HEINZ: "Matecki" Suit Asserts Product Mislabeling

LEPRINO FOODS: Court Grants in Part Motion for Corrective Notice
LITOW & PECH: Court Approves Counsel Fees and Cost in "Jenkins"
LOWE'S COMPANIES: June 6 Final Fairness Hearing in "Brown" Case
LYFT: Reimbursement Estimates Show Drivers Entitled to $126MM
LINN OPERATING: Court Denies Class Certification in "McKnight"

MAGNOLIA HEALTH: Request for Equitable Tolling Denied
MAJESTIC 55: "Fragoso" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT, Spread-of-Hour Pay
MARGARITA VLAHOS: "Linares" Suit Filed in N.Y. Sup. Ct, Queens
MDL 1419: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
MDL 2439: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement

MDL 2513: "Fernando" Suit Consolidated in Boston
MEMPHIS, TN: Judge Tosses Resident's Proposed Class Suit
MENTOR GRAPHICS: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MERCEDES-BENZ: Aug. 29 Fairness Hearing on Digby Adler Settlement
MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Tosses Appeal in Suit Over Strip Search Policy

MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: Season-Ticket Holders File Class Action
MISSISSIPPI: Court Rejects "Goree" Complaint Over Parole
NAVISTAR INC: Faces Ferraro Foods Suit in New Jersey
NEVADA TITLE: Court Sends "Ashraft" Suit to Arbitration
NISSAN NA: "Nguyen" Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defects

NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gates" Suit Says
NORTHLAND GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms in Part Class Cert. Denial
OMNI HOTEL: Court Stays "Palmer" Suit Pending Arbitration
OREGON: Court Narrows Coffee Creek Female Inmates' Claims
PC RICHARD: "Matijakovich" Suit Removed to N.J. Dist. Court

PFIZER INC: Court Grants Final Approval of "Sims" Settlement
PHILADELPHIA GAS: Landlords Obtain Favorable Ruling in Lien Case
POLLO OPERATIONS: Faces "Preman" Suit Over Automated Calls
PROFESSIONAL DETAILERS: "Miller" Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: "Muir" Sues over Fund Mismanagement

RANDY'S TRUCKING: Class Certification Denied in "Ferguson" Case
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
RL REPPERT: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration in "Askew"
ROYAL OAK: "Bystry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Benefits
RUSSIA: OZI Mulls Class Action Against FSB Over SORM

SANOFI: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Complaints Over Lemtrada
SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Sues Over Share Price Drop
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Brief in "Corban" Appeal Due
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument Held March 2 in "Kader" Suit
SCHIFF NUTRITION: Court Grants in Part Motion to Post Appeal Bond

SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Northstar Files 9th Cir. Appeal
SEAGATE HOSPITALITY: "Hinckley" Sues for Wages, Refunds, Paystubs
SELECTION MANAGEMENT: Torus Suit Stays in S.D. Ohio
SHIPCOM WIRELESS: "Novick" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
SHUTTERFLY INC: Faces "Ayala" Suit in Calif. State Court

SIGMA SECURITY: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: New Jersey Action Still Pending
SPOTIFY: Enters Into Out-of-Court-Settlement with NMPA
SPRINT CORP: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of "Bui" Accord
STALEY INC: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Del Castillo" Suit Says

SUNSTONE RED: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "McMullen" Suit
TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: 9th Cir. Revives Video Game Suit
TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Garcia" Complaint in S.D. Fla.
TCP INTERNATIONAL: "Sohol" 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Court Remands "Patel" Action to San Mateo Court
TERVITA LLC: "Miljevich" Suit Seeks Back Pay and Overtime Pay
TEXAS: E.D. Texas Judge Denies Class Certification in "Moore"
TOWER RESEARCH: Court Nixes "Choi" Suit Over Futures Contracts
TRADER JOE'S: "Joseph" Suit Alleges Under-filled Canned Tuna

TRICAN WELL: "Alawar" Suit Seeks Backwages, Benefits
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump Wants to Go to Court
TYSON FOODS: Loses Supreme Court Appeal in "Bouaphakeo"
UNIT CORPORATION: Panola ISD Class Action Still Ongoing
UNITED GUARANTY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed in "Smith" Case in D.C. Circuit
VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Aiton" Suit Says
VEGGIE GRILL: "Vasquez" Complaint Seeks Unpaid Wages
VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Missouri Judge Narrows "Golan" Complaint
VIRGINIA: Class Suit Over Inmate's Death Dismissed

VISALUS INC: Michigan Court Trims "Kerrigan" Lawsuit
VITO & ANGELO PIZZERIA: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Pay
VOLUME SERVICES: Remand Bid Denied, Case Goes to S.D. Cal.
WAIST GANG: Faces Class Action Over Waist Trainers
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Wand" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese

WAL-MART STORES: "Harwell" Sues Over Extenders in Parmesan Cheese
WALT DISNEY PARKS: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Sick Leave Policy
WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Court Grants Class Certification in "Eggen"
XTO ENERGY: Court Declines to Set Trial Date in "Roderick" Suit
ZNY ENTERPRISES: "Mughal" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages

* Carlton Fields Survey Shows Class Action Defense Spending Spike
* Federal Court Introduces Updated Class Actions Practice Note
* Representative Proceedings Reform in Western Australia Imminent


                            *********


ADVOCARE INT'L: Appeal in "Kamel" Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Carolyn Wright of the Texas Court of Appeals
dismissed Advocare International's appeal in the case captioned,
SHEREEF KAMEL, W.D. MASTERSON AND KILGORE & KILGORE, PLLC,
Appellants, v. ADVOCARE INTERNATIONAL, L.P., Appellee, Case No.
05:15-01295-CV (Tex. App.).

Appellee AdvoCare International, L.P. initiated the suit by filing
a petition pursuant to Rule 202 of the Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure to take the pre-suit deposition of Michael Moussa, who
is not a party to this appeal. The petition stated both that
AdvoCare anticipated filing suit against Moussa and that it sought
to investigate claims it might have against Moussa or potential
claims Moussa may have brought against AdvoCare.

Moussa answered and generally denied the allegations of the
petition. Subsequently, Moussa, joined by appellant Shereef Kamel,
filed a counterclaim against AdvoCare suing individually and on
behalf of a class they hoped to certify. In their counterclaim
Moussa and Kamel asserted claims for breach of contract, quantum
meruit and unjust enrichment, common law fraud, and conspiracy to
commit unlawful acts. The class was never certified.

AdvoCare moved for sanctions against Kamel, his attorney --
appellant Masterson, and Masterson's firm -- appellant Kilgore &
Kilgore, PLLC, contending that certain allegations in the
counterclaim concerning AdvoCare's conduct toward Kamel were
verifiably groundless which was granted by the trial court. The
trial court subsequently amended its sanctions order to clarify
that it found Kamel, Masterson and Kilgore & Kilgore brought
groundless claims against AdvoCare in bad faith and for the
purpose of harassment in violation of rule 13 and that because
allegations in the petition lacked evidentiary support and further
investigation and discovery was not likely to produce evidentiary
support, Masterson's signature on the pleading amounted to a
violation of the requirements imposed by Chapter 10 of the Texas
Civil Practice & Remedies Code.

Appellants filed a notice of appeal, complaining of the sanctions
order and the amended sanctions order.

In her Opinion dated March 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/h5RwxNfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wright dismissed the
appeal for want of jurisdiction, concluding that the order
appellants seek to appeal is interlocutory.


AETNA INC: Summary Judgment Motion in "Roche" Granted in Part
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Noel L. Hillman of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey granted in part Defendants' motion
for summary judgment on Plaintiffs' claims in the case captioned,
MICHELLE ROCHE, JAY MINERLEY, and TIM SINGLETON, Individually and
as Class Representatives, Plaintiffs, v. AETNA, INC., AETNA
HEALTH, INC. (a NJ corp.), AETNA HEALTH INSURANCE CO., AETNA LIFE
INSURANCE CO., and THE RAWLINGS COMPANY, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
13-1377 (NLH/KMW) (D.N.J.).

The suit concerns alleged violations of New Jersey's insurance
regulation laws brought by Plaintiffs Jay Minerley and Tim
Singleton (Plaintiffs) both individually and as putative class
representatives against Defendants Aetna, Inc., Aetna Health,
Inc., Aetna Health Insurance Co., and Aetna Life Insurance Co.
(collectively, the Aetna Defendants) and The Rawlings Company,
LLC.  On January 25, 2013, Plaintiffs along with a third person  -
- Michelle Roche -- filed a complaint against the Defendants in
the New Jersey Superior Court, Law Division, Atlantic County.

Defendants removed the action to this Court on March 7, 2013.
Before any defendant answered or made a motion for summary
judgment, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to remove Roche as a
plaintiff from this suit.

Plaintiffs complain on behalf of themselves and a putative class
of persons similarly situated that the recovery actions taken by
Defendants violate New Jersey's anti-subrogation laws -- codified
at N.J.S.A. 2A:15-97 and N.J.A.C. 11:4-42.10 -- as well as the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. 56:88-19, and other common law
torts.

In the motion, Defendants argued that (1) ERISA preempts all of
Plaintiffs' state law claims; (2) it would be futile to amend to
restyle Plaintiffs' claims as ERISA claims.

In his Opinion dated March 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/sxzPBJfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hillman granted in part
Defendants' summary judgment on the grounds that all of
Plaintiffs' claims are preempted by ERISA Sec. 502(a) and leave is
provided to Minerley only to amend the complaint within thirty
(30) days to state a claim under ERISA Sec. 502(a) and denied in
part on the grounds that Minerley's claims are not barred by the
voluntary payment doctrine.

Jay Minerly is represented by Carianne Patricia Torrissi, Esq. --
ctorrissi@klehr.com -- Charles A. Ercole, Esq. --
cercole@klehr.com -- KLEHR, HARRISON, HARVEY, BRANZBURG & ELLERS,
LLP

Defendants are represented by Peter D. St. Phillip, Jr., Esq. --
pstphillip@lowey.com -- Uriel Rabinovitz, Esq. --
urabinovitz@lowey.com -- LOWEY DANNENBERG COHEN & HART PC


AIR NZ: Australian Regulator Wins Appeal in Cargo Cartel Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Underhill, writing for Business Desk, reports that the
Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has won an air
cargo cartel appeal against PT Garuda Indonesia and Air New
Zealand that agreed surcharges on cargo breached that nation's
price fixing laws.

The two are the only airlines of 15 that haven't settled with the
ACCC since the Australian regulator began proceedings for price
fixing on air cargo at ports outside of Australia destined for
that nation.  The Federal Court ruling is that the price fixing
took place in a "market in Australia".

"This decision is significant because it confirms the ACCC's view
that the conduct by the airlines in fixing air cargo surcharges to
be paid by Australian importers and ultimately passed on to
Australian consumers were caught by Australian competition laws,"
the ACCC said.

Total fines of A$98.5 million were imposed by the courts against
the 13 airlines that settled, with the largest, A$20 million,
imposed on Qantas Airways.

The ACCC's original proceedings against Garuda and Air New Zealand
were dismissed in 2014 in a ruling that found the behavior didn't
occur in a "market in Australia" as was required by the Trade
Practices Act 1974 that was in force at the time. The ACCC
appealed that ruling to the full court of the Federal Court.

The regulator said matters against the two airlines had been
remitted to the court to determine relief to be granted, including
declarations, injunctions and penalties.

The Australian action is one of a number that has embroiled major
airlines, including a US class action filed in 2006 on behalf of
six freight forwarders and has been led by global litigation firm
Hausfeld that has seen 26 carriers cut settlement deals totalling
US$1.19 billion.  In that case, Air New Zealand and Air India are
the only carriers left defending the civil lawsuit.

In New Zealand, the Commerce Commission reached settlements with
11 carriers, including Air New Zealand, securing penalties
totalling $45 million, or about 10 percent of the revenue
generated from air freight forwarding services in and out of
New Zealand in 2006.


AMARIN CORP: Still Defends Securities Class Action in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc 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 a consolidated securities litigation in New Jersey.

"We and certain of our current and former executive officers and
directors have been named as defendants in a class action lawsuit
that generally alleges that we and certain of our current and
former officers and directors violated Sections 10(b) and/or 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements
or material omissions concerning the ANCHOR sNDA and related FDA
regulatory approval process in an effort to lead investors to
believe that Vascepa would receive approval from the FDA in the
ANCHOR indication. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs," the Company said

"We engaged in a vigorous defense of this lawsuit.

"On June 29, 2015, the Court granted our motion to dismiss the
class action without prejudice. The Court held that the plaintiffs
failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted and
plaintiffs were given 30 days to refile an amended complaint.

"On July 29, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. We
again moved to dismiss, await a ruling on that motion and plan to
continue with our vigorous defense. However, we are unable to
predict the outcome of this matter at this time. Moreover, while
we expect insurance to cover any financial exposure from this
litigation, the conclusion of this matter in a manner adverse to
us could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition
and business. For example, we could incur substantial costs not
covered by our directors' and officers' liability insurance,
suffer a significant adverse impact on our reputation and divert
management's attention and resources from other priorities,
including the execution of business plans and strategies that are
important to our ability to grow our business, any of which could
have a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, any
of these matters could require payments that are not covered by,
or exceed the limits of, our available directors' and officers'
liability insurance, which could have a material adverse effect on
our operating results or financial condition.

"On June 29, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the District of New
Jersey granted our motion to dismiss the putative consolidated
class action lawsuit captioned In re Amarin Corporation plc,
Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663 (D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013).
The class action was dismissed without prejudice with leave for
plaintiffs to file an amended complaint. The lawsuit sought
unspecified monetary damages and attorneys' fees and costs
alleging that we and certain of our current and former officers
and directors made misstatements and omissions regarding the FDA's
willingness to approve Vascepa's ANCHOR indication and related
contributing factors and the potential relevance of data from the
ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to that potential approval.

"On July 29, 2015, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint alleging
facts similar to those in the original complaint. Like the first
complaint, the amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary
damages and attorneys' fees and costs. We believe we have valid
defenses and will continue to vigorously defend against this
lawsuit, but cannot predict the outcome. We have insurance
coverage that is anticipated to cover any significant loss
exposure that may arise from this action."

Amarin is a biopharmaceutical company with expertise in lipid
science focused on the commercialization and development of
therapeutics to improve cardiovascular health.


AMERICAN MEDICAL: Cal. App. Won't Revive Paramedic's Wage Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Roger W. Boren of the California Court of Appeals
dismissed Plaintiff's appeal to the trial court's ruling in the
case captioned, VAUGHN BANTA, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN
MEDICAL RESPONSE, INC., et al. Defendants and Respondents, Case
No. B255239 (Cal. App.).

Vaughn Banta initiated a putative class action lawsuit against
American Medical Response, Inc. (AMR) and related entities in
2008. The operative pleading alleges that Banta, who is employed
by AMR as a paramedic, failed to receive overtime pay, meal
breaks, rest breaks, and itemized wage statements, in violation of
the Labor Code. This is allegedly a company policy affecting some
11,000 employees. Banta sought class certification, identifying
the class members as emergency medical technicians and paramedics
in Southern California. AMR opposed certification on the grounds
that Banta failed to establish his adequacy as class
representative or a "community of interest" on his claims.

At a hearing on February 25, 2014, the trial court granted class
certification on AMR's alleged failure to pay overtime, and
ordered the parties to meet and confer regarding the notice that
must be given to class members. The court denied class
certification as to the meal and rest break claims, finding
insufficient evidence to demonstrate a common issue, or that the
matter would not require individualized inquiry.

Plaintiff purports to appeal from the trial court's refusal to
certify a class as to some -- but not all -- of his claims.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/yhFeiyfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boren found that the
trial court did not deny the class certification motion in its
entirety: class certification as to overtime claims was granted,
or remains viable and that plaintiff's PAGA claims on behalf of
similarly aggrieved employees provide the requisite financial
incentive to continue on.


Vaughn Banta is represented by:

     Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
     VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER
     6310 San Vicente Blvd., Ste. 430
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Tel: (323)592-3505

American Medical Response, Inc. is represented by Michael S. Kun,
Esq. -- mkun@ebglaw.com -- EPSTEIN BECKER & GREEN


AMERICAN MUTUAL: 8th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Amend Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Diana E. Murphy of the Court of Appeals, Eighth
Circuit, affirmed a district court's ruling denying Plaintiffs'
motion to amend their complaint in the case captioned, Michael
Adams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated;
Colleen Adams, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-1475 (8th
Cir.).

Michael and Colleen Adams owned a homeowners insurance policy
issued by American Family Mutual Insurance Company (American
Family) at the time a pipe burst in their home. American Family
paid them for their structural damage pursuant to the policy.
After the Adams received this payment, they discovered additional
damage to their home and American Family refused to consider the
additional losses. The Adams attempted to invoke their right to
appraisal under Iowa Code Sec. 515.109, but were informed by
American Family that their contract only provided for arbitration,
not appraisal.

The Adams initially filed a state court petition seeking damages
from American Family for their individual claims, but later
amended the petition to state a class action. American Family then
removed the class action to federal district court and moved to
dismiss arguing that the class claims for declaratory and
injunctive relief did not state claims because Iowa's appraisal
statute does not create a private right of action. The Adams'
declaratory judgment was dismissed as well as their request for an
injunction. The court also dismissed the bad faith claim because
the Adams had not alleged that American Family denied any of the
class members' claims, a prerequisite for a bad faith claim in
Iowa.

After the district court dismissed all of the Adams' class action
claims, the Adams filed their proposed second amended petition
alleged a breach of contract claim based upon American Family's
failure to pay for the additional damage done to the their home
and a bad faith claim seeking damages for American Family's
failure to investigate, adjust, and pay for the additional losses.
The district court denied the motion, concluding that the new
petition merely attempted to resurrect the individual claims the
Adams had initially asserted in state court and that such an
amendment would substantially prejudice American Family.

The Adams appealed the dismissal of their action and the denial of
their motion to amend arguing that the district court abused its
discretion and erred in dismissing their claims.

In her Order dated February 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ZebXeFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Murphy found that the
Adams had failed to plead sufficient facts to provide American
Family with fair notice and that the class action petition sought
a class wide injunction, not individual damages, while the
proposed second amended petition sought individual damages instead
of a class wide injunction. The District Court did not abuse its
discretion, the Appeals Court said.


AMERICAN UNIVERSITY: Denies Employee Discrimination Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Bradshaw, writing for Nation News, reports that Associate
Dean of the American University of Barbados (AUB), Sam Suhail, has
denied that racial discrimination was being practiced at the
university or that they had unlawfully terminated three employees
in recent months.

Following claims from three former members of staff that they were
dismissed from the school without proper notification, Suhail told
the SUNDAY SUN: "All of them were properly terminated. From the
beginning there were two attorneys that worked on the case and all
of them were terminated properly and within the laws of Barbados."
Lisa Neblett, Tamisha Ollivere and Jahmela Boddie complained that
they had been "wrongfully" dismissed.  They also charged that they
were discriminated against because they were black and female.


AMSPEC SERVICES: "Atanassov" Suit Moved from N.J. to S.D. Texas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jivko Atanassov, individually and on behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, v. AMSPEC Services, L.L.C., a New Jersey
Limited Liability Company, Case No. 3:15-cv-03628, was transferred
from the US District Court for the District Court of New Jersey,
to the US District Court for the Southern District Court of Texas
(Galveston). The clerk of the Texas Southern District court
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00066 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff seeks to recover overtime wages, premium wages, and
reasonable attorney fees due to Defendant's violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

AmSpec Services provides inspection and testing services to oil
and petrochemicals, additives, and tank calibration sectors in the
United States and internationally. The company performs a range of
analyses on various products, including biofuel, petroleum,
petrochemicals, and agricultural commodities. It offers various
technical services, such as blending, ultralow sulfur diesel
testing, liquefied natural gas/liquefied petroleum gas, liquefied
gas, jet fuel testing, gasoline testing, petrochemical and
chemical inspection, diesel fuel testing, crude oil, and bunker
fuel services. The company was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in Cranbury, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patricia A. Barasch, Esq.
          Richard M. Schall, Esq.
          SCHALL & BARASCH, LLC
          MOORESTOWN OFFICE CENTER
          110 Marter Avenue, Suite 302
          Moorestown, NJ 08057-3124
          Telephone: (856) 914 9200

The Defendant is represented by:

          Patrick W. McGovern, Esq.
          Angelo Joseph Genova, Esq.
          Genova Burns LLC
          494 Broad Street
          Newark, NJ 07102
          Telephone: (973) 535 7129
          E-mail: pmcgovern@genovaburns.com


APPLE INC: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of "Hodges" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Barry G. Silverman and Richard C. Tallman and
Senior District Judge Robert S. Lasnik of the Court of Appeals,
Ninth District, affirmed a district court's dismissal of a
putative class action seeking state law remedies for allegedly
deceptive practices in the sale of Apple's MacBook Pro with Retina
display line of notebook computers.

The appellate case is captioned, BEAU HODGES, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. APPLE,
INC., Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-15106 (9th Cir.).

Beau Hodges purchased a new line of notebook computers that it
called "MacBook Pro with Retina display" (rMBP) in June 2012. He
relied upon Apple's statement that it was offering a "MacBook Pro
with Retina display" with part number "MC975LL/A." Hodges's
notebook began exhibiting image quality issues approximately one
month after purchase, and he confirmed that the display on his
rMBP was from LG Electronics. Rather than avail himself of the
warranty on the product, Hodges filed this class action lawsuit,
alleging affirmative misrepresentations and fraudulent omissions
under the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act and the Unfair
Competition Law and asserting breach of contract and breach of the
covenant of good faith and fair dealing claims.

The district court found that Hodges's allegations could not
support his consumer protection or breach of contract claims.
Leave to amend was denied because there were no additional factual
allegations that would cure the deficiencies.

Beau Hodges appeals the district court's dismissal of a putative
class action seeking state law remedies for allegedly deceptive
practices in the sale of Apple's MacBook Pro with Retina display
line of notebook computers.

In the Memorandum dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Fuapiufrom Leagle.com, Judges Silverman, Tallman and
Lasnik concluded that the district court correctly noted that
Hodges failed to adequately allege an "actual misrepresentation"
or "fraudulent omission" related to the rMBP. To the extent
Hodges's California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA") and
Unfair Competition Law ("UCL") claims are based on an alleged
fraudulent omission, they also fail as a matter of law.


ARCHANA BUSINESS: "Masihuddin" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Farooq Masihuddin and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. Andalib Business, Inc., Archana Business, Inc., Arpana
Business, Inc., B&G Business, Inc., Circle G Business, Inc.,
Circleway Business, Inc., Davwa Investment, Ltd, Davwa Properties,
Inc., First Falcon Express, Inc., First Briarforest Business,
Inc., First Hempstead Business, Inc., Fishtail Enterprises, Inc.,
G&C Business, Inc., Geo-Matrix Investments, LLC, K&G Business,
Inc., KSS Houston Properties, LLC, Muskan Enterprises, Inc., New
Mesa Business, Inc., New Mesa Properties, Inc., Rampart
Investment, Inc., Shiraz Beverage, Inc., Supermercado Enterprises,
Inc., Wayside Stores, Inc., West Star Investments, L.L.C.,
Gyanshor Shrestha, Shiraz K. Davwa, Asif K. Davwa, Khawit N. Ali
and Syed Ali Wali Mohammad, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00737
(S.D. Tex., Houston Division, March 20, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages, equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, all costs of the action, and post-
judgment interest under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 201.

Defendants own and operate gasoline stations and/or convenience
stores where the Plaintiff worked as a store clerk. Defendants
have denied Masihuddin overtime compensation for hours worked in
excess of 40 in one or more workweeks, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Salar Ali Ahmed, Esq.
      ALI S. AHMED, P.C.
      One Arena Place
      7322 Southwest Frwy., Suite 1920
      Houston, TX 77074
      Telephone: (713) 223-1300
      Facsimile: (713) 255-0013
      Email: aahmedlaw@gmail.com


ASSOCIATED CREDIT: Faces "Mendez" Class Suit in N.J. Dist. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Associated Credit Services.

The case is captioned Christina Mendez on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Associated Credit
Services (ACS), Inc., and John Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-01442-MAS-TJB (Dist. N.J., Trenton, March 14, 2016).

ACS provides assistance regarding consumer's accounts, placement
activity, interest calculations and adjustments, recovery
performance, monthly reporting, and remittance support.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459 7971
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


AUSTRALIA: Lawyers Seek $30MM Damages in Retta Dixon Abuse Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amos Aikman, writing for The Australian, reports that hundreds of
Stolen Generations and other Aboriginal child-abuse survivors
could end up suing the commonwealth for many tens of millions of
dollars due to its responsibility for kids sent to Northern
Territory missionary homes prior to self-government, making it an
attractive "deep-pocketed" litigant.

Lawyers for more than 80 former residents of Darwin's notorious
Retta Dixon Home, which the Royal Commission into Institutional
Responses to Child Sexual Abuse examined in 2014, are seeking up
to $30 million in damages in a high-profile class action that has
uncovered multiple new claims of horrific maltreatment.

The Australian can also reveal that the royal commission has
informed Stolen Generations groups of a possible public inquiry
into alleged abuse at the former Garden Point Mission on the Tiwi
Islands, expected later this year.

There are several other former mission sites in the Territory at
which children were housed.  What makes civil litigation
attractive is that children orphaned or removed from parents were
generally wards of Canberra prior to the start of Northern
Territory self-government in 1978.

The $30m figure contemplated in the Retta Dixon class action
equates to an average of about $350,000 a person, or more than
five times the average of $65,000 the commission proposed last
year for a public benevolent scheme.

Bill Piper, a lawyer acting for the 83 alleged victims, said the
actual amounts sought per person were on a sliding scale by
severity of abuse, and commensurate with similar past civil
actions.

"About half are alleging they were sexually assaulted while they
were residents at Retta Dixon, with virtually all of those also
alleging being subjected to serious physical assaults," Mr. Piper
said.  "Of the sexual-assault victims, around a quarter are named
as being the most catastrophic cases of the most serious and
frequent sexual assaults."  The class action is against the
commonwealth and seven other defendants, including six individual
missionaries who helped run the Retta Dixon Home.

"With the commonwealth, we've got a defendant that we know has
deep pockets," Mr. Piper said.  "It's unusual that the
commonwealth will be a defendant in such a claim.

"Quite often you will have people who have claims against
unincorporated entities, closed-down institutions and churches who
are never going to be able to find deep pockets to sue."

Although circumstances were "quite beneficial" to his clients,
Mr. Piper said none was primarily interested in money.  The case
had been designed to entice swift settlement.  "It could be a
precedent for other missions in the Territory, although those
haven't had the benefit of a commission hearing," he said.

Since the 2014 Retta Dixon hearing, abuse allegations have
resurfaced among former residents of missions at Garden Point on
the Tiwi Islands and at Croker Island.

NT Stolen Generations Aboriginal Corporation chief executive Frank
Spry said the commission was investigating Garden Point ahead of a
possible public hearing later this year.

"They will be having some camps, day camps (to discuss the planned
hearing) with various groups -- a women's group, a men's group and
also the sister girls," Mr. Spry said.

"The plan is for hearings like the Retta Dixon hearings but over
there (on the Tiwi Islands)."

Similar claims followed by a comparable class action were
possible, if not likely, he said.

A spokeswoman said the commission's policy was not to comment on
investigations.

In a report released last year, the commission proposed
compensating about 60,000 victims nationwide through a redress
scheme, with amounts of between $10,000 and $200,000.  It
predicted there would be about 580 eligible claimants in the
Territory, and suggested allocating $42m.

Mr. Piper said if such a scheme were ever established, he did not
anticipate "double-dipping."


AVANTE USA: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Ashkenazi, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Avante USA, Ltd, CP Medical, LLC, and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 3:16-cv-01490-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., March 17,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

The Defendants provide professional and expedient collection
services of delinquent accounts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


AVENTURA RESTAURANT: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Minimum and OT Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Johnson and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs, v. Aventura Restaurant Group, LLC and H&L Restaurant
Group, LLC and Robert Levy, individually, Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-20998-JEM (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2016), seeks to recover
money damages for unpaid wages and fraud, liquidated damages,
costs and reasonable attorney's fees pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201-219.

Johnson was employed as a cook in the Defendants' restaurant under
the name Bagel Works. He claims to have received subminimum wages
and did not receive overtime pay for work rendered in excess of 40
hours per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 N.E. 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, FL 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503.5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      Email: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


BALDWIN RESTAURANT: M.D. Fla. Judge Won't Hear State Law Claim
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Byron of the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida overruled Plaintiff's objection
to the Report and Recommendation, and adopted and confirmed the
R&R, in the case captioned, BLAKE SCHOLEY, Plaintiff, v. ROBERT
LACEY and BALDWIN RESTAURANT VENTURE, LLC, Defendants, Case No.
6:15-CV-559ORL-40KRS (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff initiated the instant putative class action on April 6,
2015, to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages from
Defendants. Plaintiff worked for Defendants as a bartender from
January 2007 to May 2014. Plaintiff states that he worked an
average of sixty-five to eighty hours per week, but was not paid
overtime wages at the statutorily required rate. Plaintiff further
alleges that Defendants improperly withheld a portion of the tips
he earned as a bartender and that Defendants did not distribute
tips in accordance with the law. Plaintiff states that his
injuries are common among other bartenders and food servers who
have worked for Defendants and that these employees may form the
basis for a class action.

In addition to pursuing his claims through the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), Plaintiff also asserts a claim for minimum
wage violations under Article X, Section 24 of the Florida
Constitution.

On June 24, 2015, Defendants moved to dismiss Plaintiff's Florida
Constitution claim and to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint as
to the individual Defendant, Robert Lacey.

Magistrate Judge Spaulding issued a report recommending that the
Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiff's Florida Constitution claim and deny Defendants' motion
to dismiss as to Lacey.

In the motion, Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate Judge's report,
but only to the extent it recommends that the Court decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Florida
Constitution claim.

In his Order dated February 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/B5flrafrom Leagle.com, Judge Byron found that
concerns for comity and federalism weigh heavily against
exercising supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Florida
Constitution claim. To the extent judicial economy, convenience,
and fairness to the parties weigh in favor of the Court exercising
supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff's Florida Constitution
claim, they do so only slightly.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph Ronald Denman, Esq.
     M. Kristen Allman, Esq.
     THE BLEAKLEY BAVOL LAW FIRM
     15170 N Florida Ave
     Tampa, FL 33613
     Tel: (813)221-3759

Defendants are represented by Marc Aaron Sugerman, Esq. --
msugerman@anblaw.com -- Mark E. Levitt, Esq. -- mlevitt@anblaw.com
-- ALLEN, NORTON & BLUE, PA


BAY AREA TOLL AUTHORITY: "Jefferson" Suit Filed in Cal Super. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the Bay Area Toll Authority and
other parties.

The case is captioned Jefferson, Michael and Freeland, Kristin
individually and on behalf of themselves, the General Public and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Xerox State and Local
Solutions, Inc., Highway and Transportation District, Golden Gate
Bridge Does 1-50, and Bay Area Toll Authority, the Defendants, the
Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 550947 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of San
Francisco, February 18, 2016).

Bay Area Toll Authority engages in the administration, operation,
and upkeep of bridges in San Francisco. The company programs,
administers, and allocates base toll revenues from bridges for the
day-to-day operations, maintenance, and administration of bridges,
as well as their capital improvement and rehabilitation. It also
provides transit programs, such as toll-funded transit programs.
The company was founded in 1997 and is based in Oakland,
California.


BENCO DENTAL: Faces Cornerstone Suit Over Dental Supplies
---------------------------------------------------------
Cornerstone Dentistry, P.C., on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Patterson Companies, Inc., Henry Schein,
Inc., Benco Dental Supply Co., Case No. 1:16-cv-01333 (E.D.N.Y.,
March 17, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged
anticompetitive conspiracy to foreclose competition, specifically
by illegally engaging in a conspiracy to boycott competitor dental
product distributors and other entities that do business with such
competitors, in order to maintain and extend their dominant
collective market power in the market for the distribution of
dental supplies and dental equipment in the United States.

The Defendants are the three largest distributors of dental
supplies in the United States.

Cornerstone Dentistry, P.C. is a pro se plaintiff.


BEST BUY: Faces "Truong" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------
Simon N. Truong, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Best Buy Co., Inc., a
Minnesota corporation, and Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case No.
RG16807586 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County, March 18, 2016),
(a) seeks to recover punitive damages, actual and punitive
damages, and attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the California
Civil Code, California Business and Professions Code, Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), (b) enjoin Best Buy from further failing to
properly charge prepaid mobile telephony services (MTS) surcharge,
and (c) impose surcharge on individuals who did not purchase
prepaid MTS.

Best Buy Co., Inc., sells cellular phones. In some cases,
those phones are sold without any wireless service or service
plan. But in other cases, they are sold with prepaid cards or
prepaid wireless services, also known as prepaid MTS.

Beginning January 1, 2016, California law required sellers of
prepaid MTS to charge and collect a prepaid MTS surcharge from the
purchaser at the time of the retail transaction. This amount is
remitted to the state Board of Equalization, save a 2% fee which
the seller may retain as reimbursement for collecting the
surcharge.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael F. Ram., Esq.
          RAM. OLSON, CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP
          101 Montgomery Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: 415 (433) 4949
          Facsimile: 415 (433) 7311
          E-mail: mrn@rocklawcal.com


BEST MIYAKO: Faces "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shiqiu Chen and Changren Zou, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Best Miyako Sushi Corp. d/b/a Miyako Sushi,
Satori Sushi Corp. d/b/a Miyako Sushi, Lobster Sushi Corp. d/b/a
Miyako Sushi, Xiang Z. Chen, Peter Zou, Hiuling Cheung, Xue Tiao
Chen, Fat Hin Cheng, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-02005
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant in New York.

Shiqiu Chen and Changren Zou are pro se plaintiffs.


BEST MIYAKO: Faces 2nd "Chen" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Shiqiu Chen and Changren Zou, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated v. Best Miyako Sushi Corp. d/b/a Miyako Sushi,
Satori Sushi Corp. d/b/a Miyako Sushi, Lobster Sushi Corp. d/b/a
Miyako Sushi, Xiang Z. Chen, Peter Zou, Hiuling Cheung, Xue Tiao
Chen, Fat Hin Cheng, and Jane Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-02012
(S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Japanese restaurant in New York.

Shiqiu Chen and Changren Zou are pro se plaintiffs.


BLUESTEM BRANDS: Violated 1996 Act, "Elizabeth" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Bluestem Brands, Inc. in
Minnesota.

The case is captioned Elizabeth Busch and Thomas Busch, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Bluestem Brands, Inc. D/B/A Fingerhut, the Defendant, Case No.
0:16-cv-00644 (Dist. Minn., March 14, 2016).

Bluestem Brands, a multi-brand online retailer, together with its
subsidiaries, offers a selection of name-brand, private label, and
non-branded merchandise through catalog and Internet Websites
serving low to middle income consumers in the United States. It
primarily sells consumer electronics, domestics, housewares, home
furnishings, children's merchandise, and apparel. The company is
based in Eden Prairie, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas J Lyons Jr, Esq.
          CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER P.A.
          367 Commerce Court
          Vadnais Heights, MN 55127
          Telephone: (651) 770 9707
          Facsimile: (651) 704 0907
          E-mail: tommycjc@aol.com


BLUE VICTORY: "Anderson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yana Anderson and Lori Veal, individually and on behalf of all
other similarly situated current and former employees, Plaintiffs,
v. Blue Victory Holdings, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Star Brands,
LLC, Star Brands II, LLC, Star Brands III, LLC and Star Brands IV,
LLC, Louisiana Limited Liability Companies, Seenu G. Kasturi, John
M. Meyer, Jr., Yannick Bastien, Owen P. Thompson Fred D.
Alexander, Paul S. Driscoll, Victor L. Peeples and Howard Killgo,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00127-BAJ-EWD (M.D.
La., February 26, 2016), seeks compensation for unpaid overtime
wages, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and expert
fees, and such other general and specific relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Blue Victory Holdings, Inc. is a Nevada Corporation with its
principal business office located at 502 East John Street, Carson
City, Nevada 89706. It is a private equity firm focused on the
development and management of national restaurant franchises and
other assets, branded assets, real estate and other endeavors. It
owns Star Brands.

Plaintiffs worked as assistant managers for the Defendant's KFC,
Taco Bell and Long John Silver restaurant franchises. They assert
that they have not been paid lawful minimum and overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Garner J. Wetzel, Esq.
      JAMES K. WETZEL & ASSOCIATES
      1701 24th Avenue
      Post Office Box I
      Gulfport, MS 39502
      Tel: (228) 864-6400
      Fax: (228) 863-1793
      Email: gjwetzel@wetzellawfirm.com

           - and -

      Gordon E. Jackson, Esq.
      James L. Holt, Jr., Esq.
      J. Russ Bryant, Esq.
      Paula R. Jackson, Esq.
      JACKSON, SHIELDS, YEISER & HOLT
      262 German Oak Drive
      Memphis, TN 38018
      Tel: (901) 754-8001
      Fax: (901) 759-1745
      Email: gjackson@jsyc.com
             jholt@jsyc.com
             rbryant@jsyc.com
             pjackson@jsyc.com


BMW NORTH AMERICA: Court Narrows Claims in "Catalano" Action
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted in part BMW's
motion to dismiss, stay, or transfer the action under the first-
filed rule in the case captioned, GEORGE CATALANO, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability company;
BAYERISCHE MOTOREN WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a corporation
organized under the laws of the Federal Republic of Germany; and
BMW MANUFACTURING CO., LLC, a Delaware limited: liability company,
Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-4889 (KBF) (S.D.N.Y.).

Catalano commenced the action in June 2015, on behalf of himself
and all others similarly situated, alleging that defendants BMW of
North America, LLC, Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft,
and BMW Manufacturing Company, LLC fraudulently concealed and
failed to address alleged safety defects present in certain BMW
motor vehicle models.

Based on the existence of the alleged defects and BMW's
concealment of and failure to disclose them, Catalano's First
Amended Complaint alleges eight claims under New York law for
breach of an express warranty, the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, and
contract/common law warranty, fraudulent concealment, and
violation of N.Y. GBL Sec. 349; the FAC seeks compensatory and
punitive damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.

Pending before the Court is BMW's motion to dismiss, stay, or
transfer the action under the first-filed rule, on the ground that
a substantially similar suit, Sharma v. BMW of North America, LLC,
Civil Action No. 3:13-cv-02274-MMC (N.D. Cal.), was instituted
earlier in time in the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California. BMW's motion, in the alternative,
seeks dismissal of the action for failure to state a claim under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); in that section of its
motion, BMW asserts one or more particular grounds for dismissal
of each of Catalano's various claims.

In her Opinion and Order dated March 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/RBUdtnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Forrest concluded that
the first-filed rule does not apply on the record presented and
that all claims against BMW MC, and all but Catalano's N.Y. GBL
Sec. 349 claim against BMW AG and BMW NA, must be dismissed. The
only surviving claim as to BMW NA and BMW AG is Catalano's N.Y.
GBL Sec. 349 claim.

The Court will also allow Catalano an opportunity to replead
solely his fraudulent concealment claim as to BMW NA and BMW AG
not later than 14 days from the date of the issuance of Opinion &
Order.

George Catalano is represented by:

     Ian James Barlow, Esq.
     William Alter Kershaw, Esq.
     KERSHAW COOK & TALLEY PC
     401 Watt Ave
     Sacramento, CA 95864
     Tel: (888)997-5170

          - and -

     Amy Elisabeth Keller, Esq.
     Edward Anthony Wallace, Esq.
     WEXLER WALLACE LLP
     55 W Monroe St # 3300,
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)346-2222

BMW of North America is represented by Christopher James Dalton,
Esq. -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com -- Lauren Adornetto Woods,
Esq. -- lauren.woods@bipc.com -- Rosemary Joan Bruno, Esq. --
rosemary.bruno@bipc.com -- BUCHANAN INGERSOLL & ROONEY PC


BRITISH PETROLEUM: "Townsend" Suit Goes to N.D. Alabama
-------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Wilkinson, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana granted
Defendant's motion to transfer venue in the case captioned, ROBERT
JAMES TOWNSEND, v. BRITISH PETROLEUM, SECTION "J"(2), Case No. 15-
5033 (E.D. La.).

The complaint alleges that pro se plaintiff Robert James Townsend
resides in Gadsden, Alabama, which is located in Etowah County in
the Northern District of Alabama, Middle Division. 28 U.S.C. Sec.
81(a)(6). Plaintiff's 2010, 2011, and 2014 tax returns also list
residence addresses within Gadsden, Alabama. Plaintiff's most
recent employer is located in Gadsden, and his job before that one
was in Anniston, Alabama, also located in the Northern District of
Alabama. The witnesses who know about plaintiff's alleged injury
are identified as "people where I live." It follows that important
and highly relevant documents, specifically plaintiff's key
medical records, are located in the Northern District of Alabama.

In the motion, Plaintiff requested that the case remain in the
Eastern District of Louisiana under the Jones Act.  Defendants
filed a Motion to Transfer Venue to the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama.

In his Order and Reason dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/2cWpJHfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wilkinson, Jr. found
that venue is both proper and most appropriate in the Northern
District of Alabama. The convenience of the parties and witnesses
and the interests of justice warrant transfer of the case.

Defendants are represented by Kevin Michael Hodges, Esq. --
khodges@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY, LLP, Catherine Pyune
McEldowney, Esq. -- cpm@maronmarvel.com -- MARON MARVEL BRADLEY
AND ANDERSON LLC & Don Keller Haycraft, Esq. --
dkhaycraft@liskow.com -- LISKOW & LEWIS


BURCH EQUIPMENT: Court Grants Class Certification in "Velasquez"
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Louise W. Flanagan of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina granted the
parties' Joint Motion for Class Action Certification in the case
captioned, AUGUSTINA VELAZQUEZ and OMAR SEGUNDO URBINA a/k/a one
person named ROBERTO CARLOS DE LEON RAMOS, MOISES SEGUNDO URBINA
a/k/a MANUEL LOPEZ, and LUIS FERNANDO VELAZQUEZ a/k/a ALFONSO
REYNOSO GONZALEZ on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. BURCH EQUIPMENT, L.L.C.; BURCH
FARMS, L.L.C.; JAMES P. BURCH, MANAGER of both BURCH EQUIPMENT,
L.L.C. and BURCH FARMS, L.L.C.; WILLIAM E. BURCH, MANAGER of BURCH
EQUIPMENT, L.L.C.; FRANCIS T. BURCH, MANAGER of BURCH EQUIPMENT,
L.L.C.; and TERESA BURCH, MEMBER of BURCH FARMS, L.L.C.,
Defendants, Case No. 7:14-CV-00303-FL (E.D.N.C.).

Between December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2014, Burch Equipment,
LLC employed Named Plaintiffs and the members of the putative
class as migrant or seasonal agricultural workers. The Plaintiffs
alleged that Burch Equipment, LLC violated the recordkeeping and
wage statement provisions of 29 U.S.C. Sections 1821(d)(1)(B)-(D),
1821(d)(2), 1831(d)(1)(B)-(D), and 1831(d)(2) of the Migrant and
Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act (AWPA) by failing to
disclose, make, and preserve wage statements and records which
accurately disclosed and recorded the number of hours worked.

The Named Plaintiffs and Defendants have negotiated a settlement
agreement in this action which includes relief on a class wide
basis on the Named Plaintiffs' claims under the AWPA.

