CAR_Public/160329.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Tuesday, March 29, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 63


                            Headlines


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Flax Seed Products Due to Salmonella
ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Aerial Devices 2008 Models
AMERICAN CAPITAL: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
AMERICAN ETC: "Galeano" Claims Not Preempted by LMRA Sec. 301
AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Investor Loses Bid to Revive Class Action

ARCHERS: Court to Tackle Inheritance Tortious Interference Issue
ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Faces "Gruenfeld" Suit in E.D.N.Y
ATLANTIC POWER: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
BANCORPSOUTH BANK: $24.5MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval
BED BATH & BEYOND: Recalls Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard

BEST WINGERS: Faces "Chen" Suit in S.D.N.Y
BLANCHARD MERRIAM: Class Certified, Settlement Has Initial Okay
BMW: Court Precludes Causation Experts in Toxic Tort Case
BOEING CO: Faces Suits Over Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 Crash
CARRIER ONE: Illinois Judge Trims "Lewis" Suit

CARTER'S RETAIL: "Dudum" Deal Has Initial OK
CHIPOTLE: NLRB Criticizes Social Media Policies, Labor Practices
CHURCH AVE.: Faces "Islas" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
COBALT INT'L: Court Won't Certify Jan. 19 Order for Appeal
COMSCORE INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action

CORAL SPRINGS, FL: Faces Class Action Over Speed Trap Fines
COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Kangaroo Feeding Tubes
COX COMMS: Customers Ordered to Arbitrate Cable Fees Dispute
CVS PHARMACY: Settlement in "Uppal" Granted Final Approval
ECO CHIC: Recalls Electric Scooter Due to Noncompliance

ELECTROLUX: 11th Cir. Reverses Class Certification in Washer Case
ENTERPRISE RECOVERY: Violated FDCPA, "Bazzano" Suit Claims
EXPERIAN INFO: Alston Claims Dismissed, Letren Claims Proceed
FACEBOOK INC: Judge Hears Arguments in Link-Scanning Class Action
FORD: Recalls Police Interceptor Vehicles 2013 Models

FRESH INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Sugar Lip Treatment Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado 2015 Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado 2016 Models
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Trial Judge Known for Intellect
GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Second Bellwether Case Begins

GENERAL MOTORS: Juror in Ignition Switch Trial Dismissed
GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Want Bankruptcy Order Affirmed
GGNSC HOLDINGS: Ark. High Court Sends "Lamb" Suit to Arbitration
GIANT TIGER: Recalls Flakes of Chicken Products
HOME DEPOT: Timing of Data Breach Class Action Settlement Unusual

HONDA: Recalls Civic 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
HONDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
HYUNDAI: Recalls Tucson 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
IKEA CANADA: Recalls Ceiling Lamps Due to Injury Hazard
ILLINOIS BELL: Court Narrows Claims in "Scott" Suit

INTERSTATE AMUSEMENTS: Dismissed From Guest Workers' Class Action
IRVING KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES: Violated FDCPA, "Zemel" Suit Claims
JAC HOLDING: Fiduciary Breach Claims Against Directors Revived
JACK IN BOX: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Gessele"
JOHN HANCOCK: Liable to NW Employees, Wash. High Court Says

KELLWOOD CO: Class Action Mulled Over Toxic Metals in Jewelry
KIA: Recalls 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
LEKKI GARDENS: Building Residents Urged to Join Class Action
LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 4th Cir. Keeps Order to Decertify "Hart" Suit
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Trims Claims in "Thomas" Suit

MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fish Balls and Noodle Products Due to Egg
MAZDA: Recalls B SERIES 2004 Models Due to Defective Airbag
MAZDA: Recalls 2014 and 2015 Model Vehicles Due to Noncompliance
MENTOR GRAPHICS: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Recalls AC Power Cords Due to Shock Hazard

NAT'L FOOTBALL: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Want to Put CTE in Settlement
NEOCOIL: Recalls Gem Flex Coil and P-Connector Due to Burn Risk
NESTLE: Court Dismisses Coffee-Mate Class Action
NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Liquid Infant Formula
NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES: Recalls Barbecue Grill Products

NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Artic 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
NOVARTIS PHARMA: Judiciary Aims to Close Zometa Tort Matters
NUNA CANADA: Recalls High Chair Products
OLD SPICE: Connick Law Files Class Action Over Deodorant
OWENS & MINOR: "Lopez" Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations

PERFORMANCE SPORTS: May 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
PFIZER CONSUMER: Recalls Children's Advil
PFIZER CONSUMER: Recalls Pediatric Advil Products
PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls CT Systems and Software Versions
PIER 1: Recalls Swivel Dining Chairs

PIRIPI VMP: "Sanchez" Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Dismissed
POLYCOM INC: August 16 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
PROSKAUER ROSE: Stanford's Lawyers Protected by Attorney Immunity
RAV INVESTIGATIVE: "Humphrey" Suit Proceeds on Individual Claims
REAL TIME RESOLUTION: "Gutman" Class Action Filed in E.D.N.Y

REDFROG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Seafood Pancake Products Due to Egg
SAAB: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
SABATINI U: Recalls Beef and Vegetable Pie, Chicken Pot Pie
SAINT-GOBAIN: Court Consolidates Two Tainted Water Class Actions
SCION: Recalls 2013 Models Due to Injury Risk

SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Fish Sausage Products Due to Egg
SEQWATER: Feb. 2017 Trial Set in Queensland Flood Class Action
SIEMENS AG: Recalls Syngo Imaging Products
SLATER & GORDON: JustKapital to Fund Shareholder Class Action
SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Ruling Still Leaves Questions

SRIPRAPHAI TIPMANEE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under NYLL
ST. MARTINS CHEMICAL: "Navarro" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Ct.
STANFORD FIN'L: Proskauer, Chadbourne Immune From Investor Claims
STRATEGIC EXPERIENTIAL: Violated CLC, "Harrison" Suit Claims
SUBARU: Recalls Tribeca 2006 Models Due to Injury Risk

SUMMIT COLLECTION: "Berbrick" Suit Filed in Dist. New Jersey
SYDNEY GROUP: Violated Labor Law, "Sandoval" Suit Claims
T.D. BANK: Bid to Amend "Cruz" Complaint Denied
TAKATA CORP: Judge Dismisses Auto Recylers' Fraud Claims
TARSADIA HOTELS: 9th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Beaver" Suit

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Remanded to San Mateo County
TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action
TILE SHOP HOLDINGS: Beaver County Fund Suit Filed in N.D. Cal.
TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Organic Popping Corn Products
TROPICAL SWEETS: Recalls Honey Products

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Defense Counsel Opposes Nonjury Trial Proposal
TSC STORES: Recalls Oxgear Safety Work Boots
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unfair Competition Suit Can Proceed
UNITED NATIONS: Hearing Held in Cholera Class Action Appeal
UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Intervene

UNITED STATES: Attorney's Fees Awarded to "Turner" Plaintiffs
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Two Law Firms File Insurance Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Court Sends "Aldrich" Suit to Arbitration
VESUVIO'S II: "Solais" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
VIRBAC CANADA: Recalls Cortisoothe Shampoo Products

VISA CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Chip-Reader Rules
VITA HEALTH: Recalls Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules
VIVO BRAND: Recalls Forta for Men Products Due to Tadalafil
VIVO BRAND: Recalls Durazest Capsules
VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Routan 2009 Models Due to Defective Airbag

VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
WAL-MART: Sued for Denying Same-Sex Spouse Employee Benefits
WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Dismiss "Biasi" Suit Denied
WAL-MART STORES: "Cruz" Suit Filed in Southern Dist. Florida
WILLIAMS PRODUCTION: Transport Costs Deductible From Royalties

WOK 88: Faces "Huang" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
WWRD UNITED: Recalls Peter Rabbit Baby Rattles

* Anshun Estoppel Applied in Three Recent Class Action Rulings
* Growth in Regulatory Action Spurs Class Actions in D&O Space
* Little Guidance Available to Judges to Resolve MDL Fee Fights


                            *********


ADVANTAGE HEALTH: Recalls Flax Seed Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Microbiological - Salmonella
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Advantage Health Matters
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10383

Advantage Health Matters is recalling Organic Traditions brand
Sprouted Flax Seed Powder and Sprouted Chia & Flax Seed Powder
from the marketplace due to possible Salmonella contamination.
Consumers should not consume the recalled products described
below.

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

Food contaminated with Salmonella may not look or smell spoiled
but can still make you sick. Young children, pregnant women, the
elderly and people with weakened immune systems may contract
serious and sometimes deadly infections. Healthy people may
experience short-term symptoms such as fever, headache, vomiting,
nausea, abdominal cramps and diarrhea. Long-term complications may
include severe arthritis.

There have been no reported illnesses associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand      Common     Size    Code(s) on         UPC
  name       name       ----    product            ---
  -----      ------             ----------
  Organic    Sprouted   227 g   LOT:AHM626151118N  8 54260-
  Traditions Flax Seed          EXP:09/2017        00626 1
             Powder
  Organic    Sprouted   454 g   LOT:AHM553151118N  8 54260-
  Traditions Flax Seed          EXP:09/2017        00553 0
             Powder
  Organic    Sprouted   227 g   LOT:AHM621151211N  8 54260-
  Traditions Chia &             EXP:10/2017        00621 6
             Flax Seed
             Powder

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/iP9mCf


ALTEC INDUSTRIES: Recalls Aerial Devices 2008 Models
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Equipment
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Other
Units affected: 16
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016057TC
ID number: 2016057
Manufacturer recall number: CSN 628

Certain Altec aerial devices may have been manufactured with a
defective Pulsar coil. The Pulsar coil could short causing
unwarranted movement of the aerial device increasing the risk of
injury to the operator. Correction: Altec will replace the
affected Pulsar coils.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  ALTEC      AH85       2008
  ALTEC      AH100      2008


AMERICAN CAPITAL: Faces Breach of Fiduciary Duty Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Tom McParland, writing for Delaware Business Court Insider,
reports that private equity firm American Capital will have to
defend against breach of fiduciary duty claims after Vice
Chancellor Sam Glasscock III in February found reason to believe
it was exercising control of Halt Medical at the time of a
disputed merger, despite having just a 26 percent stake in the
company.

The plaintiff stockholders filed their suit last January, alleging
American Capital used Halt's debts to force Halt's board to enter
the merger under duress while promoting its own interests.  A
majority of the directors, they argued, were beholden to American
Capital and could not be considered independent or disinterested
in the transaction, which unfairly diluted the stockholders'
interest in the company.

By the time the deal closed, American Capital's equity interest in
Halt jumped from 26 percent to 66 percent, the investors alleged.

The defendants tried to dismiss the claims on the grounds of
acquiescence, estoppel and laches, but Glasscock denied the
motion, ruling the plaintiffs had sufficiently pleaded facts
asserting American Capital was acting as a controlling stockholder
and breached duties it owed to the other investors.

That finding, Mr. Glasscock said, was sufficient to trigger the
plaintiff-friendly entire fairness review, instead of the
deferential business judgment rule, which establishes a
presumption in favor of directors and their corporate decisions.

"I find here that the plaintiffs' factual allegations are
sufficient, under the low 'reasonable conceivability' standard of
Rule 12(b)(6), to infer that a majority of the board was not
independent or disinterested, but rather was under the influence
of, or shared a special interest with, ACAS in regard to the
transaction, such that ACAS was a controlling stockholder at the
time of the transaction," Glasscock wrote in a 29-page memorandum
opinion published Feb. 29.

The merger itself occurred in 2014 at a time when Halt, a Delaware
corporation that marketed a procedure to treat fibroid tumors in
women, was struggling to secure financing in order to stave off
filing for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection.

The company owed American Capital $50 million under a note that
had been extended from its original due date at the end of 2013.
In late 2013, Halt's founder and chairman, Edward F. Calesa,
"under pressure from the impending due date," reached out to
American Capital to negotiate a deal to sell the company to a
third party.

But it was only after the dust settled and the merger closed that
the plaintiffs realized that American Capital constructed its
terms to squeeze the minority stockholders out of the company,
they said.

Pursuant to the merger, Halt would form a merger subsidiary and
then merge into it, and all issued and outstanding preferred stock
and warrants to purchase common and preferred stock would be
canceled.  Following the merger, American Capital tacked a seat on
to the board -- which now had four of its designees -- and Halt's
CEO and director, Jeffrey M. Cohen, saw his salary double.

Mr. Glasscock noted that there is "no magic formula to find
control," citing In re Crimson Exploration Stockholder Litigation,
a Chancery Court opinion in which Vice Chancellor Donald F.
Parsons Jr. asserted "the importance and fact-intensive nature of
the actual control factor."

In this case, it was reasonably conceivable that at least four of
the seven-member Halt board were either interested in the
transaction or lacked the ability to exercise independent
business, Mr. Glasscock said.

For example, Mr. Glasscock noted that Cohen was subjected to a
"classic Morton's Fork" dilemma, where he faced a choice between
approving a transaction the plaintiffs claimed harmed the
company's shareholders or see his personal income ruined.

"Given that Cohen faced a decision between supporting the
transaction, on terms highly favorable to ACAS, and rejecting the
transaction, which was tantamount (on the facts alleged) to voting
for the collapse of the company and losing his employment, it is
reasonably conceivable that Cohen was 'beholden' to [American
Capital]," Mr. Glasscock said.

Another director apparently served as a dual fiduciary, "standing
on both sides" of the transaction and yet another received a
personal financial benefit from the merger, according to a Halt
document.

Mr. Glasscock also let stand the plaintiffs' Section 228 claims
that alleged several of the merger documents submitted for review
were in draft form or incomplete.

Thaddeus J. Weaver -- tweaver@dilworthlaw.com -- of Dilworth
Paxson represented the plaintiff investors, and Gregory V. Varallo
-- varallo@rlf.com -- of Richards, Layton & Finger argued for
American Capital and Halt's director defendants. Neither attorney
immediately returned calls seeking comment.

The case was captioned Calesa Associates v. American Capital in
the Court of Chancery.


AMERICAN ETC: "Galeano" Claims Not Preempted by LMRA Sec. 301
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RANULFO IRIAS GALEANO, Plaintiff, v.
AMERICAN ETC., INC., Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-0033-PJH (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Phyllis J. Hamilton granted the motion filed by
Ranulfo Irias Galeano for an order remanding the case to the
Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo.

The wage and hour case, alleging seven causes of action under
California law, was filed as a proposed class action on August 3,
2015.  The defendant American Etc. d/b/a Royal Laundry removed the
case on January 4, 2016, asserting preemption under Section 301 of
the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA).  Galeano moved to
remand, arguing that the removal was untimely and that the
doctrine of complete preemption does not apply.

Judge Hamilton held that the notice of removal was not untimely.
However, the judge found that Galeano's state law claims are
independent of rights conferred by a collective bargaining
agreement (CBA) and that the resolution of these claims will not
require interpretation of the CBA.  Thus, Judge Hamilton concluded
that Galeano's claims are not preempted by Section 301.

A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's March 10, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/31JUgDfrom Leagle.com.

Ranulfo Irias Galeano, Plaintiff, represented by Brandon
Brouillette, Raymond Paul Boucher, Boucher, LLP, Sahag Majarian,
II, Law Office of Sahag Majarian II & Shehnaz M. Bhujwala,
Boucher, LLP.

American Etc., Inc., Defendant, represented by Aurelio Jose Perez
-- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Bruce M.
Lubarsky, Finkelstein Bender & Fujii LLP, Joshua David Kienitz --
jkienitz@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Lisa K. Horgan
-- lhorgan@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..


AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL: Investor Loses Bid to Revive Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Germaine and Emily Field, writing for Law360, report that
the U.S. Supreme Court on March 21 denied a petition brought by an
AIG investor seeking to revive proposed class action claims that
the insurance giant misled investors over publicly traded
securities, leaving in place a decision the investor claimed
amounted to improper judicial lawmaking.

The high court denied a petition for writ of certiorari brought by
American International Group Inc. shareholder Kathryn Lynn
Campbell, declining to review U.S. District Judge Leonie M.
Brinkema's January 2015 decision tossing Campbell's claims that
AIG's equity units prospectus breached its duty of good faith and
fair dealing and violated the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission's "plain English" regulations through allegedly
confusing language after finding Campbell didn't have standing
because she didn't read the 2007 prospectus at issue.

As is customary, the high court didn't comment on Ms. Campbell's
Jan. 21 petition, which argued that Judge Brinkema's decision
represented judicial legislation because there's no written law
that conditions judicial access for public investors such as
herself on reading prospectuses for securities before buying them.

"The requirement imposed by the district court and sustained by
the court of appeals represents legislation from the bench to
which the plaintiff was subjected," Ms. Campbell said.  "Such
actions must be preserved for the legislative branch and
designated administrative entities such as the SEC, which has
spoken to the contents and presentation of prospectuses
specifically for the protection of public investors and in the
interest of the public."

In Ms. Campbell's first complaint, filed in D.C. federal court in
2012, she compared language in AIG's prospectus to "hardcore
pornography" purposely compiled by "the 'blue bloods' of the
[legal] profession . . . and [AIG's] accounting contortionists" to
confuse public investors.

She said she purchased AIG equity units believing them to be
preferred Class A shares, saying the company "intentionally
mislisted and mislabeled" the securities through the New York
Stock Exchange ticker symbol AIGprA, the designation for preferred
shares rather than a specific symbol for equity units.

Ms. Campbell alleged that AIG promised her and other investors
that the equity units would be converted to valuable AIG common
stock on set dates in 2011, but wiped out the unit holders'
settlement rates by more than 95 percent through a "massive
dilution" of its common stock.  In her suit, Campbell targeted not
only AIG but also 14 current and former directors.

After the case was dismissed by the D.C. court and denied appeal
by the D.C. Circuit, Campbell filed a revised complaint in
Virginia federal court in October 2014.

In Judge Brinkema's decision dismissing the revised suit, she said
that Ms. Campbell hadn't claimed AIG failed to honor its
prospectus or committed securities fraud but rather focused on SEC
rules and the language in the prospectus.  But, the judge noted,
Campbell failed to identify any language authorizing a private
right of action under the rules.

Judge Brinkema's decision was affirmed by a Fourth Circuit panel
in September.

Ms. Campbell had argued in her petition with the Supreme Court
that Judge Brinkema's ruling represented a "complete miscarriage
of justice," saying that by ruling that she had to have read the
prospectus before purchasing the shares, the judge imposed a
standing requirement contrary to SEC rules and state and federal
law.

"For the district court to . . . dismiss the claims for failure to
pre-read the prospectus does leave justice blowing in the wind,"
Ms. Campbell said.

She also argued that Judge Brinkema misstepped in dismissing her
motion for a declaratory judgment that the prospectus didn't
comply with SEC rules, saying that her right to seek declaratory
judgment under the Declaratory Judgement Act depended not on
whether she had a private right of action but whether an "actual
controversy" existed between her and AIG.

"There is no question that there is 'actual controversy' between
the parties over the contents, conditions and terms of the
prospectus for the units and defendants' adverse actions
complained of," Ms. Campbell said.  "This is what permeates the
complaint."

Representatives for Campbell, AIG and the individual defendants
did not respond to requests for comment on March 21.

Kathryn Lynn Campbell is represented by Wendu Mekbib of the Law
Offices of Wendu Mekbib.

AIG is represented by Robert F. Carangelo Jr. --
robert.carangelo@weil.com -- and Evert J. Christensen Jr. --
evert.christensen@weil.com -- of Weil Gotshal & Manges LLP.  The
individual defendants are represented by Michael J. Garvey --
mgarvey@stblaw.com -- of Simpson Thacher & Barlett LLP.

The case is Campbell v. American International Group Inc. et al.,
case number 15-956, in the U.S Supreme Court.


ARCHERS: Court to Tackle Inheritance Tortious Interference Issue
----------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Morris, reporting for Texas Lawyer, writes, "Does Texas law
recognize a cause of action for tortious interference with
inheritance rights? Intermediate appellate courts have disagreed
and the issue is teed up before the Texas Supreme Court in a case
-- soon-to-be two cases -- that might interest both trial lawyers
and estate planning and probate attorneys."

Most recently, Austin's Third Court of Appeals decided in Anderson
v. Archer that there is no tortious interference with inheritance
claim in Texas.  The Third Court agreed with the ruling and
reasoning of Amarillo's Seventh Court of Appeals' 2015 ruling in
Jackson Walker v. Kinsel -- which is already pending before the
high court.  But those two rulings conflict with a 1987 First
Court of Appeals decision, and other intermediate appellate
courts' rulings that followed it.

"It's our position that this cause of action does not exist and
should not exist because by its definition it takes tortious
conduct to create this claim, and if it's tortious conduct there
is already a remedy for it, so you are creating another remedy for
the same wrong," said Scott R. Kidd, founding partner in the Kidd
Law Firm in Austin, who represented the Andersons who won the
Third Court case.

But Ikard Golden Jones shareholder Laurie Ratliff, who represented
the Archers, said the Amarillo and Austin courts are outliers.
Since 1987, lawyers and courts have acted like the cause of action
exists, she said.

The Archers plan to appeal the ruling and Ratliff said she thinks
there's a good chance the Supreme Court would recognize the cause
of action, "given the number of intermediate courts of appeals
that have already looked at the issue and found that it existed."

Mr. Kidd said that probate and estate planning lawyers will be
interested in the cases because an issue arises more often than
you would expect, where a "disgruntled family member" thinks he
should have gotten more in an inheritance.

"By recognizing this cause of action, there is going to be more
probate and estate planning causes of action," he explained.
Kidd added that trial lawyers might also be interested in the
Anderson and Jackson Walker cases.

"It's another tort. It has some interesting issues with regards to
recoverable damages," he said.

Just two days after the Third Court issued its Anderson opinion,
it showed up at the doors of the Texas Supreme Court.  In a
March 4 letter, an attorney for the Kinsels in Jackson Walker v.
Kinsel wrote that Anderson has further accentuated a split.

Appellate courts in El Paso, Houston and San Antonio recognize the
cause of action, but courts in Amarillo and Austin do not, wrote
Craig Enoch of Enoch Kever in Austin.

"Like the Amarillo court in this case, the Austin court also
disclaimed the existence of a cause of action for tortious
interference with inheritance without conducting any analysis to
determine whether the tort should exist in Texas," he wrote.
Enoch didn't return a call seeking comment before deadline.

Inheritance

The March 2 Anderson opinion said that T. Mark and Christine
Anderson were co-executors of the estate of Ted Anderson.  The
appealed a trial court judgment that awarded $2.56 million to the
Archer family, resting on a jury finding that Ted Anderson
tortiously interfered with their inheritance right from their
uncle, Jack Archer.

There's no such cause of action in Texas, and the Archers should
take nothing, wrote Third Court Justice Scott Field, joined by
Chief Justice Jeff Rose and Justice Bob Pemberton.


ARS NATIONAL SERVICES: Faces "Gruenfeld" Suit in E.D.N.Y
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against ARS National Services, Inc.  The
case is captioned Joseph Gruenfeld, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. ARS National
Services, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00779 (E.D.N.Y.,
Brooklyn, February 15, 2016).

ARS National Services offers accounts receivable management
services. It caters to financial services organizations; banks;
and credit card companies. The company is based in Escondido,
California.

Joseph Gruenfeld is a pro se plaintiff.


ATLANTIC POWER: Court Dismisses Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Fleming, Esq., and Thomas Wilson, Esq., of Dentons, in an
article for JDSupra, report that in Coffin v. Atlantic Power
Corp., the Ontario Superior Court of Justice considered two
motions: (1) for leave under section 138.8 of the Ontario
Securities Act (the "OSA") to commence an action for secondary
market misrepresentation and (2) for certification to proceed as a
class action under subsection 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act,
1992 (the "CPA")

Based on his review of the extensive evidence filed by the
Defendants, Justice Belobaba dismissed both motions and found that
there was, in fact, no actionable misrepresentation.  In doing so,
Justice Belobaba confirmed the close analytical relationship
between requests for leave under the OSA and motions for class
action certification under the CPA.

The Facts

During a November 2012 earnings call, the CEO of Atlantic Power
Corporation ("Atlantic"), referring to a previously issued company
press release, announced that Atlantic was "confident" that it
could maintain its dividend at current levels (the "Statements").
Four months later, after slashing its dividend by 65%, the price
of Atlantic's shares and debentures dropped significantly.

The plaintiffs, each of whom had purchased Atlantic's shares just
weeks before the 65% dividend cut, commenced proceedings in
Ontario alleging that Atlantic, its CEO, and CFO (together, the
"Defendants") were liable, pursuant to subsections 138.3(1) and
138.3(2) of the OSA, for having made negligent and misleading
secondary market disclosures.  In particular, the plaintiffs
alleged that the Statements and various other disclosures made by
Atlantic (which, significantly, contained language warning that
future dividends were not guaranteed) amounted to a
misrepresentation of Atlantic's ability to maintain its dividend.

The Motion for Leave under the OSA

To obtain leave to proceed under section 138.8 of the OSA, the
Court must be satisfied that the plaintiff's action is brought in
good faith and has a reasonable possibility of succeeding at
trial.

In assessing whether there was a reasonable possibility of
succeeding at trial, the Court applied the Supreme Court's
framework in Theratechnologies, highlighting that the leave
threshold is intended to provide a robust screening mechanism for
proposed securities class actions.  The Court applied the test for
leave endorsed by the Court of Appeal in Green v. Canadian
Imperial Bank of Commerce[12] which, according to Justice
Belobaba, was consistent with the principles articulated in
Theratechnologies:

. . . whether, having considered all the evidenced adduced by the
parties and having regard to the limitations of the motions
process, the plaintiffs' case is so weak or has been so
successfully rebutted by the defendant, that it has no reasonable
possibility of success.

In applying this test, the Court noted that the Defendants, having
filed 10 banker boxes of documents (including fact affidavits,
expert reports, cross-examination transcripts, and other
supportive material), had "made a conscientious decision to do
battle from the outset."  The Court highlighted that the alleged
misrepresentations and the plaintiffs' expert report will
generally ". . . persuade the court that there is at least a
reasonable possibility that the plaintiff will succeed at trial."
However, after reviewing the extensive materials filed by the
Defendants, Justice Belobaba concluded that there was no evidence
to establish that any of the Defendants had believed that Atlantic
would be unable to sustain its dividend level.  Rather, the
parties agreed that Atlantic had sufficient cash flow to maintain
its dividend level and did not dispute that dividend payments were
"business judgment calls" rather than "formulaic calculations."
In the result, Justice Belobaba rejected the plaintiffs'
submission that the Defendants should have known that the dividend
level was not sustainable and held that there was no
misrepresentation upon which the plaintiffs might reasonably
succeed at trial.  As such, leave under section 138.8 of the OSA
was denied.

The Motion to Certify

After dismissing the plaintiffs' motion for leave to proceed with
statutory claims under the OSA, the Court confirmed that the
plaintiffs could still seek certification of their remaining
common law and statutory shareholder and debenture-holder claims.
However, in order for these claims to be certified as a class
action, the Court must be satisfied, pursuant to clause 5(1)(d) of
the CPA, that a class action is the preferable procedure for the
resolution of the common issues raised by the plaintiffs.

Before proceeding with its analysis, the Court observed that no
securities class action had ever been certified once leave under
the OSA had been denied, as the statutory causes of action are
"tailor-made" for class proceedings.  Having been denied leave
under the OSA, the plaintiffs were required to show that each
shareholder and debenture-holder that purchased Atlantic's
securities on the secondary market individually relied on the
alleged negligent misrepresentation.  The plaintiffs failed to do
so.

Following the Court of Appeal in Musicians' Pension Fund of Canada
(Trustees of) v. Kinross Gold Corp., Justice Belobaba noted that
the denial of leave under the OSA is a relevant factor in the
clause 5(1)(d) preferability analysis.  Justice Belobaba concluded
that the common law claims asserted by the plaintiffs rested on
the same evidentiary foundation as the OSA claims, which had
already been dismissed as part of the plaintiffs' motion for
leave.  In concluding that a class action was not the preferable
procedure for the plaintiffs' shareholder misrepresentation
claims, Justice Belobaba noted that "encumbering the parties and
the courts with a complex class action that is destined to fail
promotes neither judicial economy nor access to justice."

For the debenture-holder claims, Justice Belobaba noted that
neither of the current plaintiffs, who were shareholders only,
were proper representative plaintiffs of the proposed class.
Should the debenture-holders and their lawyers wish to proceed
with a class action, the Court reserved its right to hear their
certification motion.

Comment

Justice Belobaba's decision underscores that, using the framework
established by the Supreme Court in Theratechnologies, securities
class actions will often be won or lost at the certification/leave
stage. The Defendants' strategy -- to marshal extensive volumes of
evidence early on in support their position that the plaintiffs
could not succeed at trial -- proved successful in this case.


BANCORPSOUTH BANK: $24.5MM Settlement Gets Prelim. Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that South
Florida attorneys received preliminary approval for a $24.5
million settlement in an overdraft case against BancorpSouth Bank.

Kopelowitz Ostrow Ferguson Weiselberg Gilbert attorneys Jeff
Ostrow -- jostrow@stblaw.com -- and Robert Gilbert represented
bank customers who alleged the bank rearranged debit card
transactions to charge the highest possible overdraft fees. U.S.
Senior Judge Maurice Paul in Gainesville gave preliminary approval
to the settlement on
March 8.

"We are very pleased with this settlement," Messrs. Ostrow and
Gilbert said in a statement on March 9.  "It came following years
of hard-fought litigation and represents a very substantial
recovery for over 190,000 class members."

A spokesman for the Tupelo, Mississippi-based bank did not
immediately respond to a request for comment.

Bruce Rogow of Bruce S. Rogow P.A. in Fort Lauderdale joined
Ostrow, who works in Fort Lauderdale, and Gilbert, who works in
Coral Gables, as lead class counsel.

BancorpSouth Bank was represented by Eric Taylor, Laura Wagner and
Peter Busscher of Hunton & Williams in Atlanta and John Jopling --
jjopling@dellgraham.com -- of Dell Graham in Gainesville.

Judge Paul will be asked for final approval July 7 in Gainesville.

Multidistrict litigation against other banks for the same practice
has generated large settlements and changes in bank policies.


BED BATH & BEYOND: Recalls Fan Heaters Due to Fire Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2016
Posting date: February 4, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56902

This recall involves KUL small, black portable fan heaters with
the UPC Code 765167392299. The KUL logo is printed on the front
bottom of the heaters next to the power dial. The fan heater
measures about 22.9 cm (9 inches) long, 12.7 cm (5 inches) wide,
and 26.7 cm (10.5 inches) tall. The unit weighs 0.91 kg (2 lbs).
An adhesive label is on the bottom of the heater with model number
"KU39229" and "Date: 0515" in the lower right-hand corner.

The fan heater can overheat, posing a fire hazard.

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

CE North America has received 4 reports of the fan heaters
overheating including 2 reports of the unit producing flames. No
injuries have been reported.

Approximately 264 of the recalled units were distributed in Canada
and about 13,000 units in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from August 2015 to October 2015
at Bed, Bath & Beyond Stores across Canada as well as online at
www.bedbathandbeyond.com.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Ningbo Sungroy Electric Appliances Tech. Co., Ltd.
              Cixi
              Ningbo
              CHINA

Distributor: CE North America LLC
             Miami
             Florida
             UNITED STATES

Distributor: Bed Bath & Beyond Inc.
             Union
             UNITED STATES
             Tel: 1-800-462-3966

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled fan heaters
and contact CE North America for instructions on returning the
recalled heaters with a prepaid shipping label. The firm will
issue a refund upon receipt of the returned fan heaters.

For more information, consumers may contact CE North America toll-
free at 844-645-3208 from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. EST Monday
through Friday, by email or by visiting the firm's website and
click on the "Product Recall" link at the bottom of the home page.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6TwcSN


BEST WINGERS: Faces "Chen" Suit in S.D.N.Y
------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Best Wingers LLC and XYZ
Corporation, doing business as Best Wingers.

The case is captioned Feng Chen, Dong Chen, Cheng Li, and
Changxing Li, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Best Wingers LLC and XYZ Corporation,
doing business as Best Wingers, and John Doe and Jane Doe, as
shareholders and corporate officers, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01130 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, February 15, 2016).

Best Wingers is a fast-food chicken plus burgers, fish & ribs in a
no-frills joint popular for takeout/delivery.

Feng Chen, Dong Chen, Cheng Li, and Changxing Li are pro se
plaintiffs.


BLANCHARD MERRIAM: Class Certified, Settlement Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH IOIME, on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BLANCHARD, MERRIAM, ADEL
& KIRKLAND, P.A., Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-130-Oc-30PRL (M.D.
Fla.), Judge James S. Moody, Jr. granted Joseph Ioime's motion for
class certification as well as the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of class settlement.

On March 17, 2015, a four-count class action complaint was filed
against Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A. alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and
the Florida Consumer Collection Practices Act (FCCPA).  On
December 11, 2015, Ioime moved to certify the case as a class
action.  Subsequently, the parties agreed to a settlement and
submitted a proposed class action settlement agreement for
preliminary approval.

Judge Moody certified the putative class consisting of all
consumers located in Florida who were sent a collection letter
from Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A. in connection with
an attempt to collect a consumer debt, where the collection letter
was substantially similar or materially identical to the
collection letter delivered to the plaintiff, from March 17, 2013
through December 21, 2015.  The judge found that Ioime has
satisfied the threshold requirement of demonstating that the
proposed class is "adequately defined and clearly ascertainable,"
and has likewise satisfied the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b).

