CAR_Public/160330.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, March 30, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 64


                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Kaplan" Suit in Fla. for Breach of Contract
21ST CENTURY: Faces Another Data Breach Class Action
AA USA: Recalls Ginger Slice Products Due to Sulfites
ACCENT FOOD SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Johnson" Suit Claims
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Court Certifies Class in "Hatamian" Suit

AETNA INC: Court Narrows Suit Over AIDS & HIV Insurance Program
AFFORDABLE DIGITAL: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling in TCPA Class Action
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: 9th Circuit Hears Bid to End Robocall Suit
AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Cotchett Pitre Survives Disqualification Bid
AMERICAN GOURMET: Recalls Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella

AMERICAN MEDIA: Faces "Moeller" Class Suit in S.D. New York
ANDREW SEO: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
AUSTRALIA: Suit Mulled Over Williamston Air Base Contamination
AUSTRALIA: Williamtown Residents' Class Action Funding Okayed
AUTOVEST LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

BANK OF AMERICA: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss "Murphy" Suit
BANK OF THE OZARKS: Loses Arkansas SC Appeal on Arbtration Bid
BARRICK GOLD: Securities Class Action Obtains Certification
BAYOU WELL SERVICES: "Fulton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
BAYVIEW LOAN: "Salamon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime

BLACK DIAMOND: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Innis" Suit Claims
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: 3rd Claim in "Sharma" Suit Reinstated
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Directs BMW to Produce Documents
BOCA GROUP: "Thompson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
BOUNCEBACK INC: "Freitas" Suit Stayed Pending Deal in "Cavnar"

BRONCO'S SALOON: Court Denies Motion to Stay APB's TCPA Suit
BUFFETS LLC: "Filar-Collins" Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
CANADA: Revenue Agency Faces Class Action Over GLGI Deductions
CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Marcus" Suit Claims
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Osborn" Suit Says

CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Declines Bid for Interim Class Counsel
CASTLEWOOD ELDER CARE: Violated FLSA, "Edminster" Suit Claims
CENTURY ARMS: Faces "Melton" Class Suit in S. Dist. Florida
CHEAP ESCAPE: Ohio SC Reverses Ruling in Sales Reps' Action
CHUCK'S PARKING: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Cohen" Suit Claims

CHANEL: Fights Employees' Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Faces "Griggs" Suit in West. Dist. Of OK
CLEBURNE COUNTY, AR: SC Rules in Suit Against Court Clerk
CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Banda" Action Claims
CONAIR CORPORATION: "Wilson" Suit Removed to C. Dist. California

CORDISH COMPANIES: McElroy's Bid to Remand Suit Denied
CVS PHARMACY: "Gubala" Amended Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
D.R. HORTON: Bid to Stay Azure Manor Suit Granted
DAEWOO SHIPBUILDING: May Face Class Action Over Earnings Report
DANCING BEAR ENTERTAINMENT: Violated TCPA, "Mayer" Suit Claims

DIRECTV: Ruling Shows High Ct. Continues to Protect Arbitration
EHEALTH INC: "West" Securities Suit Dismissed
ENERGY RECOVERY: Case Management Conference Reset for July 28
EVERBANK: July 7 Fairness Hearing on $750,000 Class Action Deal
EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: Violated FLSA, "Sandras" Suit Claims

FIFTH THIRD: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action for $6 Million
FLINT, MI: Faces "McIntosh" Suit Over Lead Poisoning
FOSTER FARMS: Whelan Law Group Cannot Represent Nevarez
FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Court to Hold Evidentiary Hearing in Wages Suit
FRESHOLOGY INC: Recalls Chicken Salad Products Due to Misbranding

FULTON COUNTY, GA: Violated FLSA, "Cunningham" Suit Claims
GERBER PRODUCTS: Recalls Organic Pouch Products Due to Spoilage
GILETTE COMPANY: "Punian" Suit Over Duracell Batteries Dismissed
GODADDY INCORPORATED: Faces "Schellenbach" Suit in Dist. Arizona
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Court Won't Certify Class in "Gustafson"

GOPRO INC: Violated Securities Act, Majesty Palms Suit Claims
GUCCI AMERICA: Class Action Deal in "Manner" Suit Has Initial Okay
GW UTILITY: Violated FLSA, "Medina" Suit Claims
HAFEEZ ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ramos" Suit Says
HANCOCK COUNTY, OH: "Nelson" Suit v. Sheriff Dismissed

HENRY SCHEIN: Faces "Marcus" Suit Over Communications Act Breach
HONEST COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over SLS-Free Detergent Claims
I.Q. DATA: Court Narrows Claims in "Galdamez" FDCPA Suit
ILLINOIS BELL: Court Narrows Claims in "Balmes" Wages Suit
ISRAEL RAILWAYS: Faces Class Action Over Dimona Train Crash

J BRAND: Faces Class Action Over False Origin Claims
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Gallagher" Suit Remanded to N.J. Super.
JRK RESIDENTIAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Milbourne" Suit
KLX ENERGY: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
KMH CARDIOLOGY: Faces Medical Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls

LANDRY'S INC: Court Partially Grants Class Cert. in "Saechao"
LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Class Action Over 2014 IPO
LIFETIME ENTERTAINMENT: Unaccepted Offer Doesn't Moot Class Suit
LINCOLN NATIONAL: $2.25BB Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
LLG ENERGY: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA

LPL FINANCIAL: May 23 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Resolves CARB Inquiry on Flooring Products
LUSH COSMETICS: Faces "Hite" Class Suit in District of New Jersey
M.K. LANDSCAPING: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Aquino" Suit Claims
MANPOWER INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Mata" Suit

MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
MDL 2196: CCAF's Bid for Attorney Fees Denied
MDL 2420: Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Diamantopoulos" Suit Over Debt Collection
MORGAN STANLEY & CO: "Lee" Suit Moved from Sup. Ct. to S.D.N.Y.

NANTKWEST INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
NATIONAL FREIGHT: "Portillo" Suit Stays in N.J. Dist. Court
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Grants Remand, Leave to File Surreply
NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Action Deal in "Good" Suit Okayed
NATIONWIDE MEDICAL: Faces "Marcus" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey

NESTLE: Hearing Held in Calif. Class Suit over Child Slave Labor
NONG SHIM COMPANY: Court Rules on Joint Discovery Letters
OCO BIOMEDICAL: Faces "Marcus" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Court Approves Settlement Distribution Plan
OGEMAW COUNTY, MI: Court Partially Grants Leave to Amended Suit

PETROBRAS: Expects September Class Action Trial in New York
PHILADELPHIA, PA: ACLU Sues Cops Over Stop & Frisk
PILOT CORP: "Ivy" Class Suit Is Stricken with Leave to Amend
PNC FINANCIAL: "Briggs" Collective Suit Conditionally Certified
PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL: Green Plains Sues Over Defective Oxidizer

PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Old Spice Deodorant
QFC: Recalls Cranberry Chicken Salad Due to Mislabeling
QUICK TEST: Court Narrows Claims in "Barker" Wage & Hour Suit
REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click's 2nd Class Cert. Bid Denied
RELIABLE DRUG: Recalls Unexpired Lots of Compounded Products

RICHLAND HOLDINGS: Class Certification Denied for "Purdy" Suit
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Noble"
SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "White" Class Suit in New Mexico
SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
SC AUTO: Faces "Marcos" Class Suit in New York Supreme Court

SERGEANT'S PET: Court Trims "Bietsch" Consumer Suit
SINO-FOREST: Directors May Still Face Claims Despite Settlement
SMALLBATCH PETS: Recalls Frozen Dog Sliders Due to Salmonella
SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE: Violated FLSA, "Allen" Suit Claims
SOY SAUCE: Court Certifies "Feng" Suit as Collective Action

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycle Headlights and Taillights
SPRINT CORP: "McGlon" Suit Seeks Damages and Relief Under FLSA
STARBUCKS CORP: Responds to Latte Underfilling Class Action
STARION ENERGY: "Orange" Suit Over Alleged Contract Breach Tossed
STATE FARM: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Dennington" Suit

T.G.I. FRIDAYS: Grace's Claims vs Sentinel & Tri-Artisan Tossed
TACO BELL: Bid for Rule 50(a) Judgment in Wage & Hour Suit Denied
TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Zachary" Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
TOKANA CAFE: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Pineda" Suit Claims
TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Chocolate Sticks Due to Milk

TRINITY SERVICES: "Glover" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
TRUMP MODEL: Judge Tosses Jamaican Model's Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff May Withdraw; May 6 Pretrial Hearing
TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court Sends Wage Suit Back to District Court
TYSON FOODS: High Court Upholds $2.9MM Jury Verdict in Wage Suit

TYSON FOODS: Ruling Modest Win for Class Actions Post-Scalia
U.S. NAVY: Court Narrows Suit by Protestant Chaplains
U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY: "Heard" Suit Over Tax Refund Offsets Nixed
UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over "Risk Corridors"
UNITED STATES: Immigrants' Suit in Calif. to Proceed to Trial

UNITED STATES: Court Criticizes IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups
UNITED STATES: D.C. Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Intervene
UNITED STATES: Sued in Nevada Over Gun Regulations
VANGUARD NATURAL: Sued in New York Over Private Exchange Offer
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Hillsborough to Join Emissions Class Action

WABTEC CORP: "Busker" Suit Stays in Federal Court
WASHINGTON TRUST: Black Rock Golf Club Members Lose Class Action
WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Summary Disposition of "Corey" Suit Affirmed
WELLS FARGO: $12M Class Action Deal in "Manuel" Suit Okayed
WHITE LOTUS: Court Rejects Preliminary Injunction Bid in "Stelly"

YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Won't Certify Class in "Better" Suit
ZYNGA INC: Judge OKs $23MM Securities class Action Settlement

* Canada Braces for Climate Change Litigation
* Class Action Activity in Financial Services Sector Increases


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Kaplan" Suit in Fla. for Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stuart Kaplan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. 21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00210-SPC-CM (M.D. Fla., March 18, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged breach of contract.

21st Century Oncology Holdings, Inc. is a provider of radiation
therapy and integrated cancer treatments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
      GILMAN LAW, LLP
      Suite 525, 8951 Bonita Beach Road, SE
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (239) 221-8301
      Facsimile: (239) 676-8224
      E-mail: kgilman@gilmanpastor.com


21ST CENTURY: Faces Another Data Breach Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Frank Gluck, writing for news-press.com, reports that another
lawsuit has been filed against Fort Myers-based 21st Century
Oncology over a data breach affecting 2.2 million patient records.

This new case names Jim Bimonte, a resident of Broward County, and
Mary Ann Rodriguez, a resident of Palm Beach County, as
plaintiffs. Like previously filed cases, it claims the cancer-care
giant failed to take adequate steps to protect sensitive
information.

"This type of identity theft can be the most damaging because it
may take some time for the victim to become aware of the theft,
while in the meantime causing significant harm to the victim's
credit rating and finances," the lawsuit states.

Earlier:

Patients affected by a recent computer data breach at 21st Century
Oncology have filed federal class-action lawsuits, claiming the
Fort Myers-based cancer-care provider failed to adequately protect
sensitive medical and personal information.

The suits come two weeks after the company revealed that hackers
had accessed company data that may have included patient names,
Social Security numbers, as well as information about diagnoses
and treatments provided.

Investigators notified the company of the breach on Nov. 12, but
the company held off on telling patients until this month.  21st
Century Oncology representatives said they did so at the request
of the law enforcement.  The FBI has not commented on the case.

"The last thing patients dealing with potentially deadly illnesses
need is further harm and stress caused by the insecurity of their
most private data and how it may be used by thieves," said
plaintiff and Florida resident, Rona Polovoy in her lawsuit.

"While more than 2.2 million 21st Century Oncology victims have
sought out and/or paid for medical care from the company, thieves
have been hard at work, stealing and using their hard-to-change
Social Security numbers and highly sensitive medical information
for more than five months without their knowledge," she continues.

The two other filed suits name Lee County resident John Dickman
and Florida resident Stuart Kaplan as plaintiffs.

The company had little to say on March 23, releasing a statement
that said only: "As a company policy, we do not comment on pending
litigation."

21st Century Oncology has offered affected patients a one-year
subscription to a credit monitoring service.  An earlier company
statement to customers said that it had no indication that patient
data had been misused.

The company did not comment when later asked by The News-Press if
it could rule out patient identity theft.

Ms. Polovoy's lawsuit said the company should have known better,
considering that it suffered a similar breach of patient data
between October 2011 and August 2012.

That case involved a 21st Century Oncology employee, who used
patient names, Social Security numbers and dates of birth to file
fraudulent claims for tax refunds, the suit states.

Following that, the company offered patients one year of credit
monitoring and assurances that it took patient privacy and cyber
security seriously.

"In the ensuing years, however, 21st Century did not carry through
with its promises and only obtained -- and thereby put at risk --
far more patient data," the lawsuit states.

Mr. Dickman, the Lee County plaintiff, said in his suit that he
"now must engage in stringent monitoring of, among other things,
his financial accounts, tax filings, and health insurance claims."
As a result, he said he has "spent hours addressing issues"
resulting from the breach.

21st Century Oncology bills itself as the "largest global,
physician led provider of Integrated Cancer Care services."  It
operates 182 treatment centers, including 146 U.S.-based centers
in 17 states.

The massive data breach and ensuing lawsuits follow two other
major legal cases involving the company.  In December, the company
paid $19.75 million to settle a whistle-blower case involving
claims of improper billing for bladder cancer tests. Earlier this
month, it agreed to pay out $34.7 million to settle another
whistle-blower case related to claims of improper radiation
testing.


AA USA: Recalls Ginger Slice Products Due to Sulfites
-----------------------------------------------------
AA USA Trading Inc. of South River, NJ is recalling ginger slice
products packaged under the AA brand in 8-ounce plastic bags,
because they may contain undeclared sulfites. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to sulfites the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.

The AA brand products were sold in retail stores in New York and
New Jersey beginning in July 2014.

The 8-ounce ginger slice product was sold in a plastic bag printed
in green and white with the letters "AA" and the "thumbs-up"
symbol, labeled "Ginger Slice," with UPC code 6944155210065.

No illnesses have been reported to date. No complaints have been
received. The recall was initiated after it was discovered that
the ginger slice products containing sulfites was distributed in
packaging that did not reveal the presence of sulfites.
Investigation I indicates the problem was caused by a temporary
breakdown in the company's packaging and labeling processes.

Consumers who have purchased AA brand ginger slice should return
it to the he place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact Mei Zhang (secretary): (732)651-9948 Monday
to Friday, 9:00 am to 4:30 pm (Eastern Standard Time).


ACCENT FOOD SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Johnson" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Richard L. Johnson individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Accent Food Services, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00444 (S.D. Tex., Houston div.,
February 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, and attorney's fees under the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

Accent Food Services specializes in the custom design of
personalized vending, and coffee and break room services. The
company offers customized snack food, drink, and fresh or frozen
food programs for companies. It provides coffees, fresh foods,
snacks, sodas, juices, meals, and refreshments for companies of
various sizes. The company also offers water purification systems
that provide purified water through filtration or reverse osmosis.
The Company was founded in 1986 and is based in Austin, Texas with
locations in Austin, Bryan/College Station, Nacogdoches, San
Antonio, and Dallas/Fort Worth, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES: Court Certifies Class in "Hatamian" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers granted the motion for class
certification filed by the plaintiffs in the case captioned BABAK
HATAMIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-00226 YGR (N.D. Cal.).

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and KBC Asset Management NV
brought a putative securities fraud class action alleging that
Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) and several individuals made over one
hundred material misrepresentations and omissions concerning the
launch of its "Llano" microprocessor.  The plaintiffs further
alleged that the defendants' later disclosures of the ongoing
problems with Llano caused AMD's stock price to drop.

The plaintiffs moved to certify the following class as a damages
class:

     "all persons and entities that, during the period from April
4, 2011 through October 18, 2012, inclusive (the Class Period),
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of the publicly traded
common stock of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD), and were
damaged thereby (the Class). Excluded from the Class are AMD and
Rory P. Read (Read), Thomas J. Seifert (Seifert), Richard A.
Bergman (Bergman) and Dr. Lisa T. Su (Su), (collectively, the
Individual Defendants and with AMD, the Defendants); members of
the immediate families of the Individual Defendants; AMD's
subsidiaries and affiliates; any person who was an officer or
director of AMD or any of AMD's subsidiaries or affiliates during
the Class Period; any entity in which any Defendant has a
controlling interest; AMD's employee retirement and benefit
plan(s); and the legal representatives, heirs, successors and
assigns of any such excluded person or entity."

Judge Rogers found the proposed class appropriate for class
treatment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, and further ordered that lead
plaintiffs Arkansas Teacher Retirement System and KBC Asset
Management NV are appointed as class representatives and that the
law firms of Labaton Sucharow LLP and Motley Rice LLC are
appointed as class counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Rogers' March 16, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/WEKVVrfrom Leagle.com.

Babak Hatamian, Lussu Dennj Salvatore, Plaintiffs, represented by
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP.

Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., Thomas J. Seifert, Defendants,
represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs -- pgibbs@cooley.com -- Cooley
LLP, Jason C. Hegt -- jason.hegt@lw.com -- Latham & Watkins LLP,
Kala Sherman-Presser -- kala.sherman-presser@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins LLP, Matthew Rawlinson -- matt.rawlinson@lw.com -- Latham
& Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn Blunschi -- melanie.blunschi@lw.com
-- Latham and Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu -- ming.zhu@lw.com --
Latham and Watkins LLP.

Rory P. Read, Lisa T. Su, Richard A. Bergman, Defendants,
represented by Patrick Edward Gibbs, Cooley LLP,Jason C. Hegt,
Latham & Watkins LLP, Kala Sherman-Presser, Latham and Watkins
LLP, Matthew Rawlinson, Latham & Watkins LLP, Melanie Marilyn
Blunschi, Latham and Watkins LLP & Ming M Zhu, Latham and Watkins
LLP.

KBC Asset Management NV, Movant, represented by Sharon Maine Lee
-- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann Bernstein, William S.
Norton -- bnorton@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, James Michael
Hughes -- jhughes@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac vice,
Joy Ann Kruse -- jkruse@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin -- kbenson@lchb.com --
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Max Nikolaus Gruetzmacher
-- mgruetzmacher@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, Meredith B.
Miller -- mbmiller@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, William H.
Narwold -- bnarwold@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice LLC, pro hac
vice &Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, pro hac vice.

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, Movant,
represented by Michael M. Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC.

Arkansas Teacher Retirement System, Movant, represented by Alec T
Coquin -- acoquin@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow LLP, pro hac
vice, Carol C. Villegas -- cvillegas@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, Jonathan Gardner -- jgardner@labaton.com -- Labaton
Sucharow LLP, pro hac vice, Paul J Scarlato, Labaton Sucharow LLP,
Sharon Maine Lee -- slee@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann
Bernstein,Yah E. Demann -- ydemann@labaton.com -- Labaton Sucharow
LLP, Katherine Collinge Lubin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Nicole Catherine Lavallee -- nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com --
Berman DeValerio & William S. Norton, Motley Rice LLC.

Christopher Hamilton, David Hamilton, Movants, represented by
Willem F. Jonckheer -- wjonckheer@schubertlawfirm.com -- Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Jake Ha, Movant, represented by Avraham Noam Wagner, The Wagner
Firm &Kara M Wolke -- kwolke@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP.


AETNA INC: Court Narrows Suit Over AIDS & HIV Insurance Program
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN DOE ONE, JOHN DOE TWO, and JOHN DOE
THREE, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. AETNA, INC., AETNA HEALTHCARE, INC., AETNA
SPECIALTY PHARMACY, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 14cv2986-LAB (DHB)
(S.D. Cal.), Judge Larry Alan Burns denied, in part, and granted,
in part, Aetna's motion to dismiss and also ruled that the
plaintiffs are not entitled to attorney's fees, expenses, and
payments to class representatiives.

The case arose out of Aetna's announcement that it would change
certain health insurance policies to require its insureds to
obtain HIV and AIDS medications through the mail.  The complaint
filed on December 19, 2014, contended that the proposed change
would threaten HIV and AIDS patients' health and privacy, and that
it would cost them thousands of dollars each month if they chose
to get their medications at their community pharmacy instead of
through the mail.

On March 2015, Aetna's counsel informed the plaintiffs' counsel
that Aetna had suspended the program for employer plans until
January 2016, and for individual plans until July 2015.  Aetna
contended that it never implemented the program for employer plans
and reversed the program for individual plans effective June 1,
2015.  Aetna then sought dismissal.

Aetna challenged the plaintiff's standing to seek prospective
relief, focusing on lack of imminence.  Judge Burns, however,
found that at the time that the plaintiffs filed their respective
complaints, they had ample reason to believe that Aetna's proposed
program would be put into effect.  Thus, Judge Burns denied
Aetna's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' prospective relief
claims.

Aetna also argued that since it never implemented the mail order
program for customers like John Doe One and Two that have employer
plans, Aetna contended that John Doe One and Two lack standing to
seek damages.  Judge Burns agreed with Aetna and granted its
motion to dismiss John Doe One and Two's damage claims for lack of
standing.

Judge Burns, however, denied Aetna's motion to dismiss John Doe
One and Two's claims for lack of ripeness.  The judge found that
Aetna's program wasn't an abstract idea when the relevant
complaints were filed, and was sufficiently concrete to evaluate
against the causes of action in the first amended complaint.
Judge Burns also found that the plaintiffs' alleged health and
privacy concerns with purchasing their medication through the mail
supplied sufficient hardship to meet the second ripeness prong.

As to the plaintiffs' motion, Judge Burns held that the "catalyst
theory" does not apply to the plaintiffs' lawsuit and the
plaintiffs are thus not entitled to attorney's fees, expenses and
payments to class representatives.

A full-text copy of Judge Burns' March 15, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/3APzjCfrom Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
portions of a class action filed by HIV and AIDS patients claiming
Aetna is trying to force them to receive their medication will
move forward, a federal judge in San Diego has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Larry Burns denied in part and granted in part
Aetna's motion to dismiss and denied the plaintiffs' catalyst
theory motion for collecting attorney's fees.

John Doe 1 sued the insurance company in December 2014 over
changes made to the way HIV/AIDS medication was categorized,
requiring patients to receive their medication through the mail
rather than the community pharmacy of their choice.

John Does 2 and 3 were added when the first amended complaint was
filed.  But in March 2015, the plaintiffs were informed Aetna had
suspended the program for employer health plans until January
2016.  The employer-sponsored program was never implemented.  For
customers who purchased individual plans, the program was reversed
on June 1, 2015. Only one of the three plaintiffs --
Doe 3 -- purchased an individual plan that was subject to the
mail-order program.

Aetna declared it has no current plans to reinstate the program.
But the plaintiffs claim the insurance provider will not confirm
whether its decision to terminate the program is permanent.

All three plaintiffs claim they requested to opt out of the mail
order program, but their initial request was denied.

Contrary to what the plaintiffs claim, Aetna says it would have
permitted plan members to opt out of the mail-order program.

Aetna argued the plaintiffs lack standing to pursue relief because
the mail-order program was suspended and "there is no credible
threat of any future harm." But Burns found in the 8-page order
the three plaintiffs had "ample reason to believe" the mail-order
program would be put into effect.

"While Aetna's reversal of the mail-order program may present a
mootless issue, that issue isn't presented in Aetna's brief and
isn't before the court," Burns wrote.

Burns did agree with Aetna that for customers like Does 1 and 2,
whose mail-order program for employer-sponsored health plans were
never implemented, the two plaintiffs lacked standing to seek
damages.

The judge also found the lawsuit meets the ripeness standard,
noting "the program wasn't an abstract idea when the relevant
complaints were filed."

But while the plaintiffs claimed to have been the "catalysts" in
prompting Aetna to abandon the mail program when they filed their
lawsuit, Burns found they only vetted the third element in
establishing the catalyst theory and "do little to establish the
first two elements."

"The court doesn't understand what interest it serves to receive
medications at a pharmacy as opposed to through the mail in a
presumably nondescript package," Burns wrote.

Since most of plaintiff's claims survive Aetna's motion to
dismiss, Burns found, they will be able to establish that they
have stated a genuine claim at a later stage.

Consumer Watchdog attorney Jerry Flanagan, representing the
plaintiffs, said "egregious threats to privacy and physical and
financial health are synonymous with mail order of HIV
medications."

He added, "Patients who live in apartment buildings or have
medications delivered to their workplace have expressed alarm that
neighbors, coworkers and employers, who do not know that the
recipient has HIV/AIDS, would come to suspect that they are
seriously ill."

Aetna attorney Heather Richardson did not return phone or email
requests for comment, the report said.

John Doe One, John Doe Two, John Doe Three, Plaintiffs,
represented by Alan McQuarrie Mansfield, The Consumer Law Group,
Edith M. Kallas -- ekallas@whatleykallass.com -- Whatley Kallas,
LLP, pro hac vice, Joe R. Whatley, Jr. --
jwhatley@whatleykallas.com -- Whatley Kallas, LLP, pro hac vice,
Harvey Rosenfield, Consumer Watchdog, Jerry Flanagan, Consumer
Watchdog & Laura Antonini, Consumer Watchdog.

AETNA, INC., AETNA HEALTHCARE, INC., AETNA SPECIALTY PHARMACY,
LLC, Defendant, represented by Heather Lynn Richardson --
hrichardson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.


AFFORDABLE DIGITAL: 7th Cir. Affirms Ruling in TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Klein Moynihan Turco LLP disclosed that on March 21, 2016, the
United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed a
trial court ruling that found a principal of a small Indiana
company liable for some, but not all, of its marketing company's
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The
principal, Jerry Clark ("Clark"), owns Indiana-based Affordable
Digital Hearing.  Clark retained the marketing company Business to
Business Solutions ("B2B") to send 100 fax advertisements to
businesses within the local community.

However, B2B, on its own, faxed 6,000 unsolicited advertisements
to businesses in three separate states.  The class representative
plaintiff, a business located outside of the local community that
B2B was directed to advertise in, will not itself recover damages
from Clark.  However, as a result of the class action, a small
portion of the certified class will receive the proceeds of the
$16,000 judgment entered against Clark.

Seventh Circuit Finds Only Limited Agency Liability under the TCPA

The facts at issue were relatively undisputed.  In June 2006, B2B
contacted Clark and encouraged him to send advertisements via
telecopier.  Although Clark initially declined, during a follow up
call, Clark agreed to retain B2B for a limited trial campaign.
Clark expressly instructed B2B to only send 100 faxes to local
businesses within a 20-mile radius of Terre Haute, Indiana (where
Clark's company is located).  Instead, B2B sent thousands of faxes
beyond the instructed 20-mile radius of Terre Haute.  The district
court found Clark liable for all of the faxes that B2B sent to
businesses within the instructed 20-mile radius of Terre Haute.
However, the district court also found that Clark was not liable
for any faxes sent beyond his original instruction, including the
fax sent to the class representative plaintiff.

The Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling that Clark's relationship
with B2B did not fit squarely within the three recognized
categories of agency relationships (express actual authority,
implied actual authority and apparent authority).  The Court found
that "B2B made an independent decision to blast faxes across
multiple state lines," and held that "the trial court did not err
in concluding that Clark was not liable for faxes sent outside the
20-mile radius on which he expressly instructed B2B."

Protect Yourself

Almost two years ago, Klein Moynihan Turco blogged about the
Federal Communications Commission's decision that absolute
liability applies under the TCPA for unsolicited fax marketing.
Here, however, in reaching its ruling in the underlying action,
the Seventh Circuit pointed out that, "the trial court correctly
rejected strict liability by recognizing that it would lead to
'absurd results.'"  This decision would seem to represent a more
nuanced application of TCPA agency liability by U.S. courts.


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: 9th Circuit Hears Bid to End Robocall Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bonnie Eslinger, Emily Field, Steven Trader and Joe Van Acker,
writing for Law360, report that A Ninth Circuit panel on March 22
challenged Allstate Insurance Co.'s bid to end as moot a proposed
class action over robocalls because the insurer allocated
settlement funds for the plaintiff, with one judge asking if the
maneuver would "kill class actions altogether by buying off
individual plaintiffs."

At the March 22 hearing, Allstate's attorney, Mark Levin of
Ballard Spahr LLP, told the appellate judges that plaintiff
Florencio Pacleb's suit should be dismissed as moot because the
insurer not only made an offer for "complete relief" in the case,
but also deposited the settlement funds, $20,000, into a court-
controlled account.

Mr. Levin conceded that in January, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that an unaccepted offer of judgment "does not moot plaintiff's
individual claims," but said the court left open the question of
whether the result would be different if a defendant actually
tendered full payment in an account payable and the court followed
with judgment in that amount.

Judge Barry Silverman asked Levin if such tactics could be used to
thwart class actions.

"You could pull this tender procedure, pay a relatively small
amount and kill the class action, right?" Judge Silverman asked.
Levin responded that such offers would "extinguish the claims of
the individual plaintiff" but not the class action.

Judge Raymond Fisher followed, telling Allstate's attorney that he
still had a "hurdle to cover" under Pitts v. Terrible Herbst Inc.,
a 2011 Ninth Circuit decision that held an offer of judgment
satisfying a plaintiff's individual claims doesn't moot a class
action.

In this case, the class claims would also be moot because the
plaintiff has not yet filed a certification motion, Levin said.

"Once the main plaintiff's claim is extinguished, the plaintiff is
not injured any more and has no standing to represent the class,"
the attorney said.

Judge Richard Tallman told Mr. Levin that Allstate's argument that
an offer of complete relief had been made ignored the notion of a
plaintiff's procedural right to move for class certification.

"I guess what I'm doing is making your opponent's argument that
you haven't really afforded complete relief by simply depositing
the money," Judge Tallman said, "Because you haven't addressed his
right to at least make a motion and convince the district court to
certify a class."

Mr. Levin maintained that if the individual claims were
extinguished, no right remained, "if there even is a right."

Speaking on behalf of the plaintiff, Paul Bland of Public Justice
PC told the appellate panel that the Pitts ruling was the "huge
elephant" in the room and said Allstate was "clearly" trying to
pick off the suit's named plaintiffs to end the class action.

Mr. Pacleb's suit could not be made moot because it also had a
claim for injunctive relief against future robocalls.

During his rebuttal, Levin maintained that both the individual and
class claims were made "moot by virtue of Allstate's payment."

Judge Silverman reminded Levin that the offer had not been
accepted.

Allstate's attorney noted that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan
wrote in her dissenting opinion in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v.
Symczyk that courts can dismiss a lawsuit where the plaintiff no
longer has a personal stake in the outcome, even if the plaintiff
objects by entering a judgment "when the defendant unconditionally
surrenders and only the plaintiff's obstinacy or madness prevents
him from accepting total victory."

Judge Fisher said Levin's comment "begs the question though of
whether or not it's total madness."

Mr. Pacleb's suit accusing Allstate of violating the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act was stayed pending the U.S. Supreme
Court's decision in Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, in which the court
ruled in January that an unaccepted settlement offer doesn't moot
a case.  In its appellate brief, Allstate argued that it has gone
beyond simply making Mr. Pacleb an offer by actually tendering to
a court-controlled new account a settlement amount four times what
he could possibly receive for his individual claims, thus mooting
his proposed class action.

But Mr. Pacleb shot back in his own brief that Allstate has never
offered him the full relief that he sought, as it continues to
deny liability for its alleged TCPA violations and only promised
to stop making calls to both him and fellow plaintiff Richard
Chen, who previously settled with the insurer but not the proposed
class as a whole.