In the motion, the parties seek certification under Rule 23 for
alleged violations of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker
Protection Act (AWPA). The parties move under Fed. R. Civ. P.,
Rule 23(b)(3), for certification of a class represented by
Plaintiffs of "all migrant and seasonal agricultural workers (as
the terms migrant agricultural worker and seasonal agricultural
worker are defined in 29 U.S.C. Sections 1802(8) and 1802(10) and
29 C.F.R. Sections 500.20(p) and 500.20(r)) who performed
temporary or seasonal work in agriculture as an employee of Burch
Equipment, LLC and/or the individual Burch defendants between
December 31, 2011 and December 31, 2014 and who were paid on a
piece rate during any workweek during that time period."

In the Order dated March 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/6n7a9w
from Leagle.com, Judge Flanagan found that Named Plaintiffs'
Amended Complaint meet the requirements of Rule 23 and that the
proposed class satisfies the requirements of Rule 23(b)(3).

Robert Willis, counsel for the named Plaintiffs is appointed as
class counsel.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert J. Willis, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT J. WILLIS
     35 Thompson St,
     Pittsboro, NC 27312
     Tel: (919)542-1825

Burch Equipment, LLC is represented by William Sutton Cherry, III,
Esq. -- cherry@manningfulton.com -- Jonathan Whitfield Gibson,
Esq. -- gibson@manningfulton.com -- MANNING FULTON & SKINNER, P.A.


CALIFORNIA: Inmate Loses Bid to Disqualify Judges
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiff's
motion for disqualification of the magistrate judge and district
judge, and motion for reconsideration in the case captioned,
SEAVON PIERCE, Plaintiff, v. JONATHAN M. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-01941-LJO-BAM (PC) (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Seavon Pierce, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed
the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1361, on December 11, 2015.
On January 11, 2016, judgment was entered dismissing this action,
pursuant to the Court's order to deny Plaintiff's application to
proceed in forma pauperis and to dismiss the case without
prejudice to refiling with submission of the filing fee.

On February 23, 2016, Plaintiff simultaneously filed the
following: (1) a request for disqualification of the magistrate
judge and the undersigned; (2) a motion for reconsideration; and
(3) a notice of appeal. Plaintiff asserts that he never alleged
any claims of excessive force, but the magistrate judge discussed
matters related to excessive force in her order. Plaintiff also
complains that the Court and/or its officers have illegally
removed the petitioners/plaintiffs other than himself from the
action.

In his Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/p2OQpVfrom Leagle.com, Judge O'Neill found that
Plaintiff has not presented sufficient grounds for seeking recusal
or disqualification of the magistrate judge and that there is no
evidence of any wrongful removal of any petitioners or plaintiffs
from the action. Plaintiff has also not shown any grounds for
reconsidering the prior orders in the case because extraordinary
circumstances are not present in the complaint.


CANADA: Faces Class Action in Regina Over Tax Shelter
-----------------------------------------------------
Barb Pacholik, writing for Regina Leader-Post, reports that in the
words of Randy Shoeman, there are hundreds of people in
Saskatchewan alone "waiting for the hammer to come down" after
putting money into what they believed was a legal, charitable tax
shelter.

The Regina tax adviser said he did "a tremendous amount due
diligence" before donating to the Global Learning Gifting
Initiative (GLGI) and getting friends and family to do the same.

But last year, a court declared the tax shelter a tax "sham" --
and now thousands of taxpayers and potentially billions of dollars
across the country are caught in the crossfire.

"There's a tremendous amount of panic in our circle and a large
base of individuals Canada-wide saying, 'What do we do?'" said Mr.
Shoeman.  He personally knows individuals potentially on the hook
for anywhere from $20,000 to $1 million.

"They were just participating in a program that for years and
years seemed to work out," said Mr. Shoeman.

Some 2,700 of those participants have joined a proposed class-
action lawsuit mounted by a Regina law firm.

Lawyer Tony Merchant believes they're only the tip of the iceberg,
with the suit just filed in Regina.  "We think it's 118,000
families (affected)," he said, estimating a potential $5.7 billion
in damages if it succeeds.

He's also hearing about suicides, marriage breakdowns and
bankruptcies among participants.  "People across Canada have been
so hurt," he said.

The proposed class action is going after not only Global Learning
Group Inc. (the promoter of GLGI), but a string of mostly
prominent, Ontario-based legal and accounting firms that the suit
alleges lent the shelter credibility with their assessments and
opinions, as well as the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA), which
initially allowed the approved the tax deductions.

At this early stage, no statements of defense have been filed.  A
statement of claim launches legal action and contains allegations
not yet proven in court.  For it to proceed as a class action, the
suit must first be certified by a judge.

No one from Global Learning could be reached for comment, with
phone numbers on their website out of service.  A CRA spokeswoman
said the agency wouldn't comment on a matter now before the court.

The claim relies, in part, on two court decisions related to GLGI.

The tax shelter began in 2004 and continued for about nine years,
but issues came to a head last year when the Tax Court of Canada
called it a "sham" in a decision relating to two donors, one a
retired teacher who attended a promotions seminar in Saskatoon.
Considered test cases, they appealed reassessments denying them
tens of thousands of dollars in charitable tax credits.  The
decision notes they received tax receipts that exceeded the money
put into the program.

The decision notes Global Learning had published on its website a
legal opinion of the program.  "It is self-evident that the
promoter went to great lengths to perpetrate this sham, aided by
its advisors and subcontractors," it states.

In January this year, in a separate ruling, the Federal Court of
Appeal struck a suit, launched by Merchant, against the CRA on
behalf of a number of participants.  But it also left the door
open to amend the claim, observing that those who issued opinions
and "benefited financially from the provisions of their
professional advice are better placed to indemnify the plaintiffs
in the event of negligence in the exercise of their professional
responsibilities."

Through a complex series of trust, beneficiary, gifting and
licensing arrangements, the charity provided software to a variety
of groups in exchange for donation receipts equivalent to what the
claim calls "false market values."  The Tax Court found the value
to be a mere 13 to 26 cents, "next-to-nothing compared to the
valuations utilized by the promoter."

The lawsuit alleges that while Global Learning was promoted as a
tax shelter that complied with income tax laws -- the courts have
since found otherwise.

Among several claims in the proposed class action, the suit
contends there was breach of contract, civil conspiracy, fraud,
negligence, breach of trust and unjust enrichment by those at the
helm of or advising on the tax shelter.  As for CRA, the suit
contends it failed to warn participants in a timely manner and
initially approved deductions, then delayed assessments or
reassessment for years.

"Because the tax department . . . went on for four or five years
approving it, people thought well, this is legitimate.  And then
the tax department went back and reassessed all the years,"
explained Merchant, adding that some people's debt and penalties
have grown exponentially.


CAPITAL ONE: Settlement in "Watson" Case Approved
-------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial 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 courts
across the different provinces in Canada have approved the
settlement in the Watson class action lawsuit in the fourth
quarter of 2015.


In March 2011, a furniture store owner named Mary Watson filed a
proposed class action in the Supreme Court of British Columbia
against Visa, MasterCard, and several banks, including Capital One
(the "Watson Litigation"). The lawsuit asserts, among other
things, that the defendants conspired to fix the merchant discount
fees that merchants pay on credit card transactions in violation
of Section 45 of the Competition Act and seeks unspecified damages
and injunctive relief. In addition, Capital One has been named as
a defendant in similar proposed class action claims filed in other
jurisdictions in Canada.

In March 2014, the court granted a partial motion for class
certification. Both parties appealed the decision to the Court of
Appeal for British Columbia, which heard oral argument in December
2014.

In April 2015, the merchant plaintiffs and Capital One agreed to
settle all matters filed in Canada as to Capital One and the
courts across the different provinces approved the class
settlement in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1994 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries.


CAPITAL ONE: 11th Cir. Upholds Judgment in Credit Card Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Capital One Financial 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
Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed the grant of
summary judgment for Capital One in the Credit Card Interest Rate
Litigation.

The Capital One Bank Credit Card Interest Rate Multi-district
Litigation matter was created as a result of a June 2010 transfer
order issued by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-district
Litigation ("MDL"), which consolidated for pretrial proceedings in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia two
pending putative class actions against COBNA-Nancy Mancuso, et al.
v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., et al., (E.D. Virginia); and
Kevin S. Barker, et al. v. Capital One Bank (USA), N.A., (N.D.
Georgia). A third action, Jennifer L. Kolkowski v. Capital One
Bank (USA), N.A., (C.D. California) was subsequently transferred
into the MDL. In August 2010, the plaintiffs in the MDL filed a
Consolidated Amended Complaint alleging that COBNA breached its
contractual obligations, and violated the Truth in Lending Act
("TILA"), the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the Unfair
Competition Law ("UCL"), the California False Advertising Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, and the Kansas Consumer Protection
Act when it raised interest rates on certain credit card accounts.
As a result of a settlement in another matter, the California-
based UCL and TILA claims in the MDL are extinguished. The MDL
plaintiffs sought statutory damages, restitution, attorney's fees
and an injunction against future rate increases. In September
2014, the court granted summary judgment for Capital One, which
the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed in November 2015.

Capital One Financial Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
established in 1994 and headquartered in McLean, Virginia, is a
diversified financial services holding company with banking and
non-banking subsidiaries.


CARLTON MANOR: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinney" Held in Abeyance
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Algenon L. Marbley of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio granted Defendant Sovran
Management Company's January 8, 2016 Motion to hold Plaintiff's
Motion in abeyance in the case captioned, DEBI MCKINNEY, on behalf
of herself and others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARLTON
MANOR NURSING &, REHABILITATION CENTER, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-CV-279 (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff Debi McKinney brought suit against Defendant Carlton
Manor Nursing Home and others in a complaint filed on March 24,
2014. On November 25, 2014, Plaintiff filed her First Amended
Class Action Complaint on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated against Defendants Carlton Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation
Center, Inc., The Manor at Washington Court House, LLC, NRC
Staffing, Inc., NRC Management, Inc., and Sovran Management
Company, LLC. The complaint is an action for collection of unpaid
wages and benefits pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and
Retraining Notification Act of 1988 alleging that Plaintiff and
others were due unpaid wages and benefits from Defendants.

On January 20, 2015, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim arguing that it was not the proper
defendant because it was not an employer as defined under the WARN
Act. The Court allowed Plaintiff to conduct discovery as to
whether Sovran was an employer. The parties have completed such
discovery, and Defendant maintains that it is not an employer and,
thus, not a proper defendant in the case.

Sovran moves to hold class certification in abeyance. Plaintiff
argues that there are "no reasonable grounds" for staying
consideration of the Class Certification Motion. Throughout the
course of the litigation, default judgments have been entered
against Defendants Carlton Manor Nursing & Rehabilitation Center,
Inc. and the NRC entities. On January 25, 2016, the Magistrate
Judge issued an order to show cause as to why the Manor at
Washington Court House should not have default judgment entered
against it.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/hntNCCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Marbley concluded that
adjudicating the Motion for Class Certification while
simultaneously briefing Sovran's motion for summary judgment would
be an inefficient use of both judicial and counsel's resources.
The Court sees any delay as minimal and that it would also not
unduly prejudice or tactically disadvantage Plaintiff.

Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class and Appoint Class
Representative is held in abeyance until the Court disposes of the
matter's dispositive motions, which were filed on January 29,
2016.

Debi McKinney is represented by Kenneth Ray Cookson, Esq. --
kcookson@keglerbrown.com -- KEGLER BROWN HILL & RITTER CO LPA, M.
Vance McCrary, Esq. -- vmccrary@thegardnerfirm.com -- THE GARDNER
FIRM, PC.  Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: (212) 581-5005

Sovran Management Company is represented by Janica Pierce Tucker,
Esq. -- jpierce@taftlaw.com -- Adrian D. Thompson, Esq. --
athompson@taftlaw.com -- Pamela Straughan Krivda, Esq. --
pkrivda@taftlaw.com -- TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER, LLP


CARRINGTON TEA: "Boulton" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal. Dist. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amy Boulton, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, v. Carrington Tea Company, LLC, Case No.
BC609360, was removed from the Los Angeles Superior Court, to US
District Court for the Central District Court of California
(Western Division - Los Angeles). The District Court assigned
2:16-cv-01740 to the proceeding.

Carrington Tea Company LLC produces teas. It offers black teas,
green teas, white teas, and organic teas, as well as herbal
blends. The company offers its products online. Carrington Tea
Company LLC was founded in 1999 and is based in Oradell, New
Jersey.


CB1 INC: Oral Argument Held in "Wittman" FDCPA Lawsuit
------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby of the United States District
Court for District of Montana set oral argument on the motion to
dismiss for March 25, 2016 at 9:00 a.m., in the case captioned,
WILLIAM WITTMAN and AMBER BELLAMY, for themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CB1, INC., Defendant, Case No.
CV 15-105-BLG-SPW-CSO (D. Mont.).

Plaintiffs William Wittman and Amber Bellamy bring the instant
putative class action against CB1, Inc. alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Montana Consumer
Protection Act.

Count I of the Complaint alleges that CB1 violated FDCPA sections
1692f(1) and 1692e(2)(B) by: (1) making false representations
concerning compensation that may be lawfully received by a debt
collector; and (2) collecting an amount not expressly authorized
by the agreement creating the debt or permitted by law. Count II
of the Complaint alleges that CB1 violated the MCPA by charging
consumers a credit-card or debit-card fee that is not legally
permitted, that CB1 had contracted with consumers not to charge,
and that it had agreed with card issuers not to charge.

CB1 has filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint for failure to
state a claim and to strike the class allegations.

In an Order dated February 18, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/wUs4Kbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Otsby declined CB1's
request for the Court to take judicial notice of the Conditions of
Registration Agreement ("CRA").  The Court said the Plaintiffs
specifically denied have aving signed such an agreement.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

      D. Michael Eakin, Esq.
      EAKIN, BERRY & GRYGIEL, PLLC
      2815 Montana Ave
      Billings, MT
      Tel: (406)969-600

           - and -

      John C. Heenan, Esq.
      BISHOP AND HEENAN
      1631 Zimmerman Trail,
      Billings, MT 59102
      Tel: (406)839-9091

CB1, Inc. is represented by:

      Martin Steve Smith, Esq.
      FELT, MARTIN, FRAZIER & WELDON, P.C.
      208 N Broadway,
      Billings, MT 59101
      Tel: (406)248-7646


CBS CORP: ABS's Pre-1972 Recordings Infringement Claims Nixed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ABS ENTERTAINMENT, INC., ET AL. Plaintiffs,
v. CBS CORPORATION, ET AL., Defendants, Case No.
15-CV-6801 (S.D.N.Y.), District Judge John G. Koeltl of the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York
granted CBS Corporation's motion to dismiss common law copyright
infringement claims that fall outside the three-year statute of
limitations under C.P.L.R. Sec. 214(4).

On August 28, 2015, ABS Entertainment, Inc., filed a class action
complaint, on behalf of itself and other owners of sound
recordings, against CBS Corporation, CBS Radio, and various Does.
In the First Amended Class Action Complaint filed on October 30,
2015, Barnaby Records, Brunswick Record Corporation and Malaco
Inc. joined the action as plaintiffs.

The gist of the class complaint is that CBS violated the public
performance rights of pre-1972 recordings, and that these pre-1972
recordings are protected under New York common law. The class
complaint alleges (1) common law copyright infringement of pre-
1972 recordings and (2) unfair competition. As part of their
common law copyright infringement claim, the plaintiffs seek
compensatory damages in excess of $5,000,000, punitive damages,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest, and an injunction
enjoining and restraining CBS and its subsidiaries from infringing
the plaintiffs' copyrights.

The issue before is the statute of limitations that applies to the
common law copyright infringement claim. CBS contends that a
three-year limitations period should apply to the plaintiffs'
common law copyright infringement claim under C.P.L.R. Sec. 214(4)
because the claim is "an action to recover damages for an injury
to property.

The plaintiffs argue that the statute of limitations in C.P.L.R.
Sec. 214(4) should not apply in this case because the plaintiffs
seek disgorgement of profits and an injunction enjoining the
defendants from infringing the copyrights in pre-1972 recordings.
The plaintiffs contend that C.P.L.R. Sec. 214(4) can only apply to
cases where the relief sought is purely monetary because the
language of C.P.L.R. Sec. 214(4) mentions only an action for
"damages."

In his Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tOeeyjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koeltl concluded that
the plaintiffs cannot pursue an action for damages for common law
copyright infringement for claims that arose more than three years
before the filing of the complaint. The defendants' motion to
dismiss claims seeking damages based on conduct that took place
outside the three-year statute of limitations is granted with
respect to the common law copyright infringement claims seeking
damages.

ABS  Entertainment is represented by Alan Peter Block, Esq. Andrew
Szot, Esq. -- aszot@millerlawllc.com -- Kathleen Ellen Boychuck,
Esq. -- kboychuck@millerlawllc.com -- Lawrence Milton Hadley, Esq.
-- khadley@millerlawllc.com -- Roderick George Dorman, Esq. --
rdorman@millerlawllc.com -- Marvin Alan Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@millerlawllc.com -- MILLER LAW, LLC.

It is also represented by:

     Robert Edward Allen, Esq.
     GRADSTEIN & MARZANO, P.C.
     6310 San Vicente Blvd,
     Los Angeles, CA 90048
     Tel: (323)776-3100

CBS Corporation is represented by Michael Charles Lynch, Esq. --
mlynch@kelleydrye.com -- James Bryan Saylor, Esq. --
jsaylor@kelleydrye.com -- KELLEY DRYE & WARREN, LLP, Andrew J.
Strabone, Esq. -- astrabone@irell.com -- Joshua C. Lee, Esq. --
jclee@irell.com -- Robert M. Schwartz, Esq. -- dschwarz@irell.com
-- Victor Jih, Esq. -- VJih@irell.com -- IRELL & MANELLA LLP


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Settlement in "Novoa" Has Initial OK
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
preliminary approval of the class action settlement in the case
captioned, LUIS NOVOA, MICHAEL ALVAREZ, BRIAN BELOTE-DINFORD, and
TREVOR GRANT, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CHARTER
COMMUNICATIONS, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:13-CV-01302-
BAM (E.D. Cal.).

On February 19, 2016 the court conducted a hearing Preliminary
Approval of Class Action wherein counsel submitted documents to
support the Stipulation of Class Settlement and Release.

The proposed class is consists of "all individuals who worked for
Charter Communications, LLC in California, who received a paycheck
at any time between July 5, 2012 and March 24, 2013 for performing
work in the field, including as Broadband Technicians, Broadband
Installers, Installation Technicians, Repair Technicians, Service
Technicians, System Technicians, Field Auditors, or Quality
Assurance Inspectors."

In her Order dated March 4, 2016 available at http://is.gd/WJTpLT
from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe found that the settlement set
forth in the Settlement Agreement appears to be proper, to fall
within the range of reasonableness, to be the product of arm's-
length and informed negotiations, to treat all Settlement Class
Members fairly, and to be presumptively valid and that Class
Counsel have demonstrable experience litigating, certifying, and
settling wage and hour class actions, and will serve as adequate
counsel for the Settlement Class Members.

The Court preliminarily approves the Gross Fund Value of $390,000
inclusive of payments to Class Members, attorneys' fees and costs,
settlement administration Costs, and the Class Representative
Enhancement Awards and appointed David R. Markham of The Markham
Law Firm, Stuart C. Talley of Kershaw Cook & Talley, and Joseph
Cho of Aequitas Law Group as Class Counsel, Plaintiffs Luis Novoa,
Michael Alvarez, Brian Belote-Dinford, and Trevor Grant as Class
Representatives and CPT Group, Inc. as the Claims Administrator.

Plaintiffs are represented by Stuart C. Talley, Esq. --
stuart@kctlegal.com -- KERSHAW CUTTER & RATINOFF, LLP & David
Roger Markham, Esq. -- wm@markhamlawfirm.com -- THE MARKHAM LAW
FIRM.

They are also represented by:

     Autumn E. Love, Esq.
     Joseph Cho, Esq.
     Ronald H. Bae, Esq.
     AEQUITAS LEGAL GROUP
     1156 E. Green St., Suite 200
     Pasadena, CA 91106
     Tel: (213)674-6080

Charter Communications, LLC is represented by Thomas R. Kaufman,
Esq. -- tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul Berkowitz, Esq. --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTER &
HAMPTON, LLP, Vartan Serge Madoyan, Esq. -- vmadoyan@bakerlaw.com
-- BAKER & HOSTETLER LLP


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Approval Hearing Set for June 3
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that the final
approval hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2016, on the settlement
in the Sikora and Reed class action cases.

On April 11, 2013, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer
County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. SCV27073).

By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer the Reed and Sikora
cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases (Case Nos. SCV0032820 and
SCV27073) were subsequently coordinated together in Los Angeles
County by order of the Judicial Council.

On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce
judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under
the California Private Attorney General Act and California
Business and Professions Code Section 17200.  On March 11, 2015,
the Court granted the Company's motion in Case No. SCV0032820.

The parties participated in voluntary mediation on June 25, 2015
and have executed a memorandum of understanding with respect to
the terms of settlement, which is subject to Court approval and is
intended to be a full and final resolution of the actions.  On
January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The final
approval hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2016.  Based on the
current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial
amount in anticipation of settlement.

As of February 25, 2016, the Company operated 201 Company-owned
restaurants: 188 under The Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 12 under
the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark and one under the RockSugar Pan Asian
Kitchen(R) mark.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Master" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the "Masters" class
action lawsuit.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims. (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.

As of February 25, 2016, the Company operated 201 Company-owned
restaurants: 188 under The Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 12 under
the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark and one under the RockSugar Pan Asian
Kitchen(R) mark.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Tentative Deal Reached in "Garcia" Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that a
tentative settlement has been reached by the parties in the
"Garcia" class action.

On January 14, 2015, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to permit
required meal and rest breaks, and to provide accurate wage
statements, among other claims. (Garcia v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, et al; Case No 37-2015-00001408).

On February 19, 2015, the Company filed an ex parte application to
stay the litigation pending a hearing on the Company's motion to
compel arbitration.  The Court granted the Company's application,
stayed the litigation, and held a hearing on the motion to compel
arbitration in July 2015.

On August 12, 2015, the Court granted the Company's motion to
compel individual arbitration.  On October 9, 2015, the Plaintiff
filed a Petition for a Writ of Mandamus with the California Court
of Appeal seeking a review and stay of the Court's decision to
compel arbitration on an individual basis.

On October 15, 2015 the Court of Appeal denied the Plaintiff's
Petition.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  On February 4, 2016,
the parties reached a tentative settlement agreement for an
immaterial amount," the Company said.

As of February 25, 2016, the Company operated 201 Company-owned
restaurants: 188 under The Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 12 under
the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark and one under the RockSugar Pan Asian
Kitchen(R) mark.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: To Defend Against "Guglielmo" Lawsuit
---------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend the "Guglielmo" class action.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions.
(Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
Complaint, requesting the Court to compel arbitration against opt-
in Plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. The Plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary
payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based upon the
current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.

As of February 25, 2016, the Company operated 201 Company-owned
restaurants: 188 under The Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 12 under
the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark and one under the RockSugar Pan Asian
Kitchen(R) mark.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Brown" Class Action Still Ongoing
------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that the
Company intends to vigorously defend against the "Brown" class
action lawsuit.

On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging
that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements as set forth in the California Labor Code. On January
26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under the California Private
Attorneys General Act in addition to other monetary payments.
(Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.; Case No.
CIV1504091).

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.

As of February 25, 2016, the Company operated 201 Company-owned
restaurants: 188 under The Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 12 under
the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark and one under the RockSugar Pan Asian
Kitchen(R) mark.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Faces "Tagalogon" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 29, 2015, that a former
restaurant management employee filed on December 10, 2015, a class
action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court alleging
that the Company improperly classified its managerial employees,
failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate wage
statements, in addition to other claims.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified penalties under the California Private Attorneys
General Act in addition to other monetary payments. (Tagalogon v.
The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., Case No. BC603620).

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.

As of February 25, 2016, the Company operated 201 Company-owned
restaurants: 188 under The Cheesecake Factory(R) mark, 12 under
the Grand Lux Cafe(R) mark and one under the RockSugar Pan Asian
Kitchen(R) mark.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Still Faces Royalty Litigation
-------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 Company
continues to defend against royalty litigation.

Regarding royalty claims, Chesapeake and other natural gas
producers have been named in various lawsuits alleging royalty
underpayment. The suits against us allege, among other things,
that we used below-market prices, made improper deductions, used
improper measurement techniques and/or entered into arrangements
with affiliates that resulted in underpayment of royalties in
connection with the production and sale of natural gas and NGL.
The Company has resolved a number of these claims through
negotiated settlements of past and future royalties and has
prevailed in various other lawsuits. We are currently defending
lawsuits seeking damages with respect to royalty underpayment in
various states, including, but not limited to, Texas,
Pennsylvania, Ohio, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. These
lawsuits include cases filed by individual royalty owners and
putative class actions, some of which seek to certify a statewide
class. The Company also has received DOJ, U.S. Postal Service and
state subpoenas seeking information on the Company's royalty
payment practices.

Plaintiffs have varying royalty provisions in their respective
leases and oil and gas law varies from state to state. Royalty
owners and producers differ in their interpretation of the legal
effect of lease provisions governing royalty calculations, an
issue in a putative class action filed in November 2010 in the
District Court of Beaver County, Oklahoma on behalf of Oklahoma
royalty owners asserting claims dating back to 2004. In July 2014,
this case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
following the reversal on appeal of certification of a statewide
class.

"We and the named plaintiff participated in mediation concerning
the claims asserted in the putative class action litigation and
negotiated a settlement requiring the Company to pay $119 million
cash to compensate the putative settlement class for alleged past
royalty underpayments in exchange for the release of claims for
the ten-year period ended December 31, 2014," the Company said.

Following a fairness hearing, the District Court certified the
settlement class and approved the $119 million settlement on July
3, 2015. In 2015, the Company paid $114 million, which was net of
opted-out claims, in settlement of the case.

Chesapeake is defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual
royalty owners alleging royalty underpayment with respect to
properties in Texas. On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a
transfer order from the Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to
transfer a substantial portion of these lawsuits filed since June
2014 to the 348th District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial
purposes. On February 12, 2016, Chesapeake filed a motion to
change venue for several other lawsuits to Harris County, or
alternatively, to Tarrant County. These lawsuits, which primarily
relate to the Barnett Shale, generally allege that Chesapeake
underpaid royalties by making improper deductions and using
incorrect production volumes. In addition to allegations of breach
of contract, a number of these lawsuits allege fraud, conspiracy,
joint venture and antitrust violations by Chesapeake. Chesapeake
expects that additional lawsuits will be filed by new plaintiffs
making similar allegations. The lawsuits seek direct damages in
varying amounts, together with exemplary damages, attorneys' fees,
costs and interest.

Putative statewide class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and
purported class arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on
behalf of royalty owners asserting various claims for damages
related to alleged underpayment of royalties as a result of the
Company's divestiture of substantially all of its midstream
business and most of its gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These
cases include claims for violation of and conspiracy to violate
the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and
one of the cases includes claims of intentional interference with
contractual relations and violations of antitrust laws related to
purported markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas
gathering sources.

Chesapeake is currently the second-largest producer of natural gas
and the 14th largest producer of oil and natural gas liquids (NGL)
in the United States.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Earthquakes
------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 Company on
January 12, 2016, was named as a defendant in a putative class
action filed in state district court in Logan County, Oklahoma. On
February 16, 2016, the putative class action was moved to the
Western District of Oklahoma.

The petition alleges that the defendants, all exploration and
production companies, have operated produced water disposal wells
in a manner that has caused earthquakes and that these earthquakes
have, among other things, damaged the plaintiffs' real property.
The proposed class would consist of all Oklahoma residents whose
property has been so damaged. The petition seeks an unspecified
amount of actual and punitive damages.

Chesapeake is currently the second-largest producer of natural gas
and the 14th largest producer of oil and natural gas liquids (NGL)
in the United States.


CLACKAMAS COUNTY, OR: Court Won't Strike Deposition Changes
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon denied Plaintiff's motion to
strike deposition changes by Defendant Clackamas County in the
case captioned, DAVID UPDIKE, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CLACKAMAS COUNTY, Defendant,
Case No. 3:15-CV-00723-SI (D. Or.).

On April 29, 2015, Plaintiff David Updike filed a putative class
action lawsuit against Defendants Clackamas County and Clackamas
County Sheriff Craig Roberts. In his amended complaint, Updike
alleges two claims: (1) discrimination in violation of Title II of
the Americans with Disabilities Act; and (2) discrimination in
violation of Sec. 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of
1973.

In his Opinion and Order dated November 30, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/Jz9NpFfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simon found that Updike
lacks standing to seek equitable relief individually or to
represent a putative class seeking equitable relief because he
failed to allege a substantial likelihood of future injury to
Updike himself.  The Court granted, in part Defendant's motion to
dismiss, ruling that, among other things, Plaintiff's claims based
on conduct occurring before April 29, 2013, are time-barred under
the applicable statute of limitations.

On January 13, 2016, Plaintiff took the deposition of Clackamas
County pursuant to Rule 30(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure. Defendant designated Captain Lee E. Eby as its
representative. During the deposition, Defendant requested on the
record the opportunity to have the witness read and sign the
deposition transcript. On February 1, 2016, Defendant's counsel
submitted to the court reporter the witness's signed statement of
twelve changes and reasons for each change. For some changes, the
stated reason was to clarify the initial response; for most
changes, the stated reason was to provide additional information
to clarify and supplement the initial response.

In the motion, Plaintiff objects to Defendant's corrections as
improper substantive changes and moves to strike. Defendant
asserts that Captain Eby's changes permissibly clarify or
supplement his deposition testimony, and do not contradict it.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/R2LA5Mfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simon found that
Defendant's corrections are not inappropriate or otherwise in
violation of Rule 30(e). They are not, however, to be used to
"replace" the original testimony. Instead, the original deposition
transcript as supplemented by Caption Eby's three pages of
corrections shall, as a whole, constitute the deposition of
Captain Eby.

David Updike is represented by:

      Carl Lee Post, Esq.
      Daniel J. Snyder, Esq.
      John D. Burgess, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL SNYDER
      1000 SW Broadway,
      Portland, OR 97205
      Tel: (503)241-3617

Clackamas County is represented by Stephen Lewis Madkour, Esq. --
smadkour@clackamas.us -- Kathleen J. Hansa Rastetter, Esq. --
kathleenras@clackamas.us -- CLACKAMAS COUNTY COUNSEL


CLARK COUNTY, KY: Court Tosses "Jones" Suit Over Prison Fees
------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph M. Hood of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the case captioned, DAVID JONES Plaintiff, v.
CLARK COUNTY, KENTUCKY, et al., Defendants, Case No. 5:15-CV-350-
JMH (E.D. Ky.).

Plaintiff brings the putative class action complaint against
Defendants Clark County, Kentucky and Clark County Jailer, Frank
Doyle, individually, on behalf of all persons who, while
incarcerated in the Clark County Detention Center (the Jail), were
wrongfully assessed fees for their incarceration without due
process of law. Plaintiff alleges that charging persons admitted
to the Jail for the costs of their incarceration without an order
of a sentencing court, including those individuals who are
subsequently proven innocent, violates KRS 441.265 and the due
process rights of Plaintiff and putative class members under the
Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

Plaintiff asserts state law claims for conspiracy, negligence,
conversion, fraud, and violations of the Kentucky Constitution.
Plaintiff also seeks a declaration that KRS 441.265 is
unconstitutional and a return of all monies paid to Defendants.

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff's claims in their entirety
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 11, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/oR9Oqafrom Leagle.com, Judge Hood held that it
was not unconstitutional to impose fees on Plaintiff without the
order of a sentencing court and despite the fact that he later
proved his innocence and because Plaintiff's Sec. 1983 claim for
the alleged violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights fails to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

David Jones is represented by:

     Camille Bathurst, Esq.
     Gregory Allen Belzley, Esq.
     BELZLEY BATHURST
     Prospect, KY 40059
     Tel: (502)292-2452

          - and -

     Matthew Wayne Boyd, Esq.
     BOYD LAW OFFICE, PSC
     The Lion Building
     155 E. Main St., Ste 220
     Lexington, KY 40507
     Tel: (859)252-0222

Clark County is represented by Jeffrey C. Mando, Esq. --
jmando@aswdlaw.com -- ADAMS, STEPNER, WOLTERMANN & DUSING, PLLC


CLEAN HARBORS: Safety-Kleen Still Faces Product Liability Cases
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clean Harbors, 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 Safety-Kleen is named as
a defendant in various lawsuits that are currently pending in
various courts and jurisdictions throughout the United States,
including approximately 58 proceedings (excluding cases which have
been settled but not formally dismissed) as of December 31, 2015,
wherein persons claim personal injury resulting from the use of
Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment or cleaning products.
These proceedings typically involve allegations that the solvent
used in Safety-Kleen's parts cleaning equipment contains
contaminants and/or that Safety-Kleen's recycling process does not
effectively remove the contaminants that become entrained in the
solvent during their use.

In addition, certain claimants assert that Safety-Kleen failed to
warn adequately the product user of potential risks, including an
historic failure to warn that solvent contains trace amounts of
toxic or hazardous substances such as benzene. Safety-Kleen
maintains insurance that it believes will provide coverage for
these claims (over amounts accrued for self-insured retentions and
deductibles in certain limited cases), except for punitive damages
to the extent not insurable under state law or excluded from
insurance coverage.

Safety-Kleen believes that these claims lack merit and has
historically vigorously defended, and intends to continue to
vigorously defend, itself and the safety of its products against
all of these claims. Such matters are subject to many
uncertainties and outcomes are not predictable with assurance.
Consequently, Safety-Kleen is unable to ascertain the ultimate
aggregate amount of monetary liability or financial impact with
respect to these matters as of December 31, 2015.

From January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2015, 30 product liability
claims were settled or dismissed. Due to the nature of these
claims and the related insurance, the Company did not incur any
expense as Safety-Kleen's insurance provided coverage in full for
all such claims. Safety-Kleen may be named in similar, additional
lawsuits in the future, including claims for which insurance
coverage may not be available.

Clean Harbors, Inc. and its subsidiaries is a provider of
environmental, energy and industrial services throughout North
America.


COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: Court Shelves Class Cert. Bid in "Feamster"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Glen E. Conrad of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Virginia stayed Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional class certification pending a ruling on the
dispositive motion in the case captioned, CHRISTOPHER FEAMSTER,
ROBERT MIHALIC, and EARL JEANSONNE, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. COMPUCOM
SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 7:15-CV-00564 (W.D. Va.).

Plaintiffs Christopher Feamster, Robert Mihalic, and Earl
Jeansonne bring the instant action, individually and on behalf of
all similarly situated individuals, against defendant CompuCom
Systems, Inc. (CompuCom), alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., and state law.
Plaintiffs are current and former on-site Field Service
Technicians.

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on October 20, 2015, alleging
collective action claims under Sec. 216(b) of the FLSA and
individual claims under state law. As to the collective action
claims, plaintiffs allege that CompuCom failed to pay overtime
wages to FSTs, in violation of the FLSA (Count I). As to the
individual claims, plaintiffs first allege that CompuCom breached
their employment contract by failing to compensate plaintiffs for
their off-the-clock work (Count II). Second, plaintiffs contend
that CompuCom has been unjustly enriched by receiving the benefits
of plaintiffs' services without paying compensation (Count III).
Plaintiffs seek declaratory relief, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and any other equitable
relief.

On October 23, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for conditional
class certification and notice to potential class members.
Plaintiffs' defined the proposed class as, "All individuals who
were employed by CompuCom Systems, Inc., in the on-site Field
Services Technician position during the past three years."

On December 7, 2015, CompuCom moved to dismiss the collective
action claims, arguing that plaintiffs have previously waived
their right to bring and participate in any collective action
litigation against CompuCom. In its motion, CompuCom argued that,
in the alternative, the court should grant summary judgment on the
issue of plaintiffs' waivers. The next day, CompuCom asked the
court to stay its consideration of plaintiffs' motion for
conditional class certification pending a ruling on its
dispositive motion.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7pjgEXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Conrad concluded that
employees may waive their ability to participate in collective
action litigation, as long as the individual employees retain the
individual capacity to vindicate their rights and found that the
court finds that the policy considerations behind the FLSA are not
impeded in its decision.

The court directed the parties to engage in limited discovery as
to the issue of the validity and enforceability of the collective
action waivers because the court has insufficient information
about CompuCom's employment agreements in order to adequately
determine whether they are enforceable under state law.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jacob R. Rusch, Esq. --
jrusch@johnsonbecker.com -- JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC, Jesse L. Young,
Esq. -- jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Kevin J. Stoops, Esq. --
kstoops@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.

Plaintiffs are also represented by:

     Cindra Myers Dowd, Esq.
     Richard James Serpe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD J. SERPE, P.C.
     580 E Main St #310
     Norfolk, VA 23510
     Tel: (757)233-0009

Compucom Systems, Inc. is represented by Carrie Margaret Harris,
Esq. -- charris@spilmanlaw.com -- King Fitchett Tower, Esq. -
ktower@spilmanlaw.com -- SPILMAN THOMAS & BATTLE PLLC, Robert
James Garrey, Esq. -- bgarrey@polsinelli.com -- Stephen Edward
Fox, Esq. -- sfox@polsinelli.com -- Jonathan Evan Clark, Esq. --
jclark@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC


CORAL SPRINGS, FL: Clerk of Court Dropped From "Zoba" Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Melanie G. May of the Florida District Court of Appeal
affirmed the trial court's order dismissing, with prejudice, the
clerk of court from the case captioned, ROBERT ZOBA, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. THE
CITY OF CORAL SPRINGS, et al., Appellee, Case No. 4D14-1182 (Fla.
Dist. App.).

The plaintiff filed a proposed class action against four
government defendants, the City of Coral Springs, Broward County,
the Florida Department of Revenue, and the clerk seeking a refund
of traffic fines illegally charged and collected. The amended
complaint alleged that the county established a school zone in
violation of a county ordinance and that the school zone created
an unlawful "speed trap."

The plaintiff alleged in the amended complaint that the defendants
have collected thousands of dollars from tickets originating in an
illegally established school zone. He alleged the clerk of court
collects, apportions, and distributes the fine monies to the
defendants for those noncriminal traffic violations.

The clerk moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on judicial
immunity. The plaintiff responded that the clerk is not entitled
to judicial immunity because his collection and retention of fines
for administrative costs is purely ministerial, nondiscretionary,
and nonjudicial. The trial court entered a final order granting
the clerk's motion to dismiss with prejudice.

On appeal, plaintiff argues that the trial court erred in
dismissing the clerk based on judicial immunity. He argues that
because the clerk's receipt of money is a purely ministerial act,
judicial immunity does not bar the unjust enrichment claim.
Lastly, he argues the clerk's retention of illegally collected
fines violates the due process clauses of the United States and
Florida Constitutions.

In her Order dated March 9, 2016 available at http://is.gd/pxl1I9
from Leagle.com, Judge May found that the trial court did not
erred in dismissing the clerk based on judicial immunity. The
Court held that the clerk is immune from the underlying suit and
defense of the suit.

Jeffrey Dana Gillen, Associate Judge, concurs.

Judge Martha Warner dissents with opinion.  "I would reverse the
order of dismissal, as the clerk is not protected by judicial
immunity for his retention, pursuant to statute, of funds
collected from traffic citations, the ground upon which the
dismissal was predicated," she said.

Robert Zoba is represented by:

     John Caserta, Esq.
     JOHN CASERTA, P.A.
     Delray Beach, FL 33444-7671
     Tel: (954)803-0684

City of Coral Springs is represented by:

     Scott C. Cochran, Esq.
     W. Tucker Craig, Esq.
     BILLING, COCHRAN, LYLES MAURO & RAMSEY, P.A.
     1601 Forum Pl # 400,
     West Palm Beach, FL 33401
     Tel: (561)659-4568


CORINTHIAN COLLEGES: Ex-Students Face Challenges Despite Closure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Crowell, writing for The Skanner, reports that although
the former Corinthian Colleges, once one of the nation's largest
for-profit colleges, closed its doors last year, many of the
problems incurred by its former students persist.  The now-defunct
college is the only questionable actor among for-profit colleges.

Investigations, and lawsuits have focused on a growing list of
other for-profit schools and colleges including but not limited to
Computer Systems Institutes, DeVry University, ITT Tech, Marinello
Schools of Beauty and Trump University.

With tuition costs higher than many public colleges and
universities, many for-profit college students are financially
forced to take on private student loan debt at interest rates that
exceed those of federal student loans.  Others are advised to add
related charges to credit card accounts.

One of the worst financial abuses perpetrated are against the men
and women who sought to successfully transition from military to
civilian life.  Many veterans enrolled and even graduated from
for-profit institutions, like Corinthian, but now find there are
three strikes against them: the promised better careers and high
earnings never materialized, and thirdly, educational benefits
that underwrote a portion of the so-called educational cost have
now been suspended.

In response, eight state Attorneys General have challenged the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to "restore the educational
and vocational rehabilitation benefits that thousands of veterans
are deprived of due to misleading advertising, or enrollment
practices of predatory institutions, such as Corinthian Colleges,
Inc."  These Attorneys General (AGs) represent the states of
California, Connecticut, Illinois, Kentucky, Massachusetts, New
Mexico, Oregon and Washington.

"Most of the student relief flowing from enforcement actions
against predatory educational institutions has, however, pertained
to student loans -- not the hard-earned benefits of our nation's
veterans," wrote the AGs.

Two taxpayer funded programs, the Post-9/11 G.I. Bill and the
Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment (VR&E) program are at the
heart of the AGs' concerns. G.I. Bill benefits, funded by Title IV
federal student aid, provide up to $21,084 per year for tuition;
additional funding covers housing, books and supplies. VR&E
benefits are awarded for service-related disabilities that can
include job training and education, workplace accommodations and
career coaching.

Legally, for-profit colleges may receive up to 90 percent of their
annual revenues from Title IV.  VR&E assistance is not included as
part of Title IV. If both Title IV funds -- which also include
Pell Grants -- are combined with VR&E benefits, taxpayers are
almost completely funding for-profit enterprises.

"[T]he VA's decision to provide funds to Corinthian for student
veterans' attendance at these programs should be deemed an
administrative error," said the AGs.  "This administrative error
deprived student veterans of their right to use their benefits at
an institution that was free of erroneous, deceptive, and
misleading advertising, sales, and enrollment practices."

For the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the apparent lack of
actual benefits derived from enrollment at DeVry are at the heart
of a lawsuit filed in late January.  Its complaint charges that
one of DeVry's key claims was deceptive -- that its graduates had
15 percent higher incomes one year following graduation.

FTC also cited how DeVry promised that its graduates would find
jobs in their fields of study and would earn more than those
graduating with bachelor's degrees from other colleges or
universities. In most cases, these promises never materialized.

On March 10, according to FTC, DeVry filed a motion to have the
case dismissed.  On May 2, a hearing will be held to hear oral
arguments from both sides.

"Millions of Americans look to higher education for training that
will lead to meaningful employment and good pay," said FTC
Chairwoman Edith Ramirez.  "Educational institutions like DeVry
owe prospective students the truth about their graduates' success
finding employment in their field of study and the income they can
earn."

In at least one case, 'university' was used in the name of a for-
profit enterprise even though it lacked a required state charter
to do so.

According to New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman,
between 2005 and 2011, Trump University operated as an unlicensed
educational institute that promised to teach real estate
investment techniques.  The office's investigation revealed that
participating consumers paid up to $1,495 for a three-day seminar.
While in attendance, they did not receive the real estate training
promised but were encouraged to sign-up for programs ranging in
costs from $10,000 to $35,000.

In 2005, the New York State Education Department advised the
enterprise of its state law violation. The enterprise's name was
not changed until 2010.  Through it all, it never received a
license to operate in the state.

"More than 5,000 people across the country who paid Donald Trump
$40 million to teach them his hard sell tactics got a hard lesson
in bait-and-switch," said AG Schneiderman.