Judge Moody also preliminarily approved the proposed class
settlement, which grants class members a pro-rata share of the
$6,000 settlement fund, upon determining that it is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.

A full-text copy of Judge Moody's March 3, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/oDKrqqfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Ioime, Plaintiff, represented by Brian W. Warwick, Varnell
& Warwick, PA, Janet R. Varnell, Varnell & Warwick, PA & Steven
Thomas Simmons, Jr., Varnell & Warwick, PA.

Blanchard, Merriam, Adel & Kirkland, P.A., Defendant, represented
by Patrick Michael DeLong -- pmdelong@mdwcg.com -- Marshall,
Dennehey, Warner, Coleman & Goggin.


BMW: Court Precludes Causation Experts in Toxic Tort Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hoenig, writing for Law.com, reports that an appellate
ruling issued in February focused on reliability issues posed by
proposed expert testimony.

Sean R. v. BMW of North America is an important decision by the
New York Court of Appeals in a case claiming that a youngster's
mental and physical disabilities were caused by in utero exposure
to unleaded gasoline vapor attributable to a defective gas hose in
the pregnant mother's BMW.

New York's highest court provided the state's trial bench and bar
with yet more guidance about what is needed in the way of reliable
expert testimony in a toxic tort claim.  BMW, thus, is another
link in a chain of decisions by the court offering a road map
regarding how expert proofs may suffice as opposed to those that
do not.

The Court of Appeals made it clear in Parker v. Mobil Oil Corp.3
that questions regarding reliability of experts' testimony
required diligent policing by courts.  The basic rules seem simple
enough.  If "novel" scientific evidence is involved, the court
applies the Frye "general acceptance" test to determine "whether
the accepted techniques, when properly performed, generate results
accepted as reliable within the scientific community generally."
If the answer is "no," the testimony has flunked and must be
precluded or excluded. If the answer is "yes," the proponent of
the novel scientific testimony has survived the threshold test but
still has to get past the admissibility "gate."  The evidence must
meet a second, "foundational reliability" inquiry.

This second admissibility standard applies to all expert
testimony, not just "novel" scientific evidence.  In Parker, the
court said the Frye inquiry is "separate and distinct from the
admissibility question applied to all evidence -- whether there is
a proper foundation -- to determine whether the accepted methods
were appropriately employed in a particular case."  Parker
declared that the focus moves "from the general reliability
concerns of Frye to the specific reliability of the procedures
followed to generate the evidence proffered and whether they
establish a foundation for the reception of evidence at trial."
These points were confirmed by the court in its Cornell v. 360 W.
51st Realty decision in 2014, a claim that toxic mold caused
illness.4

In BMW the plaintiff was born in May 1992 with severe mental and
physical disabilities.  The timeline underlying the claim that the
child's deficits were caused by a defective fuel hose emitting gas
vapors that damaged the baby in utero was as follows. In May 1989,
the father purchased a new BMW 525i for his wife, the car's
exclusive driver.  In the spring of 1991 she began to notice a
smell of gasoline that "came and went." When the windows were
down, for example during summer, she could tolerate the smell.
But at other times the strong odor caused headaches, dizziness and
throat irritation.  Family members who rode in the car noticed the
odor; one said it made her nauseous and dizzy.

The dealer couldn't identify any problem and made no repairs.  In
July or August 1991, the wife became pregnant with plaintiff.  The
husband took the car to the dealer, and a split fuel hose was
discovered.  Plaintiff was born in May 1992. Subsequent testing
revealed the child had, among other things, spastic quadriparesis
(a form of cerebral palsy), developmental delays, ventricular
asymmetry, aortic stenosis and impaired vision function.  Two
years later, BMW recalled the vehicles due to defects in the feed
fuel hoses. The recall report noted that customers had associated
the defect with a "conspicuous fuel odor."

Causation Experts

The lawsuit against BMW and others was commenced in January 2008.
The claim was that failure to discover and fix the defective hose
exposed plaintiff in utero to toxic gasoline vapor.  Plaintiff's
primary causation experts were Dr. Linda Frazier and Dr. Shira
Kramer. They were prepared to testify that the in utero exposure
to gasoline vapor proximately caused the birth defects.
Dr. Frazier concluded that plaintiff's mother inhaled 1,000 parts
per million (ppm) of gasoline vapor based on the mother's symptoms
of "acute toxicity" during exposure, such as suffering headaches,
nausea and throat irritations.

After ruling out other possible causes, Frazier concluded that the
mother's "high peak exposure" to the vapors during the first
trimester of pregnancy was the "most likely cause of plaintiff's
injuries." Dr. Kramer reached similar conclusions using a
"different analysis."  Specifically, she said that toluene and
benzene, constituent elements of gasoline vapor are "causally
related to an elevated risk of birth defects."

BMW moved to preclude these causation experts from testifying at
trial.  Alternatively, defendant asked for a Frye hearing to
determine whether Drs. Frazier and Kramer were reaching novel
conclusions and not using generally accepted principles and
methodologies.  After reviewing lengthy submissions and
supplemental expert reports, the trial court precluded the
causation experts. The Appellate Division affirmed but certified
the question to the Court of Appeals.

The state's highest court held that the experts should be
precluded from testifying.  The opinion for the court, by Judge
Eugene F. Pigott, Jr., explained that in toxic tort cases an
expert opinion on causation must set forth (1) a plaintiff's
exposure to a toxin, (2) that the toxin is capable of causing
plaintiff's particular injuries (general causation) and (3) that
the plaintiff was exposed to sufficient levels of the toxin to
cause such injuries (specific causation).  The expert must
establish such exposure levels "through methods 'found to be
generally accepted as reliable in the scientific community.'" This
"general acceptance" requirement, also known as the Frye test,
"governs the admissibility of expert testimony in New York."

In a footnote, the court explained that its analysis and holding
were limited to the Frye "general acceptance" inquiry due to the
procedural posture of the case.  Thus, the court expressed no
opinion on the "separate and distinct" question of "whether there
was a proper foundation for their opinions."  The significance of
this clarification by the court should not be overlooked. As
mentioned above, after the "novel" science Frye test is passed,
there is a second "foundational reliability" test for
admissibility of the expert opinion, as stated in the Parker case.
That reliability test applies in all non-novel science cases as
well. In the BMW case, the Frye analysis was dispositive.

The Frye "general acceptance" test asks "whether the expert's
techniques, when properly performed, generate results accepted as
reliable within the scientific community generally."  Although
unanimity is not required, the proponent must show "consensus in
the scientific community as to the [methodology's] reliability."
In the BMW case, the experts failed to make that showing. Here are
highlights of the experts' shortcomings.  Drs. Frazier and Kramer
concluded from the occasional nausea, dizziness and throat
irritations experienced by the mother that a "sufficient amount of
gasoline vapor" caused the child's injuries.  But they cited no
text, scholarly article or study that approves of or applies this
type of methodology, let alone a "consensus" as to its
reliability.

'Reliability' Shortcomings

None of the reports or studies advanced by the experts established
that Frazier's methodology, "when properly performed, generate
results accepted as reliable within the scientific community
generally."  They merely supported her own "conclusion" that there
is a dose-response relationship between exposure to the chemical
constituents of gasoline and symptoms of toxicity. Those studies
did not support her approach of "working backwards from reported
symptoms to divine an otherwise unknown concentration of gasoline
vapor."  Her methodology was not supported by the studies.

Although "odor threshold" analysis has been admitted in certain
settings, the odor threshold of a substance can be "far below" its
toxicity.  Indeed, one of plaintiff's sources, an article in the
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, explained: "Smelling
organic solvents is not indicative of a significant exposure, as
the olfactory nerve can detect levels as low as several parts per
million, which is not necessarily associated with toxicity.  As an
example, the odor threshold of toluene is 0.8 parts per million,
whereas the [threshold limit value] is 100 parts per million."13

Since unleaded gasoline in the early 1990s had a "very low" odor
threshold of between 0.50 and 0.76 ppm, a person would have been
able to detect the odor of gasoline vapor at less than 1 ppm.  The
only expert conclusion that could be reached, using odor threshold
methodology, was that plaintiff was exposed to at least 1 ppm of
unleaded gasoline -- the minimum level at which gasoline is
detectable by human smell.  Instead, Dr. Frazier concluded that
there is a minimum vapor threshold below which individuals do not
experience headache, nausea or dizziness.  Because the mother
experienced those symptoms, Frazier concluded she must have been
exposed to at least that concentration.  But it was not shown that
Frazier's approach "has been generally accepted in the scientific
community."

Although it is sometimes difficult, if not impossible, to quantify
a plaintiff's past exposure to a substance, it remains a
requirement of the causation expert in a toxic tort case to show,
via generally accepted methodologies, that a plaintiff was exposed
to a sufficient amount of a toxin to have caused his injuries.
Here the plaintiff's experts failed to meet their burden to show
that their methodology was "generally accepted in the scientific
community."

Conclusion

Toxic tort cases often present statistical literature noting
"associations" between a toxin and disease. Such murky
"connections" do not reliably establish either general or specific
causation.  The BMW holding confirms the courts' task to gatekeep
expert opinions for reliability.  The court's analysis of the
proposed expert testimony offers litigators lots of practical
guidance.


BOEING CO: Faces Suits Over Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 Crash
---------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that two
years after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 disappeared, the airplane
still hasn't been found, but attorneys for the passengers'
families are ready to lay the blame at the door of Boeing Co.

Miami law firm Podhurst Orseck and the Hays Firm in Chicago filed
30 lawsuits in Illinois state court March 2 against the Chicago-
based aircraft maker, claiming the investigation into the crash
has ruled out every explanation except a defect in the Boeing 777.

Only one confirmed piece of the wreckage has been found: a wing's
flaperon that washed up on Reunion Island.  The flight was
traveling from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing with 227 passengers and 12
crew members.

Investigations turned up nothing unusual about the pilots or cabin
crew's qualifications or behavior, nor any evidence that would
suggest terrorism, a maintenance error or a weather problem,
according to the complaints.

Extensive background checks were done on each passenger after the
crash, and none left suicide notes or displayed other troubling
behavior before they disappeared, the complaint said.  The plane
was below its maximum weight, had plenty of fuel and didn't
encounter any rain.

In the case of pilot suicide or terrorism, the plane would likely
have crashed just as soon as it dropped off civilian and military
radar, the complaint alleges.  Instead, it flew for six more
hours.

"You're only left with one possible cause, and that is a
manufacturing problem," lead plaintiffs attorney Steve Marks of
Podhurst Orseck in Miami said.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau determined the crash was
most likely caused by a "massive and cascading sequence of
electrical failures" that prevented the pilots from having any
control over the flight's operations, court documents state.
The families are seeking damages for products liability and the
suffering the victims experienced before death, according to the
lawsuits filed by Andrew Hays -- ahays@haysfirm.com -- of the Hays
Firm and Podhurst Orseck attorneys Mr. Marks and Roy Altman.

Mr. Marks has represented victims in many of the biggest plane
crashes over the past 25 years, winning hundreds of millions of
dollars for those who lost loved ones in crashes such as SilkAir
Flight 185 and Bashkirian Airlines Flight 2937.

He said he expects the Chicago lawsuits to face jurisdictional
challenges.  Airplane manufacturers often argue the U.S. is the
wrong forum for a case when crash evidence is in another country.
But the lack of wreckage and crash witnesses could help overcome
that challenge and move to a jury more quickly, Mr. Marks said.

"The law is clear that if a product is destroyed by fire or by
circumstances -- in this case it disappeared -- there is what is
called a legal inference that it was a product problem if you can
eliminate every other possible cause," he said.  "Since Boeing's
not going to be able to present evidence on any other cause, I
think this is a very good liability case."

A Boeing spokesman declined to comment, citing a company policy
against speaking to news media about litigation.


CARRIER ONE: Illinois Judge Trims "Lewis" Suit
----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEVON LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. CARRIER ONE,
INC., Defendant, No. 15 CV 7402 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Virginia M.
Kendall dismissed Counts III and IV of the complaint for lack of
jurisdiction.

A four-count complaint was filed against Carrier One, Inc., Impel
Union Inc., Blaze Popovski, and Ivan Samarov for class action
violations of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA)
(Count I) and the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)(Count II), as
well as individual claims on behalf of plaintiff Devon Lewis for
retaliatory discharge under the Illinois Workers' Compensation Act
(Count III) and common law conversion (Count IV).

Carrier One moved to dismiss the state law claims under Counts III
and IV under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of supplemental jurisdiction.
Lewis responded that the court has supplemental jurisdiction over
Counts III and IV based on the subject matter jurisdiction the
court exercises over Count II.

Judge Kendall found that the facts surrounding Lewis' termination
underlying Count III greatly differ from those surrounding Count
II that is the basis for the court's jurisdiction.  The judge
likewise found that Lewis' conversion claim under Count IV does
not derive from the same nucleus of operative facts as the FLSA
claim.  The judge held that the existence of an employment
relationship alone is not sufficient to justify granting
supplemental jurisdiction.

A full-text copy of Judge Kendall's March 10, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/P6XpdHfrom
Leagle.com.

Devon Lewis, Plaintiff and Counter Defendant, represented by
Alejandro Caffarelli, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Alexis D
Martin, Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. & Lorraine Teraldico Peeters,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd..

Carrier One, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sean F Darke --
sedarke@wesselssherman.com -- Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty
Seneczko P.C. & Joseph H. Laverty -- jolaverty@wesselssherman.com
-- Wessels Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C..

Ivan Samarov, Defendant, represented by Sean F Darke, Wessels
Sherman Joerg Liszka Laverty Seneczko P.C..


CARTER'S RETAIL: "Dudum" Deal Has Initial OK
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JULIE DUDUM, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CARTER'S
RETAIL, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14-cv-00988-HSG (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval and for certification of the putative
settlement class.

On January 27, 2014, Julie Dudum, Estella Garcia, Luningning
Ludovico, Lakisha Powell, and Columba Gutierrez sued Carter's
Retail, Inc. for alleged violations of California Labor Code and
Business and Professions Code, including the failure to pay wages,
failure to pay split shift differential wages, failure to
reimburse business expenses, failure to provide accurate wage
statements, violations of California's Unfair Competition Law, and
claims under the Private Attorney General Act (PAGA).

Settlement was reached on January 15, 2015 and the terms of the
formal settlement agreement were finalized on July 7, 2015.  The
plaintiffs' first motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was denied by the court without prejudice.  Plaintiffs
thereafter filed a second motion for preliminary approval and for
certification of the putative settlement class.  Under the
proposed agreement, Carter's Retail agreed to pay $472,500 as the
maximum settlement amount.

Judge Dudum granted the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary
approval of class action settlement, and conditionally certified
the class for settlement purposes.  Judge Dudum also approved the
proposed settlement administrator Simpluris, Inc., as well as the
proposed class representatives, and appointed John McIntyre of
Shea & McIntyre, A.P.C. and Cary Kletter of Kletter Law Firm, LLP,
as co-lead class counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Gilliam's March 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/vQCYRmfrom Leagle.com.

Julie Dudum, Estella Garcia, Plaintiffs, represented by Cary S.
Kletter -- ckletter@kletterlaw.com -- John Franklin McIntyre, Jr.,
Shea & McIntyre, A P.C. & Sally Trung Nguyen --
snguyen@kletterlaw.com.

Luningning Ludovico, Lakisha Powell, Columba Gutierrez,
Plaintiffs, represented by Cary S. Kletter, John Franklin
McIntyre, Jr., Shea & McIntyre, A P.C., Kevin Robert Elliott, Shea
and McIntyre A. P.C. & Sally Trung Nguyen.

Carter's Retail, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aurelio Jose
Perez -- aperez@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Natalie
Ann Pierce -- npierce@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


CHIPOTLE: NLRB Criticizes Social Media Policies, Labor Practices
----------------------------------------------------------------
Rebekah Mintzer, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that
Norovirus, E. coli, gender discrimination claims -- it hasn't been
an easy couple of months for Denver-based fast casual food giant
Chipotle Mexican Grill Inc.  And now a decision from the National
Labor Relations Board has shone a negative light on the company's
social media policies and labor practices too.

A March 14 ruling by an NLRB administrative law judge in
Philadelphia slammed the company for using social media policies
and employee handbooks that violated the National Labor Relations
Act.

According to the ruling, the trouble arose at a Havertown,
Pennsylvania, Chipotle restaurant, when James Kennedy, a server at
the company, began tweeting negatively about his employer.  He
tweeted at the communications director for Chipotle, criticizing
the fact that he and his colleagues in Havertown had to work in
bad weather while other employees were given time off.

Mr. Kennedy also responded to positive customer tweets about
Chipotle.  "Crew members make $8.50hr how much is that steak bowl
really?" he tweeted to one Chipotle fan.  He reminded another
customer who tweeted about Chipotle guacamole that unlike
competitor Qdoba Restaurant Corp., Chipotle charges extra for the
topping.

In January 2015, Chipotle's national social media strategist
discovered the tweets and Mr. Kennedy was shown a copy of the
chain's social media policy.  Strangely, that policy was outdated,
but the message was the same: take down the offending posts.

Mr. Kennedy took down the tweets.  But he began circulating a
petition that alleged store management was not giving employees
rest breaks mandated by state labor law. Resulting tensions with a
supervisor led to his dismissal.

NLRB ALJ Susan Flynn came down hard on Chipotle's social media
policy (even though an outdated version was at issue) and its code
of conduct, declaring that several provisions violated
Mr. Kennedy's rights to engage in protected concerted activity
under Section 7 of the NLRA.  Like ALJs have done in past cases,
Ms. Flynn held that although the policies in question didn't
prevent Section 7 activity explicitly, they could be reasonably
construed by employees as doing so.

The ALJ tore into Chipotle's social media rule that prohibited
employees from damaging the company by spreading "confidential"
information on social media, saying that "confidential" was not
well-defined.

Ms. Flynn also ruled that Mr. Kennedy should not have been asked
to delete his critical tweets and should not have been threatened
with discipline for circulating a petition about employee breaks.
The ruling, which Chipotle has the option of appealing to the full
board, shows how tricky it can be to exercise oversight of
employee in a time when the labor board is eager to protect
workers' social media speech.

"The board wants [employers] to be specific so an employee doesn't
think you're telling them: 'you can't talk about what you earn and
the terms and conditions of employment,'" says
Howard Wexler, an associate at Seyfarth Shaw.  He recommends
giving employees specific examples of what is and is not
considered confidential to further clarify and help the policy
withstand board scrutiny.

Additionally, the ruling criticized the social media policy's
assertion that employees shouldn't spread "false" or "misleading"
statements about Chipotle online, explaining that these types of
statements can only be prohibited if there is a malicious intent
behind them.

Ms. Flynn also rejected Chipotle's efforts to use a disclaimer as
a sort of fail-safe against NLRB action.  At the bottom of its
policy, Chipotle says that the rules aren't meant to limit "any
activity that is protected or restricted by the National Labor
Relations Act, whistleblower laws, or other privacy rights."

Frederick Miner -- fminer@littler.com -- a shareholder at Littler
Mendelson, notes that the current board won't generally see these
disclaimers as sufficient to immunize the company from legal
action under the NLRA, since workers won't necessarily understand
what the disclaimer means.  "I think from the board's standpoint,
there isn't a very good widespread understanding or appreciation
among employees of what their rights are under the act," Mr. Miner
says.


CHURCH AVE.: Faces "Islas" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Church Ave. Car Service Inc.

The case is captioned Alejandro Islas Flores, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Church Ave.
Car Service Inc., doing business as Church Ave. Car Service, Paolo
Betancourth, and Carlos Betancourth, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-00777 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, February 15, 2016).

Church Ave. Car Service is engaged in the car rental business.

Alejandro Islas Flores is a pro se plaintiff.


COBALT INT'L: Court Won't Certify Jan. 19 Order for Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In Re Cobalt International Energy, Inc.
Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. H-14-3428 (S.D. Tex.),
Judge Nancy F. Atlas denied the motions filed by the defendants
Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Riverstone Holdings LLC, First Reserve,
ACM Ltd., and The Carlyle Group L.P. (collectively, "Control
Defendants"); and by Cobalt International Energy, Inc., Joseph H.
Bryant, James W. Farnsworth, John P. Wilkirson, Peter R. Coneway,
Henry Cornell, Jack E. Golden, N. John Lancaster, Jon A. Marshall,
Kenneth W. Moore, J. Hardy Murchison, Michael G. France, Kenneth
A. Pontarelli, Scott L. Lebovitz, Myles W. Scoggins, D. Jeff van
Steenbergen, Martin H. Young, Jr., and William P. Utt
(collectively, the "Cobalt Defendants"); and by Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities, Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities
Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, UBS Securities LLC, Howard Weil
Incorporated, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Capital
One Southcoast, Inc., and Lazard Capital Markets LLC
(collectively, "Underwriter Defendants"), seeking certification of
the court's memorandum and order entered January 19, 2016 for
interlocutory appeal.

On May 1, 2015, a consolidated amended class action complaint was
filed asserting claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  The defendants filed
motions to dismiss which were denied on January 19, 2016.  The
defendants then sought to certify the January 19 memorandum and
order for interlocutory appeal.

Judge Atlas found that the defendants have failed to satisfy the
three requirements for certification of an interlocutory appeal
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1292(b).  The judge also did not
find the case to be exceptional that would benefit from an
interlocutory appeal.

A full-text copy of Judge Atlas' March 14, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/hEZiM8from Leagle.com.

Fire and Police Retiree Health Care Fund, San Antonio, Plaintiff,
represented by Gerald T Drought -- gdrought@mdtlaw.com -- Martin &
Drought PC.

KBC Asset Management NV, Universal Investment Gesellschaft m.b.h.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Matthew Christopher Matheny, Provost
Umphrey.

Equity-League Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Allan
Brent Diamond -- adiamond@diamondmccarthy.com -- Diamond McCarthy
LLP.

GAMCO Global Gold, Natural Resources & Income Trust, GAMCO Natural
Resources, Gold & Income Trust, Plaintiffs, represented by Brandon
Marsh -- brandon.marsh@blbglaw.com -- Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Andrew J. Entwistle --
aentwistle@entwistle-law.com -- Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

Sjunde AP-Fonden, Plaintiff, represented by Sjunde AP-Fonden.

Joseph H Bryant, James W Farnsworth, John P Wilkirson, Peter R
Coneway, Henry Cornell, Jack E Golden, N John Lancaster, Jon A
Marshall, Kenneth W Moore, J Hardy Murchison, Michael G France,
Kenneth A Pontarelli, Scott L Lebovitz, Myles W Scoggins, D Jeff
Van Steenbergen, Martin H Young, Jr., Kathryn Bailey Hutchison,
William P Utt, Cobalt International Energy Inc., Defendants,
represented by Daniel David -- danny.david@bakerbotts.com -- Baker
Botts LLP,David D Sterling -- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts LLP, Amy Pharr Hefley -- amy.hefley@bakerbotts.com --
Baker Botts & Russell Carter Lewis -- russell.lewis@bakerbotts.com
-- Baker Botts LLP.

Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam D Gold
-- adgold@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, George T
Conway, III -- gtconway@wlrk.com -- Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen &
Katz, Ronald L. Oran, Jr. -- ron.oran@strasburger.com --
Strasburger & Price LLP & Scott Musoff -- scott.musoff@skadden.com
-- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice.

Riverstone Holdings LLC, First Reserve Corporation, KERN Partners
Ltd., GS Capital Partners V Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners V
Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital Partners V Institutional, L.P., GS
Capital Partners V GmbH & Co. KG, GS Capital Partners VI Fund,
L.P., GS Capital Partners VI Offshore Fund, L.P., GS Capital
Partners VI Parallel, L.P., GS Capital Partners VI GmbH & Co. KG,
Carlyle/Riverstone Global Energy and Power Fund III, L.P., C/R
Energy III Cobalt Partnership, L.P., C/R Energy Coinvestment II,
L.P., First Reserve Fund XI, L.P., FR XI Onshore AIV, L.P., KERN
Cobalt Co-Invest Partners AP LP, Defendants, represented by Adam D
Gold, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, George T Conway, III,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz &Ronald L. Oran, Jr., Strasburger &
Price LLP.

The Carlyle Group, Defendant, represented by Robert A Van Kirk --
rvankirk@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP, George Anthony
Borden -- gborden@wc.com -- Williams & Connolly LLP, John Sievert
Williams -- jwilliams@wc.com -- Williams and Connolly LLP & Ronald
L. Oran, Jr., Strasburger & Price LLP.

Riverstone Energy Coinvestment III, L.P., Defendant, represented
by Adam D Gold, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz & Ronald L. Oran,
Jr., Strasburger & Price LLP.

Carlyle Energy Coinvestment III, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Robert A Van Kirk, Williams and Connolly LLP, George Anthony
Borden, Williams & Connolly LLP & John Sievert Williams, Williams
and Connolly LLP.

C/R Cobalt Investment Partnership, L.P., Defendant, represented by
Adam D Gold, Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, George T Conway, III,
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz, Ronald L. Oran, Jr., Strasburger &
Price LLP & Russell Carter Lewis, Baker Botts LLP.

Goldman Sachs & Co., Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner,
Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice & Noelle M
Reed, Skadden Arps et al.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co. Securities,
Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., RBC Capital Markets, LLC, UBS
Securities LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, Capital
One Southcoast, Inc., Lazard Capital Markets LLC, Defendants,
represented by Jay B. Kasner, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, pro hac vice, Noelle M Reed, Skadden Arps et al & Scott
Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac vice.

Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Howard Weil Incorporated,
Defendants, represented by Noelle M Reed, Skadden Arps et al &
Scott Musoff, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, pro hac
vice.

Sjunde AP-Fonden, Movant, represented by Johnston de Forest
Whitman, Jr., Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice &
Naumon A Amjed, Kessler Topaz Meltzer and Check LLP, pro hac vice.

GAMCO Global Gold, Natural Resources & Income Trust, GAMCO Natural
Resources, Gold & Income Trust, Movants, represented by Brandon
Marsh, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac
vice,Jonathan H Beemer, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Jordan A Cortez,
Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, Vincent R Cappucci, Entwistle &
Cappucci, David R Stickney, Bernstein Litowitz et al, pro hac
vice, Jonathan D. Uslaner, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann
LLP & Thomas Robert Ajamie, Ajamie LLP.


COMSCORE INC: Kessler Topaz Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
The law firm of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP on March 21
disclosed that a shareholder class action lawsuit has been filed
against comScore, Inc. on behalf of purchasers of the Company's
securities between May 5, 2015 and March 7, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

comScore shareholders who purchased their securities during the
Class Period may, no later than May 9, 2016, petition the Court to
be appointed as a lead plaintiff representative of the class.
comScore shareholders who wish to discuss this action and their
legal options are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., D. Seamus Kaskela, Esq. or
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com.
For additional information about this lawsuit, or to request
information about this action online, please visit
https://www.ktmc.com/new-cases/comscore-inc

comScore provides data, metrics, products, and services to clients
in the media, advertising, and marketing industries.
The shareholder class action complaint alleges that comScore and
certain of its executive officers made a series of false and
misleading statements, and failed to disclose material adverse
facts to investors regarding the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As detailed in the complaint, the defendants are
alleged to have made false and misleading statements and failed to
disclose: (1) that the Company's accounting practices were not in
compliance with applicable SEC regulations; (2) that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting; (3) that, as
such, the Company would be unable to file its Form 10-K for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 in a timely manner; and (4)
that, as a result of the foregoing, the Company's financial
statements, as well as Defendants' statements about comScore's
business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

On February 29, 2016, the Company reported that it would be unable
to file its Form 10-K 2015 Annual Report with the SEC on time
because it "require[d] additional time to prepare its financial
statements and complete the external audit of those statements
included in the Form 10-K."  The Company further disclosed that
its Audit Committee had commenced a review of certain accounting
matters "with the assistance of independent counsel and advisors."

On March 7, 2016, comScore reported that its Audit Committee had
advised that it did not expect to finalize its review of potential
accounting issues before March 15, 2016.  Additionally, the
Company announced that it was suspending its share repurchase
program.  Following this news, comScore's stock declined $13.67
per share, or 33.5%, to close on March 7, 2016 at $27.04 per
share, on heavy trading volume.

comScore shareholders who purchased their securities during the
Class Period (May 5, 2015 - March 7, 2016) may, no later than
May 9, 2016, petition the Court to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff representative of the class.

Members of the purported class may petition the Court to be
appointed as a lead plaintiff representative through Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check or other counsel, or may choose to do nothing and
remain an absent class member.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party who acts on behalf of other class members in
directing the litigation.  In order to be appointed as a lead
plaintiff, the Court must determine that the class member's claim
is typical of the claims of other class members, and that the
class member will adequately represent the class in the action.
Your ability to share in any recovery is not affected by the
decision of whether or not to serve as a lead plaintiff.

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  The complaint in this action was not filed
by Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check.


CORAL SPRINGS, FL: Faces Class Action Over Speed Trap Fines
-----------------------------------------------------------
Samantha Joseph, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
$600 traffic ticket in an alleged speed trap prompted disgruntled
motorist Robert Zoba and his attorney John Caserta to file a class
action lawsuit that a state appellate court said challenged "the
boundaries of judicial immunity."

Mr. Caserta received his own $450 ticket weeks earlier in a school
zone near the Sawgrass Springs Middle School but successfully
fought it by arguing the zone had been illegally established.

His client paid the fine in full but filed the proposed class
action against Coral Springs, Broward County, Broward Clerk of
Courts Howard Forman and the state Revenue Department.  He sued to
get his money back, alleging the government agencies illegally
established the school zone and set up the speed trap for
unsuspecting drivers.  His amended complaint alleged the
defendants collected thousands of dollars in fines for traffic
violations in the school zone.

Under Florida law, 50.8 percent of traffic fines goes to the city,
43.1 percent to the state, 6.1 percent to the clerk and a $12.50
surcharge per violation to the county.

The state tax agency successfully argued Mr. Zoba had to file suit
against it in Leon Circuit Court, not Broward, and exited the
litigation.

The case against Coral Springs and the county remained alive after
Broward Circuit Judge Carlos Rodriguez denied their motion to
dismiss on sovereign immunity.

The clerk's status divided the Fourth District Court of Appeal on
March 9.

In a 2-1 decision, the panel considered whether the clerk had
judicial immunity for collecting its portion -- a task Forman's
attorneys described as part of the overall decision-making process
for noncriminal traffic infractions.  But Mr. Zoba argued unjust
enrichment and sought to recover the share of the fine the clerk
retains after deducting 0.5 of a percent for administrative
expenses.

The appellate court largely sided with the clerk, dismissing
Forman from the litigation after finding judicial immunity
protected him from defending the claim or incurring attorney fees.

"The elephant in the room, however, is whether the clerk can
ultimately be required to refund any of the monies it retained if
the school zone is determined to be illegally established,"
District Judge Melanie May wrote for the majority.
Palm Beach Circuit Judge Jeffrey Gillen, sitting by designation,
concurred.

"Here if the school zone is found to be illegal, then a traffic
fine for an infraction committed in the school zone is
unconstitutional, but the administrative costs the clerk earned by
statutorily collecting the fine are not," Judge May wrote for the
majority.  "The clerk earned the costs for performing his
statutorily and judicially directed job."

Judges May and Gillen found it should be up to a trial court to
unravel whether the clerk could keep the majority of his portion,
which is deposited in a trust fund after subtracting expenses.

"There are several hurdles the plaintiff must first overcome:
proving the school zone was illegally created, defending the
voluntary payment waiver defense and whether the clerk must refund
monies beyond the administrative fees authorized by statute,"
Judge  May wrote.  "Wisely the trial court foresaw the issue, but
the case was not yet in the procedural posture for the trial court
to rule on it.  We save that issue for another day."


COVIDIEN LLC: Recalls Kangaroo Feeding Tubes
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Posting date: February 26, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57282

This recall is being conducted following customer reports of the
incorrect devices within the sterile package. 8fr 16" PVC tubes
were inadvertently packaged in a 6.5 fr 36" polyurethane packs and
8fr 20" PVC tubes were inadvertently packaged in an 8fr 20"
polyurethane packs.

Affected products:
A. KANGAROO FEEDING TUBE
Lot or serial number:
521807764X (for cat# 461438)
521808064X (for cat# 461701)
Model or catalog number: 461438
                         461701

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


COX COMMS: Customers Ordered to Arbitrate Cable Fees Dispute
------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Orzeck, Bryan Koenig and Daniel Wilson, writing for Law360,
report that a California federal judge on March 21 forced Cox
Communications Inc. customers to arbitrate their dispute in a
proposed class action alleging unauthorized fees for certain cable
television service tiers, finding an arbitration clause in an
agreement between the parties was enforceable.

In an order granting Cox's motion to compel arbitration, U.S.
District Judge Janis L. Sammartino said the plaintiffs couldn't
pursue in the court their claims Cox duped them with hidden fees.
The decision rendered moot a motion by Cox to dismiss and stayed
the proceedings,

Matti Yousif, Elizabeth Ioane, Zach Beimes and Dawn Harrell had 30
days to opt out of the arbitration clause that first became a part
of customer service agreements in 2011, Cox said, but none sought
to do so until at least a year and for some as many as three years
after they agreed to the dispute resolution provision.

Judge Sammartino on March 21 agreed, saying the plaintiffs had
agreed to arbitrate any claims related to services Cox provided,
which also covered high-speed Internet packages.

"There can be little doubt that this arbitration clause -- even
though nested in an agreement geared toward high-speed Internet
-- encompasses claims arising from Cox's provision of cable TV
services," the judge wrote.