Allstate is represented by Scott M. Pearson and Mark J. Levin of
Ballard Spahr LLP.

Mr. Pacleb is represented by Abbas Kazerounian of the Kazerouni
Law Group APC, Joshua Swigart of Hyde & Swigart, Todd M. Friedman
of the Law Office of Todd Friedman and F. Paul Bland Jr. and Karla
Gilbride of Public Justice PC.

The case is Richard Chen et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., case
number 13-16816, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.


AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE: Cotchett Pitre Survives Disqualification Bid
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NATHAN COZZITORTO, et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. AMERICAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION OF NORTHERN
CALIFORNIA, NEVADA, & UTAH, Defendant and Appellant, No. A143538
(Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, First
District, Division Five, affirmed the trial court's order denying
for lack of standing, the motion of American Automobile
Association of Northern California, Nevada, & Utah's (AAA) to
disqualify counsel for plaintiffs Nathan Cozzitorto, Rena
Cozzitorto, and Michael Cozzitorto, Sr., individually and doing
business as Cozz's Auto Body & Service, Inc.

A complaint was filed by the Cozzitortos against AAA, containing
class allegations which asserted causes of action under Labor Code
section 2802 and Business and Professions Code section 17200 et
seq. on behalf of the Cozzitortos and similarly situated
individuals.  The complaint also asserted a breach of contract
cause of action on behalf of Cozz's Inc. and similarly situated
contract stations that performed emergency road services pursuant
to an Emergency Road Service Contract Station Agreement with AAA.

AAA moved to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, LLP, arguing that the interests of the Cozzitortos and
the putative individual class members are adverse to those of
Cozz's Inc. and the putative contract station class members, such
that Cotchett could not represent both.  The plaintiffs'
opposition argued AAA lacked standing to seek Cotchett's
disqualification.  The trial court denied AAA's motion.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of California agreed with the
trial court's finding that at the present stage of the litigation,
Cotchett's continued representation will not undermine the
integrity of the judicial process.  The appellate court explained
thus, "The only conflict asserted by AAA is between non-
owner/principal employees and contract stations with respect to
the Labor Code section 2802 claim.  However, plaintiffs have
represented that no non-owner/principal employee incurred
nonreimbursed expenses working for AAA members."

AAA also contended that Cotchett's continued representation
threatens cognizable injury because the res judicata effect of any
subsequent judgment may be in question.  The appellate court also
affirmed the trial court in finding that this purported injury is
currently too speculative to support standing.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 15,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/3BAFbdfrom Leagle.com.


AMERICAN GOURMET: Recalls Pistachio Products Due to Salmonella
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Gourmet of Vista, CA is recalling American Gourmet
Roasted/Salted Pistachios because they may be contaminated with
Salmonella. American Gourmet was informed by its Pistachio
supplier to initiate a voluntary recall. Salmonella is an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

The products, which were distributed in San Diego, Riverside, and
San Bernardino counties in the state of California through retail
stores and can only be identified by Best by Dates found on the
lower bottom panel of the package.

  Name:      Roasted and        Roasted and         Roasted and
  -----      Salted             Salted              Salted
             Pistachios         Pistachios          Pistachios
  Size:      2.5 oz             4 oz                7.5 oz
  -----
  Best By:   11.5.2016          11.5.2016           11.5.2016
  -------    through            through             through
             1.13.2017          1.13.2017           1.13.2017
  UPC Code:  1578600108         1578600135          1578600123
  ---------

No illnesses have been reported to date.

Consumers should return American Gourmet Roasted/Salted Pistachios
with expiration dates from 11.5.16 through 3.13.17 to the retail
store purchased from for a full refund. Consumers may contact
Maurice at (760)599-0480 between 8am-5pm PST, Monday through
Friday.


AMERICAN MEDIA: Faces "Moeller" Class Suit in S.D. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against American Media,
Inc. and Odyssey Magazine Publishing Group, Inc.

The case is captioned Elizabeth Moeller, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. American Media, Inc.
and Odyssey Magazine Publishing Group, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
02022 (S.D.N.Y., March 18, 2016).

The Defendants are publishers of magazines, supermarket tabloids,
and books.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Ignatius Marchese, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Ave.,
      New York, NY 10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: jmarchese@bursor.com


ANDREW SEO: Faces Class Action Over Robocalls
---------------------------------------------
Mark Heinz, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that an Illinois
resident has filed a class action lawsuit against a Greater
Chicago political candidate, claiming automated calls from the
candidate's campaign to the plaintiff's and other's cell phones
caused actual damages in the form of invasion of privacy and cell
phone charges.

Cary Wolovick filed the lawsuit earlier this month against
Andrew Seo, a candidate for the office of Commissioner of
Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago, as
well as Mr. Seo's campaign committee, Citizens for Mr. Seo, in
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

In the complaint, Mr. Wolovick claims to have received automated
calls (commonly called "robocalls") to his cell phone from
Mr. Seo's campaign.  The calls allegedly delivered a prerecorded
message stating: "Hi, I am Andrew Seo, a candidate for Water
Reclamation District. I have a plan for government consolidation."

Mr. Wolovick claims numerous other people in the Greater Chicago
area received the same calls and messages on their cell phones. He
also claims to have no connection to Mr. Seo or his campaign and
that he never provided his cell phone number to Citizens for Mr.
Seo.

The complaints in the class action rest on alleged violations of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).  Mr. Wolovick is
seeking injunctive relief and award of statutory damages.  He also
asks the court of find Seo personally liable for direct
participation in the alleged calls.

Per an advisory from the Federal Communications Commission,
autodialed calls and prerecorded messages to landline telephone
numbers are generally allowed, according to a recent blog post
regarding the TCPA by attorneys from the Chicago law firm Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.

In those cases, people or groups making the calls simply need to
adhere to identification requirements.

However, there are broader prohibitions against making such calls
to cell phones, as well as some landlines, such as lines for
emergency or health care services.

The TCPA regulations should be clear and easy to follow for
candidates and campaign organizers who are aware of them, said
attorney Justin Kay, one of the post's authors.

"I don't think what is required in terms of the TCPA is a
mystery," he said, adding that some might not be aware of the
regulations.

"That's why the FCC puts out an occasional reminder," he said.
"(But) people who aren't aware of the TCPA might not check the FCC
website for reminders."

Lawsuits against political campaigns stemming from alleged TCPA
violations are rare, which isn't surprising, Mr. Kay said.

Typically, such lawsuits aren't comparatively lucrative, he said.

"There isn't a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow -- even a
theoretical pot of gold," Mr. Kay said.

How such lawsuits might affect campaigns or FCC policy is also
unknown, Kay said.

"I think the FCC treats these (campaign) calls the same as any
other calls," he said.

Still, Mr. Wolovick's case isn't entirely without recent
precedent.

A 2013 Florida case, Shamblin v. Obama, made similar allegations
against the "Obama for America" campaign.  Plaintiff Lori Shamblin
claimed to have received two robocalls to her cell phone from that
campaign. T he Middle District of Florida denied class
certification in that case.


AUSTRALIA: Suit Mulled Over Williamston Air Base Contamination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jackson Vernon, writing for ABC, reports that residents affected
by the leaching of toxic chemicals from the Williamtown Air Force
Base are launching a class action against the Defence Department.

It has been nearly seven months since news broke that toxic
chemicals once used in fire fighting foam at the base leached off-
site into ground and surface water.

Since then, many fishers and prawn trawlers have not been able to
make an income due to fishing bans, while residents have reported
their properties have been devalued.

Residents have now enlisted the global law firm Gadens to
represent them, and are currently finalizing funding for the legal
action with a litigation sponsor.

Williamtown resident Cain Gorfine has led the charge for the legal
action and said residents deserved just compensation.

We cannot just sit in limbo with families not having income, with
families with contamination running through their properties . . .
and not knowing what's going on or having any economic stability.

"People are angry, they are upset, they're frustrated, they're
confused." Mr. Gorfine said.

"We have heard nothing from Defence in terms of their willingness
to want to resolve this situation.

"Defence have shown no interest in putting us back in the position
that we were economically before all of this."

The Defence Department has already offered compensation to
fishers, but Mr Gorfine said this had been inadequate.

He said there was also the risk of what these chemicals might do
to the future health of residents.

"We will hopefully be sowing into any settlement or agreement with
Defence, we will be carving out of the settlement the ability to
come back at a later stage and pursue them for any health effects
that should arise out of these two chemicals being prevalent in
our environment," he said.

His wife Rhianna Gorfine said the community had been forced to
take this action.

She said she expected hundreds to sign up.

"It demonstrates the community is not going to stand for what has
been going on, we need to have a resolution," she said.

"We cannot just sit in limbo with families not having income, with
families with contamination running through their properties and
families in the investigation and red zone not knowing what's
going on or having any economic stability."

"A lot of people have their mortgages, a lot of people have their
retirement and their investment in property, what are people are
going to do?"

"We know that people can't get loans or refinancing."

A spokesman for Gadens said it was expected the action would be
launched shortly, when a so called "book building" phase
commences.

"This involves getting claimants to sign up for the class action
which is the first step towards commencing court proceedings," he
said.

"The classes of claimants who will be invited to participate in
the class action have not been finalized, however, the class
action will likely involve all persons who own properties and/or
operate businesses in and around the 'red zone'.

A public meeting is set where residents will be briefed about the
litigation and encouraged to sign up.

Defence has 'carefully considered' recommendations: spokeswoman

A spokeswoman for Defence said the department was taking a
responsible and proactive approach to the issue.

"[Defence] is working with Commonwealth, State and local
authorities to investigate the possible presence and extent of
perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA)," she said.

"Defence is also working with other Commonwealth departments to
develop a whole-of-Government response to the complex policy
questions raised by this issue."

"A response to the Senate References Committee on Foreign Affairs,
Defence and Trade's inquiry into firefighting foam contamination
Part A - RAAF Williamtown, will be tabled once the Government has
carefully considered each of the report's recommendations."

But she said she could not comment further on the legal action as
the Department had not received any legal notice.

The spokeswoman said that while Defence was aware of public
comments regarding a class action in relation to the Williamtown
contamination, it had not been contacted by a plaintiff law firm
in relation to any suit.

"Defence deals with legal claims for compensation in accordance
with the Attorney-General's Legal Services Directions.

"The circumstances of any claim may differ and each is assessed
having regard to relevant issues, including liability and
quantum."

Federal Government accused of being ruthless

It has been nearly two months since a Senate inquiry handed down
its report into the contamination.

It was scathing of Defence's response to the leak, and made
several recommendations including property acquisitions, blood
tests and buy-outs of fishing licenses.

New South Wales Greens Senator Lee Rhiannon was part of the
inquiry and said it was unacceptable that the Government had not
responded yet.

"This is ruthless. The people at Williamtown through no fault of
their own, the Department of Defence has admitted total
responsibility for chemical contamination that continues to come
off that base and the people have lost their livelihood," she
said.

"The Government needs to take responsibility.  They are the cause
of this problem and they have effectively wiped their hands from
it."

Senator Rhiannon said she wished the matter did not have to go to
the courts, but supported the residents' decision.

"We have a government inquiry, we work hard to set it up and that
has not solved anything. So there is no assistance, there is
nothing proactive coming from this Government and I understand why
people are angry and are taking this class action."


AUSTRALIA: Williamtown Residents' Class Action Funding Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Newcastle Herald reports that Williamtown residents living in the
contamination "red zone" have launched a class action case against
the Department of Defence.

Almost seven months after it was revealed that toxic chemicals
produced from fire fighting foams used on the Williamtown RAAF
Base had seeped into neighbouring properties, affected residents
going under the banner of the Williamtown and Surrounds Resident's
Action Group have launched a compensation case against the
department.

Residents have signed up law firm Gadens to prosecute the case,
and group president Cain Gorfine announced told members that it
has "full conditional funding approval from IMF Bentham --
Australia's oldest and one of the worlds largest litigation
funders".

"This support alone shows the strength of our case against the
Department and our commitment to seeing this through for the
residents, businesses and organizations who have been economically
affected by Defence's actions," he said.

"We have a full war chest behind us now and our solicitors,
Gadens, have worked hard to negotiate the best possible terms for
affected individuals.

The group will hold a public meeting on April 7 at the Stockton
RSL Club, as it begins to sign up participants in the class
action.

"It is crucial we get as many people as possible registering their
interest in the class action," Mr. Gorfine said.

"Although we have no doubt we will reach the critical numbers
needed in order to proceed, this is a vital step in the process of
any class action."

A spokesperson for Defence told the ABC it had not yet been
contacted by plaintiffs in the case.

"Defence deals with legal claims for compensation in accordance
with the Attorney-General's Legal Services Directions," the
spokesperson said.

"The circumstances of any claim may differ and each is assessed
having regard to relevant issues, including liability and
quantum."


AUTOVEST LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen Cohan, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Autovest, LLC and Hosto & Buchan, PLLC, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00627 (M.D. Tenn., March 19, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

The Defendants operate a debt collection agency headquartered at
26261 Evergreen Rd, Suite 390 Southfield, MI 48076.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Guibao, Esq.
      WEISBERG & MEYERS, LLC
      1448 Madison Avenue
      Memphis, TN 38104
      Telephone: (602) 445-9819
      E-mail: pguibao@gmail.com


BANK OF AMERICA: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss "Murphy" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIAN D. MURPHY, Individually and on behalf
of other similarly situated current and former homeowners in
Pennsylvania, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., ET AL., Civil Action No.
13-5719 (E.D. Pa.), Judge R. Barclay Surrick ruled on two motions
to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaint.  The judge:

     -- granted the motion to dismiss filed by McCabe Weisberg
        & Conway, P.C. (MWC), Terrence J. McCabe, Marc S.
        Weisberg, and Edward D. Conway, and

     -- granted, in part, and denied, in part, the motion to
        dismiss filed by the Bank of America, N.A. (BOA) and
        the Bank of New York Mellon, N.A. (BNY Mellon).

Brian D. Murphy filed a complaint on behalf of himself and
similarly situated Pennsylvania homeowners alleging that the
defendants charged illegal foreclosure-related attorneys' fees and
unauthorized insurance premiums in violation of state and federal
law.  BOA and BNY Mellon moved to dismiss the complaint.  MWC and
Messrs. McCabe, Weisberg and Conway likewise moved to dismiss
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federaul Rule of Civil Procedure.

Judge Surrick denied the banks' motion to dismiss Count I of the
amended complaint, stating that Murphy's breach of contract claim
cannot be dismissed for failing to assert required damages because
Murphy is still entitled to recover nominal damages.

Judge Surrick, however, dismissed Counts II and III of Murphy's
amended complaint, agreeing with the defendants that Murphy's
mortgage loan is not the kind protected under the Loan Interest
and Protection Law, 41 Pa. Cons. Stat. Sections 101 et seq. ("Act
6"), and that Murphy is without remedy under the Homeowner's
Emergency Mortgage Assistance Act of 1983, 35 Pa. Cons. Stat.
Sections 1680.401c et seq. ("Act 91").

Judge Surrick also dismissed Count IV of the amended complaint
because Murphy has not pleaded an ascertainable loss that would
allow him to maintain a private right of action under
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law.

Count V of Murphy's amended complaint was also dismissed due to
his failure to bring his Fair Debt Collection Practices Act claim
within the one-year statutory term.

Lastly, Judge Surrick dismissed Count VI of the amended complaint,
finding that Murphy does not have standing to pursue his claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
because he has not alleged an injury to his business or property.

A full-text copy of Judge Surrick's March 14, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/Qt4JVkfrom Leagle.com.

Brian D. Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Malakoff,
Rachel E. Berlin -- rberlin@buckleybeal.com -- pro hac vice & Seth
R. Lesser, Klafter Olsen & Lesser LLP.

Bank Of America, N.A., The Bank Of New York Mellon, N.A.,
Defendant, represented by Andrew J. Soven -- asoven@reedsmith.com
-- Reed Smith, LLP & Molly Quinn Campbell --
mqcampbell@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


BANK OF THE OZARKS: Loses Arkansas SC Appeal on Arbtration Bid
--------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Josephine Linker Hart of the Supreme Court of
Arkansas affirmed the circuit court's decision to deny Bank of the
Ozark's motion to compel arbitration in the case captioned, BANK
OF THE OZARKS, INC., AND BANK OF THE OZARKS, APPELLANTS, v. ROBERT
WALKER, ANN B. HINES, AND JUDITH BELK, APPELLEES, Case Nos. 2:15-
CV-864 (WHW-CLW) (Ark. Sup. Ct.).

In Bank of the Ozarks, Inc. v. Walker, 2014 Ark. 223, 434 S.W.3d
357, the circuit court in Arkansas denied the motion of appellants
Bank of the Ozarks, Inc., and Bank of the Ozarks (Ozarks) to
compel the arbitration of a class-action complaint filed by
appellees, Robert Walker, Ann B. Hines, and Judith Belk on the
ground that the arbitration provision in the account agreement
between Ozarks and the appellees was unconscionable.

The state's high court reversed and remanded the circuit court's
decision, holding that the circuit court must first determine, as
a threshold issue, whether there was a valid agreement to
arbitrate between Ozarks and appellees.

On remand, the circuit court concluded that there was not a valid
agreement to arbitrate. Particularly, the circuit court found that
there was neither a mutual agreement nor a mutual obligation.

Ozarks appealed from the circuit court's decision.  Ozarks
contends that the circuit court erred in concluding that neither
mutual agreement nor mutual obligation was shown. Ozarks argues
that the presence of the "LAW, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE" and the
"WAIVER OF JURY TRIAL" provisions do not vitiate mutual agreement
of the parties. Ozarks argues that these provisions are not
inconsistent with the arbitration clause because the clause makes
clear that either Ozarks or appellees can compel arbitration, but
neither is required to do so. Further, Ozarks contends that
granting the courts of Arkansas jurisdiction does not create an
inconsistency with the arbitration clause because these courts
would have jurisdiction if arbitration was waived and would have
jurisdiction over certain matters if arbitration ensued. Ozarks
asserts that these clauses can be read harmoniously to give effect
to all the provisions of the agreement.

In her Opinion dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/NYWxsSfrom Leagle.com, Justice Hart concluded that
the lack of mutuality in the arbitration clause renders the
agreement invalid and unenforceable.  The circuit court did not
err in denying the motion to compel arbitration on the basis, the
appeals court said.

Special Justice Walter B. Cox joins in Justice Hart's opinion.

Justice Courtney Hudson Goodson concurred in part and dissented in
part.  "I cannot join the majority's decision that mutuality of
obligation is absent because the agreement provides that Ozarks's
customers are to pay expenses, which includes attorney's fees,
that are incurred in connection with arbitration," Justice Goodson
said.

Justice Rhonda Wood did not participate.

Rose Law Firm is represented by Richard T. Donovan, Esq. --
rdonovan@roselawfirm.com -- Amanda K. Wofford, Esq. --
awofford@roselawfirm.com -- Betsy Turner-Fry, Esq. --
bturner@roselawfirm.com -- ROSE LAW FIRM

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is represented by Randall K.
Pulliam, Esq. -- rpulliam@cbplaw.com -- Allen Carney, Esq. --
acarney@cbplaw.com -- John C. Williams, Esq. --
jwilliams@cbplaw.com -- CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC


BARRICK GOLD: Securities Class Action Obtains Certification
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amrutha Penumudi, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal
judge granted class certification for a U.S. class-action lawsuit
filed against Barrick Gold Corp claiming Barrick misstated facts
of its now halted Pascua-Lama gold-mine project on the border of
Argentina and Chile.

The class certification means the world's largest gold producer
will have to face the U.S. lawsuit.

U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin in Manhattan said that
shareholders who purchased Barrick shares from May 7, 2009 through
Nov. 1, 2013 are a part of the class-action lawsuit.

Investors who bought Barrick's common stock during this period
have said Barrick touted Pascua-Lama as a world-class project even
as it became clear that the project would fall short of
expectations.

Barrick bought the untapped Pascua-Lama mine in 1994, and had been
counting on it to generate a large percentage of its overall gold
production.

But cost overruns, environmental issues and falling bullion
prices, among other issues contributed to the company's decision
on Oct. 31, 2013 to indefinitely halt the project.

Class action lawsuits can lead to larger damages or broader
remedies than individual lawsuits that can be costly to pursue.

The case is in re: Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-03851.


BAYOU WELL SERVICES: "Fulton" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Frankie Fulton, Daniel Luevano, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Bayou Well Services, LLC, the Defendant, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00474-N (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div., February 19, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid back wages, liquidated damages equal in
amount to the unpaid compensation, costs of suit, attorneys' fees,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and relief as may be
necessary and appropriate, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

Bayou Well Services provides well site support services for oil
and gas operations in the United States. It specializes in
pressure pumping, workover/completion rig operations, water
transfer services and frac tank rentals. The company was founded
in 2009 and is based in Houston, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
          Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
          LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
          1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (214) 749 1400
          Facsimile: (214) 749 1010
          E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
                  forester@l-b-law.com

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 706 0834
          Facsimile: (469) 339 0204
          E-mail: www.siegellawgroup.biz


BAYVIEW LOAN: "Salamon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mathias Salamon, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Bayview Loan Servicing, LLC, and Bayview Asset Management, LLC,
Case No. 1:16-cv-20993-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 18, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a financial service company with
its principal place of business in Miami-Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Frisch, Exq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) WORKERS
      Facsimile: (954) 327-3013
      E-mail: AFrisch@forthepeople.com


BLACK DIAMOND: Violated FLSA & IMWL, "Innis" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Jason Innis, on behalf of himself and other similarly situated
individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Black Diamond Plumbing and
Mechanical, Inc. d/b/a Black Diamond Plumbing and Electric, and
Axberg Heating Company, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02436 (N.D. Ill., Eastern Div., February 19, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL).

Black Diamond Plumbing & Mechanical offers plumbing, sewer,
electric, heating and air conditioning, and remodeling services
for residential, commercial, and industrial customers. The company
provides plumbing services for water heaters, sump and ejector
pumps, battery back-up systems, gas lines, disposals, pipe
thawing, pipe leaks, underground leak detection and repair, and
backflow inspection; tubs, sinks, faucets, and toilets; and
commercial and industrial plumbing applications. Its sewer
services comprise power rodding, hydro-jetting, video inspection
of sewer lines, preventative maintenance contracts, repair of
underground sewer lines, and installation of outside clean out.
The company is based in Crystal Lake, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Neil Kelley, Esq.
          Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
          Alvar Ayala, Esq.
          Workers' Law Office, P.C.
          53 W. Jackson Blvd, Suite 701
          Chicago, IL 60604
          Telephone: (312) 795 9121


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: 3rd Claim in "Sharma" Suit Reinstated
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MONITA SHARMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF
NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, No. C 13-2274 MMC (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Maxine M. Chesney granted the plaintiff's motion for
reconsideration and vacated the court's dismissal of the Third
Claim for Relief as set forth in its order of January 6, 2015.

In its January 6, 2015 order, the court granted in part and
denied, in part, BMW of North America, LLC's motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Class Action Complaint (TAC), dismissing the Third
Claim for Relief, titled Breach of Implied Warranty of
Merchantability Under the Song-Beverly Act.  The court agreed with
the defendant that the statutory three-month period expired prior
to the dates on which the plaintiffs allege they first began
experiencing problems caused by the design defect asserted in the
complaint.

However, subsequent to the dismissal, the Ninth Circuit held in
the case captioned Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217 (9th
Cir. 2015) that the Song-Beverly Act, while setting forth a
"durational limitation," does not include a "requirement that the
purchaser discover and report to the seller a latent defect within
that time period," nor does it "create a deadline for discovering
latent defects."

Given the Ninth Circuit's recent interpretation and the
plaintiffs' having alleged in the TAC that their respective
vehicles have an "inherent defect" that "cause[d] [their]
[v]ehicles to malfunction and become inoperable," Judge Chesney
found that the Third Claim for Relief is not subject to dismissal
on the ground raised in the motion to dismiss.

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

Monita Sharma, Eric Anderson, Plaintiffs, represented by Stuart C.
Talley -- stuart@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw Cook & Talley PC, Adam
Morris Rose, Law Office of Robert Starr, Amy Elisabeth Keller --
aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac vice, Edward
A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP, pro hac
vice, Ian James Barlow -- ian@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw, Cook &
Talley PC, Stephen Massong Harris, Law Offices of Stephen M.
Harris, P.C. & William A. Kershaw -- bill@kctlegal.com -- Kershaw
Cook & Talley PC.

BMW of North America LLC, Defendant, represented by Troy Masami
Yoshino -- troy.yoshino@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, Aengus Hartley Carr -- aengus.carr@squirepb.com -- Squire
Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Eric J. Knapp -- eric.knapp@squirepb.com --
Squire Patton Boggs LLP & Jenny Grantz --
jenny.grantz@squirepb.com -- Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Directs BMW to Produce Documents
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kandis A. Westmore of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California directed BMW to
produce the document retention policies in effect during 2008 and
2013 and the document retention policy currently in effect in the
case captioned, MONITA SHARMA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH
AMERICA LLC, Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-02274-MMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson allege that they each
purchased a vehicle "designed, manufactured, distributed [and]
sold by BMW of North America LLC, and that their respective
vehicles have a "design defect." Plaintiffs specifically allege
that their vehicles "were designed so that certain vital
electrical components known as SDARS, RDC, and PDC Modules, are
located in the lowest part of the vehicles' trunk," where "they
are especially prone to water damage that can be caused through
the normal and ordinary use of the vehicle." Plaintiffs further
assert that their vehicles "were also designed so that drainage
tubes used to drain water away from the vehicles' sun roofs are
located directly next to the vital electrical equipment that is
located in the bottom of the trunk," that the drains "were
designed in such a way that they are prone to become clogged with
dirt, debris, leaves, and other naturally-occurring materials,"
that "when these tubes become clogged, they come loose or leak
into the trunks of the vehicles," and that the leaks "eventually
flood the trunks of the vehicles, causing the vital electrical
components contained at the bottom of the vehicles' trunks to
short.

On May 17, 2013, Plaintiffs commenced the instant action on behalf
of themselves and all similarly situated California residents who
purchased or leased certain defective BMW vehicles sold in the
United States by BMW NA. In the operative complaint, Plaintiffs
assert three claims for relief, one for violations of the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code
sections 1750-1784, one for violations of California Business and
Professions Code section 17200, and one for breach of implied
warranty of merchantability under the Song-Beverly Consumer
Warranty Act, California Civil Code.

On February 29, 2016, the parties filed a joint discovery letter
brief regarding BMW NA's retention policies. The parties filed two
additional joint letter briefs on March 8, 2016. Plaintiffs argue
that the requested document retention policies "are relevant and
necessary for Plaintiffs to determine whether any spoliation has
occurred, whether any relevant documents and information have been
withheld or otherwise lost, as well as what information is
available to support their claims regarding the alleged defects in
the class vehicles."

In his Order dated March 15, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qnzsAn
from Leagle.com, Judge Westmore found that the matter suitable for
disposition without hearing. In light of Plaintiffs' own
formulation of the allegations in the operative complaint and BMW
NA's statement, Plaintiffs have failed to show that information
concerning these items would be both relevant and proportional
under Rule 26(b).

The Court ordered BMW to produce the document retention policies
in effect during 2008 and 2013, and the document retention policy
currently in effect within 21 days.

Plaintiffs are represented by Stuart C. Talley, Esq. ---
kctlegal.com -- Ian James Barlow, Esq. --- ijblegal.com -- William
A. Kershaw, Esq. --- waklegal.com -- KERSHAW COOK & TALLEY PC, Amy
Elisabeth Keller, Esq. -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Edward A.
Wallace, Esq. -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- WEXLER WALLACE LLP

BMW of North America LLC is represented by:

     Troy Masami Yoshino, Esq.
     Aengus Hartley Carr, Esq.
     SQUIRE PATTON BOGGS LLP
     401 Watt Avenue
     Sacramento, CA 95864
     Tel: (916)779-7000


BOCA GROUP: "Thompson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Monique Thompson, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. Boca Group, LLC, d/b/a Menorah House, Case No. 9:16-
cv-80434-JIC (S.D. Fla., March 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Boca Group, LLC owns and operates a nursing facility located at
9945 Central Park Boulevard North, Boca Raton, Florida, 33428.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450
      Doral, FL 33166
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


BOUNCEBACK INC: "Freitas" Suit Stayed Pending Deal in "Cavnar"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pursuant to a stipulation and request filed by the plaintiffs and
the defendants in the case captioned ANGELINA FREITAS, REBECCA
LYON and MARESA KENDRICK, on their own behalf and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BOUNCEBACK, INC., a
Missouri corporation, CHECK CONNECTION, INC., a Kansas
corporation, STONE FENCE HOLDINGS, INC., a Missouri corporation,
and GALE KRIEG, Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-03560-RS (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Richard Seeborg issued an order staying the case pending
preliminary and final approval of a proposed class-wide settlement
in a related action.

A case was brought by Angelina Freitas, Rebecca Lyon and Maresa
Kendrick on behalf of a proposed class of California consumers in
Lake, Mendocino, Plumas, San Benito, Sutter, and Yuba counties
against Bounceback, Inc., Check Connection, Inc., Stone Fence
Holdings, Inc., and Gale Krieg, challenging the defendants'
operation of "Check Enforcement Programs" under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act and the California Unfair Competition
Law.

More than a year before the Freitas action was filed, a similar
action captioned Cavnar et al. v. BounceBack, Inc., et al., No.
2:14-cv-00235 was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Washington.  The parties to the Freitas
action and the Cavnar action eventually reached a proposed global
settlement of both actions.  In accord with the settlemennt
agreement, plaintiffs in the Cavnar action filed a second amended
complaint that included the proposed class of California consumers
and which sought preliminary and final approval of the proposed
class-wide settlement in the Eastern District of Washington.
Accordingly, the parties requested the court to stay the Freitas
action pending preliminary and final approval of the proposed
settlement or until September 30, 2016, whichever is earlier.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's March 16, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/h0WIK7from Leagle.com.

Angelina Freitas, Rebecca Lyon, Maresa Kendrick, Plaintiff,
represented by Michael Francis Ram -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP, Paul Arons, Law Office of Paul
Arons, Beth E. Terrell -- bterrell@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell
Marshall Law Group PLLC, Blythe H. Chandler --
bchandler@terrellmarshall.com -- Terrell Marshall Daudt and Willie
PLLC, pro hac vice, Karl Olson -- kolson@rocklawcal.com -- Ram,
Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP & Susan S. Brown --
sbrown@rocklawcal.com -- Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.

Bounceback, Inc., a Missouri corporation, Check Connection, Inc.,
a Kansas corporation, Stone Fence Holdings, Inc., a Missouri
corporation, Defendants, represented by Kelly Christine Denham --
kdenham@tysonmendes.com -- Tyson and Mendes LLP, Scott Christopher
Cifrese -- scott.cifrese@painehamblen.com -- Paine Hamblen LLP,
pro hac vice, Gregg Randall Smith -- gregg.smith@painehamblen.com
-- Paine Hamblen LLP, pro hac vice, Jacob Robert Felderman --
jfelderman@tysonmendes.com -- Tyson Mendes LLP & Robert Francis
Tyson -- rtyson@tysonmendes.com -- Tyson and Mendes LLP.

Gale Krieg, Defendant, represented by Scott Christopher Cifrese,
Paine Hamblen LLP, pro hac vice, Gregg Randall Smith, Paine
Hamblen LLP, pro hac vice & Jacob Robert Felderman, Tyson Mendes
LLP.