The pending lawsuit filed in Manhattan's New York Supreme Court,
seeks full restitution for consumers defrauded of more than $40
million.

A separate but similar 2010 cased filed in San Diego filed against
Trump University is a second class-action lawsuit, and is
scheduled for a May 6 pretrial hearing.

As for the now-defunct Corinthian Colleges, recent news accounts
reveal how the purchaser of the former colleges, nonprofit Zenith
Education Group, has failed to correct many of the problem
students continue to face.  While ownership may have changed and
enrollment dropped, other issues like allegations of fraud and
mismanagement by the same people who worked under Corinthian
persist.

In response the Department of Education confirmed to Associated
Press on March 15 that the law firm hired to monitor the college
turnaround was fired and further that a replacement will be hired.

Last fall the Center for Responsible Lending released research
that found how high-cost, for-profit colleges make millions each
year by targeting students of color.  As students of color enroll
more often at for-profit colleges, they are also
disproportionately harmed.

The quest for financial justice continues . . ..


COUSINS SUBMARINES: "Nuchell" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Nuchell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Cousins Submarines, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 2:16-cv-00232-PP (E.D. Wis., Milwaukee Division, February 26,
2016), seeks unpaid agreed-upon wage compensation and overtime,
civil penalties, costs, attorneys' fees, declaratory and/or
injunctive relief and/or any such other relief provided under the
Fair Labor Standards Act and Wisconsin Law.

Cousins Submarines, Inc. operates Cousins Subs restaurants
throughout Wisconsin where Nuchell worked as an assistant manager.
She did not receive overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of
40 hours per week, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Timothy P. Maynard, Esq.
      Larry A. Johnson, Esq.
      Summer H. Murshid, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      222 East Erie, Suite 210
      P.O. Box 442
      Milwaukee, WI 53201-0442
      Tel: 414-271-8650
      Fax: 414-271-8442
      Email: tmaynard@hq-law.com
             ljohnson@hq-law.com
             smurshid@hq-law.com



CREDIT MANAGEMENT: "Reynolds" FDCPA Suit Goes to Trial
------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Lyle E. Strom of the United States District
Court for the District of Nebraska denied Defendants' motion for
summary judgment and Plaintiff's motions for partial summary
judgment and for class certification in the case captioned,
KENNETH REYNOLDS, Plaintiff, v. CREDIT MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.,
JASON MORLEDGE, MEGAN L. BISCHOFF, and MICHAEL MORLEDGE,
Defendants, Case No. 8:14CV391 (D. Neb.).

On December 1, 2014, plaintiff filed this putative class action
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and
the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act. Plaintiff alleges
defendants' practice and policies, or lack thereof, resulted in
his and other potential class members' wages being wrongfully
garnished at a rate of 25% instead of the lower 15% when the
debtor is identified as the head of the family according to
Nebraska law.

Plaintiff's putative class action suit arises from defendants'
filing of certain wage-garnishment affidavits in attempt to
collect on consumer debts. In order to collect on the judgments,
CMS and attorneys within the company's legal department regularly
execute certain affidavits required to obtain wage garnishments
against the judgment debtor. On July 8, 2014, CMS obtained a
judgment in the amount of $979.06 plus fees, costs, and interest
against plaintiff.

Both parties now move for summary judgment and plaintiff seeks
class certification. Defendants argue the Court should grant
summary judgment as to plaintiff's FDCPA and NCPA claims because
"the garnishment affidavit at issue accurately stated Ms.
Bischoff's belief at that time that Mr. Reynolds was not the head
of the family, and because CMS promptly modified the garnishment
affidavit there was no 'misrepresentation'. Plaintiff counters
"defendants have universally applied the same flawed method of
processing and filing sworn garnishment affidavits by stating they
have 'good reason' and 'do believe' the consumer should be
garnished at the higher rate of 25% without knowing whether the
wage earner qualifies for the lower statutory withholding rate of
15%.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7gl59Mfrom Leagle.com, Judge Strom found that a
genuine issue of material fact exists making judgment as a matter
of law inappropriate and that summary judgment is inappropriate at
this time with respect to Michael Morledge because a genuine issue
of material fact exists as to whether Michael Morledge fits under
the FDCPA's definition of "debt collector." The Court denied
plaintiff's motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(2) because
Plaintiff failed to establish his burden to show that the primary
relief sought is declaratory or injunctive rather than monetary
damages.

Kenneth Reynolds is represented by:

     O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
     HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM
     25 E. Washington St., Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (800)985-1819

          - and -

     Pamela A. Car, Esq.
     William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
     CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
     8720 Frederick St # 105
     Omaha, NE 68124-3071
     Tel: (402)391-8484

Defendants are represented by Christopher R. Morris, Esq. --
cmorris@bassford.com -- BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM

They are also represented by

     John M. Guthery, Jr., Esq.
     PERRY, GUTHERY LAW FIRM
     233 S 13th St #1400,
     Lincoln, NE 68508
     Tel: (402)476-9200


CVS CAREMARK: $48M Settlement in "Medoff" Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph N. Laplante of the United States District
Court for the District of Rhode Island granted final approval of
the $48 million settlement and the plan of allocation in the case
captioned, Richard Medoff v. CVS Caremark Corp., et al., Case No.
09-CV-554-JNL (D.R.I.).

Shareholders of CVS Caremark Corporation alleged that CVS Caremark
and certain of its officers made fraudulent representations and
omissions about the integration of the CVS retail pharmacy
business with Caremark's prescription benefit manager business.
After several years of litigation and several weeks of
negotiation, the parties agreed to settle this matter on August
24, 2015. They then jointly moved this court for preliminary
certification of the class and preliminary approval of the
settlement agreement.

By order dated November 9, 2015, the Court (1) preliminarily
approved the settlement as set forth in the Stipulation of
Settlement; (2) preliminarily certified the class for settlement
purposes only; (3) preliminarily appointed co-lead plaintiffs as
representatives of the class and lead counsel Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP and Labaton Sucharow LLP as class counsel; (4)
approved, as to form and content, the notice of proposed
settlement, proof of claim and release form, and summary notice,
and ordered that the notice of proposed settlement be distributed
to class members; and (5) scheduled a hearing regarding final
approval of the settlement, class counsel's motion for attorneys'
fees and expenses.

The co-lead plaintiffs moved for final approval of the settlement
and the plan of allocation and requested that the court award
attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel.  In the Memorandum
Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/FTe0vsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Laplante found that the
settlement represents a fair and complete resolution of all claims
asserted in a representative capacity on behalf of the settlement
class and should fully and finally resolve all such claims and
approved the plan of allocation concluding that the approach is
grounded in a reasonable and rational basis, and is fair to the
members of the class.

The Court appointed co-lead plaintiffs as Class representatives
and lead counsel as Class counsel; and granted lead counsel's
request for attorneys' fees in the sum of 30% of the common pool
and expenses in the sum of $857,631.86.

Richard Medoff is represented by Robert M. Rothman, Esq. --
RRothman@rgrdlaw.com -- David A. Rosenfeld, Esq. --
DRosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP &
Deborah R. Gross, Esq. -- dgross@kcr-law.com -- KAUFMAN COREN

Defendants are represented by William R. Grimm, Esq. --
wgrimm@hinckleyallen.com -- Mitchell R. Edwards, Esq. --
medwards@hinckleyallen.com -- HINCKLEY, ALLEN & SNYDER, LLP, David
K. Baumgarten, Esq. -- dbaumgarten@wc.com -- Katherine M. Turner,
Esq. -- kturner@wc.com -- Leslie C. Mahaffey, Esq. --
smahaffy@wc.com --Margaret A. Keeley, Esq. -- mkeeley@wc.com --
Matthew H. Blumenstein, Esq. -- mblumenstein@wc.com -- Steven M.
Farina, Esq. -- sfarina@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP


CWPSC INC: Cal. App. Declines to Send "Carbajal" to Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Judge Richard M. Aronson of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed trial court's decision denying the motion to
compel arbitration in the case captioned, MARTHA CARBAJAL,
Plaintiff and Respondent, v. CWPSC, INC., Defendant and Appellant,
Case No. GO50438 (Cal. App.).

Defendant and appellant CWPSC, Inc. (CW Painting) appeals the
trial court's order denying its motion to compel its former
employee to arbitrate her wage and hour claims under the
arbitration provision in her employment agreement. Carbajal quit
in August 2012, and filed this class action against CW Painting
approximately a year later. The operative first amended complaint
alleges the following clams on behalf of all similarly situated
interns: (1) recovery of unpaid wages; (2) failure to provide meal
periods; (3) failure to provide paid rest periods; (4) illegal
deductions from wages; (5) failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements; (6) failure to compensate for business expenses;
(7) failure to timely pay wages upon separation; (8) "declaratory
relief  --  fraud in inducement, void and unenforceable
agreement"; and (9) unfair business practices.

In his Opinion dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Cuj4ijfrom Leagle.com, Judge Aronson concluded that
CW Painting did not meet its burden to show the FAA applied, and
therefore its arguments the FAA preempts California statutes or
case law lack merit. The Agreement contains three substantively
unconscionable terms: the injunctive relief carve-out, the waiver
of the injunction bond requirement, and the waiver of Carbajal's
statutory right to recover attorney fees on her Labor Code.

Because the Court affirmed the trial court's ruling based on
unconscionability, it will not address Carbajal's additional
contentions that Labor Code section 229 precludes arbitration of
her Labor Code claims, and CW Painting cannot enforce the
Agreement because CW Painting never signed it.

CW Painting provides residential painting services for homeowners.
It hires college students as "interns" to sell its services and
manage its painting crews. In November 2011, Carbajal was a
student at the University of California, San Diego when CW
Painting made an on-campus solicitation for new interns.

Martha Carbajal is represented by:

     James M. Trush, Esq.
     TRUSH LAW OFFICE
     695 Town Center Dr Suite 700,
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (714)384-6390

          - and -

     Ellen R. Serbin, Esq.
     Todd H. Harrison, Esq.
     Brennan S. Kahn, Esq.
     PERONA, LANGER, BECK, SERBIN, MENDOZA & HARRISON
     300 E San Antonio Dr
     Long Beach, CA 90807
     Tel: (562)426-6155

Defendants are represented by Rafael G. Nendel-Flores, Esq. --
Rafael.nendel-flores@ogletreedeakins.com -- Seth E. Ort, Esq. --
seth.ort@ogletreedeakins.com -- OGLETREE, DEAKINS, NASH, SMOAK &
STEWART


D-J ENGINEERING: $100,000 Settlement of "Swartz" FLSA Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Daniel D. Crabtree of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted the parties' Joint
Motion for Approval of FLSA Collective Action Settlement,
plaintiffs' Motion for Approval of Attorneys' Fees and
Reimbursement of Costs, and plaintiffs' Motion to Supplement in
the case captioned, JONATHAN SWARTZ, et al., Plaintiffs, v. D-J
ENGINEERING, INC., and REZAUL CHOWDHURY, Defendants, Case No. 12-
CV-01029-DDC-KGG (D. Kan.).

Plaintiffs filed the instant lawsuit under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq., alleging that
defendants D-J Engineering, Inc. (DJE) and its Chief Executive
Officer, Rezaul Chowdhury, improperly classified them as salaried
employees exempt from the FLSA's overtime-pay requirements.
Plaintiffs seek back pay, damages, and attorneys' fees as relief
for an alleged FLSA misclassification and failure to pay overtime.

On September 24, 2013, the Court conditionally certified
plaintiff's claims as a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b) for two classes of persons: (1) all employees whom
defendants deemed exempt as administrative, executive, or
professional employees, who had worked more than forty hours in
any workweek and who had worked at DJE at any time from January
19, 2010, through January 21, 2013; and (2) all engineers who had
worked in the Engineering Department whom defendants deemed to be
exempt professional employees, who had worked more than 40 hours
in any workweek between January 19, 2010, and January 21, 2013.
Mr. Swartz was designated as class representative and seven
additional individuals opted into the collective action.

According to the proposed settlement, defendants will pay a total
gross settlement amount of $100,000. The Settlement Agreement gave
plaintiffs and their counsel discretion to determine how to
allocate the $74,000 net settlement amount, and their chosen
distribution allocations above were attached to the Settlement
Agreement.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/LYGNNnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crabtree found that the
proposed settlement resolves a bona fide dispute and is fair and
equitable to all parties. The Court approves the parties'
Settlement Agreement establishing a common fund of $100,000 and
awards $7,500 to plaintiffs' counsel for costs, $18,500 to
plaintiffs' counsel in attorneys' fees and $74,000 to plaintiffs.

The Court ordered the parties to file a joint stipulated dismissal
of the case with prejudice no later than 30 days from the date of
the Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Larry G. Michel, Esq. --
kmichel@kenber.com -- KENNEDY, BERKLEY, YARNEVICH, & WILLIAMSON,
CHTD.

They are also represented by:

     James M. Kaup, Esq.
     KAUP LAW OFFICE
     214 SW 6th Ave,
     Topeka, KS 66603
     Tel: (785)235-1111

          - and -

     Michael M. Shultz, Esq.
     LAW FIRM OF MICHAEL M. SHULTZ
     214 SW 6TH Avenue, Suite 302
     Topeka, KS 66603
     Tel: 785-838-4300

Defendants are represented by Terry L. Mann, Esq. --
tlmann@martinpringle.com -- MARTIN, PRINGLE, OLIVER, WALLACE &
BAUER, LLP


DATASCAN FIELD: Court Narrows Claims in "Stevens" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted in part, with leave
to amend, the Defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned,
CHARLENE STEVENS, suing individually and by and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v.
DATASCAN FIELD SERVICES LLC, a Delaware Company d/b/a DATASCAN
FIELD SERVICES, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-00839-TLN-AC (E.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiff alleges in part the following claims: failure to pay
overtime and premium compensation under California Labor Code
sections 218.6, 510, 511, 512, 558, 1194, 1198, 1199, and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001; failure to pay
full wages when due under California Labor Code; failure to adhere
to California record-keeping provisions under California Labor,
and IWC Wage Order 4-2001; unfair business practices under
California Business and Professions Code section 17200; and civil
penalties under the Private Attorney General Act.

Datascan Field Services LLC, d/b/a/Datascan Field Services seeks
dismissal of certain state claims alleged in the First Amended
Complaint, arguing that it "is barred (1) by the statute of
limitations" and (2) "by Plaintiff's failure to exhaust her
administrative remedies as required by PAGA."

In his Order dated February 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/XpGdlofrom Leagle.com, Judge Nunley found that the
Plaintiffs' PAGA claim is time-barred because Plaintiff filed her
initial complaint approximately three years after her alleged
termination.  However, Defendant has not shown amendment would be
futile so that the Court allows Plaintiff to amend in part.

Charlene Stevens is represented by David Emilio Mastagni, Esq. --
davidm@mastagni.com -- David P. Mastagni, Esq. --
dmastagni@mastagni.com -- Isaac Sean Stevens, Esq. --
istevens@mastagni.com -- Jeffrey Robert Alan Edwards, Esq. --
jedwards@mastagni.com -- MASTAGNI HOLSTEDT AMICK MILLER & JOHNSEN

Datascan Field Services, LLC is represented by Cassandra M.
Ferrannini, Esq. -- cferrannini@downeybrand.com -- Daniel J.
McVeigh, Esq. -- dmcveigh@downeybrand.com -- DOWNEY BRAND LLP,
David S. Kurtzer-Ellenbogen, Esq. -- dkurtzer@wc.com -- Juli Ann
Lund, Esq. -- jlund@wc.com -- WILLIAMS & CONNOLLY LLP


DIOCESE OF NEWTON: Hid Child Sexual Abuse, "Jane" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jane Doe 247, the Plaintiff, v. Diocese of Newton for the Melkites
in the United States of America, Inc. and St. John the Baptist
Church in Northlake, Illinois, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-L-
002661 (Ill. Cir. Ct. of Cook County, County Department, Law
Division, March 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages due to
Defendants breach of duty to Plaintiff by failing to warn
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's family of the risk of child sexual abuse
by clerics.  The Defendants also failed to warn them about any of
the knowledge that Defendants had about child sex abuse.

The Eparchy functions as a business by engaging in numerous
revenue producing activities and soliciting money from its members
in exchange for services. The Eparchy has several programs which
seek out the participation of children in the Eparchy's
activities. The Eparchy, through its officials, has control over
those activities and programs involving children.
The Eparchy has the power to appoint, supervise, monitor, and fire
each person working with children within the Eparchy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Marc J. Pearlman, Esq.
          KERNS, FROST & PEARLMAN
          30 West Momoe Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 261 4550

               - and -

          Jeffrey R. Anderson, Esq.
          JEFF ANDERSON AND ASSOCIATES, P.A.
          366 Jackson Street, Suite 100
          St. Paul, Minnesota 55101
          Telephone: (651) 227 9990


DKL VENTURES: Court Stays Action, Equitably Tolled FLSA Statute
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, ANGELA COLLINS, on behalf of herself,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. DKL VENTURES, LLC and ERIC DAVID LEWIS, Defendants,
Case No. 16-CV-00070-MSK-KMT (D. Colo.), Magistrate Judge Kathleen
M. Tafoya of the United States District Court for the District of
Colorado granted Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Stay Pending
Resolution of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and Plaintiff's
Amended Unopposed Motion to Equitably Toll the Statute of
Limitations for Plaintiffs' Claims under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Plaintiff brings the lawsuit as a collective class action under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Colorado Wage Act
("CWA") alleging that Defendants violated each by failing to pay
overtime to its home care employees.

In the motion, Defendants have moved to dismiss Plaintiff's
Complaint under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (6) and an unopposed
stay of these proceedings pending a ruling on the Motion to
Dismiss. Plaintiff also filed an Amended Unopposed Motion to
Equitably Toll the Statute of Limitations for Plaintiffs' Claims
Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

In her Order dated March 4, 2016 available at http://is.gd/4d6GwD
from Leagle.com, Judge Tafoya found that a stay of proceedings is
warranted in light of the pending Motion to Dismiss. The Court
granted equitable tolling because allowing opt-in Plaintiffs'
claims to diminish or expire due to circumstances beyond their
direct control would be particularly unjust.

The FLSA statute of limitations will be equitably tolled from
February 19, 2016, the date Defendants' Motion to Dismiss was
filed, until the stay in the matter is lifted.

Angela Collins is represented by:

     Rachel Graves, Esq.
     David H. Miller, Esq.
     SAWAYA LAW FIRM
     1600 Ogden St.
     Denver, CO 80218
     Tel: (303)466-3529

Defendants are represented by Dana L. Eismeier, Esq. --
deismeier@bfwlaw.com -- Erik Karl Schuessler, Esq. --
eschuessler@bfwlaw.com -- BURNS FIGA & WILL, P.C.


DLP ENTERPRISES: "Stephenson" Has Conditional Class Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Raymond A. Jackson of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Virginia granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Conditional Class Certification pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 216 (b) in the case captioned, EARL STEPHENSON, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DLP Enterprises, Inc. (d/b/a Paige Decking), et
al., Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-485 (E.D. Va.).

On October 1, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the Complaint alleging three
claims: (1) Unpaid Overtime and Straight Time under the FLSA; (2)
Unpaid Minimum Wage under the FLSA; and (3) Breach of Contract.
The case was filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) to recover
compensatory and liquidated damages, attorney fees, and other
relief. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants violated the FLSA, and
they therefore bring this case on behalf of themselves and all
other employees similarly situated. Plaintiffs also assert
individual claims for unpaid wages under state law.

On October 28, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss for
Failure to State a Claim. Plaintiff responded on November 13,
2014, with a Cross Motion to Amend/Correct Complaint and a
Memorandum in Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss for Failure to
State a Claim. Defendant filed a Reply on November 20, 2014. The
Court heard oral argument on the motion and issued an Order
denying the Motion to Dismiss on July 1, 2015.

Plaintiffs moved for conditional certification of an opt-in class
of all persons who worked for Defendants as piece workers or
hourly workers at any time since August 7, 2012, with two sub-
classes: (1) laborers who worked in excess of forty hours in one
or more workweeks but were not paid overtime compensation; and (2)
laborers who worked in one or more workweeks but were not paid at
least minimum wage for every hour worked.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated February 26, 2016
available at http://is.gd/ZQHQc6from Leagle.com, Judge Jackson
found that Plaintiffs have made the requisite showing and
sufficiently carried their burden for conditional certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by Andrea Ruege, Esq. --
aruege@bhlegalteam.com -- Lisa Ann Bertini, Esq. --
LBertini@bhlegalteam.com -- BERTINI LAW, PC, James Richard Theuer,
Esq. -- Jim@theuerlaw.com -- JAMES R. THEUER, PLLC

DLP Enterpises is represented by Anne Graham Bibeau, Esq. --
abibeau@vanblacklaw.com -- Brett Mitchell Saunders, Esq. --
bsaunders@vanblacklaw.com -- VANDEVENTER BLACK LLP


DOLLAR THRIFTY: Class Cert. Bid in "McKinnon" Denied a 2nd Time
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned,
SANDRA McKINNON, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE
GROUP, INC., ET AL., Defendants, Case No. 12-CV-04457-YGR (N.D.
Cal.).

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action again defendants Dollar
Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., Dollar Rent a Car, Inc., and DTG
Operations, Inc. The gravamen of the case concerns defendants'
alleged practice of selling collision or liability damage waiver
policies in connection with vehicle rentals to plaintiffs without
providing adequate notice that the coverage might be duplicative
of other policies already held by plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs' Third Amended Complaint, filed by McKinnon and Tool,
included the certification of class definition "All consumers
either residing or who rented cars in California, Oklahoma and
such other states within the United States the Court finds
appropriate who paid for CDW, insurance or other products from
Dollar that they either declined or were charged for without
obtaining proper consent during the past four years."

On July 27, 2015, Judge Samuel Conti denied plaintiffs' initial
motion for class certification with leave to file an amended
motion. Judge Conti found the proposed definition overbroad and
neither precise nor ascertainable and that the proposed class
failed to meet the commonality or typicality requirements of
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and that plaintiffs McKinnon
and Tool were not adequate representatives.

Thereafter, plaintiffs filed a Fourth Amended Complaint and an
amended motion for class certification. The Fourth Amended
Complaint asserts seven causes of action: (1) violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code
Sections 17200 et seq.(UCL), under the "unlawful" prong, by
violating various provisions of California's Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750et seq. (CLRA),
violating Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1936(g), (j), (k), and (n), and
for other purportedly illegal conduct; (2) violation of the UCL
through purportedly "unfair" practices; (3) violation of the UCL
through purportedly "fraudulent" business practices; (4) violation
of the CLRA; (5) violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection
Act, Okla. Stat. 15 Sections 751 et seq.; (6) breach of contract
and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (7)
a claim for declaratory relief.

As to Class 1, defendants argue the motion fails on grounds of
commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation by the
named plaintiffs, as well as in regards to ascertainability of the
class. As to Class 2, defendants argue the lack of a named
plaintiff who falls within the definition warrants denial of
certification.

In her Order dated March 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/bg04mn
from Leagle.com, Judge Rogers concluded that plaintiffs have not
met their burden to put forth sufficient evidence to satisfy each
of the threshold requirements for class certification in Rule
23(a). Because the Court finds that the threshold requirements of
Rule 23(a) are not met, the Court does not proceed to considering
whether a class could be certified under Rule 23(b)(2) or
23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs are represented by Alan M. Mansfield, Esq. --
amansfield@whatleykallas.com -- Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Patrick J. Sheehan, Esq. --
psheehan@whatleykallas.com -- S. Scott Garrett, Esq. -- WHATLEY
KALLAS, LLC

Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. is represented by Daniel
Justin Weiss, Esq. -- dweiss@jenner.com -- John F. Ward, Esq. --
jward@jenner.com -- -- JENNER AND BLOCK LLP, Kenneth E. Keller,
Esq. -- kkeller@ksrh.com -- Tracy M. Clements, Esq. --
tclements@ksrh.com -- KELLER SLOAN ROMAN & HOLLAND LLP


DOLLAR THRIFTY: "Lee" Class Suit Stayed Pending Spokeo
------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted Defendants
Hertz Corporation and its subsidiary, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group's motion to stay the case, PETER LEE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 15-CV-04562-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Peter Lee and Latonya Campbell filed a putative class
action complaint in California Superior Court, County of San
Francisco, on behalf of themselves and similarly situated persons
against Defendants, alleging violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act. Lee and Campbell each allege that, in the course of
the hiring process, Defendants failed to give them a consumer
credit disclosure statement "in a document that consists solely of
the disclosure," as required under 15 U.S.C. Sec.
1681b(b)(2)(A)(i). In their Complaint, Plaintiffs seek only
statutory and punitive damages under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a) for
willful violations of the FCRA.

Defendants removed the case to the Northern District of California
on the basis of federal question jurisdiction.

In the motion, Defendants request that the Court stay the matter
because the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo could deprive
Plaintiffs of standing and could therefore deprive the Court of
subject matter jurisdiction.

In her Order dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/cyXGhdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Freeman agrees that the
outcome of Spokeo may have a determinative effect on the Court's
jurisdiction over the case and the possible damage which may
result from granting the stay is minimal.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq. --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- Katrina Leigh Eiland, Esq. --
keiland@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, E. Michelle
Drake, Esq. -- emdrake@bm.net -- & Joseph C. Hashmall, Esq. --
jhashmall@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.

They are also represented by:

     Meredith Patricia Desautels Taft, Esq.
     Stephanie Paula Funt, Esq.
     LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS
     1401 New York Avenue, NW Suite 400
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Tel: (202)662-8600

Defendants are represented by Robert A. Dolinko, Esq. --
rdolinko@nixonpeabody.com -- Charles M. Dyke, Esq. --
cdyke@nixonpeabody.com -- Matthew J. Frankel, Esq. --
mfrankel@nixonpeabody.com -- NIXON PEABODY LLP


DYNAMIC PET: Bid for Discovery Conference in "Reed" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge David H. Bartick of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California denied Plaintiffs'
ex parte for early discovery conference in the case captioned,
KHRISTIE REED, et al., on Behalf of Themselves and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. DYNAMIC PET PRODUCTS and
FRICK'S MEAT PRODUCTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. 15CV987-WQH(DHB)
(S.D. Cal.).

On May 1, 2015, Plaintiff Khristie Reed commenced the instant
consumer protection class action on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated by filing a Class Action Complaint. This
initial Complaint contained allegations pertaining to Defendants'
manufacture, marketing, and sale of a product called the "Dynamic
Pet Products Real Ham Bone For Dogs," an 8" hickory-smoked pork
femur marketed as an appropriate and safe chew toy for dogs.

The initial Complaint sought to certify the following class: "All
persons who purchased one or more Real Ham Bone For Dogs other
than for purpose of resale." The initial Complaint asserted the
following claims for relief: (1) violation of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code; (2) violation
of California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200; (3) breach
of implied warranty; (4) fraud; and (5) negligent
misrepresentation. The initial Complaint requested general
damages, punitive damages, restitution, disgorgement, declaratory
and injunctive relief, corrective advertising, attorneys' fees,
and costs.

In the motion, Plaintiffs contend that an early discovery
conference is appropriate in this case for three reasons. First,
Plaintiffs contend that "Defendants continue to sell the product
with false and deceptive representations that it is safe for dogs
to chew and, as a result, pets are being injured and dying."
Second, Plaintiffs contend that "other than a few new states that
have been added and some other readily curable issues, this case
has largely survived defendants' motion to dismiss. The fraud,
negligent misrepresentation, UCL and CLRA causes of action are
proceeding." Third, "a discovery conference should be held so the
federal and state actions can be coordinated, ensuring these
causes are efficiently litigated."

In his Order dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/CJhsZmfrom Leagle.com, Judges Bartick found that
factors weighed against Plaintiffs' request for an early discovery
conference because there is no motion for preliminary injunction
is pending and Plaintiffs make no attempt to explain the purpose
of the conference or the scope of discovery they desire to
initiate. The Court is not persuaded by Plaintiffs' claim that
further delay will allow Defendants to continue misrepresenting
the safety of their product.

Plaintiffs are represented by Leslie E. Hurst, Esq. --
lhurst@bholaw.com -- Timothy Gordon Blood, Esq. --
tblood@bholaw.com -- BLOOD HURST & O'REARDON LLP

Dynamic Pet Products is represented by David Joseph Aveni, Esq.
-- david.aveni@wilsonelser.com -- Gregory Dean Hagen, Esq. --
gregory.hagen@wilsonelser.com -- WILSON ELSER MOSKOWITZ EDELMAN &
DICKER LLP


ECOLAB INC: Class Certification Granted in "Martino" Wages Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' motion
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(b)(3) in the case captioned, JOHN MARTINO, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. ECOLAB, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-04358-PSG (N.D. Cal.).

Starting in June 2010, Ecolab employed Plaintiffs John Martino and
Adonis Amoroso, along with over 200 others, as Territory Managers
(TMs) or Hospitality Territiry Managers (HTMs). For salary
purposes, Ecolab classified TMs and HTMs as "outside salespersons"
-- meaning employees who spend more than half their time selling
products or services in the field and are exempt from California
regulations that might entitle them to overtime pay. In fact,
Plaintiffs allege, they and their colleagues in the same positions
spent most of their workdays installing, servicing and repairing
Ecolab products at customer locations. Plaintiffs therefore claim
that Ecolab's classification was inaccurate and that Ecolab owes
overtime wages to all of these employees.

Plaintiffs filed their initial complaint in state court on June 4,
2014 and amended their complaint to add a new claim on August 21,
2014.  Plaintiffs' amended complaint contains four causes of
action: (1) failure to pay wages due under Cal. Lab. Code Sections
201 and 202; (2) failure to provide accurate itemized wage
statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 226; (3) unfair
competition and (4) civil penalties under Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 558
and California's Private Attorney Generals Act.

In the motion, Plaintiffs seek class certification of "All current
and former employees of Ecolab Inc., in its Institutional Division
in California who have held one or more of the following job
titles at any time from June 4, 2010 to the present: Territory
Manager, and/or Hospitality Territory Manager" pursuant to Rule
23.

In his Order dated February 16, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tIMKLYfrom Leagle.com, Judge Grewal found that
Plaintiffs meet the standard for class certification set forth in
Rule 23, as the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit have construed
it. The Court appointed the named plaintiffs as class
representatives and their counsel as counsel for the class.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Jay Palay, Esq. --
djp@palaylaw.com -- Michael Anthony Strauss, Esq. --
mike@palaylaw.com -- Brian Daniel Hefelfinger, Esq. --
brian@palaylaw.com -- STRAUSS & PALAY APC

Ecolab, Inc. is represented by Alexis Anne Sohrakoff, Esq. --
asohrakoff@littler.com -- Angela Joy Rafoth, Esq. --
arafoth@littler.com -- Jody Ann Landry, Esq. --
jlandry@littler.com -- John Anthony Ybarra, Esq. --
jybarra@littler.com -- Richard Howard Rahm, Esq. --
rrahm@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON


EDMOND PLUMBING: Faces "Guertin" Class Suit in Massachusetts
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Edmond Plumbing
& Heating, Inc. and Emond, JR, Donald J.

The case is captioned John Guertin, Kyle Araujo, and Richard
Leveillee on behalf of all others similarly situated and
Individually v. Edmond Plumbing & Heating, Inc. and Emond, Jr.,
Donald J., Case No. 1673CV00266 (Mass. Super. Ct., March 17,
2016).

The Defendants are in the business of providing residential
plumbing and heating and air-conditioning services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam Jeremy Shafran, Esq.
      RUDOLPH FRIEDMANN LLP
      92 State Street
      Boston, MA 02109
      Telephone: (617) 723-7700
      Facsimile: (617) 227-0313
      E-mail: ashafran@rflawyers.com


EMC CORPORATION: 15 Merger-Related Cases Filed as of Feb. 23
------------------------------------------------------------
EMC 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 as of February 23, 2016,
15 putative shareholder class action lawsuits challenging the
merger with Dell Inc. have been filed.

On October 12, 2015, EMC and Denali Holding Inc. ("Denali"), the
parent company of Dell Inc. ("Dell"), signed a definitive
agreement ("Merger Agreement") under which Denali will acquire EMC
Corporation, with VMware remaining a publicly-traded company. The
combined company will be a leader in numerous high-growth areas of
the $2 trillion information technology market, with a
complementary portfolio, sales team and research and development
("R&D") organization across four globally recognized technology
franchises - servers, storage, virtualization and PCs - and brings
together strong capabilities in the fast growing areas of the
industry, including converged infrastructure, digital
transformation, software-defined data center, hybrid cloud, mobile
and security.

As of February 23, 2016, fifteen putative shareholder class action
lawsuits challenging the Merger have been filed, of which thirteen
were filed purportedly on behalf of Company shareholders and two
purportedly on behalf of VMware shareholders. The lawsuits name
various combinations of the Company, its current and former
directors, VMware, certain of VMware's directors, Denali, Dell and
Merger Sub, among others, as defendants. The fifteen lawsuits
seek, among other things, injunctive relief enjoining the Merger,
rescission of the Merger if consummated, an award of fees and
costs and/or an award of monetary damages. The suits are captioned
as follows:

Case                   Court                 Filing Date

1. IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci,
   Civ. No. 1584-3130-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/15/2015

2. Barrett v. Tucci,
   Civ. No. 15-6023-A
   Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County
   10/16/2015

3. Graulich v. Tucci,
   Civ. No. 1584-3169-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/19/2015

4. Vassallo v. EMC Corp.,
   Civ. No. 1584-3173-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/19/2015

5. City of Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Tucci,
   Civ. No. 1584-3174-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/19/2015

6. Lasker v. EMC Corp.,
   Civ. No. 1584-3214-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/23/2015

7. Walsh v. EMC Corp.,
   Civ. No. 15-13654
   U.S. District Court,
   District of Massachusetts
   10/27/2015

8. Local Union No. 373 U.A. Pension Plan v. EMC Corp.,
   Civ. No. 1584-3253-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/28/2015

9. City of Lakeland Emps.' Pension & Ret. Fund v. Tucci,
   Civ. No. 1584-3269-BLS1
   Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
   10/28/2015

10. Ma v. Tucci,
    Civ. No. 1584-3281-BLS1
    Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
    10/29/2015

11. Stull v. EMC Corp.,
    Civ. No. 15-13692
    U.S. District Court,
    District of Massachusetts
    10/30/2015

12. Jacobs v. EMC Corp.,
    Civ. No. 15-6318-H
    Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County
    11/12/2015

13. Ford v. VMware, Inc.,
    C.A. No. 11714-VCL
    Delaware Chancery Court
    11/17/2015

14. Pancake v. EMC Corp.,
    Civ. No. 16-10040
    U.S. District Court,
    District of Massachusetts
    1/11/2016

15. Booth Family Trust v. EMC Corp.,
    Civ. No. 16-10114
    U.S. District Court,
    District of Massachusetts
    1/26/2016

Of the thirteen lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of Company
shareholders, nine were filed in Massachusetts state court, and
four in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Eleven of the lawsuits initially advanced
substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was
adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company's
directors. Certain of those lawsuits also alleged that the
Company, Denali, Dell, Merger Sub, Silver Lake Partners, LLC,
and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors.

On November 5, 2015, pursuant to a motion made by the Company and
its directors, the nine lawsuits then pending in state court in
Massachusetts were consolidated with and into the first-filed of
those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci,
et al. That action, brought in the Business Litigation Session of
the Suffolk County Superior Court, named as defendants the Company
and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of
October 12, 2015), Denali, Dell and Merger Sub.

The Company and its directors moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the
Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, Sec. 7.40
et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of
Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a
derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed
for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company.

On December 7, 2015 the Court granted this motion and on December
24, 2015 the court entered judgment dismissing each of the
consolidated actions. On January 21, 2016, three of the plaintiffs
served notice that they will appeal this judgment. The appeal has
not yet been docketed.

On January 11, 2016, following the state court judgment and a
motion by the Company and its directors to stay or dismiss the two
lawsuits then pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, the plaintiffs in those cases amended
their complaints to eliminate the initial claims based on
Massachusetts state law and substitute allegations that the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus dated December 14, 2015
omits and/or misrepresents material information and that such
omissions and misrepresentations constitute violations of Section
14(a) of, and Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Two additional lawsuits have since been filed in the same
court advancing substantially the same proxy-disclosure-based
allegations.

Of the two lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of VMware
shareholders, one was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in
Massachusetts, and the other in Delaware Chancery Court. Both
generally allege that the Company, in its capacity as the majority
shareholder of VMware, and individual defendants who are directors
of the Company, VMware, or both, breached their fiduciary duties
to minority shareholders of VMware in connection with the Merger.
Both further allege that various combinations of defendants aided
and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional
lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning
the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an
adverse effect on the Company's operations. A preliminary
injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger,
and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.


EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN: "Ramsey" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages, OT Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Lewis-Ramsey and Deborah K. Jones on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Evangelical
Lutheran Good Samaritan Society d/b/a Good Samaritan Society,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00026-RP-CFB (S.D. Iowa, Davenport
Division, March 18, 2016), seeks actual damages for unpaid wages
and overtime compensation, liquidated damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements
and additional relief.

Defendant is into the home health care business where Plaintiffs
worked as home health aides. They claim to have rendered work in
excess of 40 hours without overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Harley C. Erbe, Esq.
      ERBE LAW FIRM
      2501 Grand Avenue
      Des Moines, IA 50312
      Phone: 515-281-1460
      Facsimile: 515-281-1474
      Email: rbelawfirm@aol.com

           - and -

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


EVERCORE TRUST: Court Dismisses "Coburn" ERISA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Reggie B. Walton of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Their and the Putative Class's Claim
for Breach of Contract, and instead granted a motion to dismiss
the case captioned, DONNA MARIE COBURN, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. EVERCORE TRUST
COMPANY, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 15-49 (RBW) (D.D.C.).

The plaintiff alleges that Evercore Trust Company, N.A., in its
capacity as the plan fiduciary of an employee stock ownership plan
governed by the Employment Retirement Income Security Act,
breached its duty of prudence by failing to prevent plan
participants, such as the plaintiff, from purchasing or holding
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc. stock in their retirement plans once
it allegedly became clear that J.C. Penney's transformation
strategy was doomed to fail.

The plaintiff contends that because the failure of J.C. Penney's
transformation strategy was evident from publicly available
information, "Evercore knew that continued investment in the
Company's stock was imprudent under its fiduciary obligations
imposed by ERISA." Based on these allegations, the plaintiff
claims that the defendant is liable for losses to the Plan under
Sections 409 and 502 of the ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sections 1109(a),
1132(a)(3).

Evercore seeks dismissal of the complaint under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ecQu9Sfrom Leagle.com, Judge Walton concluded that
the complaint falls entirely within the ambit of the general rule
adopted by the Supreme Court in Fifth Third Bancorp v.
Dudenhoeffer, ___ U.S. ___, 134 S.Ct. 2459 (2014); and the claims
indistinguishable from the types of allegations that the
Dudenhoeffer Court held are implausible as a general rule.

Donna Coburn is represented by Peter W. Overs, Jr., Esq. --
povers@hfesq.com -- Robert I. Harwood, Esq. -- rharwood@hfesq.com
-- HARWOOD FEFFER LLP & Daniel M. Cohen, Esq. --
danielc@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP

Evercore Trust Company is represented by Jeffrey William Kilduff,
Esq. -- jkilduff@omm.com -- Jonathan D. Hacker, Esq. --
jhacker@omm.com -- Shannon M. Barrett, Esq. -- sbarrett@omm.com
-- O'MELVENY & MYERS, LLP


FENSTER-MARTENS: Suit by Western Wayne Urgent Care May Proceed
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gerald E. Rosen of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan lifted the stay order and
denied Defendant Fenster-Martens Holding Company's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, WESTERN WAYNE URGENT CARE, P.C.,
Plaintiff, v. FENSTER-MARTENS HOLDING COMPANY and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Defendants, Case No. 15-13077 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Western Wayne Urgent Care, P.C. alleges in this case
that Defendant violated the federal Telephone Consumer Protection
Act by sending an unsolicited advertisement to Plaintiff's
facsimile machine. In its class action complaint, Plaintiff seeks
an award of statutory damages and injunctive relief, both on its
own behalf and on behalf of a class of "at least 40 other"
individuals and businesses that allegedly received unsolicited fax
advertisements from Defendant.

Shortly after Plaintiff brought the suit, Defendant served an
offer of judgment upon Plaintiff pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 in which it agreed to (i) the entry of a judgment
against it in the amount of $1,500, (ii) the entry of an
injunction prohibiting it from sending unsolicited fax
advertisements to Plaintiff in violation of the TCPA, and (iii)
the reimbursement of Plaintiff's reasonable costs incurred in the
litigation.

In the motion, Defendant sought dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, arguing that the case had been rendered moot
by virtue of an offer of judgment that would satisfy Plaintiff's
entire demand for relief. In response, Plaintiff contended that
Defendant's offer of judgment did not suffice to moot the action
because, among other reasons, Plaintiff did not accept the offer.

In his Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KJcicIfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosen found that the
instant Court retains jurisdiction over the suit and the offer was
deemed withdrawn by operation of the Rule because Plaintiff did
not accept Defendant's Rule 68 offer of judgment within 14 days.

Western Wayne Urgent Care, PC is represented by:

     Adam G. Taub, Esq.
     ADAM TAUB ASSOC CONSUMER LAW GROUP
     17200 W 10 Mile Rd
     Southfield, MI 48075
     Tel: (248)746-3790

          - and -

     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS
     20 S Clark St #1500
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)739-4200

Fenster-Martens Holding Company is represented by David E.
Plunkett, Esq. -- DEPlunkett@wwrplaw.com -- WILLIAMS, WILLIAMS,
RATTNER & PLUNKETT


FIRST NIAGARA: Class Settlement Approval Stayed Pending Spokeo
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jeremiah J. McCarthy of the United States
District Court for the Western District of New York stayed
consideration of the Uncontested Motion Preliminary Approval of
Class Action Settlement in the case captioned, JEFFREY ZINK, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
FIRST NIAGARA BANK, N.A., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-01076-RJA-JJM
(W.D.N.Y.).

Judge McCarthy said approval of the accord is stayed pending the
earlier of the Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo or June 30,
2016.

Plaintiff Jeffrey Zink commenced this action on July 19, 2013,
seeking to certify a class and recover penalties from defendant
First Niagara Bank, N.A. pursuant to New York's Real Property Law
Sec.275(1) and Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law
Sec.1921(1), for its allegedly "systematic failure to timely
present to the county clerks of New York State proof that
mortgages have been satisfied".

On November 15, 2013, First Niagara moved to dismiss the Amended
Complaint, arguing, inter alia, that plaintiff lacked standing to
seek relief because the statutes at issue "make plain that they
provide relief only to those borrowers whose satisfactions have
not been recorded at all.

In the motion, the Uncontested Motion seeks the court's
preliminary approval of the parties' agreement to settle the
action, along with preliminary certification of a settlement
class, subject to final confirmation at a later date.

In his Decision and Order dated March 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/XTm9o8from Leagle.com, Judge McCarthy concluded that
the Ninth Circuit's Spokeo decision holding that a statutory
violation alone is enough to confer standing remains binding
precedent in the case. But the Supreme Court's decision may
deprive Plaintiff of standing, eliminating the Court's
jurisdiction over the action.

Jeffrey Zink is represented by D. Gregory Blankinship, Esq. --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq. -- jfrei-
pearson@fbfglaw.com -- Todd S. Garber, Esq. -- tgarber@fbfglaw.com
-- Shin Young Hahn, Esq. -- shahn@fbfglaw.com -- FINKELSTEIN
BLANKINSHIP FREI-PEARSON & GARBER LLP

First Niagara Bank, NA is represented by Cynthia Giganti Ludwig,
Esq. -- cludwig@hodgsonruss.com -- Jodyann Galvin, Esq. --
jgalvin@hodgsonruss.com -- HODGSON RUSS LLP


FLYDUBAI: To Provide Hardship Payments to Crash Victims' Families
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ramola Talwar Badam, writing for The National UAE, reports that
FlyDubai will provide "hardship payments" of Dh73,400 per
passenger to those whose family members were killed in the FZ981
crash on March 19.