The lawsuit was first filed in San Diego County Superior Court in
May, but Cox removed it to federal court in July.  The plaintiffs
allege that while the cable giant claims its advertised prices for
television services are all-inclusive -- barring government-
mandated fees -- it actually charges customers extra, hidden fees
for its "Advanced TV" package, allowing it to wrongly rake in
millions of dollars from subscribers.

Even if these additional charges are disclosed in marketing
materials, these disclosures are inadequate either in content or
placement, making it unlikely that consumers will either see or
understand them, the complaint claimed.

The plaintiffs, who are located in Arizona, California and Nevada,
allege violations of various state consumer and unfair business
practices laws as a result of Cox's purported false advertising,
among other claims, and are asking for restitution of the disputed
fees and punitive damages.  They seek to represent Cox customers
in Arizona, California and Nevada who paid an additional Advanced
TV fee on top of their standard recurring charges, a proposed
class that likely has thousands of members, according to the
complaint.

Cox took issue with those allegations last July, arguing that the
complaint "never specifies what improper 'fee' plaintiffs were
allegedly charged or even the actual amount of the fee," Cox said
in the filing.  "And, while the complaint also concludes that
defendants made 'misrepresentations' about -- or did not disclose
-- the 'fee,' plaintiffs fail to state any of the required 'who,
what, when, where and how' of any alleged deceptive or fraudulent
misconduct."

The plaintiffs said Cox didn't sufficiently inform the customers
about the scope of the clause in the arbitration agreement.

But Judge Sammartino on March 21 said it was reasonable for
customers to believe that, because they buy packages with a modem,
router and cable TV bunched together on the same entertainment
center, it wasn't unreasonable for Cox to include a clause for
cable TV services in the Internet agreement.

"It would defy common sense to suppose that, had customers read
the terms carefully and realized that not only high-speed
Internet, but also cable TV and telephone services were subject to
arbitration, that they would have opted out of the arbitration
clause," the judge said.

Attorneys for the plaintiffs and Cox, and a representative for
Cox, didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on
March 21.

The plaintiffs are represented by Derrick F. Coleman and R.
Jeffrey Neer of Coleman Frost LLP and Craig M. Nicholas --
cnicholas@nicholaslaw.org -- of Alex M. Tomasevic --
atomasevic@nicholaslaw.org -- of Nicholas & Tomasevic LLC.

Cox is represented by Richard R. Patch -- rrp@coblentzlaw.com --
Ann E. Johnston -- aej@coblentzlaw.com -- and David B. Anderson
-- danderson@coblentzlaw.com -- of Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass
LLP.

The case is Yousif et al. v. Coxcom LLC et al., case number 3:15-
cv-01499, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California.


CVS PHARMACY: Settlement in "Uppal" Granted Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria granted final approval of a class action
settlement in the case captioned RIMANPREET UPPAL, Plaintiff, v.
CVS PHARMACY, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-02629-VC
(N.D. Cal.).

The proposed settlement was preliminarily approved on September
11, 2015.  After conducting a final fairness hearing, Judge
Chhabria found that the settlement appears to be fair, adequate
and reasonable to the settlement class.  The  judge also found
that the settlement satisfies the requirements for class action
settlement under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
and that the settlement class has at all times been adequately
represented by the named plaintiff and class counsel.

Pursuant to the deal, the Defendant will establish a $2,350,800
Settlement Fund.

Plaintiff Rimanpreet Uppal is awarded $10,000 for her time and
effort in pursuing this litigation, and in recognition of the
broader release she has signed and the hardship she faced in
representing the class.

Plaintiff's application for attorneys' fees in the amount of
$783,600 and reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of
$20,494.11 is granted in part. Plaintiff is awarded $587,700 in
attorney's fees, in keeping with the Ninth Circuit's 25% benchmark
for attorney's fees in common fund cases. See, e.g., Staton v.
Boeing Co., 327 F.3d 938, 968 (9th Cir. 2003) (quoting Hanlon v.
Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011, 1029 (9th Cir. 1998)). Plaintiff's
application for reimbursement in the amount of $20,494.11 is
granted. Further, the Court approves payment of up to $23,290.08
for the Settlement Administrator, Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC,
or, in the event that there will be a second distribution to
Settlement Class Members from unclaimed funds, if any, payment of
up to $28,815.08 for the Settlement Administrator.

A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's March 10, 2016 order and
judgment is available at http://is.gd/ZhXd0Pfrom Leagle.com.

Rimanpreet Uppal, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Hagop
Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey, Aidan Conor McGlaze,
Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Alireza Alivandivafa,
Alireza Alivandivafa, Attorney and Counselor at Law, Azadeh C.
Dadgostar -- azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com -- Dadgostar Law LLP, Hirad
David Dadgostar -- hirad@dadgostarlaw.com -- Law Offices of Hirad
D. Dadgostar, Michael David Seplow, Schonbrun Seplow Harris and
Hoffman LLP, Thomas Walker Falvey, Law Offices of Thomas W. Falvey
& V. James DeSimone, V. JAMES DESIMONE LAW.

CVS Pharmacy, Inc., CVS RX Services, Inc., Garfield Beach CVS,
LLC, Defendants, represented by Michael David Weil --
mweil@orrick.com -- Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP & Timothy
Joseph Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.


ECO CHIC: Recalls Electric Scooter Due to Noncompliance
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 2, 2016
Posting date: February 2, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics, Tools and Electrical Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56926

This recall involves the following products with the model numbers
included below:

  Model                    Model Number        Colour
  -----                    ------------        ------
  Smart Balance Wheel      SBS01               Black
  Smart Balance Wheel      SBS01               White
  Smart Balance Wheel      SBS04               Black
  with Bluetooth Speaker
  Smart Balance Wheel      SBS04               White
  with Bluetooth Speaker

These products may also be known as Tiltee Sport 2-Wheel Self-
Balancing Electric Scooter or Tiltee Cruising 2-Wheel Self-
Balancing Scooter with Built-in Bluetooth Speaker.

These products were sold with battery chargers that did not have
the necessary electrical certification to be sold in Canada. In
addition, the affected units were sold with English-only
instruction manuals.

Neither Health Canada nor Eco Chic Distribution Inc. has received
any reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use
of these products in Canada.

119 units of the recalled products were sold online in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from November 2015 to December
2015 in Canada.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: Eco Chic Distribution Inc.
          Toronto
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Vidar International Co., Ltd.
              Shenzhen
              Guangdong
              Ontario
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled products and
return them to the place of purchase. Recalled products purchased
from www.costco.ca may be returned to your nearest Costco
warehouse location.

For more information, consumers may contact Eco Chic Distribution
Inc. by telephone at 1-647-574-0326, from 10 am to 4 pm ET.

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


ELECTROLUX: 11th Cir. Reverses Class Certification in Washer Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes.com, reports that the 11th
Circuit Court of Appeals reversed class certification for a pair
of "smelly washer" cases, agreeing with Electrolux that individual
issues including whether purchasers relied on advertising that
neglected to raise the possibility of foul smells along with
freshly washed laundry.

The court's decision by no means ends the litigation against
Electrolux, which made the front-loading washers sold under the
Frigidaire brand.  But it does lay out clear instructions for when
judges can assemble class actions like this, and dresses down the
circuit court judge who got an essential part of the formula
backwards.

In her ruling certifying classes of consumers in California and
Texas, U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood in Georgia said the
proper approach is to resolve any doubts as to the appropriateness
of class treatment in favor of the plaintiffs. That's backwards,
the appeals court said: Plaintiff lawyers have the burden of
proof, and if doubts remain, "the party with the burden of proof
loses."

Electrolux also argues the plaintiff lawyers failed to establish
predominance because under California and Texas consumer laws,
plaintiffs must show they suffered damages because they relied on
the company's representations.  That could require looking into
each individual plaintiff's claim to determine if they bought
their washers because of false advertising, the court said. Those
state laws also require plaintiffs to say whether they notified
the company of the problem, sought a refund, and whether the
problem showed up during the warranty period.

The court laid out a neat test for whether predominance has been
established: If the evidence the plaintiffs must present changes
significantly when an individual plaintiff is added to or
subtracted from the class, then classwide claims probably do not
predominate.  Predominance has taken on increased importance in
the wake of U.S. Supreme Court rulings including Wal-Mart v. Dukes
and Comcast CMCSA +1.25% v. Behrends, which ordered judges to
inquire more vigorously into whether claims are truly shared
across the entire class.

The 11th Circuit sent the case back to district court for further
proceedings on whether classwide reliance and the other factors
can be established.  It wasn't a total victory for Electrolux, but
signaled that in the 11th Circuit at least, judges must be more
careful exercising the "awesome power" of certifying a class
action. Class actions, the court reminded us, "are an exception to
our constitutional tradition of individual litigation."

Whirlpool faces similar litigation over front-loading washers,
which the government encouraged because of their water efficiency
but which also had the unfortunate side effect of trapping
moisture in their door gaskets and making unpleasant smells.  The
U.S. Supreme Court sent one Whirlpool class action back to the
Sixth Circuit for reconsideration in 2013 after issuing its
Comcast ruling. But the Sixth ignored the Supreme Court's warnings
and reinstated the class. Whirlpool won the first test case anyway
in 2014, but plaintiff lawyers vow to bring more.


ENTERPRISE RECOVERY: Violated FDCPA, "Bazzano" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Enterprise
Recovery Systems Incorporated.

The case is captioned Chris Bazzano, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Enterprise Recovery
Systems Incorporated, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00423-MHB
(Dist. Ariz, Phoenix Div., February 15, 2016).

Enterprise Recovery Systems, Inc. provides resolution and recovery
of delinquent accounts, and collection services for colleges and
universities, guarantee agencies, private lenders, and the
Department of Education. Its programs include base collections of
student account receivables, tuition fees, federal student and
institutional loans, and guarantor and lender services. The
company also provides higher education accounts receivable
management services, including traditional delinquent receivable
and loan account collections, first party call center services,
skip tracing, a default aversion program, and more. The Company is
based in Oak Brook, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq.
          Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
          THOMPSON CONSUMER LAW GROUP PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388 8898
          Facsimile: (866) 317 2674
          E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com
                  tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


EXPERIAN INFO: Alston Claims Dismissed, Letren Claims Proceed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CANDACE E. ALSTON and NEIL F. LETREN,
Plaintiffs, v. EXPERIAN INFORMATION SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant,
Civil Action No. TDC-14-3957 (D. Md.), Judge Theodore D. Chuang
granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss filed by
Experian Information Solutions, Inc. and denied the cross-motion
for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs Candace E. Alston and
Neil F. Letren.

Alston and Letren filed a suit against Experian alleging
violations of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C.
Sections 1681 et seq. (2012), specifically Section 1681i(a)(3)(A)
and (B).  Both plaintiffs had previously submitted several written
disputes to Experian about various credit reporting entries.  In
their complaint, they alleged that Experian did not reasonably
determine that their subsequent disputes were frivolous or
irrelevant, and that Experian failed to provide them with the
required statutory notification of those determinations.

Experian moved to dismiss Alston's claims, arguing that they are
barred under the doctrine against claim splitting because they
stem from the same set of underlying facts at issue in another
lawsuit Alston filed against Experian which is currently pending
before the court.  Experian also moved for dismissal of Letren's
claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), asserting
that Letren failed to allege sufficient facts to state a claim for
violation of Section 1681i(a)(3)(A) or (B).

Judge Chuang found that Alston's claims arise out of the same
series of transactions and core of operative facts which form the
basis for her other pending suit, namely Experian's credit report
entries relating to her Wells Fargo mortgage account.  The judge
also found that both cases allege the same overarching statutory
violation that Experian violated 15 U.S.C. Section 1681i because
it did not conduct a reasonable investigation into her disputes.
Thus, Judge Chuang agreed with Experian in concluding that
Alston's claims are barred by the doctrine of claim splitting.
Consequently, with respect to Alston's claims, Judge Chuang
granted Experian's motion to dismiss and necessarily denied the
plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment.

Judge Chuang, however, denied Experian's motion to dismiss as to
Letren's claims upon finding that Letren's allegations were enough
to state a claim under Section 1681i(a)(3)(A) and (B) of the FCRA.
The judge also denied the cross-motion for summary judgment as to
Letren's claims because Experian has asserted that it needs but
has not yet had an opportunity to discover information essential
to its opposition to Letren's allegations.

A full-text copy of Judge Chuang's March 3, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/6sxyaqfrom Leagle.com.

Neil F. Letren, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin L Chapple --
chappleanc@aol.com -- Chapple Law Firm.

Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Sandy David Baron -- sbaron@shulmanrogers.com -- Shulman Rogers
Gandal Pordy and Ecker PA


FACEBOOK INC: Judge Hears Arguments in Link-Scanning Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that U.S. District
Chief Judge Phyllis Hamilton had pointed questions for both sides
on March 16 in a hearing over whether she should certify a class
action against Facebook Inc. for alleged violations of federal and
state privacy laws.

Judge Hamilton's questions for Facebook's lawyer at Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher could signal that the suit, which is potentially worth
billions to plaintiffs, may not be going away any time soon.
Still, she stopped well short of waving the case through the
formidable hurdle of class certification.

Throughout the hearing, both sides urged Hamilton to look to an
opinion by U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in a similar case against
Google Inc. for guidance.

Judge Koh, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, allowed claims that Google scanned Gmail
messages to serve targeted ads survive a motion to dismiss only to
later deny class certification.  Judge Koh found the issue of
whether individual users consented to the scans predominated any
common issues.

Plaintiffs lawyers accuse Facebook of unlawfully intercepting
information on web links contained in users' direct messages.
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein's Michael Sobol argued on March
16 that the evidence weighs against finding that users have
consented to the way Facebook intercepts the URLs, then stores and
analyzes them for further insights into users' online behavior.
"I don't think they've done enough on this record to imply
consent, because the truth is [the way the system works] is a
secret," Mr. Sobol said.

But Judge Hamilton pointed out early in Mr. Sobol's argument that
he was asking her to certify a class that went beyond allegations
included in the latest complaint.  The complaint cited an October
2012 report by The Wall Street Journal showing that links included
in private Facebook messages increased the count of "Likes"
registered on sites that displayed Facebook's "Like" button.

Mr. Sobol said it wasn't until after plaintiffs obtained access to
Facebook's source code in discovery that their expert was able to
determine Facebook's methods.  His team found conduct beyond the
bump in "Likes" that constituted illegal behavior, Mr. Sobol said,
defending the altered class definition as "a technical improvement
offered for precision."

Arguing for Facebook, Gibson Dunn's Christopher Chorba --
cchorba@gibsondunn.com -- said that the plaintiffs should at the
very least be forced to amend their complaint.  He further argued
that the plaintiffs expert had made mistakes in interpreting the
company's source code. But he also urged Hamilton to look to Judge
Koh's analysis of the consent issue in the Gmail case.

"Isn't this case different from the Gmail case?" Hamilton asked.
Hamilton said that Google could point to specific information
provided by the company to users about its email scanning
practices. Hamilton said that Facebook's request to seal thousands
of pages of filings associated with the class-certification
process could prove to be "a real difficulty for your client on
implied consent."

"I don't think this information was publicly available or well
known," she said.

Companies are exempted from liability under the federal Wiretap
Act as long as either the sender or receiver has consented to
interception.

Mr. Chorba argued that evaluating consent would have to be done on
an individual message-by-message basis, making the case ill-suited
to class treatment.  Mr. Chorba noted that Facebook's web
developer guide, which disclosed that URL scans were tracked and
counted on third-party sites, had more than 7 million unique views
during the proposed class period.

Judge Hamilton, who reminded the lawyers once again that she's not
a Facebook user, asked where the company disclosed that shared
links would be processed.


FORD: Recalls Police Interceptor Vehicles 2013 Models
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 10, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
TC System: Electrical
Units affected: 1374
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016066TC
ID number: 2016066
Manufacturer recall number: 16S04

On certain Ford police interceptor vehicles equipped with an
auxiliary battery installed by Crown North America, a division of
Leggett & Platt Automotive Group, as part of emergency vehicle
upfit, the wiring connecting the trunk-mounted auxiliary battery
to the vehicle electrical system may have been misrouted or
improperly retained. Over time, this could allow the wiring to be
damaged, potentially resulting in an electrical short which could
cause a fire resulting in injury and/or damage to property.
Correction: Ford dealers will inspect wiring and repair, reroute
and/or secure as necessary.

  Make      Model           Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----           ----------------------
  FORD      POLICE           2013
            INTERCEPTOR
            SEDAN (TAURUS)


FRESH INC: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Sugar Lip Treatment Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Milafel Dacanay, writing for Tech Times reports that three judges
of the California Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit on March 17
unanimously ruled in favor of Fresh Inc., a Boston-based
manufacturer of Sugar Lip Treatment, in a class-action suit
alleging misinformation.

Angela Ebner, a consumer, filed the lawsuit claiming the company
was in violation of consumer protection laws, specifically the
Sherman Law, which states that a product is already misbranded if
the label is already false or misleading.

In her suit, Ms. Ebner alleged that the company deliberately
misled the consumers by omitting any supplemental information
about the product's accessibility.  Further, she argued that the
product's design, which appeared oversized, gave the impression
that the tube contained more than what was stated in the label.

The Sugar Lip Treatment, which is made of sugar and reparative
oils, is available for less than $30.  It has an indicated size of
4.3 grams (0.15 oz.) for the original tube and 2.2 grams (0.08
oz.) for the mini version. The tube is also equipped with a
concealed metallic base weighing 5.35 grams (0.19 oz.), which
means, along with the cardboard box, one regular lip balm package
can be up to 29 grams (1 oz.).

The lip balm works by twisting the bottom of the tube to reveal
the bullet.  Ms. Ebner, however, said that only 75 percent of the
tube became available in each use and she was therefore "deprived
of the value of her purchases," the opinion said.

However, Fresh Inc. countered by saying that, under consumer laws,
it is not required to provide any supplemental information in its
packaging.  The judge also cited that the company did not commit
any federal violation as the box specifically and accurately
stated the actual weight and content of the tube.

Furthermore, the twisting mechanism used in Sugar Lip Treatment is
common in the market and that consumers like Ms. Ebner should be
familiar with how it works and that the remaining content is often
at the bottom to keep the bullet in place.

"It is up to the consumer to decide whether it is worth the effort
to extract any remaining product with a finger or a small tool,"
ruled the court.

Ms. Ebner has yet to issue a statement about the decision.


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado 2015 Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Brakes
Units affected: 47148
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016053TC
ID number: 2016053
Manufacturer recall number: 20760

On certain Heavy Duty and Police Pursuit vehicles, the brake pedal
pivot nut may become loose, causing the brake pedal to be loose or
inoperative. If the brake pedal becomes loose or inoperative, it
could interfere with the accelerator pedal, and/or the driver may
be unable to safely stop the vehicle through application of the
brake pedal, potentially affecting stopping distances and
increasing the risk of a crash causing injury and/or damage to
property. Correction: Dealers will inspect the pivot bolt
installation to determine whether the vehicle has already received
the production remedy. If not, the dealer will add adhesive to the
nut, and reinstall the nut at an increased torque. Note: This
condition may result in the "Service Engine Soon" light
illuminating, and brake lights may stay on longer than expected.

  Make        Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----        -----       ----------------------
  GMC         SIERRA      2015
  CHEVROLET   SILVERADO   2015, 2015, 2015, 2015


GENERAL MOTORS: Recalls Sierra and Silverado 2016 Models
--------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 4
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016068TC
ID number: 2016068
Manufacturer recall number: 15808

Certain vehicles may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle
Safety Standard (CMVSS) 114 - Theft Protection and Rollaway
Protection, and CMVSS 208 - Occupant Protection In Frontal
Impacts. The radio software may intermittently fail to provide an
audio warning when a key is left in the ignition and the driver
door is opened, or when the driver forgets to put on their seat
belt, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard. A
loss of the seat belt audible warning may increase the likelihood
of a front outboard occupant being unbelted, increasing the risk
of injury in a crash. Similarly, the loss of an audible warning
when a key is left in the ignition may increase the risk of
vehicle theft. Correction: Dealers will reflash the radios with
corrected software.

  Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----        ----------------------
  GMC           SIERRA       2016
  CHEVROLET     SILVERADO    2016


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Trial Judge Known for Intellect
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
after months of preparation, the first General Motors defective
ignition switch trial had just collapsed because of possible
perjury by the plaintiff.  And Judge Jesse Furman had to deal with
it.

Judge Furman had found that the client, Robert Scheuer and his
wife, Lisa, perpetrated "a fraud on the court and the jury."  In
his low-key but firm manner, and with a slight smile, the judge
suggested to lawyer Robert Hilliard, who was watching his client's
case implode, that it was time to fold up the tent.

"Don't get me wrong," Judge Furman said to his Manhattan
courtroom.  "As far as I'm concerned, it's a very enjoyable trial
and I'm quite ready to see it through to completion.

"But it might make sense to make this case go away."

Mr. Hilliard complied, and the case was withdrawn, cementing an
inauspicious start for plaintiffs in the first of six bellwether
trials for hundreds of cases alleging the company knew of, and was
late to recall, cars with defective switches (NYLJ, Jan. 22).
Judge Furman, who recently passed his fourth year on the Southern
District bench, has been presiding over the sprawling
multidistrict litigation since 2014, making hundreds of
evidentiary rulings and sorting out which laws from which state
are to be applied.

Since receiving his commission in 2012 after being nominated by
President Barack Obama, the New York native has handled all kinds
of matters, including another case of broad size and scope -- the
Americans with Disabilities Act litigation alleging New York
City's deficient planning failed to keep the disabled out of
harm's way during Hurricane Irene and, while the case was pending,
Hurricane Sandy.

Judge Furman presided over a bench trial and issued a liability
opinion that faulted New York City's plans on evacuation,
sheltering and informing the disabled in emergencies.  But he also
had praise for the city in many respects, and the opinion set the
stage for a settlement over which he is still presiding (NYLJ,
Oct. 2, 2014).

"The principals on both sides were compelling," Judge Furman said
in interview on March 9.  "And what was at stake, on both sides,
was very compelling."

Judge Furman, 43, is married and the father of three children,
ages 8, 12 and 14.  He said working as a judge, especially on the
major cases, forces him to set limits.

"I find the job incredibly fulfilling," he said.  "But there's
always more to be done so it can be a little unrelenting. You
could work 24 hours a day."

Judge Furman was educated at the Dalton School in New York City
and graduated from Harvard University in 1994.  After receiving
his degree from Yale Law School in 1998, he clerked for Southern
District Judge Michael Mukasey from 1998 to 1999 and then Judge
Jose Cabranes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
from 1999 to 2000.

Between two, two-year stints in private practice with Wiggin and
Dana in New Haven, Furman clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice
David Souter from 2002 to 2003.

He returned to the Southern District as a prosecutor and then went
to Washington D.C. in 2007, where he served as counselor to his
old boss, then-U.S. Attorney General Mukasey.


GENERAL MOTORS: Ignition Switch Second Bellwether Case Begins
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
attorney for plaintiffs in the General Motors ignition switch
litigation told a Southern District jury on March 14 that the
company failed to take real responsibility for a "debacle" that
left people injured and dead.

Randall Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- said his clients, Dionne
Spain and Lawrence Barthelemy, were the victims of GM's failure to
deal straightforwardly with the public on defective switches when
Spain's 2007 Saturn Sky lost power brakes and steering on a New
Orleans bridge on Jan. 24, 2014.

"This is a case of broken promises," Mr. Jackson said during
opening statements at GM's second bellwether trial in Judge Jesse
Furman's courtroom.  "It's a case about broken promises by a
broken company."

Mr. Jackson, a partner at Boies Schiller & Flexner, said the
problem that GM covered up for years -- ignition switches that can
be jarred into switching to the "accessory" or "off" position --
was what happened to Spain's car.

"The car just cut off in the middle of the road," he said. "It
just cuts off.  There's no power steering, and she is just barely
able to avoid an accident."

But GM attorney Mike Brock -- mike.brock@kirkland.com -- a partner
at Kirkland & Ellis, told the jury during his opening that
unseasonably cold weather caused sheets of black ice to form on
the Crescent City Connection Bridge.

"The car is not the villain in this case," Mr. Brock said.  "This
accident was caused by ice."

He showed a picture of the blue sports car, which Spain's own
statements indicated received no more than a scrape when it hit
the Jersey barrier on the bridge.  There were no dents on the car
and Spain and Barthelemy received only minor tissue injuries, he
said.

Spain in fact kept an appointment that evening to meet her friends
at a nightclub, Mr. Brock said, and the accident was "so minor it
was not an airbag deployable-event."

When Spain called GM to complain after the accident, Mr. Brock
said, "her complaint was not 'I had no power steering' or "I had
no power brakes,' it was 'My airbag didn't deploy.'"

The trial is the second of six bellwether trials before Furman
where plaintiffs lawyers are looking for a finding of liability
against the company and, in the case of Spain and Barthelemy,
compensatory damages.

The six trials are supposed to set the contours for settlement or
damages in hundreds of cases before Furman in In re: General
Motors Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-md-02543.

The first case fell to pieces in January when information came to
light that name plaintiffs Robert and Lisa Scheuer might have
perpetrated a fraud on the court by lying about his car accident
and its aftermath (NYLJ, Jan. 25).

While the Scheuer case was selected by plaintiffs, Barthelemy's
and Spain's case was selected by GM and, on March 14, Mr. Brock
was confident the facts would support the defense.


GENERAL MOTORS: Juror in Ignition Switch Trial Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Denney, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
juror for the second General Motors ignition switch litigation was
dismissed on March 17 for nodding off during the proceedings.

Southern District Judge Jesse Furman told Juror No. 2, who was
brought into the courtroom alone, that he had observed she was
"having some trouble staying awake" during the trial and decided
that she should be excused.

The judge said it was important for the parties in the case that
"every juror can give the attention the case deserves."

When they returned, Judge Furman told the remaining nine jurors
that he would not go into detail about the reasons for Juror No.
2's dismissal, but said they "shouldn't be concerned that this is
a version of 'The Hunger Games' or 'Survivor.'"

The case is the second of six bellwether cases to establish to
parameters of a potential settlement by GM.  Three cases will be
chosen by each side.

The first case was chosen by the plaintiffs, but the case
unraveled in January after revelations that the plaintiff and his
wife may have committed perjury (NYLJ, Jan. 25).

In the second case, Dionne Spain, the lead plaintiff, claims that
a defective ignition switch in her Saturn Sky caused her to lose
control of the vehicle in 2014 on a bridge where 30 vehicles had
been in accidents that same night because of black ice.

On March 17, Ms. Spain took the stand for a second day of cross-
examination, answering questions about her medical history before
and after the accident.  She did not seek medical treatment
immediately following the accident, but claims she suffered neck
and shoulder injuries.

Kirkland & Ellis partner Mike Brock is representing GM.
Ms. Spain is represented by Boies, Schiller & Flexner partner
Randall Jackson.


GENERAL MOTORS: Lawyers Want Bankruptcy Order Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that lawyers
for General Motors faced skepticism from the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit on March 15 as the automaker argued that a
bankruptcy court's order protecting it from most pre-2009 ignition
switch defect claims should be affirmed.

Southern District Bankruptcy Judge Robert Gerber ruled in April
2015 that a preponderance of the defect suits were barred by the
provisions of the bankruptcy sale order he entered in July 2009,
which transferred GM's assets to a reconstituted "New GM," which
was "free and clear" of claims against the pre-bankruptcy entity.
But claimants who could show that conduct by the new entity had
prejudiced claims they could have brought in 2009 would be
allowed, Gerber ruled.

Both GM and the ignition switch plaintiffs appealed the parts of
Gerber's ruling adverse to them.

Plaintiffs lawyers argue that owners of 2.1 million GM cars with
ignition switch defects sold before the carmaker's July 2009
bankruptcy should not be barred from suing New GM.

Cars with ignition switch defects purchased after the bankruptcy
are the focus of a slew of suits, consolidated into a single
class-action proceeding, whose viability is now being tested by
the second of six bellwether trials before Judge Jesse Furman in
the Southern District courthouse across the street from where
Second Circuit Judges Chester Straub, Susan Carney and Denny Chin
heard arguments on March 15.

The ignition switch claims allege the defect caused cars to
suddenly stall, lose power brakes and steering and prevented air-
bag deployment.

GM argues that the 2009 bankruptcy sale of assets of "Old GM" to
the new entity forecloses all claims against New GM.
The plaintiffs argue that because Old GM engineers and executives
knew of the ignition switch defect at the time of the bankruptcy,
and failed to announce a recall or give notice to car owners, the
bankruptcy order barring successor liability should be modified to
allow all such claims.

The defect was not revealed until 2014, when GM announced a
recall.

GM lead attorney Arthur Steinberg, a partner at King & Spalding,
argued the plaintiffs were seeking "special treatment" and a
"second bite at the apple" that other Old GM car owners with
defects do not have.  He said there would have been no rescue of
GM if the sale meant New GM would have assumed the liabilities of
Old GM.

Mr. Steinberg told the panel there was no evidence that GM
engineers knew of a defect significant enough to trigger a
mandatory safety recall in 2009.

GM announced a safety recall to fix the switches in February 2014,
and subsequently acknowledged it knew of, and concealed, the
defect beginning in the spring of 2012.

The plaintiffs argue all of their pre-2009 claims should be
allowed against New GM, because the concealment began before the
bankruptcy, and the sale process was flawed as a result.


GGNSC HOLDINGS: Ark. High Court Sends "Lamb" Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GGNSC HOLDINGS, LLC, ET AL, Appellants, v.
NELLIE R. LAMB, BY AND THROUGH RICHARD WILLIAMS, AS GUARDIAN OF
THE ESTATE AND PERSON OF NELLIE R. LAMB, ET AL, Appellees, No. CV-
15-629 (Ark.), the Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the circuit
court erred in denying GGNSC Holdings, LLC's motion to compel
arbitration based on the defenses of impossibility of performance
and unconscionability.

On December 19, 2011, former residents of the nursing homes,
special administrators, guardians, or attorney-in-fact of former
residents filed a class-action complaint against GGNSC and its
other related entities and employees.  In February 2012, GGNSC
moved to compel arbitration of claims asserted by five former
residents Nellie Lamb, Louise Brown, Wilma Richey, Leon Robinson,
Jr., and Thomas Roche, based on arbitration agreements that were
entered by them or on their behalf at the time of their admission.
The Ouachita County Circuit Court denied the motions on January
30, 2014.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed and remanded the circuit
court's order because the lower court addressed the impossibility-
of-performance defense without first making the threshold finding
of whether the arbitration agreements were valid.

On June 9, 2015, the circuit court entered an amended order
denying arbitration, finding that three of the five arbitration
agreements were invalid because these were signed by individuals
who lacked authority to agree to arbitrate.  Further, although it
ruled that Lamb and Robinson's agreements were valid, it held that
these were not enforceable to compel arbitration based on the
defenses of impossibility of performance and unconscionability.
Both GGNSC and Lamb appealed.

The Supreme Court of Arkansas agreed with the circuit court as to
the validity of Lamb's arbitration agreement.  However, the
Supreme Court held that Lamb has not met the burden of
demonstrating that the arbitration agreement is impossible to
perform, or that the terms of the agreement and the method of
negotiation and execution were procedurally and substantively
unconscionable or unconstitutional.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court of Arkansas' March 10, 2016
order is available at http://is.gd/yl0jGlfrom Leagle.com.

Hardin, Jesson & Terry, PLC, by: Kirkman T. Dougherty --
kdougherty@hardinlaw.com -- Jeffrey W. Hatfield --
jhatfield@hardinlaw.com -- and Kynda Almefty --
kalmefty@hardinlaw.com -- Dechert, LLP; by: H. Joseph Escher III
-- h.joseph.escher@dechert.com --  Eugene D. Bramblett; and Shook,
Hardy & Bacon, LLP by: A. Bradley Bodamer -- bbodamer@shb.com --
for appellants.

Campbell Law Firm, P.A., by: H. Gregory Campbell --
greg@gregcampbell.com -- Ludwig Law Firm, PLC,by: Gene A. Ludwig;
Reddick Moss, PLLC,; by: Brian D. Reddick and Matthew D. Swindle;
and Marks, Balette & Giessel, P.C., by: David Marks, for
appellees.


GIANT TIGER: Recalls Flakes of Chicken Products
-----------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Giant Tiger Wholesale Ltd.
Distribution: Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia,
Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10334

  Brand      Common     Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name       ----    product       ---
  -----      ------             ----------
  Bristol    Flakes of   142 g  All codes     0 75069 15335 6
             Chicken


HOME DEPOT: Timing of Data Breach Class Action Settlement Unusual
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jan Wolfe, writing for Corporate Counsel, reports that one notable
aspect of Home Depot Inc.'s recent settlement in its data breach
class action is the timing.  The home improvement company settled
while its motion to dismiss was still pending, a relatively early
juncture.  Could other defendants follow this lead and quickly
resolve data breach class actions?

Kevin McGinty -- KMcGinty@mintz.com -- a Boston-based partner at
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, raised this
question in a recent blog post. He wrote that the $19.5 million
settlement amount is unexceptional but its timing is more unusual.

After attending mediation sessions, both sides may have realized
that the "likely settlement value of the case did not warrant the
substantial cost of additional litigation," Mr. McGinty wrote.

"Insofar as that logic would apply with equal force in just about
any consumer payment card data breach case, the early resolution
of the Home Depot case could provide a model for future
settlements."

One reason we could see defendants settle early is that, as more
of these cases get resolved, there's increasing clarity about what
constitutes an appropriate settlement amount.  Other defendants,
including Target Corp. and LinkedIn Inc., have settled for less
than $1 per class member. That's become a useful benchmark, Mr.
McGinty says.