BRONCO'S SALOON: Court Denies Motion to Stay APB's TCPA Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan denied Defendants' motion to stay
in the case captioned, APB Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, v.
Bronco's Saloon, Inc., et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-14959 (E.D.
Mich.).

Before the Court are three separate, but very similar, putative
class actions which were filed by the same Plaintiff counsel and
assert claims under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The
Court initially dismissed each of these cases for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction because, at the time, there was an unpublished
Sixth Circuit decision holding that "state courts' maintenance of
exclusive jurisdiction over private rights of action under the
TCPA and federal courts' concomitant lack of jurisdiction to hear
such private claims are well-settled.

Plaintiffs appealed in all three cases. All three of these cases
incurred a delay due to the resolution of the issue of whether
federal-question jurisdiction exists over TCPA cases, ultimately
ruled upon by the United States Supreme Court, which ruled that
federal-question jurisdiction does exist. Upon remand, each of
these three cases proceeded to discovery, proceeding along similar
scheduling orders.

Defendants ask the Court to exercise its discretion and stay these
actions pending the Supreme Court's ruling in Spokeo. Defendants
believe the ruling in that case may have some potential
implications in these cases.

In his Order dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/AwYgzSfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that the
issues have been adequately presented in the parties' briefs and
that oral argument would not aid the decisional process. The Court
also concludes that the history of these actions and the amount of
time that passed since they were filed also militate against the
requested stay.

APB Associates, Inc. is represented by Brian J. Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, Jason J. Thompson,
Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Phillip
A. Bock, Esq. & Tod A. Lewis, Esq. -- tod@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK
& HATCH LLC

Bronco's Saloon, Inc. is represented by Jason R. Mathers, Esq. --
jmathers@harveykruse.com -- John R. Prew, Esq. --
jprew@harveykruse.com -- HARVEY KRUSE


BUFFETS LLC: "Filar-Collins" Suit Removed to D. South Carolina
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Michelle Filar-Collins, Jackson
Walker, and Richard Wykes, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Buffets LLC d/b/a Ovation Brands and
Food Management Partners Inc., Case No. 2016-CP-23-00949, was
removed from the Greenville County Court of Common Pleas to the
U.S. District Court District of South Carolina (Greenville). The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-00888-HMH to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiffs allege violation of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act.

The Defendants own and operate a chain of buffet style
restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David E. Rothstein, Esq.
      Michael G. Corley, Esq.
      ROTHSTEIN LAW FIRM
      1312 Augusta Street
      Greenville, SC 29605
      Telephone: (864) 232-5870
      Facsimile: (864) 241-1386
      E-mail: derothstein@mindspring.com
              mgcorley@mindspring.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Lucas James Asper, Esq.
      Vance Earle Drawdy, Esq.
      OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK AND STEWART
      300 North Main Street, Suite 500
      Greenville, SC 29601
      Telephone: (864) 271-1300
      E-mail: lucas.asper@ogletreedeakins.com
              vance.drawdy@ogletreedeakins.com


CANADA: Revenue Agency Faces Class Action Over GLGI Deductions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan White and Lea Williams-Doherty, writing for CTV News Calgary,
report that thousands of Calgarians are eligible to join a
national class action alleging the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA)
misled taxpayers after changing its stance on donations to a
specific charity.

According to the suit, taxpayers were informed donations to Global
Learning Group Inc. (GLGI) would provide significant income tax
deductions. GLGI, an Ontario based company, provided computer and
job training software to other charities that work with the poor
and unemployed at no cost.

Canadians who donated to GLGI received healthy income tax
deductions for both the value of the cash donation as well as the
value of the job training software purchased.

Now, the CRA has altered its position on GLGI and the agency wants
taxpayers to return billions of dollars.

Two court ruling s found GLGI to be greatly overvalued and the CRA
deemed the GLGI program to be an illegal tax sham.  The CRA has
disallowed the GLGI deductions and is ordering 118,000 taxpayers
to pay $5.7 billion in taxes, interest and penalties.

Calgarian Dean Horvath, a member of the class action suit, says he
has donated roughly $40,000 to GLGI over the years after receiving
advice from a family member.  Mr. Horvath says he received legal
and tax guidance to ensure the legality of the tax shelter before
making his decision to donate to the organization.

"We're not ones for taking risks, my wife and myself," said
Mr. Horvath.

A CRA agent confirmed to Horvath the deduction was on the level.
"When I talked to (the CRA) in 2006 why didn't they tell me 'they
(the GLGI) haven't done wrong 100 per cent but we're questioning
it'," asks Mr. Horvath.  "I'd have dropped out."

Mr. Horvath says he has been ordered to pay approximately $100,000
to the CRA placing him in a difficult financial situation.

"Now I'm worried about liquidating more stuff," said Mr. Horvath.
"Especially now, with the oil going down and not working, we're
struggling through this."

Merchant Law Group has filed a national class action against GLGI
and related entities, its legal and accounting firms and the CRA
for misleading or allowing taxpayers to believe the deductions
were legitimate.

"The CRA, through its own accountants and lawyers and opinions
they received, knew before they let people know that theses tax
credits were not legitimate," said Josh Merchant, class action
lawyer.  "They failed to notify the taxpayers of that which is one
of their duties."

CTV Calgary's Consumer Watch reporter Lea Williams-Doherty
contacted the CRA asking for the agency's response to the
allegations cited in the lawsuit.

In an email, a CRA spokesperson said the income tax act prevents
it from addressing the cases of individual taxpayers.

Attempts to contact GLGI representatives resulted in the discovery
the company is no longer in operation.


CAPITAL ACCOUNTS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Marcus" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Capital Accounts, LLC d/b/a Capital Accounts, Case No.
3:16-cv-01517-PGS-LHG (D.N.J., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Accounts, LLC operates a debt collection agency that
specializes in the collection of overdue balances.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, "Osborn" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa M. Osborn, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Capital Management Services, L.P., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01244-NIQA (E.D. Penn., March 21, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capital Management Services, L.P. operates a collections agency
providing delinquent receivables resolution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David A. Searles, Esq.
      FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
      Land Title Building, 19th Floor
      100 South Broad Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19110
      Telephone: (215) 735-8600
      E-mail: dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


CARRINGTON MORTGAGE: Court Declines Bid for Interim Class Counsel
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Senior District Judge William H. Walls of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Plaintiff's
motion to appoint his counsel of record, the Law Offices of
Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC and Giskan Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart
LLP, as interim co-class counsel in the case captioned, PEDRO
SANTOS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CARRINGTON MORTGAGE SERVICES, LLC, AMERICAN MODERN
INSURANCE GROUP, AMERICAN MODERN HOME INSURANCE COMPANY, MIDWEST
ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a AMERITRAC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, and
SOUTHWEST BUSINESS CORPORATION, Defendants, Case Nos. 2:15-CV-864
(WHW-CLW) (D.N.J.).

In the instant putative class action, Plaintiff alleges that his
mortgage servicer and several insurers engaged in a kickback
scheme involving force-placed hazard insurance. A full factual
background is detailed in the Court's July 8, 2015 opinion denying
Defendants' motions to dismiss.  The Court has not yet certified
this action as a class action.

Plaintiff moved to appoint his counsel of record, the Law Offices
of Roosevelt N. Nesmith, LLC and Giskan Solotaroff Anderson &
Stewart LLP, as interim co-class counsel.  Plaintiff's counsel of
record argue that they meet the factors under Fed.R.Civ.P
23(g)(1)(C).  Plaintiff's counsel claim that, together, they are
"able and willing to commit the resources necessary to represent
the putative class."

In his Opinion and Order dated March 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tpBnpEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Walls finds the
appointment of interim class counsel unnecessary because no other
attorneys had made their appearance on behalf of other plaintiffs,
and because consolidated cases were all prosecuted by the same
counsel.

Pedro Santos is represented by:

     Roosevelt N. Nesmith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF ROOSEVELT N. NESMITH, LLC
     363 Bloomfield Ave
     Montclair, NJ 07042

Carrington Mortgage Services, LLC is represented by Charles J.
Falletta, Esq. -- cfalletta@sillscummis.com -- SILLS CUMMIS &
GROSS


CASTLEWOOD ELDER CARE: Violated FLSA, "Edminster" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Edminster, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Castlewood Elder Care Management LLC;
and Gregory P. Green, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00417
(Dist. Col., February 20, 2016), seeks to recover earned wages
including minimum wages and overtime compensation under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Colorado state laws including
Colorado Minimum Wage Order (Wage Order).

Castlewood Elder Care Management provides care management service
for older adults and their families. Castlewood does business in
the State of Colorado and nationwide through the internet.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
          ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
          10601 Mission Rd, Suite 100
          Leawood, KS 66206
          Telephone: (913) 766 5585
          Facsimile: (816) 875 5069
          E-mail: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com
                  www.rmlegalgroup.com

               - and -

          Paul F. Lewis, Esq.
          Michael D. Kuhn, Esq.
          Andrew E. Swan, Esq.
          LEWIS KUHN SWAN PC
          620 North Tejon Street, Suite 101
          Colorado Springs, CO 80903
          Telephone: (719) 694 3000
          Facsimile: (866) 515 8628
          E-mail: plewis@lewiskuhnswan.com
                  mkuhn@lewiskuhnswan.com
                  aswan@lewiskuhnswan.com


CENTURY ARMS: Faces "Melton" Class Suit in S. Dist. Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Century Arms
Inc., Century International Arms Corp., Century Arms of Vermont,
Inc., and Century International Arms of Vermont, Inc.

The case is captioned Jeffrey Melton, Ezekiel Morris, Tommy
Johnson, Juan Valdes, and Manville Smith, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. Century Arms Inc.,
Century International Arms Corp., Century Arms of Vermont, Inc.,
and Century International Arms of Vermont, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
21008-FAM (S.D. Fla., March 21, 2016).

The Defendants are in the business of importing and manufacturing
firearms and accessories in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Angelo Marino Jr., Esq.
      ANGELO MARINO, JR. PA
      645 SE 5th Terrace
      Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301-3160
      Telephone: (954) 765-0537
      Facsimile: 765-0545
      E-mail: amjrpamail@aol.com


CHEAP ESCAPE: Ohio SC Reverses Ruling in Sales Reps' Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justice Judy Ann Lanzinger of the Supreme Court of Ohio
reversed the judgment of the Second District Court of Appeals in
the case captioned, Haight et al., Appellees, v. Minchak et al.,
Appellants, Case No. 2014-1241 (Ohio).

Appellees, John Haight and Christopher Pence, were employed as
sales representatives by the Cheap Escape Company, which was owned
by appellants, Robert and Joan Minchak. Cheap Escape published
J.B. Dollar Stretcher Magazine, for which the sales
representatives solicited advertising business.

Haight and Pence allege that although they were to be paid either
by commissions plus a draw (in the nature of an advance) or by
commissions only, the Minchaks stopped paying or reduced the
amount of the draw for certain sales representatives -- those with
the company for a certain length of time or those believed to be
underperforming.

Haight and Pence requested a declaration from the Montgomery
County Court of Common Pleas that as employees, they were entitled
to minimum wage. They argued that because R.C. 4111.14(B)(1)
contains exemptions from the definition of "employee" that Article
II, Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution does not contain, the
statute is unconstitutional.

The trial court disagreed and declared that R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) is
constitutionally valid and that the exemptions within the statute
apply to claims brought under Article II, Section 34a.

The Second District Court of Appeals reversed. The appellate court
concluded that the General Assembly exceeded its authority when it
defined "employee" differently, and more narrowly, than did the
Constitution.

The state Supreme Court is now asked to determine whether the
definition of the term "employee" set forth in R.C. 4111.14(B)(1)
clearly conflicts with the definition of the same term set forth
in the Ohio Constitution, Article II, Section 34a.

In her Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/R5CukPfrom Leagle.com, Justice Lanzinger held that
the meaning of the term "employee" under R.C. 4111.14(B)(1) is
constitutionally valid because it does not clearly conflict with
or restrict the meaning of that same term under Article II,
Section 34a of the Ohio Constitution.

John Haight and Christopher Pence are represented by Andrew
Biller, Esq. -- abiller@msdlegal.com -- MARKOVITS, STOCK &
DEMARCO, LLC

Minchak, et al. are represented by John P. Susany, Esq. --
jsusany@stark-knoll.com -- Kathleen A. Hahner, Esq. --
khahner@stark-knoll.com -- STARK & KNOLL CO., LPA


CHUCK'S PARKING: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Cohen" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Cohen and Benjamin Gage, individually, and as private
attorneys general and on behalf of all persons similarly situated,
the Plaintiffs, v. Chuck's Parking Service, Chuck
Pick, Joel Groves and Does 1-100, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC611085 (Cal. Super Ct., County of Los Angeles, February 19,
2015), seeks to recover regular wages under California Labor Code.

Chuck Pick and Joel Groves are the owners of Chuck's Parking
Service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Spencer, Esq.
          SPENCER LAW FIRM
          903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 220
          San Clemente, CA 92673
          Telephone No: (949) 240 8595
          Facsimile No: (949) 240 8515
          E-mail: jps@spencerlaw.net

               - and -

          Jeffrey Wilens, Esq.
          LAKESHORE LAW CENTER
          18340 Yorba Linda Blvd., Suite 107-610
          Yorba Linda, CA 92886
          Telephone No: (714) 854 7205
          Facsimile No: (714) 854 7206
          E-mail: jeff@lakeshorelaw.org


CHANEL: Fights Employees' Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law reports that Chanel is fighting back against a
lawsuit filed by a group of employees at its Beverly Hills store.
According to the suit, which was filed in December 2015 by
shipping department employees Cristian Luna, Anthony Hernandez and
Javier Delgado, Chanel failed to pay them and others overtime
compensation and minimum wage for overtime hours worked in
violation of both federal and state law.  The case was initially
filed in California state court but was removed to federal court
late last year.

In particular, the plaintiffs' complaint alleges that Chanel has
systematically failed to pay its employees overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and California law; Mr. Luna claims
he was forced to work overtime during the entirety of his tenure
with Chanel, which began in 2011.  The named plaintiffs also
allege that Chanel failed to authorize/permit rest periods; failed
to pay wages upon discharge; and failed to maintain accurate
payroll records, amongst other claims.  As a result, in addition
to damages for unpaid wages, penalties and other general and
exemplary damages, the plaintiffs would like the court to certify
class action status for the lawsuit, thereby allowing other
similarly situated Chanel employees and former employees to join
the suit, as well.

Class action status -- which requires certification by the court -
- would serve to significantly increase the size of the pool of
plaintiffs in the case (allowing "similarly situated" employees
from all over the country to join) and thus, the damages amount
for which Chanel would be responsible.  It would also
theoretically allow more plaintiffs to seek recourse against
Chanel than would otherwise be possible by way of individual
lawsuits.

Chanel is fighting to have the plaintiffs' bid for class action
status shot down.  On the heels of filing its discovery plan for
the impending trial, counsel for the Paris-based design house
urged a California federal court to block the plaintiffs'
potential class action certification, alleging that the evidence
they provided (and the fact that they were forced to work overtime
in the first place) does not amount to anything more than proof
that they're incapable of fulfilling their job duties. Moreover,
Chanel asserted that nationwide class certification is improper as
the cases at hand are too individualized and the individual
plaintiffs' claims are not backed up by similar claims from
employees at other stores.


CHESAPEAKE OPERATING: Faces "Griggs" Suit in West. Dist. Of OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been filed against Chesapeake
Operating, L.L.C., New Dominion, L.L.C., Devon Energy Production
Company, L.P., and Sandridge Exploration and Production, L.L.C.

The case is captioned Lisa Griggs, and April Marler, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Chesapeake Operating, L.L.C., New Dominion, L.L.C., Devon Energy
Production Company, L.P., and Sandridge Exploration and
Production, L.L.C., the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00138-D (W.D.
Okla., February 16, 2016).  The complaint seeks damages, punitive
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, and other additional relief
under theories of private nuisance, strict liability for alleged
ultra-hazardous activities, negligence, and trespass. The
Plaintiffs alleged that the Defendants have disposed saltwater
produced during oil and gas operations in such a manner as to
increase the risk of earthquakes experienced by their real
properties in Logan and Oklahoma counties.

Chesapeake Operating engages in exploration and drilling of
natural gas. The company was founded in 1994 and is based in
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. Chesapeake Operating LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Chesapeake Energy Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John J. Griffin Jr., Esq.
          CROWE & DUNLEVY
          Braniff Building
          324 North Robinson Avenue, Suite 100
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102
          Telephone: (405) 235 7718
          Facsimile: (405) 272 5225
          E-mail: john.griffin@crowedunlevy.com

               - and -

          William Federman, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Ave.
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120

               - and -

          Scott Poynter, Esq.
          POYNTER LAW GROUP
          400 W. Capitol Ave, Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201

               - and -

          Nate Steel, Esq.
          STEEL, WRIGHT & COLLIER
          P.O. Box 7883
          Little Rock, 72217

               - and -

          Robin Greenwald, Esq.
          Curt Marshall, Esq.
          Weitz & Luxenberg, Esq.
          700 Broadway
          New York, NY 10003

               - and -

          Kenneth Blakey, Esq.
          MCAFEE & TAFT
          Tenth Floor
          Two Leadership Square
          211 N. Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102

               - and -

          Kiran Phansalkar, Esq.
          CONNER & WINTERS
          1700 One Leadership Square
          211 North Robinson
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102

               - and -

          Robert "Bob" Gum, Esq.
          April Coffin, Esq.
          GUM, PUCKET & MACKECHNIE LLP
          105 North Hudson, Suite 900
          Oklahoma City, OK 73102


CLEBURNE COUNTY, AR: SC Rules in Suit Against Court Clerk
---------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Robin F. Wynne of the Arkansas Supreme Court
affirmed a trial court's grant of summary judgment in the case
captioned, MAURICE R. LIPSEY, WILLIAM LARRY COX, and CONNIE L.
COX, APPELLANTS, v. KAREN GILES, APPELLEE, Case No. CV-15-785
(Ark.).

Maurice R. Lipsey, William Larry Cox, and Connie L. Cox are
property owners and holders of oil and gas leases in Cleburne
County. Karen Giles is the Cleburne County Circuit Court Clerk.
Appellants filed a class-action complaint in which they alleged
that Giles and two of her deputies falsely and fraudulently
notarized oil and gas leases. Appellants sought to enjoin appellee
to "purge any and all oil and gas leases which contain false
notarial acknowledgments." Appellants also sought costs and
attorney's fees.

After discovery had commenced, appellants filed a motion for
injunction. During the hearing on the motion for injunction, the
circuit court questioned appellants regarding their damages. After
concluding that appellants had not been damaged, the circuit court
dismissed the case on its own motion.

Appellants appealed from the written order dismissing the case.
This court reversed and remanded, holding that the sua sponte
dismissal deprived appellants of notice and the opportunity to
meet proof with proof and demonstrate that a material question of
fact existed regarding whether they had suffered damages due to
the allegations in the complaint.

Following remand of the case to the trial court, Giles filed a
motion for summary judgment in which she alleged that appellants
had failed to demonstrate that they had suffered any damages as a
result of the allegations in the complaint. The trial court
entered an order in which it found that appellants had failed to
show any damages as a result of Giles's purportedly unlawful act
in recording their leases and granted the motion for summary
judgment.

On appeal, appellants argue that the circuit court erred by
granting summary judgment because (1) Giles failed to come forth
with proof on their theories of damages and (2) they met Giles's
lack of proof with proof of a question of material fact as to the
existence of damages.

In the Opinion dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Gp2yfqfrom Leagle.com, Justice Wynne concluded that
the fact that residents expect accurate records and that Deputy
Clerk Heather Smith improperly notarized certain leases does not
demonstrate that appellants have been damaged when they admit that
their leases were legitimately executed. None of the evidence
relied on by appellants creates a factual question on the issue of
whether they sustained damages as a result of the actions alleged
in the complaint.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     John C. Holton, Esq.
     HOLTON LAW FIRM, PLLC
     301 North Main Street, Suite 804
     Winston-Salem, NC 27101
     Tel: (336)777-3480

Karen Giles is represented by Eric Bray, Esq. -- eric@ppgmrlaw.com
-- Kimberly D. Logue, Esq. -- kim@ppgmrlaw.com -- PPGMR LAW, PLLC


CLIENT SERVICES: Illegally Collects Debt, "Banda" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mendy Banda, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
consumers v. Client Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01371
(E.D.N.Y., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair
and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Client Services, Inc. operates a financial service company
headquartered at 3451 Harry S. Truman Blvd. Saint Charles, Mo
63301.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CONAIR CORPORATION: "Wilson" Suit Removed to C. Dist. California
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Delia Wilson, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated v. Conair Corporation,
Case No. 1:14-cv-894-WBS-SAB, was removed from the US District
Court, Eastern District of California to the U.S District Court
for the Central District of California (Western Division - Los
Angeles). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-mc-00040
to the proceeding.

Conair Corporation is a designer, manufacturer, and marketer of
branded personal care and small kitchen appliances, cookware,
professional salon and beauty products, hair brushes and
accessories, cosmetic bags and organizers and travel accessories.

Delia Wilson is a pro se plaintiff.


CORDISH COMPANIES: McElroy's Bid to Remand Suit Denied
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHELTON MCELROY, Plaintiff, v. CORDISH
COMPANIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-390-
DJH (W.D. Ky.), Judge David J. Hale denied Shelton McElroy's
motion to remand the case; and allowed McElroy to respond to
several of the defendants' motions to dismiss.

On April 24, 2015, McElroy filed a purported class action in the
Jefferson Circuit Court, alleging that the defendants engaged in
systematic discrimination against African-Americans at the Fourth
Street Live entertainment venue in Louisvill, Kentucky.  The case
was removed pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).
McElroy sought to remand, arguing that the defendants failed to
establish the requisite amount in controversy.  In the
alternative, McElroy asserted that the district court must decline
jurisdiction over the case based on either the local-controversy
exception or the homestate exception to CAFA.

Judge Hale found that the allegation in the notice of removal
regarding the amount in controversy is plausible, as it was based
on facts set forth in McElroy's complaint and Supreme Court
precedent concerning an acceptable punitive-to-compensatory
damages ratio, combined with a conservative estimate of class
members' claims.  The judge observed that McElroy, on the other
hand, has neither shown that the notice of removal is defective
nor presented proof that the jurisdictional threshold is not met.

Judge Hale also found that McElroy failed to establish that the
local-controversy exception and the home-state exception are
applicable to the case.

Judge Hale gave McElroy a final opportunity to respond to the
defendants' motions to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Hale's March 16, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at http://is.gd/TFCANJfrom Leagle.com.

Shelton Mcelroy, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel M. Alvarez,
Daniel M. Alvarez PLLC & Samuel G. Hayward --
samuelghayward@hotmail.com -- Adams, Hayward & Welsh.

Cordish Companies, Inc., Entertainment Consulting International,
LLC, Cordish Operating Ventures, LLC, Louisville Galleria, LLC,
Defendants, represented by Patrick F. Hulla --
patrick.hulla@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, PC & Wendy V. Miller -- wendy.miller@ogletreedeakins.com
-- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, PC.

Louisville Irish, LLC, Defendant, represented by Lauren D.
Lunsford -- llunsford@reminger.com -- Reminger Co., LPA, Matthew
T. Lockaby, Lockaby PLLC & Shea W. Conley -- sconley@reminger.com
-- Reminger Co., LPA.

Louisville Jefferson County Metropolitan Government, Defendant,
represented by Lisa A. Schweickart, Jefferson County Attorney.
Officer Christopher M. White, Defendant, represented by Kelly M.
Rowan, Sitlinger, McGlincy, Theiler & Karem & Lee E. Sitlinger,
Sitlinger, McGlincy, Theiler & Karem.


CVS PHARMACY: "Gubala" Amended Complaint Survives Dismissal Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas M. Durkin of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied CVS's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, DEREK GUBALA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CVS
PHARMACY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 14 C 9039 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Derek Gubala filed the instant putative consumer class
action lawsuit on November 11, 2014, alleging that Defendant CVS
Pharmacy, Inc. (CVS) makes false and misleading claims on the
label of its protein powder supplement "WHEY PROTEIN POWDER
NATURALLY AND ARTIFICIALLY FLAVORED DRINK MIX".

CVS filed its first motion to dismiss on January 15, 2015, R. 16,
which the Court granted without prejudice on June 16, 2015 because
Plaintiff conceded that CVS was permitted by federal law to
calculate the protein content of the Product using the nitrogen
content method. Thereafter, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint.

In the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that CVS makes false
statements regarding the Product's (1) total protein content in
grams, (2) protein daily value percentage (DV%), and (3) amino
acids under "Ingredients" on the back label. Plaintiff also
alleges that the product name "Whey Protein Powder" and
representation "26 grams of high-quality protein," appearing on
the Product's front label, are misleading. Plaintiff's claims in
the amended complaint are based on state law: Count I alleges a
claim for unfair and deceptive trade practices under the Illinois
Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCS 505/1 et seq.; Count II alleges a
claim for unjust enrichment; and Count III alleges a claim for
breach of express warranty. The amended complaint seeks
certification of a national class of all persons in the United
States who purchased the Product, as well as a subclass of
Illinois purchasers. Jurisdiction in this Court is premised on the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2)(A).

Pending before the Court is CVS's second motion to dismiss arguing
that Plaintiff's re-pled state law claims also are preempted by
the express labeling requirements of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic
Act. In addition, CVS raises various other arguments it previously
made in moving to dismiss the original complaint.

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/0SxBdPfrom Leagle.com, Judge Durkin concluded that
Plaintiff has successfully pled around the preemption problems he
encountered in the original complaint. Since the re-pled state law
claims rely on federal law and regulations without modification,
those claims are not preempted. Moreover, none of CVS's other
arguments for dismissal withstand scrutiny.

Derek Gulba is represented by Richard Lane Miller, II, Esq. --
rmiller@siprut.com -- Michael Loren Silverman, Esq. --
msilverman@siprut.com -- Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC & Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq. --
ssa@millerlawpc.com -- THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.

CVS Pharmacy is represented by Zachary J. Watters, Esq. --
zjwatters@michaelbest.com -- MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP


D.R. HORTON: Bid to Stay Azure Manor Suit Granted
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned AZURE MANOR/RANCHO DE PAZ HOMEOWNERS
ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff(s), v. D.R. HORTON, INC., Defendant(s),
Case No. 2:14-CV-2222 JCM (NJK) (D. Nev.), Judge James C. Mahan
granted D.R. Horton, Inc.'s motion to stay litigation but denied
its motion to dismiss without prejudice.

A single-family home class action suit was filed in state court
against D.R. Horton concerning construction defects in 103
residential homes within D.R. Horton's community.  The action was
removed to the District Court for the District of Nevada.

D.R. Horton filed a motion to stay litigation and a motion to
dismiss the plaintiff Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners
Association's (HOA) class action allegations.  The motion alleged
that the HOA has failed to meet the notice requirements for
construction defect claims under NRS Chapter 40 and requested that
the court stay the proceedings until the HOA has complied with the
pre-litigation requirements.  D.R. Horton also requested that the
court dismiss the class action allegations, arguing that class
actions generally do not apply to single-family home construction
defect actions due to the uniqueness of each home.

Judge Mahan held that the HOA had standing to sue and
conditionally granted class action certification.  The judge found
that there is at least some commonality of the defects in the
tested homes which provides the court a sufficient basis for
granting a conditional class certification, which may be
reevaluated later.

Judge Mahan also found it appropriate to stay the proceedings
pending compliance by the HOA of the pre-litigation requirements,
explaining that under NRS Chapter 40, construction defect actions
require notice, opportunity to inspect and cure alleged defects,
and mediation, all to be met prior to litigation.

D.R. Horton's motion to dismiss the class action allegations were
dismissed without prejudice.

A full-text copy of Judge Mahan's March 15, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/QlNMvvfrom Leagle.com.

Azure Manor/Rancho de Paz Homeowners Association, Plaintiff,
represented by Anna Mirijanian, Angius & Terry, LLP, Paul P.
Terry, Jr. -- pterry@angius-terry.com -- Angius & Terry LLP, Scott
P Kelsey -- skelsey@angius-terry.com -- Angius & Terry LLP & David
Bray -- dbray@angius-terry.com -- Angius & Terry LLP.

D.R. Horton, Inc., Defendant, represented by Joel D. Odou --
jodou@wshblaw.com -- Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP & Anthony S
Wong -- awong@wshblaw.com -- Wood, Smith, Henning & Berman.


DAEWOO SHIPBUILDING: May Face Class Action Over Earnings Report
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Korea Herald reports that Daewoo Shipbuilding & Marine
Engineering, one of the nation's top three shipbuilders, may face
a class-action lawsuit by long-term investors over its past false
earnings report, according to industry sources.

The move was detected a day after the shipbuilder restated the
past earnings on March 23, with its external audits pointing out
that the loss of 2 trillion won ($1.7 billion) in the 2015
earnings report should be dated 2013 and 2014.

"Some investors are considering legal action against the company
as the reduced loss in the past made them take investment
decisions," an industry insider said.

The company, however, denied any ulterior motive over the
correction of loss in its past earnings, saying the earnings had
to be restated it mistakenly failed to include the loss from
Norway's Songa offshore project.

"The revision came as our auditor did not reflect unexpected delay
and cancelation of orders from ship owners," a DSME's spokesman
said.

Despite the company response, market experts have raised
speculations about possible "window dressing" to improve its
financial statements.

If the error turns out to be intentional, the incident might deal
a serious blow to the already troubled shipbuilder because
according to the Korean commercial law, a company that misleads
investors by window dressing has to pay a fine of up to 10 billion
won.

Its largest shareholder Korea Development Bank is also under fire,
as it poured the public funds of around 4 trillion won into the
company for restoration after it posted a massive loss.

Despite the fuss, the stock price of DSME did not move much in the
day. Its stock edged down to 5,360 won from 5,400 won of the
previous day.


DANCING BEAR ENTERTAINMENT: Violated TCPA, "Mayer" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced against Michael Mayer,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Dancing Bear Entertainment Systems, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, d/b/a Onyx, Pony Tail, Inc., a Georgia corporation,
d/b/a Onyx, Galardi South Enterprises Consulting, Inc., a Georgia
corporation, d/b/a Onyx, and John Does 1-100, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00490-ODE (N.D. Ga. Atlanta Div., February 16, 2016),
seeks treble damages under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA).

Dancing Bear Entertainment Systems is a corporation incorporated
and existing under the laws of the State of Georgia. It owns,
operates, and/or manages the Onyx nightclub located at 1888
Cheshire Bridge Rd NE, Atlanta, GA 30324. It also sends text
messages to consumers in this district.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer Auer Jordan, Esq.
          Shamp Speed Jordan Woodward
          1718 Peachtree Street, N.W., Suite 660
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 893 9400
          Facsimile: (404) 260 4180
          E-mail: jordan@ssjwlaw.com

               - and -

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Patrick H. Peluso, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO, LLC
          999 E Mexico Ave., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com
                  ppeluso@woodrowpeluso.com

               - and -

          Stefan Coleman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEFAN COLEMAN, LLC
          201 S Biscayne Blvd., 28th Floor
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (877) 333 9427
          Facsimile: (888) 498 8946
          E-mail: Law@stefancoleman.com


DIRECTV: Ruling Shows High Ct. Continues to Protect Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------------
Louise C. Stoupe, Esq. -- lstoupe@mofo.com -- and Chihiro Tomioka,
Esq., of Morrison & Foerster LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that with its ruling on December 14, 2015, the Supreme
Court continues to protect arbitration as a means of dispute
resolution by cracking down on attempts to circumvent the Federal
Arbitration Act ("FAA").  In DIRECTV v. Imburgia, the Supreme
Court overturned the California Court of Appeal and held that
California's law against class arbitration waivers does not
invalidate arbitration clauses in agreements even if the governing
law of the agreement references the California law.  The decision
flows from the 2011 Supreme Court ruling in AT&T Mobility LLC v.
Concepcion that the FAA preempts California's protective laws
against class arbitration waivers. 563 U.S. 333 (2011).