"At present, our priority is to identify and contact the families
of those lost in [the] tragic accident and provide immediate
support to those affected," a FlyDubai spokesman said.

The hardship payments are in accordance with the airline's
conditions of carriage: "with the aim of addressing immediate
financial needs".

Experts said payouts sometimes come with a written undertaking
that the passenger's families will not pursue litigation against
an airline.

Compensation varied between airlines and was also influenced by
the nationality of the passengers and crew.

"Depending on the amount, some families will accept, while others
don't, choosing instead to pursue litigation that may well give
them more compensation," said Ashley Nunes, an industry analyst
who conducts policy research in aviation safety and has lectured
in Dubai on the challenges facing the air transportation industry.

While initial payments were made over the course of the
investigation, it can be some time before the final amount is
handed over.

Pointing to the Germanwings crash in March last year, he said:
"Many families refused the payments, choosing instead to pursue
litigation in the US, where lawsuits yield higher compensation
sums compared to Europe."

Germanwings co-pilot Andreas Lubitz intentionally crashed a
passenger jet into the French Alps, killing 149 others.

Lufthansa initially paid EUR50,000 (Dh207,000) per victim, offered
EUR25,000 more to each family and EUR10,000 to each immediate
relative including parents, children and spouses, according to
agency reports.

Many relatives refused the airline's compensation offer, with
lawyers planning a class action suit in the US, arguing that
Lubitz was on anti-depressants that he had not declared and should
not have been allowed to fly.

Compensation amounts also differ depending on the crash site, the
airline and the nationalities of the passengers and crew.

"The reason why nationality matters is because it is used by
insurance companies as indicative of lost earning potential,"
Dr. Nunes said.

"The highest average settlement in the US are in the order of $4.5
million, double that in Europe, and more than six times more the
average in Asia.  This is because a US national's earning
potential is significantly higher in the US than it is in other
parts of the world."

Russian authorities have begun to compensate victims' families,
the Rostov region's governor said, according to media reports
there.  One million rubles (Dh53,519) will be paid to the families
of every victim.


GATEWAY FRONTLINE: "Ash" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Ash, an individual, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gateway Frontline Services,
Inc., a corporation, Gateway Security, Inc., d/b/a Gateway Group
One, a corporation, and Does 1-5, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC613506 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los Angeles, March 14,
2016), seeks to recover overtime wages and meal and rest periods
pay under Labor Code.

Gateway Frontline Services serves major high-traffic public and
semi-public venues such as transportation hubs, stadiums,
entertainment venues, malls and healthcare facilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Gutierrez, Esq.
          Amber B. Derham, Esq.
          GUTIERREZ DERHAM LAW FIRM LLP
          26632 Towne Centre Drive, Suite 300
          Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
          Telephone: (949) 420-3767
          E-mail: mg@gutierrezderham.com
                  abd@.gutierrezderhain.com


GENERAL CHEMICAL: "Phenix City" Suit Asserts Alum-Price Fixing
--------------------------------------------------------------
City of Phenix, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, v. Frank A. Reichl, General Chemical Corporation,
General Chemical Performance Products, LLC, GenTek Inc., Chemtrade
Logistics Income Fund, Chemtrade Logistics Inc., Chemtrade
Chemicals Corporation, Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC, Hawkins, Inc.,
Geo Specialty Chemicals, Inc., C&S Chemicals, Inc., Thatcher
Group, Inc., USALCO, LLC, Kemira Chemicals, Inc. and John Does 1-
10, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01116-JLL-JAD (D.N.J. February
26, 2016), seeks treble damages for violation of Section 1 of the
Sherman Act 15 U.S.C.

Defendants are allegedly engaged in a conspiracy to artificially
fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices of aluminum
sulfate in the United States. Plaintiff purchased liquid aluminum
sulfate directly from the defendants at allegedly excessive
prices.

Reichl was the General Manager of Water Chemicals for General
Chemical Group, Inc., a corporation existing under the laws of
Delaware, with principal place of business at 90 East Halsey Road,
Parsippany, New Jersey.

General Chemical Corporation was a corporation existing under the
laws of Delaware with principal place of business at Suite 300,
155 Gordon Baker Road, Toronto, Ontario.

General Chemical Performance Products LLC was a limited liability
company organized under the laws of Delaware with principal place
of business at 90 East Halsey Road, Parsippany, New Jersey.

GenTek Inc. was a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business in Parsippany, New Jersey. GenTek manufactured and
supplied water treatment chemicals throughout the United States.
It owned and controlled Defendants General Chemical Performance
Products LLC and General Chemical Corporation.

Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund is a limited purpose trust under
the laws of the Province of Ontario and is headquartered in
Toronto, Canada. It manufactures and markets industrial chemicals
and other coagulants used in water treatment in Canada, the United
States and Europe.

Chemtrade Logistics Inc. is a subsidiary of Chemtrade.
Logistics Income Fund incorporated under the laws of the Province
of Ontario.

Chemtrade Chemicals Corporation is a Delaware corporation and is a
subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

Chemtrade Chemicals US, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company and is a subsidiary of Chemtrade Logistics Income Fund.

GEO Specialty Chemicals, Inc. is a privately held Ohio corporation
with its principal place of business at 340 Mathers Road, Ambler,
Pennsylvania. GEO Specialty manufactures, markets, and supplies
specialty chemicals, including water treatment chemicals.

USALCO, LLC is a privately held Maryland corporation with its
principal place of business at 2601 Cannery Avenue, Baltimore,
Maryland. USALCO manufactures and distributes aluminum-based
chemical commodities to the industrial and municipal markets in
the North America.

Thatcher Group, Inc. is a privately held Nevada corporation with
its principal place of business at 1905 Fortune Road, Salt Lake
City, Utah. Thatcher Group manufactures and distributes a complete
line of products for industrial and municipal water and wastewater
treatment.

Kemira Chemicals, Inc. is a publicly held Georgia corporation with
its principal place of business at 1000 Parkwood Circle, Suite
500, Atlanta, Georgia. It manufactures, formulates and supplies
specialty and process chemicals for paper, water treatment,
mineral slurries and industrial chemical industries in North
America and internationally.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James E. Cecchi, Esq.
      Lindsey H. Taylor, Esq.
      CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C.
      5 Becker Farm Road
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Tel: (973) 994-1700

           - and -

      W. Daniel "Dee" Miles, III, Esq.
      Archie I. Grubb, II, Esq.
      Leslie Pescia, Esq.
      BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.
      218 Commerce Street
      Montgomery, AL 36104
      Tel: (334) 269-2343


GENOVA PRODUCTS: "Blanyar" Suit Over Chemical Exposure Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania granted defendant's
motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint in the case captioned,
LOUISE BLANYAR, et al., Plaintiffs v. GENOVA PRODUCTS, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 3:15-1303 (M.D. Pa.).

The named plaintiffs in this action are Louise Blanyar, a former
packer at the defendant's Hazleton, Pennsylvania, plant from 1999
through 2004; Lawrence Buchman, a former machine operator at the
Hazleton plant from 2000 to 2006; and Edward Yachera, a former
molding machine operator and bundler at the Hazleton plant from
1977 to 1987.

On May 15, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the purported class action
in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County.  According to this
medical monitoring action, the plaintiffs discovered Material
Safety and Data Sheets ("MSDS") -- which were not previously made
accessible to them or other class members -- that reveal that they
have been exposed to known carcinogens and other toxic chemicals
that are scientifically linked to various serious latent diseases
or conditions while employed at the defendant's Hazleton
manufacturing plant. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant
violated various state and federal laws, including the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Hazard
Communication Standard, by failing to retain and provide the
plaintiffs with access to MSDSs informing them as to the totality
of chemicals they were exposed to and a safe method for working
with those chemicals.

On July 1, 2015, the defendant removed the action pursuant to the
relevant provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, as well as
upon diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. Sec.1332. A motion to
dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint was filed on July 8, 2015 for
failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

In the Memorandum dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/hFtGpxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Mannion concluded that
plaintiffs' allegations are insufficient to demonstrate that the
defendant committed an affirmative independent act of concealment
and does not plausibly allege that the defendant's acts or
omissions prevented them from recognizing the validity of their
claim within the limitations period.

Plaintiffs are represented by David S. Senoff, Esq. --
dsenoff@anapolweiss.com -- Sol H. Weiss, Esq. --
dweiss@anapolweiss.com -- ANAPOL, SCHWARTZ, WEISS, COHAN, FELDMAN
& SMALLEY, P.C.

They are also represented by:

     William R. Caroselli, Esq.
     Lauren C. Fantini, Esq.
     CAROSELLI BEACHLER MCTIERNAN & CONBOY
     20 Stanwix St 7th Floor,
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Tel: (412)391-9860

Genova Products, Inc. is represented by Danielle E. Ryan, Esq. --
dryan@foxrothschild.com -- J. Benjamin Nevius, Esq. --
jnevius@foxrothschild.com -- Ronald L. Williams, Esq. --
rwilliams@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Alan N. Harris,
Esq. -- aharris@bodmanlaw.com -- Justin P. Bagdady, Esq. --
jbagdady@bodmanlaw.com -- BODMAN PLC


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Gesin" Sues over Zofran Side-Effects
----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Gesin and Matthew Gesin, both Individually and on behalf of
B.G., their minor child, Plaintiffs, v. Glaxosmithkline LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-10404 (D. Mass., February 25, 2016),
seeks general damages, medical, incidental and hospital expenses,
pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, full refund of all
purchase costs of Zofran, consequential damages, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees, expenses and costs of this action and
such further and other relief resulting from negligence, breach of
warranty and implied warranty, failure to warn of product defects,
fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, negligent
misrepresentation and in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud
And Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients with severe nausea, usually for cancer patients who
require chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Plaintiff Julie Gesin took Zofran for her morning sickness when
she was pregnant. She alleges that her child, B.G., was born with
a congenital heart defect as a result of her taking Zofran.

GlaxoSmithKline Holdings, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with
principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert K. Jenner, Esq.
      Brian D. Ketterer, Esq.
      Kimberly A. Dougherty, Esq.
      JANET, JENNER & SUGGS, LLC
      31 St. James Ave., Suite 365
      Boston, MA 02116
      Tel: (617) 933-1265
      Fax: (410) 653-9030


GULF INTERSTATE: Must Defend Against "Sloane" Labor Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nora Barry Fischer of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Defendant's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint in the case captioned,
THOMAS SLOANE, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GULF INTERSTATE FIELD SERVICES, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-1208 (W.D. Pa.).

In this civil action Thomas Sloane, on behalf of himself and all
persons similarly situated, brings suit against Gulf Interstate
Field Services, Inc. and asserts claims under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and Pennsylvania state law, including the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act and Pennsylvania common law, for
alleged failure of Defendant to pay overtime wages.

Plaintiff asserts three claims in his Complaint. Count I alleges a
violation of the FLSA (on behalf of the FLSA Class); Count II
alleges a violation of the PMWA (on behalf of the Pennsylvania
Class); and Count III alleges a claim for unjust enrichment (on
behalf of the Pennsylvania Class).

Defendant filed Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted.

In her Memorandum Opinion dated March 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tl9kMufrom Leagle.com, Judge Fischer is not
persuaded by Defendant's position finding that many of the
proffered arguments are more appropriate for the summary judgment
stage and inappropriate at the stage of the litigation.

Thomas Sloane is represented by:

     Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq.
     Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
     Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust St,
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Tel: (215)875-3000

          - and -

     James A. Jones, Esq.
     Richard J. Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
     8 Greenway Plaza # 1500,
     Houston, TX 77046
     Tel: (713)877-8788

Gulf Interstate Field Servces, Inc. is represented by Annette A.
Idalski, Esq. -- annette.idalski@chamberlainlaw.com -- Peter N.
Hall, Esq. -- peter.hall@chamberlainlaw.com -- Fletcher B. Howard,
Esq. -- beau.howard@chamberlainlaw.com -- CHAMBERLAIN HRDLICKA
WHITE WILLIAMS & AUGHTRY, & Keith E. Whitson, Esq. --
kwhitson@scnader.com -- SCHNADER, HARRISON, SEGAL & LEWIS


GURLEY MOTOR: Court Grants in Part Summary Judgment in "Yazzie"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge James A. Parker of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York granted in
part Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned, EUGENE YAZZIE and PHYLLIS YAZZIE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GURLEY MOTOR CO. and RED ROCK INVESTMENT CO., Defendants, Case No.
CIV 14-555 JAP/SCY (D.N.M.).

Defendant Red Rock acts as Gurley Motor's in-house financing
company, with Gurley Motor assigning Loan Contracts to Red Rock.
From June 16, 2013 to the present, Gurley Motor regularly assigned
Loan Contracts to Red Rock, including every Loan Contract
involving a deferred down payment. Some of the borrowers, like
Plaintiffs, defaulted on their payments and Red Rock repossessed
their vehicles. Whenever it repossessed a vehicle, Red Rock sent
out a standardized Notification Before Disposition of Collateral
before selling the vehicle.

According to Plaintiffs, Red Rock's standardized Repossession
Notice does not comply with the requirements of the New Mexico
Uniform Commercial Code (UCC or New Mexico UCC). On October 30,
2015, the Court certified two consumer protection classes of

     (1) "A Loan Agreement Class or TILA Class consisting of all
natural persons who, beginning one year prior to the filing of the
Complaint, entered into a Motor Vehicle Installment Loan Contract
with Gurley to purchase a vehicle primarily for personal, family,
or household use, where the loan agreement included a deferred
down payment, which was listed in the disclosed Payment Schedule
but not included in the Total of Payments," and

     (2) "A Notification Class or UCC Class consisting of all
natural persons who purchased a vehicle from Gurley primarily for
personal, family, or household use, whose financing contract was
assigned to Red Rock and to whom, beginning four years prior to
the filing of the Complaint, Red Rock sent its Notification Before
Disposition of Collateral, after repossessing the person's
vehicle."

Plaintiffs Eugene Yazzie and Phyllis Yazzie, class
representatives, moved for summary judgment arguing that the facts
are undisputed and that they and similarly situated class members
are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the issue of
liability and the proper formulae for calculating damages.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 8, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/vunZF6from Leagle.com, Judge Parker granted
Plaintiffs' request and held that each UCC class member is
entitled to damages in an amount equal to the credit service
charge plus ten percent of the original principal amount of the
car loan because Defendants have not lodged any other objection to
the entry of summary judgment on the issue of damages.

The Court entered summary judgment as to liability in Plaintffs'
favor against Defendants on the claims of both the TILA and UCC
classes. Barring a due process reduction, the Court found that
each UCC class member is entitled to statutory damages in the
amount of the credit service charge plus ten percent of the
original principal amount of the car loan.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
     Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
     FEFERMAN & WARREN
     300 Central Avenue SW
     Suite 2000 West
     Albuquerque, NM 87102
     Tel: (505)243-7773

Gurley Motor Co. is represented by Mark D. Jarmie, Esq. --
mjarmie@jarmielaw.com -- JARMIE & ASSOCIATES


HAIN CELESTIAL: 9th Cir. Reinstates "Balser" Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Marsha S. Berzon, Andre M. Davis and John B. Owens
of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, reversed a district court
order dismissing the case captioned, ALESSANDRA BALSER,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated; RUTH
KRESHA, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. THE HAIN CELESTIAL GROUP,
INC., Defendant-Appellee (9th Cir.).

Plaintiffs Alessandra Balser and Ruth Kresha filed a putative
class action lawsuit against The Hain Celestial Group, Inc.
alleging that Hain's use of the word "Natural" on some of its
products' packaging is misleading because the products contain
synthetic ingredients. Plaintiffs alleged Hain used the phrase
"100% Vegetarian" on the back of the products' packaging, which,
the complaint avers, means products derived from plants.

The district court dismissed the case without leave to amend. The
district court deferred consideration of the Plaintiffs' motion
for precertification discovery to a date after the Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification was due, thereby implicitly denying
the motion by rendering it moot.

On appeal, Plaintiffs also argue that the district court abused
its discretion by denying them precertification discovery.

In the Memorandum dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/QNpU3xfrom Leagle.com, the Ninth Circuit panel found
that Plaintiffs pleaded their claims with sufficient particularity
to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) and that
Plaintiffs sufficiently pleaded how they were harmed by the
"natural" representation. The Court vacated the denial of
precertification discovery and remanded to the district court for
consideration of whether precertification discovery is necessary,
given Plaintiffs' particular document requests, updated requests,
and recent case law.

The Hon. Andre M. Davis, Senior Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, sat on the Ninth Circuit panel
by designation.


HALL RENDER: April 6 Case Conference in "Gartmann" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Mina Gartmann claims that Clement Manor, Inc. violated the
Wisconsin Consumer Act (WCA), Wis. Stat. Sec. 427.104(1)(L).
Clement Manor's alleged violation occurred as part of a letter it
mailed to Gartmann concerning a purported outstanding balance on
her late husband's account. Gartmann seeks to represent a class of
claimants.

Clement Manor moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

According to District Judge C.N. Clevert, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, a Rule
12(b)(6) motion challenges the sufficiency of the complaint to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Rule 12(b)(6)
requires a plaintiff to clear two hurdles. First, the complaint
must describe the claim in sufficient detail to give a defendant
fair notice of the charge and the grounds on which it rests.
Second, the complaint must set forth a claim that is plausible on
its face.

Judge Clevert, Jr. notes that Clement Manor does not contend that
the complaint fails to give fair notice of Gartmann's claim.
Instead, it contends that Gartmann has no plausible claim because
she has pled herself out of court -- because the facts asserted,
even if true, fail to establish a WCA violation.

In his Decision and Order dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/FOsZztfrom Leagle.com, Judge Clevert, Jr. found that
Clement Manor did not violate Sec. 427.104(1)(L)'s prohibition
against threatening action "unless like action is taken in regular
course." For the class-action claims, Gartmann failed to assert a
representative claim and no other plaintiffs are named. Gartmann's
motion for class certification, filed at the same time she filed
her complaint, remains stayed pending the Rule 16 conference.

The Court scheduled a conference on April 6, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. and
by March 29, 2016, the parties to submit a joint written report
outlining their discovery plan.

The case is captioned, MINA GARTMANN, Plaintiff, v. HALL, RENDER,
KILLIAN, HEATH & LYMAN, P.C., CLEMENT MANOR, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 15-C-0113 (E.D. Wis.).

Mina Gartmann is represented by Mark A. Eldridge, Esq. --
meldridge@ademilaw.com -- Shpetim Ademi, Esq. --
sademi@ademilaw.com -- John D Blythin, Esq. --
jblythin@ademilaw.com -- ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP

Hall, Render, Killian, Heath & Lyman, PC is represented by Rebecca
M. Lindstrom, Esq. -- Linda.Lindstrom@lewisbrisbois.com
-- Timothy J. Young, Esq. -- Timothy.Young@lewisbrisbois.com --
LEWIS BRISBOIS BISGAARD & SMITH LLP


HANOVER INSURANCE: Durand Litigation Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend against the Durand Litigation.

On March 12, 2007, a putative class action suit captioned Jennifer
A. Durand v. The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc., and The Allmerica
Financial Cash Balance Pension Plan, was filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. The
named plaintiff, a former employee of our former life insurance
and annuity business who received a lump sum distribution from the
Company's Cash Balance Plan (the "Plan") at or about the time of
her separation from the company, claims that she and others
similarly situated did not receive the appropriate lump sum
distribution because in computing the lump sum, the Company and
the Plan understated the accrued benefit in the calculation. The
plaintiff claims that the Plan underpaid her distributions and
those of similarly situated participants by failing to pay an
additional so-called "whipsaw" amount reflecting the present value
of an estimate of future interest credits from the date of the
lump sum distribution to each participant's retirement age of 65
("whipsaw claim").

The plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint adding two new named
plaintiffs and additional claims on December 11, 2009.  Two of the
three new claims set forth in the Amended Complaint were dismissed
by the District Court, which action was upheld in November 2015 by
the U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.  The District Court,
however, did allow to stand the portion of the Amended Complaint
which set forth claims against the Company for breach of fiduciary
duty and failure to meet notice requirements arising under the
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA") from the
various interest crediting and lump sum distribution matters of
which plaintiffs complain, but only as to plaintiffs' "whipsaw"
claim that remained in the case. On December 17, 2013, the Court
entered an order certifying a class to bring "whipsaw" and related
breach of fiduciary duty claims consisting of all persons who
received a lump sum distribution between March 1, 1997 and
December 31, 2003. The Company filed a summary judgment motion,
prior to the decision on the appeal, that was based on the statute
of limitations and seeks to dismiss the subclass of plaintiffs who
received lump sum distributions prior to March 13, 2002.  This
summary judgment motion has been stayed pending additional
discovery.

The Hanover Insurance Group, Inc. ("THG") is a holding company
organized as a Delaware corporation in 1995.


HAWAII: Court Awards Fees to Plaintiff's Counsel in Suit v. DOE
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Oki Mollway of the United States District
Court for the District of Hawaii adopted, in part, a Magistrate
Judge's Order denying a request for Interim Attorneys' Fees in the
case captioned, E.R.K, through his legal guardian, R.K., et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, State of Hawaii,
Defendant, Case No. 10-00436 SOM/KSC (D. Haw.).

"This court adopts the F&R to the extent that it refuses to
examine the attorneys' fees in this case on a piecemeal basis.
However, given the more than 5-1/2 years since this case was
initiated, and given the acknowledgment by the DOE that E.R.K. is
the prevailing party in this matter, the court believes that a
one-time interim fee reimbursement is appropriate under 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1415(i)(3)(B)," Judge Mollway said.

The certified class action, originally filed in 2010, concerns
whether the State of Hawaii Department of Education wrongfully
denied services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education
Act (IDEA) to individuals that the DOE viewed as having "aged out"
of being eligible to receive services.

On November 20, 2015, E.R.K. filed an interim motion, asking for
$221,215.10 for attorneys' fees incurred by Alston Hunt Floyd &
Ing, and $13,734.10 for attorneys' fees incurred by the Hawaii
Disability Rights Center, representing fees incurred through the
court's August 2014 order.  E.R.K. sought fees under 20 U.S.C.
Sec. 1415(i)(3)(B) as the prevailing party in an IDEA case.

On January 11, 2016, Magistrate Judge Kevin S.C. Chang issued
Findings and Recommendation to Deny Without Prejudice Plaintiffs'
Interim Motion for Attorneys' Fees (F&R).

On January 28, 2016, E.R.K. filed objections to the F&R.  As part
of the objections, Paul Alston filed a declaration indicating
that, since the court's August 22, 2014, and through December 31,
2015, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing had done 2,773.9 hours of work,
incurring $660,799.16 in fees. For that same time period, Louis
Erteschik indicates that the Hawaii Disability Rights Center did
168.8 hours of work, incurring $39,799.22 in fees.

In her Order dated March 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/dFVDlM
from Leagle.com, Judge Mollway adopted the F&R to the extent that
it refuses to examine the attorneys' fees in this case on a
piecemeal basis. The court awards that amount to E.R.K.,
representing $95,000 for the fees of Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing and
$5,000 for the fees of the Hawaii Disability Rights Center.

Plaintiffs are represented by Chrystn K.A. Eads, Esq. --
ceads@ahfi.com -- Claire Wong Black, Esq. -- cblack@ahfi.com --
Jason H. Kim, Esq. -- jkim@ahfi.com -- Kristin L. Holland, Esq.
-- kholland@ahfi.com -- Paul Alston, Esq. -- palston@ahfi.com --
ALSTON HUNT FLOYD & ING

They are also represented by:

     Louis Erteschik, Esq.
     Matthew C. Bassett, Esq.
     HAWAII DISABILITY RIGHTS CENTER
     1132 Bishop St # 2102
     Honolulu, HI 96813
      Tel: (808)949-2922

Department of Education is represented by:

     Adam T. Snow, Esq.
     Carter K. Siu, Esq.
     Gary S. Suganuma, Esq.
     Ryan W. Roylo, Esq.
     DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EDUCATION DIVISION
     425 Queen Street
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Tel: (808)586-1500

          - and -

     Harvey E. Henderson, Jr., Esq.
     Holly T. Shikada, Esq.
     Kunio Kuwabe, Esq.
     Steve K. Miyasaka, Esq.
     DEPARTMENT OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
     425 Queen Street
     Honolulu, HI 96813
     Tel: (808)586-1500


HBLC INC: Ill. App. Court Revives Egan FDCPA Counterclaim
---------------------------------------------------------
Justice Robert E. Gordon of the Appellate Court of Illinois
reversed a trial court's dismissal of Danny Egan's counterclaim in
the case, HBLC, INC., Plaintiff and Counterdefendant-Appellee, v.
DANNY EGAN, Individually and on Behalf of the Class Defined Below,
Defendant and Counterplaintiff-Appellant, (Steven J. Fink &
Associates, P.C., Counterdefendant-Appellee), Case No. 1-14-3922
(Ill. App.).

On January 26, 2012, HBLC filed a verified complaint against Danny
Egan, alleging that Egan opened a Credit One Bank credit card
account but failed to make monthly payments due on the account.
The complaint alleged that "pursuant to the Affidavit attached
hereto as Exhibit '1' there is due to Plaintiff from the
Defendant, as of the filing date of this complaint, the sum of
$2545.84 plus court costs as permitted by the Cardmember Agreement
and as permitted by statute plus post-judgment interest at the
rate allowed by law until the debt is paid."

On February 16, 2012, Egan filed an answer, affirmative defenses,
and class action counterclaim. Egan denied the allegations of the
complaint and alleged that the debt at issue was opened
fraudulently using Egan's personal information without his
knowledge or authorization. Egan also included a class action
counterclaim against HBLC and the law firm of Steven J. Fink &
Associates, P.C. (Fink), alleging that HBLC and Fink had violated
the FDCPA and the Collection Agency Act by filing time-barred
lawsuits for the collection of debts that were beyond the statute
of limitations.

On July 22, 2014, the trial court entered an order granting HBLC
and Fink's motion to dismiss and dismissed Egan's amended class
action counterclaim in its entirety. With respect to the FDCPA
claims in count I of the counterclaim that were based on the
statute of limitations, the court found that "HBLC and Fink
persuasively argued that the other FDCPA claims cannot survive
because they are based on representations made to the state court
by Fink when the collection complaint was filed.

On appeal, Egan challenged the dismissal of count I of his
counterclaim, the FDCPA claim. Egan argues that both of these
findings were erroneous, and argues that he stated a cause of
action sufficient to withstand dismissal under section 2-615.

In his Opinion dated March 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/0qZ5qjfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gordon concluded that
the trial court erred in dismissing count I of Egan's amended
class action counterclaim under section 2-615 of the Code finding
unpersuasive HBLC and Fink's argument that there could be no FDCPA
violation because the content of the collection complaint itself
did not contain any misrepresentations. Because the defendants
were not entitled to sue in such circumstances, the district court
found the threats to sue made by the defendants to be improper.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: "Campbell" Sues Over Discontinued Commissions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Campbell, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Heartland Payment Systems,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01104-PGS-DEA (D.N.J., February
26, 2016), seeks compensatory and statutory relief, common law and
punitive damages, applicable pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, enjoinment, injunctive, equitable and declaratory
relief, attorneys' fees and costs of suit resulting from unjust
enrichment, promissory and equitable estoppel and for breach of
contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing.

Heartland Payment Systems is a payment processing solutions
provider based in Princeton, New Jersey. She worked as a
Relationship Manager and accuses the Defendant of discontinuing
her vested commissions after she resigned.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul A. DiGiorgio, Esq.
      John E. Keefe, Jr., Esq.
      KEEFE BARTELS, LLC
      170 Monmouth Street
      Red Bank, NJ 07701
      Tel: (732) 224-9400
      Fax: (732) 224-9494
      Email: pdigiorgio@kecfebartels.com


HORMEL FOODS: Wisconsin High Court Affirms Judgment in Union Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Shirley S. Abrahamson of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin
affirmed the circuit court's judgment and order in the case
captioned, United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 1473,
Dennis A. Warne, Charles R. Seeley and Pamela Collins, Plaintiffs-
Respondents, v. Hormel Foods Corporation, Defendant-Appellant,
Case No. 2014AP1880 (Wis.).

The Union filed a class action on behalf of a class of current and
former employees in Hormel's plant, alleging that Hormel violated
Wisconsin wage and hour laws by failing to pay the employees for
time spent at the plant putting on and taking off the required
clothing and equipment. Because the time spent putting on and
taking off the required clothing and equipment is not included in
the employees' compensation, the Union asserts that the employees
are working more than 40 hours per week without being paid
overtime. Employees seek compensation for time spent putting on
and taking off company-required clothing and equipment before and
after shifts at Hormel's canning plant located in Beloit,
Wisconsin.

Judge Michael R. Fitzpatrick of the Circuit Court for Rock County
issued a comprehensive decision holding in favor of the Union and
requiring Hormel to compensate its employees for time spent
donning and doffing the required clothing and equipment at the
plant at the beginning and end of the day and during unpaid meal
periods holding that Hormel has failed to carry its burden to show
the applicability of the de minimis doctrine, and, therefore, that
doctrine is not controlling. The circuit court awarded the class
monetary damages of $195,087.30 broken down as follows: (1)
$180,087.30 in unpaid wages for 5.7 minutes per day spent donning
and doffing the required clothing and equipment; and (2) pursuant
to a stipulation of the parties, $15,000 in damages for unpaid
meal periods.

On appeal, Hormel argues that the Tyson Foods case was wrongly
decided and "puts state law at odds with federal authority,
namely, with the U.S. Supreme Court's holding" in a recent
decision, Integrity Staffing Solutions, Inc. v. Busk, 135 S.Ct.
513 (2014). As a result, Hormel asks the Wisconsin High Court to
overturn Tyson Foods.

In her Memorandum and Order dated March 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/PsEqBmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Abrahamson concluded
that the circuit court did not err in its judgment and that the
period spent donning and doffing at the beginning and end of the
day is compensable under Wis. Admin. Code Sec. DWD 272.12.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mark A. Sweet, Esq. --
msweet@unionyeslaw.com -- SWEET AND ASSOCIATES, LLC

Hormel Foods Corporation is represented by Thomas P. Krukowski,
Esq. -- tkrukowski@whdlaw.com -- WHYTE HIRSCHBOECK DUDEK, S.C.


HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL: Bid for Attorneys' Fees Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, PATRICK CLARKE, on behalf of himself and
all those similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HUDSON VALLEY FEDERAL
CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-5291 (KBF)(S.D.N.Y.),
District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York awarded Teske, Micko,
Katz, Kitzer & Rochel, PLLP, attorney's fees of $77,596.42 and
costs of $7,296.14, and awarded Bromberg Law Office, P.C.
attorney's fees of $23,886.70 and costs of $2,022.49.

On July 15, 2014, plaintiff Patrick Clarke commenced the action,
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging
that defendant Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union violated certain
provisions of the Service members Civil Relief Act, 50 U.S.C. Sec.
3901 et seq.  Specifically, Clarke alleged violations that HVFCU
violated 50 U.S.C. Sections 3952 & 3958 when it repossessed his
vehicle in 2010 while he was on active duty in the United States
military.

On November 25, 2015, after the completion of discovery and while
Clarke's motion for class certification and HVFCU's motion for
partial summary judgment were pending, Clarke accepted HVFCU's
offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68.
The offer of judgment awarded Clarke, inter alia, a sum of $20,000
and "reasonable and necessary attorneys' fees and costs of the
litigation accrued to the date" of the offer of judgment.

On behalf of the two law firms that jointly represented him in the
action, Clarke seeks attorney's fees in the amount of $194,204.90
and costs in the amount of $13,534.25.

In her Opinion and Order dated March 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/LdjpPPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Forrest concluded that
the costs must be significantly reduced from what Clarke's
attorneys request based on its determination that numerous items
were not reasonably incurred in relation to the pursuit of
Clarke's individual claims, but instead were geared toward the
pursuit of a potential class action. Because the Court is highly
skeptical that Clarke would have successfully certified a class in
the case, fees and costs associated with that pursuit are
appropriately excluded from the Court's award of attorney's fees
and costs.

Patrick Clarke is represented by Brian T. Rochel, Esq. Douglas L.
Micko, Esq. -- micko@teskemicko.com -- Marisa C. Katz, Esq. --
katz@teskemicko.com -- Vildan A. Teske, Esq. --
teske@teskemicko.com -- CROWDER, TESKE, KATZ & MICKO, PLLP.

He is also represented by:

     Brian Lewis Bromberg, Esq.
     Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
     BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     26 Broadway
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212)248-7906

Hudson Valley Federal Credit Union is represented by Daniel T.
Hughes, Esq. -- hughes@litchfieldcavo.com -- LITCHFIELD CAVO,
Brian Owen Dolan, Esq. -- bodolan@kaufcan.com -- Marc Ericson
Darnell, Esq. -- medarnell@kaufcan.com -- KAUFMAN & CANOLES, P.C.

HVFCU is also represented by:

     Anthony C. Carlini, Jr., Esq.
     HANDEL & CARLINI, LLP
     Poughkeepsie Journal Building
     85 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 201A
     Poughkeepsie, NY 12601
     Tel: (845)454-2221


HYATT RESIDENTIAL: "Morera" FLSA Suit Removed to S.D. Fla.
----------------------------------------------------------
Yaniuska Morera and other similarly situated housekeepers,
Plaintiff, v. Hyatt Residential Group, Inc., Defendant, Case No.
15-CA-001175-K, was removed from the Circuit Court for the
Sixteenth Judicial Circuit to the United States District Court
Southern District of Florida.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant failed to comply with the minimum
wage, overtime, and anti-retaliation provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec, 201 et seq.

Hyatt Residential Group, Inc. operates Hyatt Beach House in 5051
Overseas Hi-way, Key West, FL 33040.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kevin M. Young
      SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
      1075 Peachtree Street, N.E., Suite 2500
      Atlanta, Georgia 30309
      Telephone: (404) 885-6697
      Facsimile: (404) 724-1697
      Email: kyoung@seyfarth.com


ILLINOIS TOOLS: Court Grants Continuance of Phase 1 Discovery
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted the
parties' request for continuance of the Phase 1 discovery cut-off
and the dates in the case captioned, JUAN OROZCO and JUAN OROZCO-
BRISENO, individuals, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS
INC., a Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, Inclusive, Defendants,
Case No. 14-CV-02113-MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.).

The Court has bifurcated the discovery process in the matter,
limiting Phase 1 discovery to those facts that are relevant to
whether the action should be certified as a class action. The
Court previously set the following deadlines with respect to Phase
1 discovery. In partial resolution of a discovery dispute between
the Parties, Magistrate Judge Brennan ordered Defendant to produce
Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses who can testify regarding "issues of rest
and meal breaks, as well as premium pay" with respect to all
business units operated by Defendant in California during the
putative class period.

In the motion, the parties request the Court to order that the
Phase 1 discovery cut-off and the dates associated with the motion
for class certification be continued as (1) Completion of Phase 1
discovery on June 30, 2016; (2) Plaintiffs' deadline to file
motion on September 2, 2016; (3) Defendant's deadline to file
opposition on September 23, 2016; (4) Plaintiff's deadline to file
reply on October 7, 2016; and (5) Hearing re: Class Certification
Motion on October 19, 2016.

The Parties have conferred and believe that a continuance of the
briefing schedule for the motion for class certification is
warranted to provide a sufficient amount of time for Defendant to
produce its 30(b)(6) designees for deposition.

Plaintiffs believe they will require approximately 60 days after
the conclusion of the final 30(b)(6) deposition to review and
analyze the deposition transcripts and file their motion for class
certification.

In his Joint Stipulation and Order dated March 4, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/x8D3Ojfrom Leagle.com, Judge England, Jr. ordered
that the Phase 1 discovery cut-off and the dates associated with
the motion for class certification be continued in accordance with
the foregoing stipulation.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Norman Blumenthal, Esq.
     Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
     Kyle R. Nordrehaug, Esq.
     Ruchira Piya Mukherjee, Esq.
     Victoria Bree Rivapalacio, Esq.
     BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
     2255 Calle Clara
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Tel: (858)367-9913

Illinois Tool Works, Inc. is represented by Christina Theresa
Tellado, Esq. -- ctellado@reedsmith.com -- Thomas E. Hill, Esq.
-- thill@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


IU HEALTH: Supreme Court May Look Into Health Care Pricing
----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Carden, writing for nwi.com, reports that despite a federal
mandate that all Americans purchase health insurance, about 1 in 8
Hoosiers still are personally responsible for all the costs of
their medical care -- including 75,000 Lake County residents,
20,000 in Porter and 15,000 in LaPorte.

But unlike just about every other product or service that
individuals regularly buy, where the price is known up-front,
health care costs almost always are opaque until the bill, which
can be considerable even for the most routine procedures, comes in
the mail.

Four years ago, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the practice of
health pricing secrecy by ruling that a hospital's "chargemaster,"
its list of undiscounted item and procedure rates billed to
uninsured patients, need not be reasonable or even made available
for review prior to a patient signing an agreement to pay his or
her incurred charges.

That decision terminated a potential class-action lawsuit brought
by uninsured Hoosiers who felt they had been overcharged by the
state hospital network now known as IU Health, because Indiana law
generally requires reasonable charges for services if the cost is
not known in advance.

Justice Robert Rucker, a Gary native writing for the unanimous
high court, said hospitals are different than, for example, auto
body shops, because "in the context of contracts providing for
health care services precision concerning price is close to
impossible."

Therefore, Justice Rucker said, "a hospital's chargemaster rates
serve as the basis for its pricing," regardless of whether the
prices reflect the actual cost of hospital goods or services.

The ruling has contributed to Hoosiers racking up an estimated $3
billion a year in health care costs they can't pay; charges that
often get passed along in the form of higher rates paid by insured
Hoosiers.

A three-judge panel of the Indiana Court of Appeals strongly
suggested the Supreme Court take another look at the
reasonableness of hospital charges.

In a 2-1 decision involving a man billed $629,386.50 for care
following a motorcycle accident, the appeals court ruled
Thomas Frost can challenge the reasonableness of Parkview
Hospital's pricing by presenting evidence of far lower rates paid
by insured patients for the same services.

Senior Appeals Judge Ezra Friedlander and Chief Appeals Judge
Nancy Vaidik, a Porter County native, concluded that under the law
Frost has a right to learn whether his bill exceeds the payment
the Fort Wayne hospital will accept from an insurance company or
the government.

"Frost is not challenging that a debt is due Parkview. Likewise,
Frost is not asking a court to impute a reasonable price . . . or
asking a court to completely disregard Parkview's rates," they
write.  "Instead, he argues that . . . he may challenge the
reasonableness of the charges claimed, and is entitled to
discovery from Parkview in order to do so."

Even the dissenter, Appeals Judge Edward Najam Jr., said while he
sees himself bound by Supreme Court precedent to rule against
Frost, he nevertheless believes the high court should reconsider
its 2012 ruling.

"There is no discernible or reliable correlation between
chargemaster rates and the reasonable value of the health care
services provided," Judge Najam said.  "In its operation and
effect, (the precedent) places health care consumers, including
emergency-room patients, at a permanent, take-it-or-leave-it
disadvantage."

"Chargemaster rates are not per se reasonable when they are,
first, confidential and, second, incomprehensible."

The Supreme Court is likely to accept the case if Parkview
Hospital requests review of the Court of Appeals decision, since
it challenges a recent precedent and includes a dissent.

Frost probably has only a slim chance of prevailing at the high
court, as four of the five justices almost certain to participate
in the case are on record in favor of their 2012 ruling.


JACK IN THE BOX: Violated IWC Wage Order, "Ruiz" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Estela Ruiz, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated employees of Defendants, the Plaintiff, v. Jack in The
Box, Inc., JIB Management, Inc., Parivar, Inc., Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16907477 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
Alameda County, March 14, 2016), seeks to recover damages and
restitution, as well as injunctive and other relief, pursuant to
the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order and the Labor
Code.

Jack in the Box is an American fast-food restaurant chain founded
February 21, 1951 by Robert O. Peterson in San Diego, California.
The chain has 2,200 locations, primarily serving the West Coast of
the United States. Food items include a variety of hamburger and
cheeseburger sandwiches along with selections of internationally
themed foods such as tacos and eggrolls. The company also operates
the Qdoba Mexican Grill chain.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert S. Arns
          THE ARNS LAW FIRM
          515 Folsom Street, 3rd Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 495 7800
          Facsimile: (415) 495 7888


JMJ CATERERS: "Zaldivar" Has Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
Plaintiff's motion for conditional certification of a collective
action and for notice of pendency to potential collective action
members in the case captioned, ORBIN ZALDIVAR, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JMJ
CATERERS, INC. d/b/a THE METROPOLITAN, MICHAEL GIAMALVO, and
JANENDER NARANG, Defendants, Case No. CV-14-924 (SJF)(AKT)
(E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher and food preparer for the
Metropolitan from approximately February 2010 until December 21,
2013. Plaintiff alleges that, while he worked at the Metropolitan,
Defendants did not pay him overtime wages for the hours he worked
in excess of 40 hours per workweek. Plaintiff brings the action,
individually and on behalf of all those employees similarly
situated, to recover for Defendants' violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act ("FLSA") and New York Labor Law ("NYLL").

Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), Plaintiff seeks conditional
certification of a class of "All servers, busboys and kitchen
workers of The Metropolitan who have been employed at any time
from December 28, 2012 until the present."  Plaintiff relies on
the facts alleged in the Amended Complaint, his own declaration,
employee time cards produced by Defendants, and the declaration of
Debra Nimkoff, a paralegal for Plaintiff's counsel who analyzed
the time cards.

In her Memorandum and Order dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/oRkiGvfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tomlinson found that
Plaintiff has made the "modest factual showing" necessary to
demonstrate that he and the potential plaintiffs together "were
victims of a common policy or plan that violated the law" and that
Plaintiff has met his burden to show that the proposed collective
action met the Rule 23 certification.

Orbin Zaldivar is represented by:

     Steven J. Moser, Esq.
     STEVEN JOHN MOSER, PC
     3 School St #207B
     Glen Cove, NY 11542
     Tel: (516)671-1150

Defendants are represented by:

     Alan M. Davis, Esq.
     ALAN M. DAVIS LAW OFFICE
     121 W Oak St # B
     Amityville, NY 11701
     Tel: (631)598-0500


JP MORGAN: Court Dismisses State Law Claims in "Salveson" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Margo K. Brodie of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
for reconsideration and dismissed Plaintiffs' state law claim in
the case captioned, MARVIN SALVESON, EDWARD LAWRENCE, DIANNA
LAWRENCE and WENDY M. ADAMS, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN CHASE & CO.,
J.P. MORGAN BANK, N.A., BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION, BANK OF
AMERICA N.A., CAPITAL ONE F.S.B., CAPITAL ONE FINANCIAL
CORPORATION, CAPITAL ONE BANK, HSBC FINANCE CORPORATION, HSBC BANK
USA, N.A., HSBC NORTH AMERICAN HOLDINGS, INC. and HSBC HOLDINGS,
PLC, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-3529 (MKB) (E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Marvin Salveson, Edward Lawrence, Dianna Lawrence and
Wendy M. Adams commenced the instant putative antitrust class
action on December 16, 2013, in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California against Defendants,
financial institutions who issue general purpose payment cards
that consumers use to purchase goods and services, and the
affiliates of such institutions. On behalf of a putative
nationwide class of consumers using payment cards issued by
Defendants, Plaintiffs assert claims pursuant to Sections 4 and 16
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 15 and 26, and pursuant to
the Cartwright Act, California Business and Professions Code Sec.
16750(a).