Relatively speaking, $1 or less per class member isn't a lot of
money for big companies.  As of October 2015, Home Depot had
already incurred costs of $232 million relating to the massive
data breach. From the company's perspective, paying $19.5 million
(and another $8.5 million in attorneys fees) to put the class
action behind it may have seemed like an attractive option. "Given
the benchmark established by Target and other similar cases, the
anticipated discovery costs in Home Depot could easily equal or
exceed the likely cost to settle the consumer claims," Mr. McGinty
wrote.

In an interview, Mr. McGinty said it's premature to declare a
trend of companies settling early. The costs and benefits of
mounting a defense will obviously be different for each defendant.
And companies with strong defenses may be reluctant to settle
litigation as a matter of principle, he says.  "It may well be
that people will take different approaches," he says.

For Home Depot, "the fact that they had already spent so much
money was probably the biggest factor" in deciding to settle
early, says Zuzana Ikels -- zikels@polsinelli.com -- a San
Francisco-based lawyer with Polsinelli.

After a big data breach, companies will sometimes voluntarily
implement exactly the sort of reforms that plaintiffs would hope
to achieve through litigation. That makes data breach class
actions unique from other types of consumer class actions, says
Ms. Ikels.  Often, the defendant will in some sense have "already
absorbed" the costs typically associated with a settlement or
judgment, she says.

Ms. Ikels says that another motivation for settling early is
Remijas v. The Neiman Marcus Group, a recent U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Seventh Circuit ruling that makes it easier for data
breach plaintiffs to assert standing.  Before that ruling,
defendants had enjoyed a lot of success getting cases dismissed
early on. But after this case, the odds of a quick victory on
standing grounds aren't as good.  "That case certainly was
concerning from the defense side," she says.


HONDA: Recalls Civic 2016 Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 1, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Engine
Units affected: 10698
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016047TC
ID number: 2016047

On certain vehicles equipped with 2.0L engines, a piston pin
circlip may not have been installed or may have been improperly
installed into the piston during assembly. If the circlip is not
properly installed, over the course of engine operation, the
piston pin will rub against the cylinder wall causing noise and
damage, or in the worst case, the piston pin may detach from one
side of the piston and cause an engine failure. Engine damage will
eventually result in the engine stalling. Engine stalling would
result in a loss of motive power; an engine failure would result
in a sudden loss of motive power and may result in an under hood
fire. These potential outcomes in conjunction with traffic and
road conditions, and the driver's reactions, could increase the
risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:
Dealers will inspect, and repair as necessary.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  HONDA      CIVIC      2016


HONDA: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 1, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car, Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 269201
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016046TC
ID number: 2016046

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Correction: Dealers will inspect/replace the driver's
frontal airbag inflator. Note: Honda Canada has created a special
Airbag Inflator Hotline for immediate assistance. For more
information, please contact: For Honda Owners: 1-877-445-7754 For
Acura Owners: 1-877-445-9844

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  HONDA     CR-V        2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011
  ACURA     TL          2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  HONDA     INSIGHT     2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  HONDA     RIDGELINE   2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                        2014
  ACURA     RDX         2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013,
                        2014, 2015
  ACURA     RL          2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011,
                        2012
  HONDA     FIT         2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014
  ACURA     ZDX         2010, 2011, 2012, 2013
  HONDA     CR-Z        2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015
  ACURA     ILX         2013, 2014, 2015, 2016


HYUNDAI: Recalls Tucson 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
-----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 2201
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016060TC
ID number: 2016060
Manufacturer recall number: R0107 (61C008)

On certain vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, the
transmission's fluid cooler hose may have been improperly
manufactured. This could result in transmission fluid leaking from
the hose, and cause abnormal transmission shifts and/or
illumination of the instrument cluster malfunction indicator lamp.
If enough fluid is lost, the loss of hydraulic pressure to the
transaxle could cause a loss of motive power, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:
Dealers will replace the cooler hose with the revised hose.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  HYUNDAI   TUCSON       2011


IKEA CANADA: Recalls Ceiling Lamps Due to Injury Hazard
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 9, 2016
Posting date: February 9, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Physical Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57056

This recall involves IKEA HYBY and LOCK ceiling lamps. The HYBY
and LOCK ceiling lamps are round, white lamps with glass shades.
The HYBY ceiling lamp is 37 cm in diameter and has article number
102.042.66.  The LOCK ceiling lamp is 25 cm in diameter and has
article number 200.557.51.

The ceiling lamps may detach and fall from the ceiling, posing an
injury hazard to consumers.

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

IKEA Canada and IKEA US each have received two reports of the HYBY
and one LOCK ceiling lamp falling or shattering, with no reported
injuries.

Approximately 22, 261 HYBY and 405, 317 LOCK ceiling lamps have
been sold at IKEA stores across Canada and online at www.ikea.ca.
Approximately 840, 000 HYBY and LOCK ceiling lamps have been sold
at IKEA stores across the United States and online at
www.ikea.com.

The HYBY ceiling lamps were sold in Canada and the United States
from October 2012 to January 2016.

The LOCK ceiling lamps were sold in Canada and the United States
from November 2002 to January 2016.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: IKEA Canada Limited Partnership
              Burlington
              Ontario
              CANADA

Consumers should immediately remove the ceiling lamp and return it
to an IKEA store for a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact IKEA Canada at 1-800-
661-9807 or visit IKEA's website for the IKEA Canada release.

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

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/WnAs1c


ILLINOIS BELL: Court Narrows Claims in "Scott" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHARLES SCOTT, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS BELL
TELEPHONE CO. d/b/a AT&T ILLINOIS, Defendant, No. 15 C 2805 (N.D.
Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman granted the motion filed by Illinois
Bell Telephone Company to dismiss parts of Charles Scott's amended
complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

On January 17, 2011, Illinois Bell employees sued the company
under the caption Blakes v. AT&T Corp., 11 C 336 (N.D. Ill.),
alleging that the company violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) by requiring Cable Splicers to perform work during their
lunch breaks and after their shifts without pay.

On February 28, 2014, Scott and 140 other plaintiffs, who had
previously opted into Blakes, jointly sued Illinois Bell in Tinoco
v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co., 14 C 1456 (N.D. Ill.), as co-
plaintiffs rather than as a collective action.  The complainants
alleged that Illinois Bell shortchanged them on overtime pay in
violation of the FLSA.  The plaintiffs' claims in the non-
collective action suit were severed by Chief Judge Castillo and
distributed to judges throughout the district.

Scott then filed an amended complaint on July 30, 2015, alleging
that Illinois Bell, when calculating his wages, routinely ignored
time that he spent working before and after his official shifts
and during lunch breaks.  Scott sought to recover for all of his
unpaid work dating back to July 27, 2008.  Scott's suit includes
not only the Blakes claims, but also other non-Blakes claims.

Illinois Bell sought to dismiss Scott's non-Blake claims, insofar
as they pertain to work he performed before February 28, 2011, on
the ground that they are barred by the FLSA's three-year statute
of limitations for willful violations.  Scott countered that,
under Rule 15(c)(1)(B), his amended complaint relates back to the
day he opted into Blakes, July 27, 2011, and therefore that all of
his claims, including his non-Blakes claims are timely insofar as
they relate to work performed after July 27, 2008.

Judge Feinerman held that Rule 15(c)(1)(B), by its terms, only
applies to amended pleadings in the same action as the original,
timely pleading.  The judge found that Blakes is a different
action from Tinoco and Scott's suit, and that the complaint in
Tinoco, to which Scott's amended complaint indisputably relates
back, was not an amendment to Blakes, but rather the initial
filing of a new suit.

Judge Feinerman thus granted Illinois Bell's partial motion to
dismiss.  Scott's non-Blakes claims were dismissed with prejudice
to the extent they are based on work performed before February 28,
2011.

A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's March 10, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/5KFsPXfrom
Leagle.com.

Charles Scott, Plaintiff, represented by Mario E. Utreras, Utreras
Law Offices, Inc.

Illinois Bell Telephone Company, Defendant, represented by Ellen E
Boshkoff -- ellen.boshkoff@faegrebd.com -- Baker & Daniels, George
Alan Stohner -- george.stohner@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker
Daniels LLP, Gregory P Abrams -- gregory.abrams@faegrebd.com --
Faegre Baker Daniels LLP & Lindsey M. Hogan --
lindsey.hogan@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels LLP.


INTERSTATE AMUSEMENTS: Dismissed From Guest Workers' Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Taryn Phaneuf, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a Florida
amusement park company is the latest to be dismissed from a
proposed class action lawsuit in which H-2B visa guest workers
claim they haven't been paid for work they did in 2013 when the
U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) allowed the companies to appeal a
wage increase.

The suit, filed in Maryland federal court, originally included 79
companies. Interstate Amusements of America Inc. is the fifth to
be dismissed for allegedly either not employing H-2B workers in
Maryland during the specified time period or for having already
paid the supplemental prevailing wages in question.

The proposed class action, filed in November by Pablo Gonzales-
Aviles and Heleodoro Pena-Gonzalez on behalf of H-2B guest
workers, could include all of the employees of the remaining 74
companies it names.  It also names the DOL.

The suit claims that the DOL should not have allowed
administrative appeals of the Supplemental Prevailing Wage
Determinations it issued in 2013, which constituted a wage
increase.

As foreign workers performing seasonal work in the U.S., H-2B visa
guest workers are paid at least the prevailing wage set by the
DOL.  The suit alleges that, as a result of the appeals, the
workers continued to be paid the lower rate.

At least 65 companies named in the suit have filed a motion for
dismissal, arguing that the workers have no legal standing and
haven't demonstrated that they've been harmed by their employers,
R. Wayne Pierce, one of the defendants' attorneys, told Legal
Newsline.

"They've got to show standing -- they have to show that they're
harmed by what's happened," Mr. Pierce said.

Instead, Mr. Pierce said, the plaintiffs admitted in a brief
responding to a motion to dismiss that the employers haven't done
anything wrong, leaving Pierce wondering about their methods in
pursuing this suit.

From his perspective, the workers are suing their employers for
"exercising their legal rights."

"The DOL told us we have the ability to challenge our wage rate
increases," Mr. Pierce said.  "We did that.  That wasn't good
enough for them."

The plaintiffs' response also stated the DOL's policy of paying
prevailing wages gives them the necessary "injury-in-fact" to
establish legal standing.

Defendants are arguing that the workers' claims are against the
government only because they are based on statutes that don't
apply to non-government parties.

For example, the plaintiffs invoke the Administrative Procedure
Act, which governs how federal agencies propose and establish
regulations.


IRVING KAPLAN & ASSOCIATES: Violated FDCPA, "Zemel" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Irving Kaplan &
Associates.

The case is captioned Hennie Zemel, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Irving
Kaplan & Associates, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00796-KM-MAH
(Dist. N.J., Newark, February 15, 2016).

Irving Kaplan & Associates has been serving the Healthcare and
Commercial industry for more than 50 years, specializing in
hospitals and doctors groups, fostering strong and successful long
term business relationships while providing qualified and
professional service required.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel Zemel, Esq.
          ZEMEL LAW LLC
          70 Clinton Ave.
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: (862) 227 3106
          E-mail: dzemellaw@gmail.com


JAC HOLDING: Fiduciary Breach Claims Against Directors Revived
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that a
minority shareholder's $40 million fiduciary breach claims against
the directors of a Cayman Islands company were revived on March 10
by a Manhattan appeals court, which held that he should be allowed
to replead the claims under New York law.

A three-judge majority of the Appellate Division, First
Department, said plaintiff Paul Davis should have had the
opportunity to recast the claims under the First Department's
precedent set in Brinckerhoff v. JAC Holding Corp., 10 AD3d 520
(1st Dept 2004).

Commercial Division Justice O. Peter Sherwood had applied Cayman
Islands law which, unlike U.S. law, holds that directors who
represent majority shareholders do not owe a fiduciary duty to the
minority, except under special circumstances.  Caymans law also
bars most derivative claims brought by shareholders on behalf of
the company.

In an opinion by Justice Richard Andrias, the majority said
Sherwood's October 2014 ruling had been correct to apply Cayman
Islands law, because "under the internal affairs doctrine, claims
concerning the relationship between the corporation, its
directors, and a shareholder are governed by the substantive law
of the state or country of incorporation, in this case the Cayman
Islands."

But because Mr. Davis "asserts unequal treatment in the form of an
intentional, premeditated plan," his claims would be permissible
under Brinckerhoff.

Mr. Davis alleged two U.S. investment funds, which gained control
of the company in 2007, paid themselves a "huge windfall dividend
while freezing out minority shareholders in order to induce them
to sell their shares to the investors at a steep discount."

Justice Andrias said Mr. Davis should also be allowed to show the
derivative claims could have fit into the exceptions permitted by
Caymans law.

Justices Rolando Acosta and Sallie Manzanet-Daniels joined in the
opinion in Davis v. Scottish Re Group Limited, 654027/13.

A partial dissent by Justice Karla Moskowitz and joined by Justice
Peter Tom, said all of Davis' claims were barred by Caymans law
disfavoring derivative and fiduciary breach claims by minority
shareholders.

The dispute arose when a multi-billion dollar distressed-company
fund, Cerberus Capital, together with funds controlled by
insurance giant Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance Company,
bought a controlling interest in Scottish Re, which was
experiencing steep losses.

Mr. Davis owned almost 20 percent of the company and nearly half a
class of preferred securities issued by Scottish Re.  But after
the Cerberus group gained control by buying a 34 percent voting
stake, they paid themselves dividends of $100 million while Davis
received $1 million, he claimed.

The Cerberus investors also caused Scottish Re to cease writing
new insurance policies, and had it delisted as a public company in
the United States.

In 2011, they made an offer for all the outstanding Scottish Re
shares they did not own on terms Davis said were "coercive,"
effectively telling the minority there was no market for their
shares and they could become worthless.

Mr. Davis alleged the minority shareholders were deprived of
material information, and the "fairness opinion" and its approval
by the special committee of ostensibly disinterested board members
was flawed because two of the four members had significant yet
undisclosed ties to Cerberus and MassMutual.


JACK IN BOX: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Gessele"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESSICA GESSELE, ASHLEY ORTIZ, NICOLE
GESSELE, TRICIA TETRAULT, CHRISTINA MAULDIN, and JASON DIAZ on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. JACK IN THE BOX, INC., a Corporation of Delaware,
Defendant, No. 3:14-CV-1092-BR (D. Or.), Judge Anna J. Brown ruled
on the motions for summary judgment separately filed by the
defendant and the plaintiffs.

On August 13, 2010, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele,
and Tricia Tetrault filed a putative class-action complaint in the
United States District Court for the District of Oregon against
Jack in the Box, Inc. for violation of the minimum wage and
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and
various Oregon wage-and-hour laws.  Christina Mauldin was added as
named plaintiff on May 16, 2011.

On May 15, 2014, the court granted Jack in the Box's motion for
summary judgment on the ground that the plaintiffs failed to
timely file written consent forms as required by the FLSA and,
therefore, the court never acquired jurisdiction.  The entire
matter was dismissed without prejudice.

On June 10, 2014, Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele,
Tricia Tetrault, Christina Mauldin, and Jason Diaz filed a
putative class action against Jack in the Box in Multnomah County
Circuit Court in which they alleged claims for violation of
Oregon's wage-and-hour laws, violation of the FLSA, breach of
fiduciary duty, and equitable and quasicontractual claims for
return of money.  On July 9, 2014, the defendant removed the suit
to the district court.

On August 31, 2015, Jack in the Box filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment; the plaintiffs also filed a Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment (Statute of Limitations) and to Establish Tolling
for FLSA Collective Members; and the plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on Jack in the Box's 8th (Private Right
Of Action), 9th (Due Process) and 12th (Preemption) Affirmative
Defenses.

Judge Brown ruled as follows:

          -- granting the defendant's Motion for Partial Summary
             Judgment and denying the plaintiff's Motion for
             Partial Summary Judgment (Statute of Limitations)
             and to Establish Tolling

          -- granting in part and denying in part the plaintiff's
             Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Jack in the
             Box's 8th (Private Right of Action), 9th (Due
             Process) and 12th (Preemption) Affirmative Defenses
             as follows:

             1. granting the plaintiff's Motion for Summary
                Judgment as to the defendant's Eighth Affirmative
                Defense and dismissing that defense with
                prejudice;

             2. granting in part the plaintiff's Motion for
                Summary Judgment as to the defendant's Twelfth
                Affirmative Defense as to those portions of the
                plaintiff's Seventh and Eighth Claims that are
                preempted by the FLSA or Oregon's wage-and-hour
                laws;

            3.  denying in part the plaintiff's Motion for
                Partial Summay Judgment as to the defendant's
                Twelfth Affirmative Defense as to those portions
                of the plaintiff's Seventh and Eighth Claims that
                are not preempted by the FLSA or Oregon's wage-
                and-hour laws.

A full-text copy of Judge Brown's March 10, 2016 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/cTPaZifrom Leagle.com.

Jessica Gessele, Ashley Ortiz, Nicole Gessele, Tricia Tetrault,
Christina Mauldin, Plaintiffs, represented by Jon M. Egan, Jon M.
Egan, P.C..

Jack In The Box Inc., Defendant, represented by Don Stait --
dstait@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Douglas S. Parker
-- dparker@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. & Jennifer Neth
Warberg -- jwarberg@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson.


JOHN HANCOCK: Liable to NW Employees, Wash. High Court Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CERTIFICATION FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT
OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT IN ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE
ACEVEDO MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA MEDONZA; JAVIER SAUCEDO; SANDRA
SAUCEDO, Individually, and on behalf of all other similarly
situated persons, Appellees, v. JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH
INSURANCE CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL PLANS CONSORTIUM, LLC, Defendants,
NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY SERVICES, INC.; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES,
Appellant. ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE ACEVEDO MENDOZA; JOSE VILLA
MEDONZA; JAVIER SAUCEDO; SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, and on
behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Appellees, v. JOHN
HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH
INSURANCE CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL PLANS CONSORTIUM, LLC, Appellants,
FARMLAND MANAGEMENT SERVICES; NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY SERVICES,
INC., Defendants. ABELARDO SAUCEDO; FELIPE ACEVEDO MENDOZA; JOSE
VILLA MEDONZA; JAVIER SAUCEDO; SANDRA SAUCEDO, Individually, and
on behalf of all other similarly situated persons, Appellees, v.
JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; JOHN HANCOCK LIFE & HEALTH
INSURANCE CO.; TEXAS MUNICIPAL PLANS CONSORTIUM, LLC; FARMLAND
MANAGEMENT SERVICES, Defendants, NW MANAGEMENT AND REALTY
SERVICES, INC., Appellant, No. 91945-3 (Wash.), the Supreme Court
of Washington concluded that NW Management and Realty Services
Inc. is a farm labor contractor and that the Hancock Companies,
John Hancock Life Insurance Company and John Hancock Life & Health
Insurance Co., Texas Municipal Plans Consortium LLC (TMP), and
Farmland Management Services are jointly and severally liable for
NW's violations of the Farm Labor Contractor Act (FLCA).

The Hancock companies owned three apple orchards together with
TMP.  All three orchards were leased to Farmland, who, in turn,
subleased the orchards to NW.  The sublease agreement between
Farmland and NW provided that NW "will hire, employ, discharge and
supervise the work of all employees and independent contractors
performing labor and/or services on the orchards.  The agreement
also left the details of orchard management largely to NW's
discretion.  Pursuant to all the lease and sublease agreements,
the Hancock companies and TMP paid all of NW's costs and collected
all of the orchards' profits, minus Farmland's "Management Fee."

A class of 722 former employees of NW sued the defendants for
violations of state and federal law, including Washington's Farm
Labor Contractor Act (FLCA).  The district court certified the
plaintiff class as to two FLCA claims: (1)that NW violated RCW
19.30.110(1) by failing to carry a current farm labor contractor's
license, and (2)that NW violated RCW 19.30.110(7) by making false
and misleading representations about worker compensation.  The
plaintiffs also alleged that Farmland, the Hancock companies, and
TMP are jointly and severally liable for NW's violations under RCW
19.30.200 for using the services of an unlicensed farm labor
contractor.

Farmland, the Hancock companies, and TMP each moved to dismiss,
arguing that RCW 19.30.200 penalizes only defendants with actual
or constructive knowledge that a contractor is unlicensed.  The
trial court denied the motions, concluding that the FLCA imposes
an affirmative duty on the defendants to verify proper licensure.

The district court thereafter granted the plaintiffs' motion for
summary judgment and awarded the plaintiffs damages of $500 per
class member per violation per year worked, for a total of
$1,004,000, as well as attorneys' fees.  On appeal by the
defendants, the Ninth Circuit certified disputed questions to the
Supreme Court of Washington.

The Supreme Court of Washington concluded that NW is a farm labor
contractor under the plain language of RCW 19.30.010(2) and (3),
which defines a "farmer labor contractor" to include an entity who
is paid a per-acre fee to manage all aspects of farming --
including hiring and employing agricultural workers as well as
making all planting and harvesting decisions, subject to approval
-- for a particular plot of land owned by a third party.

The Supreme Court also held that, under RCW 19.30.200, any person
who uses the services of an unlicensed farm labor contractor
without either inspecting the contractor's license or obtaining a
representation from the Department of Labor & Industries that the
contractor is properly licensed is jointly and severally liable
with that contractor, even if that person lacked knowledge that
the farm labor contractor was unlicensed.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court of Washington's March 3,
2016 order is available at http://is.gd/OTItBjfrom Leagle.com.

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

     Lori Jordan Isley
     Columbia Legal Services
     6 S. 2nd St. Ste. 600
     Yakima, WA, 98901-2680

          - and -

     Joachim Morrison, Esq.
     Attorney at Law
     300 Okanogan Ave # 2a
     Wenatchee, WA, 98801-6936

          - and -

     Andrea L. Schmitt
     Columbia Legal Services
     711 Capitol Way S. Ste. 304
     Olympia, WA, 98501-1233

Counsel for Defendants:

     Christopher Glenn Emch, Esq.
     Foster Pepper PLLC
     1111 3rd Ave. Ste. 3400
     Seattle, WA, 98101-3264

          - and -

     John Ray Nelson, Esq.
     Foster Pepper PLLC
     618 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 300
     Spokane, WA, 99201-0302

          - and -

     Susan Felice DiCicco, Esq.
     E-mail: susan.dicicco@morganlewis.com
     Morgan Lewis & Bock
     101 Park Avenue
     New York, NY, 10178

          - and -

     Ari M. Selman, Esq.
     E-mail: ari.selman@morganlewis.com
     Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
     101 Park Avenue
     New York, NY, 10178

          - and -

     David B. Salmons, Esq.
     E-mail: david.salmons@morganlewis.com
     Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP
     2020 K. Street Nw.
     Washington, DC, 20006-1806

          - and -

     Brendan V. Monahan, Esq.
     E-mail: brendan.monahan@stokeslaw.com
     Stokes Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore
     120 N. Naches Ave.
     Yakima, WA, 98901-2757

          - and -

     Sarah Lynn Clarke Wixson, Esq.
     E-mail: sarah.wixson@stokeslaw.com
     Stokes Lawrence Velikanje Moore & Shore
     120 N. Naches Ave.
     Yakima, WA, 98901-2757

          - and -

     Leslie Richard Weatherhead, Esq.
     E-mail: lesliew@leehayes.com
     Lee & Hayes, PLLC
     601 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1400
     Spokane, WA, 99201-0627

          - and -

     Geana Mae Van Dessel, Esq.
     E-mail: geanav@leehayes.com
     Lee & Hayes, PLLC
     601 W. Riverside Ave. Ste. 1400
     Spokane, WA, 99201-0627

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington Employment Lawyers
Association:

     Jeffrey Lowell Needle, Esq.
     Maynard Building
     119 1st Ave. S. Ste. 200
     Seattle, WA, 98104-3450

          - and -

     Christie Johnson Fix, Esq.
     E-mail: cfix@frankfeed.com
     Frank Freed Subit & Thomas
     705 2nd Ave. Ste. 1200
     Seattle, WA, 98104-1798

Amicus Curiae on behalf of Department of Labor and Industries:

     Amanda J. Goss, Esq.
     Attorney General Office
     800 5th Ave. Ste. 2000
     Seattle, WA, 98104-3188

          - and

     Seattle Labor & Industries A.g. Office
     Attorney at Law
     800 Fifth Ave. Suite 2000
     Ms-tb-14
     Seattle, WA, 98104-3188


KELLWOOD CO: Class Action Mulled Over Toxic Metals in Jewelry
-------------------------------------------------------------
National law firm Keller Rohrback L.L.P. is investigating
retailers and manufacturers in connection with the manufacture and
sale of girls' dresses that are packaged with necklaces and jewels
that may contain high levels of lead and cadmium, both toxic
metals.

The Washington Department of Ecology recently tested 27 pieces of
jewelry packaged with dresses designed for young girls, and the
agency found that five of those pieces of jewelry contain very
high levels of lead or cadmium.

Cadmium and lead are toxic to people, even at low concentrations.
Children--for whom the dresses and jewelry were manufactured and
sold--are at the most risk from those metals in consumer products
because they are likely to put the items in their mouths, swallow
them, or have frequent hand-to-mouth contact after touching the
jewelry.

One of the products the agency tested was 98 percent cadmium, and
another was 5 percent lead.  Cadmium and lead accumulate in bone
and soft tissue of the human body and can cause serious health
effects, especially in children. According to a health expert
quoted by the Seattle Times, lead and cadmium were found in the
jewelry at "astonishingly high levels."

"Parents should not need to worry that the clothing and
accessories they buy for their kids could expose their children
and families to high levels of toxic metals," says Amy Williams-
Derry, a Keller Rohrback L.L.P. partner.  "The companies that
manufactured and sold these products should put safety first."

These dresses and jewelry are available from online retailers,
including Amazon, and were purchased by the Department of Ecology
from online and brick-and-mortar stores such as JC Penney and
Arkansas-based department store Dillards.

The dresses currently the subject of Keller Rohrback's
investigation include:

   -- Xtraordinary sparkle glitter knit popover dress (UPC
601350728400) manufactured by SWAT Inc.;

   -- Soulmates Girl caged back three-quarter-sleeve shift dress
(UPC 613204330110) manufactured by Big Strike Inc. (coral-colored
dress with gold key charm);

   -- Beautees ivory dress with gold-colored bow charm (UPC
885872676146) manufactured by KWDZ Manufacturing;

   -- My Michelle Girls floral dress with necklace (UPC
030121774016) manufactured by Kellwood Co.; and

   -- My Michelle Girls lace-mesh dress with necklace (UPC
030121773897) manufactured by Kellwood Co.

The Washington Department of Ecology's report is available here:
https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/documents/1603007.pdf

The agency has also posted responses to "Frequently Asked
Questions" about its report here:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/hwtr/RTT/cspa/jewelryQandA.html

If you have purchased any of the items reported by the Washington
Department of Ecology to have toxic cadmium or lead, or if you
believe your child may have come into contact with toxic jewelry,
please contact attorneys Amy Williams-Derry or Gretchen Freeman
Cappio at (800) 776-6044 or via email at
consumer@kellerrohrback.com

For decades, consumers have trusted the attorneys of Keller
Rohrback L.L.P. to protect them from harmful products and unfair
trade practices.  Our firm is a leader in representing consumers
in diverse areas, ranging from vehicles and toys to mortgage
modifications and identity theft.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P. served as Chair of the Executive Committee
in a nationwide MDL against Mattel and Fisher-Price on behalf of
purchasers of toys recalled because they were manufactured using
lead paint and/or dangerous magnets, In re Mattel, Inc., Toy Lead
Paint Products Liability Litigation. On behalf of plaintiffs, we
achieved a settlement valued at approximately $50 million.  The
firm currently serves on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee in the
consolidated consumer lawsuits against Volkswagen for the sale of
diesel vehicles with "defeat devices."


KIA: Recalls 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 8, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 1402
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016061TC
ID number: 2016061
Manufacturer recall number: RC097

On certain vehicles equipped with automatic transmissions, the
transmission's fluid cooler hose may have been improperly
manufactured. This could result in transmission fluid leaking from
the hose, and cause abnormal transmission shifts and/or
illumination of the instrument cluster malfunction indicator lamp.
If enough fluid is lost, the loss of hydraulic pressure to the
transaxle could cause a loss of motive power, increasing the risk
of a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:
Dealers will replace the cooler hose with the revised hose.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  KIA                    2011


LEKKI GARDENS: Building Residents Urged to Join Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Aboyade & Co. said in a notice "Our attention has been drawn to
the order of the Lagos State Government asking residents in all
buildings constructed by the owners and management of Lekki
Gardens Estate, following the recent catastrophic collapse of one
of their buildings, to vacate their residence pending the
conclusion of an integrity test to be carried out on the buildings
to ascertain their structural integrity."

"This is a call for concerted efforts.

"Virtually all investors in Lekki Gardens Estate, at various
times, expressed concern and reservations about the structural
integrity and shoddy workmanship of the buildings, particularly
when two additional floors were surreptitiously added to what had
been represented, offered and sold to investors as a 3-storey
residential apartments.

"The attention of the developers as well as management of the
Estate was called to it on several occasions, but they represented
that everything was in order and that they had sought and obtained
from the Lagos State Government the necessary regulatory building
approvals.

"The colossal loss of lives, as well as property and investment,
could have been averted if the management of Lekki Gardens Estate
had indeed taken action as pleaded by various investors.

"Following the building collapse at the Lekki Gardens Estate
construction site on Tuesday, March 8 2016, it is now crystal
clear that investors' fears were well grounded and that there was
non-compliance with standard building procedures, construction was
done with poor quality building materials and that there was
reckless disregard for safety, which resulted in the death of over
34 hapless souls.

"Consequently, the Lagos State Government has now sealed off the
buildings and construction sites.

"It has therefore become imperative for all of us to take drastic
steps in order to protect our investments.  It is essential that
judicial intervention be immediately sought to protect the
investments of investors.

"The urgent need to take action is buttressed by the frantic
efforts of the management of Lekki Gardens Estate to dissipate its
movable assets such as cash, stocks and bonds as a result of the
unfortunate event.

"This invitation is to all investors interested in seeking urgent
judicial reprieve in recovering their investments.

Such interested investors should contact the undersigned within 48
hours of this publication (Sunday March 20, 2016) for the
institution of a class action"

Thank you.
Signed:


FUNKE ABOYADE, SAN
ABOYADE & CO.
Transaction Advisors & Specialized Litigation,
19B, Prince Adelowo Adedeji Street, Off admiralty Way, Lekki Phase
I, Lagos
E-mail: faboyade@aboyade.com
Tel: 0803 377 8841, 0818 972 0730, and 0803 355 3757



LOUISIANA-PACIFIC: 4th Cir. Keeps Order to Decertify "Hart" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GWEN HART, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated; LUCILLE DRUTHER; JOSEPH DRUTHER; EDWARD
WUELLNER; JENNIFER WUELLNER, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOUISIANA-
PACIFIC CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellee, No. 13-2375 (4th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of
Louisiana-Pacific Corporation on time-barred claims, as well as
the district court's decision to decertify the class.

A class action was filed against Louisiana-Pacific asserting
claims for breach of the warranty on its TrimBoard, a construction
material manufactured by Louisiana-Pacific.  The express, ten-year
warranty provided a specific and limited remedy if the product
failed to live up to expectations.  The plaintiffs also claimed
that the limited remedy was unconscionable because Louisiana-
Pacific allegedly knew that TrimBoard was defective but sold it
anyway.  As such, the plaintiffs sought compensatory damages not
contemplated in the warranty.

On July 18, 2011, the district court certified a Rule 23(b)(3)
class consisting of "[a]ll persons in the State of North Carolina
who owns a home, office or other building in which [TrimBoard] has
been installed in the past 10 years."

Shortly before trial, Louisiana-Pacific moved for summary
judgment, arguing that the claims were barred by a six-year
statute of repose.  The district court agreed, granting Louisiana
Pacific summary judgment and then decertifying the class, because
determining which class members' claims were subject to the
statute of repose "would necessarily require an individualized
determination."

On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the
district court's grant of summary judgment, but for a different
reason.  The appellate court held that even assuming the
appellants' claims were not barred by the statute of repose, it
would still conclude the warranty is not unconscionable.  The
Fourth Circuit noted that even if Louisiana Pacific knew TrimBoard
was likely to fail within nine years, it nevertheless agreed to
warrant the product for 10 years and offered purchasers twice
their money back or the cost of replacement if and when their
TrimBoard did fail.  The warranty also extended that remedy beyond
the point that Louisiana-Pacific's liability would have been
extinguished by the statute of repose.  To the Fourth Circuit,
such a bargain was not harsh, oppressive, or one-sided.

The Fourth Circuit also affirmed the district court's decision to
decertify the class.  The appellate court found that there were
different versions of the warranty with different remedy
provisions for TrimBoard sold before and after 2005.  The Fourth
Circuit held that this multiplicity of warranties undermines
typicality.

A full-text copy of the Fourth Circuit's March 10, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/IIQsXrfrom Leagle.com.

ARGUED: Gary Edward Mason -- gmason@wbmllp.com -- WHITFIELD,
BRYSON & MASON, LLP, Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Richard Thell Boyette, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.