The decision sends the important message that the Supreme Court
will not allow states to limit the scope of the FAA and will
generally uphold the terms of an arbitration agreement, even if
the arbitration agreement is between a large corporation and
customer.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Amy Imburgia filed a class action lawsuit in 2008 against DIRECTV
in Los Angeles County Superior Court after the company charged her
a series of termination fees.  The DIRECTV Customer Agreement
stated that it was governed by the FAA and included two clauses:
1) any legal claim would be resolved "only by binding arbitration"
and 2) a class arbitration waiver.  The class arbitration waiver
notably included a non-severability clause, which stated that the
entire section of the agreement discussing arbitration would be
invalidated if the class arbitration waiver was unenforceable in
the "law of your state."  This meant that, as a practical matter,
DIRECTV intended to arbitrate only if the customers agreed not to
join together to form a class arbitration.

The "law of [Ms. Imburgia's] state" was California. At the time of
the original lawsuit, California had a rule banning class
arbitration waivers based on the California Supreme Court ruling
in Discover Bank v. Superior Court. 36 Cal. 4th 148 (Cal. 2005).
Plaintiffs therefore argued that the entire arbitration clause was
invalidated under the law of Ms. Imburgia's state.  On
April 20, 2011, the Superior Court agreed and granted Plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.

SUPREME COURT HELD IN CONCEPCION THAT THE FAA PREEMPTS STATE LAWS
INVALIDATING CLASS ARBITRATION WAIVERS

On April 27, 2011, a few days after class certification was
granted, the Supreme Court overturned Discover Bank and held that
the FAA preempts California's rule invalidating class arbitration
waivers. AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011).
DIRECTV quickly moved to compel arbitration.  The California
court, however, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and denied
DIRECTV's motion to arbitrate the case, despite the recent U.S.
Supreme Court decision in Concepcion.  The California Court of
Appeal affirmed, ruling that parties to a contract could freely
choose California law as the governing law and that the Supreme
Court's decision in Concepcion did not affect that choice.

SUPREME COURT RULES THAT "LAW OF YOUR STATE" IS NOT AMBIGUOUS

In denying DIRECTV's motion to compel arbitration based on the
Supreme Court ruling in Concepcion, the Court of Appeal had
reasoned that "law of your state" was an ambiguous provision that
should be construed against the drafter.  This allowed the court
to interpret the agreement under California law with the ban
against class arbitration waivers unhindered by Concepcion.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagreed and ruled that the "law of your
state" is "not ambiguous and takes its ordinary meaning: valid
state law."  Valid state law following Concepcion would mean
permitting class arbitration waivers. According to the Supreme
Court, although parties to a contract have the freedom to choose a
governing law, there was nothing in the DIRECTV agreement that
suggested that it should be governed by an old law that had been
ruled invalid by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.

Justice Ginsburg, in a dissent joined by Justice Sotomayor, argued
that Concepcion did not invalidate Discover Bank protections. She
interpreted "law of your state" to mean California law free of the
FAA.  She also observed that the increase in pro-arbitration
rulings "have predictably resulted in the deprivation of
consumers' rights to seek redress for losses, and, turning the
coin, they have insulated powerful economic interests from
liability for violations of consumer protection laws."

CONCLUSION

The recent ruling falls within the Supreme Court's trend of
striking down restrictions on the use of arbitration. See also Am.
Express Co. v. Italian Colors Rest., 133 S. Ct. 2304 (2013)
(holding that a class arbitration waiver cannot be invalidated
when the cost of individual arbitration exceeds the potential
recovery).  It remains to be seen whether the trend will continue
when the Supreme Court examines whether the FAA preempts
California's arbitration-only severability rule, which allows
courts to nullify an arbitration clause in lieu of severing its
unconscionable provisions. Zaborowski v. MHN Gov't Servs., Inc.,
601 F. Appx. 461 (9th Cir. 2014), cert. granted, 136 S. Ct. 27
(2015).


EHEALTH INC: "West" Securities Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Judge James Donato dismissed with leave to amend the case
captioned JEFFREY WEST, Plaintiff, v. EHEALTH, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00360-JD (N.D. Cal.) for failure to
properly plead falsity and scienter.

A class action was brought by Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement
System on behalf of all persons who purchased or otherwise
acquired the publicly traded common stock of eHealth, Inc. between
May 1, 2014 and January 14, 2015.  Oklahoma Police alleged that
the defendants eHealth, its Chairman and CEO, Gary L. Lauer, and
Senior Vice President and CFO, Stuart M. Huizinga made false and
misleading public statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rule 10b-5.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state
a claim under the pleading standards of the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (PSLRA).

Plaintiffs' complaint rested on the defendants' alleged
misrepresentations about three metrics for the company's revenue
generation: churn, conversion, and membership and financial
guidance.  Judge Donato, however, fuond that, as currently
alleged, none of the challenged statements are actionably false.

Judge Donato also found that the complaint failed to adequately
plead scienter under the PSLRA because nothing in the facts pled
by the plaintiffs renders the inference of knowing deception "at
least as compelling as" the competing, innocent explanation for
the same facts.

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

Jeffrey West, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Seth Melamed --
mmelamed@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP &
Laurence M. Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A..

eHealth, inc., Gary L Lauer, Stuart M Huizinga, Defendants,
represented by Jerome F. Birn, Jr. -- jbirn@wsgr.com -- Wilson
Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, Molly Allison Arico -- marico@wsgr.com
-- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati & Kelley Moohr Kinney --
kkinney@wsgr.com -- Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Laborers' Local #231 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by Shawn A.
Williams -- shawnw@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP
& Matthew Seth Melamed, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

Oklahoma Police Pension & Retirement System, Movant, represented
by Brian O. O'Mara -- bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Dennis J. Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Matthew Seth Melamed, Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP.


ENERGY RECOVERY: Case Management Conference Reset for July 28
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted the motion to
reschedule the case management conference for July 28, 2016 in the
case captioned, IN RE ENERGY RECOVERY INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 3:15-CV-00265-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed a putative class action brought under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934. On October 9, 2015, Lead
Plaintiff Henry Low filed the Amended Class Action Consolidated
Complaint for Violation of the Federal Securities Laws.

Defendants Energy Recovery, Inc., Thomas Rooney, and Audrey Bold
filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint on November 9, 2015 which
was granted in part with leave to amend.

Plaintiff anticipates filing an amended complaint, which is
currently due on or before May 29, 2016 pursuant to the Court's
Order dated February 11, 2016. Plaintiff is currently seeking to
intervene in the related action styled Barnes v. Energy Recovery,
Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-00477-EMC (the "Barnes Action"), and
oppose Energy Recovery, Inc.'s, Motion for Order Directing
Plaintiff and Plaintiff's Counsel to Return Defendant Energy
Recovery, Inc.'s Documents.

In the motion, the parties submit that it would be premature to
set a case schedule or develop a discovery plan at the stage of
the proceedings and request that the Court continue the Case
Management Conference to take place only after challenges to the
pleadings are resolved.

In his Stipulation and Order dated March 11, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/dBdpjKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Chen has taken off the
currently set Case Management Conference for March 17, 2016, at
9:30 a.m. and will be rescheduled by the Court following the
resolution of challenges to the pleadings and is reset for July
28, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of the Memorandum and
Order to file an amended complaint that sets forth the basis for
the court's subject matter jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas Ian Porritt, Esq. --
nporritt@zlk.com -- Adam Marc Apton, Esq. -- aapton@zlk.com --
LEVI KORSINSKY, LLP & Mark Punzalan, Esq. -- mark@punzalanlaw.com
-- PUNZALAN LAW, P.C.

Energy Recovery, Inc. is represented by David Malcolm Furbush,
Esq. -- david.furbush@pillsburylaw.com -- James M. Lindfelt, Esq.
-- james.lindfelt@pillsburylaw.com -- PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW
PITTMAN LLP


EVERBANK: July 7 Fairness Hearing on $750,000 Class Action Deal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco approved a $750,000 class
action settlement over accusations that EverBank broke the law by
closing CDs without members' consent, pending a final fairness
hearing this summer.

Lead plaintiff Ek Vathana sued EverBank in 2009, representing
customers who held EverBank WorldCurrency certificates of deposit,
or CDs, denominated in Icelandic krona.  The lawsuit alleges
breach of contract against EverBank for closing the CDs without
class members' consent and for using a low conversion rate to U.S.
dollars.  Vathana claims that the terms controlling the CDs
required EverBank to renew them automatically, and that the bank
violated the Truth in Savings Act by not notifying customers of
the change in status. He also alleges there was no specified
conversion rate for when the CDs were closed.

A judge from the Northern California Federal Court granted
EverBank's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case in
2012.

Vathana appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which ruled in 2014 that
EverBank did not breach the terms controlling the accounts when
the bank closed the CDs. But the San Francisco-based appeals court
also found that an issue of material fact existed regarding the
conversion rate EverBank utilized when the CDs were closed.

"EverBank may have breached its agreement with the class members
by returning the value of their WorldCurrency CDs using a currency
conversion rate within 1 percent of the wholesale spot price,"
Judge Mary Murguia wrote for a three-judge panel.

The Ninth Circuit remanded the case, but both parties ultimately
inked out a $750,000 settlement.

"The court preliminarily finds that the proposed settlement should
be approved as: (i) the result of serious, extensive arm's-length
and non-collusive negotiations; (ii) falling within the range of
reasonableness warranting final approval; (iii) having no obvious
deficiencies; (iv) not improperly granting preferential treatment
to the lead plaintiff or segments of the class; and (v) warranting
notice of the proposed settlement to class members and further
consideration of the settlement at the fairness hearing," U.S.
District Judge Richard Seeborg wrote in a 7-page order filed March
18.

Under the proposed settlement, attorneys for the class are asking
for up to $250,000 in fees and another $40,000 in expenses. The
settlement agreement also asks for a $12,500 incentive award for
Vathana, as lead plaintiff.

That leaves $441,500 for the overall settlement fund. Class
members would receive differing amounts of money based on their
proportional loss upon conversion, according to the proposal.

"Pursuant to lead plaintiff's calculations, the class as a whole
had approximately $3,206,185.45 in losses in the form of
'conversion losses,'" the proposed settlement states. "This figure
is the sum of all conversion losses . . . for every CD that
matured during the 13 week period between Oct. 8 and Dec. 31,
2008. The dollar amount of the settlement fund given to a class
member for a particular CD will be the conversion loss, divided by
$3,206,185.45, multiplied by the net settlement fund."

Under the formula, for example, Vathana, whom EverBank paid
$2,958.03 to when his WorldCurrency Icelandic krona CD matured on
Oct. 22, 2008, would receive $471.96 of the $441,500 settlement
amount.

Seeborg scheduled a final fairness hearing for July 7 in San
Francisco.

The case captioned, EK VATHANA, Plaintiff, v. EVERBANK, et al.,
Defendants., Case No. 09-cv-02338-RS


EXPEDITORS AND PRODUCTION: Violated FLSA, "Sandras" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Trevor Sandras on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Expeditors and Production
Services Company, the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00239 (W.D. La.,
Lafayette Div. February 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and other damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant is a company that provides logistic and staffing
services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert B. Landry III, Esq.
          ROBERT B. LANDRY III PLC
          5420 Corporate Boulevard, Suite 204
          Baton Rouge, LA 70808
          Telephone: (225) 349 7460
          Facsimile: (225) 349 7466
          E-mail: rlandry@landryfirm.com


FIFTH THIRD: Settles Retirement Plan Class Action for $6 Million
----------------------------------------------------------------
Steve Watkins, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier, reports
that Fifth Third Bancorp has agreed to pay $6 million to settle a
class-action lawsuit filed by employees regarding the company
retirement plan.

Fifth Third, Cincinnati's largest locally based bank and the
nation's 12th-largest, settled the case in federal court in
Cincinnati.  In addition to paying $6 million to affected
employees, Fifth Third also agreed to freeze its stock fund and
prevent new participants in its profit-sharing plan from investing
in Fifth Third's stock, according to court documents.

It also will continue to match employee contributions with cash
instead of Fifth Third stock, as it has been doing.  The bank
previously had matched contributions with Fifth Third stock.

Fifth Third also agreed to annually tell plan participants who
have more than 20 percent of their account invested in Fifth Third
stock about the benefits of diversifying their investments.
"We are pleased to have brought this matter to a close," Fifth
Third spokesman Larry Magnesen said.

Employees argued in the 2008 lawsuit that they suffered steep
losses in their retirement accounts because the plan included
Fifth Third stock as an investment option.  The stock lost three-
fourths of its value between July 2007 and September 2009. That
caused employees to lose tens of millions of dollars.  At one
point, its losses were even worse. The stock had plummeted from
$39 in July 2007 to as low as $1.01 in March 2009.

Employees argued in the case that Fifth Third executives knew the
bank had shifted to much riskier loans than in the past but
continued to include the company's stock as an investment option
as the financial crisis began.  Employees claimed Fifth Third
executives breached their responsibilities by including the stock
in the profit-sharing plan.


FLINT, MI: Faces "McIntosh" Suit Over Lead Poisoning
----------------------------------------------------
Angela McIntosh, on behalf of herself, as next friend of three
minor children, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. State Of Michigan, Richard Snyder (individually and
in his official capacity as Governor of Michigan), State of
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality, State of Michigan
Department of Health And Human Services, City of Flint (a Michigan
Municipal Corporation), Veolia North America, LLC (a Delaware
Corporation), Lockwood, Andrews, and Newnam, Inc. (a Texas
Corporation) Darnell Earley (individually, and in his official
capacity as Emergency Manager), Gerald Ambrose (individually, and
in his official capacity as Emergency Manager), Daniel Wyant
(individually and in his official capacity as Director of MDEQ),
Liane Shekter Smith (individually and in her official capacity as
Chief of the Office of Drinking Water and Municipal Assistance for
MDEQ ), Stephen Busch (individually and in his capacity as
District Supervisor for MDEQ), Patrick Cook (individually and in
his capacity as Water Treatment Specialist for MDEQ), Michael
Prysby (individually and in his capacity as an Engineer for MDEQ),
Bradley Wurfel (individually and in his capacity as Director of
Communications for MDEQ), Eden Wells (individually and in her
capacity as Chief Medical Executive for MDHHS), Nick Lyon,
(individually and in his capacity as Director of MDHHS), Nancy
Peeler (individually and in her official capacity as an employee
of the MDHHS), Robert Scott (individually and in his capacity as
an employee of MDHHS), Howard Croft (individually and in his
capacity as Flint's Director of Public Works), and Michael Glasgow
(individually and in his capacity as an employee of the City of
Flint), the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-10571-DML-EAS (E.D.
Mich., February 16, 2016), seeks relief due to alleged poisoning
of Flint's residents with lead from Flint's pipes and service
lines when the State of Michigan switched Flint's water supply to
the Flint River without the use of any corrosion control.

The Defendants created and maintained this condition when the
state completely subsumed the authority of the local government,
and also through the actions of the state's regulatory and
administrative entities and employees.

Michigan is a state located in the Great Lakes and midwestern
regions of the United States. The name Michigan is the French form
of the Ojibwa word mishigamaa, meaning "large water" or "large
lake". Michigan is the tenth most populous of the 50 United
States, with the 11th most extensive total area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven D. Liddle, Esq.
          Nicholas A. Coulson, Esq.
          LIDDLE & DUBIN, P.C.
          975 E. Jefferson Avenue
          Detroit, MI 48207
          Telephone: (313) 392 0025
          E-mail: sliddle@ldclassaction.com
                  ncoulson@ldclassaction.com

               - and -

          Ven R. Johnson, Esq.
          Jeffrey A. Danzig, Esq.
          Johnson Law, PLC
          535 Griswold Street, Suite 2632
          Detroit, MI 48226
          Telephone: (313) 324 8300


FOSTER FARMS: Whelan Law Group Cannot Represent Nevarez
-------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOSE M. NEVAREZ, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
FOSTER FARMS, et al., Defendants and Respondents, No. F070316
(Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California, Fifth
District, affirmed an order disqualifying Jose Nevarez's legal
counsel, the Whelan Law Group, from representing him in a wage and
hour lawsuit filed against Foster Farms, LLC and Foster Poultry
Farms, Inc.

On August 22, 2013, Whelan filed, on Nevarez's behalf, a putative
class action complaint against Foster Farms alleging causes of
action under the Labor Code and Business and Professions Code
section 17200 et seq. for failure to pay wages, failure to provide
an accurate accounting of earned wages, and unfair competition.
Whelan retained David Lowe as a consultant whom they would pay for
"tactical advice in the case."

Upon discovering that Whelan was consulting with Lowe, Foster
Farms moved to disqualify Whelan, on the ground that Lowe had
recently mediated an employment case between Foster Farms and a
different group of plaintiffs.  The trial court found the
mediator's conflicts of interest were imputed to Whelan, and
concluded that disqualification was mandatory because Neverez's
lawsuit was "substantially similar" to the prior action against
Foster Farms in which Lowe had participated as mediator.

The Court of Appeals of California concluded that the trial court
appropriately resolved the issue of vicarious disqualification
within the framework of controlling case law.  The appellate court
explained that the rules governing attorney disqualification in
traditional attorney/client relationships apply with equal force
to situations where an attorney has formed a confidental
relationship with a litigant while acting as a neutral mediator.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 15,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/HLUPlWfrom Leagle.com.

Whelan Law Group, Walter W. Whelan, Brian D. Whelan and Lucas C.
Whelanfor Plaintiff and Appellant.

Seyfarth Shaw, James M. Harris -- jmharris@seyfarth.com -- James
D. McNairy -- jmcnairy@seyfarth.com -- Wanger, Jones, Helsley and
Oliver W. Wanger -- owanger@wjhattorneys.com -- for Defendants and
Respondents.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Court to Hold Evidentiary Hearing in Wages Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, WILLIAM EAGLE, Plaintiff, v. FREEPORT-
MCMORAN, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-0577 MV/SMV (D.N.M.),
Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint on September 16,
2015, asserting claims for unpaid wages, as a collective action
under the Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"), or as a class action
under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23, or both. On November 13, 2015, Plaintiff
filed an emergency motion that laid out his concerns about
severance packages that Defendant was offering to some of its
employees, at least one of whom had already agreed to join the
lawsuit.

At the hearing on March 10, 2016, in the United States District
Court for the District of New Mexico, Plaintiff testified that he
had heard from a third party that, contrary to the assertions in
the form to the effect that acceptance of the back pay would not
release any legal claims the employee may have against Defendant,
some employees were told that if they accepted the paycheck, "that
would be it," suggesting that such acceptance would preclude them
from receiving any compensation for unpaid work via this FLSA
action. It is not clear whether these statements were alleged to
have been made to opt-in Plaintiffs or to persons who are not
parties to this lawsuit.

Plaintiff requests that the Court "enjoin Defendant from
submitting any communications regarding settlement of putative
claims for op-out or opt-in members until the classes have been
defined and dealt with." In essence, Plaintiff wants the Court to
order Defendant to cease all communications regarding unpaid wages
with any employee or former employee regardless of whether he is
an opt-in Plaintiffs or not.

In his Order dated March 15, 2016 available at http://is.gd/a42Fw3
from Leagle.com, Magistrate Judge Stephan M. Vidmar granted
Plaintiff's pending motions to the extent that they request an
evidentiary hearing.  Judge Vidmar found that the Plaintiff has
failed to show that Defendant's communications with its employees
were misleading, coercive, abusive, or otherwise improper and to
establish that he is entitled to any relief at the time.

William Eagle is represented by:

     James P. Lyle, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JAMES P. LYLE P.C.
     1116, 2nd NW
     Albuquerque,NM

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc. is represented by George R. McFall, Esq.
-- george.mcfamm@modrall.com -- Jennifer L. Bradfute, Esq. --
jennifer.bradfute@modrall.com -- MODRALL SPERLING ROEHL HARRIS &
SISK PA


FRESHOLOGY INC: Recalls Chicken Salad Products Due to Misbranding
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Freshology, Inc., a Burbank, Calif. establishment, is recalling
approximately 111 pounds of ready-to-eat chicken salad products
due to misbranding and an undeclared allergen, the U.S. Department
of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS)
announced today. The ranch salad dressing included with the
product contains egg, a known allergen, which is not declared on
the finished product label.

The Southwest chicken salad items were produced on March 18, 2016.
The following products are subject to recall:

12 oz. plastic tray packages containing ready-to-eat "Freshology
Southwest Chicken Salad" with an "EAT BY" date of 03/25/2016.
The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-51168"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
food service locations in California.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection personnel while
conducting a routine food safety assessment at the establishment.
FSIS personnel discovered the establishment failed to sub-list the
ingredients of the included ranch dressing on the finished product
label.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact Dan
Briganti, Director of Operations, at (310) 721-5211. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Raffi Asadourian, Culinary
Director, at (818) 813-1576.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


FULTON COUNTY, GA: Violated FLSA, "Cunningham" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Cunningham, Adriana Christopher, Cassandra Crawford, Dwayne
Bowie, Shirley Hall, Avis Ryan, Dante Pounds, Tawona Lowery, Scott
Reese, Terri Harris, Faith Hampton, Wardell Jennings, Karland
Stokes, Lura Baxter, Christopher Ryles, Sandra Baylock, Zelena
Brown, Sasha Harris, Calvin Scofield, Eric Mckinnon, Clarence
Underwood, Brandon Robertson, Alden Waters, Montrice Johnson, Amy
Morgan, Daniel Bell, Tinakorn Nalampoon, Gwendale Strozier, Tammy
Payton, Gail Goggins-Holder, Troy Wilson, Areial Simmons, Marc E.
Scotton Sr., Maurice Love, Emmit C. Stringer, Darcy Patterson,
Rosa Truitt, Annette Gilbert, Savoya B. Lemon, Jimmy Parr, Frank
Stradford, Dominic Anah, Michael Mitchell, Veronica Kelley-Austin,
Carter Berysce, Wanaada Murray, Maurice Arnold, Avis Lofton, Billy
Lowry, Kenneth Oliver, Barron Ross, Michael Pritchett, Dexter
Mabry, Shicana Brown, Shecobia Mccoy, Ector Walker, Troy Coston,
Temika Tillman, Hector Caballero, Chelanda Harper, Frank Jones
III, Raymond Baulding, Evelyn Davis, Steve Betts, Johanne
Francois, Tiece West, Yowanda Culler, Taylor Nayman, Twantta
Clerk-Jennings, Kenneth Shropshire, Norman Gipson, Jacqueline
Underwood, Pearlie Young, Leatra Dennard, Lashondra Childs, Angela
Mccoy, Sonji Blount, Ruby Smith, Tricia Foster, et. al., the
Plaintiffs, v. Fulton County, Georgia, John H. Eaves, in his
official capacity as a Fulton County Commissioner, Liz Hausmann,
in her official capacity as a Fulton County Commissioner, Bob
Ellis, in his official capacity as a Fulton County Commissioner,
Lee Morris, in his official capacity as a Fulton County
Commissioner, Joan P. Garner, in her official capacity as a Fulton
County Commissioner, Marvin S. Arrington Jr. in his official
capacity as a Fulton County Commissioner, and Emma I. Darnell in
her official capacity as a Fulton County Commissioner and Theodore
Jackson in his official capacity as Sheriff of Fulton County, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00533-RWS (N.D. Ga., February 19,
2016), seeks to recover overtime, vacation and holiday pay,
accumulated overtime, vacation and compensatory time, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Fulton County is a county located in the Piedmont section of the
U.S. state of Georgia. As of 2011 estimates, the population was
1,074,611. Its county seat is Atlanta, the state capital since
1868. Ninety percent of the City of Atlanta is within Fulton
County (the other 10% lies within DeKalb County). Fulton County is
the principal county of the Atlanta metropolitan area.
Fulton County is included in the Atlanta-Sandy Springs-Roswell, GA
Metropolitan Statistical Area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clifford H. Hardwick, Esq.
          OFFICE OF CLIFFORD H. HARDWICK
          Roswell Professional Park
          Suite One, Building 1
          1205 Alpharetta Highway
          Roswell, GA 30076
          Telephone: (770) 772 4700
          Facsimile: (770) 772 4488
          E-mail: chh@bellsouth.net


GERBER PRODUCTS: Recalls Organic Pouch Products Due to Spoilage
---------------------------------------------------------------
Gerber Products Company is voluntarily recalling specific Organic
pouch products after identifying a packaging defect that may
result in product spoilage during transport and handling. Because
of our commitment to high quality, Gerber is working to retrieve
from retailers and online stores the remaining pouches from the
four affected batches of GERBER(R) Organic 2ND FOOD pouches that
fail to meet our quality standards. We are offering replacement
coupons for consumers who purchased the following products:

  --- GERBER(R) Organic 2ND FOODS(R) Pouches -Pears, Carrots &
      Peas, 3.5 ounce pouch UPC 15000074319

  Best By dates/batch codes
  -------------------------
  12JUL2016 51945335XX
  13JUL 2016 51955335XX

  --- GERBER(R) Organic 2ND FOODS(R) Pouches- Carrots, Apples and
      Mangoes, 3.5 ounce pouch UPC 15000074395

  Best By dates/batch codes
  -------------------------
  13JUL2016 51955335XX
  14JUL2016 51965335XX

This recall does not impact any other Gerber pouches, other Gerber
products or products outside of the US.

Consumers may notice that, in some cases, the pouches are bloated
and product inside may have an off taste or odor. There have been
three consumer reports of temporary gastrointestinal symptoms,
however, we have been unable to confirm that these are related to
the product. Consumers should not use the product, since it does
not meet our high quality standards.

The products were distributed at U.S. retailers nationwide and
through on-line stores. Consumers who purchased pouches with the
above UPCs, batch codes and expiration dates are encouraged to
contact the Gerber Parents Resource Center at 1-800-706-0556
anytime day or night for a replacement coupon.

At Gerber, we place the health and well-being of babies above all
else, and we hold our foods to high standards of quality. Gerber
remains committed to providing high quality products and helping
families nourish healthy children. Parents with additional
questions are encouraged to contact our Parents Resource Center at
the phone number mentioned above.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/dpRc5t


GILETTE COMPANY: "Punian" Suit Over Duracell Batteries Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned RENEE PUNIAN, Plaintiff, v. THE GILLETTE COMPANY
and THE PROCTER & GAMBLE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
05028-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Renee Punian brought a putative class action against The Gillette
Company and The Procter & Gamble Company for alleged deceptive
advertising for Duracell Coppertop AA and AAA batteries.  Punian
alleged violations of California's False Advertising Law (FAL),
California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), and the
fraudulent, unlawful, and unfair prongs of California's Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).  Punian also asserted causes of action for
unjust enrichment and breach of implied warranty of fitness for a
particular purpose.

On September 28, 2015, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint and a corresponding request for
judicial notice of photographs of the front and back packaging of
12 different packages of Duralock Batteries.

Judge Koh found that the photographs reflecting Duralock
Batteries' packaging are incorporated in the second amended
complaint and granted the defendants' unopposed request for
judicial notice.

Judge Koh held that Punian failed to state any claims for
affirmative misrepresentation under the FAL, the CLRA, or the
fraudulent prong of the UCL.  The judge found that the defendants'
statement that Duralock Batteries are "GUARANTEED for 10 YEARS in
storage" is an express warranty and is not "likely to deceive" a
reasonable consumer into believing that Duralock Batteries have no
potential to leak for 10 years in storage.  Judge Koh also found
that the defendants' representations that consumers "will always
have access to power" and can "trust" Duralock Batteries are
nonactionable puffery.

Judge Koh also held that Punian failed to state a claim for
nondisclosure under the FAL, the CLRA, or the fraudulent prong of
the UCL.  Judge Koh concluded that Punian failed to plead that the
defendants had a duty to disclose based on the active concealment
of a material fact, because Punian's allegations are insufficient
to plausibly allege that Duralock Batteries' potential to leak is
a material defect.  Judge Koh also found that Punian failed to
allege active concealment because Punian offered no "affirmative
acts on the part of the defendants in hiding, concealing or
covering up" the potential for leakage.

Judge Koh also found that Punian failed to plausibly allege
violations of the unlawful and unfair prongs of the UCL, because
Punian did not plausibly allege any statutory violations of the
FAL and CLRA or a "substantial" consumer injury.

Judge Koh also concluded that Punian's claim for unjust enrichment
fails because Punian's underlying causes of action under the FAL,
the CLRA, and the UCL were dismissed with prejudice.

Lastly, Judge Koh found that Punian failed to state a claim for
breach of an implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose
because Punian failed to allege a particular purpose for her use
of Duralock Batteries.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's March 15, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/flURmgfrom Leagle.com.

Renee Punian, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Clisby, Barrett
J. Clisby, PLLC, Charles F. Barrett, Neal & Harwell, PLC, Charles
J. LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca,
LLP, Dewitt Marshall Lovelace, Sr., Lovelace Law Firm, P.A., pro
hac vice, Richard Barrett -- rrb@rrblawfirm.net -- Law Offices of
Richard R. Barrett, PLLC,Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com --
Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP & Ben F. Pierce Gore, Pratt &
Associates.

The Gillette Company, The Procter & Gamble Company, Defendants,
represented by Craig Ellsworth Stewart, Jones Day & Darren Keith
Cottriel, Jones Day.


GODADDY INCORPORATED: Faces "Schellenbach" Suit in Dist. Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Godaddy
Incorporated.

The case is captioned Mark Schellenbach and William Ryderon behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated v. Godaddy
Incorporated, Case No. 2:16-cv-00746-DGC (D. Ariz., March 18,
2016).

Godaddy Incorporated owns and operates a web hosting services
company in Arizona.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher D. Jennings, Esq.
      JOHNSON VINES PLLC
      2226 Cottondale Lane, Ste. 210
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 372-1300
      Facsimile: (888) 505-0909

         - and -

      David G. Scott, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      1301 Scott St.
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 907-2555
      Facsimile: (501) 907-2556

         - and -

      John G. Emerson, Esq.
      EMERSON SCOTT LLP
      830 Apollo Lane
      Houston, TX 77058
      Telephone: (281) 488-8854
      Facsimile: (281) 488-8867

         - and -

      Kathryn Ann Honecker, Esq.
      ROSE LAW GROUP PC
      7144 E Stetson Dr., Ste. 300
      Scottsdale, AZ 85251
      Telephone: (480) 505-3936
      Facsimile: (480) 505-3925
      E-mail: khonecker@roselawgroup.com

         - and -

      Samuel M. Ward, Esq.
      Stephen Richard Basser, Esq.
      BARRACK RODOS & BACINE
      1 American Plaza
      600 W Broadway., Ste. 900
      San Diego, CA 92119
      Telephone: (619) 230-0800
      Facsimile: (619) 230-1874
      E-mail: sward@barrack.com
              sbasser@barrack.com


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Court Won't Certify Class in "Gustafson"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James A. Teilborg denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned James Gustafson, Plaintiff, v.
Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, et al., Defendants, No. CV-13-
08274-PCT-JAT (D. Ariz.).  The judge also denied as moot the
defendants' motions to exclude and strike portions of Paul J.
Sikorsky's declaration and supplemental declaration.