Defendants moved to dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims, and by
Memorandum and Order filed on November 26, 2014, the Court granted
Defendants' motion and entered judgment on December 4, 2014
finding that Plaintiffs are barred from asserting claims under
Sec. 4 of the Clayton Act by the Illinois Brick doctrine.

Plaintiffs move to vacate the judgment and, pursuant to Local
Civil Rule 6.3, for reconsideration of the dismissal of their
federal claim arguing that the Court overlooked the standard
applicable to a motion to dismiss by failing to accept Plaintiffs'
allegations as true. Defendants cross-move for reconsideration
pursuant to Rule 59(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Civil Rule 6.3, seeking reconsideration of the Court's
refusal to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs'
California state law claim.

In her Memorandum and Order dated February 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/311n9ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Brodie concluded that
Plaintiffs have failed to identify controlling law or allegations
that the Court overlooked. In declining to exercise supplemental
jurisdiction in the November 26, 2014 Decision, the Court
overlooked controlling law, specifically, CAFA's provision of
original jurisdiction over the state law Cartwright Act claim.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Esq.
     Theresa Driscoll Moore, Esq.
     ALIOTO LAW FIRM
     555 California Street
     Thirty-First Floor
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415) 434-8900

          - and -

     Lingel Hart Winters, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
     1 Maritime Plaza #400
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415)398-2941

          - and -

     Theodore Frank Schwartz, Esq.
     SCHWARTZ & SCHWARTZ
     8 Cedar St # 54
     Woburn, MA 01801
     Tel: (781)938-0045

JP Morgan Chase & Co. is represented by Timothy Alan Miller, Esq.
-- timothy.miller@skadden.com -- Boris Bershteyn, Esq. --
boris.bershteyn@skadden.com -- SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER &
FLOM LLP


KANSAS HOSPITAL: Missouri Judge Moves "Simpkins" to D. Kansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Nanette K. Laughrey of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Missouri granted a motion for
transfer of venue in the case captioned, CARLTON SIMPKINS, On
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS HOSPITAL AUTHORITY, Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
CV-04009-NKL (W.D. Mo.).

Plaintiff Carlton Simpkins, a resident of Kansas City, Missouri,
filed suit in the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri against
Defendant University of Kansas Hospital Authority (UKHA), alleging
a violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act. According to his
complaint, Simpkins interviewed in May 2015 with Steve Griffin, a
UKHA employee, for the Cook II job position at a UKHA facility.
Griffin offered the position to Simpkins at the conclusion of the
interview.  Griffin allegedly informed Simpkins that UKHA was
retracting the offer in light of a background check it conducted.

Simpkins maintains he was not provided an opportunity to challenge
the contents of his consumer report before UKHA undertook this
adverse employment action, a violation of the FCRA. Consequently,
on behalf of a class of similarly-situated UKHA employees and
prospective employees, Simpkins claims he is entitled statutory
and punitive damages pursuant to 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681n(a).

On January 8, 2016, UKHA filed a Notice of Removal under 28 U.S.C.
Sections 1441 and 1446 arguing that the District of Kansas is a
proper venue and a more convenient forum.

Simpkins argues that documents relevant to the case can be easily
transferred to the Central Division via electronic delivery. He
further argues that many of these documents are held by a third-
party consumer reporting agency located outside the District of
Kansas.

In her Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7tgvACfrom Leagle.com, Judge Laughrey concluded that
even if the Central District is convenient, Simpkins' choice of
forum cannot outweigh the fact that the locus of the dispute is
primarily located in Kansas and not Missouri.

Carlton Simpkins is represented by:

     Charles Jason Brown, Esq.
     Jayson A. Watkins, Esq.
     BROWN & ASSOCIATES, LLC
     8334 S. Stony Island Ave
     Chicago, IL 60617
     Tel: (773) 731-1300

University of Kansas Hospital Authority is represented by Emma R.
Schuering, Esq. -- eschuering@polsinelli.com -- Eric E. Packel,
Esq. -- epackel@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC


KRAFT HEINZ: "Matecki" Suit Asserts Product Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Matecki, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company, Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00209 (S.D. Ill., February 26, 2016), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, statutory interest and
penalties, injunctive and/or declaratory relief, prejudgment
interest, attorney fees and such other relief resulting from
unjust enrichment and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and
Deceptive Business Practices Act and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty
Act.

Kraft manufactures cheese products. Plaintiff accuses Defendant of
unsubstantiated claims of unadulterated cheese components despite
the presence of fillers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John J. Driscoll, Esq.
      Philip Sholtz, Esq.
      THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C.
      211 N. Broadway, 40th Floor
      St. Louis, MO 63102
      Tel: 314-932-3232
      Fax: 314-932-3233
      Email: john@thedriscollfirm.com
             phil@thedriscollfirm.com


LEPRINO FOODS: Court Grants in Part Motion for Corrective Notice
----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted in
part Plaintiff's Motion for Corrective Notice in the case
captioned, JONATHON TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and on behalf
of all other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. LEPRINO
FOODS COMPANY and LEPRINO FOODS DAIRY PRODUCTS COMPANY,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-105-AWI-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Jonathon Talavera filed the putative class action on
January 21, 2015, alleging that Leprino violated the Labor Code
and state law by failing to: pay overtime wages, compensate for
pre-shift and post-shift donning and doffing, and failing to
provide "legally compliant" meal and rest breaks. Plaintiff seeks
to certify a class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23;
however, no motions regarding certification have been filed and a
class has not been certified.

Plaintiff's motion arises out of an assertion that Leprino engaged
in misleading and coercive communications with potential class
members at six individual plant-wide meetings held on January 5,
2016 at the Lemoore West Facility.

Plaintiff moved for Corrective Notice to alleviate damage related
to Defendants Leprino Foods Company and Leprino Foods Dairy
Products Company allegedly improper communications to the putative
class. Plaintiff argues that Leprino's communications with the
putative class were improper because: (1) Mr. Tuttrup threatened
employees with the prospect of being charged with perjury if
employees gave statements to Plaintiff's counsel; (2) Leprino
asked employees to share the details of their communications with
Plaintiff's counsel; (3) Leprino stated that they believe
employees had been paid fairly; and (4) Leprino falsely stated
that Plaintiff is trying to form another class of employees.

In her Order dated March 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/4B3T7T
from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe found that the Q&A document was
"not inherently misleading or coercive," and "that sending the
corrective notice prepared by Plaintiffs is not necessary" and
that Defendants' letter coercive as result of its "multiple
predictions that the lawsuit, if successful, will cause the
practice to close" with the obvious consequence that employees
would suffer serious consequences. Plaintiff's remaining requests
for relief including private meetings with Leprino employees and
monetary sanctions for the class is denied.

Jonathan Talavera is represented by:

     Philip A. Downey, Esq.
     Cory Lee, Esq.
     THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O Box 1021
     Unionville, PA 19375
     Tel: (610) 324-2848

Leprino Foods Company is represented by Molly L. Kaban, Esq. --
mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- Sandra Lynn Rappaport, Esq. --
srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP


LITOW & PECH: Court Approves Counsel Fees and Cost in "Jenkins"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge Joseph F. Battaillon of the United States
District Court for the District of Nebraska granted plaintiff's
unopposed motion for attorney fees, costs, statutory damages and
an incentive award in the case captioned, LEE A. JENKINS, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v.
CHRISTOPHER E. PECH, AND PECH, HUGHES, & McDONALD, P.C., d/b/a
Litow & Pech, P.C., A Fictitious Name; Defendants, Case No.
8:14CV41 (D. Neb.).

The plaintiff alleges that the defendants' routine practice of
sending a misleading debt-collection letter violates the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq.(FDCPA) and
the Nebraska Consumer Protection Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. Sections 59-
1601-59-1623 (NCPA).

In his Memorandum and Order dated June 12, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/cRbvFffrom Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon granted in
part and denied in part Plaintiff's motion for class
certification.  The judge certified a class consisting of: "(i)
all persons residing in Nebraska (ii) to whom Defendants Mr. Pech
and/or Pech, Hughes sent, or caused to be sent a [collection]
letter . . . (iii) in an attempt to collect a purported obligation
which, as shown by the nature of the alleged obligation,
Defendants' records, or the records of the original creditors, was
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes."

In a Memorandum and Order dated June 23, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/bWAR6qfrom Leagle.com, the Court ruled on discovery
issues.  Among others, the Court granted named plaintiff's motion
to compel the subpoena of records in the possession of FIA Card
Services but denied his motion to compel the subpoena of records
in the possession of Trak America.

The parties conducted extensive arm's-length negotiations with the
assistance of United States Magistrate Judge Thomas Thalken.
Subsequently, Jenkins, as class representative, entered into a
settlement agreement with defendants Christopher E. Pech and Pech,
Hughes & McDonald, P.C. to resolve this litigation. The Agreement
includes payment of damages and an incentive award to the class
representative and costs and attorneys' fees.  The parties have
agreed on the amount of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs.
Defendants also agree to the statutory damages and incentive
payment to the plaintiff.

In his Order dated November 4, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/HZhpyKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Bataillon granted
preliminary approval of the settlement in the case.  The Court
designated Jenkins as class representative and William L.
Reinbrecht and Pamela A. Car of the law firm Car & Reinbrecht,
P.C., L.L.O., and attorney O. Randolph Bragg of the law firm
Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates, LTD, as counsel for the class.  A
fairness hearing was set for February 19, 2016 at at 1:00 p.m.

In the present motion, the plaintiff filed an unopposed motion for
attorneys' fees and costs, and for an award of statutory damages
and a class representative fee to the plaintiff. Plaintiff seeks
$173,000.00 in attorney fees, $3,273.00 in costs, and an award of
statutory damages of $2,000.00 and an incentive fee of $2,500.00.

In support of its unopposed motion, the plaintiff has shown that
his attorneys, O. Randolph Bragg, Pamela A. Car, and William L.
Reinbrecht, and a paralegal have expended a total of over 605
hours at rates of $125 to $350 per hour, resulting in lodestar
amount of $188,118.50.

In his Memorandum and Order dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/BMF7VXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Battaillon found that
the class representative has shown that he has satisfied his
responsibilities to the entire class by making himself available
when needed, providing information to his attorneys and ensuring
that the settlement of is this case is fair and reasonable and
that the attorney fees and costs requested and agreed to in the
settlement are fair and reasonable.

Lee A. Jenkins is represented by:

     O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
     HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM
     25 E. Washington Street, Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (800)985-1819

          - and -

     Pamela A. Car, Esq.
     William L. Reinbrecht, Esq.
     CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM
     8720 Frederick St. #105
     Omaha, NE 68124
     Tel: (402)391-8484

Defendants are represented by Jeffrey A. Topor, Esq. --
jtopor@snllp.com -- Tomio B. Narita, Esq. -- tnarita@snllp.com --
SIMMONDS, NARITA LAW FIRM


LOWE'S COMPANIES: June 6 Final Fairness Hearing in "Brown" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard L. Voorhees of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina granted
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case
captioned, JASON DAVID BROWN, LASZLO BOZSO, and MERIS DUDZIC,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and FIRST ADVANTAGE
BACKGROUND SERVICES CORP., Defendants. APRIL INGRAM-FLEMING,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a LOWE'S, Defendant,
JASON DAVID BROWN, LASZLO BOZSO, and MERIS DUDZIC, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
LOWE'S COMPANIES, INC., and FIRST ADVANTAGE BACKGROUND SERVICES
CORP., Defendants. APRIL INGRAM-FLEMING, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOWE'S HOME
CENTERS, LLC, d/b/a LOWE'S, Defendant, Case Nos. 5:13-CV-00079-
RLV-DSC, 5:15-CV-00018-RLV-DSC (W.D.N.C.).

Pending before the Court is a Joint Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement by the Plaintiffs, Jason
Brown, Laszlo Bozso, Meris Dudzic and April Ingram-Fleming, and
Defendant, Lowe's Companies, Inc. and a Consent Motion for
Settlement, filed as a supplement to the Motion for Preliminary
Approval.

In his Order dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Ubft3Rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Voorhees found that the
proposed settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and falls
within the range of reasonableness and is appropriate for
preliminary approval.

The Court appointed American Legal Claim Services as the Claims
Administrator, Plaintiffs Jason Brown, Laszlo Bozso, Meris Dudzic
and April Ingram-Fleming as the Class Representatives and Caddell
& Chapman, Consumer Litigation Associates, P.C., O'Toole,
McLaughlin, Dooley & Pecora, Co., LPA, Lyngklip & Associates
Consumer Law Center, PLC, Sellers, Hinshaw, Ayers, Dortch & Lyons,
P.A., Wenzel, Fenton, Cabassa, P.A., and Wallace & Graham, P.A. as
Class Counsel.

The Court scheduled a final fairness hearing on June 6, 2016 at
2:00 p.m.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 N Florida Ave #300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: (813)-224-0431

          - and -

     Daniel Ray Francis, Esq.
     John S. Hughes, Esq.
     Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
     Mona Lisa Wallace, Esq.
     WALLACE & GRAHAM, PA
     525 N Main St
     Salisbury, NC 28144
     Tel: (704)633-5244

Lowe's Companies, Inc. is represented by Brent Alan Rosser, Esq.
-- brosser@hunton.com -- Kevin James White, Esq. --
kwhite@hunton.com -- Robert T. Quackenboss, Esq. --
rquackenboss@hunton.com -- HUNTON & WILLIAMS, LLP


LYFT: Reimbursement Estimates Show Drivers Entitled to $126MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
Reuters reports that drivers who worked for ride-hailing service
Lyft in California during the past four years would have been
entitled to an estimated $126 million in expense reimbursements
had they been employees rather than contractors, court documents
made public on March 18 show.

Lyft drivers would have recouped an average of $835 each under a
standard rate for mileage reimbursement set by the U.S.
government, according to the documents, which have not been
previously reported.

Lyft and larger rival Uber face legal actions from drivers who
contend they should be classified as employees and therefore
entitled to reimbursement for expenses, including gas and vehicle
maintenance.  Drivers currently pay those costs themselves.

The new figures, requested by a judge and calculated by attorneys
for the drivers based on data supplied by Lyft, provide a rare
glimpse into how much ride-hailing services may save by
classifying drivers as independent contractors rather than
employees.

Lyft did not respond to requests for comment on March 19 about the
reimbursement estimates in the court documents.

The judge asked for the estimates as part of his oversight of a
proposed settlement of a class-action lawsuit filed by California
drivers against the ride service.

More than 100,000 of the 150,602 drivers included in the
settlement drove fewer than 60 hours during the four-year period
at issue and likely would have made less than $835 each in expense
reimbursements had they been considered employees.

Other drivers racked up hundreds of hours and would have been
entitled to far more, the documents show. More than 1,500 drivers
drove 1,000 hours or more over the four years.

It is unclear how many drivers Lyft currently has across the
country.  The company operates in more than 200 U.S. markets and
has raised about $1.4 billion to date from investors, including
General Motors, Andreessen Horowitz and Alibaba. It is valued in
the private market at $5.5 billion.

In an interview with Reuters, prior to the release of documents
containing the reimbursement estimates, Lyft president and co-
founder John Zimmer said drivers were better served by company
programs -- including higher payments to drivers who work more,
the opportunity to get tips and access to discounted gasoline --
than they would be by being reclassified as employees.

"It should be understood that this is a specific industry where
our average driver is doing 15 hours, and we are trying to create
benefits for all drivers," Mr. Zimmer said.  "We've thought about
it from the perspective of all the drivers on the platform . . .
We are trying to do what is the right legal path, and for us
that's quite clear."


LINN OPERATING: Court Denies Class Certification in "McKnight"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge David L. Russell of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma denied Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification in the case captioned, JENNIFER
McKNIGHT and SCOTT MCKNIGHT, on behalf of Themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. LINN OPERATING, INC., a
Delaware Corporation, LINN ENERGY, LLC, a Delaware Limited
Liability Company, DOMINION EXPLORATION MIDCONTINENT, INC., an
Oklahoma corporation, and DOMINION OKLAHOMA TEXAS EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendants, Case No.
CIV-10-30-R (W.D. Okla.).

Plaintiffs Jennifer McKnight and Scott McKnight, on behalf of
themselves and all other royalty owners similarly situated, have
filed a motion for class certification in the action against
Defendants Linn Operating, Inc., Linn Energy, LLC, Dominion
Exploration Management, Inc. and Dominion Oklahoma Texas
Exploration & Production, Inc. The basis of the action is the
underpayment of royalties arising from Defendant's failure to
properly report, account for, and distribute royalty interest
payments from January 2002 to the present. Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants have breached their lease contracts with the class
member lessors, breached their fiduciary duties owed to them
pursuant to unitization orders of the Oklahoma Corporation
Commission, and were unjustly enriched by the underpayments of
royalty.

Plaintiffs seek certification of the proposed class and
subclasses.

In his Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/5gDgRTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Russell found that
common questions of law and fact do not predominate over questions
affectingly only individual members.

Plaintiffs are represented by Darren R. Cook, Esq. --
DRC@DarrenRCook.com -- DARREN R COOK PC.

They are also represented by:

     Erin M. Moore, Esq.
     Gary R. Underwood, Esq.
     Joshua K. Riley, Esq.
     Lincoln C. Hatfield, Esq.
     Luke J. Hann, Esq.
     Tiffany K. Peterson, Esq.
     Conner L. Helms, Esq.
     HELMS & UNDERWOOD
     1 NE 2nd St
     Oklahoma City, OK 73102
     Tel: (405)319-0700

Defendants are represented by Guy S. Lipe, Esq. -- glipe@velaw.com
-- Stacy M. Neal, Esq. -- sneal@velaw.com -- VINSON & ELKINS,
Nicholas V. Merkley, Esq. -- NMerkley@FellersSnider.com -- Robert
G. McCampbell, Esq. -- RmcCampbell@FellersSnider.com -- FELLERS
SNIDER BLANKENSHIP BAILEY & TIPPENS


MAGNOLIA HEALTH: Request for Equitable Tolling Denied
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge William T. Lawrence of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana denied Plaintiff Leslie
Shayne Miller-Basinger's motion to equitably toll the limitations
period for putative collective action members to the lawsuit's
Fair Labor Standards Act claims in the case captioned, LESLIE
SHAYNE MILLER-BASINGER, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAGNOLIA HEALTH SYSTEMS, INC.,
MAGNOLIA HEALTH MANAGEMENT, LLC, and STUART REED, Defendants, Case
No. 2:15-CV-00089-WTL-DKL (S.D. Ind.).

Miller-Basinger alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
("FLSA"). She brings these claims as a collective action under 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), allowing an employee to bring a lawsuit on
behalf of all similarly situated employees. She also alleges
violations of the Rehabilitation Act, state minimum wage and
overtime laws, and a state-law breach of contract claim, all of
which she brings as class action claims under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). Miller-Basinger filed this lawsuit on
March 30, 3015. Originally, Miller-Basinger named Magnolia Health
Systems, Inc. (MHS) as the only defendant in the case. MHS denied
employing Miller-Basinger.

Miller-Basinger requests that the doctrine of equitable tolling
apply to the putative FLSA collective action members so that the
statute of limitations does not run to bar their claims. She
argues that the statute of limitations should be tolled because
MHS "intends to argue that it is not the actual employer of
Miller-Basinger" and that discovery related to determining the
proper defendants "has delayed any ruling upon Miller-Basinger's
Motion to Certify Combined Class Action and FLSA Collective Action
which was filed on the same day Basinger filed her Complaint. In
response, MHS argues the Court does not have jurisdiction to toll
the statute of limitations as to parties who have not yet
consented to the lawsuit.

In his Entry dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/oOlOs1from Leagle.com, Judge Lawrence held that it
is premature for the Court to toll the statute of limitations for
potential plaintiffs because doing so would require the Court to
issue an advisory opinion, which would impermissibly "address the
rights of parties not before the Court."

Leslie Shayne Miller is represented by:

     Robert F. Hunt, Esq.
     Robert Peter Kondras, Jr., Esq.
     HUNT HASSLER KONDRAS & MILLER LLP
     100 Cherry Street (Bayah Way)
     Terre Haute, IN 47807
     Tel: (812)232-9691

Magnolia Health Systems, Inc. is represented by:

     John J. Moore, Esq.
     DONINGER TUOHY & BAILEY LLP
     50 South Meridian Street, Suite 700
     Indianapolis, IN 46204
     Tel: (800) 831-6634


MAJESTIC 55: "Fragoso" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT, Spread-of-Hour Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magdaleno Fragoso, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, V. Majestic 55 Inc., Majestic
Eatery, Inc., Vasilios Kokkosis and Nicholas Athanasatos, jointly
and severally, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01517 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 26, 2016), seeks an injunction against Defendants,
compensatory damages for failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation, liquidated and/or punitive damages, damages for the
non-payment of spread-of-hours pay, compensatory damages as a
result of withholding of gratuities, attorneys' fees and costs of
suit pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor
Laws.

Plaintiff is a former delivery, kitchen and cleaning worker at
Majestic Deli and Premier Deli, both located in New York County,
New York and operated by the Defendants. He claims minimum wages,
overtime pay as well as spread-of-hours premium from the
Defendants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brent E. Pelton, Esq.
      Taylor B. Graham, Esq.
      PELTON & ASSOCIATES PC
      111 Broadway, Suite 1503
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 385-9700
      Email: pelton@peltonlaw.com
             graham@peltonlaw.com


MARGARITA VLAHOS: "Linares" Suit Filed in N.Y. Sup. Ct, Queens
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Margarita Vlahos captioned Marco
Linares, on behalf of himself and all other persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Margarita Vlahos, the Defendant, Case
No. 702707/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., Queens County, March 14, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          SAMUEL & STEIN
          38 W. 32nd St., Ste. 1210
          New York, NY 10001
          Telephone: (212) 563-9884


MDL 1419: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, IN RE K-DUR ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This
document relates to: All Actions, Case No. 01-CV-1652 (SRC)(CLW),
MDL Docket No. 1419 (D.N.J.), District Judge Stanley R. Chesler of
the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
entered an opinion on three motions:

     (1) Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. and Upsher-Smith
Laboratories' motion for summary judgment as to all claims brought
by Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs related to the Upsher-Smith
settlement;

     (2) Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to all claims
brought by Plaintiffs related to the ESI settlement; and

     (3) Plaintiffs' motion to strike Sections I and II of the
reply memorandum submitted by Defendant Merck & Co., Inc., in
support of its motion for summary judgment on all claims related
to the ESI settlement.

Specifically, Judge Chesler denied Plaintiffs' motion to strike
Sections I and II of Defendants' reply memorandum related to the
ESI settlement. The Court also denied Defendants' motion for
summary judgment as to all claims brought by Plaintiffs related to
the Upsher-Smith settlement. The Court granted Defendants' motion
for summary judgment as to all claims brought by Plaintiffs
related to the ESI settlement.

On March 30, 2001, the FTC's Complaint Counsel filed a Complaint
against Schering-Plough Corporation, Upsher-Smith Laboratories,
and American Home Products, Inc. in the Matter of Schering-Plough
Corp., No. 9297, Initial Decision, 136 F.T.C. 956, 1092 (2002).
The Complaint alleged that Schering's settlements with Upsher and
ESI-Lederle of patent lawsuits related to Schering's sustained-
release potassium supplement K-Dur violated Section 5 of the
Federal Trade Commission Act, because Schering, Upsher, and ESI
entered into unlawful agreements to delay the entry of generic
K-Dur onto the market.

Plaintiffs originally filed these cases in several districts, but
the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidated the
pending action in the District of New Jersey. In re K-Dur
Antitrust Litig., 176 F.Supp.2d 1399 (J.P.M.L. 2001). By consent
in 2006, the district court appointed Stephen Orlofsky as Special
Master, with the responsibility of handling all motions in this
case.  On April 14, 2008, the Special Master certified a class of
plaintiffs of wholesalers and retailers who purchased K-Dur
directly from Schering.

A copy of Judge Chesler's Opinion dated February 25, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/NeKfXsfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by Shelly L. Friedland, Esq. --
sfriedland@triefandolk.com -- TRIEF & OLK, Theodore M. Lieverman,
Esq. -- tlieverman@srkw-law.com -- SPECTOR, ROSEMAN & KODROFF, PC
& Allyn Zissel Lite, Esq. -- alite@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA
GREENBERG, LLC

Merck & Co., Inc. is represented by William J. O'Shaughnessy, Esq.
-- woshaugnessy@mccarter.com -- MCCARTER & ENGLISH, LLP

Upsher-Smith Laboratories is represented by Adam K. Derman, Esq.
-- aderman@csglaw.com -- Marie L. Mathews, Esq. --
mmathews@csglaw.com -- CHIESA SHAHINIAN & GIANTOMASI PC


MDL 2439: Court Grants Final Approval to Settlement
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lynn Adelman of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Wisconsin granted final approval to
the settlement agreement in the case captioned, IN RE: SUBWAY
FOOTLONG SANDWICH MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION This
Document Relates to All Cases, Case No. 13-02439 (E.D. Wis.).

Between January and June of 2013, the named plaintiffs and their
respective counsel filed complaints in several courts around the
country. The complaints alleged that Doctor's Associates had
engaged in unfair and deceptive marketing practices regarding the
length of Footlong and 6-inch sandwiches, resulting in each
plaintiff receiving less food than he or she had bargained for.
Each case was pleaded as a class action and sought monetary
damages, attorneys' fees, and injunctive relief under the
consumer-protection laws of all 50 states and the District of
Columbia. In February 2013, Doctor's Associates requested that the
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transfer the seven
actions that had been filed by that time to a single district for
consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The parties have reached a settlement and in September 2015, the
parties submitted the final proposed settlement agreement to the
court for preliminary approval. In the agreement, the proposed
settlement class is defined all persons in the United States who
purchased a 6-inch or Footlong sandwich at a Subway restaurant
between January 1, 2003 and the date of preliminary approval which
was October 2, 2015. The Court certified a settlement class and
preliminarily approved the settlement agreement.

Pending before the Court are motions relating to the final
approval of the settlement: plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of the settlement; class counsel's motion for attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive awards for the named plaintiffs; and several
administrative motions.

In her Decision and Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/fBqAhifrom Leagle.com, Judge Adelman concluded that
the settlement is fair and that the named plaintiffs and class
counsel have adequately represented the class and that the named
plaintiffs' request for $5,000 in incentive awards is reasonable
and that class counsel's request for $520,000 in costs, expenses,
and attorneys' fees is reasonable.

Plaintiffs are represented by Adam M. Tamburelli, Esq. --
adam@attorneyzim.com -- Frank James Stretz, Esq. --
frank@attorneyzim.com -- Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. --
tom@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC

They are also represented by:

     Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
     SHABEL & DENITTIS PC
     1500 John F Kennedy Blvd #200,
     Philadelphia, PA 19102
     Tel: (215)564-1721

Defendants Doctor's Associates Inc. and ubway Sandwich Shops Inc.,
are represented by Constantine T. Fournaris, Esq. --
cfournaris@wiggin.com -- James Arthur Goniea, Esq. --
jgoniea@wiggin.com -- John M. Doroghazi, Esq. --
jdoroghazi@wiggin.com -- WIGGIN & DANA LLP, Katherine Anne Grosh,
Esq. -- kagrosh@beermannlaw.com -- Matthew David Elster, Esq. --
mdelster@beermannlaw.com -- Howard L. Teplinsky, Esq. --
hteplinsky@beermannlaw.com -- BEERMANN PRITIKIN MIRABELLI
SWERDLOVE LLP


MDL 2513: "Fernando" Suit Consolidated in Boston
------------------------------------------------
Fernando Jackson and Bryce Evans, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, v. Collecto Inc., doing business
as: EOS CCA, Case No. 5:15-cv-01609, was transferred from the US
District Court for the Central District of California, to the
US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Boston).
The Massachusetts District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10514-
RGS to the proceeding.

Collecto, doing business as EOS/CCA, Inc., operates as a debt
management and recovery resource company. It offers receivables
collection services for banks, colleges and universities, student
loan lenders, telecommunications companies, and other companies.
The company was founded in 1991 and is headquartered in Norwell,
Massachusetts. As of February 23, 2001, Collecto, Inc. operates as
a subsidiary of EOS Holding GmbH.

The Fernando case is being consolidated with MDL 2513 in re:
Collecto, Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)
Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United States
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on February 20, 2014.
Any orders, other than orders setting deadlines previously entered
by this or any transferor district court, will remain in full
force and effect unless modified by this court upon application.
All deadlines established prior to transfer of these actions are
suspended, other than deadlines imposed by the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the Local Rules of this court
for responding to motions or other pleadings

Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Richard G. Stearns, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 1:14-md-02513-RGS.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Matthew M Loker, Esq.
          Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
          Mona Amini, Esq.
          KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
          1303 East Grand Avenue, Suite 101
          Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
          Telephone: (805) 335 8455
          Facsimile: (800) 520 5523
          E-mail: ml@kazlg.com
                  ak@kazlg.com
                  mona@kazlg.com

               - and -

          Alexander H Lim, Esq.
          Joshua Swigart, Esq.
          Hyde & Swigart, Esq.
          HYDE AND SWIGART APC
          7121 Magnolia Avenue Suite J
          Riverside, CA 92504
          Telephone: (951) 784 7773
          Facsimile: (619) 297 1022
          E-mail: alex@westcoastlitigation.com
                  josh@westcoastlitigation.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Charles Robert Messer, Esq.
          David J. Kaminski, Esq.
          Keith Alexander Yeomans, Esq.
          Tamar Gabriel, Esq.
          CARLSON & MESSER LLP
          5959 West Century Boulevard, Suite 1214
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (310) 242-2200
          Facsimile: (310) 242 2222
          E-mail: messerc@cmtlaw.com
                  kaminskd@cmtlaw.com
                  yeomansk@cmtlaw.com
                  gabrielt@cmtlaw.com


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

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

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

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

In his Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/BU9k9Xfrom Leagle.com, Judge Todd concluded that the
case should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and also
compel the conclusion that an appeal would not be taken in good
faith. The Court found that the reasoning and conclusions of
Magistrate Judge Vescovo are sound, and the issuance of a more
detailed written opinion is unnecessary.


MENTOR GRAPHICS: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until May 17, 2016 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Mentor
Graphics Corp., if they purchased the Company's securities between
August 21, 2014 and November 19, 2015, inclusive (the "Class
Period").  This action is pending in the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon.

What You May Do

If you purchased shares of Mentor Graphics and would like to
discuss your legal rights and how this case might affect you and
your right to recover for your economic loss, you may, without
obligation or cost to you, call toll-free at 1-877-515-1850 or
email KSF Managing Partner Lewis Kahn -- lewis.kahn@ksfcounsel.com

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 17, 2016.

                       About the Lawsuit

Mentor Graphics and certain of its executives are charged with
failing to disclose material information during the Class Period,
violating federal securities laws.

The alleged false statements and omissions include, but are not
limited to: (i) customers were delaying or declining extended
license agreements or demanding price concessions from the
Company; (ii) demand for emulation products had slowed as a result
of the anticipated introduction of competitive products; and (iii)
early customer contract renewals and related bookings had the
effect of moving expected bookings and revenue from future periods
to earlier periods, and were not, as defendants reported, a sign
that demand was strong and increasing.

                  About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- www.ksfcounsel.com -- whose partners include the Former
Louisiana Attorney General Charles C. Foti, Jr., is a law firm
focused on securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along
with merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation
against publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The
firm has offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


MERCEDES-BENZ: Aug. 29 Fairness Hearing on Digby Adler Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thelton E. Henderson of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted preliminary
approval of the settlement agreement in the case captioned, DIGBY
ADLER GROUP, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MERCEDES-BENZ U.S.A.,
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-02349-TEH (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff moved the Court for an Order preliminarily approving the
parties' settlement, certifying a settlement class, appointing
settlement class counsel, setting a hearing on the final approval
of the settlement, and directing notice to the class. Mercedes-
Benz USA, LLC joined in Plaintiff's request for an order
preliminarily approving the parties' settlement.

In his Order dated March 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/c8Ij1P
from Leagle.com, Judge Henderson found that the terms of the
Settlement Agreement are sufficiently fair, reasonable, and
adequate to allow dissemination of the Notice according to the
Notice Plan and the Parties have made a sufficient showing, under
the provisions of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Court appointed Jonathan E. Gertler, Dan L. Gildor, and Samuel
P. Cheadle of Chavez & Gertler LLP, and Anthony L. Label and
Steven A. Kronenberg of The Veen Firm, P.C. as class counsel and
scheduled the fairness hearing on August 29, 2016.

Plaintiffs are represented by Steven Aaron Kronenberg, Esq. --
s.kronenberg@veenfirm.com -- Anthony Lawrence Label, Esq. --
a.label@veenfirm.com -- William Louis Veen, Esq. --
w.veen@vennfirm.com -- THE VEEN FIRM, P.C., Dan Leo Gildor, Esq. -
- dan@chavezgertler.com -- Jonathan E. Gertler, Esq. --
jon@chavezgertler.com -- Samuel Price Cheadle, Esq. --
sam@chavezgertler.com -- CHAVEZ & GERTLER LLP

Mercedes-Benz is represented by:

     Steven Edward Swaney, Esq.
     Eric J. Knapp, Esq.
     Jenny Grantz, Esq.
     Troy Masami Yoshino, Esq.
     CARROLL, BURDICK & MCDONOUGH LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)989-5900


MICHIGAN: 6th Cir. Tosses Appeal in Suit Over Strip Search Policy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Deborah L. Cook of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
District, affirmed the district court's denial of qualified
immunity to the warden and dismissed, for lack of jurisdiction,
the appeal of the injunctive-relief claim in the case captioned,
AMIRA SALEM; KESHUNA ABCUMBY, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; DANIEL H. HEYNS, Director at MDOC;
THOMAS G. FINCO, Deputy Director MDOC; DENNIS STRAUB, Former
Deputy Director; RANDY TREACHER, Chief Deputy MDOC; MILLICENT
WARREN, Warden, Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-1598 (6th
Cir.).

Plaintiffs Amira Salem and Keshuna Abcumby filed a class-action
complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 challenging Women's Huron
Valley Correctional Facility's (WHV) strip-search policy.
Plaintiffs sued Defendants on behalf of all female prisoners who,
since October 2010, endured the chair-based strip search. These
searches, they claimed, violated their Fourth, Eighth, and
Fourteenth Amendment rights, and they requested monetary damages
along with prospective injunctive relief. Plaintiffs alleged that
prison staff performed the searches on an unsanitary chair and "in
full view of one another.

Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting Eleventh
Amendment sovereign immunity for Plaintiffs' monetary-damages
claims against the MDOC -- the state entity encompassing WHV --
and the individual defendants in their official capacities. As for
the individual-capacity claims, Defendants invoked qualified
immunity, arguing that the strip searches violated no clearly
established constitutional rights. Finally, Defendants moved for
summary judgment on Plaintiffs' injunctive-relief claim on
mootness grounds, arguing that WHV officially discontinued the
routine use of the chair-based strip search.

The district court agreed that the Eleventh Amendment barred
Plaintiffs' monetary claims against the MDOC and the named
defendants in their official capacities. It also found Plaintiffs'
Fourteenth Amendment claim abandoned and their Eighth Amendment
claim insufficiently established. The court denied Warren
qualified immunity, holding that "Plaintiffs have identified a
well-established right to be free from a strip search that was
performed in full view of other prisoners." And the court denied
summary judgment on the claim for prospective injunctive relief,
finding that the allegedly ongoing nature of the searches overcame
Defendants' mootness argument.

On appeal, Warren argues that Plaintiffs offered no facts
supporting her personal involvement in any searches done in public
view, and she points to MDOC policy forbidding guards from
searching in such a manner. Defendants also appeal the district
court's decision allowing Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief
to proceed.

In her Order dated March 9, 2016 available at http://is.gd/2P19Nj
from Leagle.com, Judge Cook viewed the facts in the light most
favorable to Plaintiffs and uphold the judgment of the district
court denying qualified immunity to Warren regarding the non-
private searches. Warren makes no argument that the alternative
would undermine penological objectives.


MINNESOTA TIMBERWOLVES: Season-Ticket Holders File Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Greder, writing for St. Pioneer Press, reports that the
Minnesota Timberwolves must respond to the class-action lawsuit
filed against them in Hennepin County District Court.

The Wolves are being sued by season-ticket holders for the
"unlawful limitations" they've been accused of imposing with their
use of the Flash Seats digital ticketing marketplace, which
started this season.  The suit, filed by law firm Zimmerman Reed,
claims a breach of contract because the change to Flash Seats
occurred after season-ticket renewals.  The suit also claims
"economic harm" for fans and a violation of Minnesota Antitrust
Law because of the price floor established on resale.

The lawsuit claims the price floor has been set at 75 percent of a
ticket's face value and this exceeds market value for a Wolves
team with a 22-47 record.

"The team is prioritizing the ticket pricing over the benefit of
having fans in the arena," sports legal analyst Daniel Wallach
said.  "The home-court advantage has become subordinated to the
bottom-line advantage."

Timberwolves president Chris Wright told the Pioneer Press in
January that the pricing strategy was established to "make sure
that our tickets are not completely undervalued by the market."

Now, Mr. Wallach said the case has two initial steps for the
plaintiffs: overcoming an expected motion to dismiss and the class
needing to be certified.

"If they get there, then it becomes intriguing," said
Mr. Wallach, an attorney with Florida-based firm Becker and
Poliakoff.   "It will be one that is watched closely by the sports
industry."

"If this gets to the class-certification stage, the Timberwolves
will be motivated to settle the case quickly," Mr. Wallach
predicted.

When the lawsuit was filed March 3, Mr. Wright said the franchise
was "confident that Flash Seats supplies the best possible
experience for our fans."

Mr. Wallach estimated this civil case could take years to play
out.  Until then, there is no available alternative for fans who
have had negative experiences with Flash Seats.

"Unless there is an injunction issued by the court, these are the
rules of the road," Mr. Wallach said.  "For teams that have losing
records and inflated or artificially high prices, what fans and
the arena is potentially looking at are empty seats."

The Wolves' use of Flash Seats has cut out the secondary
marketplace StubHub.  As of March 19, zero tickets were available
for the March 21 Wolves-Warriors game.  Meanwhile, the Minnesota
Wild's game March 22 against the Pacific Division-leading Los
Angeles Kings had more than 650 seats available.

But Minneapolis-based secondary marketplace Ticket King has been
included as a Wolves partner in the use of Flash Seats.

Ticket King's part-owner Mike Nowakowski said demand for the March
21 game can be compared to ticket sales during the Wolves' deep
playoff run to the Western Conference finals in 2004. The Wolves
have not made the playoffs since.

"Needless to say, we've had some lean years in the last 10 years,
but we've built up quite a clientele of Timberwolves fans that
utilize us," Mr. Nowakowski said.  "Surprisingly, it's better this
year.  I think Karl-Anthony Towns and the emergence of Zach LaVine
has helped things.  I think those two players have kind of piqued
people's interest."

Fans must set up an account with Flash Seats through a computer or
smartphone.  They then link their tickets to their phone, credit
card or ID to enter Target Center.

They can exchange or sell tickets through the Flash Seats
software, which is used to varying degrees by a handful of pro
teams across the country.  The Wolves and Lynx became the first
two teams to use Flash Seats 100 percent, Wright said.

The largest misconception Nowakowski sees is with the price floor.

The lawsuit claims, "ticket holders now are barred from selling
their tickets below an arbitrarily imposed minimum price --
somewhere between 75 and 90 percent of the ticket's face value in
most instances."

Mr. Nowakowski countered that this doesn't account for the season-
ticket holder paying about 25 percent less on initial purchase of
the package.

"Let's say it's a $200 ticket; their cost of the ticket is $150,"
Mr. Nowakowski said.  "The Timberwolves are selling that on a
single-game basis for $200. So 75 percent of a $150 ticket is
$112.50."

Mr. Wallach said the importance of this case centers on the
establishment of the price floor.

"You don't even see this on Broadway," he said.  "You buy your
ticket and you can sell it to whomever you want for whatever you
want."

According to Minnesota statutes on prohibitive acts with event
tickets, "the initial seller shall not, unless authorized by the
provider of the event or venue, divert tickets from the initial
sale to the general public to be sold in any other manner or under
any other terms."

The state's antitrust law reads, "any part of trade or commerce by
any person or persons for the purpose of affecting competition or
controlling, fixing or maintaining prices is unlawful."

On the antitrust count, the lawsuit states, "the (Timberwolves)
intentionally and wrongfully created and maintained a monopoly."


MISSISSIPPI: Court Rejects "Goree" Complaint Over Parole
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Daniel P. Jordan III of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Mississippi dismissed
Plaintiff's civil action in the case captioned, TOMMY J. GOREE,
#97214, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE ANDREW HOWORTH, ATTORNEY GENERAL JIM
HOOD, JUDGE LARRY E. ROBERTS, JUDGE ROBERT W. BAILEY, PROSECUTOR
E.J. "BILBO" MITCHELL, and CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Defendants, Case No.
3:15-CV-226-DPJ-FKB (S.D. Miss.).

Plaintiff Tommy Goree initially filed the instant Complaint along
with two other inmates seeking to pursue the Complaint as a class
action. That civil action was dismissed and severed into three
separate actions, one of which is the instant case. The Court in
the civil action entered an Order on May 7, 2015, directing Goree
to file a new Complaint.

Goree filed the instant civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 against Defendants Judge Andrew Howorth, Attorney General Jim
Hood, Judge Robert W. Bailey, Prosecutor E.J. "Bilbo" Mitchell,
and Christopher Epps. Plaintiff added Defendant Judge Larry E.
Roberts in his Response filed September 1, 2015, to the Court's
Order entered August 17, 2015.

Goree states in the "Relief" portion of his Complaint that he is
"seeking parole on my 40 year Habitual Offender Sec. 99-19-81
sentence." Goree states that he was sentenced on or about December
22, 1997, to 40 years as a habitual offender pursuant to
Mississippi Code Annotated Sec. 99-19-81 (1972), as amended, for
armed robbery. Goree complains that the indictment was defective
because it did not include the language of "against the Peace and
dignity of the State of Mississippi." Additionally, Goree contends
that each named Defendant violated his constitutional right under
the Fifth Amendment to be free from discrimination when other
offenders sentenced as habitual offenders are granted parole and
he is not.

In his Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/AyGzMqfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jordan III determined
that the substance of Goree's claims should be pursued through a
habeas petition, and because he does not have authorization from
the Fifth Circuit to file a successive habeas, Goree's claims
against Defendants Judge Howorth, Judge Roberts, and Judge Bailey
are dismissed with prejudice because they are immune from
liability.  To the extent Plaintiff is seeking that a mandamus be
issued, that is denied.


NAVISTAR INC: Faces Ferraro Foods Suit in New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Navistar, Inc.

The case is captioned Ferraro Foods, Inc., on behalf of itself and
all others similarly situated v. Navistar, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01502-CCC-JBC (D.N.J., March 21, 2016).

Navistar, Inc. is a manufacturer of International brand commercial
trucks, MaxxForce brand diesel engines, IC Bus school and
commercial buses, Workhorse brand chassis for motor homes and step
vans, and is a private label designer and manufacturer of diesel
engines for the pickup truck, van, hoes and SUV markets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eric Lechtzin, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3038
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4636
      E-mail: elechtzin@bm.net


NEVADA TITLE: Court Sends "Ashraft" Suit to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Gloria M. Navarro of the United States
District Court for the District of Nevada granted defendant's
Motions to Compel Arbitration, Stay, and Dismiss in the case
captioned, TIFFANY ASHRAF, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA TITLE AND PAYDAY
LOANS, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-GMN-VCF (D. Nev.).