ON BRIEF: Daniel K. Bryson -- dan@wbmllp.com -- Scott C. Harris --
scott@wbmllp.com -- Raleigh, North Carolina, Nicholas A.
Migliaccio, WHITFIELD, BRYSON & MASON, LLP, Washington, D.C.; Joel
R. Rhine, Jean S. Martin, RHINE MARTIN LAW FIRM, P.C., Wilmington,
North Carolina; Auley M. Crouch, III, Christopher K. Behm, BLOCK,
CROUCH, KEETER, BEHM & SAYED, LLP, Wilmington, North Carolina;
Charles A. Schneider, Martha B. Schneider, SCHNEIDER & SCHNEIDER,
Washington, D.C., for Appellants.

Meghan N. Knight, CRANFILL SUMNER & HARTZOG LLP, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR: Court Trims Claims in "Thomas" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KEITH THOMAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
MAGNACHIP SEMICONDUCTOR CORP., et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-
01160-JST (N.D. Cal.), Judge Jon S. Tigar granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss in regards to defendant
Avenue Capital Management II, L.P.  Motions to dismiss in regards
to all other defendants were denied as moot after settlement was
reached with these parties.

A case was brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and the Securities Act of 1933, related to allegations that
Magnachip made materially false and misleading statements in its
financial statements and other information related to securities
offerings.  Five motions to dismiss were filed by the various
defendants.

On December 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a Notice of Settlement,
informing the court that a settlement had been reached that will
result in the release of all claims asserted against all
defendants, except Avenue Capital.  Accordingly, the motions to
dismiss in regards to all defendants other than Avenue Capital
were denied by Judge Tigar as moot, without prejudice to their re-
filing if the settlement agreement is not approved.

As to Avenue Capital's motion to dismiss, Judge Tigar ruled as
follows:

          -- denied as to the plaintiffs' claims against Avenue
             Capital under section 20(a) and 20(A) of the
             Exchange Act; and

          -- granted with prejudice as to the plaintiffs' claims
             against Avenue Capital under section 12(a)(2) and 15
             of the Securities Act

A full-text copy of Judge Tigar's March 4, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/gWnTrwfrom Leagle.com.

Richard Hayes, Keith Thomas, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeremy A
Lieberman -- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Lionel Z. Glancy -- lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, Joshua B. Silverman -- jbsilverman@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Lesley F.
Portnoy -- lportnoy@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,
Marc Ian Gross -- migross@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael J. Wernke -- mjwernke@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom -- pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com --
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com
-- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A., Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sunny
September Sarkis -- ssarkis@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Herb Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy A Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Joshua B.
Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Michael J. Wernke,
Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP,
pro hac vice, Robert Vincent Prongay, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP
& Sunny September Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Magnachip Semiconductor Corp., Defendant, represented by Daniel J.
Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Robert N Kravitz --
rkravitz@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison
LLP, pro hac vice, Alex Young K. Oh -- aoh@paulweiss.com -- Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, Jacqueline P.
Rubin -- jrubin@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton &
Garrison LLP, pro hac vice, John C. Tang -- jctang@jonesday.com --
Jones Day, Kelsey Israel-Trummel -- kitrummel@jonesday.com --
Jones Day & Meredith A. Arfa -- marfa@paulweiss.com -- Paul Weiss
Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, pro hac vice.

Margaret Sakai, Defendant, represented by Evan N. Budaj --
evan.budaj@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP,Kimberly Perrotta Cole,
Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice & Michael Sangyun Kim --
michael.kim@kobrekim.com -- Kobre & Kim LLP, pro hac vice.

R. Douglas Norby, Ilbok Lee, Defendants, represented by Daniel J.
Kramer, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jacqueline P.
Rubin, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Meredith A.
Arfa, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Robert N Kravitz,
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP & Alex Young K. Oh, Paul
Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Nader Tavakoli, Defendant, represented by Daniel J. Fetterman,
Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice, Jason
Takenouchi, Kasowitz, Benson, Torres & Friedman LLP, Brian Choi,
Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice & Trevor
Joseph Welch, Kasowitz Benson Torres & Friedman LLP, pro hac vice.
Randal Klein, Defendant, represented by Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Ghiya Ruehe, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer Feld LLP, pro hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice,Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice &Sydney Spector, Akin Gump
Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro hac vice.

Michael Elkins, Avenue Capital Management II, L.P., Defendants,
represented by Douglas Maynard, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice, Eric Ghiya Ruehe, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer &
Feld LLP, John C. Murphy, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP, pro
hac vice, Michael Asaro, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, pro
hac vice,Stephen Michael Baldini, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice &Sydney Spector, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, pro hac vice.

Barclays Capital Inc., Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., UBS Securities LLC, Needham & Company, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins
LLP, James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason
C. Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Defendant, represented by Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP,
James E. Brandt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Jason C.
Hegt, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Interested Party,
represented by Danielle Suzanne Myers, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz LLP, Dennis J. Herman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Joshua B. Silverman, Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Mary K. Blasy, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Michael
J. Wernke, Pomerantz LLP,Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP, pro
hac vice, Samuel H. Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP,
Shawn A. Williams, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Sunny
September Sarkis, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.


MANNARICH FOOD: Recalls Fish Balls and Noodle Products Due to Egg
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 11, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Updated Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Mannarich Food Inc.
Distribution: Ontario, Quebec
Extent of the product distribution: Retail

The food recall warning issued on January 29, 2016 has been
updated to include additional product information. This additional
information was identified during the Canadian Food Inspection
Agency's (CFIA) food safety investigation.

Mannarich Food Inc. is recalling Mannarich Food brand Fuzhou Fish
Balls and Parker Lee brand noodle products from the marketplace
because they contain egg which is not declared on the label.
People with an allergy to egg should not consume the recalled
products described below.

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

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

There have been no reported reactions associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand      Common     Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name       ----    product       ---
  -----      ------             ----------
  Mannarich  Fuzhou     240 g   All lots      0 68636 03130 0
  Food       Fish Balls         numbers
                                beginning
                                with "0"
  Parker     Japanese   470 g   02212         0 68636 21061 3
  Lee        Style Udon
             Noodle with
             Seafood
  Parker     Thai Style  470 g  02040         0 68636 21062 0
  Lee        Rice Noodle
             with Seafood

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/OxmO8p


MAZDA: Recalls B SERIES 2004 Models Due to Defective Airbag
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 1, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 7368
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016050TC
ID number: 2016050
Manufacturer recall number: 9116A

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

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  MAZDA        B SERIES     2004


MAZDA: Recalls 2014 and 2015 Model Vehicles Due to Noncompliance
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 1, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Fuel Supply
Units affected: 48412
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016049TC
ID number: 2016049

Certain vehicles fail to comply with the requirements of Canada
Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301 - Fuel System Integrity. During
rear impact crash testing, the fuel filler pipe ruptured, causing
fuel spillage exceeding the limit specified by the standard. As a
result, a collision involving the rear of the vehicle could result
in a fuel leak. Fuel leakage, in the presence of an ignition
source, could result in a fire causing injury and/or property
damage. Correction: Dealers will remove a bolt on the left rear
side member attaching the bracket to the fuel filler pipe. This
will change the load path during a rear crash impact preventing
filler pipe rupture.

  Make         Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----        ----------------------
  MAZDA                     2014, 2015


MENTOR GRAPHICS: May 17 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, notifies investors that a
securities class action has been filed on behalf of those who
purchased shares of Mentor Graphics Corp during the period between
August 21, 2014 and November 19, 2015 inclusive (the "Class
Period").

Mentor Graphics is a United States based multinational corporation
dealing in electronic design automation software and hardware
solutions to automate the design, analysis and testing for
electrical engineering and electronics.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Mentor Graphics' customers were delaying or
declining extended license agreements or demanding price
concessions from Mentor Graphics due to the unprecedented level of
mergers and acquisitions in 2015 and earlier; (2) demand for
Mentor Graphics' emulation products had slowed as a result of the
anticipated introduction of competitive products, notwithstanding
Defendants' assertions that it would be a long time before any
competitor could release a competitive virtual emulation product;
(3) 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; and (4) as a result Mentor
Graphics' public statements were materially false and misleading
at all relevant times. When this information became public and
entered the market, investors suffered damages.

On November 19, 2015, the Company released discouraging financial
results for its third quarter of fiscal 2016 and substantially
reduced its fourth quarter fiscal 2016 financial outlook, reducing
its fourth quarter revenue estimate by $104 million.  Mentor
Graphics also announced that bookings for the three months ended
October 31, 2015 had decreased by approximately 20% compared to
the three months ended October 31, 2014. This decrease was
attributed to a decrease in term license contract renewals.
Following this news and on that same day, Mentor Graphics stock
fell 36%, to close at $17.85 per share, on heavy trading volume.

No Class has yet been certified in the above action. If you wish
to review a copy of the Complaint or join the action, please visit
the firm's site: http://www.bgandg.com/#!ment/udo7v
To discuss this action, or for any questions, please contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Mentor Graphics Corp. you have until May 17, 2016 to request that
the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your ability to share in
any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


MICROSOFT CORPORATION: Recalls AC Power Cords Due to Shock Hazard
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 2, 2016
Posting date: February 2, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Electronics
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56754

This recall involves AC power cords sold with Microsoft Surface
Pro, Surface Pro 2, and Surface Pro 3 devices prior to March 15,
2015. The cords are black with no serial codes or other markings.
Surface Pro and Surface Pro 2 devices have a black case and
Surface Pro 3 devices have a silver case, both with the product
name on the back of the device toward the bottom. This recall also
involves accessory power supply units that include an AC power
cord sold separately before March 15, 2015.

The recalled power cords do not have a sleeve on the cord on the
end that connects to the power supply.

The AC power cords can overheat, posing a potential fire or shock
hazard.

Health Canada has not received any reports of consumer incidents
or injuries to Canadians related to these power cords.

Microsoft Corporation has received eight reports of the AC power
cord overheating in Canada. No injuries were reported.  In the
United States, Microsoft Corporation has received 61 incidents.

Approximately 189,603 units of the recalled AC power cords were
sold in Canada and about 2.25 million units in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from February 2013 to March 15,
2015.

Manufactured in Taiwan, China and United Kingdom.

Distributor: Microsoft Corporation
             Mississauga
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately unplug and stop using the recalled AC
power cords and contact Microsoft Corporation for a free
replacement.

For more information, consumers may contact Microsoft Corporation
toll free at 1-855-327-7780 from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. EST,
Monday through Friday or by visiting the company website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/zWYpV3


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Want to Put CTE in Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a lawyer for several former NFL players objecting to the league's
$1 billion concussion litigation settlement sent a letter to the
federal appeals court reviewing the case with the hope that it
would broaden the class of those entitled to compensation.

However, attorneys said that it was uncertain as to whether the
letter would actually have an impact in incorporating compensation
for chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) in the settlement.

The letter, written by attorney Steven Molo of Molo Lamken in
New York on behalf of seven of the approximately 90 objectors,
recounted a recent discussion between Jeff Miller, National
Football League executive vice president of Health and Safety
Policy, and members of the U.S. House of Representatives Energy
and Commerce Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations.  At
that "roundtable" discussion, according to Mr. Molo's letter,
Mr. Miller said there was a link between CTE and football.  CTE is
a degenerative neural disease associated with repeated blows to
the head.  It was historically referred to as dementia
pugilistica, or the state of being "punch drunk."  Currently, CTE
can only be found through autopsy.

The roughly 90 players on appeal took issue with the settlement --
reached in April after extended debate -- because it didn't
include payment for players diagnosed with CTE after the presiding
judge's settlement approval date.  The settlement provides
compensation for diseases like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's and
covers a class of approximately 21,000 former players.

"The NFL's admission is stunning in that it is a complete about-
face from the position they have taken throughout the litigation,"
Mr. Molo told The Legal.

Asked if the letter would have an impact on the settlement,
Mr. Molo said, "It is supplemental authority relevant to the
decision the court is about to make."

The NFL's attorney, Lynn B. Bayard -- lbayard@paulweiss.com -- of
Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison in New York, did not
return a call seeking comment.

Christopher Seeger of Seeger Weiss in New York, co-lead counsel
for the retired NFL players in agreement with the terms of the
settlement, said in a statement that he welcomed "the NFL's
acknowledgement of what was alleged in our complaint: that reports
have associated football with findings of CTE in deceased former
players."

However, he added, "as the district court correctly held, the
scientific study into CTE is in its infancy and a reliable method
for detecting it in living people does not exist."

Mr. Seeger said that 99 percent of the class wants the settlement
as is and that 8,000 retired players have already enrolled for
benefits even though the claims process has not been opened, since
appellate review is still under way.

Charles "Chip" Becker -- Charles.Becker@klinespecter.com -- of
Kline & Specter represents 38 objectors in the Third Circuit.

"The settlement leaves a huge swath of guys out in the cold," Mr.
Becker said, because it provides no compensation for CTE.

As for Mr. Miller's statements before the congressional committee,
Becker said, "This is the beginning of the NFL's acknowledgement
that football is a delivery system for repetitive traumatic injury
to the brain."

But it is unclear as to whether the so-called admission will lead
the Third Circuit to order a change in the settlement.


NEOCOIL: Recalls Gem Flex Coil and P-Connector Due to Burn Risk
---------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 15, 2016
Posting date: February 22, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57206

Part of the cable assembly may overheat when the device is used.
Rarely this could result in minor burn injury in case of prolonged
direct skin contact with the overheating part. There have been no
injuries reported as a result of this issue.

Affected products: GEM FLEX COIL 3.0T RECEIVE ONLY
Lot or serial number: 0000033-4-0044
                      0000034-4-0037
                      0000040-4-0033
                      033-4-0277
                      033-4-0314
                      034-4-0255
                      034-4-0296
                      040-4-0020
                      040-4-0275
                      040-4-0315
Model or catalog number: NC033000
                         NC034000
                         NC040000

Manufacturer: Neocoil
              N27 W23910A PAUL ROAD
              PEWAUKEE
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES

B. GEM FLEX INTERFACE 16CH FIXED, 3.0T P-CONNECTOR
Lot or serial number: 000032E-4-0041
                      032E-4-0330
                      032E-4-0336
                      032E-4-0394

Model or catalog number: NC032004

Manufacturer: Neocoil
              N27 W23910A PAUL ROAD
              PEWAUKEE
              Wisconsin
              UNITED STATES


NESTLE: Court Dismisses Coffee-Mate Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Jenna Greene, writing for The Litigation Daily, reports that
plaintiffs in a would-be class action called coffee creamer
Coffee-mate illegal and dangerous, not to mention unfit for human
consumption. Mayer Brown lawyers used pre-emption to get the suit
against Nestle tossed.

On March 8, lawyers from Mayer Brown led by partners Carmine
Zarlenga -- czarlenga@mayerbrown.com -- and Dale Giali --
dgiali@mayerbrown.com -- got the suit dismissed with prejudice.

The Weston firm sued Nestle in San Francisco federal court in
April 2015, alleging that Coffee-mate contains unhealthy partially
hydrogenated oil, even though it claims to have "0g trans fat."

"The trans fat creamers were worth less than what plaintiff paid
for them.  Indeed, Coffee-mate is not fit for human consumption
and has a value of $0," wrote Gregory Weston on behalf of
California resident Troy Backus, asserting violations of
California's Unfair Competition Law.

Mr. Weston has carved out a specialty suing companies over trans
fat, winning a settlement with Quaker Oats Co. in 2014 to remove
artificial trans fat from Quaker Chewy Bars, Oatmeal to Go Bars
and Instant Oatmeal.  The 2004 Harvard Law grad (who started his
career at the plaintiffs firm now known as Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd) has also gone after Cup Noodles and margarine makers.

But he struck out with Coffee-mate when U.S. District Judge Maxine
Chesney tossed all nine causes of action.

The reason? Pre-emption.

In June 2015, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration issued a rule
that requires food makers to quit using partially hydrogenated oil
as of June 18, 2018.  The three-year compliance period is designed
to minimize market disruption and let companies use up their
existing product inventories.

"Nestle argues that Backus's suit, which 'seeks to make it
immediately unlawful to market or sell' in California any food
product containing [partially hydrogenated oil], conflicts with
the FDA's regulatory scheme," Judge Chesney wrote.  "The court
agrees."

As for the "0g trans fat" labeling claims, the Mayer Brown lawyers
successfully argued that is expressly pre-empted by the Nutrition
Labeling and Education Act.

The law instructs food makers in the nutrition facts box to say
that a product has no trans fat if it has less than 0.5 grams. And
no one disputes that the Coffee-mate products at issue contain
less than 0.5 gram of trans fat.

The question was whether the red-and-white "0g Trans Fat" logo on
Coffee-mate's main label, outside the nutrition facts box, was
improper.

"To date, the Ninth Circuit, albeit in an unpublished decision, as
well as three district courts in this district, have found
labeling claims that are essentially indistinguishable from the
labeling claims here at issue were pre-empted," Judge Chesney
found.  The judges all found that it was important to maintain
consistency between what's in the nutrition facts box (which is
spelled out by the law) and what's on the rest of the label to
avoid consumer confusion.

The nutrition content claim "is neither false nor misleading under
federal law," Judge Chesney found.

In addition to Mayer Brown partners Zarlenga and Giali, associates
Andrea Weiss -- aweiss@mayerbrown.com -- and Elizabeth Crepps
worked on the case.


NESTLE CANADA: Recalls Liquid Infant Formula
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 14, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning
Subcategory: Other
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Nestle Canada Inc.
Distribution: National
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10394

Nestle Canada Inc. is recalling specific lots of Nestle brand Good
Start 2 Concentrated Liquid Infant Formula from the marketplace
due to potentially reduced bioavailability of nutrients. Consumers
should not use or consume the recalled product described below.

Check to see if you have the recalled product in your home.
Recalled products should be thrown out and consumers should call
Nestle Consumer Services for reimbursement at the phone number
below.

Consumption of the affected product could lead to lower intake of
some nutrients, due to reduced bioavailability.

There have been reported illnesses; however they have not been
confirmed to be caused by consumption of the affected product.

This recall was triggered by consumer complaints.

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

  Brand    Common          Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name     name            ----    product       ---
  -----    ------                  ----------
  Nestle   Good Start      12 x    512857211A    12 x 359 mL box:
           2 (Omega 3      359 mL  Exp: 2016     0 65000 49277 4
           & 6, dietary            MA 07         Individual
           fiber, and              512957211A    Tetrapak:
           added iron              Exp: 2016     0 65000 49285 9
           and calcium)            MA 08
           Iron Fortified          512957212A
           Milk-based              Exp: 2016
           Infant Formula-         MA 08
           Concentrated            513057211A
           Liquid                  Exp: 2016
                                   MA 09

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/o0BzXJ


NEXGRILL INDUSTRIES: Recalls Barbecue Grill Products
----------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2016
Posting date: February 4, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fire Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56942

This recall involves Nexgrill brand Barbecue Grill (Model #720-
0830D), a free standing barbecue grill with two-door propane tank
compartment, four main burners, and a rotisserie burner.

The product can be identified by the model number 720-0830D and
serial numbers (see table below), which can be found on the inside
of the propane tank compartment door. The Costco Canada SKU number
is 520178 and the UPC is 044376 283971.

The following are the ranges of the serial numbers that were
manufactured from 2014 to 2015:

  Year of Product       Serial Numbers Ranges
  Manufacture           ---------------------
  ---------------
  2014                  CCC720KSIG0830D-000027A to
                        CCC720KSIG0830D-008691A
  2015                  CCC720KSIE0830D-000001B to
                        CCC720KSIE0830D-009292B

The firebox of the grill may expand, causing the two centre
burners and flame tamers to become disengaged from their proper
position in the firebox, which may cause gas to be misdirected and
not flow to the burners, which could potentially cause a fire
hazard.

Costco Canada and Nexgrill Industries Inc. have received five
consumer incidents reports related to bowl expansion, and flames
coming out of the control panel. There were no reports of personal
injuries or property damage related to firebox expansion.

Health Canada has not received any consumer incidents or injuries
to Canadians related to the use of this affected product.

Approximately 18,000 units of the affected product were sold at
Costco Canada retail stores and from Costco Canada's website.

The affected products were sold from February 2014 to September
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Manufacturer: Nexgrill Industries Inc.
              14050 Laurelwood Place, Ca 91710.
              Chino
              California
              UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled product and
contact Nexgrill Industries Inc. to obtain a free retrofit kit and
instructions for installation. The retrofit kit is easy to
install; however, if the consumer has difficulty installing the
retrofit kit, Nexgrill will provide free in-home service.
Bilingual video installation instructions are also available
online. Consumers are also advised to not use the grill until the
retrofit kit has been installed.

For additional information, consumers may contact Nexgrill
Industries Inc. customer service by visiting Nexgrill's website;
by emailing Nexgrill; or by calling Nexgrill toll-free at 1-855-
714-2128 from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. PST, Monday through Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/v40vAS


NOVA BUS: Recalls LFS Artic 2011 Models Due to Crash Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Bus
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Electrical
Units affected: 163
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016058TC
ID number: 2016058
Manufacturer recall number: CR3590

On certain buses equipped with an Allison transmission, the main
power cable within the energy guiding system (EGS), which connects
the rear section to the front section, may be incorrectly routed.
As a result, the power cable may disconnect, resulting in a loss
of power to certain components in the front section of the bus,
notably the driver's shift selector. The transmission will default
to neutral, which may result in a loss of motive power, increasing
the risk of a crash causing injury and/or property damage.
Correction: Dealers will inspect the power cable and repair as
required.

  Make      Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----        ----------------------
  NOVA      LFS ARTIC    2011


NOVARTIS PHARMA: Judiciary Aims to Close Zometa Tort Matters
------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the state judiciary is aiming to close the book on two mass tort
matters centralized in Middlesex County in 2008 after the judge
there said active matters are no longer pending.

One is multicounty litigation by alleged uses of bone-density
drugs Zometa and Aredia; the other, multicounty litigation by
patients who were injected with contrasting dyes used during MRIs
that contain the metal gadolinium.

According to a pair of notices to the bar posted March 8,
Middlesex County Superior Court Judge Jessica Mayer notified the
Administrative Office of the Courts that all active litigation had
been resolved on both fronts.

The Zometa/Aredia cases were designated for mass tort litigation
in January 2008 in Middlesex County.  In October 2007, when the
application for mass tort designation was filed, there were
roughly 35 cases filed in New Jersey and 350 federal cases had
been centralized for multidistrict litigation in U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Tennessee.

The plaintiffs claimed that Aredia and Zometa -- made by Novartis
Pharmaceuticals Corp. of East Hanover and used to treat
osteoporosis-caused osteonecrosis of the jaw, or "bone death."
They alleged pain and disfigurement as a result, from loss of
teeth and the jaw bone itself, which in some cases has to be
surgically removed and a metal plate or rod inserted.

Two of the New Jersey cases went to trial.

In one of them, plaintiff Beverly Meng of Mississippi claimed she
had monthly intravenous infusions of Zometa to control bone
metastases from breast cancer that had spread to her spine, and
stopped the Zometa in November 2006 around the time her dentist
noticed exposed bone in her mouth, according to court documents.
Mayer dismissed most of the counts -- for strict liability, design
defect, breach of express warranty and consumer fraud -- but let
stand a claim of insufficient warnings about the alleged side
effects.

After a 13-day trial, on May 19, 2013, the jury by a 7-1 vote
found in Novartis' favor.

The no-cause verdict was appealed to the Appellate Division, but
before a ruling was issued, the Meng case settled in April 2015 on
confidential terms. There were 119 Zometa and Aredia cases still
pending at that time, the Law Journal reported.

There was only one other New Jersey trial in the Zometa and Aredia
cases -- decided in October 2010, and also in Novartis' favor. In
that case, as in Meng's, the plaintiff, Jane Bessemer, was a
breast cancer patient who had been treated intravenously and who
claimed the treatments resulted in jawbone disease, according to
court documents.  The jury by a 7-2 vote found that Novartis did
not fail to adequately warn Bessemer.  Pretrial rulings by Mayer -
- that the company had no duty to warn nonprescribing dentists and
oral surgeons, and that the learned intermediary doctrine applied
even though the drug was marketed directly to consumers -- were
upheld on appeal, and the state Supreme Court declined to consider
them.

Plaintiffs in Zometa and Aredia cases fared better with juries
outside of New Jersey.

For example, in 2012, Herbert Fussman, as administrator for the
estate of his wife, Rita Fussman, was awarded $287,000 in
compensatory damages and $12.6 million in punitive damages in the
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.

The judge in that case cut the punitive damages to $861,000
because North Carolina law limits punitives to the greater of
$250,000 or three times the compensatory amount.  The final
judgment of about $1.26 million, including prejudgment interest,
was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
on Feb. 8, 2013, according to a previous Law Journal report.
The gadolinium lawsuits were designated a mass tort in April 2008
and centralized in Middlesex County.


NUNA CANADA: Recalls High Chair Products
----------------------------------------
Starting date: February 10, 2016
Posting date: February 10, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-57008

Affected products:
Nuna Zaaz High Chairs

This recall involves the following Nuna Zaaz high chair models:

  Model Number       Description
  ------------       -----------
  HC07004         ZAAZ HIGH CHAIR - PEWTER
  HC07006         ZAAZ HIGH CHAIR - PLUM
  HC07009         ZAAZ HIGH CHAIR - ALMOND
  HC08004         ZAAZ HIGH CHAIR - PEWTER
  HC08006         ZAAZ HIGH CHAIR - PLUM

The arm bar can bend or detach during use, posing a fall hazard to
children.

Neither Health Canada nor Nuna Canada has received any reports of
consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of these
products in Canada. In the United States, Nuna Baby Essentials
Inc. has received 50 reports of the arm bar detaching, including 6
reports of children falling from the high chair. Four incidents
resulted in injuries, including bruising and a cut on the
forehead.

Approximately 965 units of the recalled products were sold in
Canada and about 5,600 units in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from May 2013 to December 2015 in
Canada.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: Nuna Canada
             Montreal
             Quebec
             CANADA

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled high chairs
and contact Nuna Canada to receive a free repair kit.

Consumers can order their free repair kit by phone at: 1-800-667-
4111 between 8h30 a.m. and 5h00 p.m. ET Monday through Friday or
by registering online.


OLD SPICE: Connick Law Files Class Action Over Deodorant
--------------------------------------------------------
Connick Law, LLC, on March 21 disclosed that a class action has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Ohio on behalf of consumers who purchased
allegedly defective Old Spice deodorant, which regularly and
routinely causes rashes, irritation, burning and other injury to
unsuspecting consumers.

If you wish to participate in this class action as a named lead
plaintiff, or wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
plaintiff's counsel, Thomas J. Connick of Connick Law at 216-364-
0512, or via e-mail at tconnick@connicklawllc.com

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Old Spice deodorants during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
Plaintiff is represented by Connick Law which is experienced in
handling class actions, mass torts and consumer law issues.

Based in Beachwood, Ohio, Connick Law --
http://www.connicklawllc.com-- handles a wide range of complex
litigation cases involving personal injury, insurance law, class
and mass actions, commercial law, consumer fraud, construction
law, and business litigation.


OWENS & MINOR: "Lopez" Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations
---------------------------------------------------------
Robert Lopez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Owens & Minor Distribution, Inc., a
Virginia Corporation, and Does 1-100, the Defendant, Case No.
BC613671 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles County, March 14, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime and minimum wages, penalties, interest
and reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the California
Business & Professions Code and California Labor Code.

Owens & Minor Distribution, a Virginia corporation, is a
distributor of medical and surgical supplies with 3 locations in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Nourmand, Esq.
          James Alexander De Sario, Esq.
          THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM APC
          8822 West Olympic Boulevard
          Beverly Hills, CA 90211
          Telephone: (310) 553 3600
          Facsimile: (310) 553-3603
          E-mail: mnourmand@nourmandlawfirm.com
                  jdesario@nourmandlawfirm.com


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: May 17 Lead Plaintiff Bid Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
securities of Performance Sports Group Ltd. ("PSG" or the
"Company") between August 27, 2015 and March 7, 2016.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been
commenced in the USDC for the Central District of California,
Western Division.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired PSG
securities between August 27, 2015 and March 7, 2016, your rights
may be affected by this action.  To get more information go to:
http://www.zlk.com/pslra/performance-sports-group

The lawsuit concerns allegations that the Company and its
executives violated federal securities laws by failing to disclose
the financial pressures on the Company due to Sports Authority's
financial decline and the fall in demand in the softball, baseball
and hockey markets.

If you suffered a loss in PSG you have until May 17, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff.  Your
ability to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as
a lead plaintiff.  To obtain additional information, contact
Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at jlevi@zlk.com or by
telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877) 363-5972, or visit
http://www.zlk.com/pslra/performance-sports-group

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


PFIZER CONSUMER: Recalls Children's Advil
-----------------------------------------
Starting date: February 10, 2016
Posting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs, Affects children, pregnant or breast feeding
women
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57326

Expected out-of-specification results on Viscosity prior to the
expiration date of the impacted product.

Product distributed to wholesalers, retailers and doctors (for
samples) nationwide.

Affected products: Children's Advil
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02232297
Dosage form: Suspension
Strength: 100.0 mg / 5 ml
Lot or serial number:

H13899
H98207
H98635
J18208
J18209
J18210
J18211
J18219
J18249
J18449
J18451
J29738
J29739
J29740
J29750
J29771
J29789
J29815
J29868
J29877
J29878
J45608
J45613
J45622
J49017
J49018
J49035
J49054
J49055
J49056
J49591
J49946
J57911
J57912
J57913
J57914
J57915
J57916
J57920
J57924
J57937
J57938
J57952
J63997
J64025
J64174
J64271
J75500
J75521
J75587
J75606
J80823
J80824
J90489
J90490
J90491
J90492
L21296
L21304
L21333
L34743
L34744
L36035
L44489
L44503
L60902
L60913
L60914
L60919
L79079
L79082
L79109
L79286
L79542
L79547
L90679
L90680
L90681
L90682
L92069
L93754
L94962
L94963
L94964
L94966
L94975
L94976
L94977
L94978
L95491
L95493
L95500
L95514
M01103
M06649
M06650
M11856

Recalling Firm: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, a division of Pfizer
                Canada Inc.
                5975 Whittle Road
                Mississauga
                L4Z 3M6
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, a
                                division of Pfizer Canada Inc.
                                5975 Whittle Road
                                Mississauga
                                L4Z 3M6
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


PFIZER CONSUMER: Recalls Pediatric Advil Products
-------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 10, 2016
Posting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs, Affects children, pregnant or breast feeding
women
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57334

Expected out-of-specification results on Viscosity prior to the
expiration date of the impacted product.

Product distributed to wholesalers, retailers and doctors (for
samples) nationwide.

Affected products:
Advil Pediatric Drops Fever from Colds or Flu
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02328445
Dosage form: Suspension
Strength: 200.0 mg / 5 ml
Lot or serial number: J57902
                      L60899
Recalling Firm: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, a division of Pfizer
                Canada Inc.
                5975 Whittle Road
                Mississauga
                L4Z 3M6
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, a
                                division of Pfizer
                                Canada Inc.
                                5975 Whittle Road
                                Mississauga
                                L4Z 3M6
                                CANADA


PHILIPS MEDICAL: Recalls CT Systems and Software Versions
---------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 12, 2016
Posting date: March 10, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: Healthcare Professionals, General Public, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57460

Philips has become aware that on the affected CT systems and
software versions, the issue relates to the auto transfer to the
remote devices (such as PACS), where there is a possibility for
intermittent failures to send all images/data series
automatically.

Affected products:
BRILLIANCE 40/64 SLICE CT SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: 10213
                      9074
                      9920
                      9923
Model or catalog number: 4550 110 09021

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

B. BRILLIANCE ICT SYSTEM - SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: 100101
                      100195
                      100619
                      100638
Model or catalog number: 728306

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

C. BRILLIANCE ICT SP SYSTEM - MAIN
Lot or serial number: 200208
Model or catalog number: 728311

Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES

D. INGENUITY CT SYSTEM
Lot or serial number: 30003
                      30004-1
                      320227
Model or catalog number: 728323
                         728326


Manufacturer: Philips Medical Systems (Cleveland) Inc.
              595 MINER ROAD
              CLEVELAND
              Ohio
              UNITED STATES


PIER 1: Recalls Swivel Dining Chairs
------------------------------------
Starting date: February 10, 2016
Posting date: February 10, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Household Items
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Fall Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56988

This recall involves the Pier 1 Imports Capella Island Swivel
Dining Chairs.  The plastic wicker chairs have a natural wood
colour.  The chair measures approximately 66 cm wide by 66 cm deep
and 99 cm high (26 inches wide by 26 inches deep and 39 inches
high).  The chair was sold as SKU number 2899677.

The chairs can break at the base, posing a fall hazard to
consumers.

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

Pier 1 Imports has received 3 reports of the chairs breaking,
including two reports of consumers falling in the United-States.
No injuries have been reported.

Approximately 4 of the recalled chairs were sold in Canada
exclusively at Pier 1 Import stores and online.  Approximately 260
of the recalled chairs were sold in the United States.

The recalled products were sold from January 2015 through October
2015.

Manufactured in Vietnam.

Distributor: Pier 1 Imports (U.S.), Inc.
             Fort Worth
             Texas
             UNITED STATES

Consumers should immediately stop using the chairs and return them
to any Pier 1 Imports store for a refund or merchandise credit.

For more information, consumers can contact Pier 1 Imports toll
free at 1-800-245-4595 from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. CST Monday through
Friday, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. CST Saturday or 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. CST
Sunday or visit the company's website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/ZxY36J


PIRIPI VMP: "Sanchez" Suit for Unpaid Overtime Work Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Federico A. Moreno dismissed without prejudice the case
captioned NERY C. SANCHEZ, Plaintiff, v. PIRIPI VMP, LLC, and
TEODORO ARRANZ VELASCO, Defendants, Case No. 15-24166-CIV-MORENO
(S.D. Fla.).