James Gustafson, a resident of Arizona, brought a lawsuit on
behalf of himself and similarly situated consumers located in
Arizona for breach of express warranty, alleging that Goodman
Manufacturing Company, L.P. and Goodman Global, Inc.
(collectively, "Goodman") knowingly manufactured and sold
airconditioning systems with inherently defective evaporator coils
and did not disclose the defect to purchasers.

Gustafson filed a motion to certify class.  Goodman filed its
opposition and a motion to exclude the declaration of Paul J.
Sikorsky, Gustafson's expert.  Gustafson field a supplemental
declaration of Sikorsky providing further support for class
certification, which Goodman moved to strike as untimely.

Judge Teilborg denied Gustafson's motion for class certification
for five reasons: (1) the class definition is overbroad, (2)
Gustafson is not a member of the proposed class, (3) Gustafson is
not typical of members of the proposed class, (4) individual
inquiries regarding causation and damages predominate over common
questions, and (5) injunctive relief is inappropriate.

Judge Teilborg also denied Goodman's motions to exclude and strike
portions of Sikorsky's declaration and supplemental declaration as
moot because even if they were to be considered in full, the
outcome of the case would not change.

A full-text copy of Judge Teilborg's March 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/xSXSs8from Leagle.com.

James Gustafson, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Marie Wilkins,
Wilkins Law Firm PLLC, Jon A Tostrud -- jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com --
Tostrud Law Group PC, Marc L Godino -- mgodino@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Binkow & Goldberg LLP & Raymond B Walton --
rwalton@beecherlaw.com.

Goodman Manufacturing Company LP, Goodman Global Incorporated,
Defendants, represented by Christopher M McLaughlin --
cmmclaughlin@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Jennifer L Del Medico,
Jones Day, Louis A Chaiten -- lachaiten@jonesday.com -- Jones Day,
Sharyl A Reisman -- sareisman@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Sheila K
Carmody -- scarmody@swlaw.com -- Snell & Wilmer LLP, Theodore M
Grossman -- tgrossman@jonesday.com -- Jones Day & Richard J
Bedell, Jr. -- rjbedell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.


GOPRO INC: Violated Securities Act, Majesty Palms Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Majesty Palms, LLLP individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. GoPro, Inc., Nicholas
Woodman, and Jack Lazar, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00845-CW
(N.D. Cal., February 19, 2016), seeks damages as a result of
alleged federal securities law violations and false and/or
misleading statements and/or material omissions by the Defendants.

GoPro develops and manufactures wearable and gear mountable
cameras along with related accessories. The Company's products are
designed for use in activities ranging from action sports to
professional videography. GoPro also offers mobile applications
and software to enable users to edit, manage, and share their
photo and video files.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrice L. Bishop
          STULL, STULL & BRODY
          9430 West Olympic Boulevard, Suite 400
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 209 2468
          E-mail: service@ssbla.com


GUCCI AMERICA: Class Action Deal in "Manner" Suit Has Initial Okay
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant granted the joint motion for preliminary
approval of the class action settlement in the case captioned
JESSICA MANNER, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. GUCCI AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No.
15-cv-00045-BAS(WVG) (S.D. Cal.).

On December 8, 2014, Jessica Manner commenced a class action in
San Diego Superior Court, alleging that Gucci America, Inc.
requested and recorded personal identification information from
Manner and putative class members in conjunction with credit card
purchase transactions in violation of the Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, California Civil Code section 1747.08.  Gucci thereafter
removed the action to federal court.

The parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement and
filed a joint motion for preliminary approval of their class
action settlement.  The proposed settlement provides for automatic
receipt of a voucher by all class members, which may also be
transferred to family members, providing them with either free
merchandise valued between $40 and $120, or a discount up to
$1,500 on a purchase up to $10,000.

With respect to the proposed class, Judge Bashant found that the
prerequisites for a class action under Rules 23(a) and (b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure have been met.

Judge Bashant also found the proposed class-action settlement to
be "fair, reasonable, and adequate" pursuant to Rule 23(e)(2) and
that it appears to be "the product of serious, informed, non-
collusive negotiations, has no obvious deficiences, does not
improperly grant preferential treatment to class representatives
or segments of the class, and falls within the range of possible
approval."  Lastly, Judge Bashant found that the methods and
contents of the proposed class notices comply with due process and
Rule 23, are the best notice practicable under the circumstances,
and shall constitute due and sufficient notice to all persons
entitled thereto.

A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's March 16, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/We14ngfrom Leagle.com.

Jessica Manner, Plaintiff, represented by Paula R. Brown, Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, Sarah Ruth Boot, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon
LLP, Thomas Joseph O'Reardon, II -- toreardon@bholaw.com -- Blood
Hurst & O'Reardon LLP & Timothy Gordon Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com
-- Blood Hurst & O'Reardon LLP.

Gucci America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Stephanie Sheridan
-- stephanie.sheridan@sedgwicklaw.com -- Sedgwick LLP.


GW UTILITY: Violated FLSA, "Medina" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------
Hortencio Medina on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. GW Utility Construction Co., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00481-D (N.D. Tex., Dallas Div.,
February 19, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid overtime
compensation, liquated damages, reasonable attorney's fees, costs,
and litigation expenses, including expert witness fees, pre- and
post-judgment interest at highest rate allowed by law, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

GW Utility Construction Company is a small water sewer & utility
lines construction company in Oklahoma City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Greg S. Gober, Esq.
          BLAIES & HIGHTOWER, L.L.P.
          421 W. 3rd Street, Suite 900
          Fort Worth, TX 76102
          Telephone: (817) 334 0800
          Facsimile: (817) 334 0574
          E-mail: greggober@bhilaw.com


HAFEEZ ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Ramos" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Ramos, individually and all other similarly situated persons,
known and unknown v. Hafeez Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a Three Amigas
II, and Aurangezeb Hafeez, Case No. 1:16-cv-03456 (N.D. Ill.,
March 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 hours in a week.

The Defendants own and operate a grocery store in Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan J. Best, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Telephone: (312) 878-1263
      E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


HANCOCK COUNTY, OH: "Nelson" Suit v. Sheriff Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick dismissed the case captioned Randall
Nelson, Plaintiff, v. Michael Heldman, Defendant, Case No. 3:14-
cv-01264 (N.D. Ohio), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(e).

Randall Nelson, a pretrial detainee in the Hancock County Jail
from July 7, 2013 until December 8, 2013, sued Hancock County
Sheriff Michael Heldman asserting claims for denial of his First
Amendment right to receive newspapers and periodicals and his
First Amendment right of access to the courts.  Nelson argued that
all of the prisoners at the Hancock County Jail are subject to
these conditions and requested class action certification and
injunctive relief.

Judge Helmick held that Nelson cannot file a class action because
he has not satisfied the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4),
that "the representative parties will fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the class."  Nelson is a pro se litigant
incarcerated in a state correctional institution.  Judge Helmick
explained that a litigant may bring his own claims to federal
court without counsel, but not the claims of others.

Judge Helmick also held that because Nelson was transferred from
the Hancock County Jail on December 8, 2013, his claim for
injunctive relief has become moot as he was no longer confined at
the prison where his claims allegedly arose.

A full-text copy of Judge Helmick's March 14, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/jDXo0Tfrom
Leagle.com.


HENRY SCHEIN: Faces "Marcus" Suit Over Communications Act Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Henry Schein Practice Solutions Inc.
d/b/a Easy Dental, Case No. 3:16-cv-01516-AET-DEA (D.N.J., March
18, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Communications Act.

Henry Schein Practice Solutions Inc. is a provider of health care
products and services to office-based dental, medical and animal
health practitioners.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


HONEST COMPANY: Faces Class Action Over SLS-Free Detergent Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Blakely, writing for Inc., reports that it was only going
to be a matter of time before Jessica Alba's Honest Company faced
lawsuits, once a Wall Street Journal investigation published March
10 found Honest's laundry detergent contains sodium lauryl sulfate
(SLS), a chemical that the company promised never to use.

To be precise, it took exactly seven days.

On March 17, Illinois resident Staci Seed filed a class-action
complaint against Honest in California, alleging that the company
is "misleading [consumers] in the extreme" by advertising its
products as SLS-free.  The suit also states that Seed specifically
sought out products that did not contain the chemical and
purchased Honest's products because the labels say that the
company uses sodium coco sulfate (SCS) as a less-harsh alternative
to SLS. The Journal investigation, as well as chemistry professors
contacted by Inc., have confirmed that SCS is blend of chemicals
that includes a significant amount of SLS.

The Honest Company has taken issue with the Journal's testing
methods and insists the two chemicals are distinct. On March 16,
Honest told Inc.  "The Journal confirms what we have said all
along, that we use Sodium Coco Sulfate (SCS) in our laundry
detergent. And, to reiterate our position, just because you can
isolate the C-12 carbon chain in a test for SCS does not mean we
use SLS in our product."

According to court documents, Seed's lawyers conducted their own
independent lab testing of Honest's laundry detergent in February.

In response to the suit, Honest told Inc., "The claims alleged in
the lawsuit are without merit and we intend to vigorously defend
ourselves against them."

Dale Giali, a partner with Mayer Brown who has defended
multinational corporations in consumer product litigation cases,
told Inc. that he expected class-action attorneys to use the
Journal's investigation as fodder for more suits. (Two existing
suits alleging false advertising have been filed against the
company previously, but neither mention any SLS-related issues.)

"There is no question that Honest Company will point the finger at
suppliers and say that they relied on certifications and
validations from suppliers, and they will likely make a formal
claim against them," Mr. Giali says.

Suits such as the one filed by Seed could take at least a year to
play out. In the meantime, it's business as usual for the Honest
Company.

On March 22, Honest and the San Francisco-based personal assistant
service TaskRabbit announced a new partnership.  When consumers
use the TaskRabbit app to schedule a home cleaning, they now will
be able to request an "Honest Clean" -- meaning, a "Tasker" will
show up to complete the job with only Honest-branded products.
The service is available in all of the 18 U.S. cities where
TaskRabbit operates.

"Honest and TaskRabbit share a consumer who is clearly passionate
about her home and family.  We wanted to find a company that
aligned with our voice, and that connection [with Honest] is
interesting," says Rob Willey, vice president of marketing at
TaskRabbit.  He also notes that the partnership is timely -- in
the spring, TaskRabbit's cleaning task business generally grows
about 25 percent.

Mr. Willey declined to comment on the controversy involving
Honest's product ingredients.

TaskRabbit, which has done other partnerships involving Amazon,
Verizon, and other brands, told Inc. recently that it quadrupled
its business in 2015 and anticipates becoming profitable this
year.


I.Q. DATA: Court Narrows Claims in "Galdamez" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendant's motion to dismiss the case captioned SARA JUDITH
GARCIA GALDAMEZ, et al., Plaintiffs v. I.Q. DATA INTERNATIONAL,
INC., Defendant, No. 1:15-CV-1605 (LMB/JFA) (E.D. Va.).

Sara Judith Garcia Galdamez, Jorge Armando Escobar Barillas, and
Virginia de Jesus Pena Pozuelos filed a two-count complaint
against I.Q. Data International, Inc., alleging violations of the
Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.  The plaintiffs alleged that
I.Q. added interest to a purported outstanding balance without any
basis in law or contract and in doing so used false, deceptive,
and misleading representations about the amount of the alleged
debt and engaged in unfair debt collection practices.  The debt
relates to a residential lease for an apartment in Fairmont's
Annandale, Virginia complex.

I.Q. contended that the bulk of the plaintiffs' claims are based
on the incorrect premise that Virginia law does not permit
interest on unpaid rent owed pursuant to a residential lease.
Thus, I.Q. argued that to the extent that the plaintiffs' claims
rely on that premise, they should be dismissed.

For their part, the plaintiffs argued that even when interest is
permitted by Virginia law, pre-judgment interest is merely
available as a remedy.  The plaintiffs asserted that the one-time
10% late fee, a bounced check fee, and the imposition of costs
relating to reletting of the premises are the only remedies
included in the lease, and that the lease agreement included an
integration clause that explicitly repudiated any additional terms
outside the four corners of the document.

Judge Brinkema found that the Virginia law cited by I.Q. is not
clear on whether interest is imputed automatically.  The judge
instead agreed with the plaintiffs and found that, reading the
lease contract only with reference to its contents and construing
it against the drafter, I.Q. has clearly waived any remedies not
contained therein.  Thus, Juge Brinkema denied I.Q.'s motion to
dismiss as to Count I.

Judge Brinkema, however, granted I.Q.'s motion to dismiss as to
Count II under section 1692g, finding that the inclusion and
placement in I.Q.'s collection letter of an inaccurate statement
about interest accruing does not cause it to overshadow I.Q.'s
notification to plaintiffs of their right to dispute the debt.

A full-text copy of Judge Brinkema's March 15, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/GmA13dfrom Leagle.com.

Sara Judith Garcia Galdamez, Jorge Armando Escobar Barillas,
Virginia de Jesus Pena Pozuelos, Plaintiffs, represented by Simon
Yehuda Sandoval-Moshenberg -- simon@justice4all.org -- Simon
Sandoval Moshenburg.

I.Q. Data International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Charles
Michael Sims -- charles.sims@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan, A
Professional Corporation & David Sutton Hirschler, III --
sutton.hirschler@leclairryan.com -- LeClairRyan PC.


ILLINOIS BELL: Court Narrows Claims in "Balmes" Wages Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part Illinois
Bell's partial motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ROBERT
BALMES, Plaintiff, v. ILLINOIS BELL TELEPHONE CO. d/b/a AT&T
ILLINOIS, Defendant, Case No. 15-C-2685 (N.D. Ill.).

Robert Balmes and 140 other plaintiffs jointly sued their
employer, Illinois Bell Telephone Co., for shortchanging them on
overtime pay in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA),
29 U.S.C. Sec. 201 et seq. Chief Judge Castillo severed the
plaintiffs' claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21, and
Balmes's suit was reassigned to the undersigned judge's calendar.

Balmes then filed two amended complaints, the second of which
alleges that Illinois Bell, when calculating his wages, routinely
ignored time that he spent working before his official shifts and
during lunch breaks, and that in so doing it violated the FLSA,
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), 820 ILCS 105/1 et seq., and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA), 820 ILCS
115/1 et seq.

Illinois Bell moves to dismiss parts of Balmes's FLSA and IMWL
claims as time-barred. It also moves to dismiss Balmes's IWPCA
claims on the grounds that they are completely preempted by Sec.
301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. Sec.
185, and that the Code of Business Conduct and Reporting Time
Worked documents are not "agreements" between Balmes and Illinois
Bell that could give rise to IWPCA liability.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 15, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/el8w7Rfrom Leagle.com, Judge Feinerman dismissed
Balmes's non-Blakes claims under the FLSA and the IMWL to the
extent they are based on work performed before February 28, 2011.
Balmes's Blakes claims under the IMWL were tolled only between
January 17, 2011 and June 23, 2011 -- a period of 158 days -- so
they are dismissed to the extent they are based on work performed
before September 23, 2010, which is three years and 158 days
before the Tinoco suit was filed.

Robert Balmes is represented by:

     Colleen M. McLaughlin, Esq.
     Gregory Scott Dierdorf, Esq.
     Elissa Joy Hobfoll, Esq.
     HOBFOLL LAW
     1751 S. Naperville Road Suite 209
     Wheaton, IL 60187
     Tel: (630)923-6591

Illinois Bell Telephone Company is represented by Ellen E
Boshkoff, Esq. --- ellen.boshkoff@FaegreBD.com -- George Alan
Stohner, Esq. -- george.stohner@FaegreBD.com -- Lindsey M. Hogan,
Esq. -- lindsey.hogan@FaegreBD.com -- FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS LLP


ISRAEL RAILWAYS: Faces Class Action Over Dimona Train Crash
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Malka Grossman, writing for Jerusalem Post, reports that
on March 22, a class action lawsuit was filed against Israel
Railways in the name of Dimona-area residents who claim they have
suffered emotional injury as a result of a March 14 train crash
that caused 6.5 tons of bromine to spill.

The lawsuit, filed by the NGO Citizens for the Environment in the
name of the residents of Dimona and the surrounding area, demands
that the train company pay NIS 1,500 per resident, which amounts
to NIS 20 million.

Lead plaintiff Abigail Biton, represented by lawyers Amir Yisraeli
and Jamila Hardal Wakim from Citizens for the Environment's legal
team, claims in the suit that the crash caused emotional damage
through anxiety and fear to all people in the area.  Furthermore,
she says that residents are still worried about another crash.


J BRAND: Faces Class Action Over False Origin Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Douglas J. Heffner, Esq. -- Douglas.Heffner@dbr.com -- and
Meredith C. Slawe, Esq. -- Meredith.Slawe@dbr.com -- of Drinker
Biddle & Rath LLP, in an article for The National Law Review,
report that a proposed class action suit against J Brand, an
industry leader in the fashion world that sells its jeans and
apparel to countless retailers, was recently filed in California
over alleged false origin claims.  At the center of the suit is
the plaintiff's allegation that J Brand manufactures, markets and
sells its "Skinny Stretch" style of jeans with the claim that the
goods are "Made in California, USA."

California has long had one of the strictest "Made in USA" label
requirements.  The state law previously prohibited labeling
products with an unqualified "Made in USA" claim if any portion of
the underlying product was made outside the United States.
However, in 2015, California amended its statute to allow
companies to label their products "Made in USA" if less than 5
percent of the product's wholesale value is from foreign
components, or if less than 10 percent of the wholesale value is
from foreign components which are unavailable in the United
States.  As stated in our previous client alert, California's
amendment to the California Business and Professions Code for
origin designation labeling has provided a degree of certainty in
what has previously been an uncertain landscape.

In this case, the plaintiff claims that the J Brand jeans are
comprised of more than 5 percent imported material that could have
been sourced domestically.  Specifically, the plaintiff states
that the fabric, thread, buttons, zipper subassembly and rivets
are made of imported material.

Although there were a significant number of false origin labeling
cases prior to the amendment of the law, with the filing of the J
Brand suit, it appears that the trend may continue.  It will be
interesting to see whether a dispute exists between J Brand and
the plaintiff over the definition of "wholesale value."  Guidance
under the previous law indicated that the term "wholesale value"
was to be defined as "the sum of direct and indirect material
costs and direct and indirect labor costs."  Even if the prior
guidance applies in the J Brand case, the term "indirect costs" is
subject to interpretation in calculating the 5 percent and 10
percent thresholds.  Considering that this could be outcome
determinative as to whether there is a violation of the California
law, it is likely to be a significant issue in the case.

The crux of the damages allegation is that foreign-made products
are often inherently of "lower quality than their U.S.-made
counterparts."  Plaintiff claims that the "Skinny Stretch" style
jeans are often of inferior quality due to J Brand's decision to
include foreign-made components.  Due to the allegedly inferior
quality, the plaintiff alleges that the J Brand apparel are "less
reliable, and fail more often than if the product was truly made
from 100% American-made components."  The plaintiff then states
that the "Skinny Stretch" style of jeans is not worth the purchase
price paid.

Even if the plaintiff is able to prove that any allegedly foreign
components of the "Skinny Stretch" style of jeans that are
available domestically account for more than 5 percent of the
product's wholesale value, it will be interesting to see how the
plaintiff can prove that the J Brand "Skinny Stretch" style of
jeans "fail more often" than if the product was made entirely (or
at least 94.99 percent) in the USA.  Do the jeans split more
often, get holes in the knee area, or does the zipper allegedly
break more often because of the foreign components?  Moreover, it
will be interesting to see how the plaintiff intends to prove that
the jeans were not worth the purchase price paid and measure the
damages that might be attributable to the allegedly inferior
jeans.  Plaintiffs in these cases face significant hurdles in
terms of quantifying any purported damages, particularly on a
class-wide basis.  This latest case will face some clear
challenges out of the gate, and there will be a number of defenses
to class certification should the case progress to that stage.  It
will be closely monitored by both the plaintiffs' and defense bar
to see how it plays out in court.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: "Gallagher" Suit Remanded to N.J. Super.
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JILLIAN GALLAGHER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JOHNSON & JOHNSON
CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., Defendant, Civil No. 15-6163 (JBS/AMD)
(D.N.J.), Judge Jerome B. Simandle granted Jillian Gallagher's
motion to remand the case back to the Superior Court of New
Jersey, and dismissed Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.'s
motion to transfer as moot.

A putative consumer class action suit was brought against Johnson
& Johnson for alleged deceptive labeling and advertising practices
related to their line of BEDTIME products, in violation of the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The case was filed in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Camden
County, Law Division.  Invoking federal jurisdiction under the
Class Action Fairness Act, Johnson & Johnson removed the suit to
the District of New Jersey and shortly thereafter, filed a motion
to transfer the case to the Central District of California.
Gallagher opposed the transfer and filed a motion to remand the
case back to state court.

Judge Simandle granted Gallagher's motion, finding that the case
does not meet the jurisdictional requirements of the Class Action
Fairness Act of 2005 because the parties are all New Jersey
citizens.

A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's March 14, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/9r5WOhfrom Leagle.com.

Jillian Gallagher, Plaintiff, represented by John W. Trimble,
Trimble & Associates, James C. Shah, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller &
Shah, LLP & Natalie Finkelman Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller
& Shah, LLP.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., Defendant, represented
by David R. Kott -- dkott@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, LLP.


JRK RESIDENTIAL: Can't Compel Arbitration in "Milbourne" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DERRICK A. MILBOURNE, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
JRK RESIDENTIAL AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Civil Case No. 3:12cv851
(E.D. Va.), Judge Robert E. Payne denied the defendant's motion to
compel arbitration of the claims of certain putative class
members.

On November 30, 2012, Derrick Milbourne filed a class action
complaint on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
alleging that JRK Residential America, LLC had violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act (FCRA).  The court certified two classes of
plaintiffs on October 31, 2014.

On November 10, 2015, JRK moved to compel arbitration on the
ground that 510 class members had signed binding Mediation and
Arbitration Agreements.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion,
contending that JRK has effectively waived its right to compel
arbitration by vigorously pursuing litigation for almost three
years before raising the issue.  JRK responded that the issue of
waiver should be decided by an arbitrator, and that, because none
of the named plaintiffs signed an arbitration agreement, they do
not have standing to contest JRK's motion.

Jude Payne held that the arbitration agreement's silence on the
issue of whether JRK has foregone its right to invoke the
agreement falls far short of the "clear and unmistakable" intent
necessary to refer the determination of waiver to an arbitrator.
Thus, the judge concluded that the issue of waiver will be decided
by the court.

Judge Payne also held that the fact that Milbourne did not sign an
arbitration agreement does not deprive Milbourne of standing to
contest JRK's motion on behalf of absent class members, because
JRK does not and cannot dispute that each class member, including
the named plaintiffs, has an actual, justiciable claim against JRK
under the FCRA.

Lastly, Judge Payne held that JRK has waived any right it may have
to arbitration, considering JRK's inexcusable three-year delay in
bringing the issue to the plaintiffs' and the court's attention.
The judge found that not only did JRK decline to raise the
arbitration issue "early in the case," but it also allowed over a
year to go by after the plaintiffs prevailed on their motion for
class certification before moving to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of Judge Payne's March 14, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/WZ77Bkfrom Leagle.com.

Derrick A. Milbourne, Plaintiff, represented by Craig Carley
Marchiando -- craig@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation
Associates, Leonard Anthony Bennett -- leonardo@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates, Casey Shannon Nash --
casey@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litgation Associates PC, Matthew
James Erausquin -- matt@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litgation
Associates PC, Susan Mary Rotkis -- susan@clalegal.com -- Consumer
Litigation Associates & Thomas Ray Breeden, Thomas R. Breeden PC.

JRK Residential America, LLC, Defendant, represented by George
Peter Sibley, III -- gsibley@hunton.com -- Hunton & Williams LLP,
Christopher Tayback -- christayback@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel, pro hac vice, Shon Morgan -- shonmorgan@quinnemanuel.com
-- pro hac vice & Thomas Richard Waskom -- twaskom@hunton.com --
Hunton & Williams LLP.


KLX ENERGY: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Smith and David Dukate, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. KLX Energy Services, LLC and Blue Dot
Energy Services, LLC, Case No. 4:16-cv-00735 (S.D. Tex., March 18,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate an oilfield service company offering a wide
ride range of services to the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
      Andrew Dunlap, Esq.
      Lindsay R. Itkin, Esq.
      Jessica M. Bresler, Esq.
      FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
      1150 Bissonnet St.
      Houston, TX 77005
      Telephone: (713) 751-0025
      Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
      E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com
              adunlap@fibichlaw.com
              litkin@fibichlaw.com

         - and -

     Richard J. (Rex) Burch, Esq.
     BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
     8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
     Houston, TX 77046
     Telephone: (713) 877-8788
     Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
     E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com


KMH CARDIOLOGY: Faces Medical Suit in Fla. Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
Medical & Chiropractic Clinic, Inc., individually and as the
representative of a class of similarly-situated persons v. KMH
Cardiology Centres Incorporated, KMH MRI & Healthcare Centres, and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 8:16-cv-00644-SDM-JSS (M.D. Fla., March
21, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of
making calls to consumers' wireless telephone using an automatic
dialing system.

The Defendants own and operate a satellite cardiology and
diagnostic center in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LANDRY'S INC: Court Partially Grants Class Cert. in "Saechao"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William Alsup of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted in part
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned,
MOUANG SAECHAO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. LANDRY'S INC, a Delaware corporation, and
McCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORP., a Delaware corporation,
Defendants, Case No. C-15-00815-WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Mouang Saechao worked as a host and banquet server at
Spenger's Fresh Fish Grotto in Berkeley, a restaurant owned and
operated by defendant McCormick & Schmick Restaurant Corporation,
from November 2013 to December 2014.

Hourly workers at Spenger's clocked in and out at a computerized
point-of-sale system at the start and end of shifts and the start
and end of any meal breaks. The computer system used at Spenger's
did not record rest breaks which were compensated. McCormick &
Schmick determined employees' wages based on the records in the
computerized system, although managers could submit "adjustment
forms" to manually adjust wages as needed.

Saechao seeks to certify five classes of employees and former
employees at Spenger's each to assert a claim based on a different
uniform policy or practice enforced by McCormick & Schmick.
Saechao's first proposed class asserts a claim for unpaid premium
wages for shifts during which employees were improperly denied an
unpaid thirty-minute meal break. Her second proposed class asserts
a claim for unpaid premium wages for shifts during which employees
were improperly denied a paid ten-minute rest break. Her third
proposed class asserts a claim for unpaid premium wages for split
shifts. Her fourth proposed class asserts a claim for statutory
penalties arising out of McCormick & Schmick's failure to timely
pay the premium wages allegedly owed to the first three classes to
individuals who quit or had their employment terminated. Her fifth
proposed class asserts a claim for statutory penalties for
McCormick & Schmick's use of an improper format of wage
statements.

In his Order dated March 15, 2016 available at http://is.gd/dcjbSQ
from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup certified the five classes on the
condition that Saechao files proper digital signatures or filer's
attestations by March 18, at noon.

The Court appointed Attorney Cohorn and Attorney Chao as appointed
class counsel, Attorney Cohorn as lead counsel and Plaintiff
Mouang Saechao as class representative. By March 31, the parties
shall jointly submit a proposal for class notification with a
claim form for the rest-break class, with the plan to distribute
notice by April 14.

Mouang Saechao is represented by Katharine Chao, Esq. --
kathy@chaolegal.com -- CHAO LEGAL

The Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Cari Ann Cohorn, Esq.
     COHORN LAW
     101 Califronia St., Suite 2710
     San Francisco, CA 94111
     Tel: (415)993-9005

McCormick & Schmick Restaurant, Inc. is represented by Aaron
Nathan Colby, Esq. -- aaroncolby@dwt.com -- Janet Lynn Grumer,
Esq. -- janetgrumer@dwt.com -- Evelyn F. Wang, Esq. --
evelynwang@dwt.com -- M. Michael Cole, Esq. ---
michaelcole@dwt.com -- Nicholas Anthony Murray, Esq. --
nicholasmurray@dwt.com -- Tracy Thompson, Esq. --
tracythompson@dwt.com -- DAVIS WRIGHT TREMAINE LLP


LENDINGCLUB CORP: Faces Class Action Over 2014 IPO
--------------------------------------------------
Justin Morrison, writing for Inside Trade, reports that Goldberg
Law PC on March 23 announced that a class action lawsuit has been
filed against LendingClub Corporation ("LendingClub" or the
"Company") (LC).  Investors who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares traceable to the Company's December 11, 2014 Initial Public
Offering should contact the firm.

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

According to the complaint, the Company failed to disclose that:
(1) the Company had an unsustainable business model dependent on
its ability to issue loans with usurious rates; (2) LendingClub's
loan investors would not be able to enforce the high rates because
they were illegal; and (3) absent the usurious rates, the loans
produced through LendingClub's marketplace would not be attractive
to investors because they had a high credit risk.

Corporate Profile

LendingClub Corporation operates as an online marketplace for
connecting borrowers and investors in the United States.  Its
marketplace facilitates various types of loan products for
consumers and small businesses, including unsecured personal
loans, super prime consumer loans, unsecured education and patient
finance loans, and unsecured small business loans.  The company
also offers investors an opportunity to invest in a range of loans
based on term and credit characteristics.  It serves investors,
such as retail investors, high-net-worth individuals and family
offices, banks and finance companies, insurance companies, hedge
funds, foundations, pension plans, and university endowments.  The
company was founded in 2006 and is headquartered in San Francisco,
California.


LIFETIME ENTERTAINMENT: Unaccepted Offer Doesn't Moot Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael S. Arnold, Esq. -- MArnold@mintz.com -- of Mintz, Levin,
Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C., in an article for The
National Law Review, disclosed that in February, the law firm
reported on Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C. -- the first decision
to interpret the Supreme Court's Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez
opinion.  The Supreme Court in Gomez ruled that "an unaccepted
Rule 68 Offer of Judgment for complete relief does not moot a
plaintiff's individual and class action claims," but left open the
possibility that employers could moot a class action in other
ways: by either actually paying the named plaintiff the amounts
allegedly owed, or similarly, by depositing the money with the
court to be released to the plaintiff upon dismissal of the
action.  An Eastern District of New York judge in Brady refused to
endorse these alternatives because it would deprive the named
plaintiff "a fair opportunity to show that certification is
warranted."

Now comes a decision out of the neighboring Southern District of
New York.  In Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services, LLC, the
plaintiff alleged violations under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act and sought to certify a class of similarly situated
individuals.  The Court denied the plaintiff's motion for
certification leaving only Leyse's individual claims. After that
decision, the defendant promptly offered to pay Leyse his max
damages.  Leyse did not accept the offer, but the defendant moved
for an entry of judgment in plaintiff's favor nonetheless.

Despite Leyse's refusal to accept the offer, Judge Hellerstein
granted the defendant's motion to enter judgment upon payment to
the Court clerk of the amount offered.  The Court said that
despite the opinion in Gomez -- that an unaccepted offer, which
provides full relief, does not moot a cause of action -- an action
can be dismissed if the defendant does actually pay the plaintiff
the full amount in controversy.  In other words, Judge Hellerstein
was picking up where the Supreme Court left off and saying that
actual payment (whether directly to the plaintiff or by deposit
with the Court) could moot a claim.  This is good news.

But Judge Hellerstein went further.  First, he also said that in
ordering entry of judgment, there is no requirement that the
defendant must admit liability -- another big victory for
defendant-employers wondering whether that would be yet another
road block in executing on a named plaintiff pick-off strategy.
And second, Judge Hellerstein made the entry of judgment
conditional on payment -- another outcome that defendant-employers
will welcome, because it relieves them of any obligation to make a
cash outlay in advance of the judgment entry decision.