On May 5, 2013, Plaintiff and Nevada Title executed a loan
agreement in which Plaintiff was provided with $500 at an annual
interest rate of 561.54%, to be repaid in full on May 16, 2013. On
January 2, 2014, Plaintiff filed for bankruptcy. On June 9, 2014,
Plaintiff was allegedly issued a bankruptcy discharge, which
included the amount that she owed to Nevada Title. Despite this
discharge, Plaintiff alleges that Nevada Title sent a letter on
February 12, 2015, indicating that she had an outstanding balance
that was past due.
Based on these allegations, the Complaint sets forth claims for
(1) violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, and (2)
violations of section 604A of the Nevada Revised Statutes against
Nevada Title.

Nevada Title argues that the Court should dismiss the action based
upon an arbitration provision contained in the Loan Agreement.
Because of the arbitration provision, Nevada Title asserts that
the case should be dismissed pending arbitration pursuant to the
Federal Arbitration Act.

Plaintiff argues (1) that the arbitration provision is invalid
because it is unconscionable, and (2) that even if the arbitration
provision were valid, it does not encompass the claims set forth
in the case.

In her Order dated March 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/GEWDuP
from Leagle.com, Judge Navarro found that the arbitration
provision is not procedurally unconscionable and that the effects
of the arbitration provision are readily ascertainable from the
Loan Agreement. Dismissal of the action is warranted because all
of Plaintiff's claims are subject to the arbitration provision.

Tiffany Ashraf is represented by:

     Danny Horen, Esq.
     David H. Krieger, Esq.
     HAINES & KRIEGER, LLC
     5041 N Rainbow Blvd
     Las Vegas, NV 89130
     Tel: 702-666-0668

          - and -

     Michael Kind, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Ave
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Tel: (949)612-9999

Nevada Title and Payday Loans is represented by Ann Marie Hansen,
Esq. -- ahansena@ballardspahr.com -- BALLARD SPAHR


NISSAN NA: "Nguyen" Sues Over Vehicle Transmission Defects
----------------------------------------------------------
Tung Nguyen and Boyong Park, Plaintiffs, v. Nissan North America,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00624 (M.D. Tenn., Nashville
Division, March 18, 2016), seeks temporary and permanent
enjoinment, injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free
replacement, costs, restitution, damages, including treble and
punitive damages and disgorgement, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and such other or further
relief resulting from unjust enrichment and breach of express
warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, violation
of Magnuson - Moss Warranty Act, Colorado Consumer Protection Act
and the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

Plaintiffs acquired Nissan Pathfinder vehicle equipped with
Nissan's continuously variable automatic transmission which they
claim to judder, shudder, shake and jerk violently when under
acceleration, thus failing to properly accelerate, resulting in
delayed acceleration and interrupting the forward drive.

Nissan North America, Inc. is a corporation organized under the
laws of the State of California with its corporate headquarters
and principal place of business in Franklin, Tennessee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Lisa A. White, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      First Tennessee Plaza
      800 S. Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Tel: 865-247-0080
      Fax: 865-522-0049
      Email: greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
             lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com

           - and -

      Lawrence Deutsch, Esq.
      Eugene Tompkins, Esq.
      Jeffrey Osterwise, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Tel: (215) 875-3062
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: ldeutsch@bm.net
             gtompkins@bm.net
             josterwise@bm.net


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Gates" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dollie Gates, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Northland Group, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case No.
1:16-cv-01492-NLH-AMD (D.N.J., March 21, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Northland Group, Inc. is a debt collection agency located at 7831
Glenroy Rd #250, Minneapolis, MN 55439.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NORTHLAND GROUP: 2nd Cir. Affirms in Part Class Cert. Denial
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, affirmed in part the judgment of the district court
denying class certification in the case captioned, JEFFREY J.
GALLEGO, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellant, v. NORTHLAND GROUP INC., JOHN DOES 1-25,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-1666-CV (2nd Cir.).

Jeffrey J. Gallego alleges that defendant-appellee Northland Group
Inc. violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act by sending
him and other class members a debt collection letter that gave a
call-back number but did not specify the name of the person at
that number. Gallego brought the action in the Southern District
of New York on behalf of himself and a class consisting of "all
New York consumers who were sent letters and/or notices from
Northland, attempting to collect a debt owed to Department Stores
National Bank which did not contain the name of the person to call
back.

Before Northland had filed a responsive pleading, the parties
agreed to settle the lawsuit on a classwide basis. The settlement
agreement provided that Northland would establish a fund totaling
$17,500, an amount the agreement stated was approximately equal to
1% of Northland's net worth. Of that amount, the settlement (if
approved) would pay $1,000 to Gallego, as class representative,
and distribute the remaining $16,500 to class members who filed
timely claims. The agreement capped attorneys' fees at $35,000.
Northland and Gallego then jointly moved for conditional approval
of the classwide settlement and to certify the conditional
settlement class.

The district court denied class certification, and then dismissed
the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on the
ground that it did not raise a colorable federal question.
The court then sua sponte questioned its subject-matter
jurisdiction, explaining that the complaint appeared to allege
nothing other than a violation of New York City law and not to
raise any colorable federal claims, and directed Gallego to show
cause why the complaint ought not be dismissed on that basis.

In his Order dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/RPiVELfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lynch found that denial
of certification was within the range of permissible decisions
where it appeared that the intended result of the settlement was
"mass indifference, a few profiteers, and a quick fee to clever
lawyers." The Appeals Court disagreed with the ruling of the
district court over subject-matter jurisdiction finding that
Gallego's FDCPA claims meet the very low threshold required to
support federal-question jurisdiction. The action is remanded to
the district court since it has jurisdiction to address federal-
question jurisdiction on the merits.

Jeffrey J. Gallego is represented by:

     Benjamin J. Wolf, Esq.
     Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES, LLC
     375 Passaic Ave
     Fairfield, NJ 07004
     Tel: (973)227-5900

Northland Group, Inc. is represented by Jonathan M. Robbin, Esq.
-- Jrobbin@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME LLP


OMNI HOTEL: Court Stays "Palmer" Suit Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jeffrey T. Miller of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted Plaintiff
Frank Palmer's motion to stay pending arbitration filed on
November 23, 2015 in the case captioned, FRANK PALMER, an
individual, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. OMNI HOTEL MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, and
Does 1-100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 15CV1527 JM (MDD)
(S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff was employed as a banquet server at Defendant's Omni La
Costa Resort and Spa. Plaintiff claims that he and other
similarly-situated employees or former employees of Defendant were
not paid proper overtime wages for all hours worked. On February
19, 2015, Plaintiff filed this putative class action in the
Superior Court of California for the County of Los Angeles.

In his operative complaint, Plaintiff brings the following causes
of action: (1) failure to pay overtime wages in violation of Cal.
Lab. Code Sec. 510; (2) failure to pay all wages for each pay
period in violation of Cal. Lab. Code Sec. 204; (3) failure to
provide accurate wage statements in violation of Cal. Lab. Code
Sec. 226; (4) unfair competition in violation of California's
Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sections 17200, et
seq.; and (5) violation of the Private Attorney General Act of
2004. Defendant removed the matter to the Central District of
California on March 23, 2015 which was granted by Judge Otero.

In the motion, Plaintiff alleges that on or about October 9, 2015,
Defendant produced, for the first time, an arbitration agreement
between the parties mandating arbitration of disputes such as
this, and moves the court to stay this case pending arbitration.

Defendant opposes Plaintiff's motion on two main grounds. First,
Defendant asserts that by filing his claims in court and
proceeding with discovery, Plaintiff has waived any right to
arbitration. Second, Defendant argues that Palmer has not shown
clear and unambiguous agreement to arbitrate these claims because
(1) Plaintiff's claims are not arbitrable; and (2) Plaintiff has
not produced competent evidence of the arbitration agreement.

In his Order dated March 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/QiLVLc
from Leagle.com, Judge Miller concluded that Plaintiff has acted
with due diligence in commencing arbitration proceedings and has
submitted a clear and unambiguous agreement to arbitrate and that
Defendant has not met the burden of demonstrating Plaintiff has
waived his right to arbitrate under the test articulated by the
Ninth Circuit.

Frank Palmer is represented by Lawrence J. Salisbury, Esq. --
lsalisbury@salisburylegal.com -- SALISBURY LEGAL CORP

He is also represented by:

     Andrew Michael Greene, Esq.
     GREENE LAW OFFICES
     1201 3rd Ave Ste 4800
     Seattle, WA 98101
     Tel: (206) 359-3234

          - and -

     Mark A. Redmond, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARK A REDMOND PC
     7311 Greenhaven Drive Suite 268
     Sacramento, CA 95831
     Tel: (916) 444-8240

Omni Hotels Management is represented by Damien Delaney, Esq. --
Damien.DeLaney@jacksonlewis.com -- Kevin Chiang, Esq. --
Kevin.Chiang@jacksonlewis.com -- Mia Farber, Esq. --
FarberM@jacksonlewis.com -- JACKSON LEWIS LLP


OREGON: Court Narrows Coffee Creek Female Inmates' Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Simon of the United States District
Court for the District of Oregon partially granted Defendants'
motion for summary judgment in the case captioned, KIMBERLY NEAL
BEPPLE and BRIDGETTE LEWIS, individually and behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DR. STEVE SHELTON, DR.
ELIZABETH SAZIE, DR. ROBERT SNIDER, DARREN ULFORD, ALANA BRUNS,
R.N. HAN VU, M.A. JAMES COULTER, RAYMOND HETLAGE, HEIDI STEWARD,
LLOYD SHIMABUKU, WILLIAM HOEFEL, HEATHER VILLANUEVA, DAVID BROWN,
and DEB ROBERTSON, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-00727-SI (D. Or.).

Plaintiffs Kimberly Neal Bepple and Bridgette Lewis bring the
instant lawsuit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
similarly-situated female inmates against Defendants, care
providers and employees at the Coffee Creek Correctional Facility
(CCCF). Plaintiffs allege five claims:

     (1) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging that
         Defendants Dr. Steve Shelton, Dr. Elizabeth Sazie,
         and Dr. Robert Snider violated Plaintiffs' rights under
         the Eighth Amendment;

     (2) a state law claim for medical negligence against
         Defendants Dr. Shelton, Dr. Sazie, Dr. Snider, James
         Coulter and Han Vu;

     (3) a state law claim for sexual battery against Dr. Snider;

     (4) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(2) against all
         Defendants for conspiring to violate Plaintiffs' First
         and Eighth Amendment rights by hindering the prosecution
         of Dr. Snider and obstructing justice because of
         Plaintiffs' gender; and

     (5) a claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985(3) against all
         Defendants for conspiring to deprive Plaintiffs of their
         First and Eighth Amendment rights because of Plaintiffs'
         gender.

Bepple and Lewis allege that Dr. Snider acted for his own sexual
gratification rather than any medical reason. According to Bepple
and Lewis, Defendants unlawfully failed to require visible
attendants during gynecological exams, report Dr. Snider's conduct
to an outside agency, and hire, train, and supervise medical staff
in how to properly treat female inmates to prevent sexual assault.
Bepple and Lewis, seeking to represent a putative class of other
female inmates treated by Dr. Snider, filed the lawsuit on April
29, 2015.

Defendants moved for summary judgment against some but not all of
Plaintiffs' claims. Specifically, Defendants move against all of
Lewis's claims, all claims against Defendants in their official
capacities, Bepple's 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985 claims, and Bepple's 42
U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claims against Dr. Shelton and Dr. Sazie.
Defendants argue that Plaintiffs failed to follow the proper
procedure for class certification and that the Court should thus
refrain from certifying the putative class.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Z2eA8mfrom Leagle.com, Judge Simon granted in part
the summary judgment as to all claims against Defendants in their
official capacities, all of Plaintiff Lewis's federal claims,
Plaintiff Bepple's claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1985, and Plaintiff
Bepple's claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against Defendant Dr.
Sazie and denied as to Plaintiff Lewis's state tort claims of
medical negligence and sexual battery and Plaintiff Bepple's claim
under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against Defendant Dr. Shelton.

The remaining for trial are (1) Plaintiffs' state tort claims for
medical negligence against Defendants Dr. Snider, Dr. Shelton, Dr.
Sazie, Coulter, and Vu; (2) Plaintiffs' state tort claims for
sexual battery against Dr. Snider; and (3) Plaintiff Bepple's
claims under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against Defendants Dr. Snider and
Dr. Shelton.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

        Leonard Randolph Berman, Esq.
        LAW OFFICE OF LEONARD R. BERMAN
        4711 SW Huber St
        Portland, OR 97219
        Tel: (503)473-8787

Defendants are represented by:

        Jessica B. Spooner, Esq.
        Michael R. Washington, Esq.
        OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
        1162 Court St NE
        Salem, OR 973014096
        Tel: (503)947-4700


PC RICHARD: "Matijakovich" Suit Removed to N.J. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled David Matijakovich, individually
and as a class representative on behalf of others similarly
situated v. P.C. Richard & Son and John Doe Individuals and
Businesses 1-20, Case No. BER-L-1413-16, was removed from the
Superior Court of New Jersey, Bergen County to the U.S. District
Court District of New Jersey (Newark). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01506-WHW-CLW to the proceeding.

P.C. Richard & Son operate a chain of private, family-owned
electronics and appliances stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lewis G. Adler, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF LEWIS ADLER
      26 Newton Avenue
      Woodbury, NJ 08096
      Telephone: (856) 845-1968
      E-mail: lewisadler@verizon.net


PFIZER INC: Court Grants Final Approval of "Sims" Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan approved the class
action settlement in the case captioned, KEARY C. SIMS, Sr. and
CLARK BAILEY, for themselves and others similarly-situated, and
UNITED STEEL, PAPER AND FORESTRY, RUBBER, MANUFACTURING, ENERGY,
ALLIED INDUSTRIAL AND SERVICE WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-
CIO-CLC, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC. and WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY,
LL Defendants, Case No. 1:10-CV-10743 (E.D. Mich.).

The individual plaintiffs and class representatives are Keary C.
Sims, Sr. and Clark Bailey. Both are former employees of defendant
Warner-Lambert. They worked at the Rochester, Michigan
pharmaceutical manufacturing facility owned by Warner-Lambert
until February 27, 1998, when the facility was sold. The
individual plaintiffs filed this lawsuit on behalf of themselves
and the class under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations
Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec.185, and the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. Sec.1001 et seq. USW sues under
LMRA Section 301. The lawsuit challenged Pfizer's January 1, 2010
replacement of the healthcare plan provided to class members
through Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Michigan with a different
healthcare plan administered by United Healthcare. Plaintiffs
claim that such violated the "substantially similar and
substantially equivalent" standards governing class members'
healthcare. Plaintiffs claim the changes breached CBA promises and
violated ERISA.

The parties engaged in discovery and exchanged information, data,
and expert analyses, and presented one another with their
differing CBA interpretations and legal analysis.

The Settlement Agreement provides for resolution of the
litigation. It provides for substantial restoration of the 1998
healthcare plan, subject to agreed-upon modifications. The
Settlement Agreement also provides for Pfizer's payment of
$750,000 to settle the class members' monetary claims made in the
lawsuit. This amount is to be used to fully reimburse class
members for premiums paid in 2010 they would not have had to pay
under the pre-2010 plan. Those premiums were eliminated after
2010. It is anticipated that premium reimbursements will require
about $201,000.

The Court preliminarily approved the Settlement Agreement on
November 13, 2015, and approved the notice to class members which
described the settlement, set the objection deadline, and
scheduled the fairness hearing.

In his Final Order and Judgment dated February 24, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/u6Ongtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ludington concluded
that the settlement and settlement agreement satisfied the Rule 23
requirements.

The Court appointed plaintiffs Sims and Bailey as class
representatives and plaintiffs' counsel Stuart M. Israel and his
law firm as class counsel.

Plaintiffs are represented by Stuart M. Israel, Esq. --
israel@legghioisrael.com -- LEGGHIO & ISRAEL, P.C.

Defendants are represented by:

     Robert L. Donoghue, Esq.
     ROBERT L. DONOGHUE, ATTORNEY AT LAW
     613 E Carpenter St,
     Midland, MI 48640
     Tel: (989)631-2660


PHILADELPHIA GAS: Landlords Obtain Favorable Ruling in Lien Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Maykuth, writing for Philly.com, reports that a federal
judge has ruled in favor of several landlords who were dunned by
Philadelphia Gas Works for money owed by their deadbeat tenants,
declaring the utility's system of placing liens on landlords'
properties to be unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge J. Curtis Joyner, in a summary judgment posted
on March 18, ruled that landlords' property interests "are clearly
being unconstitutionally compromised" by PGW's collection process.

The landlords sued in 2014, arguing that PGW's practice of
slapping liens on rental properties with little or no notification
leaves property owners scant recourse to defend themselves or to
pressure their tenants to pay.  In some cases, the tenants are
long gone, and the landlords are left holding the bag for unpaid
gas bills on top of unpaid rent.

"PGW's methods do not meet the fundamental requirements of due
process in that they do not afford the plaintiffs and others like
them the opportunity to address their tenants' arrearages at a
meaningful time or in a meaningful manner," Judge Joyner wrote in
a 27-page memorandum and order, dated on March 17.

Judge Joyner suggested a solution: He said the city could pass an
ordinance requiring PGW to follow the same procedures used by the
Philadelphia Water Department, which sends duplicate bills to
landlords whose tenants fall behind on payments, long before the
debts accumulate and a lien is filed.

"Right now, property owners get nothing more than a payment
demand," said Irv Ackelsberg -- iackelsberg@langergrogan.com  --
of the Langer Grogan & Diver law firm, who represented the
landlords along with John J. Grogan -- jgrogan@langergrogan.com

The judge ordered a March 30 settlement conference before a
magistrate.  "The court has mandated change," Mr. Ackelsberg said
on March 19.  "Either that will be negotiated, or we will be
seeking the imposition of such change."

Through a spokesman, PGW declined to comment on the case.  The
utility was represented by Jeffrey M. Scott --
jscott@archerlaw.com -- of the Archer & Greiner law firm.

The suit was brought in 2014 by landlords Lea and Gerard Augustin,
Thomas and Donna McSorley, and Richmond Waterfront Industrial Park
L.L.C., which is owned by investor David Wolf. PGW dunned them for
tenant debts ranging from $1,000 to more than $27,000.

The judge also ordered that arguments be heard on the plaintiffs'
demand for class-action status.  Other landlords have reached out
to the plaintiffs since the suit was first filed.

City-owned PGW, as a government entity, has the authority to place
liens against properties to collect debts.  Investor-owned
utilities have no equivalent power.  Liens are legal encumbrances
that must be settled when real estate changes hands.

Landlords have long argued that PGW is too quick to rely on liens
and does not adequately notify property owners when one has been
placed.  Some property owners say they discover liens only when
they attempt to sell a property.

In recent years, PGW has more aggressively used liens to collect
delinquent accounts.  In 2009, according to testimony, it rolled
out a computerized "Lien Management System" that processed 200 to
300 a day.

Much of the testimony about how PGW's Lien Management System
functioned was filed in court under a protective seal, but
Judge Joyner said the material is not confidential and ordered the
documents refiled as public records.

"There was also evidence and testimony concerning the operational
problems which the system has previously had and which it still
has, which is also, we find, relevant and of interest to the
public," Judge Joyner wrote.

PGW argued that landlords were sufficiently notified about tenant
arrearages through its Landlord Cooperation Program, which holds
registered residential landlords harmless for future tenant
arrearages if PGW has access to the tenants' meters.

But there is no comparable program for commercial landlords.  In
2012, PGW created a Commercial Lien Notification Program, which
gives registered landlords 30 days' notice of a lien on a
commercial property, but landlords say the notifications arrive
too late for them to get tenants to pay.

Only landlords the PGW computer determines are "cooperative"
remain in the notification programs.

"As a result, if a landlord fails to respond to any of PGW's
emails, fails to provide access to his or her property, or fails
to appear for an appointment, they are automatically deemed to be
uncooperative and expelled from the program, also without notice,"
Judge Joyner said in his order.


POLLO OPERATIONS: Faces "Preman" Suit Over Automated Calls
----------------------------------------------------------
Mark Preman o/b/o himself and all others similarly situated v.
Pollo Operations, Inc., Case No. 6:16-cv-00443-GKS-GJK (M.D. Fla.,
March 17, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants practice of making
calls to consumers' wireless telephone using an automatic dialing
system.

Pollo Operations, Inc. operates a restaurant chain specializing in
the cuisine of the Caribbean.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
      Jonathan Betten Cohen, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      201 N Franklin St Fl 7
      Tampa, FL 33602-5157
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 223-5402
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
              jcohen@forthepeople.com


PROFESSIONAL DETAILERS: "Miller" Suit Removed to S.D. Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Roman Miller and other
similarly situated paint detailer v. Professional Detailers 'R' Us
and Charles Jackson, Case No. CACE-16-001140 was removed from the
17th Judicial Circuit for Broward County, Florida to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60571-DPG to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts labor-related claims.

The Defendants own and operate an information technology company
in Florida that provides services of computer technical support,
networking, and data recovery.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
      Jason Saul Remer , Esq.
      REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
      Courthouse Tower
      44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
      Miami, FL 33130
      Telephone: (305) 416-5000
      Facsimile: (305) 416-5005
      E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
              jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Cathy Mattson Stutin, Esq.
      FISHER & PHILLIPS
      450 E Las Olas Boulevard, Suite 800
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
      Telephone: (954) 525-4800
      Facsimile: 525-8739
      E-mail: cstutin@laborlawyers.com


PRUDENTIAL RETIREMENT: "Muir" Sues over Fund Mismanagement
----------------------------------------------------------
Randall C. Muir, on behalf of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan and all other similarly situated
plans, Plaintiff, v. Prudential Retirement Insurance and Annuity
Company, Prudential Bank & Trust, FSB, and Prudential Investment
Management Services, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00319 (D.
Conn., February 26, 2016), seeks (a) actual damages resulting from
unjust enrichment and breach of fiduciary duties, (b) pre-judgment
and post-judgment interests, (c) attorneys' fees, costs and other
recoverable expenses of litigation and (d) such other and further
relief under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Muir is a current participant of the Ferguson Enterprises, Inc.
401(k) Retirement Savings Plan f/k/a Wolseley North America 401(k)
Plan. This is managed by Prudential Retirement Insurance and
Annuity Company, a Hartford, Connecticut-based insurance company
providing insurance services.

Plaintiff alleges that Ferguson mismanaged their retirement funds
for its own advantage and profit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jamie J. Spannhake, Esq.
      BERLANDI NUSSBAUM & REITZAS LLP
      527 Route 22, Suite 2
      Pawling, NY 12564
      Tel: (212) 804-6329
      Fax: (646) 461-2312
      Email: jspannhake@bnrllp.com

           - and -

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


RANDY'S TRUCKING: Class Certification Denied in "Ferguson" Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jennifer L. Thurston of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California denied
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification in the case captioned,
RONNY FERGUSON, ROGER MOELLMAN, AND STEVEN GIFFORD, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
RANDY'S TRUCKING, INC. AND RANDY GRIFFITH, and Defendants, Case
No. 1:15-CV-00697-JLT (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Ronny Ferguson, Roger Moellman, and Steven Gifford were
formerly employed by Randy's Trucking, Inc. Plaintiffs assert
Randy's Trucking Inc., and Randy Griffith, the President of
Randy's Trucking, are liable for wage and hour law violations and
unfair business practices. Plaintiffs initiated the instant action
on May 6, 2015 and Steven Gifford joined the action when
Plaintiffs file the first amended complaint on October 6, 2015.
Plaintiffs contend the defendants did not properly pay overtime
wages and failed to pay wages due upon termination. Accordingly,
Plaintiffs assert the defendants are liable for failure to
calculate overtime pursuant to Industrial Welfare Commission Order
No. 16-2001, California Code of Regulations, Title 8, Sec. 11160;
failure to pay wages due under Cal. Labor Code Sec. 203; failure
to pay overtime in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sections 207 and 216;
and unfair business practices in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sec.17200. The defendants filed their answer to the First
Amended Complaint on October 20, 2015.

Plaintiffs seek certification of a class defined as: "All drivers
of Randy's Trucking employed at any time after May 6, 2011." In
addition, Plaintiffs request certification of a sub-class defined
as: "All drivers Randy's Trucking whose employment has ended at
least once since May 6, 2012." Plaintiffs contend the
prerequisites of Rule 23(a) are satisfied, and certification of
the proposed classes is appropriate under both Rule 23(b)(1) and
(b)(3).

Defendant does not dispute that Plaintiffs have standing under
Article III, but assert that the proposed class of drivers is
overbroad because it is not "limited to members who possess
standing." (Doc. 30 at 7) Defendant argues the class definition
includes individuals who "have not suffered any demonstrable
injury."

In his Order dated March 11, 2016 available at http://is.gd/uP4Nj9
from Leagle.com, Judge Thurston concluded that Plaintiff failed to
establish the numerosity requirement, to present evidence
demonstrating commonality or typicality of the claims and to
produce any evidence that they are similarly situated to other
employees.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Lion Tracy, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL TRACY
     2030 Main St STE 1300
     Irvine, CA 92606
     Tel: (949)260-9171

Randy's Trucking, Inc. is represented by Andrew Hoon Woo, Esq. --
awoo@littler.com -- Annureet K. Grewal, Esq. --
agrewal@littler.com -- Kevin V. Koligian, Esq. --
kkoligian@littler.com -- LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.


RESOURCE MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Paul Herrmann and Kelsey Herrmann, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated v. Resource Management, Inc. of
Wisconsin, Case No. 3:16-cv-00170-slc (W.D. Wis., March 17, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to
collect a debt.

Resource Management, Inc. of Wisconsin operates a debt collection
agency located 2211 E Clairemont Ave # 1, Eau Claire, WI 54701.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Davidson, Esq.
      GREENWALD DAVIDSON RADBIL PLLC
      5550 Glades Road, Suite 500
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 826-5477
      E-mail: jdavidson@gdrlawfirm.com


RL REPPERT: Court Denies Motion for Reconsideration in "Askew"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James Knoll Gardner of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania denied Plaintiff's
Motion for Reconsideration of Order on Summary Judgment in the
case captioned, DERRICK ASKEW, Plaintiff, v. R.L. REPPERT, INC.,
RICHARD L. REPPERT, R.L. REPPERT, INC. EMPLOYEES PROFIT SHARING
401(k) PLAN, R.L. REPPERT, INC. MONEY PURCHASE PLAN (DAVIS BACON
PLAN), Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs, v. CALIFORNIA
PENSION ADMINISTRATORS & CONSULTANTS, INC., Third-Party
Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-04003 (E.D. Pa.).

In the February 5, 2016 Opinion and accompanying Order, the Court
granted in part and denied in part both plaintiff's and
defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment.

Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of that Order pursuant to the
court's inherent power to correct interlocutory orders as well as
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59 and 60.  Plaintiff
argues that (1) the court erred in granting summary judgment for
defendants regarding Count III of plaintiff's class action
complaint, because there was no evidence of a segregated trust or
custodial account for the 401(k) Plan assets prior to 2010; (2)
the court erred in allegedly requiring plaintiff to prove the
absence of an audit exemption for the 401(k) Plan; (3) the court
erred in granting summary judgment for defendants regarding
plaintiff's Counts IV-VI, because there is "record evidence" of
missing plan assets and payments; and finally, (4) the court erred
in granting summary judgment for defendants regarding Counts I and
II.

In his Opinion dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/k5rmlwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Gardner is not
persuaded that the Court have committed any clear error of fact or
law regarding missing plan assets. Plaintiff is not entitled to
reconsideration in the granting of summary judgment in favor of
Defendants on Count II of the Court's February 5, 2016 Order and
Opinion because Plaintiff did not identify how the Court erred.

Derrick Askew is represented by Kent Cprek, Esq. --
kcprek@jslex.com -- James E. Goodley, Esq. -- jgoodley@jslex.com -
- Marc L. Gelman, Esq. -- mgelman@jslex.com -- Maureen Marra, Esq.
-- mmarra@jslex.com -- JENNINGS SIGMOND PC

The Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Matthew S. Hagarty, Esq.
     LAW FIRM OF DAVIS BUCCO
     10 E 6th Ave #100,
     Conshohocken, PA 19428
     Tel: (610)238-0880

Defendants are represented by:

     Walter H. Flamm, Jr., Esq.
     Christopher M. Curci, Esq.
     FLAMM WALTON HEIMBACH & LAMM PC
     794 Penllyn Pike
     Blue Bell, PA 19422
     Tel: (267)419-1536


ROYAL OAK: "Bystry" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages, Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dusty A. Bystry, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Royal Oak Industries, Inc., d/b/a Royal
Oak Boring, Inc. and Bronson Precision Products, Inc. Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00210 (W.D. Mich., February 26, 2016), seeks
unpaid wages, salary, commissions, bonuses, accrued holiday pay,
accrued vacation pay, pension and 401(k) contributions and other
benefits in accordance with the Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act.

Bystry worked as a CNC Machinist for Defendant at Defendant's
facility located at 404 Union St., Bronson, Michigan until his
termination. Defendant ordered mass layoffs or plant closings at
the Facilities without providing its employees with 60 days'
advance written notice, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Rene S. Roupinian, Esq.
      Jack A. Raisner, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 245-1000
      Email: jar@outtengolden.com
             rsr@outtengolden.com


RUSSIA: OZI Mulls Class Action Against FSB Over SORM
----------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Keane, writing for The Kernel, reports that in early
2014, the Winter Olympics were in full swing in Sochi, on the
Black Sea, offering President Vladimir Putin the opportunity to
show off the glory of his beloved Russia.  Government authorities
left very little to chance, running the event with an iron grip.
The Guardian reported that as part of that effort, the Russian
security service, the FSB, would be conducting "some of the most
invasive and systematic spying and surveillance in the history of
the Games."

For Western readers, the story may have come as a surprise.  But
Russian journalists Irina Borogan and Andrei Soldatov have spent
their careers reporting on the FSB, and they obtained a PowerPoint
presentation detailing its surveillance capabilities at Sochi. As
they explained in their book, The Red Web: The Struggle Between
Russia's Digital Dictators and the New Online Revolutionaries, the
authorities had used a system called, in translation, System for
Operative Investigative Activities, or SORM.

SORM has been used in Russia since 1995. The first generation
SORM-1 tapped telephone communications; SORM-2 was designed for
Internet and VoIP traffic.  According to a report by Privacy
International, SORM-3, introduced in 2014, captures information
from all communication media and stores it for three years.

To siphon off all this data, telecoms and Internet service
providers must install SORM-enabling "black boxes" on their
networks. (Exactly how these boxes work remains murky.  "We're
getting better at understanding how it works technically but it's
still very unclear," says Edin Omanovic, research officer at
Privacy International.)  A warrant is required for the FSB (and,
since 2000, other government agencies) to access the data, but
it's not obligated to show this warrant to the provider being
served -- meaning telecoms and ISPs don't know what data is being
examined.  Irina Borogan adds that there is little oversight.
"This system provides a lot of possibilities for abuse because the
secret service does not need to show this court form for
interception to anybody except their own superiors," she says.

For the authorities, SORM-3 offers remarkable power, even in a
country where widespread surveillance has been normalized.  But
it's also offered an opportunity, however slim, for activists who
would like to see that surveillance restricted. A newly formed
nonprofit, The Society for Defending the Internet (OZI), has
seized on one aspect of the system and hopes to leverage it into
future challenges to the Kremlin's surveillance regime -- by
making authorities pay for the bill for SORM-3.

Led by Leonid Volkov and Sergei Boiko, the group is planning a
class-action suit against the FSB.  Mr. Volkov's a leading voice
in Russia's movement for a free and open Internet; he also managed
the Moscow mayoral campaign of Alexei Navalny, a regular thorn in
the side of the Kremlin and founder of the Anti-Corruption
Foundation. "SORM by itself is legal in Russia," he explains,
"It's part of the governmental investigation procedures, but there
is a law about governmental investigations that all the expenses
for investigations should be carried by the government."

So far, Mr. Volkov says, two providers have joined the suit (he's
only going to announce the names after filing the official
paperwork), and he's hoping to get ten to join. Mr. Volkov says
ISPs spend about 30 percent of their budgets on SORM installation
and maintenance.  Meanwhile, according to figures obtained by
Ms. Borogan and Mr. Soldatov, warrants for phone and email
interceptions more than doubled between 2007 and 2012 (not
including nebulously defined "counterintelligence eavesdropping").

The providers ultimately pass on that cost to their customers, Mr.
Volkov says, and they're afraid to refuse the government, which
ultimately decides who gets to provide Internet service. "Everyone
knows that if they tried to sue FSB about the legality of SORM
payments [their licenses] would just be revoked," he says.

Ms. Borogan says broad legal action against Russia's surveillance
regime is likely to fail.  One relevant example is the case of
Zakharov v. Russia.  Last December, the European Court of Human
Rights ruled that mobile phone surveillance of Roman Zakharov, an
editor at a publishing company, violated Article 8 of the European
Convention of Human Rights -- respect for one's "private and
family life, his home and his correspondence."  The ruling called
for greater transparency for Russian citizens about government
surveillance.  "The domestic law must be sufficiently clear to
give citizens an adequate indication as to the circumstances in
which and the conditions on which public authorities are empowered
to resort to any such measures," it read.  Yet within days of the
ruling, the government swiftly passed a law allowing it to
overrule international court orders to "protect the interests of
Russia."

Mr. Volkov understands the difficult environment in which OZI is
maneuvering.  The hope is that a targeted approach could reduce
some of the financial burden and fear for ISPs.  Only then will it
be time to consider a more all-out challenge.  "We have to wait
for this first and then we will decide on what we'll do on the
legality of SORM itself," he says.

Challenging SORM opens up a larger debate about Russian
surveillance, which has gone largely unreported, says Privacy
International's Omanovic.  Surveillance is deeply woven into the
fabric of the Russian Internet, aided by regulations like the
"blogger law" that requires sites with more than 3,000 daily
readers to register with the government.  Similarly, a proposed
data localization law would obligate tech companies to store data
on Russian users within the country's borders; Mr. Soldatov,
co-author of The Red Web, sees it as less a legal maneuver than a
way to force tech companies to negotiate with the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, the government has cracked down on bloggers.  Rafis
Kashapov criticized the Crimean annexation and received a three-
year prison sentence.  Daria Poludova, another activist, was
sentenced to two years in prison for social media posts lambasting
Putin's government.  The prison sentences sent a clear message:
We're always watching what you're doing.

"Most people in Russia know that your communications aren't safe
but they consider the situation as normal. This is Russia," says
Ms. Borogan with a dry laugh.  "But it should be changed.  I have
noticed recently that opposition politicians and people involved
in some kind of citizen activities have become more worried about
the safety of their communications and started to use encryption."

Mr. Volkov believes the OZI lawsuit can hasten a change in public
opinion. But he needs more providers to join the fight. Otherwise,
the challenge to the Kremlin's surveillance regime may simply be
the story of a few rebels, as Mr. Volkov puts it, "dying bravely."


SANOFI: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of 2 Complaints Over Lemtrada
----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Barrington D. Parker of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, affirmed the judgment of the district court granting the
motion to dismiss two class action complaints filed in December
2013 against Sanofi, et al.

The complaints were consolidated in February 2014, and a
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on April 28, 2014.
Plaintiffs allege that the pharmaceutical company Sanofi, along
with its predecessor and three company executives, made materially
false or misleading statements regarding its breakthrough drug,
Lemtrada, designed to treat multiple sclerosis (MS). Plaintiffs
allege that while Lemtrada was undergoing Phase III clinical
trials prior to FDA approval, Sanofi misled investors by failing
to disclose that the FDA had repeatedly expressed concern with
Sanofi's use of single-blind studies and had encouraged Sanofi to
use double-blind studies in its clinical trials. Plaintiffs allege
that these omissions misled investors and artificially inflated
the value of Plaintiffs' contingent value rights (CVRs),
specialized financial instruments whose value is tied to the
achievement of certain "milestones."

Plaintiffs' allegations are predicated on Sections 10(b), 18, and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78a et seq. (the Exchange Act); Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77a et seq. (the
Securities Act); and state blue sky laws.

On June 27, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss both complaints for
failing to state a claim, arguing that the complaints did not
allege any materially false or misleading statements, there were
no sufficient allegations of scienter, and their statements were
protected as forward-looking statements. On January 28, 2015, the
district court granted Defendants' motion.

On appeal, Plaintiffs urged the Second Circuit to reconsider the
district court's ruling in light of the Supreme Court's decision
in Omnicare. In Omnicare, the Supreme Court held that where an
investor has alleged that an issuer omitted stating material
information and thereby rendered a statement of opinion
misleading.

In his Decision dated March 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/8M1LHafrom Leagle.com, Judge Parker concluded that
even under Omnicare's standard, Plaintiffs have failed to allege
that Defendants made materially misleading statements of opinion
and that no reasonable investor would have been misled by
Defendants' optimistic statements regarding the approval and
launch of Lemtrada.

The appellate case is captioned, GEN. PARTNER GLENN TONGUE,
DEERHAVEN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, Plaintiffs-Appellants. JOHN SOLAK,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff. VINCENT STASIULEWICZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Consolidated Plaintiff, v. SANOFI,
Defendant-Appellee. CHRISTOPHER VIEHBACHER, DAVID MEEKER, JEROME
CONTAMINE, Defendants-Consolidated Defendants-Appellees. SANOFI
PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., Consolidated Defendant. AG FUNDS, L.P., AG
MM, L.P., AG SUPER FUND INTERNATIONAL, L.P., AG PRINCESS, L.P.,
NUTMEG PARTNERS, L.P., AG SUPER FUND, L.P., ARISTEIA HORIZONS,
L.P., WINDERMERE IRELAND FUND PLC, COMPASS ESMA, L.P., COMPASS
TSMA, L.P., XEROPOLIS L.L.C., OZ ELS MASTER FUND, LTD., OZ MASTER
FUND, LTD., OZ EUREKA FUND, L.P., GORDEL CAPITAL LIMITED, OZ
EUROPE MASTER FUND, LTD., OZ GLOBAL SPECIAL INVESTMENTS MASTER
FUND, L.P., OZ SELECT MASTER FUND, LTD., OZ GLOBAL EQUITY
OPPORTUNITIES MASTER FUND, OZ ENHANCED MASTER FUND, LTD., SAPELO
LLC, WHITEBOX CONCENTRATED CONVERTIBLE ARBITRAGE PARTNERS, L.P.,
WHITEBOX CREDIT ARBITRAGE PARTNERS, L.P., WHITEBOX ASYMMETRIC
PARTNERS, L.P., WHITEBOX MULTISTRATEGY PARTNERS, L.P., PANDORA
SELECT PARTNERS, L.P., WHITEBOX INSTITUTIONAL PARTNERS, L.P.,
WHITEBOX SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND SERIES B PARTNERS, L.P.,
WHITEBOX SPECIAL OPPORTUNITIES FUND, SERIES O, Plaintiffs-
Appellants. GOLDMAN SACHS PROFIT SHARING MASTER TRUST, MERRILL
LYNCH INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS OCH-ZIFF EUROPEAN MULTI-STRATEGY UCITS
FUND, OZEA, L.P., Plaintiffs. v. SANOFI, GENZYME CORPORATION,
CHRISTOPHER VIEHBACHER, DAVID MEEKER, JEROME CONTAMINE,
Defendants-Appellees, Case Nos. 15-588-CV, 15-623-CV (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs are represented by Christopher L. Nelson, Esq. --
cln@weiserlawfirm.com -- James M. Ficaro, Esq. --
jmf@weiserlawfirm.com -- Brett D. Stecker, Esq. --
bds@weiserlawfirm.com -- THE WEISER LAW FIRM, P.C., Berwyn, PA,
Daniella Quitt, Esq. -- dquitt@hfesq.com -- HARWOOD FEFFER LLP

Defendants are represented by John Neuwirth, Esq. --
john.neuwirth@weil.com -- Joshua S. Amsel, Esq. --
joshua.amsel@weil.com -- Caroline Hickey Zalka, Esq. --
caroline.zalka@weil.com -- Justin D. D'Aloia, Esq. --
Justine.daloia@weil.com -- WEIL, GOTSHAL & MANGES LLP


SANTANDER CONSUMER: "Parmelee" Sues Over Share Price Drop
---------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia A. Parmelee, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc., Thomas Dundon, Ismail Dawood, Jason Kulas and Jennifer
Davis, Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-783 (N.D. Tex., Dallas
Division, March 18, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, counsel and
expert fees and such other and further relief under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Santander Consumer USA Inc., an Illinois corporation, is a
specialized consumer finance company focused on vehicle finance
and unsecured consumer lending products.

Defendants failed to disclose materially adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations and prospects and issued misleading
statements that the Company's methodology for estimating credit
loss allowance on individually acquired retail installment
contracts was improper. Company's shares fell $1.70 per share, or
16%, over two trading sessions.

Plaintiffs are shareholders of the company and lost substantially
because of this.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone: (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile: (310) 201-9160
      Email: lglancy@glancylaw.com
             lportnoy@glancylaw.com


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Brief in "Corban" Appeal Due
--------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, 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 plaintiffs'
appellate brief is due to the First Circuit on March 22, 2016.

Purported class action complaints were filed against the Company
and certain of its officers in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Massachusetts on January 27, 2014 and January 29,
2014. The complaints were consolidated into a single action
(Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No. 14-cv-10201) by order of the
court on June 23, 2014, and plaintiffs were afforded 28 days to
file a consolidated amended complaint. The plaintiffs'
consolidated amended complaint, filed on July 21, 2014, sought to
bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or entities that
purchased or acquired securities of the Company between July 10,
2013 and November 11, 2013.

The consolidated amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and
certain of its officers violated the federal securities laws in
connection with disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's
lead therapeutic candidate for Duchenne muscular dystrophy
("DMD"), and seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Pursuant to
the court's June 23, 2014 order, Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated amended complaint on August 18, 2014, and
argument on the motion was held on March 12, 2015.

On March 31, 2015, the Court dismissed plaintiffs' amended
complaint.  On April 30, 2015, plaintiffs in the Corban suit filed
a motion for leave seeking to file a further amended complaint,
which the Company opposed.

Following a hearing on August 12, 2015, the Court denied this
motion, and on September 22, 2015, the Court dismissed the case.
The plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal in the Court of Appeals
for the First Circuit on September 29, 2015.  On January 27, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed a motion to vacate the District Court's order
denying leave to amend and dismissing the case.

Defendants filed their opposition with the District Court on
February 11, 2016, and oral argument on the plaintiffs' motion was
held on February 25, 2016.  The plaintiffs' appellate brief is due
to the First Circuit on March 22, 2016.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Oral Argument Held March 2 in "Kader" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarepta Therapeutics, 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 oral argument on the
motion to dismiss the "Kader" class action lawsuit was scheduled
for March 2, 2016.

A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Massachusetts on December 3, 2014 by William Kader,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v.
Sarepta Therapeutics Inc., Christopher Garabedian, and Sandesh
Mahatme (Kader v. Sarepta et.al 1:14-cv-14318), asserting
violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Securities and
Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5 against the Company, Christopher
Garabedian and Sandesh Mahatme. Plaintiffs' amended complaint,
filed on March 20, 2015, alleges that the defendants made material
misrepresentations or omissions during the putative class period
of April 21, 2014 through October 27, 2014, regarding the
sufficiency of the Company's data for submission of a new drug
application ("NDA") for eteplirsen and the likelihood of the Food
and Drug Administration ("FDA") accepting the NDA based on that
data. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and fees.

The Company received service of the complaint on January 5, 2015.
Sarepta filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on May 11, 2015,
pursuant to the scheduling order entered on February 20, 2015,
which plaintiffs have opposed.  Oral argument on the motion has
been scheduled for March 2, 2016.

The Company is a biopharmaceutical company focused on the
discovery and development of unique RNA-targeted therapeutics for
the treatment of rare, infectious and other diseases.