Nery C. Sanchez sued Piripi VMP, LLC and Teodoro Arranz Velasco
for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Upon the defendants' motion, Judge Moreno dismissed the case
without prejudice, having found that Sanchez's complaint did not
meet the requisite pleading standard for an FLSA case, and does
not identify a group of employees of the defendants who share
commonality with Sanchez.

Sanchez was, however, granted leave to file an amended complaint
no later than March 21, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Moreno's March 4, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/BTmZgOfrom Leagle.com.

Nery Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by William Thomas Brady, Jr.,
Law Offices of William Brady, P.A. & Todd William Shulby --
tshulby@shulbylaw.com.

Piripi VMP, LLC, Teodoro Arranz Velasco, Defendants, represented
by Orion G. Callison, III, Law Office of Alexis Gonzalez, P.A..


POLYCOM INC: August 16 Settlement Approval Hearing Set
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Pomerantz LLP regarding
the Polycom, Inc. Settlement.

SUMMARY NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION

To: All persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Polycom, Inc.
securities (symbol: PLCM) between January 20, 2011 and July 23,
2013 (both dates inclusive) on the U.S. Exchanges or by other
means involving transactions in the United States.  Excluded from
the Class are Defendants, all current and former directors and
officers of Polycom during the Settlement Class Period, and any
family member, trust, company, entity or affiliate controlled or
owned by any of the excluded persons or entities referenced above.

A hearing will be held on August 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m. before the
Honorable Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers at the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Courthouse,
1301 Clay Street, Courtroom 1, Oakland, CA 94612, to determine (1)
whether the proposed Settlement against the Defendants for
$8,000,000 should be approved; (2) whether the Plan of Allocation
should be approved; (3) whether Lead Counsel should be awarded
$2,000,000 in attorneys' fees (25% of the $8,000,000 settlement
amount) and reimbursed for up to $95,000 of litigation expenses;
(4) whether Lead Plaintiff should be awarded up to $13,500 for his
contributions to this lawsuit; and (5) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice against the Settling Defendants under
the terms set forth in the Stipulation.
If you have not received the detailed Notice of Proposed Class-
Action Settlement (the "Notice") and Proof of Claim and Release
Form, you may obtain them free of charge at
www.gardencitygroup.com/cases-info/polycomsettlement or by
contacting the Settlement Administrator by telephone at 855-907-
3170, or by mail at Polycom, Inc. Settlement, c/o Garden City
Group, LLC, P.O. Box 10281, Dublin, OH 43017-5781.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Polycom, Inc. securities
between January 20, 2011 and July 23, 2013 (both dates inclusive)
on the U.S. exchanges or by other means involving transactions in
the United States, your rights may be affected by this Settlement.
As further described in the Notice, you will be bound by any
Judgment entered in the Action, regardless of whether you submit a
Proof of Claim, unless you request exclusion from the Class, in
the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than
July 19, 2016.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to share in the
Settlement proceeds, you must submit a Proof of Claim no later
than August 23, 2016 establishing that you are entitled to
recovery.  Any objections to the Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
or application for attorneys' fees and expenses must be filed and
served, in the manner set forth in the Notice, no later than
July 19, 2016.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, may be made to Lead
Counsel for the Class:

Jeremy A. Lieberman
Pomerantz LLP
600 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10016
Telephone: 212-661-1100
Toll-free: 888-476-6529

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, DEFENDANTS, OR
DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE

DATED: MARCH 21, 2016
BY ORDER OF THE COURT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


PROSKAUER ROSE: Stanford's Lawyers Protected by Attorney Immunity
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SAMUEL TROICE; PUNGA PUNGA FINANCIAL,
LIMITED, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated; PAM REED, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. PROSKAUER
ROSE, L.L.P.; CHADBOURNE AND PARKE, LIMITED LIABILITY PARTNERSHIP;
THOMAS V. SJOBLOM, Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-10500 (5th Cir.),
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed the
district court's order denying the defendants' motions to dismiss
and rendered judgment dismissing the case with prejudice.

A putative class action was filed against one of Allen Stanford's
lawyers, Thomas Sjoblom, and the law firms where he worked,
alleging that they aided and abetted Stanford's fraud and
conspired to thwart the SEC's investigation of Stanford's massive
Ponzi scheme.  The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as
barred by attorney immunity under Texas law.  The district court
denied the motion, holding that the plaintiffs' allegations met a
"fraud exception" to attorney immunity.

After determining that the district court's order denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss on the basis of attorney immunity
under Texas law is an appealable collateral order, the 5th Circuit
found that Sjoblom's conduct fell within the scope of his legal
representation of the companies that Stanford used. Further, the
Fifth Circuit held that simply claiming that an attorney's conduct
was fraudulent does not allow plaintiffs to circumvent attorney
immunity. Accordingly, the district court's order denying the
defendants' motions to dismiss was reversed.

A full-text copy of the Fifth Circuit's March 10, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/E1VjXPfrom Leagle.com.


RAV INVESTIGATIVE: "Humphrey" Suit Proceeds on Individual Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AARON S. HUMPHREY, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RAV
INVESTIGATIVE & SECURITY SERVICES LTD., RAV TRADE SHOWS, INC., RON
ALLEN, ABC CORPORATIONS #1-10, and JOHN DOES #1-10, jointly and
severally, Defendants, No. 12 Civ. 3581 (NRB) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge
Naomi Reice Buchwald denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
suit but granted their motion to strike the class and collective
action allegations in the Aaron S. Humphrey's amended complaint.

Humphrey brought an action against RAV Investigative & Security
Services, Ltd., RAV Trade Shows, Inc. and other parties, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL).  The defendants moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in its entirety and to strike the class and collective
action allegations in the amended complaint.

Judge Buchwald ordered that the "collective and class action
allegations of Mr. Humphrey's complaint [be] struck" on account of
Humphrey's pro se status.

As to the defendants' motion to dismiss, Judge Buchwald held that
Humphrey has adequately pleaded FLSA and NYLL overtime claims for
those workweeks when he was required to arrive early.  The judge
also declined to dismiss Humphrey's spread-of-hours claim upon
finding that Humphrey's allegations were sufficient to show that
he was paid less than minimum wage for certain periods.  With
respect to Humphrey's retaliation claim, Judge Buchwald ordered
the parties to conduct limited discovery on whether the
retaliation claim is time-barred before moving to its merits.
Finally, Judge Humphrey also denied dismissal of Humphrey's
minimum wage and unlawful deduction claims, holding that the court
has supplemental jurisdiction over the claims, and that such
claims are not moot because Humphrey has refused defendants'
checks as they would not provide him with complete relief.

A full-text copy of Judge Buchwald's March 10, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/RZ06Izfrom Leagle.com.

RAV Investigative & Security Services Ltd., RAV Trade Shows, Inc.,
Ron Allen, Defendants, represented by Louis Pechman --
pechman@pechmanlaw.com -- Pechman Law Group PLLC & Gianfranco J.
Cuadra -- cuadra@pechmanlaw.com -- Pechman Law Group PLLC.

ABC Corporations # 1-10, John Doe # 1-10, Defendants, represented
by Louis Pechman, Pechman Law Group PLLC.


REAL TIME RESOLUTION: "Gutman" Class Action Filed in E.D.N.Y
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced against Real Time Resolutions,
Inc.

The case is captioned Moshe Gutman, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Real Time
Resolutions, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01260
(E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, March 14, 2016).

Real-Time Resolutions was founded in 1995. The company's line of
business includes collection and adjustment services on claims and
other insurance related issues. The company is based in Dallas,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Maxim Maximov, Esq.
          MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
          1701 Avenue P
          Brooklyn, NY 11229
          Telephone: (718) 395 3459
          Facsimile: (718) 408 9570
          E-mail: m@maximovlaw.com


REDFROG ENTERPRISES: Recalls Seafood Pancake Products Due to Egg
----------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 12, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 2
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Redfrog Enterprises Ltd.
Distribution: British Columbia
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10401

  Brand      Common      Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name       name        ----    product       ---
  -----      ------              ----------
  Surasang   Seafood     453 g   2017.05.27    0 87703 15141 3
             Pancake
             with
             Vermicelli


SAAB: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models Due to Defective Airbag
-------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 20553
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016052TC
ID number: 2016052
Manufacturer recall number: 28810

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the driver airbag
inflator on Saab 9-3 and 9-5 vehicles and replace the driver
airbag module on Saturn Astra vehicles.

  Make       Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----       ----        ----------------------
  SAAB       09-Mar      2003
  SAAB       09-May      2011
  SATURN     ASTRA       2008


SABATINI U: Recalls Beef and Vegetable Pie, Chicken Pot Pie
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Sabatini U. Gourmet Foods
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10372

Sabatini U. Gourmet Foods is recalling Sabatini's Gourmet Foods
brand Beef and Vegetable Pie and Chicken Pot Pie from the
marketplace because they contain egg which is not declared on the
label. People with an allergy to egg should not consume the
recalled products described below.

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

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

There has been one reported reaction associated with the
consumption of these products.

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

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

  Brand      Common name   Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name       -----------   ----    product      ---
  -----                            ----------
Sabatini's   Beef and      500 g   All codes    6 25616 00381 0
Gourmet      Vegetable Pie         where egg
Foods                              is not
                                   declared on
                                   the label
Sabatini's   Chicken Pot    500 g  All codes    6 25616 00382 7
Gourmet      Pie                   where egg
Foods                              is not
                                   declared on
                                   the label

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/fnK5Pe


SAINT-GOBAIN: Court Consolidates Two Tainted Water Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
HarrisMartin Publishing reports that a New York federal court has
consolidated two class action lawsuits, saying that the majority
of the claims -- relating to alleged PFOA contamination in
drinking water -- overlap and that there is no inherent conflict
between the named plaintiffs in either action.

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York
issued the consolidation order on March 18, one week after the
second of the two class action suits was filed.

The first suit, initiated on Feb. 24, was filed by Michele Baker,
Angela Corbett, Daniel Schuttig, and all others similarly situated
against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corp.


SCION: Recalls 2013 Models Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Compliance
Mfr System: Powertrain
Units affected: 2247
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016062TC
ID number: 2016062
Manufacturer recall number: SRC R16

Certain vehicles equipped with an automatic transmission and an
ignition key may fail to conform to Canada Motor Vehicle Safety
Standard (CMVSS) 114 - Theft Protection and Rollaway Prevention.
During assembly, in order to prevent automatic transmission damage
during rail transport, the key interlock is disabled by leaving
the delivery mode connectors unconnected. The connectors on some
vehicles may not have been connected during pre-delivery service
at dealers or distributors. If not connected, it could allow for
the ignition key to be removed in a gear other than PARK gear
position, which is contrary to the requirements of the standard,
and could cause unintended vehicle movement, increasing the risk
of injury and/or property damage. Correction: Dealers will inspect
the delivery mode connectors and, if necessary, connect them.

  Make      Model     Model year(s) affected
  ----      -----     ----------------------
  SCION               2013


SEOUL TRADING: Recalls Fish Sausage Products Due to Egg
-------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Food Recall Warning (Allergen)
Subcategory: Allergen - Egg
Hazard classification: Class 1
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Seoul Trading Corporation
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10384

Seoul Trading Corporation is recalling Delicious "Vegetabel" Fish
Sausage from the marketplace because it may contain egg which is
not declared on the label. People with an allergy to egg should
not consume the recalled product described below.

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

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

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

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

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

  Brand      Common name   Size    Code(s) on     UPC
  name       -----------   ----    product        ---
  -----                            ----------
  N/A        Delicious     140 g   MAY. 06. 2016  8 801074 257947
(Korean     "Vegetabel"
Characters  Fish Sausage
Only)

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


SEQWATER: Feb. 2017 Trial Set in Queensland Flood Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Poulos, Esq., and Bianca Janovic, Esq., of Herbert Smith
Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that continual
delays in the class action involving victims of Queensland's 2011
floods have led to calls for the case to settle ahead of a trial
now scheduled for February 2017.

The case is being run on a "no win no fee" basis, with the total
claim value reportedly between $1 to $2 billion.

It was commenced in July 2014 in the New South Wales Supreme Court
on behalf of residents and businesses claiming loss or damage as a
result of the January 2011 floods in South-East Queensland.

The parties

Maurice Blackburn acts for the class and is backed by litigation
funder IMF Bentham (formerly Bentham IMF).

The class action has been brought against three parties:
the Queensland Bulk Water Supply Authority (Seqwater), which owned
and operated the Wivenhoe and Somerset Dams,
SunWater Limited, which provided flood management services to
Seqwater, and the State of Queensland.

While the class initially had around 4,000 members, it is now said
to comprise around 5,500 people.

Loss claimed

The plaintiffs allege the defendants' negligent operation of the
two dams significantly contributed to the extent and scale of
flooding downstream of the dams, making the floods, and consequent
damage, much worse than they otherwise would have been.

The class action is restricted to claims for economic loss, and
does not include claims for personal injury or psychological harm.

Timetable

The class action was originally set down for a hearing commencing
in July 2016.  However, on 14 September 2015, Justice Beech-Jones
vacated that hearing date.  The current timetable involves various
steps throughout 2016. It is expected that the matter will be
ready for hearing in 2017, with the trial reportedly expected to
last up to a year.

The postponement of the trial has prompted renewed calls in the
media by Ipswich councillor Paul Tully, who is a member of the
class, for an out-of-court settlement.  The primary reason for the
postponement is an ongoing delay in the plaintiffs' provision of a
complex hydrological model, which is said to be capable of
inputting hypothetical outflows from the Wivenhoe Dam and
reconstructing levels of flooding for every 10 square metres in
the Brisbane area.


SIEMENS AG: Recalls Syngo Imaging Products
------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 1, 2016
Posting date: February 12, 2016
Type of communication: Medical Device Recall
Subcategory: Medical Device
Hazard classification: Type II
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Medical Devices
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57116

Siemens is notifying customers using syngo Imaging Studio /
advanced Studio version VB36C and older of the possibility of
incorrect values for distance measurement. For measurement
calculation, syngo Imaging VB36C and older version use the DICOM
attribute "imager pixel spacing" (Tag (0018, 1164)) instead of
"pixel spacing" (Tag (0028, 0030)). This may result in incorrect
values for distance measurements. This happens if both DICOM
attributes "imager pixel spacing" and "pixel spacing" are set and
have different values.

Affected products: SYNGO IMAGING
Lot or serial number: 1094
                      1200
Model or catalog number: 10 014 063

Manufacturer: Siemens AG
              Wittelsbacherplatz 2
              Muenchen
              80333
              GERMANY


SLATER & GORDON: JustKapital to Fund Shareholder Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Leo Shanahan, writing for The Australian, reports that legal
funders JustKapital has announced it will fund the class action
against Slater & Gordon over the law firm's disastrous performance
that has seen its share value drop by $1 billion in the last year.

JustKapital Litigation Partners Limited this morning announced
that it had agreed to terms of a conditional funding agreement
with class action lawyers ACA Lawyers to prosecute a class action
against Slater & Gordon, focusing on the board's disastrous
Quindell purchase.

The class action funding agreement will also be funded by London
Woodsford Litigation Limited and will likely involve a number of
UK based institutional investors who have suffered substantial
financial losses as a result of the Slater & Gordon's alleged
misconduct.

ACA Lawyers announced in December it would be pursuing the action
against Slater & Gordon but the involvement of legal funders gives
the law suit much greater capability to draw on a wider pool of
potential litigants.

The potential shareholder claims against Slater & Gordon will
arise from: statements and announcements issued by the board of
directors of Slater & Gordon in relation to earnings guidance;
statement made by the board in the course of Slater & Gordon's
$890m capital raise; and statements in relation to the firm's
acquisition of the professional services divisions of Quindell PLC
for $1.3 billion in 2015.

Philip Kappp, executive chairman of JustKapital, said the class
action will take in both UK and Australian institutional investors
who have suffered as a result of the alleged misconduct of Slater
& Gordon.


SPOKEO INC: Supreme Court Ruling Still Leaves Questions
-------------------------------------------------------
David S. Hendrix and Alissa M. Ellison, writing for Law.com,
report that by agreeing to hear Spokeo v. Robins, it seems as
though the U.S. Supreme Court would finally tackle an issue it had
previously dodged: Whether Congress may confer Article III
standing upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm and who
therefore could not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal
court, by authorizing a private right of action based on a bare
violation of a federal statute.

The facts of Spokeo are simple and straightforward.  Thomas Robins
sued Spokeo "a people search engine" for alleged violations of the
Fair Credit Reporting Act. Robins claimed that Spokeo violated the
FCRA by publishing inaccurate information about him and that as a
result he had been unsuccessful in seeking employment and was
concerned that his future ability to obtain credit would be
impacted. Robins filed his case as a putative class action.

The FCRA allows recovery of any actual damages or statutory
damages ranging from $100 to $1,000.  Because actual damages are
difficult to prove, however, FCRA claims often seek recovery of
statutory damages.

In Spokeo, the court is considering whether a plaintiff can bring
a lawsuit in federal court without having to show any "real" harm
resulting from a statutory violation.  Accordingly, the court's
ruling could significantly impact not only the prosecution of
claims under the FCRA but also claims brought pursuant to other
similar statutes such as the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
and the Telephone Consumer Practices Act, which also allow for the
recovery of statutory damages without showing a "real" harm.

It also seemed that the stage was set for a potential significant
overhaul in the consumer class action arena.  If the court
ultimately determines in Spokeo that a plaintiff must show a real
concrete harm in order to obtain Article III standing, it will be
difficult -- if not impossible -- for potential class
representatives to establish the commonality necessary to obtain
class certification, as any such harm would likely be highly
individualized. Such a ruling would not only be a significant
victory for financial institutions and creditors, but would also
serve as a significant blow to the plaintiff's bar.

Death Of A Justice

The court heard oral argument in Spokeo on November 2015, prior to
the passing of Justice Antonin Scalia.  The questions posed by the
court to the parties during oral argument indicated that Chief
Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Scalia were of
the opinion that standing should be limited to those instances
where the plaintiff has alleged some form of concrete harm as
opposed to a mere statutory violation.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg seemed to take
the opposite position, indicating that an allegation of a
statutory right was sufficient to obtain standing.  In contrast,
Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen G. Breyer seemed to believe that,
in Robin's particular case, there was a sufficient actual injury.

The fate of the decision originally seemed to lie with Justice
Anthony M. Kennedy, and it was widely speculated that he would
align himself with the conservative justices on this issue.  The
sudden passing of Scalia has caused great uncertainty as his vote
was paramount to obtaining a majority opinion holding that a
plaintiff must still show concrete harm to establish standing.

It is unclear as to whether the court will proceed with issuing a
ruling or list the case for reargument after a new justice is
confirmed.  Without Justice Scalia's vote, however, it is unlikely
that a majority opinion will be issued.

If a 4-4 opinion is issued, it will have no precedential value,
and this issue will likely be addressed again at some point in the
future.  Such a result would do nothing to resolve the uncertainty
facing businesses who are reckoning with an increased number of
consumer claims.  In the meantime, expensive class action claims
where no actual damages are at issue will continue to cause the
business community significant resources.

It is clear that the ultimate resolution of this issue -- whenever
that may be -- will impact how plaintiffs can sue companies for
statutory damages.  It is equally as clear that this issue is of
vital importance to companies who are being subjected to an
onslaught of statutory class action cases where there are no
actual or "real" damages.

While consumers and businesses alike originally believed that the
court's decision in Spokeo would conclusively resolve this issue,
there is now widespread uncertainty as to when these questions
will be definitively answered.


SRIPRAPHAI TIPMANEE: "Romero" Suit Seeks Minimum Wages Under NYLL
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Romero, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff v. Sripraphai Tipmanee d/b/a Sripraphai
Thai Restaurant, the Defendant, Case No. 608307/2015 (N.Y. Sup.
Ct., County of Nassau, December 24, 2015), seeks to recover
minimum wage under the New York State Labor Law (NYLL).

Sripraphai Thai Restaurant is a place of business that is owned,
controlled, operated, and maintained by Sripraphai Tipmanee
located at 280 Hillside A venue, Williston Park, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ST. MARTINS CHEMICAL: "Navarro" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Navarro, and other similarly situated individuals, v. St.
Martins Chemical, Inc., doing business as Chemstation of Florida,
a Florida Profit Corporation, Stuart Sumner, individually, Robert
Schriver, individually, Chris Bostrom, individually, Case No. 16-
004838-CA-01, was removed from the 11th Judicial Circuit Court, to
the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-20922-FAM to
the proceeding.

St. Martins Chemical was founded in 1999. The company's line of
business includes the wholesale distribution of chemicals and
allied products. The Company is based in Jacksonville, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Michael Manuel Gropper, Esq.
          HOLLAND, KNIGHT, LLP
          50 N. Laura Street, Suite 3900
          Jacksonville, FL 32202
          Telephone: (904) 353 2000
          E-mail: michael.gropper@hklaw


STANFORD FIN'L: Proskauer, Chadbourne Immune From Investor Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that Proskauer Rose and Chadbourne & Parke are immune from
liability for the conduct of a former partner at the firms who
investors accused of helping R. Allen Stanford orchestrate a $7
billion fraud scheme, a federal appeals court ruled on March 10.

Both firms had lost a pivotal U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2014
that some observers feared could open up law firms to claims in
certain securities fraud cases. U.S. District Judge David Godbey
of the Northern District of Texas in March 2015 denied the law
firms' immunity argument.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed Judge
Godbey on March 10.

"These are classic examples of an attorney's conduct in
representing his client," Judge Edith Brown Clement wrote for the
unanimous three-judge panel.  "That some of it was allegedly
wrongful, or that he allegedly carried out some of his
responsibilities in a fraudulent manner, is no matter."

Daniel Beller -- dbeller@paulweiss.com -- a partner at Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, who represented Chadbourne &
Parke, did not respond to a request for comment.  On Feb. 25, Mr.
Beller wrote a letter to the court stating that Chadbourne & Parke
had reached a proposed settlement in the case.

A spokeswoman for Proskauer, represented by James Rouhandeh --
rouhandeh@davispolk.com -- head of the litigation department at
Davis Polk & Wardwell, wrote in an email: "The decision, which was
based on arguments that Proskauer has made since the outset of the
litigation, brings this purported class action to an end.  We
continue to be confident that the remaining claims asserted
against the firm in related litigations, which are equally
baseless, will also ultimately be dismissed."

P. Michael Jung -- michael.jung@strasburger.com -- chairman of the
appellate practice at Dallas-based Strasburger & Price, who
represented the investors, did not respond to a request for
comment.

Mr. Stanford is serving a 110-year sentence following his 2012
conviction of masterminding the fraud scheme.

Investors of Stanford's fraudulent certificates of deposit had
sued Proskauer Rose, Chadbourne & Parke and Thomas Sjoblom, a
former partner at both firms who represented Houston's Stanford
Financial Group from 2005 to 2009.  The suit, brought under the
Texas Securities Act, claimed Sjoblom and the firms obstructed a
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation into
Stanford's scheme.  Proskauer hired Mr. Sjoblom in 2006 after he
left Chadbourne.

Judge Godbey dismissed the case in 2011 after finding that state
law claims, alleging both firms aided and abetted Stanford's
fraud, were precluded by the Securities Litigation Uniform
Standards Act. The U.S. Supreme Court, affirming the Fifth
Circuit's reversal of that dismissal, disagreed.

On remand, Judge Godbey, taking up a separate defense under the
Texas attorney immunity doctrine, found that the plaintiffs had
made "sufficient allegations concerning defendants' conduct" to
support a fraud exception.

But on June 26, the Texas Supreme Court ruled in a separate case
called Cantey Hanger LLP v. Byrd that fraud is not an exception to
attorney immunity so long as the attorney is acting within the
scope of his or her representation of a client.  "The Texas
Supreme Court has now clarified that simply claiming that an
attorney's conduct was fraudulent does not allow plaintiffs to
circumvent attorney immunity," Judge Clement of the Fifth Circuit
wrote.

In its ruling, the Fifth Circuit said the Texas Supreme Court's
clarification required the appeals court to reverse Judge Godbey.
"Defendants contend that, because Cantey Hanger makes clear that
the fraud exception does not exist, they should have been granted
attorney immunity because 'the type of conduct alleged falls
squarely within the scope of [Sjoblom's] representation' of his
clients," Clement wrote.  "We agree."


STRATEGIC EXPERIENTIAL: Violated CLC, "Harrison" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Krystle Harrison, Napoleon Aparico, and Shyron McDougall,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, and
on behalf of the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. Strategic
Experiential Group, Strategic Hospitality Group, Strategic
Marketing Group, LLC, Strategic Group, Moet Hennessy USA, Inc.,
Brett Rogoff, Alex Cohen, Noah Tepperberg, Jason Strauss, Seth
Rodsky, and Does 1-25, the Defendants, Case No. RG16807555 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Alameda County, March 14, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, statutory penalties, restitution, interest,
attorneys' fees and costs of suit, pursuant to the California
Labor Code (CLC), the Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order,
and the California Business and Professions Code.

Strategic Experiential Group is a full-service marketing, special
events and promotions company that builds brand experiences.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason M. Erlich, Esq.
          McCORMACK AND ERLICH, LLP
          150 Post Street, Suite 742
          San Francisco, CA 94108
          Telephone: (415) 296 8420
          Facsimile: (415) 296 8552
          E-mail: jason@mcelawfirm.com


SUBARU: Recalls Tribeca 2006 Models Due to Injury Risk
------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 1, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Structure
Units affected: 5961
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016048TC
ID number: 2016048
Manufacturer recall number: WQX-59 & WQX-60

On certain vehicles, the primary and secondary hood latches could
fail at the same time. If this were to occur, the hood could open
unexpectedly while the vehicle is being driven. This could
compromise the driver's ability to see the road and its users, as
well as cause damage to the windshield. These issues could result
in a crash causing injury and/or property damage. Correction:
Dealers will inspect the hood latches, and either clean and
lubricate or replace with the current style part. When parts are
available, dealers will install revised hood latches.

  Make       Model      Model year(s) affected
  ----       -----      ----------------------
  SUBARU     TRIBECA    2006


SUMMIT COLLECTION: "Berbrick" Suit Filed in Dist. New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
Tyler Berbrick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Summit Collection Services, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01430-ES-MAH (Dist. N.J., March 14,
2016).

Summit Collection Services is a small organization engaged in the
adjustment and collection services industry, located in Ho Ho Kus,
New Jersey.

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


SYDNEY GROUP: Violated Labor Law, "Sandoval" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Sandoval, an individual, the Plaintiff, v. The Sydney
Group, LLC, a California limited liability company, doing business
as Olive & Thyme Gourmet Market, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. BC613728 (Cal. Super. Ct., County of Los
Angeles, March 14, 2016), seeks to recover compensatory damages
and unpaid overtime, statutory damages, statutory penalties,
prejudgment interest accrued on all due and unpaid overtime wages,
reasonable costs, including attorneys' fees, restitution of wages,
under the Labor Code and the Wage Order.

Sydney Group operates a restaurant in Los Angeles County,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
          Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322 -2211
          Facsimile: (310) 322 2252


T.D. BANK: Bid to Amend "Cruz" Complaint Denied
-----------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GARY CRUZ, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T.D. BANK, N.A.,
Defendant, No. 10 Civ. 8026 (PKC) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge P. Kevin
Castel denied the plaintiffs' motion to further amend the
complaint to add a new party and a new theory.

The putative class action was brought by Gary Cruz under New
York's Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA).  On March 14, 2011, an
amended complaint was filed, asserting claims on behalf of a new
plaintiff, Claude Pain.

Upon the death of Claude Pain, the plaintiff moved to add Arthemio
Perez as an additional plaintiff and to file a new amended
pleading with new never-before-asserted theories of the case.

Judge Castel denied the motion, holding that the interests of
justice do not require leave to file a Third Amended Complaint.
First, the judge explained that despite the death of Claude Pain,
the original plaintiff, Gary Cruz, remains a named plaintiff and
no reason has been put forth why Gary Cruz will not fairly and
adequately represent the interests of the class.  Second, the
judge noted that there has been unreasonable delay in the case,
and granting leave to file the Third Amended Complaint would cause
further delay to the case and deny justice to the parties.

A full-text copy of Judge Castel's March 10, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/4AXX5Kfrom Leagle.com.

Gary Cruz, Plaintiff, represented by Gabriel Oliver Koppell --
okoppell@koppellaw.com -- Law Offices of G. Oliver Koppell &
Assoc.,, Charles Wayne Juntikka, Charles Juntikka & Associates,
LLP & Daniel Feist Schreck -- dschreck@koppellaw.com -- Law
Offices of G. Oliver Koppell & Assoc.,.

TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by John Dellaportas --
jdellaportas@morganlewis.com -- Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Kevin
Paul Potere -- kppotere@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris, LLP,
Alexander D. Bono -- abono@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP,
pro hac vice, Justin Joseph D'Elia -- jjdelia@duanemorris.com --
Duane Morris, LLP,Michael Salvatore Zullo --
mszullo@duanemorris.com -- pro hac vice & Ryan E Borneman --
reborneman@duanemorris.com -- Duane Morris LLP, pro hac vice.


TAKATA CORP: Judge Dismisses Auto Recylers' Fraud Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
Miami judge dismissed fraud claims filed by auto recyclers against
automakers that produced vehicles with Takata air bags.

In orders issued on March 10, U.S. District Judge Federico Moreno
found the Automotive Recyclers Association lacked standing and
failed to adequately specify which automakers allegedly harmed
them.

Co-lead plaintiffs counsel Peter Prieto of Podhurst Orseck in
Miami said he was "carefully reviewing" the orders "to determine
what steps we will take next, including any amendments to the
current complaint."

The three dismissed economic loss claims are part of a 106-count
class action complaint filed by vehicle owners against Japan's
Takata Corp. and automakers Honda, BMW, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Nissan,
Subaru and Toyota.

The plaintiffs allege their cars lost resale value because of
defective air bags blamed in the deaths of at least nine people
and more than 100 injuries.

Takata has recalled more than 19 million vehicles in the U.S. to
fix air bags at risk of rupturing in the largest auto recall in
history.

Takata will still have to contend with the auto recyclers' claims
since Judge Moreno denied the company's motion to dismiss.

"Takata stands in an entirely different position than the
automotive defendants," the judge wrote.  "By specifically naming
Takata and using defined terms that unequivocally implicate
Takata, ARA has sufficiently alleged facts to support causation
and redressability."

Takata declined comment.

The auto recyclers filed claims based on three assignments from
Florida companies Rigsby's Auto Parts & Sales Inc., M&K Used Auto
Parts lnc. and Quarno's Auto Salvage.  They accused manufacturers
of fraudulent misrepresentation and concealment and violating
state laws against deceptive trade practices acts.

The recyclers alleged they bought cars with Takata air bags and
wouldn't have bought them or paid as much for them had they known
about the defect.  They did not specifically mention the make of
the vehicles, Judge Moreno noted.

"It is impossible to ascertain from the complaint which automotive
defendants would be responsible for the wrongful conduct alleged,"
he wrote.

The association also lacked standing to bring state law claims in
27 states other than Florida since the alleged injuries did not
occur in those other states, the judge ruled.

The group purported to bring the action "on behalf of automotive
recyclers nationwide" but did not show that it had associational
standing to sue on behalf of its members, Judge Moreno found.


TARSADIA HOTELS: 9th Cir. Affirms Judgment in "Beaver" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEAN BEAVER, Husband; LAURIE BEAVER, Wife;
STEVEN ADELMAN, an individual; ABRAM AGHACHI, an individual;
DINESH GAUBA, an individual; KEVIN KENNA, husband and wife, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated; VERONICA
KENNA, husband and wife, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TARSADIA HOTELS, a
California corporation; TUSHAR PATEL, an individual; B.U. PATEL,
an individual; GREGORY CASSERLY, an individual; 5TH ROCK LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company; MKP ONE, LLC, a California
limited liability company; GASLAMP HOLDINGS, LLC, a California
limited liability company, Defendants-Appellants, No. 15-55106
(9th Cir.), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
granted the defendants' petition for interlocutory appeal and
affirmed the district court's partial summary judgment order with
respect to certified issues.

The plaintiffs, purchasers of non-residential condominium units in
San Diego's Hard Rock Hotel & Condominium Project, brought a
putative class action against a group of developers and their
agents or affiliates who allegedly participated in the sale of the
condominium units.  The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants
engaged in business practices violative of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL) by failing to make certain disclosures in
the course of the sale transactions as required by the Interstate
Land Sales Full Disclosure Act (ILSA).

The district court initially granted summary judgment to the
defendants on the basis that the plaintiffs' UCL claim was time-
barred, but later reversed its holding after the plaintiffs moved
for reconsideration.

In 2014, Congress passed an amendment to ILSA exempting
condominium sales from the same ILSA disclosure requirements upon
which the plaintiffs had predicated their UCL claim.  The district
court concluded that the 2014 amendment had no retrospective
application in the action, but it certified the issue, as well as
other legal issues in its previous order, for interlocutory
appeal.

The Ninth Circuit noted that although ILSA includes a three-year
statute of limitations, the UCL includes a more generous four-year
statute of limitations.  The Ninth Circuit held that the ILSA does
not preempt the plaintiffs' UCL claim and that UCL's four-year
statute of limitations and its accompanying accrual rules apply
because the plaintiffs brought their claim under the UCL.  Thus,
the appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs' UCL claim is
not time-barred.