There is one catch here, however.  The court in Leyse had
previously denied the plaintiff's certification motion.  Thus,
this case does not explicitly decide whether actual payment to the
plaintiff or depositing of such payment with the court would moot
a class action.  The Eastern District in Brady said it did not.


LINCOLN NATIONAL: $2.25BB Settlement Obtains Final Court Approval
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Miller Schirger LLC and Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP, law firms based
in Kansas City, Mo., on March 23 disclosed that, after six and a
half years of litigation, an Indiana court has granted final
approval of a $2.25 billion settlement of a class action lawsuit
against The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company over alleged
life insurance policy overcharges.  Lincoln National agreed to
settle the case by, among other things, issuing term life
insurance certificates to a settlement class consisting of
approximately 77,000 policy owners across 30 states.  The term
life insurance certificates will have a total face amount of death
benefits estimated at $2.25 billion, with a market value of
approximately $171.8 million.

In June, 2009, Stueve Siegel Hanson and co-counsel Miller Schirger
filed the class action lawsuit against Lincoln National. The firms
brought the lawsuit on behalf of Peter S. Bezich and other
individuals who owned variable universal life insurance policies
administered by Lincoln National, and involved alleged "cost of
insurance" overcharges and other policy overcharges. Lincoln
National denies all liability or wrong doing with regard to the
claims and allegations asserted in the case.

"After six and a half years of hard fought litigation, including
appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh
Circuit and the Indiana state appellate courts, we are pleased
that we secured substantial relief for our clients," said Miller
Schirger Partner John Schirger.

"We are continuing our efforts on behalf of life insurance policy
holders who we believe are being overcharged for their life
insurance by several other life insurance companies and hope to
secure similar relief for these clients," said Stueve Siegel
Hanson Partner Patrick Stueve -- stueve@stuevesiegel.com

Miller Schirger LLC -- http://www.millerschirger.com-- is a
Kansas City, Missouri based law firm focused on resolving complex
disputes on behalf of businesses and individuals nationwide.  Its
attorneys represent plaintiffs and defendants in state and federal
trial and appellate courts, before administrative and regulatory
tribunals, and in arbitration and other alternative dispute
resolution proceedings nationwide.

Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP -- http://www.stuevesiegel.com-- is a
Kansas City, Missouri based law firm representing business and
individuals in high stakes litigation on a contingency fee model.
The firm includes 40 lawyers in Kansas City, New York and San
Diego and represents plaintiffs and defendants nationwide in
complex business, class action, wage and hour, environmental, and
product liability litigation and trials.

The case is 02C01-0906-PL-73, Allen County, Indiana.  There is a
website set up by a third party administrator with all the court
documents.


LLG ENERGY: "Edwards" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Edwards, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. LLG Energy Services, LLC, d/b/a
Moonlight Energy Services; and Dustin Morgan, Julian Rodriguez,
Edward Sellers and Dennis Craig, Each Individually and as
officers of LLG Energy Services, LLC, the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-00161 (W.D. Tex., San Antonio Div., February 16, 2016),
seeks to recover of declaratory judgment, monetary damages,
liquidated damages, prejudgment interest, civil penalties and
costs, including reasonable attorney's fees, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

LLG Energy Services provides products and services in the oil and
gas industry, throughout the United States. It has an annual gross
revenues exceeding $500,000.00. The Company is based in Midland,
Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 S. Shackleford Road, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221 0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787 2040
          E-mail: josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


LPL FINANCIAL: May 23 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP, on March 23 disclosed that a class action
lawsuit has been filed in United States District Court for the
Southern District of California on behalf of purchasers of LPL
Financial Holdings Inc. common stock during the period between
December 8, 2015 and February 11, 2016 (the "Class Period").

LPL shareholders may, no later than May 23, 2016, move the Court
for appointment as a lead plaintiff of the Class.  If you
purchased shares of LPL and would like to learn more about these
claims or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/lpla

The complaint charges LPL and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
LPL is an independent broker-dealer, a custodian for registered
investment advisors and an independent consultant to retirement
plans.  Prior to 2010, LPL was majority owned by TPG Capital
("TPG") and Hellman & Friedman LLC, two private equity firms.  In
November 2010, these private equity firms took LPL public in an
initial public offering ("IPO") in which 15.7 million LPL shares
were sold to the public at $30 per share.  TPG retained a
substantial ownership stake in the Company after the IPO and
influence over its affairs.  Following the IPO, the Company became
the subject of several regulatory and governmental investigations
into allegedly fraudulent, deceptive and/or legally deficient
business practices at LPL and among its network of financial
advisors.

The complaint alleges that during the Class Period, defendants
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding LPL's business and prospects,
including that LPL's earnings and revenue were not steady, but
were substantially declining; LPL's client assets were not in the
midst of a recovery, but were actually deteriorating and would
decline by billions of dollars; and LPL's gross profits would not
decline "slightly," but significantly, and LPL would in fact
experience its worst sequential gross profit decline in four
years.  As a result of defendants' false statements and/or
omissions, LPL common stock traded at artificially inflated prices
during the Class Period, reaching a high of $45.06 per share on
December 8, 2015.

On December 10, 2015, LPL announced the early completion of its
accelerated share repurchase program.  TPG sold 4.3 million shares
of LPL common stock at $43.27 per share for approximately $187
million in proceeds.

Then on February 11, 2016, LPL announced its fourth quarter and
full year 2015 financial results, including adjusted earnings per
share of $0.37 per share, well below consensus analyst estimates
of $0.51 per share.  The Company also revealed disappointing
revenues, primarily as a result of dramatically lower commission
revenues and revenues from alternative investments, as well as
higher-than-expected expenses for the quarter.  As a result of
this news, the price of LPL common stock dropped $8.76 per share
to close at $16.50 per share on February 12, 2016, a one-day
decline of nearly 35% and a decline of 63% from the stock's Class
Period high.

If you are a member of the class, you may, no later than May 23,
2016, request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff of the
class.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party that acts on
behalf of other class members in directing the litigation.  In
order to be appointed 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.  Under certain circumstances, one or more class members
may together serve as "lead plaintiff."  Your ability to share in
any recovery is not, however, affected by the decision whether or
not to serve as a lead plaintiff.  You may retain Ryan & Maniskas,
LLP or other counsel of your choice, to serve as your counsel in
this action.

For more information regarding this, please contact Ryan &
Maniskas, LLP (Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire) toll-free at (877)
316-3218 or by email at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com or visit:
www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/lpla

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http:www.rmclasslaw.com -- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.  Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to
protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors
in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: Resolves CARB Inquiry on Flooring Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lumber Liquidators, the largest specialty retailer of hardwood
flooring in North America, on March 22, disclosed that it has
reached an agreement with the California Air Resources Board
(CARB), that fully resolves the previously disclosed inquiry
regarding certain of the Company's laminate flooring products
sourced from China.  Lumber Liquidators has not sold these
products since May of 2015.  CARB has concluded its review with no
formal finding of violation or admission of wrongdoing on the part
of the Company.

In accordance with the agreement, Lumber Liquidators will
implement a series of voluntary compliance procedures to ensure
that all of the Company's flooring products comply with CARB's
formaldehyde standards, which are the most stringent in the
country.  Lumber Liquidators will also pay $2.5 million to CARB,
of which $1.5 million was accrued in 2015, to resolve the matter.
In its agreement with Lumber Liquidators, CARB expressly
recognized the actions taken by the Company to ensure compliance
and the lack of evidence of actual harm to public health, safety
and welfare.  Lumber Liquidators and CARB have also committed to
collaborate on pioneering a testing program designed to establish
best practices and protocols for testing flooring products.  This
program will set a new standard for the industry and ensure that
all products are tested appropriately and consistently on behalf
of consumers and businesses.

"Consumer safety is our top priority and, over the past year, we
have implemented a number of customer-focused initiatives," said
John Presley, Chief Executive Officer.  "We strengthened our
quality assurance procedures, launched the largest voluntary
testing program in our nation's history and, in May 2015,
voluntarily suspended the sale of all laminate flooring sourced
from China.  We look forward to continuing to work with CARB to
establish new industry standards for flooring product testing. We
believe today's settlement will go a long way in helping us to
execute our strategy, which includes rebuilding our brand and
communicating -- with clarity and candor -- the value of our
products to our customers and stakeholders."

                    About Lumber Liquidators

With more than 370 locations, Lumber Liquidators --
http://www.LumberLiquidators.com-- is North America's largest
specialty retailer of hardwood flooring.  The Company features
more than 400 top quality flooring varieties, including solid and
engineered hardwood, bamboo, cork, laminate and resilient vinyl.
Additionally, Lumber Liquidators provides a wide selection of
flooring enhancements and accessories to complement, install and
maintain your new floor.  Every location is staffed with flooring
experts who can provide advice and useful information about Lumber
Liquidators' low priced product, much of which is in stock and
ready for delivery.


LUSH COSMETICS: Faces "Hite" Class Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lush Cosmetics,
LLC.

The case is captioned Norris Hite, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Lush Cosmetics, LLC, Case No.
1:16-cv-01533-JBS-AMD (D.N.J., March 21, 2016).

Lush Cosmetics, LLC is a manufacturer of cosmetics, skin care,
hair care, and body care products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
      CLARK LAW FIRM, PC
      811 Sixteenth Avenue
      Belmar, NJ 07719
      Telephone: (732) 443-0333
      Facsimile: (732) 894-9647
      E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com


M.K. LANDSCAPING: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Aquino" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Oliver Aquino, Roberto Aquino and Misael Chavez, individually and
on behalf of those similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. M.K.
Landscaping Inc., Noe S. Martinez, and/or any related entities,
the Defendants, Case No. 007489/2015 (N.Y. Sup., County of Nassau,
November 18, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages, inter alia,
unpaid overtime wages, and spread of hours compensation, pursuant
to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and New York Codes, Rules, and
Regulations (NYCRR).

MK Landscaping provides estate management, complete garden
redesign and landscape, tree surgery and pruning, laying patios,
old cobblestone pathways, replacing fences, growing Kentish
hedgerows or rebuilding shed roofs and bases.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MANPOWER INC: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bid in "Mata" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lucy H. Koh granted, in part, and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion for partial summary judgment in the case
captioned JUVENTINA MATA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MANPOWER
INC./CALIFORNIA PENINSULA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
03787-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Claudia Padilla and Lesli Guido brought a wage and hour class
action against Manpower, Inc./California Peninsula ("Manpower
CP"); Manpower US Inc. ("Manpower US"); Manpower Inc., now known
as ManpowerGroup Inc.; and ManpowerGroup US Inc.

The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, contending: (1)
that the court-approved settlement and release in the case
captioned Willner v. Manpower Inc., No. 11-CV-02846-JST (N.D.
Cal.) prohibits the putative class members in the "Mata" case from
pursuing against Manpower Inc. the seventh claim under California
Labor Code section 203, as well as the eighth and ninth claims
under California's Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA) and Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), respectively; and (2) that Manpower US was
not an employer or joint employer of the named plaintiffs, and
thus the plaintiffs lack standing to sue Manpower US.

As to the effect of the Willner settlement, Judge Koh found that
res judicata would not bar the plaintiffs' claims under state law
or under the doctrine of judicial estoppel as there are
differences in the causes of action and differences in the parties
in the proceedings.  The judge, nevertheless, clarified that any
attempts by members of the Willner settlement class to relitigate
their claims from that case are precluded.

Judge Koh, however, granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment that plaintiffs Padilla and Guido lack standing to pursue
claims against Manpower US, because the plaintiffs have not
presented sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact on
the issue of whether Manpower US, the corporate sibling of
Manpower CP, is a joint employer of persons employed by Manpower
CP.

A full-text copy of Judge Koh's March 14, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/NdcLh9from Leagle.com.

Juventina Mata, Claudia Padilla, Lesli Guido, Plaintiff,
represented by Charles Swanston, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston,
Bernard James Fitzpatrick, Fitzpatrick Spini & Swanston, David E
Cameron, Wanger Jones Helsley PC & Patrick Darryn Toole --
ptoole@wjhattorneys.com -- Wanger Jones Helsley PC.

Defendants, represented by Spencer C. Skeen --
spencer.skeen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak Stewart PC, Francis Lawrence Tobin --
frank.tobin@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak & Stewart, LLC, James Patrick Allen --
patrick.allen@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins, Jesse
Carter Ferrantella -- jesse.ferrantella@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak, Stewart, P.C. & Timothy Lloyd
Johnson -- tim.johnson@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins
Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C..

Keurig Green Mountain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jon David
Cantor -- jdcantor@dykema.com -- Dykema Gossett, LLP.

Manpowergroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer C. Skeen,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak Stewart PC & Timothy Lloyd Johnson,
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak and Stewart, P.C..


MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DonSurvi Chisolm, Plaintiff, v. Jennifer
Franklin, Michael McCall, and Jessica Edmunds, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 4:14-cv-4364-RBH (D.S.C.), Judge R. Bryan Harwell
granted the motion for summary judgment filed by the defendants,
and denied the plaintiff DonSurvi Chisolm's motion for summary
judgment.  Chisolm's remaining motions were also denied as moot.

Chisolm, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, brought an action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Section 1983 alleging violations of his
constitutional rights while incarcerated at McCormick Correctional
Institution (MCI).

In a Report and Recommendation filed on January 29, 2016, United
States Magistrate Judge Thomas E. Rogers, III found that each of
Chisolm's claims fails and recommended that the court should grant
the defendants' motion for summary judgment, deny the plaintiff's
motion for summary judgment, and deem all other pending motions
moot.  Chisolm timely filed objections to Judge Rogers' Report and
Recommendation.

Judge Harwell found that Chisolm has provided nothing other than
his own conclusory allegations regarding his retaliation claim.
Thus, Judge Harwell granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment on the retaliation claim.

Judge Harwell also held that summary judgment should be granted to
the defendants on the equal protection claim and regarding
supervisory liability because Chisolm did not object to the
Magistrate Judge's findings regarding the applicability of
qualified immunity and Eleventh Amendment immunity of the
defendants.

Judge Harwell thus overruled all of the Chisolm's objectiones and
adopted and incorporated by reference the R & R of the Magistrate
Judge.

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

Jennifer Franklin, Jessica Edmunds, Michael McColl, Defendant,
represented by Steven Michael Pruitt --
spruitt@mcdonaldpatrick.com -- McDonald Patrick Tinsley Baggett
Poston and Hemphill.


MDL 2196: CCAF's Bid for Attorney Fees Denied
---------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In re Polyurethane Foam Antitrust
Litigation. This document relates to: INDIRECT PURCHASER CLASS,
Case No. 1:10 MD 2196 (N.D. Ohio), Judge Jack Zouhary denied the
motion for an award of attorneys' fees filed by the Center for
Class Action Fairness (CCAF).

Final approval was previously granted to the nine class action
settlement agreements reached between the class of Indirect
Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) and various defendants.  At that time,
the court also addressed numerous objections, including those of
Melissa Holyoak and John Tabin on behalf of the CCAF.

The CCAF then moved for an award of attorney fees, asserting that
the "[t]he total pecuniary benefit to the class achieved by
[CCAF's] objection is at least $9,075,000 and up to $11,295,000,"
and that CCAF is therefore "entitled to at least $435,600."

Judge Zouhary held that CCAF is not entitled to fees because CCAF
was not meaningfully responsible for any monetary benefit obtained
by the class as the court decided the issues on its own.  Judge
Zouhary explained that the court's analysis was not substantially
enhanced because of CCAF's objection, nor was the fee reduction
order by the court attributable to CCAF's arguments.

A full-text copy of Judge Zouhary's March 14, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/evkRMBfrom
Leagle.com.

Direct Purchaser Class, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen R.
Neuwirth -- stephenneuwirth@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel,
Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, William A. Isaacson --
wisaacson@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner, William C.
Price, Wood & Lamping, Aaron M. Sheanin -- asheanin@pswlaw.com --
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, Adam B. Wolfson --
adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
Hedges, Brian R. Strange -- bstrange@strangeandbutler.com --
Strange & Butler, Carmen A. Medici -- cmedici@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, David W. Wicklund -- dwicklund@slk-
law.com -- Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Eric W. Wiechmann --
ewiechmann@mccarter.com -- McCarter & English, Hollis L. Salzman -
- hsalzman@robinskaplan.com -- Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi,
James P. Lynch, Williams & Connolly, Kimberly A. Conklin --
kconklin@kergerlaw.com -- Kerger & Hartman, Kurt M. Rupert --
krupert@hartzoglaw.com -- Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville, Lee
Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Binkow & Goldberg,
Meegan F. Hollywood -- mhollywood@robinskaplan.com -- Robins,
Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi,Melissa Felder -- mfelder@bsfllp.com --
Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Melissa B. Willett --
mwillett@bsfllp.com -- Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Mindee J. Reuben
-- mreuben@litedepalma.com -- Lite DePalma Greenberg & Rivas,
Robert G. Eisler -- reisler@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer,
Ronald J. Aranoff -- aranoff@bernlieb.com -- Bernstein Liebhard,
Sanford I. Weisburst -- sandyweisburst@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn
Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Sathya S. Gosselin --
sgosselin@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld,Seth R. Gassman --
sgassman@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld, Stephen A. Weiss --
sweiss@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, William J. Blechman --
wblechman@knpa.com -- Kenny Nachwalter & William Liston, III --
wlist3@aol.com -- Liston Lancaster.

Indirect Purchaser Class, Plaintiff, represented by Kimberly A.
Conklin, Kerger & Hartman, Lori A. Fanning, Miller Law, Marvin A.
Miller, Miller Law,Richard M. Kerger, Kerger & Hartman, Adam B.
Wolfson, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, Brian R.
Strange, Strange & Butler, David W. Wicklund, Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter & English, Hollis L.
Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, James P. Lynch, Williams
& Connolly, Jay B. Shapiro, Stearns Weaver Miller Weissler
Alhadeff & Sitterson, Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger Cason &
Neville, Meegan F. Hollywood, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi,
Robert C. Schubert, Schubert & Reed, William J. Blechman, Kenny
Nachwalter & William Liston, III, Liston Lancaster.

Indirect Purchasers, Plaintiff, represented by Adam B. Wolfson,
Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, David W. Wicklund,
Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter & English,
Hollis L. Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, James P.
Lynch, Williams & Connolly, Kimberly A. Conklin, Kerger & Hartman,
Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville,Lori A. Fanning,
Miller Law, Marvin A. Miller, Miller Law, Meegan F. Hollywood,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, Richard M. Kerger, Kerger &
Hartman & William J. Blechman, Kenny Nachwalter.

Direct Action Plaintiff(s), Plaintiff, represented by Adam B.
Wolfson, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, Chahira Solh,
Crowell & Moring, David W. Wicklund, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick,
Douglas H. Patton, Kenny Nachwalter, Eric W. Wiechmann, McCarter &
English, Hollis L. Salzman, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi, James
P. Lynch, Williams & Connolly, Kurt M. Rupert, Hartzog Conger
Cason & Neville, Meegan F. Hollywood, Robins, Kaplan, Miller &
Ciresi, Melissa B. Willett, Boies, Schiller & Flexner, Stephen A.
Brandon, Ste. B, Vanessa Roberts Avery, McCarter & English &
William Liston, III, Liston Lancaster.

Defendants Liaison Counsel, Defendant, represented by James H.
Walsh, McGuire Woods, Bethany G. Lukitsch, McGuire Woods, Deborah
Pollack-Milgate, Barnes & Thornburg & Michael R. Hoernlein, Alston
& Bird.

The Dow Chemical Company, Intervenor, represented by David M.
Bernick, Dechert & M. Neal Rains, Frantz Ward.

David Rosenblum Cohen, Special Master, represented by David
Rosenblum Cohen, Law Office of David R. Cohen.


MDL 2420: Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: LITHIUM ION BATTERIES ANTITRUST
LITIGATION. This Order Relates to: All Indirect Purchaser Actions,
Case No. 13-MD-2420 YGR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
granted in part the Indirect Purchaser plaintiffs' motion to amend
their complaint.

The multidistrict litigation stems from allegations of multi-year
conspiracy among Japanese and Korean corporations and their U.S.
subsidiaries to fix the prices of lithium ion battery cells.  The
Indirect Purchaser plaintiffs sued for injunctive relief under
federal antitrust law, but sought money damages under state
antitrust and consumer protection laws.  The plaintiffs sought to
represent classes of purchasers who bought lithium ion batteries
and battery products for their own use.

In conjunction with their motion for class certification, the
Indirect Purchaser plaintiffs moved to amend their complaint to
conform the complaint to the narrower class proposed for
certification and substitute certain putative class
representatives.

Judge Rogers granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to file a
Fourth Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint revising their
class definition and class representatives to accord with their
pending motion for class certification.  The judge, however,
denied the motion with respect to substitution by the five
substitutes -- Keith Uehara (Hawaii), Joseph Pankow (Illinois),
David Reymann (Utah), Gail Murphy (Vermont), and Hathaway &
Associates (Washington, D.C.) -- whose only basis for standing
asserted in the proposed amended complaint is the purchase of
certain Apple products which likely did not contain cylindrical
batteries.

A full-text copy of Judge Rogers' March 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/BP8Repfrom Leagle.com.

Kevin Young, Bradley Seldin, Plaintiffs, represented by Jeff D
Friedman -- jefff@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jason Allen
Zweig -- jasonz@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
Shana E. Scarlett -- shanas@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Bruce Sterman, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Charles Carte, Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc.,Brian P. Murray -- bmurray@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,
Carl Nils Hammarskjold, Saveri and Saveri, David Yau-Tian Hwu,
Saveri and Saveri Inc., Geoffrey Conrad Rushing, Saveri & Saveri
Inc., Gregory Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Lee Albert -- lalbert@glancylaw.com --
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Lisa Maria Saveri, Saveri & Saveri
Inc., R Alexander Saveri, Saveri and Saveri Inc, Richard Alexander
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Susan Gilah Kupfer --
skupfer@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Todd
Anthony Seaver -- tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio.

Brian Hanlon, Plaintiff, represented by Brent W Johnson --
bjohnson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll
PLLC, Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,Kit A.
Pierson -- kpierson@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein Sellers
and Toll PLLC & Laura M Alexander -- lalexander@cohenmilstein.com
-- Cohen Milstein Sellers and Toll.

Nichole M. Gray, Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc.,Aaron James Broussard, Broussard and Hart LLC, Carl
Nils Hammarskjold, Saveri and Saveri, David Yau-Tian Hwu, Saveri
and Saveri Inc., Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen
LLC, Lisa Maria Saveri, Saveri & Saveri Inc., R Alexander Saveri,
Saveri and Saveri Inc, Richard Kirchner, Bonsignore & Brewer,
Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Robert J.
Bonsignore, Bonsignore Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Todd Anthony Seaver,
Berman DeValerio.

Woodrow Clark, II, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry,
Law Offices of Brian Barry, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne,
Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman
DeValerio.

Rebecca Cervenak, Plaintiff, represented by William James Doyle,
II, Doyle Lowther LLP.

John Russo, Plaintiff, represented by William James Doyle, II,
Doyle Lowther LLP, James Robert Hail, Doyle Lowther & Katherine S.
DiDonato, Shustak Reynolds & Partners, P.C..

Matthew J. Miller, Rachel L. Miller, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher M. Burke, John Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott &
Scott LLP, Todd Michael Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Bradley Van Patten, Plaintiff, represented by Alex M Tomasevic,
Nicholas and Butler LLP, Craig McKenzie Nicholas, Nicholas and
Butler LLP, George D. Rikos, Law Offices of George Rikos & Rosa
Estela Shelton.

Benjamin Kramer, James A. Smith, Angela Turner, Katherine A.
Wirkus, Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher M. Burke, Scott
Scott LLP, John Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP,
Todd Michael Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns
LLP & Walter W. Noss.

Michael Barbat, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Scott Hartley,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

David Brownlee, Plaintiff, represented by Jason Scott Hartley,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law
Firm, Inc., Ryan James McEwan, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. & Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Robert Alan Dishman, Joan Goodman, David McAfee, Dawn Thompson,
Plaintiffs, represented by David D. Dishman, Law Office of David
D. Dishman.

The Stereo Shop, Plaintiff, represented by Lindsey A. Davis, Zelle
Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Christopher Thomas Micheletti, Zelle
LLP, Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel & Mason LLP, Daniel
E. Gustafson, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Dennis Stewart,
Hulett Harper Stewart LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Francis
Onofrei Scarpulla, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Heather T.
Rankie, Zelle LLP, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC,Joshua J.
Rissman, Gustafson Gluek PPLC, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Patrick
Bradford Clayton, Law Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla & Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Michele Criden, Plaintiff, represented by James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne, Peter A. Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.C., Jay W.
Eisenhofer, Grant & Eisenhofer, P.A., Linda Phyllis Nussbaum,
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Brian Caleb Batey, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
Danielle Evelyn Leonard, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne, James M. Finberg, Altshuler Berzon LLP, James
Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, John Jasnoch,
Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP,Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne, Todd Michael Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky
Wotkyns LLP & Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

A-1 Computers Inc, Plaintiff, represented by NICOLE M. ACCHIONE,
TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP, David G. Scott, EMERSON SCOTT
LLP, John G. Emerson, Emerson Scott LLP, Lisa J. Rodriguez,
Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC & Scott E. Poynter, Steel,
Wright & Collier, PLLC.

Yevgeniya Lisitsa, Plaintiff, represented by James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne,Jamie E. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group LLC,
Jeffrey A Leon, Quantum Legal LLC, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne, Paul M. Weiss, Complex Litigation Group LLC & Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Daniel Meir, Plaintiff, represented by Robert Samuel Kitchenoff,
Weinstein Kitchenoff and Asher LLC, Jeremy S. Spiegel, Weinstein
Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez &
Richards LLC, Marvin Srulowitz,Mindee Jill Reuben, Lite DePalma
Greenberg, LLC, Steven A. Asher, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC
& Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Kimberly Raimondo, Plaintiff, represented by David Francis
Sorensen, Berger & Montague, P.C., Eric L. Cramer, Berger &
Montague, P.C., James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne, Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne, Sarah Rebecca Schalman-Bergen, Berger and Montague,
P.C. & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Drake Dailey-Chawlibog, Meghan Dowling, Michael Hull, David Shawn,
Plaintiffs, represented by Christopher M. Burke,James E. Cecchi,
Carella Byrne, James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch &
Jennings, John Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP,
Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Todd Michael Schneider,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Walter W. Noss,
ScottScott LLP.

Deweese Smith, Plaintiff, represented by James E. Cecchi, Carella
Byrne,Joseph T. Lukens, Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Kendall S. Zylstra,
Faruqi and Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice, Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella
Byrne, Stephen E. Connolly, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, pro hac vice &
Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Regina Shannon, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Daniel Greenberg,
Lite Depalma Greenberg LLC, Anne T Regan, Zimmerman Reed PLLP,
Brian Gudmundson, Attorney at Law, David M. Cialkowski, Zimmerman
Reed, PLLP, James W. Andeson, Heins Mills & Olson PLC, Renae Diane
Steiner, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman
DeValerio &Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C..

Kim Billingsley, Plaintiff, represented by Casey Langston Lott,
Langston Lott P A, E. Kirk Wood, Wood Law Firm LLC, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne &Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne.

Renee Meier, Plaintiff, represented by NICOLE M. ACCHIONE,
TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP, Garrett D. Blanchfield, Jr.,
Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Gary B Friedman, Friedman Law
Group LLP, Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC,
Mark Reinhardt, Reinhardt Wendorf & Blanchfield, Noah Shube, The
Law Offices of Noah Shube, pro hac vice & Todd Anthony Seaver,
Berman DeValerio.

First Choice Marketing Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Beth Targan
Seltzer, Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Donald L Perelman, Fine Kaplan
and Black, RPC,Gerald J Rodos, Barrack Rodos and Bacine, Jeffrey
B. Gittleman, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, Jeffrey Steven Istvan, Fine
Kaplan and Black, RPC, Joshua D. Snyder, Boni & Zack LLC, Michael
J. Boni, Boni & Zack LLC, Robert G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer
P.A., Roberta D. Liebenberg, Fine Kaplan and Black, RPC,Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio & William John Ban, Barrack,
Rodos and Bacine.

Michael James Doyle, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Burke, Dan W. Taliaferro, Davis & Taliaferro LLC, Gregory Louis
Davis, Davis and Taliaferro, LLC, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne,
James Gerard Stranch, IV, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, John
Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP,Lindsey H. Taylor,
Carella Byrne, Todd Michael Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell
Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Walter W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Rebecca Cohen, Ellis Greenspan, Louis Messina, Patrice Nealon,
Elizabeth Porter, Dawn Potvin, Marylin Sharp, Grace Shire, Dan
Wehking, Steven Wiley, Plaintiffs, represented by Timothy A. C.
May, Messina Law Firm, Brian Douglas Penny, Goldman Scarlato Karon
and Penny, P.C., Daniel R. Karon, Karon LLC, Gil D. Messina,
Messina Law Firm PC, Isaac L. Diel, Sharp McQueen, John D.
Zaremba, Zaremba Brownell & Brown PLLC, Kevin Peter Roddy, Wilentz
Goldman & Spitzer, PA & Krishna Brian Narine, Meredith Narine.

Nancy Ruan, Plaintiff, represented by Stephen M. Sohmer, The
Sohmer Law Firm LLC, Eugene A. Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff &
Willis, PC, Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff &
Willis P.C., Jonathan M. Jagher, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis
PC, Jonathan Marc Jagher, Spector Roseman & Kodroff, Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio & William G. Caldes, Spector, Roseman,
Kodroff & Willis, P.C..

Chad Conover, Plaintiff, represented by Eric S. Somers, Lexington
Law Group,Howard Judd Hirsch, Lexington Law Group, James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne,Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne & Mark N.
Todzo, Lexington Law Group, LLP.

Susanne Hiller, Robert Hyams, Matthew Weiner, Plaintiffs,
represented by Eric S. Somers, Lexington Law Group, Howard Judd
Hirsch, Lexington Law Group, James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne &
Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne.

Gerasimos Molfetas, Plaintiff, represented by Natalie Finkelman
Bennett, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, James Craig Shah
& Jayne Arnold Goldstein, Pomerantz LLP, pro hac vice.

Thomas R. Tuohy, Plaintiff, represented by NICOLE M. ACCHIONE,
TRUJILLO RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP, John G. Emerson, Emerson Scott
LLP, Lisa J. Rodriguez, Trujillo Rodriguez & Richards LLC & Scott
E. Poynter, Steel, Wright & Collier, PLLC.

Beverlee Sclar, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
James E. Cecchi, Carella Byrne, John Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo,
Scott & Scott LLP,Lindsey H. Taylor, Carella Byrne, Todd Michael
Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP & Walter
W. Noss, ScottScott LLP.

David Petree, Plaintiff, represented by Jennie Lee Anderson,
Andrus Anderson LLP & Peter James Mougey, Levin Papantonio Thomas
Mitchell Rafferty and Proctor P.A..

Mike Katz-Lacabe, Plaintiff, represented by Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Elizabeth Joan Cabraser, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.

James O'Neil, Plaintiff, represented by Danielle A. Stoumbos,
Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Douglas Graham Thompson, Jr.,
Finkelstein Thompson LLP,Eugene Joseph Benick, III, Finkelstein
Thompson LLP, L. Kendall Satterfield, Finkelstein Thompson LLP,
Michael Glenn McLellan, Finkelstein Thompson LLP, Rosemary M.
Rivas, Finkelstein Thompson LLP & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman
DeValerio.