SCHIFF NUTRITION: Court Grants in Part Motion to Post Appeal Bond
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Mitchell D. Dembin of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion to post an appeal bond in the case captioned,
LUIS LERMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SCHIFF NUTRITION INTERNATIONAL,
INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 11-CV-1056-MDD (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Luis Lerma, Nick Pearson, and Muriel Jayson on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, brought a class
action Complaint against Defendants Schiff Nutrition
International, Inc., and Schiff Nutrition Group, Inc. Plaintiffs
alleged that in its marketing of various products containing
glucosamine offered to the public to treat joint ailments,
Defendants violated the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, Civil Code
Sec. 1750, et seq.; Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 et seq.; Illinois Consumer Fraud Act,
502/1, et seq.; personal injuries/medical monitoring; personal
injuries/negligence; and breach of express warranty.

Sometime before March 25, 2014, the parties reached a settlement
culminating in the filing of a motion for preliminary approval of
the class settlement on that date. On August 10, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement,
Attorneys' Fees and Expenses, and Service Awards. On October 30,
2015, the Court held a fairness hearing. On November 3, 2015, the
Court entered its Order granting final approval.

Objector Ashley Hammack filed her objections to the proposed
settlement on September 24, 2015. Objector, through counsel,
objected to the terms of the injunctive relief to be awarded in
settlement, to the monetary relief, to the claims process, to the
award of attorneys' fees and to the incentive awards to the
representative plaintiffs.

In the motion, Plaintiffs request that Objector post a bond in the
amount of $31,626, consisting of $2500 in potential taxable costs
and $29,126 in additional costs of settlement administration
occasioned by the appeal. Objector disputes the reasonableness of
the requested taxable costs and challenges the authority of the
Court to require a bond for administrative costs.

In his Order dated February 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/xiTiLvfrom Leagle.com, Judges Dembin found that that
the estimate of taxable costs of $25,00 provided by Plaintiffs is
reasonable but will not include administrative costs in the appeal
bond.

Luis Lerma is represented by Charles C. Sweedler, Esq. --
csweedler@lfsblaw.com -- Keith J. Verrier, Esq. --
Kverrier@lfsblaw.com -- Howard J. Sedran, Esq. --
hsedran@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN FISHBEIN SEDRAN & BERMAN, Elaine A.
Ryan, Esq. -- eryan@bffb.com -- Manfred Patrick Muecke, Jr., Esq.
-- mmuecke@bffb.com -- BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN AND BALINT PC,
Max A. Stein, Esq. -- mstein@boodlaw.com -- Stewart Weltman, Esq.
-- sweltman@boodlaw.com -- BOODELL & DOMANSKIS, LLC

Schiff Nutrition International, Inc. is represented by Mark S.
Mester, Esq. -- mark.mester@lw.com -- Steven B. Lesan, Esq. --
steven.lesan@lw.com, Kathleen P. Lally, Esq. --
kathleen.lally@lw.com -- Kathryn George, Esq. --
kathryn.george@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP


SCHWAB INVESTMENTS: Northstar Files 9th Cir. Appeal
---------------------------------------------------
Northstar Financial Advisors, Inc., on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Schwab Investments,
Mariann Byerwaler, Donald F. Dorward, William A. Hasler, Robert G.
Holmes, Gerald B. Smith, Donald R. Stephens, Michael W. Wilsey,
Charles R. Schwab, Randall W. Merk, Joseph H. Wender, John F.
Cogan, Charles Schwab Investment Management, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 16-15303 (9th Cir., February 26, 2016), is an appeal from
a decision by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California.

The Honorable Lucy H. Koh on Feb. 23, 2016, denied the plaintiff's
request for certification of a class in Northstar Financial
Advisors, Inc. v. Schwab Investments, et al., Case No. 08-cv-04119
(N.D. Calif.).

Northstar sued Schwab Investments, the members of the Board of
Trustees of Schwab Investments, and Charles Schwab Management,
Inc.  Northstar alleges that Defendants deviated from the Schwab
Total Bond Market Fund's investment objective to track the Lehman
Brothers U.S. Aggregate Bond Index in two ways:

     1. Northstar alleges that, beginning around August 31, 2007,
the Fund deviated by investing in high risk non-U.S. agency
collateralized mortgage obligations (CMOs) that were not part of
the Lehman Index and that were substantially more risky than the
U.S. agency securities and other instruments that comprised the
Index.

     2. Northstar alleges that, beginning around August 31, 2007,
the Fund deviated from the Fund's investment objectives (which
prohibited any concentration of Fund assets greater than 25% in
any one industry, unless such concentration was necessary in order
to track the Index) by investing more than 25% of the Fund's total
assets in U.S. agency and non-agency mortgage-backed securities
and CMOs.

Northstar alleges that Defendants' deviation from the Fund's
investment objectives exposed the Fund and the Fund's shareholders
to tens of millions of dollars in losses due to a sustained
decline in the value of non-agency mortgage-backed securities.
According to Northstar, the Funds' deviation caused the Fund to
incur a negative total return of 4.80% for the period of September
1, 2007, through February 27, 2009, compared to a positive return
of 7.85% for the Index over this same period.

In her Order dated October 5, 2015 available at
http://is.gd/P8YUYkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh granted in part and
denied in part Defendants' motion to dismiss Northstar's fourth
amended complaint.

Northstar then asked the Court for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's October 5, 2015 Order.  Northstar
also filed a motion for class certification.

The Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings of
Northstar's Fourth Amended Complaint.

In her Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/ZisVzAfrom Leagle.com, Judge Koh denied Northstar's
motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration finding that
Northstar has not demonstrated "a manifest failure by the Court to
consider material facts or dispositive legal arguments which were
presented to the Court," as required for motions for leave to file
a motion for reconsideration.  She granted Defendants' motion for
judgment on the pleadings because Northstar failed to demonstrate
a showing of false conduct on the part of Defendants.  Judge Koh
dismissed these eight causes of action from the FAC: breach of
fiduciary duty against the members of the Board of Trustees of
Schwab Investments; breach of fiduciary duty against Charles
Schwab Investment Management, Inc. (the Advisor); aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against the Trustees; and aiding
and abetting breach of fiduciary against the Advisor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert Craig Finkel, Esq.
     845 Third Avenue
     New York, NY 10022
     Tel: (212) 759-4600

          - and -

     Marc Jonathan Gross, Esq.
     GREENBAUM ROWE SMITH & DAVIS LLP
     75 Livingston Street, Suite 301
     Roseland, NJ 07068
     Tel: (973) 535-1600
     E-mail: mgross@greenbaumlaw.com

          - and -

     Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Esq.
     Anthony David Phillips, Esq.
     Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Esq.
     BERMAN DeVALERIO
     One California Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 433-3200
     E-mail: cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com
             aphillips@bermandevalerio.com
             jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com

Defendants, Schwab Investments and Charles Schwab Investment
Management, Inc., are represented by:

     Joshua David Nelson Hess, Esq.
     Brian C. Raphel, Esq.
     DECHERT LLP
     One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 262-450
     E-mail: brian.raphel@dechert.com

          - and -

     Matthew L. Larrabee, Esq.
     DECHERT LLP
     1095 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 698-3671
     E-mail: matthew.larrabee@dechert.com

Defendants, Mariann Byerwaler, Donald F. Dorward, William A.
Hasler, Robert G. Holmes, Gerald B. Smith, Donald R. Stephens,
Michael W. Wilsey, Charles R. Schwab, Randall W. Merk, Joseph H.
Wender, John F. Cogan, are represented by:

     Joshua David Nelson Hess, Esq.
     DECHERT LLP
     One Maritime Plaza, Suite 2300
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 262-4500
     E-mail: joshua.hess@dechert.com

          - and -

     Karin Kramer, Esq.
     John Mark Potter, Esq.
     Karin A. Kramer, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
     50 California Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 875-6422
     E-mail: johnpotter@quinnemanuel.com
             karinkramer@quinnemanuel.com

          - and -

     Matthew L. Larrabee, Esq.
     DECHERT LLP
     1095 Avenue of the Americas
     New York, NY 10036
     Tel: (212) 698-3671

          - and -

     Arthur M. Roberts, Esq.
     Patrick C. Doolittle, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN LLP
     50 California Street
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415) 875-6600
     E-mail: arthurroberts@quinnemanuel.com
             patrickdoolittle@quinnemmanuel.com

          - and -

     Richard Allen Schirtzer, Esq.
     QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
     865 South Figueroa Street
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213) 443-3000
     E-mail: richardschirtzer@quinnemmanuel.com

The following schedule has been set in relation to the Ninth
Circuit appeal:

     * Mediation Questionnaire was due on March 4, 2016.

     * Transcript is ordered by March 28, 2016.

      * Transcript is due on April 25, 2016.

Plaintiff's opening brief is due on June 6, 2016. Defendants'
answering brief is due on July 6, 2016. Plaintiff's optional reply
brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.


SEAGATE HOSPITALITY: "Hinckley" Sues for Wages, Refunds, Paystubs
------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Hinckley, Jr., on behalf of himself and all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Seagate Hospitality Group, LLC,
Canandaigua Hotel Corporation and Thomas A. Blank, individually
and as Chief Executive Officer of Canandaigua Hotel Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-06118 (W.D.N.Y., February 27, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages, refund of laundering of uniforms, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, pre-judgment and post-
judgment interest, statutory penalties and such other and further
legal or equitable relief as provided by New York Labor Laws and
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Plaintiff was employed as a server at the Defendant's inn. He
claims to have received subminimum wages, did not get reimbursed
for uniform maintenance, was not paid spread-of-hours premium and
did not receive proper pay stubs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin M. Cordello, Esq.
      CORDELLO LAW PLLC
      693 East Avenue, Suite 220
      Rochester, NY 14607
      Telephone: (585) 857-9684
      Email: justin@cordellolaw.com

           - and -

      Robert Mullin, Esq.
      FERR & MULLIN P.C.
      7635 Main Street
      Fishers, NY 14453
      Telephone: (585) 869-0210
      Email: rlmullin@ferrmulinlaw.com


SELECTION MANAGEMENT: Torus Suit Stays in S.D. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Timothy S. Black of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Defendant's motion
to transfer the case captioned, TORUS SPECIALTY INSURANCE CO.,
Plaintiff, v. SELECTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 1:15-CV-755 (S.D. Ohio).

Torus issued two claims-made insurance policies to Selection -- a
Professional Liability and Privacy & Network Security Insurance
policy, for the period June 13, 2013 to June 13, 2014 and a
Professional Liability and Privacy & Network Security Insurance
policy, for the period June 13, 2014 to June 13, 2015.

On January 17, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit captioned
Christopher Greco, et al. v. Selection Management Systems, Inc.
dba Selection.com, Case No. 37-2014-00085074-CUBT-CTL, was filed
against Selection in the Superior Court of California, San Diego
County. Torus provided a defense to Selection and ultimately
resolved the Greco Action by settlement on Selection's behalf.

On May 26, 2015, Selection was sued in the Northern District of
California in a lawsuit captioned John Doe, et al. v.
Selection.com and Does 1-10, Case No. 15-cv-2338. Selection timely
notified Torus of the action and requested coverage under the two
insurance policies. Torus determined that there was coverage only
under the nearly-exhausted 2013 Policy and not under the 2014
Policy.

In November 2015, Selection requested that Torus attend a January
7, 2016 settlement conference in the Doe Action with authority
necessary to settle the case. The next day, on November 25, 2015,
Torus filed its declaratory relief action against Selection in
this Court. Torus's complaint seeks a declaration that coverage is
not owed under the 2014 Policy for the two putative class action
lawsuits. That same day, Selection filed an action against Torus
in the Northern District of California alleging claims for breach
of contract and bad faith.

In the motion, Selection seeks an order transferring the case to
the Northern District of California pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1404(a) arguing that Torus's choice of forum is entitled to less
deference because: (1) Torus is not a resident of Ohio; (2) none
of the complained of conduct occurred in the District; and (3)
Torus was engaged in forum-shopping.

In his Order dated February 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/J93nhifrom Leagle.com, Judge Black concluded that
Selection's argument that Torus's choice of forum is entitled to
less deference is not compelling. While the relevant documents are
physically located at Selection's office in Cincinnati, all
documents will be equally available in both districts because
Selection intends to produce all documents electronically.

Torus Specialty Insurance Company is represented by:

     Joseph Patrick Dawson, Esq.
     JOSEPH PATRICK DAWSON LAW OFFICE
     3295 Levis Commons Blvd.
     Perrysburg, OH 43551-7145
     Tel: (419)254-3104

Selection Management Systems, Inc. is represented by:

     Konrad Kircher, Esq.
     Ryan J McGraw, Esq.
     KIRCHER LAW OFFICE, LLC
     4824 Socialville-Foster Rd # 110
     Mason, OH 45040
     Tel: (513)229-7996


SHIPCOM WIRELESS: "Novick" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Justin Novick, Chris Kehn, James Abraham and Zahid Islam, on
behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Shipcom Wireless, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00730 (S.D.
Tex., March 18, 2016), seeks overtime wages for all hours worked
in excess of 40 hours in a work week, corresponding liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and expenses of this
action, post-judgment interest at the highest legal rate and such
other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Novick, Abraham and Kehn worked as trainers. Islam worked as
accounts payable/financial analyst. They claim to have not receive
overtime compensation for work rendered in excess of 40 hours per
workweek.

Shipcom Wireless Inc. is a provider of integrated supply chain
execution software solutions, located at 11200 Richmond Ave,
Houston, TX 77082.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daryl J. Sinkule, Esq.
      Mark G. Lazarz
      Daryl J. Sinkule
      SHELLIST, LAZARZ, SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Email: mlazarz@eeoc.net
             dsinkule@eeoc.net


SHUTTERFLY INC: Faces "Ayala" Suit in Calif. State Court
--------------------------------------------------------
Ray Anthony Ayala, Jr., individually and on behalf ofa class of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Shutterfly, Inc.,
DotCopy, Inc.; and Does 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No.
BC611968, (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016), asserts claims for
damages, restitution, injunctive and other equitable
relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to
California Business and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq.,
17535, 17600 et seq., and Code of Civil Procedure Section 1021.5.

Defendant Shutterfly, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Redwood City, California. On
October 31, 2014, Shutterfly acquired the Groovebook smartphone
application from DotCopy, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Walter J. Lack, Esq.
     Paul A. Traina, Esq.
     Ian P. Samson, Esq.
     ENGSTROM, LIPSCOMB & LACK
     A Professional Corporation
     10100 Santa Monica Boulevard, 12th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-4113
     Tel: (310) 552-3800
     Fax: (310) 552-9434

          - and -

     Brian J. Soo-Hoo, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF BRIAN J. SOO-HOO
     601 Parkcenter Drive, Suite 105
     Santa Ana, CA 92705-3543
     Tel: (714) 589-2252
     Fax: (714) 589-2254
     Email: soohoolaw@gmail.com


SIGMA SECURITY: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Deanna Phillips and Camille Bivins, Plaintiffs, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00801-ELH v. Sigma Security, LLC and Richard Fleurimond,
Defendants, (D. Md., March 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under Section 16(b) of the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act of 1938.

Defendants hired Plaintiffs as security guards and withheld
overtime wages owed to Plaintiffs, says the complaint.

Sigma Security, LLC provides security services to organizations
and companies in the Baltimore metro region. Its principal office
is located in Baltimore, City, Maryland. It is owned and operated
by Richard Fleurimond.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      George E. Swegman, Esq.
      Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
      36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
      Baltimore, MD 21201
      Tel: (410) 244-7005
      Fax: (410) 244-8454
      Email: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
             bdavis@nicholllaw.com


SOVRAN SELF STORAGE: New Jersey Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Sovran Self Storage, 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 against a class action in New Jersey.

On or about August 25, 2014, a putative class action was filed
against the Company in the Superior Court of New Jersey Law
Division Burlington County. The action seeks to obtain
declaratory, injunctive and monetary relief for a class of
consumers based upon alleged violations by the Company of the New
Jersey Truth in Customer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act, the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the New Jersey Insurance
Producer Licensing Act.

On October 17, 2014, the action was removed from the Superior
Court of New Jersey Law Division Burlington County to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The Company
brought a motion to partially dismiss the complaint for failure to
state a claim, and on July 16, 2015, the Company's motion was
granted in part and denied in part.

The Company intends to vigorously defend the action, and the
possibility of any adverse outcome cannot be determined at this
time.

Sovran Self Storage, Inc. is a self-administered and self-managed
real estate investment trust ("REIT") that acquires, owns and
manages self-storage properties.


SPOTIFY: Enters Into Out-of-Court-Settlement with NMPA
------------------------------------------------------
Music Business Worldwide reports that the US's National Music
Publishers' Association (NMPA) had reached an out-of-court
settlement agreement with Spotify regarding unmatched (and unpaid)
publishing royalties on its service.

The deal is believed to be worth a total of $30m, with $25m
attributed to due royalties from the service plus a further $5m
bonus/penalty payment.

The $25m sum will be shared amongst publishers and songwriters
based on the usage of their music, while the further $5m will be
split between publishers on a market share basis.

Songwriters and publishers will have three months from the
beginning of April to decide whether they want to opt-in to the
settlement.

Not everyone is completely positive about the news, however.  On
March 18, the legal company Michelman & Robinson, LLP warned
songwriters to think very hard about the consequences before
signing up to the NMPA's deal.

Michelman & Robinson, to be clear, has something of a one-sided
interest in such outcomes: it is representing David Lowery in his
$150m class action lawsuit against Spotify over allegedly unpaid
US mechanical royalties.

If songwriters sign up to the NMPA deal, they will be unable to
participate in the Lowery class action suit.


David Israelite, CEO of the NMPA, told MBW that he expects all
major publishers to sign up to his organization's settlement.

And in an interesting note of caution for Spotify's rivals, he
suggests that should the NMPA not be able to reach similarly
friendly settlements with other platforms, its course of action
may have to turn more hostile.


SPRINT CORP: Court Grants Preliminary Approval of "Bui" Accord
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted Plaintiffs' Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement  in the case
captioned, VIET BUI and CHRISTINA AVALOS-REYES, individually and
on behalf of all other similarly situated employees, and on behalf
of the general public, Plaintiffs, v. SPRINT CORPORATION, a SPRINT
COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., a Delaware Corporation;
SPRINT/UNITED MANAGEMENT CO., a Delaware Corporation; and DOES 1
through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:14-CV-02461-TLN-AC
(E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs bring the class action lawsuit on behalf of 11
subclasses of telecommunications workers who were or are employed
by Sprint. On July 10, 2014, Plaintiff Viet Bui filed his
Complaint in Sacramento County Superior Court against Defendants
for alleged violations of the California Labor Code. On September
4, 2014, Plaintiff Viet Bui filed a First Amended Complaint.
Pursuant to a Stipulation filed with the Court on May 18, 2015,
Plaintiff Viet Bui's request to file a second amended complaint
was approved by the Court on May 26, 2015. Plaintiffs filed their
Second Amended Complaint, adding Plaintiff Christina Avalos-Reyes,
on May 28, 2015.

In the Second Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allege that
Defendants: (1) failed to provide meal periods in violation of
California Labor Code Sections 226.7 and 512, and the California
Code of Regulations; (2) failed to provide rest periods in
violation of Labor Code and the California Code of Regulations;
(3) failed to pay wages and related overtime compensation in
violation of California Labor Code Sections 1194 and 1198; (4)
underpaid overtime wages in violation of Labor Code and Industrial
Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order Sec. 3; (5) failed to provide
reimbursement for business expenses in violation of California
Labor Code Sections 2802 and 406-407; (6) violated Labor Code
Sec.2698 et seq.; (7) failed to pay wages due and payable twice
monthly in violation of California Labor Code Sec. 204; (8) failed
to pay all wages due upon ending employment in violation of Labor
Code Sections 201-203; and (9) engaged in unlawful competition and
unlawful business practices in violation of California Business
and Professions Code Sections 17200 et seq. Plaintiffs request
penalties pursuant to the Private Attorney General Act of 2004
(PAGA) under Labor Code Sections 2699 et seq. Defendants deny all
of Plaintiffs' allegations.

The Parties exchanged discovery, reviewed and analyzed documents
and records of class members, and retained experts to calculate
damages. With Judge Infante's assistance the Parties were able to
reach an agreement on the terms of a settlement. Plaintiffs filed
a Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on
May 18, 2015. Plaintiffs' Motion requests that this Court order
the following: (1) grant preliminary approval of the Proposed
Class Action Settlement; (2) grant leave to file a Second Amended
Complaint; (3) approve Rust Consulting, Inc. as Claims
Administrator; (4) approve the Notice to the Settlement Class and
authorize sending of the Notice to Class Members; (5) grant
provisional certification of the Settlement Class for settlement
purposes only; (6) confirm Plaintiffs' counsel as Class Counsel
and preliminarily approve of their fees and costs; (7) approve
Plaintiffs Viet Bui and Christina Avalos-Reyes as the Class
Representatives; and (8) schedule a Final Fairness Hearing for
final approval of the settlement.

In his Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/030tEKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nunley found that the
method of notice administered by the parties are reasonable and
satisfied the requirements of FRCP 23(c)(2)(B).

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
     THE PHELPS LAW GROUP
     10850 E. Traverse Highway, Suite 5550
     Traverse City, MI 49684
     Tel: (231)421-6577

          - and -

     Richard Edward Quintilone, II, Esq.
     QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
     22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
     Lake Forest, CA 92630
     Tel: (949)458-9675

          - and -

     Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
     THE CARTER LAW FIRM
     205 20th St. N. Suite 719
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)202-4050

Defendants are represented by Keith Allyn Goodwin, Esq. --
kgoodwin@proskauer.com -- Enzo DerBoghossian, Esq. --
ederboghossian@proskauer.com -- Harold M. Brody, Esq. --
hbrody@proskauer.com -- PROSKAUER ROSE LLP


STALEY INC: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Del Castillo" Suit Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Del Castillo, individually, and on behalf of other
members of the general public similarly situated and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private
Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. Staley, Inc., Staley
Technologies, and DOES 1-100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC611897, (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016), seeks monetary damages
and restitution pursuant to the California Code of Civil
Procedure section 382.  According to the Complaint, Defendants
failed to pay Plaintiff and the other class members who are no
longer employed by Defendants' their wages, earned and unpaid,
within 72 hours of their leaving Defendants' employ, is in
violation of California Labor Code sections 201 and 202.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
     LAWYERS for JUSTICE, PC
     410 West Arden Avenue, Suite 203
     Glendale, CA 91203
     Tel: (818) 265-1020
     Fax: (818) 265-1021


SUNSTONE RED: Faces "Velasquez" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianella Velasquez, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. Sunstone Red Oak LLC agent of Renaissance
Westchester Hotel, Sunstone Red Oak Lessee, Inc., Sunstone Hotel
TRS Lessee, Inc., Highgate Hotels, L.P., John V. Arabia, Paul R.
Womble, Rickey Whitworth, Bryan A. Giglia, and Robert Springer,
Case No. 7:16-cv-01996 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants are engaged in the hotel and motel business with
their principal place of business in Aliso Viejo, CA.

Marianella Velasquez is a pro se plaintiff.


SYNCHRONY BANK: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "McMullen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James E. Boasberg of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia denied Synchrony Bank's motion
to compel arbitration, their motion to dismiss the three counts
asserted against them in the case captioned, VALERIE McMULLEN,
Plaintiff, v. SYNCHRONY BANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-1983
(D.D.C.).

Valerie McMullen brought the instant suit against seven named
Defendants and various unidentified corporations and individuals,
asserting seven counts that include violations of District of
Columbia common law and the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures
Act namely; violations of the CPPA, civil conspiracy, common-law
fraud, conversion, breach of contract, breach of good faith and
fair dealing, vicarious liability, and punitive damages. The suit
alleges that fitness companies and two banks conspired to defraud
gym member Plaintiff Valerie McMullen by opening unauthorized
lines of credit in her name and processing unauthorized charges
against that credit. McMullen later amended her Complaint to
include class-action claims, seeking relief on behalf of a
putative class of "all One World Fitness customers who received
financing from the Bank Defendants."

Defendant Chase then removed the suit to federal court pursuant to
the diversity-removal provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act.
Plaintiff thereafter sought remand to state court, but Judge John
Bates, to whom the case was previously assigned, denied her
motion, even after permitting additional jurisdictional discovery.

Chase moved to dismiss the claims asserted against it --
specifically, violations of the CPPA, fraud and conspiracy under
D.C. common law, and punitive damages. Defendant Synchrony,
meanwhile, filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration, and also joined
Chase's Motion to Dismiss.

In the Memorandum Opinion dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/RdHsfSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Boasberg found no basis
to compel arbitration and no ground to deny leave to amend. The
Court permits the suit to proceed with the proposed amended
complaint. The Court also concluded that the claims in the
Complaint are largely not an exercise in futility unlike some gym
memberships.

Valerie McMullin is represented by Brendan James Klaproth, Esq.
-- bklaproth@klaprothlaw.com -- KLAPROTH LAW PLLC, Christopher J.
Regan, Esq. -- cregan@reganfirm.com -- Patrick Michael Regan, Esq.
-- pregan@reganfirm.com -- Salvatore J. Zambri, Esq. --
szambri@reganfirm.com -- REGAN ZAMBRI & LONG, PLLC

Defendants are represented by Amelia J. Schmidt, Esq. --
aschmidt@stroock.com -- Gregory Thomas Jaeger, Esq. --
gjaeger@stroock.com -- Brendan S. Everman, Esq. --
beverman@stroock.com -- Julia B. Strickland, Esq. --
jstrickland@stroock.com -- Marcos D. Sasso, Esq. --
msasso@stroock.com -- STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP


TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE: 9th Cir. Revives Video Game Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Bruce McMahon and Christopher Bengston, two video game enthusiasts
filed a putative class action against Take-Two Interactive
Software, Inc. and Rockstar Games, Inc., companies that produce
and distribute video games. Plaintiffs stated a claim for
restitution under California's unfair competition law (UCL), Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 et seq., and false advertising law
(FAL), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17500, and alleged that they
were induced to pay a premium price for a video game that did not
perform as represented. Plaintiffs alleged that they read all the
disclosures and statements on Grand Theft Auto V (GTA V)'s
packaging, and that these representations led them to believe that
GTA Online would be available to play immediately upon purchase of
GTA V. Contrary to these representations, GTA Online was not
available immediately to any purchasers.

The district court dismissed the complaint concluding as a matter
of law that the alleged misrepresentations on GTA V's packaging
were not actionable under the UCL or the FAL.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal with prejudice, contending that
the district court erred in concluding as a matter of law that the
alleged misrepresentations on GTA V's packaging were not
actionable under the UCL or the FAL.

In the Memorandum and Order dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/qUIohwfrom Leagle.com, the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit concluded that the district court erred in
concluding as a matter of law that the alleged misrepresentations
on GTA V's packaging were not actionable under the UCL or the FAL.
The UCL proscribes "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent" business
practices, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, and the FAL
prohibits the dissemination of any advertising "which is untrue or
misleading" and that it abused its discretion by denying
plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint.

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and
Andrew D. Hurwitz and Judge Thomas Owen Rice, Chief U.S. District
Judge for the Eastern District of Washington, sitting by
designation.

The appellate case is captioned, BRUCE McMAHON, on behalf of
himself; CHRISTOPHER BENGSTON, on behalf of himself; and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. TAKE-TWO
INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE, INC., and TAKE-TWO INTERACTIVE SOFTWARE,
INC., DBA Rockstar, Erroneously Sued As Rockstar Games, Inc.,
Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 14-55296 (9th Cir.).


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Garcia" Complaint in S.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------------
Target Corporation is facing a purported class action lawsuit in
Florida.  The case is, Israel Garcia, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. Target
Corporation, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20727-MGC, (S.D. Fla.,
February 27, 2016).  The case is assigned to Judge Marcia G.
Cooke.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     David Patrick Healy, Esq.
     2846-B Remington Green Circle
     Tallahassee, FL 32308
     Tel: (850) 222-5400
     Fax: (850) 222-7339
     Email: dhealy@davidhealylaw.com


TCP INTERNATIONAL: "Sohol" 2nd Amended Complaint Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dan Aaron Polster of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio granted Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (SAC) in the case
captioned, SANTOKH SOHOL, individually and on behalf of all people
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. ELLIS YAN, et al., Defendants,
Case Nos. 1:15-CV-00393-DAP, 1:15-CV-00398-DAP, 1:15-CV-00917-DAP
(N.D. Ohio.).

According to the Second Amended Consolidated Class Action
Complaint (SAC), in the late-1980s and 1990s, Defendant Ellis Yan
and his brother began developing, manufacturing, and assembling
lighting products in China and formed TCP International Holdings,
Ltd., a company focused on lighting. On April 9, 2014, TCP filed
"a Draft Registration Statement on Form S-1 with the SEC" in order
to become a public company. The SAC alleges that the Registration
Statement and Prospectus made misrepresentations and failed to
disclose certain material facts. Plaintiff alleges five counts:
Violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act
(Counts I-III), and Violation of Section 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act (Counts IV
and V).

On March 2, 2015, and March 5, 2015, three related cases were
filed in the United States District Courts for the Northern
District of Ohio and the Southern District of New York.  These
three cases were consolidated into one case before this Court,
with the City of Warren appointed Lead Plaintiff. Consequently,
Plaintiff was directed to file a Consolidated Complaint.  The
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed on June 12, 2015, and
alleged that the Registration Statement and Prospectus issued by
TCP pursuant to its June 2014 IPO contained material misstatements
or omissions in violation of federal securities laws.

On June 20, 2015, Defendants TCP, Yan, Brian Catlett, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co., Canaccord Genuity Inc.,
and Cowen and Company, LLC filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.

In his Opinion and Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/F6V0jtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Polster found that the
SAC alleges very few instances of any actions prior to the IPO,
and what it does allege is not material. Plaintiff's inferences
are inadequate to ask the Court to infer that the potentially
material activities predated the IPO "without allegations of fact
supporting such an inference."

Plaintiffs are represented by Douglas S. Wilens, Esq. --
DWilens@rgrdlaw.com -- ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD

They are also represented by:

     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN
     1360 W 9th St #200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (866)823-3332

Ellis Yan is represented by Judy L. Woods, Esq. --
jwoods@beneschlaw.com -- BENESCH, FRIEDLANDER, COPLAN & ARONOFF

Yan is also represented by:

     Steven S. Kaufman, Esq.
     KAUFMAN & COMPANY
     101 Federal St # 1310
     Boston, MA 02110
     Tel: (617)426-0444

Defendants Brian Catlett and TCP International Holdings Ltd., are
represented by Charles F. Smith, Jr. -- charles.smith@skadden.com
-- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom, Gail L. Ellis, Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom, Marcella L. Lape, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom & Daniel R. Warren -- dwarren@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler.

Defendants Deutsch Bank Securities Inc., Piper Jaffray & Co.,
Canaccord Genuity Inc., and Cowen and Company, LLC, are
represented by Fritz E. Berckmueller -- fberckmueller@calfee.com
-- Calfee, Halter & Griswold, Adam S. Hakki -- ahakki@shearman.com
-- Shearman & Sterling, pro hac vice, Daniel C. Lewis, Shearman &
Sterling, pro hac vice, Kirsty F. McNamara, Calfee, Halter &
Griswold & Mitchell G. Blair, Calfee, Halter & Griswold.

Wang Jie Yi, Plaintiff, Movant, represented by James D. Wilson,
Law Office of James D. Wilson.

Leonard Z May, Movant, represented by Richard S. Wayne, Strauss &
Troy & Thomas P. Glass, Strauss & Troy.

Sohol & Scott, Movant, represented by Phillip C. Kim, Rosen Law
Firm.

Leonard Z May, Movant, represented by C. Dov Berger, Pomerantz,
Jeremy A. Lieberman, Pomerantz, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz,
Richard S. Wayne, Strauss & Troy & Thomas P. Glass, Strauss &
Troy.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: Court Remands "Patel" Action to San Mateo Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, MITESH PATEL, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM
GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 6:-CV-00073-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), District Judge Beth Labson Freeman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted
Plaintiff's motion to remand and request under 28 U.S.C. Sec.
1447(c) for attorneys' fees and expenses incurred as a result of
the removal.

Plaintiff Mitesh Patel filed a securities fraud class action
complaint on January 4, 2016 in California Superior Court, County
of San Mateo, against Defendants, TerraForm Global, Inc.
(TerraForm), SunEdison, TerraForm officers and directors, and
underwriters of TerraForm's initial public offering (IPO). The
complaint alleges violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of
the Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. Sections 77k, 77l(a)(2), and 770,
and asserts claims on behalf of Patel both individually and as a
representative of a class of persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired TerraForm Class A common stock pursuant or traceable to
the company's Registration Statement and Prospectus issued in
connection with TerraForm's IPO.  Patel does not allege any state
law causes of action.

On January 6, 2016, Defendants removed the action to the instant
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1441(a).

On January 15, 2016, Patel filed a motion to remand the matter
back to state court arguing that because the case concerns only
Securities Act claims, he concludes, Defendants are barred from
removing it to federal court. Defendants argue, the state court
where this case was initially filed is not a "court of competent
jurisdiction" for this case, and Sec. 77v(a)'s anti-removal
language is therefore inapplicable. Patel also requested
attorneys' fees and costs.

In her Order dated March 3, 2016 available at http://is.gd/1k7BUL
from Leagle.com, Judge Freeman rejected Defendants' arguments that
remand should be denied on the basis that two similar lawsuits had
concurrently been filed in the Northern District of California,
and that remanding Patel's lawsuit would bifurcate the litigation
concluding that the action is not removable to federal court under
15 U.S.C. Sections 77v(a), 77p(c), and 77p(b).

The Court found that Defendants lacked an objectively reasonable
basis for seeking removal and therefore awards Patel's request for
just costs and fees incurred in the motion. Any motion for fees
shall be filed within thirty days of the date of the order.

Mitesh Patel is represented by Laurence M. Rosen, Esq. --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

Defendants are represented by Sara B. Brody, Esq. --
sbrody@sidley.com -- Jaime Allyson Bartlett, Esq. --
jbartlett@sidley.com -- Norman J. Blears, Esq. --
nblears@sidley.com -- Sarah Alison Hemmendinger, Esq. --
shemmendinger@sidley.com -- SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP


TERVITA LLC: "Miljevich" Suit Seeks Back Pay and Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jason Miljevich, Eric Lutz and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Tervita, LLC and Republic Services, Inc. Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00038-CSM (D.N.D. Western Division, February 26,
2016), seeks unpaid back wages due, overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are waste disposal services companies where the
Plaintiffs worked as machine operators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jack Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Tel: (214) 706-0834
      Fax: (469) 339-0204

           - and =

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jay Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
      1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Tel: (214) 749-1400
      Fax: (214) 749-1010


TEXAS: E.D. Texas Judge Denies Class Certification in "Moore"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael H. Schneider of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Texas adopted the report of the
magistrate judge and denied Plaintiff Michael Moore's motion for
class certification in the case captioned, MICHAEL ANTHONY MOORE
v. BRAD LIVINGSTON, ET AL., Case No. 6:15-CV- 656 (E.D.Tex.).

The Plaintiff Michael Moore, proceeding pro se, filed the civil
rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. Sec.1983 complaining of alleged
violations of his constitutional rights during his confinement in
the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division. He has filed a motion asking that the
lawsuit be certified as a class action.

The Court ordered that the case be referred to the United States
Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec.636(b)(1) and (3) and
the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the
Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges. The
magistrate judge issued a report recommending that the motion be
denied because Moore did not allege or show that his claim
contained questions of law or fact common to the class he wishes
to certify, that his claims are typical of the claims or defenses
of the class, or that he will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. The magistrate judge also determined that
Moore failed to show that the prosecution of separate cases by
individual members of the putative class would give rise to
inconsistent adjudications, that the disposition of any of his
claims would affect the rights of other individuals, or that the
questions of law or fact common to the class predominate over
those affecting individual members.

In the motion, Plaintiff objects to the Recommendation of the
magistrate judge contending that he is alleging "a common course
of conduct maintained by the defendants" which is subject to
common proof and that he will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the class. Moore further states that a motion for
class certification cannot be defeated by arguing that the claims
will ultimately fail on the merits and that courts lack authority
to conduct a preliminary inquiry into the merits of a lawsuit in
order to determine whether it may be maintained as a class action.

In his Memorandum dated March 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/QXkZ53from Leagle.com, Judge Schneider found that
the magistrate judge properly determined that Moore's claims
alleging excessive use of force are subject to individualized
proof and that Moore's pleadings thereby fail to meet the
requirements of typicality and that Moore's objections are without
merit.


TOWER RESEARCH: Court Nixes "Choi" Suit Over Futures Contracts
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kimba M. Wood of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss, with leave to amend, in the case captioned, MYUN-UK
CHOI, JIN-HO JUNG, SUNG-HUN JUNG, SUNG-HEE LEE, and KYUNG SUB LEE,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. TOWER RESEARCH CAPITAL LLC and MARK GORTON,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-9912 (KMW) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Myun-Uk Choi, Jin-Ho Jung, Sung-Hun Jung, Sung-Hee Lee,
and Kyung-Sub Lee are members of a putative class comprised of
parties who transacted in certain futures contracts during 2012.
Plaintiffs allege that Tower Research Capital LLC and its CEO,
Mark Gorton used fictitious trades and other deceptive techniques
to manipulate the prices at which these futures contracts traded
on the Chicago Mercantile Exchange Globex platform. Plaintiffs
assert that this conduct violates the Commodity Exchange Act, 7
U.S.C. Sections 1, et seq., as well as state law.

Defendants subsequently moved to dismiss the complaint with
prejudice on March 4, 2015 arguing that United States law does not
apply to the alleged misconduct.

In the Opinion and Order dated February 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/znZDjnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wood concluded that
Plaintiffs have failed to allege any direct dealing or actual,
substantive relationship with the Defendants and that the CEA does
not apply to the alleged conduct under Morrison and Loginovskaya,
and that the Complaint fails to state a claim.

The Court directed Plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within
30 days upon issuance of the Opinion and Order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Daniel Stephen Sommers, Esq. --
dsommers@cohenmilstein.com -- John Douglas Richards, Esq. --
drichrads@cohenmilstein.com -- Michael Benjamin Eisenkraft, Esq. -
- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- Richard A. Speirs, Esq. --
rspiers@cohenmilstein.com -- Times Wang, Esq. --
twang@cohenmilstein.com -- COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC

They are also represented by:

     Youngki Rhee, Esq.
     DERYOOK INTERNATIONAL LAW FIRM
     5th Floor SH Building 1628-19
     Seocho-1dong, Seocho-ku
     Seoul 137-879
     Tel: (822)522 7330

Tower Research Capital, LLC is represented by Matthew Beville,
Esq. -- matthew.beville@wilmerhale.com -- Matthew Theodore
Martens, Esq. -- matthew.martens@wilmerhale.com -- WILMER CUTLER
PICKERING HALE & DORR LLP & Robert Walter Trenchard, Esq. --
rtrenchard@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER, LLP


TRADER JOE'S: "Joseph" Suit Alleges Under-filled Canned Tuna
------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Joseph, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Trader Joe's Company, Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-01371-ODW-AJW (C.D. Cal., February 26, 2016), seeks
disgorgement of profits, restitution, damages, equitable relief,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and such further and other
relief resulting from fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach
of express warranty, breach of implied warranty of merchantability
and unjust enrichment and for violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Unfair Competition Law,
California False Advertising Law, Consumer Fraud and Deceptive
Trade Practices Acts of the Various States and District of
Columbia.

Joseph alleges that Trader Joe's house brand canned tuna are
under-filled. Trader Joe's Company is a California corporation
with principal place of business in Monrovia, California. It owns
and operates over 400 stores in the United States and 172 stores
in the State of California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TRICAN WELL: "Alawar" Suit Seeks Backwages, Benefits
----------------------------------------------------
Rawad Alawar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, V. Trican Well Service, L.P., Defendant, Case
No. 5:16-cv-00202 (W.D. Tex., February 26, 2016), seeks damages,
back pay and benefits, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
reasonable attorney's fees and all other relief pursuant to the
Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act of 1988.

Alawar was employed by Defendant as an oilfield worker in their
West Texas oilfield operations that closed. Alawar claims that he
was not given sufficient notice and is demanding full back wages
and benefits.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Derek Hilley, Esq.
      Carlos A. Solis, Esq.
      310 S. St. Mary's St., Suite 2900
      San Antonio, TX 78205
      Tel: (210) 446-5000
      Fax: (210) 446-5001
      Email: csolis@hilley-solis.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Donald Trump Wants to Go to Court
---------------------------------------------------
Brenand O'Connor, writing for Gawker.com, reports that in
December, in a deposition regarding one of the class-action
lawsuits being brought against Trump University, Donald Trump
said, "I'm dying to go to court on this case."  On March 18,
however, his lawyers argued that by requesting a summer trial the
plaintiffs were trying to undermine his presidential campaign.

"I so look forward to having this case go to court. I've been
waiting for it for a long time," Mr. Trump said in the December 10
deposition, taken at Trump Tower in New York City.  "Let's just go
to court and get this case -- I'm dying to go to court on this
case."

But in a filing submitted on March 18, Mr. Trump's lawyers wrote
that the plaintiffs' request for a trial date in June or August
constitutes "a transparent attempt to prejudice defendants'
ability to defend this case at trial while Mr. Trump is running
for President."  The Republican National Convention is in July.

"Defendants have a constitutional right to a jury trial for
certain claims and have demanded a jury.  Until now, plaintiffs
have also demanded a jury trial," they wrote.  "Plaintiffs'
proposal also would require the Court to conduct a trial at a time
when this case has become a politicized national story and while
Mr. Trump is running for President."

At a status conference in December, in California, one of the
plaintiffs' attorneys, Jason Forge, acknowledged the difficulty
the fact that Mr. Trump is running for president presents.  "We've
all seen high-profile cases, but nothing like this,"
Mr. Forge told the judge.  "Whether that impacts our ability to
pick a fair jury, it would be foolish for me to say it wouldn't. I
mean, of course it would. Whether it makes it impossible, I just
don't know."

"I know we have one fair and unbiased fact-finder here," he said,
referring, presumably, to Judge Curiel, "who would be unaffected
by the publicity." (Trump has disputed whether Curiel is, in fact,
fair and unbiased.)

The day before, lawyers for the plaintiffs had requested that
Judge Gonzalo Curiel set a trial date at the next status
conference. "Time is of the essence in getting this case to
trial," they wrote in a filing submitted on March 17.  The class-
action lawsuit includes a number of individuals who are elderly,
who, according to court documents, "need resolution before it is
too late."

"The fate of their claims should not depend on the political
process or the level of publicity this case garners, which is out
of their control," their lawyers wrote.

Meanwhile, Mr. Trump may be called as a witness in another
potential trial relating to Trump University, in New York, where
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is pursuing a $40 million fraud
case against the Republican frontrunner.  The attorney general has
asked the judge in that case to rule on the case without a trial -
- a hearing is scheduled for April 26.  If the judge rejects Judge
Schneiderman's request, the case will likely move to a bench
trial, which recent court filings indicate the AG wants to happen
as quickly as possible.


TYSON FOODS: Loses Supreme Court Appeal in "Bouaphakeo"
-------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of the United States upheld a decision by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit that affirmed the
judgment of the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Iowa in favor of workers at Tyson Foods, Inc.'s meat-
processing plant in Iowa.

Following a jury trial, a class of employees recovered $2.9
million in compensatory damages from their employer for a
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), 52 Stat.
1060, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq.  The employees'
primary grievance was that they did not receive statutorily
mandated overtime pay for time spent donning and doffing
protective equipment.

Tyson seeks to reverse the judgment, arguing that the class should
not have been certified because the primary method of proving
injury assumed each employee spent the same time donning and
doffing protective gear, even though differences in the
composition of that gear may have meant that, in fact, employees
took different amounts of time to don and doff. Second, the
employer argues certification was improper because the damages
awarded to the class may be distributed to some persons who did
not work any uncompensated overtime.