The Ninth Circuit also concluded that the plaintiffs' units are
subject to ILSA's disclosure requirements.  The appellate court
found that the units are "lots" because none of the use
restrictions embedded in the original purchase contract interfered
with the owner's exclusive use of the property "on a recurring
basis for a defined period of time."  The court also found that
the Improved Lot Exemption does not extinguish the plaintiffs'
claims because the pre-sale contingency clause in the purchase
contracts is not limited to a period of 180 days or less and the
purchase contracts do not obligate the seller to complete
construction within two years.

As to the 2014 amendment to ILSA, the Ninth Circuit held that
because Congress did not express a clear intent that the amendment
operate retroactively to deprive plaintiffs of a pre-existing
cause of action, ILSA's disclosure requirements will still apply
to the condominium units purchased by the plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of the Ninth Circuit's March 10, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/tlsxe5from Leagle.com.

Frederick H. Kranz (argued) -- rkranz@coxcastle.com -- and Lynn
Therese Galuppo -- lgaluppo@coxcastle.com -- Cox, Castle &
Nicholson, LLP, Irvine, California; David Wesley Moon --
dmoon@stroock.com -- Stroock & Stroock & Lavan LLP, Los Angeles,
California, for Defendants-Appellants.

Michael Rubin (argued) -- mrubin@altshulerberzon.com -- Altshuler
Berzon LLP, San Francisco, California; Donald E. Chomiak, Talisman
Law, P.C., Glendale, California; Tyler R. Meade, The Meade Firm
P.C., Berkeley, California; Michael L. Schrag --
mls@classlawgroup.com -- Gibbs Law Group LLP, Oakland, California,
for Plaintiffs-Appellees.


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Badri" Suit Remanded to San Mateo County
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTON S. BADRI, Plaintiff, v. TERRAFORM
GLOBAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-06323-BLF (N.D.
Cal.), Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted Anton Badri's motion and
remanded the suit to the San Mateo County Superior Court.

On December 9, 2015, Badri filed a securities fraud class action
complaint in the California Superior Court, County of San Mateo
against TerraForm Global, Inc., SunEdison, TerraForm officers and
directors, and underwriters of TerraForm's initial public offering
(IPO).  The defendants removed the action to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California on December
30, 2015.  On January 31, 2016, Badri moved to remand the matter
back to state court, arguing that the Securities Act, as amended
by the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998
(SLUSA), explicitly bars removal of the action.

Judge Freeman agreed with Badri, holding that the most
straightforward reading of the provisions of the statute is that
only covered class actions with state law claims can be removed to
federal court, as provided in 15 U.S.C. Section 77p(c), and only
for the purpose of dismissing the state law claims.  The judge
concluded that since Badri's complaint asserted purely Securities
Act claims, it could not be removed from state court under the
Securities Act's jurisdictional and anti-removal provisions.

A full-text copy of Judge Moskowitz's March 3, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/jAQTVhfrom Leagle.com.

Anton S. Badri, Plaintiff, represented by Albert Y. Chang, Bottini
and Bottini, Inc., Francis A. Bottini, Jr., Bottini & Bottini,
Inc. & Yury A. Kolesnikov, Bottini and Bottini, Inc..

Terraform Global, Inc., SunEdison, Inc., Ahmad Chatila, Carlos
Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Martin Truong, Brian Wuebbels,
Defendants, represented by Sara B. Brody -- sbrody@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP, Jaime Allyson Bartlett -- jbartlett@sidley.com
-- Sidley Austin LLP, Norman J. Blears -- nblears@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP & Sarah Alison Hemmendinger --
shemmendinger@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs &
Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US Capital, LLC, Itau BBA USA
Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities America, Inc., SG Americas
Securities, LLC, Kotak Mahindra, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Patrick David Robbins -- probbins@shearman.com -- Shearman &
Sterling LLP & Stephen D. Hibbard, Shearman & Sterling LLP.


TETRAPHASE PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Lundin Law PC on March 21 disclosed a class action lawsuit has
been filed against Tetraphase Pharmaceuticals, Inc. concerning
possible violations of federal securities laws between March 5,
2015 and September 8, 2015. Investors who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares during the Class Period should contact the Firm in
advance of the March 28, 2016, lead plaintiff motion deadline.

According to the complaint, the company issued materially false
and misleading statements to investors regarding the efficacy and
safety of Eravacycline, and its capacity for approval by both the
FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

No class has been certified in the above action. Until a class is
certified, you are not considered represented by an attorney.  You
may also choose to do nothing and be an absent class member.

Lundin Law PC was created by Brian Lundin, a securities litigator
based in Los Angeles.


TILE SHOP HOLDINGS: Beaver County Fund Suit Filed in N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Tile Shop Holdings, Inc.  The
case is captioned Beaver County Employers Retirement Fund,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Tile Shop Holdings, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-mc-80062-JSC (N.D. Cal., San Francisco, March 14, 2016).

Tile Shop Holdings operates as a specialty retailer of
manufactured and natural stone tiles, setting and maintenance
materials, and related accessories in the United States. It offers
approximately 4,000 products, including ceramic, porcelain, glass,
and metal tiles; and marble, granite, quartz, sandstone,
travertine, slate, and onyx tiles primarily under the Rush River
and Fired Earth brand names. The company also manufactures setting
and maintenance materials, such as thinset, grout, and sealers
under the Superior brand name. As of December 31, 2015, it
operated 114 stores in 31 states with an average size of 21,800
square feet. The company is based in Plymouth, Minnesota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          Christopher T. Gilroy, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          William J. Geddish, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail: shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  srudman@rgrdlaw.com

               - and -

          Joseph Russello, Esq.
          COUGHLIN STOIA GELLER RUDMAN & ROBBINS LLP
          58 South Service Road, Suite 200
          Melville, NY 11747
          Telephone: (631) 367 7100
          Facsimile: (631) 367 1173
          E-mail: jrussello@csgrr.com

               - and -

          Matthew Leo Mustokoff, Esq.
          Paul Aaron Breucop, Esq.
          Stacey Marie Kaplan, Esq.
          KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER AND CHECK, LLP
          280 King of Prussia Rd.
          Radnor, PA 19087
          Telephone: (610) 667 7706
          Facsimile: (610) 667 7056
          E-mail: mmustokoff@ktmc.com
                  pbreucop@ktmc.com
                  skaplan@ktmc.com


TREE OF LIFE: Recalls Organic Popping Corn Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Extraneous Material
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tree of Life Canada
Distribution: Alberta, British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario,
Quebec, Saskatchewan
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10375

  Brand    Common     Size    Code(s) on    UPC
  name     name       ----    product       ---
  -----    ------             ----------
  Tout     Natural    255 g   09/05/16      0 65143 55367 7
  Naturel  Flavour
           Organic
           Popping
           Corn


TROPICAL SWEETS: Recalls Honey Products
---------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Alert sub-type: Notification
Subcategory: Chemical
Hazard classification: Class 3
Source of recall: Canadian Food Inspection Agency
Recalling firm: Tropical Sweets
Distribution: Ontario
Extent of the product distribution: Retail
CFIA reference number: 10378

  Brand      Common name     Size    Code(s) on   UPC
  name       -----------     ----    product      ---
  -----                              ----------
Beelicious   Summer Blossom  1 kg    15072        8 413524 001545
             Honey
             (Product of
             Spain)
Sunderland   Wildflowers     1 kg     15072       8 413524 001507
Hives        Honey
             (Product of
             Spain)


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Defense Counsel Opposes Nonjury Trial Proposal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Parloff, writing for Fortune, reports that plaintiffs in the
case against Trump University want a June or August court date.

"I'm dying to go to court on this case," Donald Trump said at a
deposition last December related to the civil fraud suit against
him in San Diego federal court over his controversial Trump
University real-estate courses.  "I've been waiting for it a long
time."

Yet Mr. Trump is willing to endure just a bit more delay--until
after Election Day on Nov. 8.

As it grows increasingly likely that Mr. Trump will be the
Republican candidate for President, his attorneys are pushing to
postpone the trial from its previously contemplated August start
date.

"This will be a zoo if it were to go to trial," Mr. Trump's
attorney, Dan Petrocelli, said at a hearing earlier this month,
referring to the difficulty in picking a fair jury in the home
stretch of a Presidential campaign.

Though Mr. Petrocelli didn't mention it, undergoing a three-week
suit on charges of consumer fraud, unfair competition, false
advertising, and "financial elder abuse" might also prove an
unwelcome, off-message, distraction for the candidate.

Though the plaintiffs lawyers have also acknowledged that the
current "media circus," as one of them described it at a hearing
March 11, will pose serious challenges to picking a fair and
unbiased jury, they are pushing to keep the August date-or even to
move it up to June, just before the Republican Convention, which
is scheduled for July 18-21.

In a memorandum filed on March 16, the plaintiffs attorneys
stressed that some of their claims, including those brought under
California's broad unfair competition law, do not carry a right to
trial by jury and could therefore be tried by a judge alone (in
what is referred to as a bench trial).

Since judges are presumed to be immune from inflammatory media
reports, the plaintiffs lawyers argue that U.S. District Judge
Gonzalo Curiel could at least hear those nonjury claims at that
time. They have even suggested a willingness to drop certain
claims from the case if need be, since class members could still
benefit from a second, related class action suit.  That case,
which won't reach trial until after the election, is being brought
by the same lawyers and claims that Trump and his University
violated the civil provisions of the federal Racketeer Influenced
and Corrupt Organizations Act.

In a responsive submission filed on March 18, Mr. Trump's counsel
protested that the nonjury plan would run contrary to federal
practice, which typically dictates that when there are a mix of
jury and nonjury claims, the jury claims must be heard first.
Mr. Petrocelli argued that departing from that practice would
effectively deprive Trump of his Seventh Amendment right to trial
by jury by tainting the outcome of the later jury claims.

In both Trump University suits, former students have brought class
actions seeking damages and reimbursement of tuition-which ran to
as much as $35,000 for the "Trump Elite Gold" version of the
program.

The plaintiffs allege that the courses-where instructors "hand-
picked" by Trump were supposed to teach his secrets for successful
real-estate speculation-did not live up to their billing and left
them saddled with crushing credit-card debt.

Mr. Trump has denied any wrongdoing and has stressed that more
than 90% of the students rated his courses highly in satisfaction
surveys--though the surveys were often filled out in front of
instructors and before students yet knew the quality of the
mentorship they were supposed to receive.

The existing trial schedule was set last December, when Judge
Curiel and the attorneys for both parties all seemed to be
operating on some different unspoken assumptions-namely, that the
electorate would probably have put an end to Trump's Presidential
aspirations by the conclusion of the July convention, if not long
before.

At a status conference last December, Judge Curiel noted that the
Trump University case--almost six years old--was the second oldest
case on his docket, that he was eager to move it to trial, and
wanted to hear it in June. (The parties then estimated that it
would take about three weeks to try.)

Mr. Petrocelli argued at that time, however, to set it "not sooner
than July, so that Mr. Trump has the ability to compete [during]
that part of the campaign."  Judge Curiel and the plaintiffs,
represented by Jason Forge and Rachel Jensen of Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, appeared to acquiesce to that request.

But at a hearing on March 11, everyone present recognized that the
world had changed.

"There are very serious issues being raised about whether the
defendants can ever get a fair trial if the atmosphere and the
environment are being poisoned," Mr. Petrocelli said then.  He
added that the judge had previously deferred the trial date till
"after the July convention to see what happens . . . I'm going to
have a lot to say on that subject if Mr. Trump is the nominee."

Even plaintiffs counsel Jason Forge admitted that the
circumstances posed a challenge. "It really is an unprecedented
level of publicity," he said.  "We've all seen high-profile cases,
but nothing like this . . . But that does not mean we should not
go forward on some claims."

Then, on March 16, Mr. Forge filed papers proposing going forward
on the nonjury claims, either in August or even as early as June.
He stressed that many seniors in the class--including 74-year-old
class representative Sonny Low--"need resolution before it is too
late."

No way, Mr. Petrocelli responded on March 18.  Mr.Forge's proposal
was a "transparent attempt to prejudice defendants' ability to
defend this case at trial while Mr. Trump is running for
President," he argued. (Mr. Petrocelli knows something about high-
publicity jury trials.  He represented former Enron CEO Jeff
Skilling in his criminal trial in Houston and won a $33.5 million
civil wrongful death verdict against O.J. Simpson in Los Angeles.)

It's unclear when Judge Curiel will rule on the schedule.  He is,
however, expected to soon decide on a pending motion to permit the
originally named plaintiff in the case -- Tarla Makaeff -- to
withdraw as a class representative, though she would remain a
class member.

Mr. Trump's lawyers oppose letting Ms. Makaeff out, since they
deposed her four times and believe they can impeach her
effectively on the witness stand.

Ms. Makaeff has cited the stress of the suit's sudden publicity--
Trump has trashed her by name on the stump--as exacerbating
"health problems, family loss, and financial troubles in the years
since the case began" to the point where continuing has become
"unhealthy" for her.  She has submitted confidential medical
records to the judge under seal.

"No one could have anticipated that [Trump] would become a viable
Presidential candidate and 24/7 media obsession as this case
neared trial," her attorneys have written.


TSC STORES: Recalls Oxgear Safety Work Boots
--------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Posting date: February 3, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Clothing and Accessories
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56940

This recall involves tan leather 8-inch (20-centimetre) OxGear
safety work boots, with model number 66000. The products can also
be identified by the CSA file number 265396 on the tongue of the
boots.

The following codes and sizes are included in this recall:

  SKU         UPC               Description
  ---         ---               -----------
  660480      667388001243      OXGEAR work boots size 8
  660481      667388001250      OXGEAR work books size 9
  660482      667388001267      OXGEAR work boots size 9.5
  660483      667388001274      OXGEAR work boots size 10
  660484      667388001281      OXGEAR work boots size 10.5
  660485      667388001298      OXGEAR work boots size 11
  660486      667388001304      OXGEAR work boots size 12
  660487      667388001311      OXGEAR work boots size 13


The work boot bears a tag with an unauthorized CSA marking.  The
CSA Group has not certified this safety footwear and testing has
confirmed that it does not comply with the CSA standard.  As such,
the product may present a risk to the wearer.

Health Canada, CSA Group and TSC Stores have not received any
reports of consumer incidents or injuries related to the use of
these products.

Approximately 1,130 units were sold in Canada.

The recalled products were sold from November 25, 2015 to January
8, 2016 at TSC stores.

Manufactured in China.

Importer: TSC Stores
          London
          Ontario
          CANADA

Manufacturer: Jiayi Shoes & Plastic Co. Ltd.
              Jinxi, Qingyang
              Jinjiang
              CHINA

Consumers should immediately stop using the safety boot and return
the boots to TSC Stores to receive a full refund.

For more information, consumers may contact TSC Stores by
telephone at 519-453-5270 by email or visiting the TSC's website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/bDY9KQ


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unfair Competition Suit Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
pared down to the single issue of whether Uber made false
representations to the public that Philadelphia's taxi companies
weren't guaranteed to be insured while on the road, a federal
judge has allowed the cab companies' unfair competition lawsuit
against Uber to move forward.

U.S. District Judge Nitza I. Quinones Alejandro of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania denied defendant Uber's motion to dismiss
the companies' false representation claim under the Lanham Act,
filed by lead plaintiff Checker Cab Philadelphia. However, the
judge dismissed the plaintiffs' false advertising and Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act claims, including all
claims against Google, which the companies claimed had conspired
with Uber by investing in it.

The plaintiffs took issue with Uber's publicized statements in
2014 on its website and email blasts to its Philadelphia customers
that the insurer for the city's cab companies went bankrupt and
that there was "no guarantee" that their cabs would be insured.

While Uber argued that its statement was true because those cab
companies had not obtained replacement coverage as of the Oct. 24
and 27 publication dates, Judge Alejandro said in her memorandum
that Uber failed to take into account that the insurance policies
were valid until Nov. 20 of that year.

"Therefore, Uber's statements expressly suggesting that the
insurance policies had been terminated or cancelled as of 5 p.m.
on Oct. 24, 2014, were literally false," Judge Alejandro said.

The rest of the taxi companies' claims did not fare so well. Since
the bulk of them were premised on Uber's alleged violation of
state and local laws, Judge Alejandro said the plaintiffs did not
have standing to bring those claims, citing case law holding that
private parties cannot invoke the Lanham Act to create a private
cause of action for enforcement of taxi regulations.  The
plaintiffs claimed Uber was offering unauthorized taxi services in
Pennsylvania.

Additionally, the cab companies sued for false advertising because
of Uber's claims in a blog post that its fares were at least 20
percent cheaper.  They claimed the representations made by Uber
were literal falsities, as opposed to statements of truth that
were likely to be misleading to consumers.

"The challenged blog post, included in its entirety as an exhibit
to the amended complaint, provided sample pricing costs to back up
Uber's statement, specifically 'comparing UberX rates to
Philadelphia taxicab rates for three sample trips,'" Judge
Alejandro said.  "These fare samples show the literal truth of the
challenged statement, i.e., the sample UberX rates are at least 20
percent lower than the sample non-Uber taxicab fares."
The cab companies did not refute Uber's claims in their amended
complaint, so, Alejandro said, their false advertising claim
failed.

The plaintiffs' RICO claims fell short for the same reason their
allegations of state and local law violations fell short.
"To the extent plaintiffs' claims are premised on an alleged
unlawful enterprise consisting of unauthorized provision of
taxicab services, such claims are dismissed for the same reasons
previously discussed," Judge Alejandro said.  "Just as the Lanham
Act cannot be used to create an otherwise nonexistent private
cause of action for enforcement of state and local regulations,
neither can the RICO statute."

Additionally, Judge Alejandro said the cab companies did not show
a pattern of racketeering existed between Google and Uber through
the instances of alleged false advertising.

As to the RICO conspiracy claim, Alejandro said a plaintiff "must
plead facts showing an injury distinct from an injury caused by
the alleged predicate acts themselves, i.e., distinct from" that
of their other claims.

"As such, plaintiffs have not alleged any injury or facts to
establish an injury separate and distinct from that alleged as a
result of the predicate fraudulent acts themselves. At best,
plaintiffs have pled that defendants' investments in the
enterprise have merely permitted the fraudulent activity to
continue," Judge Alejandro said.


UNITED NATIONS: Hearing Held in Cholera Class Action Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------------
Richard Knox, writing for NPR, reports that a three-judge federal
appeals court panel held a hearing March 1 on whether the U.N.
should be held accountable for Haiti's devastating epidemic.

It's widely believed that U.N. peacekeepers -- possibly just a
single soldier -- brought cholera to Haiti during deployment from
Nepal, where cholera is a perennial threat.  Before Haiti's
epidemic began in October 2014, the disease hadn't been known in
Haiti, this hemisphere's poorest country.

Poor sanitation at a U.N. camp for peacekeepers allowed cholera-
contaminated sewage to enter a tributary of Haiti's largest river,
the Artibonite.  Within days, hundreds of people downstream, like
Jean-Clair Desir and his mother, were falling ill.  The disease
subsequently spread to the entire country.

Daniele Lantagne, a Tufts University environmental engineer, is
one of four independent experts appointed by the U.N. in 2011 to
investigate the outbreak.

"I and the panel believe, and the scientific consensus is, that
the most likely source was a peacekeeper or peacekeepers" at the
U.N. encampment, Mr. Lantagne told NPR.  "There is not an
alternative hypothesis that is credible."

She adds that DNA analysis strongly suggests "this outbreak was
probably started by one or very few infected, asymptomatic
individuals -- I would guess one."

Dr. Louise Ivers of Partners in Health, a major provider of health
care in Haiti, says the new study redefines the already huge toll
from Haiti's cholera epidemic.

"This is a very important paper," Dr. Ivers says.  "We've said all
along that we thought cholera had a much bigger impact than the
numbers were showing.  There was no possible way all those deaths
were being counted. I do think it raises the stakes in terms of
what happens."

Those stakes are already very high.

A federal district judge last year dismissed the class-action
suit, ruling that international treaties immunize the U.N. from
lawsuits.  The plaintiffs appealed the lower court's dismissal,
resulting in this month's hearing.  The United States is defending
the U.N., since the agency is headquartered in New York.

The lawsuit was brought by the Boston-based Institute for Justice
and Democracy in Haiti and a sister group in Haiti on behalf of
5,000 cholera victims.  They want the U.N. to end cholera by
installing a national water and sanitation system; pay reparations
to cholera victims and their families; and publicly apologize for
bringing cholera to Haiti.

The plaintiffs contend the U.N. forfeited its legal immunity when
it failed to launch an internal process to adjudicate the
plaintiffs' claims, as they say its own commitments require.

"The U.N.'s conditional immunity does not authorize impunity,"
plaintiffs' attorney Beatrice Lindstrom told the three-judge
appeals panel.

The judges seemed to be struggling to find a way to provide some
compensation to Haitian cholera victims.

For instance, Judge Barrington Parker asked Assistant U.S.
Attorney Ellen Blain, representing the U.N.'s position: "Would the
United States government concede that if you're right and these
people are completely remediless, that that is a very bad result?"

Ms. Blain said the U.S. government "certainly recognizes that this
is an unfortunate and tragic humanitarian catastrophe," but
asserted that the U.N. has "absolutely immunity . . . for a very
important reason."

She was alluding to U.N. officials' fear that if the Haitian
plaintiffs succeed in piercing the agency's cloak of immunity, it
will open the way to unlimited lawsuits seeking compensation for
acts of the U.N. or the 150,000 peacekeeping forces it sends out
into the world each year.

But this argument is being sharply challenged by some of the
U.N.'s own staff -- a group of five "special rapporteurs" who are
appointed to act as internal watchdogs.

In a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon presented on
March 15 to the U.N. Human Rights Council, the rapporteurs
rejected the argument that compensating Haitian cholera victims
would be "opening the floodgates to claims against the United
Nations."  This is believed to be the first time the U.N.'s human
rights watchdogs have criticized the agency itself, rather than
member nations.

The rapporteurs also criticized the U.N.'s efforts to control
cholera through clean water and sanitation as "clearly
insufficient."  So far the U.N. has spent about $140 million on
cholera control in Haiti -- only 6 percent of the $2.2 billion the
agency says will be needed to eliminate cholera there.

In unusually blunt language, the rapporteurs told Ban that the
U.N.'s denial of "an effective remedy" for cholera "challenges the
credibility of the Organization as an entity that respects human
rights."

NPR asked the secretary general's office for a copy of his
response to the rapporteurs' letter. A spokesman said Ban's
response could not be released.  But he said the secretary general
told the rapporteurs that he "reaffirms the U.N.'s commitment to
the fight against cholera in Haiti and the protection and
promotion of human rights."

In perhaps the most significant disclosure, the spokesman said Ban
welcomes the rapporteurs' offer "to discuss further what
additional steps might be taken to assist the victims of cholera
and their communities."  It's evidently the first time Ban has
hinted at the possibility of such a discussion.

Meanwhile, the U.N. has received thousands of letters from Haitian
cholera victims detailing how the disease has affected them and
their families.

One letter was from Jean-Clair Desir, the student who lost his
mother to cholera early in the outbreak.  "President, Members of
the United Nations Security Council and all other responsible, I
lift my head to look at the sky so I may strongly salute you," he
wrote.  "I know you are promoting human rights and respect, [but]
in fact . . . you refused to compensate us; that is bad."


UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Intervene
--------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Robert L. Wilkins of the Court of Appeals, District
of Columbia Circuit, affirmed the district court's judgment
denying a motion by Timothy LaBatte to intervene in a now-settled
class action lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The appellate case is captioned, GEORGE B. KEEPSEAGLE, ET AL.,
Appellees, TIMOTHY LABATTE, Appellant, v. THOMAS J. VILSACK,
SECRETARY OF AGRICULTURE, Appellee, Case No. 14-5223 (D.C. Cir.).

The class action, filed in 1999, alleges that the US Department of
Agriculture discriminated against Native American farmers in its
provision of loans. The parties settled the action in November
2010. The District Court approved the settlement, and dismissed
the suit with prejudice in April 2011, stating that it "retained
continuing jurisdiction for a period of five years for the limited
purposes set forth in the Settlement Agreement."

LaBatte filed his claim under the Agreement in December 2011, via
Track B.  Because he lacked signed declarations attesting to
similarly situated white farmers, LaBatte submitted the
declarations that Russell Hawkins and Tim Lake -- who both work
for the Bureau of Indian Affairs ("BIA") -- allegedly would have
signed, along with an additional declaration from his attorney
explaining that the BIA prohibited Hawkins and Lake from signing
the declarations.

The District Court held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear
LaBatte's motion to intervene. Because the Court had dismissed the
case with prejudice following settlement, it determined that it
was only through its ancillary jurisdiction that it could hear
LaBatte's motion.

On appeal, LaBatte seeks review of the District Court's
determination arguing that the distribution of the Settlement Fund
and a right to non-government interference with the Track B
process are interrelated and interdependent to the claims LaBatte
asserted in his complaint.

In his Opinion dated March 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/q0nPPtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wilkins concluded that
LaBatte's motion to intervene is unrelated to the underlying
lawsuit and because the District Court was not required to hear
LaBatte's motion in order to effectuate its decrees.

Timothy LaBatte is represented by Erick G. Kaardal, Esq. --
kaardal@mklaw.com -- MOHRMAD, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, PA

Thomas J. Vilsack is represented by:

     Carleen M. Zubrzycki, Esq.
     Benjamin C. Mizer, Esq.
     Vincent H. Cohen Jr., Esq.
     Charles W. Scarborough, Esq.
     Katherine Twomey Allen, Esq.
     U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     950 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202)353-1555


UNITED STATES: Attorney's Fees Awarded to "Turner" Plaintiffs
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TRINKA A. TURNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
THOMAS VILSACK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-1900 SI (D.
Or.), Judge Michael H. Simon granted in part the plaintiffs'
application for attorney's fees and costs in the amount of
$60,907.87 in attorney's fees and $625.24 in costs.

On November 5, 2015, a putative class action was filed against
officials with the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and its Rural Development (RD) and Rural Housing Service arising
from the intended foreclosure sale of Jandina, a 36-unit apartment
building that is part of the USDA's RD housing portfolio.  On
November 18, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary injunction and enjoined the foreclosure of Jandina.
On November 5, 2015, the case was dismissed by stipulation of the
parties pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(1)(A)(ii).

The plaintiffs then filed an application for attorney's fees and
costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA).  The
defendants objected, arguing that no attorney's fees should be
awarded to the plaintiffs because the court lacks jurisdiction to
consider the fee application on a case that has been resolved
through a stipulated dismissal.  The defendants also argued that
the plaintiffs are not the "prevailing party" as required under
the EAJA because the stipulated dismissal does not order any
relief against any defendant.  The United States did not object to
the plaintiffs' request for costs.

Judge Simon cited that circuit courts have held that, when parties
voluntarily dismiss an action, a prevailing party may file for,
and when appropriate receive, attorney's fees under the EAJA.  The
judge then considered the plaintiffs as the prevailing party, as
demonstrated by a review of the post-injunction conduct of the
parties whereby "Plaintiffs agreed to dismiss the action and
Defendants rescinded the notice of default and election to
foreclose and agreed to operate in good faith toward a potential
transfer of the property to Community and Shelter Assistance Corp
or other options to keep the property within the USDA multifamily
housing program."

Judge Simon, however, declined to award an enhanced EAJA hourly
rate for any of the plaintiffs' counsels.  Although Judge Simon
recognized that plaintiffs' counsel, Gideon Anders, had
specialized knowledge and expertise in the RD program, the judge
was persuaded that such expertise does not warrant EAJA fee
enhancement because the arguments in the case involved a fairly
straightforward application of the relevant statutes and the USDA
handbook governing the RD program.

A full-text copy of Judge Simon's March 14, 2016 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/BHScacfrom Leagle.com.

Trinka A. Turner, Junea R Murphy, Jennifer L Junkins, Plaintiffs,
represented by Edward Johnson, Oregon Law Center, Michael A.
Pijanowski, Legal Aid Services of Oregon, Spencer M. Neal, Oregon
Law Center & Leslea Shannon Smith, Oregon Law Center.

Thomas Vilsack, Douglas O'Brien, Richard Davis, Vickie L. Walker,
Defendants, represented by Sean E. Martin, U.S. Attorney's Office.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Two Law Firms File Insurance Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
The law firms of Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP and Cooper &
Kirk, PLLC on March 21 disclosed that they have filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court for the
District of Minnesota against UnitedHealth Group Inc.,
UnitedHealthCare, Inc., UnitedHealthcare Life Insurance Co.,
Optum, Inc. and OptumRx, Inc. (collectively "Defendants") for
their unlawful denial of coverage and refusal to pay for
Harvoni -- a medically necessary treatment which can effectively
cure chronic Hepatitis C ("CHC").

Hepatitis C is a contagious blood-borne virus that attacks the
liver and affects millions of people in the United States.  The
chronic form of Hepatitis C leads to a host of medical problems.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved Harvoni exclusively
for the treatment of genotype 1 CHC patients in October of 2014,
calling it a "breakthrough" drug.  Harvoni is the first drug
approved for the treatment of CHC that does not require
combination with other drugs, and can effectively cure CHC in 94%
to 100% of cases with little to no side effects.  Notwithstanding
the life-saving treatment offered to CHC patients by Harvoni,
Defendants have unlawfully limited Plaintiff's and class members'
access to this miracle drug by developing arbitrary coverage
criteria.

As detailed in the complaint, Plaintiff and class members were
diagnosed with Hepatitis C, prescribed Harvoni by their
physicians, and unlawfully denied coverage of Harvoni by the
Defendants.  As a result, Plaintiff and class members have been
and continue to be irreparably damaged by Defendants' denial of
coverage for their medically necessary Harvoni treatment.  To view
a copy of the complaint filed in this action, or for additional
information about the lawsuit, please visit
www.ktmc.com/hepatitis-c-harvoni-united-health-care

Hepatitis C patients that have been denied coverage for Harvoni by
their insurance company are encouraged to contact Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP (Darren J. Check, Esq., James Maro, Esq. or
Adrienne O. Bell, Esq.) at (888) 299-7706 or at info@ktmc.com, or
submit an inquiry for information online at
www.ktmc.com/hepatitis-c-harvoni-united-health-care

Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check -- http://www.ktmc.com-- prosecutes
class actions in state and federal courts throughout the country.
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check is a driving force behind corporate
governance reform, and has recovered billions of dollars on behalf
of institutional and individual investors from the United States
and around the world.  The firm represents investors, consumers
and whistleblowers (private citizens who report fraudulent
practices against the government and share in the recovery of
government dollars).  For more information about Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, or for additional information about participating
in this action, please visit www.ktmc.com.

Cooper & Kirk, PLLC -- http://www.cooperkirk.com-- prosecutes
large scale, high profile cases throughout the country.  The firm
has recovered billions of dollars on behalf its clients in a wide
range of matters.


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Court Sends "Aldrich" Suit to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARLENA ALDRICH and KRISTEN NOLAN,
Plaintiffs, v. THE UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX, INC., Defendant, Civil
Action No. 3:15-cv-00578-JHM (W.D. Ky.), Judge Joseph H. McKinley
granted the Motion to Dismiss and Compel Arbitration filed by the
University of Phoenix.

Marlena Aldrich and Kristen Nolan filed an action asserting claims
arising from or related to their employment with the University,
which included a putative class action claim and wrongful
termination claims.  The University contended that the plaintiffs
have "entered into a valid arbitration agreement . . . which
broadly encompasses 'any dispute arising out of or related to
[their] employment or termination of employment with [Defendant]."
Thus, the University argued that the matter should be dismissed in
its entirety, or in the alternative, arbitration should be
compelled and the action stayed.

Judge McKinley found that the "effective vindication" exception to
the Federal Arbitration Act does not apply to the plaintiff's
public policy claims, and that a valid and enforceable arbitration
agreement does exist between the plaintiffs and the University.
Thus, the judge concluded that, to the extent that the plaintiffs
wish to pursue their claims against the University, they must do
so in accordance with that agreement.  Judge McKinley also held
that the plaintiffs may not pursue their claims collectively as
the arbitration agreements contain a class action waiver.

The action was dismissed without prejudice, rather than stayed
pending arbitration, because the court was satisfied that all of
the plaintiffs' claims are subject to arbitration.

A full-text copy of Judge McKinley's March 4, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/0VDEbFfrom
Leagle.com.

Marlena Aldrich, Kristen Nolan, Plaintiffs, represented by Kirk
Hoskins.

The University of Phoenix, Inc., Defendant, represented by J.
Andrew Inman -- jinman@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PSC &
LaToi D. Mayo -- lmayo@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PSC.


VESUVIO'S II: "Solais" Suit Wins Conditional Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MIRIAM MARTINEZ SOLAIS, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. VESUVIO'S II
PIZZA & GRILL, INC. and GIOVANNI SCOTTI D'ABBUSCO, Defendants, No.
1:15cv227 (M.D.N.C.), Judge L. Patrick Auld granted the
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), but denied the plaintiff's
emergency motion for a protective order, the defendants' motion
for protective order, and plaintiff's motion to strike certain
affidavits.  The judge also sustained the plaintiff's objection
contained in her memorandum regarding the reasonableness of the
defendants' claimed expenses.

On behalf of certain kitchen workers at Vesuvio's II Pizza &
Grill, Inc., Miriam Martinez Solais initiated a putative
collective action under the FLSA and a putative class action under
the North Carolina Wage and Hour Act against Giovanni Scotti
D'Abbusco and Vesuvio's II.  Thereafter, Solais filed a
certification motion, which sought FLSA conditional certification
of a class of Vesuvio's II employees.  The defendants then sought
discovery, which generated multiple motions to compel and motions
for protective orders.