Lloyd Ranola, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker,
Pritzker Levine LLP, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard Gibbs LLP, Janice
Seyoung Yi, Law Offices of Ronald B. Bass, Jonathan Krasne Levine,
PRITZKER LEVINE LLP, Scott M. Grzenczyk, Girard Gibbs LLP & Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon &
Warshaw, LLP,Alexander Robert Safyan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bobby Pouya, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Clifford H.
Pearson, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw LLP, Daniel L. Warshaw, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Robert George Retana, Pearson Simon &
Warshaw, LLP, Steven Todd Gubner, Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP, Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio & William James Newsom, Pearson,
Simon & Warshaw, LLP.

Tom Pham, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Roth Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Christopher Le, Straus & Boies,
LLP, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, James Wyatt, Wyatt & Blake LLP, Marc Gene Reich,
Reich Radcliffe and Kuttler LLP, Susan LaCava, Lacava & Lief,
S.C., Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP & William Straus, Law
Offices of William Straus.

Kathleen Tawney, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Roth Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Christopher Le, Straus
& Boies, LLP,Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, James Wyatt, Wyatt & Blake LLP, Marc Gene Reich,
Reich Radcliffe and Kuttler LLP,Susan LaCava, Lacava & Lief, S.C.,
Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP &William Straus, Law Offices
of William Straus.

Calvin Calkins, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Roth Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Christopher Le, Straus
& Boies, LLP, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler
& Birkhaeuser, James Wyatt, Wyatt & Blake LLP, Marc Gene Reich,
Reich Radcliffe and Kuttler LLP, Susan LaCava, Lacava & Lief,
S.C., Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP & William Straus, Law
Offices of William Straus.

Automation Engineering, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Allan
Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Amy Dawn
Fitts, Brian D Clark, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel D.
Owen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy, P.C., pro hac vice, Elizabeth R.
Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., G. Gabriel Zorogastua,
Polsinelli Shughart PC, Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP, Heidi M Silton, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P., Jack Brady, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Jill Michelle
Manning, Steyer Lowenthal, Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio &
W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P.

Edward Klugman, Plaintiff, represented by Allan Steyer, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Brian D Clark, Lockridge
Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Daniel D. Owen, Shughart Thomson & Kilroy,
P.C., pro hac vice,Elizabeth R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen
P.L.L.P., G. Gabriel Zorogastua, Polsinelli Shughart PC, Gabriel
Dash Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP, Heidi
M Silton, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Jack Brady, Polsinelli
Shughart PC, Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer Lowenthal, Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio & W. Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal
Nauen P.L.L.P.

Gene Powers, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Mayer Caplan, Bushnell
& Caplan LLP, Alexandra Senya Bernay, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP,Roderick P. Bushnell, Bushnell & Caplan LLP & Samuel H.
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Richard S.E. Johns, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Farley
Keller, Keller Grover LLP, Eric A. Grover, Keller Grover LLP &
Kathleen R. Scanlan, Keller Grover LLP.

Brandon Martinez, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP, James Robert Noblin, Green and
Noblin, P.C., Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP, Mark A.
Delaney, Block & Leviton LLP, Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin,
P.C. & Whitney E. Street, Block & Leviton LLP.

Angelo Michael D'Orazio, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP, Domenico Minerva, James
Robert Noblin, Green and Noblin, P.C., Peter G.A. Safirstein,
Morgan & Morgan P.C. & Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..

Ron Nelson, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Guido Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., R Alexander Saveri, Saveri and Saveri Inc, Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,Carl Nils Hammarskjold, Saveri and
Saveri, David Yau-Tian Hwu, Saveri and Saveri Inc., Douglas A.
Millen, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Geoffrey Conrad Rushing,
Saveri & Saveri Inc., Harry Shulman, Shulman Law Firm,Lisa Maria
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri Inc., Michael Jerry Freed, Freed Kanner
London Millen LLC, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Steven A. Kanner, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, Thomas
H. Johnson, The Law Firm of Thomas H. Johnson, P.A. & Todd Anthony
Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Univision-Crimson Holding, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio, Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Berman
DeValerio, Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky,
Sarah Khorasanee McGrath, Berman Devalerio, Simon Bahne Paris,
Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and Bendesky & Victor Santiago Elias,
Berman DeValerio.

Piya Robert Rojanasathit, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph M.
Breall, Breall & Breall, LLP & Jill L. Diamond, Breall & Breall
LLP.

Michael S. Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Adam C. Belsky, Gross
Belsky Alonso LLP, Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, Ari Yale
Basser, MARKUN ZUSMAN FRENIERE AND COMPTON, LLP, Daniel J Mogin,
The Mogin Law Firm, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Monique
Alonso, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP, R. Alexander Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc. & Sarah Crowley, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP.

Ritz Camera & Image, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by R. Alexander
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Carl Nils Hammarskjold, Saveri and Saveri, Guido Saveri,
Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Lisa Maria Saveri, Saveri & Saveri Inc.,
Matthew A. Seligman, Kellogg Huber Hansen Todd Evans and Figel
PLLC, Richard Kirchner, Bonsignore & Brewer,Richard Alexander
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Robert J. Bonsignore, Bonsignore
Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Steven F. Benz, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd,
Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Steven Bugge, Plaintiff, represented by Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, David E. Azar, Milberg LLP, Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Merjanian A. Vic, Krause Kalfayan
Benink and Slavens LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac vice,
Peggy Wedgworth, Milberg LLP & Vic A. Merjanian, Krause Kalfayan
Benink & Slavens LLP.

A. Keith Thrower, Plaintiff, represented by Sydney Jay Hall, Law
Offices of Sydney Jay Hall & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman
DeValerio.

Kristina Yee, Plaintiff, represented by Nanci Eiko Nishimura,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Adam John Zapala, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, Elizabeth Tran, Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, Joanna
Weil LiCalsi, Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Joseph W. Cotchett,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Nancy L. Fineman, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy LLP, Steven N. Williams, Cotchett Pietre & McCarthy LLP &
Steven Noel Williams, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP.

Joseph G. O'Daniel, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory P. Forney,
Shaffer Lombardo Shurin & Thomas J.H. Brill, Law Office of Thomas
H. Brill.

William Cabral, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser.

Jason Ames, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke, John
Jasnoch,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP & Walter W. Noss,
ScottScott LLP.

Wilbur Franklin, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
John Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP & Walter W.
Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Beatriz Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
John Jasnoch, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP & Walter W.
Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Linda Lincoln, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M. Burke,
John Jasnoch,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott LLP & Walter W.
Noss, ScottScott LLP.

Kristin Starr Barnes, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Becnel,
Jr., Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C., Kevin Partick Klibert, Law Offices
of Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. &Toni Becnel, Becnel Law Firm LLC.

Mark Bergeron, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.,
Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C., Kevin Partick Klibert, Law Offices of
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. & Toni Becnel, Becnel Law Firm LLC.

Michael Janusa, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.,
Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C., Kevin Partick Klibert, Law Offices of
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. & Toni Becnel, Becnel Law Firm LLC.

Adam Ronquillo, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.,
Becnel Law Firm, L.L.C., Kevin Partick Klibert, Law Offices of
Daniel E. Becnel, Jr. & Toni Becnel, Becnel Law Firm LLC.

Terri Walner, Plaintiff, represented by Carl Nils Hammarskjold,
Saveri and Saveri, Gary Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP, Gregory K Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Guido
Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,Lisa Maria Saveri, Saveri & Saveri
Inc., Richard Jo Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox And Kilsheimer LLP,
Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Robert N. Kaplan,
Kaplan Kilsheimer & Fox LLP & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman
DeValerio.

Anna Jawor, Plaintiff, represented by Kalpana Srinivasan, Susman
Godfrey,Kathryn Parsons Hoek, Susman Godfrey LLP, Lindsey Godfrey
Eccles, Susman Godfrey L.L.P., Marc M. Seltzer, Susman Godfrey LLP
& Steven Gerald Sklaver, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Krista Lepore, Plaintiff, represented by Bryan L. Clobes, Cafferty
Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

The Nationwide Group, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher M.
Burke.

Matt Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and
LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP &
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert Laduca.

Laura Gallardo, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jon A Tostrud, Tostrud Law Group,
P.C., Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, Katherine
Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP & Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo
Gilbert Laduca.

Spencer Hathaway, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Joel Davidow, Cuneo Gilbert LaDuca,
Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van
Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP & Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo
Gilbert Laduca.

Alexandra Le, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery, Cuneo
Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and
LaDuca, LLP, Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP &
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert Laduca.

Robert McGranahan, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and
LaDuca, LLP,Katherine Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP &
Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo Gilbert Laduca.

Patrick McGuinness, Plaintiff, represented by Michael J. Flannery,
Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Daniel Cohen, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca,
LLP, Jonathan W. Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, Katherine
Van Dyck, Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca LLP & Victoria Romanenko, Cuneo
Gilbert Laduca.

Erinn Tozer, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP,Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump &
Prescott, LLP, Mario Nunzio Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott
LLP & Robert J. Gralewski, Jr., Gergosian & Gralewski LLP.

David Gibbons, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Shulman, Gray,
Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A. & Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Valentina Juncaj, Plaintiff, represented by Ralph B. Kalfayan,
Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, David E. Azar, Milberg LLP,
Elizabeth Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP,
pro hac vice, Peggy Wedgworth, Milberg LLP & Vic A. Merjanian,
Krause Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP.

Violet Selca, Plaintiff, represented by Ralph B. Kalfayan, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens, David E. Azar, Milberg LLP, Elizabeth
Anne McKenna, Milberg LLP, Paul F. Novak, Milberg LLP, pro hac
vice, Peggy Wedgworth, Milberg LLP & Vic A. Merjanian, Krause
Kalfayan Benink & Slavens LLP.

Corie Levy, Plaintiff, represented by Michael D. Braun, Braun Law
Group, P.C. & Richard B. Brualdi, Attorney at Law.

Scott Beall, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser,
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Christopher Le, Straus & Boies,
LLP & Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP.

Theodore Wolfendale, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Roth Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Christopher
Le, Straus & Boies, LLP &Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP.

Christopher Bessette, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Roth Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser, Christopher
Le, Straus & Boies, LLP &Timothy D. Battin, Straus & Boies LLP.

Alexander C. Eide, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel R. Shulman,
Gray, Plant, Mooty, Mooty & Bennett, P.A. & Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc..

Polly Cohen, Plaintiff, represented by James Robert Noblin, Green
and Noblin, P.C., Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP, Lesley
Elizabeth Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP, Louise Hornbeck Renne,
Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai, LLP,Mark A. Delaney, Block & Leviton
LLP, Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C.,Steven Patrick Shaw,
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP & Whitney E. Street, Block &
Leviton LLP.

San Francisco Community College District, Plaintiff, represented
by James Robert Noblin, Green and Noblin, P.C., Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP, Louise Hornbeck Renne, Renne Sloan
Holtzman & Sakai, LLP,Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C. &
Steven Patrick Shaw, Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Demetrius
Xavier Lambrinos, Zelle Hofmann Voelbel Mason, and Gette LLP,
Joanna Weil LiCalsi, Cotchett Pitre McCarthy LLP, Steven Noel
Williams, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Alexandra Senya Bernay,
Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Carl Nils Hammarskjold,
Saveri and Saveri, Dean Michael Harvey, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein LLP, Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas
Alvarez Smith LLP, Ivy Arai Tabbara, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP, Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jennie Lee
Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, Jerrod C. Patterson, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro, Jon T. King, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Lin
Yee Chan, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Shana E.
Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Steve W. Berman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Sylvia M. Sokol,Thomas Kay Boardman,
SCOTTSCOTT, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, LLP & Willem F. Jonckheer, Schubert
Jonckheer & Kolbe LLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Todd
Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio, Aaron M. Sheanin, Pearson, Simon
& Warshaw, LLP,Benjamin Ernest Shiftan, Pearson, Simon & Warshaw,
LLP, Bruce Lee Simon, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Cadio R.
Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc.,Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law
Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla, Gabriel Dash Zeldin, Steyer
Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez Smith LLP, Jessica Moy, Berman
DeValerio, Judith A. Zahid, Zelle LLP, Mindee Jill Reuben, Lite
DePalma Greenberg, LLC, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc.,Robert George Retana, Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Travis
Luke Manfredi, Saveri and Saveri Inc & Carl Nils Hammarskjold,
Saveri and Saveri.

Eric McGuire, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Block & Leviton LLP, James Robert Noblin, Green and Noblin, P.C.,
Jeffrey C. Block, Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Mark A.
Delaney, Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac vice, Robert S. Green, Green
& Noblin, P.C. & Whitney E. Street, Block & Leviton LLP, pro hac
vice.

KCN Services LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Jason H. Kim,
Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns, Todd Michael
Schneider, Schneider Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP, Bruce
H. Wakuzawa, Christopher M. Burke &Garrett W Wotkyns, Schneider
Wallace Cottrell Konecky Wotkyns LLP.

Brad Marcus, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S. Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C..

Basil Bourque, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory Weston & Melanie
Rae Persinger, The Weston Firm.

Kevin Litwin, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth Weaver,
Block & Leviton LLP, James Robert Noblin, Green and Noblin, P.C. &
Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..

Melinda Lawson, Plaintiff, represented by James Robert Noblin,
Green and Noblin, P.C., Lesley Elizabeth Weaver, Block & Leviton
LLP & Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C..

David Tolchin, Plaintiff, represented by Michael David Liberty,
Law Office of Michael D. Liberty.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, represented by Alexandra Jill
Shepard, U.S. Department of Justice.

Karen Stromberg, Plaintiff, represented by Dean Noburu Kawamoto,
Keller Rohrback LLP, Amy N.L. Hanson, Keller Rohrback LLP, pro hac
vice, Juli E. Farris, Keller Rohrback LLP, Mark A. Griffin, Keller
Rohback LLP, pro hac vice & Raymond John Farrow, KELLER ROHRBACK,
pro hac vice.

City of Palo Alto, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP, James Robert Noblin, Green and
Noblin, P.C., Louise Hornbeck Renne, Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai,
LLP, Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C. & Steven Patrick Shaw,
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.

City of Richmond, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, Block & Leviton LLP, James Robert Noblin, Green and
Noblin, P.C., Louise Hornbeck Renne, Renne Sloan Holtzman & Sakai,
LLP, Robert S. Green, Green & Noblin, P.C. & Steven Patrick Shaw,
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP.

Matthew Saba, Plaintiff, represented by Manfred Patrick Muecke,
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C..

Shawn Sellers, Plaintiff, represented by Manfred Patrick Muecke,
Bonnett, Fairbourn, Friedman, & Balint, P.C..

TracFone Wireless Inc, Plaintiff, represented by James Blaker
Bladinger, Carlton Fields PA & David Bedford Esau.

Acer Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Hsiang James H Lin,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor Sack, TechKnowledge Law
Group LLP & Michael C. Ting, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Acer America Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Hsiang James H
Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor Sack, TechKnowledge
Law Group LLP & Michael C. Ting, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Gateway, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Hsiang James H Lin,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor Sack, TechKnowledge Law
Group LLP & Michael C. Ting, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Gateway U.S. Retail, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Hsiang James
H Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor Sack,
TechKnowledge Law Group LLP & Michael C. Ting, TechKnowledge Law
Group LLP.

Microsoft Mobile Inc., and Microsoft Mobile Oy, Plaintiffs,
represented by Lance A Termes -- lance.termes@alston.com -- ALSTON
& BIRD, Brian Parker Miller, Alston & Bird LLP, Edward Paul
Bonapfel, Alston and Bird LLP, James Charles Grant, Alston and
Bird, Max Paul Marks, Alston and Bird LLP, Nicolas Ward Steenland,
Ryan W. Koppelman -- ryan.koppelman@alston.com -- Alston & Bird
LLP & Valarie Cecile Williams, Alston & Bird LLP, pro hac vice.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Kenny, Alston &
Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Donald MacKaye
Houser, Alston & Bird LLP, Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun &
Martel LLP, Kelley Connolly Barnaby, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac
vice, Matthew David Kent, Micah Dean Moon, Alston Bird LLP &
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP.

Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Michael P. Kenny,
Alston & Bird LLP, Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Donald
MacKaye Houser, Alston & Bird LLP, Douglas R. Young, Farella Braun
& Martel LLP, Kelley Connolly Barnaby, Alston and Bird LLP, pro
hac vice, Matthew David Kent,Micah Dean Moon, Alston Bird LLP &
Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP.

LG Chem Ltd., and LG Chem America, Inc, Defendants, represented by
Reginald David Steer -- rsteer@akingump.com -- Akin Gump Strauss
Hauer & Feld LLP, C. Fairley Spillman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and
Feld LLP, Catherine E Creely, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer and Feld
LLP,Hyongsoon Kim, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Mollie
McGowan Lemberg, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP.

Sony Corporation, Defendant, represented by John C. Dwyer, Cooley
LLP,Beatriz Mejia, Cooley LLP, Matthew Michael Brown, Cooley LLP &
Stephen Cassidy Neal, Cooley LLP.

Sony Electronics Inc, Defendant, represented by John C. Dwyer,
Cooley LLP, Beatriz Mejia, Cooley LLP, Matthew Michael Brown,
Cooley LLP & Stephen Cassidy Neal, Cooley LLP.

Samsung SDI America Inc, Defendant, represented by Michael W.
Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton LLP, Amar Shrinivas
Naik, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton LLP, Dylan Ian
Ballard, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Nadezhda Nikonova, Sheppard Mullin & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Hitachi Ltd., Defendant, represented by Craig P. Seebald, Vinson &
Elkins LLP, Elliott J Joh, Vinson and Elkins LLP & Matthew J.
Jacobs, Vinson & Elkins LLP.

Hitachi Maxell, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Craig P. Seebald,
Vinson & Elkins LLP, Elliott J Joh, Vinson and Elkins LLP, Jason
Alan Levine, Vinson Elkins LLP, Jessica Rae Spradling Russell,
Lindsey Robinson Vaala, Matthew J. Jacobs, Vinson & Elkins LLP &
Thomas William Bohnett, Vinson and Elkins L.L.P..

Maxell Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Craig P.
Seebald, Vinson & Elkins LLP, Elliott J Joh, Vinson and Elkins
LLP, Jason Alan Levine, Vinson Elkins LLP, Jessica Rae Spradling
Russell, Lindsey Robinson Vaala,Matthew J. Jacobs, Vinson & Elkins
LLP & Thomas William Bohnett, Vinson and Elkins L.L.P..

Sony Energy Devices Corporation, Defendant, represented by John C.
Dwyer, Cooley LLP, Beatriz Mejia, Cooley LLP, Matthew Michael
Brown, Cooley LLP &Stephen Cassidy Neal, Cooley LLP.

Samsung SDI Co Ltd, Defendant, represented by Amar Shrinivas
Naik, Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton LLP, Dylan Ian
Ballard, James Landon McGinnis, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Michael W. Scarborough, Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP, Nadezhda Nikonova, Sheppard Mullin & Tyler Mark Cunningham,
Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton.

Maxwell Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by Thomas
William Bohnett, Vinson and Elkins L.L.P..

Toshiba America Electronic Components Inc, Defendant, represented
byChristopher M. Curran, White & Case & J. Frank Hogue, White Case
LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Christopher M.
Curran, White & Case, Heather Marie Abrams, White and Case LLP, J.
Frank Hogue, White Case LLP, Martin M Toto, White and Case LLP &
Michael E. Hamburger, White & Case LLP.

LG Chem America, Defendant, represented by Reginald David Steer,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Mollie McGowan Lemberg, Akin
Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP.

LG Corporation, Defendant, represented by Reginald David Steer,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

Sony Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by John C.
Dwyer, Cooley LLP.

Sanyo Electric Co., Inc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP.

NEC Tokin Corporation, Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Angela Yue-Man Poon,
Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher LLP, George Charles Nierlich, III,
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP,Katherine C Warren, Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP & Rupal M. Doshi, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP.

NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alvina Wong, Winston
Strawn LLP, Dana Lynn Cook-Milligan, Winston and Strawn LLP,
Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Matthew Robert
DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Paul R. Griffin, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Robert Benard Pringle, Winston & Strawn LLP.

NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by
LG Chemical Ltd., Defendant, represented by Reginald David Steer,
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP.

LG Chemical Ltd., Defendant, represented by Mollie McGowan
Lemberg, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP.

LG Chemical America Inc, Defendant, represented by Reginald David
Steer, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP & Mollie McGowan
Lemberg, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer Feld LLP.

Hitachi Maxell Ltd, Defendant, represented by Craig P. Seebald,
Vinson & Elkins LLP.

PCM, Defendant, represented by Jennifer Lee Taylor, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

Martin A Blumenthal, Objector, represented by Martin Allen
Blumenthal.

BlackBerry Corporation, (Non-Party BlackBerry Corporation),
Miscellaneous, represented by Alexander Howard Cote, Scheper Kim &
Harris LLP.

PCM, Inc., Miscellaneous, represented by Jennifer Lee Taylor,
Morrison & Foerster LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Diamantopoulos" Suit Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nikolaos Diamantopoulos, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Midland Credit Management, Inc. and John
Does 1-25, Case No. 2:16-cv-01524-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., March 21,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates a financial services
company that helps consumers resolve past-due financial
obligations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MORGAN STANLEY & CO: "Lee" Suit Moved from Sup. Ct. to S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Lee, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Cnova N.V., Vitor Fag  De Almeida,
Germ n Pasquale Quiroga Vilardo, Emmanuel Grenier, Jean-Charles
Naouri, L¡bano Miranda Barroso, Eleazar De Carvalho Filho, Didier
L‚vˆque, Ronaldo Iabrudi Dos Santos Pereira, Arnaud Strasser,
Fernando Tracanella, Nicolas Woussen, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., BNP Paribas Securities Corp., HSBC
Securities (USA) Inc., Natixis Securities Americas LLC, and
SG Americas Securities, LLC, was removed from the Supreme Court of
the State of New York, New York, Case No. 150395/2016, to the US
District Court for the Southern District of New York. The Southern
District assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-01199 to the proceeding.

Morgan Stanley & Co. is a boutique investment banking firm that
offers financial advisory and security brokerage services. The
firm was founded in 1969 and is based in New York, New York.
Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC operates as a subsidiary of Morgan
Stanley Domestic Holdings, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jonathan Rosenberg, Esq.
          Allen W. Burton, Esq.
          Lucy E. Hill, Esq.
          O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP
          Times Square Tower
          7 Times Square
          New York, NY 10036-6524
          Telephone: (212) 326 2000

The Defendants are represented by:

          WHITE & CASE LLP
          Glenn M. Kurtz, Esq.
          Douglas P. Baumstein, Esq.
          Colin T. West, Esq.
          1155 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 819 8200


NANTKWEST INC: Faces Securities Class Action in California
----------------------------------------------------------
Pomerantz LLP on March 22 disclosed that a class action lawsuit
has been filed against NantKwest, Inc. and certain of its
officers.  The class action, filed in United States District
Court, Central District of California, and docketed under
16-cv-01947, is on behalf of a class consisting of all persons or
entities who purchased NantKwest securities between September 10,
2015 and March 10, 2016 inclusive (the "Class Period").  This
class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you are a shareholder who purchased NantKwest securities during
the Class Period, you have until May 23, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as Lead Plaintiff for the class.  A copy of the
Complaint can be obtained at www.pomerantzlaw.com. To discuss this
action, contact Robert S. Willoughby at rswilloughby@pomlaw.com or
888.476.6529 (or 888.4-POMLAW), toll free, ext. 9980.  Those who
inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their mailing address,
telephone number, and number of shares purchased.

NantKwest, a biotechnology company, develops immunotherapeutic
agents for various clinical conditions.  The Company also holds
right to commercialize a range of genetically modified derivatives
that kills cancer and virally infected cells.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements regarding the
Company's business, operational and compliance policies.
Specifically, defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (i) NantKwest's financial
statements contained errors related to stock-based awards to the
Company's Chief Executive Officer and Executive Chairman defendant
Patrick Soon-Shiong ("Soon-Shiong"); (ii) NantKwest's financial
statements contained errors related to build-to-suit lease
accounting related to one of the Company's research and
development and good manufacturing practices ("GMP") facilities;
(iii) the Company lacked effective internal financial controls;
and (iv) as a result of the foregoing, NantKwest's public
statements were materially false and misleading at all relevant
times.

On March 11, 2016, NantKwest announced that the Company's interim
financial statements for the quarters ended June 30, 2015 and
September 30, 2015 should no longer be relied upon due, in part,
to the combined effect of financial statement errors primarily
attributable to certain stock-based awards to defendant Soon-
Shiong and build-to-suit lease accounting related to one of its
research and development and GMP facilities.

On this news, NantKwest stock fell $0.28, or 3.31%, to close at
$8.17 on March 11, 2016.

With offices in New York, Chicago, Florida, and Los Angeles, The
Pomerantz Firm -- http://www.pomerantzlaw.com-- concentrates its
practice in the areas of corporate, securities, and antitrust
class litigation.  Founded by the late Abraham L. Pomerantz, known
as the dean of the class action bar, the Pomerantz Firm pioneered
the field of securities class actions.  Today, more than 80 years
later, the Pomerantz Firm continues in the tradition he
established, fighting for the rights of the victims of securities
fraud, breaches of fiduciary duty, and corporate misconduct. The
Firm has recovered numerous multimillion-dollar damages awards on
behalf of class members.


NATIONAL FREIGHT: "Portillo" Suit Stays in N.J. Dist. Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Jerome B. Simandle of the United States
District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Plaintiffs'
motion to remand in the case captioned, JOHN F. PORTILLO, RAFAEL
SUAREZ, MARTIN DURAN, GERMAN BENCOSME, EDIN VARGAS, LUIS A.
HERNANDEZ, JOSUE PAZ, and ALVARO CASTANEDA, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. NATIONAL
FREIGHT, INC. and NFI INTERACTIVE LOGISTICS, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 15-7908 (JBS/KMW) (D.N.J.).

From approximately 2009 to 2014, Plaintiffs John F. Portillo,
Rafael Suarez, Martin Duran, German Bencosme, Edin Vargas, Luis A.
Hernandez, Josue Paz, and Alvaro Castaneda performed deliveries to
Trader Joe's stores throughout the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
on behalf of Defendants National Freight, Inc. and NFI Interactive
Logistics, Inc. During the period, however, Plaintiffs claim that
Defendants misclassified them as independent contractors rather
than employees and made unlawful deductions from their wages, in
violation of Massachusetts General Law c. 149, Sections 148, 148B.

As a result, Plaintiffs brought claims in the New Jersey Superior
Court on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated
delivery drivers. Upon completion of the parties' briefing on
Defendants' motion to dismiss and on the eve of the state court
return date, Defendants removed this action under the expanded
diversity provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.

In the motion, Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' removal on
timeliness grounds, and on the basis that their Notice of Removal
fails to sufficiently demonstrate that this action meets the
jurisdictional amount in controversy requirement under CAFA. On
the issue of timeliness, Plaintiffs claim that the allegations of
their Complaint, viewed through the lens of Defendants' own
records at the time of filing, provided ample information from
which to divine an arguable basis for federal CAFA jurisdiction
within the removal windows of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b).

In his Opinion dated March 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/2ojzHofrom Leagle.com, Judge Simandle concluded that
Defendants properly removed the action following their independent
discovery of jurisdictional facts satisfying CAFA's requirements,
and that Defendants have shown that the action meets the amount in
controversy requirement.

Plaintiffs are represented by Alexandra Koropey Piazza, Esq. --
apiazza@bm.net -- BERGER & MONTAGUE PC

National Freight, Inc. is represented by Robert H. Bernstein, Esq.
--- bersteinrob@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG LLP


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Court Grants Remand, Leave to File Surreply
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, LOWELL E. LANHAM, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE, LLC, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-CV-06358 (S.D.
W. Va.), District Judge Thomas E. Johnston of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia granted
Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand and Defendant's Motion for Leave to
File a Surreply and denied Defendant's Motion to Consolidate.

Plaintiffs Lowell E. Lanham and Deborah R. Lanham are homeowners
with a mortgage loan serviced by Defendant Nationstar Mortgage
LLC. On April 17, 2015, they filed a lawsuit in the Circuit Court
of Kanawha County, West Virginia, arising from Defendant's alleged
mismanagement of their mortgage. Plaintiffs claim that Defendant
misapplied payments made during the pendency of their prior
bankruptcy proceeding and, on several occasions, charged
Plaintiffs numerous late fees in amounts greater than the $15.00
permissible under the West Virginia Consumer Credit Protection Act
(WVCCPA).

The Complaint alleges misapplication of payments (Count I), the
assessment of unlawful late fees (Count II), breach of contract
(Count III), and false representation of the amount of claim
(Count IV), all in violation of the WVCCPA. Plaintiffs bring Count
I individually, and bring the remaining counts both individually
and as representatives of a proposed class, which is defined in
the Complaint as: "All West Virginia citizens at the time of the
filing of this action who, within the applicable statute of
limitations preceding the filing of this action through the date
of class certification, had or have loans serviced by the
Defendant."

Defendant removed the action on May 15, 2015 under the Class
Action Fairness Act of 2005 (CAFA). On June 17, 2015, Plaintiffs
filed their pending motion to remand claiming that Defendant has
offered insufficient evidence to establish that this action meets
CAFA's jurisdictional threshold of at least 100 class members and
more than $5,000,000 in controversy. On August 17, 2015, Defendant
moved for leave to file a surreply in further opposition to
Plaintiffs' motion to remand.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 11, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/iDyw8Nfrom Leagle.com, Judge Johnston found that
Defendant has failed to prove federal jurisdiction by a
preponderance of the evidence. Because the action will be remanded
to state court, the motion to consolidate is denied as moot.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. --
jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Sandra Henson Kinney, Esq. --
skinney@baileyglasser.com -- Tony Lee Clackler, II, Esq. --
tclackler@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC is represented by Dennis Kyle Deak, Esq.
-- kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com -- Jason E. Manning, Esq. --
jason.manning@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch, Esq. --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- TROUTMAN SANDERS


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Class Action Deal in "Good" Suit Okayed
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Eduardo C. Robreno granted final approval to the proposed
amended settlement in the case captioned BRADLEY GOOD et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action
No. 14-4295 (E.D. Pa.) and issued an order of dismissal with
prejudice .

On July 16, 2014, Bradely Good and Edward K. Soucek filed a
complaint, asserting claims against Nationwide Credit, Inc. (NCI),
under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).  The parties
eventually entered into an Amended Class Action Settlement
Agreement relating to all claims in the lawsuit.  The plaintiffs
filed the amended agreement, along with an Amended Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement on or about
October 30, 2015.  On November 4, 2015, the court entered an order
of preliminary approval of the amended class action settlement and
a preliminary determination of class action status.

On January 25, 2016, a Motion for Final Approval of Class Action
Settlement and Class Certification was filed.  A Fairness Hearing
was held on February 8, 2016.

Judge Robreno found that the lawsuit satisfies the applicable
prerequisites for class action treatment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23,
and that the settlement of the lawsuit, on the terms and
conditions set forth in the amended agreement, is in all respects
fundamentally fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best
interests of the class members.

A full-text copy of Judge Robreno's March 14, 2016 final judgment
and order is available at http://is.gd/lxvBmbfrom Leagle.com.

BRADLEY GOOD, EDWARD K. SOUCEK, Plaintiffs, represented by CARY L.
FLITTER, FLITTER MILZ, P.C., ANDREW M. MILZ, FLITTER MILZ, P.C. &
CARLO SABATINI, SABATINI LAW FIRM LLC.

NATIONWIDE CREDIT, INC., Defendant, represented by ALFRED W.
PUTNAM, JR. -- alfred.putnam@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
LLP, CLAY J. PIERCE, PATTERSON BELKNAP WEBB & TYLER LLP & ANDREW
P. REEVE -- andrew.reeve@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP.