The Eighth Circuit concluded there was no error in the District
Court's decision to certify and maintain the class.

The Supreme Court voted 6-2 for the workers.  Justice Anthony
Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.  A copy of the March
22 decision is available at http://is.gd/RUB6hFfrom Leagle.com.

Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Ruth Joan Bader Ginsburg,
Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan joined.  C.J.
Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Samuel Alito,
joined as to Part II.  Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissenting
opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.

According to Justice Thomas, the majority reaches a contrary
result by erring in three significant ways: "First, the majority
alters the predominance inquiry so that important individual
issues are less likely to defeat class certification. Next, the
majority creates a special, relaxed rule authorizing plaintiffs to
use otherwise inadequate representative evidence in FLSA-based
cases by misreading Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S.
680 (1946). Finally, the majority points to Tyson's litigation
strategy and purported differences from prior Rule 23 precedents.
None of these justifications withstands scrutiny."

The case is, TYSON FOODS, INC., PETITIONER, v. PEG BOUAPHAKEO, ET
AL., INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
No. 14-1146 (U.S.).

Attorneys for Petitioner Tyson Foods, Inc.:

     Carter G. Phillips, Esq.
     Sidley Austin LLP
     1501 K Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20005
     Tel: (202) 736-8270
     E-mail: cphillips@sidley.com

Attorneys for Respondents Peg Bouaphakeo, et al., Individually and
on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated:

     Scott Michelman, Esq.
     Public Citizen Litigation Group
     1600 20th Street NW
     Washington, DC  20009
     Tel: (202) 588-1000
     E-mail: smichelman@citizen.org

          - and -

     David C. Frederick, Esq.
     Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C.
     1615 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202) 326-7900
     E-mail: dfrederick@khhte.com

Attorneys for Association of American Railroads:

     J. Scott Ballenger, Esq.
     Latham & Watkins LLP
     555 11th Street, NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC  20004
     Tel: (202) 637-2145
     E-mail: scott.ballenger@lw.com

Attorneys for Product Liability Advisory Council, Inc.:

     John H. Beisner, Esq.
     Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP
     1440 New York Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC  20005
     Tel: (202) 371-7000
     E-mail: John.Beisner@skadden.com

Counsel to Dow Chemical Company:

     Timothy S. Bishop, Esq.
     Mayer Brown LLP
     71 South Wacker Drive
     Chicago, IL  60606
     Tel: (312) 782-0600
     E-mail: tbishop@mayerbrown.com

Counsel to Pacific Legal Foundation:

     Anastasia P. Boden, Esq.
     Pacific Legal Foundation
     930 G Street
     Tel: (916) 419-7111
     Sacramento, CA  95814
     E-mail: apb@pacificlegal.org

Counsel to Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.:

     Theodore J. Boutrous Jr., Esq.
     Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
     Tel: (213) 229-7000
     333 South Grand Avenue
     Los Angeles, CA  90071
     E-mail: tboutrous@gibsondunn.com

Counsel to Urethanes Plaintiffs:

     Paul D. Clement, Esq.
     Bancroft PLLC
     500 New Jersey Ave., NW, Seventh Floor
     Washington, DC  20001
     Tel: (202) 234-0090
     E-mail: pclement@bancroftpllc.com

Counsel to Complex Litigation Law Professors:

     Robert A. Clifford, Esq.
     Clifford Law Offices
     120 N. LaSalle Street, 31st Floor
     Chicago, IL  60602
     Tel: (312) 899-9090
     E-mail: rac@cliffordlaw.com

Counsel to Civil Procedure Scholars in support of neither party:

     Allan H. Erbsen, Esq.
     University of Minnesota Law School
     229 19th Avenue South
     Minneapolis, MN  55455
     Tel: 612-626-6632
     E-mail: aerbsen@umn.edu

Counsel to National Association of Manufacturers, et al.:

     Philip S. Goldberg, Esq.
     Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP
     Tel: (202) 783-8400
     1155 F Street NW
     Washington, DC  20004
     E-mail: pgoldberg@shb.com

Counsel to Cato Institute:

     Andrew M. Grossman, Esq.
     Baker & Hostetler LLP
     Washington Sq., Suite 1100
     1050 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202)-861-1697
     E-mail: agrossman@bakerlaw.com

Counsel to Impact Fund, et al.:

     Deepak Gupta, Esq.
     Gupta Wessler PLLC
     Tel: (202) 888-1741
     1735 20th Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20009
     E-mail: deepak@guptawessler.com

Counsel to DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar:

     William M. Jay, Esq.
     Goodwin Procter LLP
     901 New York Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20001
     Tel: (202) 346-4000
     E-mail: wjay@goodwinprocter.com

Counsel to Atlantic Legal Foundation and The International
Association of Defense Counsel:

     Martin S. Kaufman, Esq.
     Atlantic Legal Foundation
     2039 Palmer Avenue #104
     Larchmont, NY  10538
     Tel: (914) 834-3322
     E-mail: mskaufman@atlanticlegal.org

Counsel to U.S. Poultry & Egg Association:

     D. Christopher Lauderdale, Esq.
     Jackson Lewis, PC
     15 South Main St., Suite 700
     Greenville, SC  29601
     Tel: (864)-232-7000
     E-mail: Lauderdc@jackonlewis.com

Counsel to AARP, et al.:

     Seth R. Lesser, Esq.
     Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP
     Two International Drive, Suite 350
     Rye Brook, NY  10573
     Tel: (914) 934-9200
     E-mail: seth@klafterolsen.com

Counsel to Consumer Data Industry Association:

     Robert A. Long Jr., Esq.
     Covington & Burling LLP
     OneCity Center
     850 Tenth Street, NW
     Washington, DC  20004-2401
     Tel: (202) 662-6000
     E-mail: rlong@cov.com

Counsel to Economists and Other Social Scientists:

     Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
     Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
     Philadelphia, PA  19107
     Tel: (215) 864-2800
     E-mail: emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

Counsel to Trans Union LLC:

     Stephen J. Newman, Esq.
     Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA  90067
     Tel: (310) 556-5800
     E-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com

Counsel to Professors Alexandra D. Lahav & Sachin S. Pandya:

     Sachin S. Pandya
     University of Connecticut School of Law
     65 Elizabeth Street
     Hartford, CT  06105
     E-mail: sachin.pandya@uconn.edu
     Tel: 860 570-5169

Counsel to Chamber of Commerce of the United States, et al.:

     Ashley C. Parrish, Esq.
     King & Spalding LLP
     1700 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC  20006
     Tel: (202) 737-0500
     E-mail: aparrish@kslaw.com

Counsel to Braun and Hummel:

     Robert S. Peck, Esq.
     Center for Constitutional Litigation, P.C.
     777 6th Street, NW, Suite 250
     Washington, DC  20001
     Tel: (202) 944-2803
     E-mail: robert.peck@cclfirm.com

Counsel to United States:

     Elizabeth Barchas Prelogar
     Assistant to the Solicitor General
     Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20530
     Tel: (202) 514-2201

Counsel to American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organizations:

     Lynn K. Rhinehart
     815 16th Street, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20006
     Tel: (202) 637-5310
     E-mail: jcoppess@aflcio.org

Counsel to Civil Procedure Professors:

     David N. Rosen, Esq.
     David Rosen & Associates PC
     400 Orange St.
     New Haven, CT  06511
     Tel: (203) 787-3513
     E-mail: drosen@davidrosenlaw.com

Counsel to Washington Legal Foundation:

     Richard A. Samp, Esq.
     Washington Legal Foundation
     2009 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20036
     Tel: (202) 588-0302
     E-mail: rsamp@wlf.org

Counsel to Public Justice, P.C.:

     Jonathan D. Selbin, Esq.
     Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein
     250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor
     New York, NY  10013-1413
     Tel: (212) 355-9500
     E-mail: jselbin@lchb.com

Counsel to United Food and Commercial Workers International Union:

     Joseph M. Sellers, Esq.
     Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC
     1100 New York Avenue, NW
     Suite 500 - West Tower
     Washington, DC  20005
     Tel: (202) 408-4600
     E-mail: jsellers@cohenmilstein.com

Counsel to Illinois, et al.:

     Carolyn E. Shapiro
     Solicitor General
     100 West Randolph Street, 12th Floor
     Chicago, IL  60601
     Tel: (312) 814-5376
     E-mail: cshapiro@atg.state.il.us

Counsel to American Independent Business Alliance:

     Thomas V. Urmy Jr., Esq.
     Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP
     2 Seaport Lane
     Boston, MA  02210
     Tel: (617) 439-3939
     E-mail: turmy@shulaw.com

Counsel to Equal Employment Advisory Council:

     Rae T. Vann
     NT Lakis, LLP
     1501 M Street, N.W., Suite 400
     Washington, DC  20005
     Tel: (202) 629-5600
     E-mail: rvann@ntlakis.com

Counsel to the United States:

     Donald B. Verrilli Jr.
     Solicitor General
     United States Department of Justice
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Washington, DC  20530-0001
     Tel: (202) 514-2217
     E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov

Counsel to American Association for Justice:

     Jeffrey R. White
     Center for Constitutional Litigation PC
     777 6th Street, N.W., Suite 250
     Washington, DC  20001
     Tel: (202) 944-2803
     E-mail: jeffrey.white@cclfirm.com

Counsel to The National Chicken Council:

     James W. Wimberly Jr., Esq.
     Wimberly Lawson Steckel Schneider & Stine PC
     3400 Peachtree Road NE
     Suite 400 - Lenox Towers
     Atlanta, GA  30326-1107
     Tel: (404) 365-0900
     E-mail: jww@wimlaw.com


UNIT CORPORATION: Panola ISD Class Action Still Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
UNIT 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 Company continues to
defend the case, Panola Independent School District No. 4, et al.
v. Unit Petroleum Company, No. CJ-07-215, District Court of
Latimer County, Oklahoma.

Panola Independent School District No. 4, Michael Kilpatrick, Gwen
Grego, Carla Lessel, Thelma Christine Pate, Juanita Golightly,
Melody Culberson, and Charlotte Abernathy are the Plaintiffs in
this case and are royalty owners in oil and gas drilling and
spacing units for which the company's exploration segment
distributes royalty. The Plaintiffs' central allegation is that
the company's exploration segment has underpaid royalty
obligations by deducting post-production costs or marketing
related fees.

"Plaintiffs sought to pursue the case as a class action on behalf
of persons who receive royalty from us for our Oklahoma
production," the Company said.  "We have asserted several defenses
including that the deductions are permitted under Oklahoma law. We
have also asserted that the case should not be tried as a class
action due to the materially different circumstances that
determine what, if any, deductions are taken for each lease."

On December 16, 2009, the trial court entered its order certifying
the class. On May 11, 2012 the court of civil appeals reversed the
trial court's order certifying the class. The Plaintiffs
petitioned the supreme court for certiorari and on October 8,
2012, the Plaintiff's petition was denied.

On January 22, 2013, the Plaintiffs filed a second request to
certify a class of royalty owners that was slightly smaller than
their first attempt. Since then, the Plaintiffs have further
amended their proposed class to just include royalty owners
entitled to royalties under certain leases located in Latimer, Le
Flore, and Pittsburg Counties, Oklahoma.

"In July 2014, a second class certification hearing was held
where, in addition to the defenses, we argued that the amended
class definition is still deficient under the court of civil
appeals opinion reversing the initial class certification. Closing
arguments were held on December 2, 2014. There is no timetable for
when the court will issue its ruling. The merits of Plaintiffs'
claims will remain stayed while class certification issues are
pending," the Company said.

In addition to drilling operations, Unit Corp. has operations in
the exploration and production and mid-stream areas.


UNITED GUARANTY: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Raymond Fernandez o/b/o himself and all similarly-situated
individuals v. United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of
North Carolina, Case No. 8:16-cv-00638-JSM-TBM (M.D. Fla., March
18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

United Guaranty Residential Insurance Company of North Carolina is
a mortgage lender with a principal place of business located at
230 N Elm St, Greensboro, NC 27401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed in "Smith" Case in D.C. Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Lee Smith, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
United States of America, Terrence W. Boyle, State of North
Carolina, Michael F. Easley, Lexis Publishing, and Nancy S. Nash,
Defendants, Case No. 16-5038, (D.C. Cir., February 26, 2016),
seeks review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in Case No.
1:15-cv-02123-UNA.  The nature of the suit is "Prisoner-Civil
Rights".

Plaintiff David Lee Smith is an inmate at the Maury Correctional
Institution in North Carolina.

The United States of America is represented by:

     R. Craig Lawrence, Esq.
     U.S. Attorney's Office
     555 4th Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20530
     Tel: (202) 252-2500


VALENTINE & KEBARTAS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Aiton" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Aiton, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Valentine & Kebartas, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01489-MAS-LHG (D.N.J., March 17, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants own and operate a third party collection agency
located at 15 Union St # 6, Lawrence, MA 01840.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


VEGGIE GRILL: "Vasquez" Complaint Seeks Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Ermelinda Vasquez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. The Veggie Grill, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC611966, (Cal. Super., February 26, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid compensation arising from defendants'
failure to provide employees meal and rest periods as required
under California law, unpaid overtime compensation, unpaid minimum
wage, and unreimbursed business expenses. Plaintiff also seeks
penalties, interest, attorney's fees, costs and expenses, and
equitable, restitutionary, and injunctive relief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
     Launa Adolph, Esq.
     Janette C. Lee, Esq.
     MATERN LAW GROUP
     1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 200
     Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
     Tel: (310) 531-1900
     Fax: (310) 531-1901


VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT: Missouri Judge Narrows "Golan" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge E. Richard Webber of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri granted in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, RON
GOLAN, et al., Plaintiff, v. VERITAS ENTERTAINMENT, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV000069 ERW (E.D. Mo.).

Since 2010, Plaintiffs have been accountholders of the residential
telephone number (636) 812-2121. On September 10 and 12, 2012,
ccAdvertising initiated calls to Plaintiffs' residential phone
number using Huckabee's pre-recorded voice to deliver a message
encouraging Plaintiffs to see the movie. Plaintiffs received two
of these phone calls. The phone number calling Plaintiffs was 202-
769-1087 which appeared as "2012FREERSRCH" on their caller ID.
Plaintiffs did not state a desire to receive these calls.

Plaintiffs Ron Golan and Doris Golan initiated the instant lawsuit
by filing a petition in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County on
October 3, 2012. They allege the named defendants violated section
227(b)(1)(B) of the TCPA, which, with certain exceptions,
prohibits persons from initiating calls to residential telephone
lines using a prerecorded voice to deliver a message without the
called party's prior express consent.

Defendants, in their separate Motions to Dismiss, assert the
Amended Complaint fails to state a claim, pursuant to FRCP
12(b)(6), because it does not allege facts to establish direct or
vicarious liability.

Plaintiffs claim the moving defendants invested in the project,
directed what the advertisement would say and when it was to be
played, controlled the finances of the project, encouraged the
advertisement of the movie through the telemarketing, encouraged
Huckabee to participate, and reviewed and edited the script for
the telephone calls. Plaintiffs also assert Defendants ratified
ccAdvertising's conduct.

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tllilWfrom Leagle.com, Judge Webber found that as to
Defendants Mission City Management, Inc. and Courage 2012, LLC,
the Amended Complaint contains sufficient allegations to avoid
dismissal at this stage of the case. As to Defendant Michael
Huckabee, the Amended Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts
showing ccAdvertising acted as an agent for Huckabee under any of
Plaintiffs' theories of liability, including apparent authority or
ratification.

Plaintiffs are represented by Robert Schultz, Esq. -- rschultz@sl-
lawyers.com -- Ronald J. Eisenberg, Esq. -- reisenberg@sl-
lawyers.com -- SCHULTZ AND ASSOCIATES, L.L.P.

Veritas Marketing Gropu, LLC is represented by Ari Nicholas
Rothman, Esq. -- anrothman@Venable.com -- Ronald M. Jacobs, Esq.
-- rmjacobs@Venable.com -- VENABLE LLP, Cicely I. Lubben, Esq. --
cicely.lubben@stinson.com -- Kimberly Means Steuterman, Esq. --
kimberly.steuterman@stinson.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP


VIRGINIA: Class Suit Over Inmate's Death Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Sherry Lynn Thornhill, on behalf of herself and as
administrator of the estate of her son, Shawn Christopher Berry,
filed the action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and Virginia Code
against the Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority,
Superintendant F. Glenn Aylor, and several employees at the
Central Virginia Regional Jail arising out of Berry's death while
in custody.

Thornhill alleges that defendants failed to: (1) recognize Berry's
imminent likelihood of withdrawal, (2) identify the risk of
Berry's impaired swallowing due to his severe vomiting, but
continued to give him liquid and pills by mouth, (3) accurately
assess Berry's vital signs, (4) reassess Berry for instability
during each shift, (5) recognize the signs and symptoms of
deficient fluid volume and hypovolemic shock, (6) treat seizure
symptoms and recognize ineffective breathing pattern, (7)
recognize and treat severe withdrawal symptoms, (8) assess the
risk for bleeding, and (9) treat the symptoms of gastrointestinal
bleeding.

The case is presently before the court on defendants' motions to
dismiss and the Authority's motion to deny class certification.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated February 19, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/9n5wVhfrom Leagle.com, Chief District Judge Glen E.
Conrad of the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia:

     -- granted motions to dismiss filed by defendants Erin
        O. LaPanta, Robert J. Counts, Jeremy D. Boston, Michael
        Horrocks, Eric Last, and Thomas Vogt;

     -- granted in part the Authority's motions to dismiss; and

     -- granted the Authority's motion to deny class
        certification.

Judge Conrad concluded that Thornhill failed to plausibly alleged
facts to support maintenance of a class action. Based on the
current parameters of the putative class, the court does not
believe that discovery will remedy the broad, unrelated
allegations in the complaint. Only Counts II and III will go
forward against the Authority, Aylor, Christie M. Apple-Figgins,
Jasmine Buckner-Jones, and Amanda Pitts.

The case is captioned, SHERRY LYNN THORNHILL, for herself and as
Administrator of the Estate of her son, Shawn Christopher Berry,
deceased, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. F. GLENN AYLOR, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 3:15-CV-00024 (W.D. Va.).

Sherry Lynn Thronhill is represented by Uri Nazryan, Esq. --
uri@rotbertlaw.com -- Mitchell J. Rotbert, Esq. --
mitch@rotbertlaw.com -- ROTBERT BUSINESS LAW, P.C.

The Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Robert Olin Wilson, Esq.
     WILSON LAW PLC
     430 McLaws Cir #102
     Williamsburg, VA 23185
     Tel: (757)645-3176

Defendants are represented by:

     Helen Eckert Phillips, Esq.
     Austin Ross Phillips, Esq.
     ALLEN & NEWMAN, PLLC
     P.O. Box 23583
     Chattanooga, TN 37421
     Tel: (423)899-8810


VISALUS INC: Michigan Court Trims "Kerrigan" Lawsuit
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Matthew F. Leitman of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted in part
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, TIMOTHY
KERRIGAN et al., Plaintiffs, v. ViSALUS, INC. et al., Defendants,
Case No. 14-CV-12693 (E.D. Mich.).

In their First Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs Timothy Kerrigan,
Lori Mikovich, and Ryan Valli allege that they were defrauded by
an illegal scheme created and operated by the Defendants.
Plaintiffs say that in 2012 and 2013 they attended events
promoting Defendant ViSalus, Inc., a retailer of weight-loss
shakes. Plaintiffs alleged in the Complaint that the Defendants
violated, and conspired to violate, the Racketeer Influenced and
Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1961 et seq. Plaintiffs
also alleged that Defendants violated several Michigan statutes.
Finally, Plaintiffs asserted multiple claims under Michigan common
law

The Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and, by written order,
the Court granted the motions in part and directed Plaintiffs to
file a First Amended Complaint.

On July 10, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint.

In the motion, Defendants seek dismissal of many of the claims
brought against them pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6). Defendants argue
that Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy these causation pleading
requirements. Plaintiffs counter that they have alleged a logical
theory directly linking each Defendant to their claimed injuries.

In his Opinion and Order dated March 9, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/g3yHDdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Leitman dismissed
Plaintiffs' Section 1962(c) Claim against Goergen Sr., Goergen,
Varon and Petrilli because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Varon
or Petrilli committed at least two acts of mail or wire fraud. The
Court concluded that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
proximate cause as to ViSalus, Sarnicola, Blair, and Mallen, but
have not done so with respect to the remaining Defendants named in
the Section 1962(c) Claim (O'Toole, Pacetti, Fortner, Jackson,
Craig, Wilson, and T. Kirkland).

Plaintiffs are represented by Brent Caldwell, Esq. --
bcaldwell@pfalawfirm.com -- Matthew J.M. Prebeg, Esq. --
mprebeg@pfalawfirm.com -- PREBEG, FAUCETT & ABBOTT PLLC, Sarah
Lindsay Rickard, Esq. -- SRickard@sommerspc.com -- Andrew
Kochanowski, Esq. -- akochanowski@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS
SCHWARTZ, P.C.

Visalus, Inc. is represented by Brian A. Howie Esq. --
brian.howie@quarles.com -- Edward A. Salanga, Esq. --
Edward.salanga@quarles.com -- Kevin D. Quigley, Esq. --
kevin.quigley@quarles.com -- QUARLES & BRADY LLP, Mitra Jafary-
Hariri, Esq. -- mjafary-hariri@honigman.com -- Nicholas B. Gorga,
Esq. -- ngorga@honigman.com -- HONIGMAN MILLER SCHWARTZ AND COHN
LLP


VITO & ANGELO PIZZERIA: "Martinez" Suit Seeks Minimum, OT Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Montoya Martinez, individually and all other similarly
situated persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff v. Vito & Angelo
Pizzeria, Inc., and Giuseppe La Barbera, individually, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03457 (N.D. Ill. Eastern Division, March 20,
2016), seeks minimum wages due, statutory damages, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs and such other and further relief
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Illinois Minimum
Wage Law and the Municipal Code of Chicago Minimum Wage Ordinance.

Defendants failed to pay Plaintiff minimum wages and overtime
wages for hours worked more than 40 hours in a week and failed to
keep proper time records tracking time worked, and failed to post
a notice of rights.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan J. Best, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: 312-878-1263
      Email: sbest@yourclg.com


VOLUME SERVICES: Remand Bid Denied, Case Goes to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy L. Nunley of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California denied Plaintiffs' motion
to remand in the case captioned, MARK ALLCHIN and DAVID FOSTER,
individuals, on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. VOLUME SERVICES, INC. dba, CENTERPLATE; and DOES 1-
100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-CV-00886-TLN-EFB (E.D.
Cal.).

Instead, Judge Nunley granted the Defendant's motion to transfer
venue of the case to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California.

Plaintiffs were employees of Defendant, working as food/banquet
servers. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed the initial Complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Sacramento.
Plaintiffs and other employees of Defendants were not properly
paid overtime wages for all hours worked. Defendants have not
provided itemized wage statements accurately reporting all
applicable hourly rates or the correct amount of overtime wages
earned.

The Complaint brings five causes of action: 1) failure to pay
overtime wages; 2) failure to pay all wages due for each pay
period; 3) failure to pay all wages upon termination or
resignation; 4) failure to provide accurate wage statements; and
5) unfair competition under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200.

The matter was removed to the District Court for the Eastern
District of California on April 24, 2015. Following removal,
Plaintiffs filed the FAC and the Motion to Remand alleging
specific monetary amounts below the $75,000 threshold.

In his Order dated February 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/q1UtVXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nunley found that the
requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d) are met. There is no
evidence submitted by Plaintiffs to contradict Mr. Winarski's
declaration and Defendant's corresponding calculations.


Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Andrew Michael Greene, Esq.
     GREENE LAW OFFICES
     11 Talcott Notch Road
     Farmington, CT 06032
     Tel: (860)676-1336

          - and -

     Lawrence J. Salisbury, Esq.
     SALISBURY LEGAL CORP
     656 5th Ave Ste R
     San Diego, CA 92101-6860
     Tel: (619)241-2760

          - and -

     Mark A. Redmond, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MARK A REDMOND PC
     7311 Greenhaven Drive Suite 268
     Sacramento, CA 95831
     Tel: (916)438-8240

Volume Services, Inc. is represented by Scott J. Witlin, Esq. --
scott.witlin@BTLaw.com -- Steve Lou Hernandez, Esq. --
steve.hernandez@BTLaw.com -- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP


WAIST GANG: Faces Class Action Over Waist Trainers
--------------------------------------------------
Stuff.co.nz reports that the company behind waist trainers
promoted by Kim, Kourtney and Khloe Kardashian is the subject of a
class action suit.

Waist Gang Society, based in Florida in the United States, is
accused of misleading its customers about the benefits of its
products, the Daily Mail reports.

The suit was filed in California by Sara Hawes, and alleges that
Waist Gang Society products are marketed using "false and
misleading" information.

Waist Gang Society corsets cost around US$120 (NZ$177), and their
site quotes company founder PreMadonna's claim that her products
are a "unique and efficient way" to lose weight.

"No diet and exercise required," the Waist Gang Society site
reads.

While the Kardashians often post pictures of themselves using
PreMadonna's products, there's no word on whether money has
changed hands there.  They're not named in the suit.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Wand" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese
-------------------------------------------------------
Oscar Wand, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a corporation; and
DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00965,
(N.D. Cal., February 26, 2016), contends that Walmart has falsely
labeled, advertised, and sold thousands of containers of its Great
Value brand "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" products. Walmart has
advertised that its Parmesan cheese products are "100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese" when, in fact, they contain a significant
percentage of cellulose.

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and the Class, hereby demands a
jury trial with respect to all issues triable of right by jury.

Walmart owns and operates approximately 5,163 retail stores in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Aubry Wand, Esq.
     THE WAND LAW FIRM
     400 Corporate Pointe, Suite 300
     Culver City, California 90230
     Tel: (310) 590-4503
     Fax: (310) 590-4596
     E-mail: awand@wandlawfirm.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Harwell" Sues Over Extenders in Parmesan Cheese
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taniesha Harwell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Defendant, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00265 (E.D. Mo., February 26, 2016), seeks
compensatory and punitive damages, statutory interest and
penalties, appropriate injunctive and/or declaratory relief,
prejudgment interest and attorney fees resulting from unjust
enrichment and from violation of the Missouri Merchandising
Practices Act and the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act.

Plaintiff purchased Wal-Mart's Parmesan cheese products because
the labels indicated 100% Parmesan cheese. She alleges that they
contain a substantial amount of fillers and extenders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


WALT DISNEY PARKS: Faces "Cabrera" Suit Over Sick Leave Policy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Cabrera, an individual, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, and as an aggrieved employee pursuant
to the Private Attorneys General Act, Plaintiff, v. Walt Disney
Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc., a foreign corporation, and DOES
1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC612081, (Cal.
Super., February 26, 2016), alleges violation of the California
Fair Employment and Housing Act.

Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in, a common
course of violations of Labor Code section 233 and 234 by
enforcing an absence control policy which counts sick leave taken
pursuant to section 233 as an absence that leads to or results in
discipline, discharge, demotion, or suspension of Plaintiff and
members of the Class.

Plaintiff and the Class demand a jury trial as provided by Section
631 of the California Code of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Omid Nosrati, Esq.
     Diana Suarez, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICE OF OMID NOSRATI
     1875 Century ParkEast, 6th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 553-5630
     Fax: (310) 553-5691
     Email: omid@nosratilaw.com


WESTCONSIN CREDIT: Court Grants Class Certification in "Eggen"
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Barbara B. Crabb of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted class
certification in the case captioned, BRIAN EGGEN and MARY EGGEN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. WESTCONSIN CREDIT UNION, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-
873-BBC (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Brian Eggen and Mary Eggen are suing defendant
WESTconsin Credit Union under the Driver's Privacy Protection Act,
and the common law of nuisance for disclosing plaintiffs'
unredacted driver's license numbers and Social Security numbers in
complaints filed in delinquency actions in small claims court.

Plaintiffs have filed a motion in which they seek to represent a
class of "All individuals whose driver's license numbers Defendant
Westconsin disclosed in a Wisconsin circuit court filing" under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3). Defendant opposed class certification
arguing that plaintiffs "have presented no evidence of injury to
anyone, including themselves" and that "even if there were
injuries suffered by members of the putative class, those injuries
likely vary in severity, which would result in differing levels of
damages."

In the Opinion and Order dated February 26, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/zsXlZCfrom Leagle.com, Judge Crabb concluded that
the proposed class satisfied Rule 23 and that Defendant's
objections rely on basic misunderstandings of the case law
applying Rule 23. The Court appointed Thomas John Lyons, Jr. as
class counsel.

Plaintiffs are represented by Thomas John Lyons, Sr., Esq. --
tlyons@lyonslawfirm.com -- LYONS LAW FIRM PA.

They are also represented by:

     Eric Leighton Crandall, Esq.
     CRANDALL LAW OFFICES, SC
     251 South Knowles Avenue
     New Richmond, WI 54017

          - and -

     Thomas John Lyons, Jr., Esq.
     CONSUMER JUSTICE CENTER, P.A.
     367 Commerce Court
     Vadnais Heights, Mn 55127
     Tel: (612)200-1495

WESTconsin Credit Union is represented by Michael Patrick Crooks,
Peterson, Esq., and Quentin Fitch Shafer, Esq. -- PETERSON,
JOHNSON & MURRAY, S.C.


XTO ENERGY: Court Declines to Set Trial Date in "Roderick" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gwynne E. Birzer of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas granted a motion for leave to
amend/supplement the complaints and denied a motion to set trial
date in the case captioned, WALLACE B. RODERICK REVOCABLE LIVING
TRUST, TRUSTEE AMANDA S. RODERICK, on behalf of itself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. XTO ENERGY, INC., Defendant.
WALLACE B. RODERICK REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, TRUSTEE AMANDA S.
RODERICK, on behalf of itself and JOHN FITZGERALD, on behalf of
himself and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OXY USA,
INC., Defendant, Case No. 08-1330-EFM-GEB, No. 12-1215-EFM-GEB (D.
Kan.).

These cases were consolidated for pretrial purposes on December
30, 2014. The Plaintiff royalty owners claim that the Defendants
underpaid them for gas produced from Kansas wells, in part by
deducting from their payments the costs of rendering the gas
marketable. In each case, Plaintiff has generally alleged, among
other theories, it -- and the class it seeks to represent -- was
underpaid under the MCR, while Defendants argue Plaintiff
misinterprets the MCR to its benefit.

On February 25, 2015, with multiple motions regarding class
certification and summary judgment pending, the court ordered a
stay of the consolidated cases while awaiting a ruling in Fawcett
v. Oil Producers Inc. of Kansas, a Seward County, Kansas case on
review by the Kansas Supreme Court. Soon after the Fawcett ruling
was announced, the Roderick parties were directed to re-brief
their respective class certification and summary judgment motions.

Plaintiff seeks to amend its complaint by changing the name of the
Trust due to the death of Wallace B. Roderick, and to delete
references to Colorado and Oklahoma on claims previously dismissed
or transferred.

In the motion, Defendant OXY USA argues Plaintiff's motion in No.
12-1215 should be construed as a motion to amend, rather than a
motion to supplement and asserts that if Plaintiff is allowed to
amend its claims, a greater amount of fact and expert discovery
remain and trial is not imminent.

In her Memorandum and Order dated February 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/s8Gcy7from Leagle.com, Judge Birzer granted
Plaintiff's request to amend, finding that amendment of
Plaintiff's complaint is neither a result of unexplained delay nor
bad faith on the part of Plaintiff and the procedural posture of
the consolidated cases leads the Court to find defendant OXY USA
has not met its burden to demonstrate prejudice.

The Court also found that establishing a trial date is premature
at the juncture, given the multiple pending motions regarding
class certification and summary judgment. Plaintiff was given 10
day from the issuance of the Order to file amended pleadings.

A telephone status was scheduled in the case for March 9, 2016 at
2:30 p.m. before District Judge Eric F. Melgren.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Barbara C. Frankland, Esq.
     David E. Sharp, Esq.
     Joseph R. Gunderson, Esq.
     Rex A. Sharp, Esq.
     GUNDERSON SHARP, LLP
     321 E Walnut St # 300,
     Des Moines, IA 50309
     Tel: (515)288-0219

Defendants are represented by Christopher A. Brown, Esq. --
cabrown@winstead.com -- Jeffrey C. King, Esq. --
jking@winstead.com -- WINSTEAD PC, John W. Broomes, Esq. --
jbroomes@hinklaw.com -- HINKLE LAW FIRM LLC & Mark Banner, Esq.
-- mbanner@hallestill.com -- HALL, ESTILL, HARDWICK, GABLE, GOLDEN
& NELSON, PC


ZNY ENTERPRISES: "Mughal" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay, Damages
----------------------------------------------------------
Afshan Mughal, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ZNY Enterprises, Inc. and Zia Hassan,
individually, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00211-Y (N.D. Tex.,
Fort Worth Division, March 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages due, liquidated damages, reasonable attorneys'
fees, costs and expenses, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest
and such other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201.

ZNY operates Rae J's Baits Beer and Grill, ZNY Mart and gas
station. The plaintiff worked as a cashier and cook. She claims to
have rendered in excess of 40 hours work without overtime
compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
      Mary L. Scott, Esq.
      James E. Hunnicutt, Esq.
      SPENCER SCOTT PLLC
      Two Lincoln Centre
      5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
      Dallas, TX 75240-6271
      Tel: (972) 458-5319
      Fax: (972) 770-2156
      Email: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com
             mscott@spencerscottlaw.com
             jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com


* Carlton Fields Survey Shows Class Action Defense Spending Spike
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The fifth annual Carlton Fields Class Action Survey: Best
Practices in Reducing Cost and Managing Risk in Class Action
Litigation reveals a marked increase in spending on class actions
after four consecutive years of declines.  It is an important
turning point as legal departments now project further spending
increases in 2016 even as they pursue efficient and innovative
ways to manage class actions.

Companies across multiple industries spent $2.1 billion defending
class action lawsuits in 2015.  Total spending is up from $2.03
billion in 2014, and is expected to rise to $2.14 billion this
year.

Along with this fundamental trend in total spending, the Carlton
Fields data also showed a marked rise in the number of companies
facing class actions.  From 2014 to 2015, the number of companies
facing at least one major class action suit increased by nearly 7
percentage points to more than 60 percent.

The survey also confirms that corporate counsel classify a greater
percentage of cases as complex.  In fact, respondents to this
year's survey categorized more than 70 percent of their class
actions as complex, high-risk, or bet-the-company as opposed to
routine.

Not surprisingly, corporate counsel rated potential exposure and
the likelihood of resolving matters under exposure as the most
important variables in evaluating risk and success.  Both findings
are in line with what corporate counsel have told Carlton Fields
in the last three consecutive annual surveys.

These data should not be construed to mean that corporate counsel
have become less cost conscious. In managing all class actions,
including the greater number of higher-risk matters, survey
respondents report a pragmatic approach to continue defending "at
the right cost," rather than "at all costs."  The percentage of
corporate counsel who favor a "defend at all costs" approach
actually dropped from 14 to 10 percent, while the percentage
committed to "defending at the right cost" rose from 29 to 34.

"This year's Class Action Survey shows that there are particularly
important shifts underway in the class action litigation climate,"
said Carlton Fields Shareholder Chris S. Coutroulis, who directs
the firm's annual Class Action Survey.

"Increased spending on class action defense has forced corporate
counsel to alter their strategies," added Mr. Coutroulis.  "We see
counsel approaching class action litigation more holistically  --
analyzing business impact with more of a strategic approach and
less of a sole focus on the dollars and cents that an aggressive
defense entails."

For example, the survey reflects that organizations increasingly
hold a single in-house attorney accountable for the outcomes of
their class action lawsuits. Since 2014, there has been a 10
percent increase in companies employing this sole-accountability
method.

"Single accountability can lower costs and improve results," said
Mr. Coutroulis.  "It makes decision-making more efficient, and it
better ensures a more consistent case strategy and approach
throughout."

The use of early case assessment revealed interesting variations
from the prior two years.  Nearly all corporate counsel now report
that they utilize some form of early case assessment as another
effective strategy for managing class action litigation. The
percentage of companies involving outside counsel in this process
rose from 80 percent in 2013, to 87 percent in 2014, and 96.7
percent in 2015.

"Early case assessment remains a key strategy," said Julianna
McCabe, chair of Carlton Fields' National Class Actions practice
group.  "The data indicate that companies now recognize this fact
almost universally."

Early assessment seems all the more important in light of the fact
that, according to the survey, 75-80 percent of the dollars
invested in class action litigation go toward defending against
certification.  Corporations report that they continue to benefit
from recent Supreme Court decisions in opposing class
certification. "This makes sense," added Ms. McCabe, "because the
Court has significantly restricted the reach of Rule 23 in recent
years.  What remains to be seen is what impact the restructuring
of the Court will have on class action jurisprudence moving
forward."

Other survey findings include:

Consumer fraud and labor and employment still top the list of
class action cases, but financial industry business practices,
including those involving securities and insurance, have emerged
as another source of class actions.  Data privacy class actions,
long predicted as a major source of litigation, still remain a
small percentage of matters overall.

Companies report that nearly 69 percent of class action lawsuits
are resolved by some type of settlement, most at the pre-
certification stage.

The Carlton Fields Class Action Survey is widely recognized as a
powerful resource for in-house counsel who want to manage class
actions effectively and efficiently.  Results of the 2016 edition
were compiled from 391 in-depth interviews with general counsel,
chief legal officers, and direct reports to general counsel in
more than 25 industries, including banking and financial services,
consumer goods, energy, high tech, insurance, manufacturing,
pharmaceuticals, professional services, and retail trade.  These
companies had an average annual revenue of $18.2 billion, and
median annual revenue of $4.7 billion.

    About the Carlton Fields National Class Action Practice

Carlton Fields has litigated and counseled clients in hundreds of
class actions for more than 30 years in federal and state courts
across the nation, and in arbitrations.  These cases present
unique challenges due to their different rules, enhanced scope,
and higher stakes.  The firm understands the potential impacts,
costs, and risks associated with class actions, and is a leader in
developing legal approaches and strategies for handling class
action litigation.

                      About Carlton Fields

Carlton Fields -- http:/www.carltonfields.com -- has nearly 400
attorneys and government and financial services consultants
serving clients from offices in California, Connecticut, Florida,
Georgia, New York, and Washington, D.C.  The firm is known for its
national litigation practice, including class action defense,
trial practice, white-collar representation, and high-stakes
appeals; its regulatory practice; and its handling of
sophisticated business transactions and corporate counseling for
domestic and international clients.  Carlton Fields Jorden Burt,
P.A. practices law in California through Carlton Fields Jorden
Burt, LLP.


* Federal Court Introduces Updated Class Actions Practice Note
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Taylor, Esq., and Eunice Park, Esq., of Herbert Smith
Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that the Federal
Court is implementing a National Court Framework to further
modernize and simplify the Court's approach to case management.
With the continued growth in the number of class actions commenced
in the Federal Court, the National Court Framework is addressing
the management of class actions through the introduction of an
updated class actions practice note.

Released earlier this year, the draft practice note seeks to
address the unique complexities that arise in class actions and
ensure that parties are supported by the Court to work towards
achieving an earlier and efficient resolution of the class action.

Key changes

The key changes proposed by the practice note include:

Mediation: Early implementation of alternative dispute resolution
procedures in class action proceedings to assist the parties to
reach a settlement as soon as possible.  This acknowledges the
obstacles to settlement that are unique to class actions and
attempts to tackle this by requiring the parties to gather and
exchange relevant information which would assist the parties to
undertake informed settlement discussions, without compromising
the utility of the class action procedure.

Two-judge system: Introducing a two-judge system for class
actions. Firstly, a 'case management judge' who is a member of the
judiciary with experience in the conduct of class actions will
oversee the efficient case management of the proceeding.
Interlocutory disputes that commonly arise in class actions will
be heard by the case management judge with a view to ensure
consistent and efficient resolution of interlocutory issues which
are often protracted in class actions.  Secondly, a 'trial judge'
will preside over the trial of the proceeding and oversee pre-
trial issues. Importantly, both judges will be appointed at the
commencement of the class action and work collaboratively to
ensure the proceeding is dealt with expeditiously and efficiently.

Class Actions Registrar: A dedicated 'Class Actions Registrar'
will be appointed to assist the case management judge, trial judge
and the parties and act as a central contact point. The Class
Actions Registrar may assist the parties in addressing any
impediments to settlement.

Costs and funding disclosure: The proposed practice note changes
the requirements relating to the disclosure of legal costs
agreements and litigation funding agreements.  Subject to any
genuine objections, the Applicant must disclose to the other
parties and the Court any costs agreement or litigation funding
agreement.  This practice is often (but not always) implemented in
class actions.  The practice note also requires the disclosure of
potential conflicts of interest between lawyers, funders and class
members.

Impact of the new practice note

As class actions have now become a mainstream part of the
Australian litigation landscape, the Federal Court's proposals
within the new practice note concerning streamlining procedure is
to be welcomed.

Importantly, the practice note addresses issues that are
particular to class actions, such as the time and expense spent
during the interlocutory process, with a view to facilitate a
resolution of the proceeding as efficiently as possible.  With the
highest number of class actions currently on foot in the Federal
Court, the proposed practice note is a timely and appropriate
change to improve class action practice and procedure in
Australia.

The practice note does not, however, address all the issues.  The
fact the Federal Court saw the need to make changes only gives
further impetus for a review of the class action legislative
framework by the Federal Government.


* Representative Proceedings Reform in Western Australia Imminent
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ante Golem, Esq. -- ante.golem@hsf.com -- and Natalie Hepburn,
Esq., of Herbert Smith Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that uncertainty surrounding the class actions or
"representative proceedings" regime in Western Australia make such
claims a rarity but a new report by the state's Law Reform
Commission could see this change.

The key factor restricting the incidence of class actions in
Western Australia is a requirement that the members of the
plaintiff class share the 'same interest' in the proceeding.  This
phrase has generated significant uncertainty and legal challenges.
Due to this, plaintiffs often seek to find a basis for bringing
the proposed claim within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court,
which has a dedicated class action scheme.

Law Reform Commission Report

Last October's release of the Law Reform Commission of Western
Australia's Final Report on Representative Proceedings indicates
that serious attention is being paid towards reform and that the
development of a statutory scheme is imminent.  Crucially, the
Report concluded that the current Western Australian position is
inadequate to facilitate large representative action in the state.

In line with the recommendations in the report, it is expected
that any new Western Australian legislative scheme will be based
on Part IVA of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ,
while maintaining the existing representative proceedings
provisions in Order 18 Rule 12 of the Rules of the Supreme Court
1971 (WA).

On the basis of recommendations in the Law Reform Commission's
report, it is likely that legislative drafters will look to the
regime in the Federal Court to inform the implementation of a new
statutory approach, with elements of the regimes in Victoria and
New South Wales also considered.

What's on the cards:

In particular, the report recommends the inclusion of provisions:

expressly permitting a plaintiff to commence representative
proceedings against more than one defendant, irrespective of
whether or not the plaintiff has a claim against every defendant,
as per the regime in New South Wales, broadening the ability of
the Court to remove or substitute a representative party in the
interests of justice, and allowing for the limitation period of an
action to be suspended once a member of the group begins a
representative action.

Implications:

Ultimately, the report's recommendation that Western Australia
should seek to introduce class action legislation based on the
federal regime is likely to result in a measure of uniformity
within Australian jurisdictions.  This will have a significant
effect on the litigation landscape for defendants who are faced by
a large class of plaintiffs in Western Australia.

The Western Australian Government has given in principle agreement
to the report's recommendation and Attorney General Michael
Mischin has said a proposal for legislative change will be
developed.

The government's response is encouraging however, it remains
unclear when legislation will be implemented.


                            *********

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  * * *