Solais sought to strike the affidavits of Russell Thomas, James
Wilson, Jason Howe, and Christopher Cates "filed in support of
Defendants' Reply in Support of their Motion for Protective
Order."  Judge Auld did not strike the affidavits because these
are not included in the definition of "pleadings" under Rule 7(a)
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Each party sought to limit the other side's communication with
putative class members.  The defendants contended that Solais has
improperly solicited individuals to join the collective action and
that this solicitation necessitates certain constraints.  Solais
meanwhile contended that the defendants have improperly threatened
putative plaintiffs in an attempt to dissuade their pursuit of the
FLSA action.  Judge Auld found that the defendants have not
established a clear record of attempted solicitation.  On the
other hand, Judge Auld found that the plaintiffs have not
established that the alleged threatening conduct consitutes
sufficient evidentiary basis for the requested relief because they
were either inadmissible hearsay or had no basis to be attributed
to the defendants.

A full-text copy of Judge Auld's March 14, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at http://is.gd/UaX8V6from Leagle.com.

MIRIAM MARTINEZ SOLAIS, Plaintiff, represented by ADAM T KLEIN --
atk@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP, SALLY J. ABRAHAMSON
-- sabrahamson@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP &GILDA A.
HERNANDEZ -- ghernandez@gildahernandezlaw.com -- LAW OFFICES OF
GILDA A. HERNANDEZ, PLLC.

GIOVANNI SCOTTI DABBUSCO, VESUVIO'S II PIZZA & GRILL, INC,
Defendants, represented by DENISE SMITH CLINE --
denise@dsclinelaw.com -- LAW OFFICE OF DENISE SMITH CLINE.


VIRBAC CANADA: Recalls Cortisoothe Shampoo Products
---------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 2, 2016
Posting date: March 4, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Veterinary Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57340
Expected out of specificaiton result for Hydrocortisone assay
prior to the expiration date of the impacted product.

Retailers: Ontario, British Columbia, Quebec, Alberta

Affected products: Cortisoothe Shampoo
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02237992
Dosage form: Shampooing
Strength: 10 mg / g
Lot or serial number: 880829

Recalling Firm: Virbac Canada Inc.
                1400-340 Albert St
                Ottawa
                K1R 0A5
                Ontario
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Virbac Canada Inc.
                                1400-340 Albert St
                                Ottawa
                                K1R 0A5
                                Ontario
                                CANADA


VISA CORP: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Chip-Reader Rules
------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers at
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd and Florida-based Devine Goodman
Rasco & Watts-FitzGerald have filed an antitrust lawsuit claiming
that major credit card companies and the nation's largest banks
conspired to shift liability for fraudulent credit card
transactions in the U.S. to merchants.

The complaint filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California on March 8 claims that the move to cards
that include electronic chips designed to be more secure -- so-
called EMV chips -- has been plagued by technical glitches and
used as cover to illegally shift fraud-protection costs.

Merchants who failed to make an Oct. 1, 2015, deadline to get
chip-enabled card reading systems up and running and inspected by
third-party certifiers now face liability for fraudulent charges
that were previously covered primarily by card issuers.  According
to the complaint, getting the chip-enabled systems certified has
been a "nebulous process that was utterly outside [merchants']
control."

"Merchants were not consulted about the change, were not permitted
to opt out, were not offered any reduction of the interchange fee,
the merchant discount fee, the swipe fee -- or any other cost of
accepting defendants' credit and charge cards," the plaintiffs
lawyers wrote.  "The liability shift was unilaterally imposed to
the benefit of defendants, with no compensation, consultation or
consideration of any kind made to the class members."

Robbins Geller's Patrick Coughlin -- patc@rgrdlaw.com -- said in a
phone interview on March 9 that defendants "shifted $8 billion of
liability onto the merchants overnight.  Literally overnight."

Mr. Coughlin and his colleagues sued all four major credit card
companies and nearly a dozen banks on behalf of a small grocery
store chain and a liquor store in Florida.  Plaintiffs are seeking
to certify a class of all affected merchants and claim that the
changes violate the Sherman Antitrust Act, the Clayton Antitrust
Act, and California's Cartwright Act and unjust-enrichment law.
They're asking for damages of three times any overcharges.

Mr. Coughlin said that his grocery store client has seen
chargebacks for fraudulent purchases go from $89 in the year
preceding the October deadline to more than $10,000 in the months
since.  He said he's talked to in-house counsel at some larger
merchants and he anticipates that they will get involved in the
litigation.

"It's not just a problem with the small merchants and I'm sure
you're going to see larger merchants come into this,"
Mr. Coughlin said.

Mark Horwedel, the CEO of Merchant Advisory Group, said that this
is the first lawsuit that he's seen targeting the changes, but
that he expects more.  The organization represents some of the
nation's largest merchants, including McDonald's Corp. and
Starbucks Corp., in payment issues.

"I don't think there's a merchant anywhere who would tell you that
they had enough time" to do all that was required, he said.

EMVCo LLC, a standard-setting company that helped set the ground
rules for the industry's move to the chip cards this fall, is also
named as a defendant.  Plaintiffs claim that EMVCo, which is co-
owned by Visa, MasterCard, China's UnionPay, Japan's JCB, Discover
and American Express, isn't "simply a standard-setting entity" but
that it was "a means through which defendants here have been able
to effectuate their conspiracy."

A spokesperson for EMVCo didn't immediately respond to an email
message.  Representatives of Visa Corp. and American Express Co.
both declined to comment.

Mr. Coughlin said on March 9 that the lead plaintiffs likely came
to his firm because of Robbins Geller's prior work against the
card companies and banks. Coughlin and his firm were co-lead
plaintiffs counsel in an antitrust case targeting fees merchants
must pay to process purchases made with Visa and MasterCards.  A
$5.7 billion settlement in that case is being challenged in the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.


VITA HEALTH: Recalls Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Posting date: March 17, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Drugs
Hazard classification: Type III
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57524

Distributed to the retail level.  Nationally in Canada only

Affected products
A. Overwaitea Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433UGY
                      6A2433U9F

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA

B. Life Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433U9J
6A2433U9K

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA

C. Costco Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsules
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433TRZ

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA

D. McKessons Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433TKK

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA

E. Sobeys Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433U9G
                      6A2433UGT

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA

F. McMahon Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433U9C

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA

G. Familiprix Ibuprofen Liquid Capsules 200 mg
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
DIN 02357275
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: 200 mg
Lot or serial number: 6A2433U9B

Recalling Firm: Vita Health Products Inc.
                150 Beghin Ave.
                Winnipeg
                R2J 3W2
                Manitoba
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vita Health Products Inc.
                                150 Beghin Ave.
                                Winnipeg
                                R2J 3W2
                                Manitoba
                                CANADA


VIVO BRAND: Recalls Forta for Men Products Due to Tadalafil
-----------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 3, 2016
Posting date: February 16, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57074

One lot was found to be adulterated with undeclared Tadalafil (in
the capsule shell). The firm initiated a recall of all lots as a
precaution.

Retailers across Canada

Affected products: Forta for Men
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM

NPN 80045132
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Cinnamomum aromaticum 70.0 mg
          Epimedium brevicornu 130.0 mg
          Lycium barbarum 80.0 mg
          Ophiocordyceps sinensis 120.0 mg
          Panax ginseng 100.0 mg

Lot or serial number: Lot 325
                      Lot 326
                      Lot 330
                      Lot 332
                      Lot 333
                      Lot 335
                      Lot 336

Recalling Firm: Vivo Brand Management
                3318 Second Street East
                Cornwall
                K6H 6J8
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vivo Brand Management
                                3318 Second Street East
                                Cornwall
                                K6H 6J8
                                CANADA


VIVO BRAND: Recalls Durazest Capsules
-------------------------------------
Starting date: February 5, 2016
Posting date: February 16, 2016
Type of communication: Drug Recall
Subcategory: Natural health products
Hazard classification: Type I
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Product Safety
Audience: General Public, Healthcare Professionals, Hospitals
Identification number: RA-57076

Durazest capsule lots recalled as a precautionary measure.
Product used the same capsule shells found to be adulterated with
Tadalafil in Forta for Men.

Retailers across Canada

Affected products: Durazest
DIN, NPN, DIN-HIM
NPN 80033381
Dosage form: Capsule
Strength: Ginkgo biloba 50.0 mg
          Epimedium brevicornu 150.0 mg
          Lycium barbarum 80.0 mg
          Ophiocordyceps sinensis 120.0 mg
          Panax ginseng 100.0 mg

Lot or serial number: Lot 230
                      Lot 231
                      Lot 232
                      Lot 233

Recalling Firm: Vivo Brand Management
                3318 Second Street East
                Cornwall
                K6H 6J8
                CANADA

Marketing Authorization Holder: Vivo Brand Management
                                3318 Second Street East
                                Cornwall
                                K6H 6J8
                                CANADA


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Routan 2009 Models Due to Defective Airbag
--------------------------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 5, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Light Truck & Van, SUV
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 265
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016059TC
ID number: 2016059
Manufacturer recall number: 69M5

On certain vehicles, a defect in the Occupant Restraint Control
(ORC) system could result in inadvertent airbag / seatbelt
pretensioner deployment, or prevent airbags / seatbelt
pretensioners from deploying when warranted. Unintended airbag /
seatbelt pretensioner deployment, in a non-warranted (non-impact)
situation, could startle the driver, and could result in a vehicle
crash causing injury and/or property damage. Furthermore, failure
of the airbags / seatbelt pretensioners to deploy in a crash when
warranted could increase the risk of injury to vehicle occupants.
Correction: Dealers will replace the Occupant Restraint Control
(ORC) module.

  Make         Model       Model year(s) affected
  ----         -----       ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN   ROUTAN      2009


VOLKSWAGEN: Recalls Multiple Vehicle Models
-------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 9, 2016
Type of communication: Recall
Subcategory: Car
Notification type: Safety
Mfr System: Airbag
Units affected: 15039
Source of recall: Transport Canada
Identification number: 2016065TC
ID number: 2016065
Manufacturer recall number: 69M8 / 69N2

On certain vehicles, the driver frontal airbag inflator could
produce excessive internal pressure during airbag deployment.
Increased pressure may cause the inflator to rupture, which could
allow fragments to be propelled toward vehicle occupants,
increasing the risk of injury. This could also damage the airbag
module, which could prevent proper deployment. Failure of the
airbag to fully deploy during a crash (where deployment is
warranted) could increase the risk of personal injury to the seat
occupant. Correction: Dealers will replace the front driver airbag
inflator. Note: This only affects the Cabriolet version of the
Audi A4 model.

  Make          Model        Model year(s) affected
  ----          -----        ----------------------
  VOLKSWAGEN    PASSAT       2006
  AUDI          A4           2007
  AUDI          A3           2006


WAL-MART: Sued for Denying Same-Sex Spouse Employee Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that the wife of a Massachusetts
woman who filed a class action lawsuit accusing Wal-Mart of
wrongly denying employee benefits for same-sex spouses has died.

GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders says New Bedford resident Dee
Smithson died on March 18 of ovarian cancer.

Smithson's wife, Jacqueline Cote, sued in July in U.S. District
Court in Boston seeking damages for the couple and any other Wal-
Mart employees whose same-sex spouses were denied medical
insurance.

Cote says Wal-Mart repeatedly denied insurance for Smithson before
2014, when it started offering benefits for same-sex spouses.

The couple married in 2004.  They incurred at least $150,000 in
medical costs after Smithson was diagnosed with cancer in 2012.

GLAD helped file the suit.  A spokeswoman says Smithson's death
shouldn't affect the case.

Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has said its
benefits coverage was consistent with the law.


WAL-MART STORES: Bid to Dismiss "Biasi" Suit Denied
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSEPH BIASI, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAL-MART STORES
EAST, LP; EARLENE SCHAEFFER; RYAN DUNPHY; and REBECCA PAUKSTELA,
Defendants, No. 6:15-CV-0454(GTS/ATB) (N.D.N.Y.), Judge Glenn T.
Suddaby denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the second cause
of action in the plaintiffs' second amended complaint.

An employment discrimination and uniform maintenance pay class
action was filed by Joseph Biasi against Wal-Mart Stores East, LP,
Earlene Schaeffer, Ryan Dunphy and Rebecca Paukstela.  The
defendants moved to dismiss the second cause of action in Biasi's
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.  The defendants argued that New York's
Hospitality Industry Wage Order is inapplicable to Wal-Mart
because the second amended complaint failed to allege facts
plausibly suggesting that Wal-Mart falls under the definition of
"hospitality industry."

Judge Suddaby found that Biasi has alleged facts plausibly
suggesting a claim for uniform maintenance pay.  The judge
explained that while Wal-Mart may not be a restaurant in the
traditional sense, Biasi has alleged facts plausibly suggesting
that it is an establishment that offers restaurant concessions.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's March 14, 2016 decision and
order is available at http://is.gd/5yba8bfrom Leagle.com.

Joseph Biasi, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M. Finn, E. Stewart
Jones Hacker Murphy, LLP & David I. Iversen, E. Stewart Jones
Hacker Murphy, LLP.

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Earlene Schaeffer, Ryan Dunphy, Rebecca
Paukstela, Defendants, represented by Pamela J. Moore --
pmoore@mccarter.com --  McCarter, English Law Firm & Sami Asaad --
sasaad@mccarter.com -- McCarter, English Law Firm.


WAL-MART STORES: "Cruz" Suit Filed in Southern Dist. Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against WalMart Store, Inc.  The case is
captioned Kiara Cruz, as an individual and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. WalMart Store, Inc., a
foreign company, the Defendant, Case No. 9:16-cv-80382-DMM (S.D.
Fla., West Palm Beach, March 14, 2016).

Wal-Mart Stores operates retail stores in various formats
worldwide. The company operates through three segments: Walmart
U.S., Walmart International, and Sam's Club. It operates discount
stores, supermarkets, supercenters, hypermarkets, warehouse clubs,
cash and carry stores, home improvement stores, specialty
electronics stores, restaurants, apparel stores, drug stores, and
convenience stores, as well as retail Websites, such as
walmart.com and samsclub.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Jan-Yura Korolinsky
          16640 SW 145 Ave.
          Miami, FL 33177
          Telephone: (305) 905 7406
          E-mail: korolinsky@outlook.com


WILLIAMS PRODUCTION: Transport Costs Deductible From Royalties
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Ivo Lindauer; Sidney Lindauer; Ruth
Lindauer; and Diamond Minerals, LLC, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Williams
Production RMT Company, n/k/a WPX Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC,
Defendant-Appellant, No. 14CA2502 (Colo. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Colorado reversed the district court's entry of
judgment in favor of plaintiffs, Ivo Lindauer, Sydney Lindauer,
Ruth Lindauer, Diamond Minerals, LLC, and all those similarly
situated and remanded the case with directions to enter judgment
in favor of defendant Williams Production RMT Company n/k/a WPX
Energy Rocky Mountain, LLC.

The plaintiffs brought a class action in 2006 challenging WPX's
calculation and payment of royalties on oil and gas leases for
wells operated by WPX in northwest Colorado.

The parties reached a partial settlement agreement in 2008, except
for plaintiffs' assertion that WPC improperly deducted costs
incurred to transport gas to downstream markets beyond the first
commercial market at Piceance Basin when calculating royalties on
natural gas in certain months from July 2000 to July 2008.  The
plaintiffs argued that for the costs to be deductible, WPX must
show enhancement, or that actual royalty revenues increased in
proportion to the costs, on a month by month basis by comparing
the downstream prices at the point of sale to the price of gas in
the Piceance Basin.

The district court agreed with the plaintiffs in applying the
enhancement test and required that WPX apply the test on a month
by month basis to determine whether its transportation costs were
deductible.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Colorado held that post-
marketability transportation costs are not required to meet the
enhancement test in order to be deducted from royalty payments,
and that other considerations militate against imposing an
enhancement test on transportation costs.  The appellate court
concluded that post-marketability transportation costs are
deductible if they are reasonable, and that lessees are not
required to establish that such costs enhance the value of the gas
or increase royalty revenues.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of Colorado's March 10,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/2h6sFLfrom Leagle.com.

Dufford, Waldeck, Milburn & Krohn, LLP, Nathan A. Keever --
keever@dwmk.com -- Grand Junction, Colorado, for Plaintiffs-
Appellees.

Holland & Hart LLP, John F. Shepherd -- jshepherd@hollandhart.com
-- Christopher A. Chrisman -- cachrisman@hollandhart.com --
Denver, Colorado, for Defendant-Appellant.


WOK 88: Faces "Huang" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ai Chiu Chiang.

The case is captioned Zeng Xiang Huang and Yunsheng Li,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Ai Chiu Chiang, John Doe and Jane Doe, as
shareholders and corporate officers, and WOK 88, Inc., doing
business as WOK 88, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01129
(S.D.N.Y., February 15, 2016).

Wok 88 operates a restaurant in New York, New York.

Zeng Xiang Huang and Yunsheng Li are pro se plaintiffs.


WWRD UNITED: Recalls Peter Rabbit Baby Rattles
----------------------------------------------
Starting date: February 4, 2016
Posting date: February 4, 2016
Type of communication: Consumer Product Recall
Subcategory: Children's Products, Toys
Source of recall: Health Canada
Issue: Choking Hazard
Audience: General Public
Identification number: RA-56996

This recall involves the Wedgwood Peter Rabbit Baby Rattle sold as
decorative giftware.  The rattle is made of a zinc alloy base
material with lacquered silver plating.  The rattle ends are
hollow and each contains two small iron beads (four per item).
The hollow ends are glued to the main body.  A bunny figure and
the words "hop hop hop" are embossed on one of the rattle ends.  A
bunny figure and the words "hop little rabbit" are embossed on the
other rattle end.  The product SKU number is 4003003 and the UPC
code is 701587150262.

If the product comes into contact with water or is subjected to
pressure, seams on the rattle can open, releasing small beads.
The beads can pose a choking hazard to young children.

Neither Health Canada nor WWRD United Kingdom Ltd. has received
reports of consumer incidents or injuries to Canadians related to
the use of the recalled rattles.

Approximately 24 of the recalled rattles were sold at various
retailers across Canada.  Approximately 670 of the rattles were
sold in the United States.  The product was also offered for sale
online through WWRD's global websites and amazon.com.

The recalled rattles were sold from April 2015 through December
2015.

Manufactured in China.

Distributor: WWRD United Kingdom Ltd.
             Barlaston, Stoke-on-Trent
             Staffordshire
             UNITED KINGDOM

Consumers should take away the recalled rattle from their children
and should contact WWRD to arrange for a full refund.

Consumers may contact WWRD United Kingdom Ltd. toll free at 1-877-
892-9973 or visit the WWRD's website for more information.WWRD
will provide instructions for returning the product along with a
prepaid shipping container.

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


* Anshun Estoppel Applied in Three Recent Class Action Rulings
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ruth Overington, Esq., and Amelia Edwards,Esq., of Herbert Smith
Freehills LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that the extent
which a group member is bound by the outcome of a class action is
a significant issue for defendants who are concerned to know if a
class action will resolve all claims against them.  Yet
uncertainty prevails because of a lack of clarity around how
principles laid down by the High Court, which came to be known as
Anshun estoppel, are applied to class actions.

These principles seek to prevent the subsequent litigation of
claims and defenses that could, or should, have been determined in
earlier litigation.  Appling these principles to complex and
large-scale class actions, where group members are assumed to
participate unless they have actively opted out (and consequently
may not take an active role in the proceeding or even know about
it), raises challenging questions, both when proceedings go to
judgment and when they settle.

Statutory regime

Section 33ZB in Part 4A of the Supreme Court Act 1986 (Vic) (which
is identical to the provision applicable under the Federal
legislation) provides that group members who have not opted out of
a class action are bound by the judgment delivered in the
proceeding.  It is acknowledged by the courts, most recently in
the Timbercorp class action that this operates as a statutory bar
to issues resolved a by a judgment of the Court being re-litigated
in separate proceedings.

However, s 33ZB does not deal with application of Anshun estoppel
and abuse of process principles to individual issues not pleaded
or resolved by judgment in a proceeding.

Recent significant cases

Three decisions in the last 18 months have considered the
application of Anshun estoppel and abuse of process principles in
class actions.

Great Southern class action:

First, in separate decisions in the Supreme Court of Victoria
dated October and November 2014, Judd J and Croft J in litigation
relating to the Great Southern Class Action said that group
members are prevented by the doctrines of Anshun estoppel and
abuse of process from raising individual defences in subsequent
proceedings as a consequence of not opting out of the group
proceeding.

Their Honours held that the underlying purpose of Anshun estoppel
and abuse of process align with the application of limitations on
the ability of group members in class actions to re-litigate
matters that could or should have been determined in the main
class action proceeding.  By not opting out, group members are
presumed by the operation of the class action regime to assume the
risk, the quid pro quo for which is the benefit of the claim or
defense made on behalf of the group member by the lead plaintiff.
Consequently, they affirmed that the appropriate protection of
individual claims is achieved through the opt out process.
Justice Croft further stressed that group members are protected by
judicial oversight and approval of class action settlements.

Ramsey Food Processing:

While not a class action proceeding, in August 2015, the High
Court in Tomlinson v Ramsey Food Processing Pty Ltd, examined
Australian law on estoppel and abuse of process.  The Court
identified that a plaintiff in a class action may be a "privy in
interest" to the group members for the purpose of the application
of estoppel.  In a joint judgment, French CJ, Bell, Gageler and
Keane JJ said that in a "modern class action" the risk of the
detriment from estoppel is safeguarded by the ability of group
members to opt out, and by the Court's procedural oversight
(including settlement approval).  This is consistent with the
conclusions of Judd J and Croft J in Great Southern.

Timbercorp:

Most recently, in another Supreme Court of Victoria case handed
down in September 2015, Robson J in Timbercorp found that group
members are not estopped of individual issues not pleaded.  He
found that while group members cannot re-litigate matters which
were expressly decided or were issues determined in the course of
the judgment on the cause of action, group members are free to
raise in fresh proceedings those issues which could have been, but
were not, litigated in the earlier proceeding.

Implications

The conflicting findings in relation to whether the ancillary
rights of group members were extinguished by the main class
action, and the application of the preclusionary principles of
Anshun estoppel and abuse of process, creates uncertainty for
participants in class actions.  This is of particular concern to
defendants who may be faced with the prospect of a multiplicity of
proceedings dealing with the same subject matter. The scale, cost
and complexity of class actions escalates these concerns.

Ultimately, however, these cases, with similar circumstances,
demonstrate the fluidity of the law in relation to group
proceedings.  The decisions in Great Southern and Timbercorp are
single judge decisions and they have not, to date, been tested in
a higher court.


* Growth in Regulatory Action Spurs Class Actions in D&O Space
--------------------------------------------------------------
Young Ha, writing for Insurance Journal, reports that the
directors and officers (D&O) liability marketplace continues to
find softening rates and intense competition especially in excess
layers, according to industry executives.  The industry is also
seeing a continuing trend of broader coverages and more
governmental activities from regulatory agencies, executives said.

There have been a lot more carriers in the D&O space in the past
five to 10 years, said Louis Lucullo, chief underwriting officer
for the Americas Region at American International Group's
Financial Lines, who spoke at the Professional Liability
Underwriting Society (PLUS) D&O symposium in February.  The
majority of newcomers tend to write excess D&O, Lucullo said.

There have also been important developments on the primary side,
including some consolidations particularly ACE Ltd.'s acquisition
of Chubb, with the combined company adopting the Chubb brand
globally.

"But overall, there are still a lot of carriers and a lot of
capacity out there for the directors and officers market,"
Mr. Lucullo said.

Coverage Expansions

Mr. Lucullo said there's been a trend of expansion of coverages,
mostly on the investigative side. He said there's much more
activity in terms of the litigious environment.  Federal class
action security suits tend to be fairly stable year from year, but
the overall majority of actions being brought today are being led
by a growth in regulatory action.

There also have been more governmental activities from regulatory
bodies like the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuing
actions through investigations against directors and officers.

"From our perspective, that's certainly the growing area," he
said.  "It has caused the D&O policy to change over the years."
Mr. Lucullo said that a few years ago, AIG introduced the concept
of a preclaim inquiry to be covered.  "That's at the moment that
an investigator initially contacts an insured to mainly appear
before them to answer questions or perhaps to produce some
documents.  That initiates the coverage much earlier on than
historically.  So there has been a trend to expanding the coverage
through more investigative exposure."

Mr. Lucullo also said how much the coverage should be broadened to
address corporate entity exposure has been a hot topic in D&O
insurance.

There are investigative cost coverage policies meant just for the
entity as a standalone basis.  But in the past couple of years,
there now are endorsements where investigative costs for the
entity could be added to the D&O policy but usually under the
requirement that there also be a securities claim that coexists
with that regulatory investigation.

Rate Decreases

Simon Hodge, national practice leader for Professional Risk
Practice at Wells Fargo Insurance, noted that most of its clients
have seen improved terms and conditions with significant price
cuts, with public D&O policies getting renewed with 5 percent to
10 percent rate decreases.

In terms of the market capacity, "several new carriers have
entered the D&O space and there is clearly more than sufficient
supply to meet client demand," Mr. Hodge said.

He also spoke of broader coverages, with more sublimit capacity
availability for investigative costs in cases when directors are
asked to investigate a possible wrongdoing. In terms of broader
coverage, D&O insurers are becoming increasingly more responsive
to providing coverage for entity regulatory investigations.

Also commenting on rates, Kevin LaCroix, executive vice president
at RT ProExec, a division of R-T Specialty LLC, noted that while
the primary layers are mostly flat, he sees intense competition in
excess layers, especially for higher excess and Side A layers.

The result is rate decreases in the mid-single-digit percentage
points and up to 10 percent for overall D&O programs.
Mr. LaCroix also said he sees a market trend of coverage
expansions, such as providing corporate entity coverage.

Mr. LaCroix also shared his thoughts on recent industry
consolidations and advised clients to pay close attention and
consult with their brokers.

"There's always been a certain amount of merger and acquisition
activity in the insurance industry. In 2015, it really
accelerated.  It was true both for reinsurers and then for direct
insurers," Mr. LaCroix said.

The two most significant deals from the perspective of insurance
buyers was XL Group plc's acquisition of Catlin Group Ltd. and
Ace's purchase of Chubb, which was the biggest industry
transaction in 2015.

"These are significant players in the D&O insurance industry and
the P&C industry as a whole," Mr. LaCroix said.  "The combination
of these companies means fewer of the larger players and more
consolidation or concentration in some larger players."

He advised that it would be important for the clients who are
insured with those companies to be in contact with their brokers,
because there could be process issues this year that haven't been
true in the past.

"It may affect their renewals. It may affect their ability to
renew their coverage on the same terms and conditions or the same
price," Mr. LaCroix said.  "There could be changes in their
insurance program just as a result of the changes among the
carriers."

Yates Memo

The industry is also taking notice of a new regulatory development
stemming from the "Yates Memo," which was issued last September
from U.S. Department of Justice's Deputy Attorney General Sally
Quillian Yates.

In her memorandum, Yates aims to put a greater emphasis on holding
individuals more accountable.  Companies would be asked to turn in
information about culpable individuals to receive cooperation
credit for assisting in investigations.

R. Damian Brew, managing director at Marsh USA Inc., said the
biggest risk area that the marketplace is seeing today is in the
area of government investigations -- from the SEC and the
Department of Justice.

"One area that's getting an awful lot of attention is the Yates
Memo, issued by the Department of Justice, which really indicated
for the first time that the department was going to focus on
individual wrongdoing at the expense of corporate wrongdoing,"
Brew said.

In fact, Mr. Brew noted, the Yates Memo went as far as to say that
corporations weren't going to get cooperation credit unless they
provided all relevant facts about potential officers that would be
involved.

"There are enormous insurance implications for that, as you can
imagine, because now individuals may be seeking separate counsel,"
Mr. Brew said.  "They may be in a position where they're adverse
to their companies.  There may be questions about advancement and
indemnification.  So this is a very important step and it's one
that the industry and corporations and their officers are going to
be watching very closely."

Cyber Liability

Another risk that many directors and officers now face is the
cyber liability.

Tony Galban, senior product manager of D&O at Chubb, said cyber
has made its way into the boardroom as a management liability
issue, which is not that unusual compared to other exposures in
the past, like asbestos, pollution or environmental concerns.

"Cyber is just a new exposure that has to be addressed at the
board level.  It's no longer reasonable for the board to ignore
the risk of cyber," Mr. Galban said.

"Everything we're hearing suggests that it's being attended to on
a regular basis in boardrooms across the country as a line item
agenda that the board has to deal with, whether by loss control,
whether by insurance purchasing, but certainly not by ignoring
it," he said.  "You can't get away with that anymore."

Mr. Galban said that there have been D&O claims associated with
cyber.  Typically, the allegations are that the management didn't
manage the issue sufficiently.

"More directly, you'll see cyber policies responding to direct
cyber loss.  But to say it's strictly a cyber product issue would
be a misnomer," Mr. Galban said.  "It affects other policies like
the D&O, where we've had some claims, typically shareholder
actions."


* Little Guidance Available to Judges to Resolve MDL Fee Fights
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that fee fights among plaintiffs attorneys in multidistrict
litigation have forced more federal judges in recent cases to wade
into the disputes -- with practically no case law to guide them.

Within the last year, attorney fee fights in MDLs have erupted in
personal injury and wrongful-death cases filed over Durom Cup hip
implants, General Motors Co.'s ignition-switch defects and
laparoscopic uterine surgical tools called power morcellators.
There are few appellate decisions on the matter and, in at least
two recent cases, the fights have ended with failed petitions
before the U.S. Supreme Court.

"There are huge issues about the governance of MDLs that no
Supreme Court has addressed in any satisfying way," said
William Rubenstein, a professor at Harvard Law School who has
testified as an expert for those challenging MDL fees.  "The fee
aspects are one of a subset of questions of how they're governed
that have yet to attract good appellate law.  The district court
judges are struggling with these issues."

PLAINTIFFS' CONTRIBUTIONS DISPUTED

At issue is whether individual plaintiffs lawyers must contribute
to a common benefit fund that helps lead lawyers in an MDL pay for
costs such as depositions and discovery.  Because the cases are
handled on contingency, the MDL judge usually requires a
"holdback" of between 4 and 12 percent of fees and recoveries that
plaintiffs and their lawyers get from settlements or judgments in
order to create the common fund.

But not all plaintiffs lawyers acquiesce.  Some have challenged
the assessments, insisting that lead lawyers in the MDL have done
nothing to help them settle their cases.  And those with cases in
state court have claimed that MDL judges, who issue common-benefit
fund orders in federal court, have no jurisdiction over their
cases.

The challenges, depending on their outcomes, could end up carving
out limits to the common-benefit fund, a critical and long-
standing mainstay that makes MDLs more affordable.  The Supreme
Court on Feb. 29 rejected a petition to delve into the debate,
leaving MDL judges to continue to make their own calls -- a
position most of them don't want to be in, Mr. Rubenstein said.

In February, U.S. District Judge Kathryn Vratil of Kansas heard
arguments in a simmering fee dispute in the MDL involving Ethicon
Inc.'s power morcellators.  The question is whether plaintiffs
lawyers with recently settled cases against Ethicon Inc., a
Johnson & Johnson unit, needed to pay into a common-benefit fund.

A similar dispute erupted in an MDL against Zimmer Biomet Holdings
Inc. over its Durom Cup hip implants.  U.S. Magistrate Judge
Steven Mannion in New Jersey is scheduled to hear arguments on
March 17 over whether some plaintiffs lawyers should have been
granted a reduction of their 4 percent assessment on ground that
they didn't rely on lead counsel's work in settling their cases.

Gibbs Henderson of Dallas-based Waters Kraus & Paul, a lead lawyer
in the Durom Cup MDL, has opposed the assessment reductions.

"We're really the only firm litigating these cases and moving them
toward trial," he said.  Last year, the firm filed a motion to
force plaintiffs with state court cases against Zimmer to
contribute to the fund, but Judge Mannion found that he didn't
have jurisdiction.

Attempts to get plaintiffs lawyers with state court cases to pay
into common-benefit funds have been the most contentious.  State
court cases don't join an MDL because they often name local
defendants, avoiding removal to a federal jurisdiction.

Although lawyers in those cases usually must follow many of the
same discovery and protective orders as the MDL, they often pave
their own paths.

BELLWETHER CASE FALLS APART

To that end, attorney Lance Cooper, whose state court case in
Georgia unveiled GM's ignition-switch defect in 2013, lashed out
at lead counsel in the MDL after they dismissed the first
bellwether case midtrial on Jan. 22 following revelations that the
plaintiff might have committed perjury and fraud.

Mr. Cooper, who acknowledged he was a newcomer to MDLs, accused
lead counsel of shirking state court plaintiffs, among other
things. But his attacks also were premised in large part on
concerns about contributing to lead counsel's efforts.

"At the end of the day, when I settle my cases, my client has to
pay the co-leads for the hourly work that they billed for," said
Cooper of The Cooper Firm in Marietta, Georgia.  "In other words,
for a case they filed that they shouldn't have filed, and lost
that they shouldn't have lost, they're going to turn around and
bill my client for that. That's just wrong."

In his Feb. 10 order, U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman in
New York called Mr. Cooper's claims meritless, noting that he had
no jurisdiction to oversee state court plaintiffs anyway.





                            *********

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  * * *