NATIONWIDE MEDICAL: Faces "Marcus" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Nationwide
Medical Billing LLC d/b/a Nationwide Medical Billing.

The case is captioned Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Nationwide Medical Billing LLC
d/b/a Nationwide Medical Billing, Case No. 3:16-cv-01518-FLW-LHG
(D.N.J., March 18, 2016).

Nationwide Medical Billing LLC is in the business of providing
medical billing services across the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


NESTLE: Hearing Held in Calif. Class Suit over Child Slave Labor
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco on March 18, considered
whether Nestle and Hershey's supposed dependence on child slave
labor should be disclosed on their products' wrappers.

Two federal consumer class actions filed in September 2015 claim
the chocolate companies "turn a blind eye" to human rights abuses
by cocoa suppliers in West Africa while falsely portraying
themselves as socially and ethically responsible.

Mars was the target of another similar class action, but the
company ducked the lawsuit in February.

At March 18 hearing, plaintiffs' attorney Kevin Green told U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero that "duty arises from materiality,
and in this case materiality arises from Nestle and Hershey's
superior knowledge" -- a point that drew a rapid response from
Spero.

"It's not my recollection that everyone has a duty when they're
selling something to disclose everything material about it," Spero
said. "You think that any time a seller has superior knowledge,
they must, if it's arguably material, put it on the packaging? It
sweeps rather broadly, don't you think?"

Spero added that "there are any number of things that are material
to consumers. I don't know how you're going to fit that on a
chocolate bar."

In response, Green said, "We already see disclosures on products
of the ingredients. This is a disclosure related to the process by
which it is made."

But Spero told Green that what he was talking about was
"untethered."

"It could be any number of things," Spero said. "It could be that
consumers could be interested that the manufacturer of this
particular product pays less than $15 an hour, or that the
manufacturer has exported a number of jobs to China."

Maintaining that such disclosures would cover "important issues,"
Spero said, "I'm just wondering how a manufacturer draws a line.
I'm not understanding how you can, because the process by which
they manufacture it is everything they do."

Green said that "we're dealing with very severe conditions on the
Ivory Coast," where "something like 70 percent of the children who
work on those cocoa farms are between the ages of five and
eleven."

Spero said, "The situation described in your papers is terrible.
There's no dispute about that. The question is whether to put it
on the point-of-sale packaging."

Arguing for Hershey, Jonah Knobler said that by the plaintiffs'
theory, "anytime something was material, there would be
liability," which he said was "the opposite of what the common-law
rule has been for centuries."

"If the plaintiff is challenging the corporate practices of
defendants' upstream suppliers, then the manufacturer is liable
and there's no defense," Knobler said. "That seems to get it
backwards to me."

Knobler added, "I think I'm a reasonable person. I would not buy a
product from people who openly discriminate against people of
color, gays, lesbians, women.

"I don't expect that to be on the wrappers of their chicken
sandwiches when I go to buy them," Knobler said, presumably
referring to the fast food chain Chick-Fil-A.  He also said that
the plaintiffs take the view "that as long as the manufacturer has
superior knowledge about the product, that's enough."

"But that's no rule at all, because the manufacturer always has
superior knowledge about its product," Knobler said.  He also
pointed out that Nestle and Hershey's alleged practices are
"openly disclosed" on their company websites and corporate
reports.

In his rebuttal, Green contended that if that information is not
on the wrapper, "people won't see it."

Spero said he would issue an order in the next couple of weeks.

Green is with Hagens Berman in San Diego.

Knobler -- jknobler@pbwt.com -- is with Patterson Belknap in New
York.


NONG SHIM COMPANY: Court Rules on Joint Discovery Letters
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STEPHEN FENERJIAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
NONG SHIM COMPANY, LTD, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-04115-
WHO (DMR) (N.D. Cal.), Judge Donna M. Ryu granted the defendants'
motions to compel the Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs (IPPs) and the
Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs' (DPPs) Rule 30(b)(6) designees to
appear for deposition in San Francisco.  The judge also granted
the defendants' motion to compel the IPPs to search for ESI using
five additional search items.

In a multidistrict litigation, various direct and indirect
purchasers of the defendants' ramen noodles alleged that the
defendants engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy to raise the
prices of their ramen noodles sold in the United States.

The defendants Ottogi Corporation, Ltd., Ottogi America, Inc.,
Nongshim Co., Ltd. and Nongshim America, Inc. moved to compel
eight IPPs, and two DPP Rule 30(b)(6) designees to appear for
their depositions in San Francisco.  The defendants also moved to
compel the IPPs to use as search terms five other common spellings
or variations of the word "ramen": (ramen written in Korean),
ramyon, ramyun, udon, and noodle.

IPPs Fenerjian, Beamer, Martin, Halloran, Noble, Heiferman, Choi
and Chung opposed appearing for depositions in San Francisco,
arguing that they should be deposed via videoconference, or if the
defendants wish to depose them in person, they should do so at a
location near where the plaintiffs live.

DPPs Summit Import Corporation and Pacific Groservice, Inc.
(PITCO) also objected to producing their Rule 30(b)(6) witnesses
to appear for depositions in San Francisco.  Both requested that
their Rule 30(b)(6) designees be deposed in New York.

Judge Ryu found that the IPPs have made little effort to meet
their burden of establishing undue hardship, or that exceptional
or compelling circumstances justify their refusal to travel to the
forum that they have chosen for their class action.  For the same
reason, the judge also found that Summit and PITCO have likewise
failed to demonstrate good cause for depositions via
videoconference.

As to the defendants' motion to compel the IPPs to search for ESI
using five additional search terms, Judge Ryu found that the IPPs
have put forth no evidence that the requested discovery is
disproportionate or unduly burdensome.

A full-text copy of Judge Ryu's March 15, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/g4Ccs9from Leagle.com.

Stephen Fenerjian, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik --
aplutzik@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser --
dbirkhaeuser@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser LLP, Jeffrey S. Nobel -- jnobel@izardnobel.com --
Izard Nobel LLP, pro hac vice,Mark P. Kindall --
mkindall@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel LLP, Michael Stuart
Strimling -- mstrimling@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson Plutzik
Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Nicole Anne Veno --
nveno@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel LLP, pro hac vice & Robert A.
Izard -- rizard@izardnobel.com -- Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice.

Rockman Company (USA), Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Alan R.
Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gregory
Bradley Linkh -- glinkh@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray
LLP, Manuel Juan Dominguez -- jdominguez@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall,
Izard Nobel LLP, Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice,
Thomas C. Bright -- tbright@cerallp.com -- Cera LLP & Christopher
L. Lebsock -- clebsock@hausfeld.com -- Hausfeld LLP.

M.T. Trading Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas C.
Bright, Cera LLP, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik,
Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll, pro hac vice, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP &
Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice.

The Plaza Company, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher L.
Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy Prongay &
Murray LLP, Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Michael P.
Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP, Bonny E. Sweeney, Hausfeld LLP, Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Joshua L
Crowell, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP,Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP, Michael M.
Goldberg, Goldberg Law PC, Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro
hac vice, Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP & Susan Gilah Kupfer,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Eleanor Pelobello, Plaintiff, represented by Sydney J. Hall, Law
Offices of Sydney Jay Hall, Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik
Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP,Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson,
Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP,Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel
LLP, Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice & Nicole Anne
Veno, Izard Nobel LLP.

Christina Nguyen, Plaintiff, represented by Alan R. Plutzik,
Bramson Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP, Byron Seho Ahn, Reich
Radcliffe Kuttler LLP,Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik,
Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP,Marc Gene Reich, Reich Radcliffe and
Kuttler LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP & Robert A. Izard,
Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice.

Anthony An, Kenny Kang, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gerald S.
Ohn, Law Offices of Gerald S. Ohn, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel
LLP, Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice, Young Wook
Ryu, Law Office of Young W. Ryu APC & Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP.

Karen Heiferman, Jill Bonnington, Charles Chung, Nicholas
Halloran, Cynthia Skinner, Ji Choi, Joyce Beamer, Yim Ha Noble,
Kendal Martin, Thu-Thuy Nguyen, Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel
Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP,
Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP, Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel,
LLP, pro hac vice & Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP.

California Market LLC, Pitco Foods, Summit Import Corp.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Daniel Edward Birkhaeuser, Bramson,
Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard Nobel LLP, Robert A.
Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice & Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson
Plutzik Mahler & Birkhaeuser, LLP.

The Plaza Market, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Edward
Birkhaeuser, Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser LLP, Gregory
Bradley Linkh, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Mark P. Kindall, Izard
Nobel LLP, Robert A. Izard, Izard Nobel, LLP, pro hac vice,
Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP & Alan R. Plutzik, Bramson Plutzik Mahler &
Birkhaeuser, LLP.

Nong Shim Company, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Anne Choi
Goodwin, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Edward Ghiyun Kim, Squire
Patton Boggs, pro hac vice, J. Brady Dugan, Squire Patton Boggs
(US) LLP, pro hac vice, Joon Yong Kim, Squire Patton Boggs (US)
LLP, pro hac vice, Kate E Kim, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro
hac vice & Mark C. Dosker, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP.

Nongshim America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark C. Dosker,
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, Anne Choi Goodwin, Squire Patton
Boggs (US) LLP,Edward Ghiyun Kim, Squire Patton Boggs, pro hac
vice, J. Brady Dugan, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice,
Joon Yong Kim, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice & Kate E
Kim, Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, pro hac vice.

Ottogi Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Joel Steven
Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lindsey Elizabeth Haswell,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher &Minae Yu, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.
Ottogi America, Inc., Defendant, represented by George Arnold
Nicoud, III, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Joel Steven Sanders,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Lindsey Elizabeth Haswell, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher & Minae Yu, Gibson Dunn and Crutcher.

SamYang Foods Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Elizabeth
Dianne Mann, Mayer Brown LLP & Justin Robert Dickerson, Mayer
Brown LLP.

Sam Yang (U.S.A.), Inc., Defendant, represented by Edward W. Suh,
Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates & Michael Kwonchun
Suh, Law Offices of Michael K. Suh and Associates.

Korea Yakult, doing business as Paldo America, Defendant,
represented by Matthew David Taggart, Attorney at Law.

Paldo Company, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Seong H. Kim,
Steptoe and Johnson LLP, Edward B. Schwartz, DLA Piper US LLP, pro
hac vice & Matthew David Taggart, Attorney at Law.


OCO BIOMEDICAL: Faces "Marcus" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Marcus, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Oco Biomedical Inc. d/b/a Oco Biomedical, Case No.
3:16-cv-01519-AET-LHG (D.N.J., March 18, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's alleged civil rights violation.

Oco Biomedical Inc. is a manufacturer of dental implant solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ross H. Schmierer, Esq.
      PARIS ACKERMAN & SCHMIERER LLP
      103 Eisenhower Parkway
      Roseland, NJ 07068
      Telephone: (973) 228-6667
      Facsimile: (973) 629-1246
      E-mail: ross@paslawfirm.com


OCZ TECHNOLOGY: Court Approves Settlement Distribution Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California approved Lead Plaintiffs'
plan for distribution of the Net Settlement Fund to Authorized
Claimants in the case captioned, IN RE OCZ TECHNOLOGY GROUP, INC.
SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:12-CV-05265-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Lead Plaintiffs Leo Jegen, Vincent M. Monnier, Shih Leng Tan and
Len C. Villacres, on notice to Defendants' Counsel, moved the
Court for an order approving the distribution plan for the Net
Settlement Fund in the class action.

In his Order dated March 11, 2016 available at http://is.gd/WYD9m7
from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg adopted the administrative
recommendations to accept claims, including the otherwise valid
claims filed after the original August 13, 2015 postmark deadline,
and to reject wholly ineligible or otherwise deficient claims, as
recommended by the Claims Administrator, Epiq Class Action &
Claims Solutions, Inc. as stated in the Thurin Declaration.

No further Proofs of Claim shall be accepted after January 18,
2016, and no further adjustments to Proofs of Claim shall be made
for any reason after January 18, 2016.

The Settlement class is comprised of all Persons who purchased or
otherwise acquired OCZ common stock and/or call options during the
period between July 6, 2011 and January 22, 2013, inclusive.
Excluded from the Settlement Class are Defendants, members of the
Defendants' immediate families, officers, directors, and
subsidiaries of OCZ, any firm, entity, or corporation in which any
Defendant and/or any member(s) of an Defendant's immediate family
has or have a controlling interest, any trust of which an
Individual Defendant is the settlor or which is for the benefit of
a Defendant and/or any member of a Defendant's immediate family,
and the legal representatives, heirs, or successorsin-interest of
Defendants. Also excluded from the Settlement Class are those
Persons who timely and validly request exclusion from the
Settlement Class.

The Defendants have agreed to pay $7,500,000 in cash to settle the
lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are represented by Casey Edwards Sadler, Esq. ---
csadler@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq. --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay, Esq. --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

They are also represented by:

     Howard G. Smith, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF HOWARD G. SMITH
     3070 Bristol Pike
     Bensalem, PA 19020
     Tel: (215)638-4847

Defendants are represented by David Siegel, Esq. --
dsiegel@irell.com -- Kevin M. Winzer, Esq. -- kwinzer@irell.com
-- Martin N. Gelfand, Esq. -- mgelfand@irell.com -- IRELL &
MANELLA LLP


OGEMAW COUNTY, MI: Court Partially Grants Leave to Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted, in part,
Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint in the
case captioned, STACY MCINTYRE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. OGEMAW
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-
12214 (E.D. Mich.).

On June 18, 2015 Plaintiffs filed the instant putative class
action on behalf of all female inmates of the Ogemaw County Jail
who participated in a certain Sheriff Work program, or elected not
to participate in the program due to fears of constitutional
violations related to the program, against Defendants Ogemaw
County Board of Commissioners, Howie S. Haft, and James Raymond
Gustafson.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on August 18, 2015, alleging
that Gustafson, a former employee of the Ogemaw County Sheriff
Department, assaulted, battered and sexually harassed female
inmates who were incarcerated at the Ogemaw County Jail and
involved in the Work Program. Plaintiffs allege five counts
arising from Defendants' conduct: (1) Deprivation of civil rights
in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983; (2) Gross negligence; (3)
Assault and battery; (4) Invasion of privacy; and (5) Negligent
and Intentional infliction of emotional distress.

On February 5, 2016, Plaintiffs moved for leave to file a second
amended complaint, seeking to add five additional plaintiffs to
the putative class. Plaintiffs contend that they learned of five
additional putative class members during discovery seeking to join
Candice McCarthy, Alyssa Oliver, Anna Maldonado, Angela Scherer,
and Janet Kamen as plaintiffs.

Defendants do not oppose the addition of Candice McCarthy, but
argue that Plaintiffs' proposed amendment is futile as to the
other four proposed plaintiffs.

In his Order dated March 17, 2016 available at http://is.gd/eDobUd
from Leagle.com, Judge Ludington found that because Ms. Oliver
cannot satisfy the statute of limitations for any of her proposed
claims, joining her to the action would be futile. The Court
denied Plaintiff's proposed addition of the Family Member
Plaintiffs because Defendants' duty to the Family Member
Plaintiffs would be materially different from their duty to the
incarcerated Plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are granted leave to file a second amended complaint
joining Candice McCarthy as a Plaintiff.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph F. Lucas, Esq.
     SKUPIN & LUCAS
     155 W. Congress St., Suite 350
     Detrot, MI 48226
     Tel: (313)961-0425

Ogemaw County Board of Commissioners is represented by Gregory M.
Meihn, Esq. -- gmeihn@foley.com -- Melinda A. Balian, Esq. --
mbalian@foley.com -- FOLEY & MANSFIELD LLP


PETROBRAS: Expects September Class Action Trial in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeb Blount, writing for Reuters, reports that Petrobras says it
expects class action lawsuit to go to trial in New York in early
September

Petrobras says it is working to reduce the risk that projects
outlined in 2015 strategic plan will be delayed.

The company says its loan accord with China Development Bank does
not require it to use full $10 billion of credit line.


PHILADELPHIA, PA: ACLU Sues Cops Over Stop & Frisk
--------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
four years after settling a class action in Philadelphia and
agreeing to curb potential constitutional violations, Philadelphia
police continued making unconstitutional stops and frisks last
year, according to a report released March 22 by the ACLU.

The 61-page report found that tens of thousands of Philadelphians
are still stopped each year by police without reasonable suspicion
-- often due simply to bulges in pockets -- even though the stops
are yielding fewer firearms seized.  Such stops and frisks are in
violation of the Fourth Amendment and a 2011 court-approved
consent decree, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) says.

The report found that unfounded frisks were highest last year for
people of color: 62 percent of all frisks of Latinos, 57 percent
for blacks, and 47 percent for whites. Further, blacks who were
frisked were nearly 3 percent less likely to have guns or drugs
than whites, the ACLU found.

Reggie Shuford, executive director of the ACLU of Pennsylvania,
said in a statement that "communities of color" are targeted
disproportionately by police and that "they are understandably fed
up and demand an immediate stop to being treated like second-class
citizens."

Speaking outside the Philadelphia Federal Courthouse on March 22,
police commissioner Richard Ross was quoted as saying "the bottom
line is the truth will be in the numbers coming forward," and that
police captains would audit stop-and-frisk reports daily instead
of monthly.

The ACLU report is the sixth resulting from a civil rights class-
action lawsuit filed in 2010 by several black and Latino men who
alleged Philadelphia police's stop-and-frisk program violated the
U.S. Constitution.

In June 2011, a federal judge approved a settlement between the
men and the city, which included mandatory semi-annual reports on
the city's stop-and-frisk program.

As part of the consent decree, Philadelphia also agreed to install
an electronic database to track stop-and-frisks, retrain police
officers, and install new accountability measures in 2015, once
the training was complete.

The first report, issued in February 2012, found that more than
half of the stops and frisks in the last half of 2011 were
undertaken without reasonable suspicion. A second report in July
2012 found improvement, but not much - 40 percent of stops and
frisks were still without reasonable suspicion.

Reports since have found similar percentage rates, including March
22 report, which found that one-third of pedestrian stops and 42
percent of all frisks made in 2015 were without reasonable
suspicion. More than 200,000 pedestrian stops were made last year.

Many of the stops were made for conduct that is considered
unjustifiable, including for loitering, obstructing a sidewalk,
panhandling or hanging out near an abandoned property.

Perhaps more troubling, pedestrian frisks yielded fewer firearms,
according to the report. Out of all of 2015's stops and frisks,
only 6 guns were seized, less than a quarter of a percent of all
stops made last year.

"Plaintiffs have been more than reasonable in giving the city the
means and the time to implement what the police department has
insisted are the necessary measures for compliance," the report
states. "[But] unless officers and supervisors are held
accountable, the current state of affairs will not change."

In a statement, the plaintiffs' attorney David Rudovsky said
"Philadelphians have waited too long for a change," and that if
city police do not comply with the consent decree, his clients
will file for court sanctions later this year.

The Philadelphia Police Department has had other legal challenges
to its practices. In 1996, the city settled a lawsuit filed by the
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP), which required police training to ensure searches did not
violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney's 2015 campaign promised to curb his
predecessor's unlimited stop-and frisk program, which he called a
"fishing expedition."

In a February interview with the Philadelphia Tribune, Ross said
the "wholesale practice of stop and frisk" was not used by city
police.

Violent crime in Philadelphia has been on the rise sine 2013, when
there were 246 homicides. There were 280 homicides in 2015.

There have been roughly 60 murders so far this year, according to
stats from the city's police department.

The case captioned, Mahari Bailey, et al., Plaintiffs, v. City of
Philadelphia, et al., Defendants, C.A. No. 10-5952 (E.D. Pa.)


PILOT CORP: "Ivy" Class Suit Is Stricken with Leave to Amend
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marcia Morales Howard of the United States of
District Court for the Middle District of Florida struck the class
action complaint in the case captioned, DORENE IVY, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
PILOT CORPORATION and PILOT TRAVEL CENTER, LLC, d/b/a PILOT FLYING
J, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-CV-123-J-34PRL (M.D. Fla.).

Plaintiff Dorene Ivy initiated the instant action on March 8,
2016, by filing the Class Action Complaint. Each count of the
five-count Complaint incorporates by reference all allegations of
the preceding counts.

When faced with the burden of deciphering a shotgun pleading, it
is the trial court's obligation to strike the pleading on its own
initiative, and force the plaintiff to replead to the extent
possible under Rule 11, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In her Order dated March 15, 2016 available at http://is.gd/M44DsW
from Leagle.com, Judge Howard found that the Complaint constitutes
an impermissible "shotgun pleading." A shotgun complaint "contains
several counts, each one incorporating by reference the
allegations of its predecessors, leading to a situation where most
of the counts contain irrelevant factual allegations and legal
conclusions.

The Court ordered Plaintiff Dorene Ivy to file an amended
complaint curing the shotgun nature of the Complaint on or before
March 28, 2016.


PNC FINANCIAL: "Briggs" Collective Suit Conditionally Certified
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DOMONIQUE NATASHA BRIGGS and SAMAR HASSAN,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. PNC FINANCIAL SERVICES GROUP, INC., and PNC BANK,
N.A., Defendants, No. 15-CV-10447 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Amy J. St.
Eve granted the motion filed by the plaintiffs to conditionally
certify the proposed collective action and approve their proposed
"Collective Action Notice and Consent to Join Form."

Domonique Natasha Briggs and Samar Hassan, individually and on
behalf of other employees similarly situated, filed a two-count
Collective and Class Action Complaint alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
(IMWL), based on PNC Financial Services Group, Inc. and PNC Bank,
N.A.'s alleged failure to pay overtime wages.  Briggs and Hassan
moved for conditional certification and court-authorized notice
under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b), asserting that they and other
potential plaintiffs, Assistant Branch Managers (ABMs) nationwide,
are "similarly situated."  The defendants objected, arguing that
the ABMs are properly exempt under the FLSA, and that the
plaintiffs failed to present "similarly situated" plaintiffs for
conditional certification.

Briggs and Hassan presented a number of factual bases to
illustrate that the proposed plaintiffs, ABMs across the nation,
are "similarly situated."  Their evidence included the defendants'
own ABM uniform job postings from 23 different locations, five ABM
declarations, and PNC corporate representative's deposition
testimony in a related case.

Judge St. Eve concluded that Briggs and Hassan successfully made a
"modest factual showing" that they and their proposed potential
plaintiffs are "similarly situated."   The judge found that the
plaintiffs made "a minimal showing" that they and ABMs nationwide
allegedly perform nearly identical duties under similar PNC
guidelines, regularly work more than forty hours a week, and fail
to receive appropriate compensation for non-exempt work, in
violation of the FLSA.

A full-text copy of the Judge St. Eve's March 16, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/Grl6hhfrom
Leagle.com.

Domonique Natasha Briggs, Samar Hassan, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Mcnerney -- cmcnerney@outtengolden.com -- Outten &
Golden Llp, pro hac vice, Douglas M. Werman -- dwerman@flsalaw.com
-- Werman Salas P.C.,Olivia Jardinado Quinto-reyes, Outten &
Golden Llp, pro hac vice, Camar Ricardo Jones --
cjones@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.a., pro hac vice,
Gregg I. Shavitz -- gshavitz@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group,
P.A., pro hac vice, Justin Mitchell Swartz -- jms@outtengolden.com
-- Outten & Golden LLP,Maureen Ann Salas -- msalas@flsalaw.com --
Werman Salas P.C., Paul William Mollica --
pwmollica@outtengolden.com -- Outten & Golden & Susan H Stern --
sstern@shavitzlaw.com -- Shavitz Law Group, P.a., pro hac vice.

PNC Financial Services Group, Inc., PNC Bank, N.A., Defendants,
represented by Sari M. Alamuddin -- salamuddin@morganlewis.com --
Morgan Lewis & Bockius, LLP, Kevin Francis Gaffney --
kgaffney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Llp, Lauren E
Marzullo -- lmarzullo@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
pro hac vice & Sarah E Bouchard -- sbouchard@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Llp, pro hac vice.


PRO-ENVIRONMENTAL: Green Plains Sues Over Defective Oxidizer
------------------------------------------------------------
Green Plains Otter Tail, LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Pro-Environmental,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-00370-DWF-LIB (Dist. Minn.,
February 16, 2016), seeks to recover damages to the facility and
its equipment that occurred after a fire and explosion.

The fire and explosion were allegedly direct and proximate result
of defendant's negligence and a defective and unreasonably
dangerous regenerative thermal oxidizer that was designed,
manufactured, distributed and/or sold by the Defendant.

Pro-Environmental, Inc. manufactures and markets air pollution
control systems in California. The company was founded in 2001 and
is based in Rancho Cucamonga, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott G. Johnson, Esq.
          Elizabeth Burnett, Esq.
          ROBINS KAPLAN LLP
          800 LaSalle Avenue, Suite 2800
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 349 8500
          Facsimile: (612) 339 4181
          E-Mail: sjohson@robinskaplan.com

               - and -

          Michael L. Foran, Esq.
          Brian G. Cunningham, Esq.
          FORAN GLENNON PALANDECH
          PONZI & RUDLOFF, PC
          222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 863 5000
          Facsimile: (312) 863 5099
          E-mail: mforan@fgppr.com
                  bcunningham@fgppr.com


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Faces Class Action Over Old Spice Deodorant
-------------------------------------------------------------
Barrett J. Brunsman, writing for Cincinnati Business Courier,
reports that a man who claims he suffered a painful rash on his
underarms after using Old Spice deodorant is suing Procter &
Gamble Co. in federal court in Ohio.

The suit filed on behalf of Rodney Colley of Virginia seeks to
make the case a class action against Cincinnati-based P&G,
claiming that at least 100 people have been affected by similar
rashes and the total amount in damages exceeds $5 million.

The suit filed March 11 claims Old Spice regularly and routinely
causes rashes, irritation, burning and other injury to
unsuspecting customers.

A spokesman for P&G said the company was still reviewing the
complaint and couldn't address the specifics of the case.

However, Old Spice deodorant is safe to use, P&G spokesman
Damon Jones said.  He noted that tens of millions of men use the
product every year, and significantly less than 1 percent report
having any adverse reactions.

A small number of people might experience irritation related to
alcohol sensitivity, a common ingredient in virtually all
deodorant products, Mr. Jones said.  For such men, an
antiperspirant might be a better option because it has a different
formulation.

P&G advertises its Old Spice products as safe to use, and
consumers had no reason to think the deodorants were dangerous,
lawyers for Mr. Colley wrote.

The suit asks that the court find that P&G has violated the Ohio
Consumers Sales Practices Act.  A jury trial was requested. Judge
Michael Watson of the U.S. District Court for Southern Ohio is
presiding over the case.

Mr. Colley had used Old Spice in the past but never before
experienced a rash or discomfort.  More recently, he bought Old
Spice after viewing advertisements for the product, and after only
a few uses suffered severe burning and discomfort, the suit
claimed.

Photos that accompanied the suit purported to show the rash
Mr. Colley claimed to have incurred on his armpits from the
deodorant.  In addition to blog complaints, numerous videos have
been posted on YouTube regarding such claims.


QFC: Recalls Cranberry Chicken Salad Due to Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------
QFC said it had recalled its Fresh Food Market Cranberry Chicken
Salad that is sold in QFC stores, located in Oregon and
Washington. The product may be mislabeled and may contain pecans,
wheat, and soy not listed on the label.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to pecans, wheat,
or soy run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

For consumers who are not allergic to pecans, wheat, or soy, there
is no safety issue with the product. There have been no illnesses
related to recalled product reported to date.

QFC has removed this item from store shelves after our employees
noticed the scale printing error. QFC initiated its customer
recall notification system that alerts customers with QFC
Advantage Cards who may have purchased recalled product through
register receipt tape messages and phone calls.

QFC is recalling the following item:

  Product              UPC           Codes          Size
  -------              ---           -----          -----
  Fresh Food Market   207063-4XXXX   Sell By:       varies
  Cranberry Chicken                  MAR 28, 2016
  Salad                              AND BEFORE

Customers can return the product to any QFC store for a full
refund or replacement.

Customers who have questions may contact QFC at 1-800-576-4377,
Monday through Friday, 8am - Midnight, EST and Saturday and
Sunday, 8am - 9:30pm EST.

Founded in Seattle 60 years ago, QFC is headquartered in Bellevue,
Washington and operates 65 stores in Western Washington and in
Portland, Oregon. QFC has a long history as a neighborhood grocer,
offering the highest quality products, exceptional service, and
the finest shopping experience in the market. For more
information, please visit our web site at www.qfc.com


QUICK TEST: Court Narrows Claims in "Barker" Wage & Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PATRICIA BARKER and WILLIAM BARKER,
Plaintiffs, v. QUICK TEST, INC. and MVL GROUP INC., Defendants,
No. 13 C 4369 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Gary Feinerman granted, in part,
and denied, in part, the plaintiffs' motions to strike and to deem
facts admitted.  The judge also granted, in part, and denied, in
part, the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Patricia Barker and William Barker alleged that Quick Test, Inc.
and its former parent, MVL Group Inc., violated the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Illinois Minimum Wage Law (IMWL), and
the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act (IWPCA) by failing to
compensate them for all hours worked, failing to pay required
overtime, and retaliating against them for bringing this suit.

Quick Test moved for summary judgment on the wage-and-hour claims
and partial summary judgment on the retaliation claims concerning
William's retaliatory discipline, scheduling, and termination
claims and Patricia's retaliatory scheduling claim as it pertains
to an alleged work hour reduction in January 2014.  MVL Group
moved for summary judgment on all claims.  On the other hand, the
Barkers moved to strike portions of the defendants' affidavits and
to deem certain facts admitted.

Judge Feinerman held that MVL Group is entitled to summary
judgment on all claims against it, which were dismissed with
prejudice, because MVL Group had sold its ownership interest in
Quick Test in May 2013 before the case was filed, and has had no
further business relationship with Quick Test since then.  The
judge also found that the Barkers had no viable claim against the
MVL Group because it did not exercise significant authority over
Quick Test's employment practices.

Judge Feinerman also held that Quick Test is entitled to summary
judgment on:

          (1) all FLSA and IMWL claims;
          (2) William's IWPCA claims;
          (3) William's retaliatory discipline claim insofar as
              it pertains to warnings or incidents other than the
              warning on January 20, 2014; and
          (4) William's retaliatory scheduling claim.

Judge Feinerman, however, also held that Quick Test is not
entitled to summary judgment on:

          (1) Patricia's IWPCA claims;
          (2) William's retaliatory discipline claim insofar as
              it pertains to the warning on January 20, 2014;
          (3) William's retaliatory termination claim; and
          (4) Patricia's retaliatory scheduling claim

These claims, as well as the claims on which Quick Test did not
seek summary judgment -- Patricia's retaliatory discipline and
termination claims, and William's retaliatory denial of a
promotion claims -- will proceed to trial on May 16, 2016.

Judge Feinerman denied the Barkers' motions to strike portions of
the defendants' affidavits and to deem certain facts admitted,
except with respect to 72-73 of the plaintiffs' Local Rule
56.1(b)(3)(C) statement, which were deemed admitted.

A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's March 15, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/1OmSzpfrom
Leagle.com.

Patricia A Barker, Plaintiff, represented by John Craig Ireland,
The Law Firm of John C. Ireland & David J. Fish, The Fish Law
Firm, P.C..

Mvlgroup Company, Quick Test Inc., Defendants, represented by
Jeffrey L Rudd -- jeffrey.rudd@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis
P.C., Kathryn Montgomery Moran -- kathryn.moran@jacksonlewis.com
-- Jackson Lewis P.C. & Paul J. Stroka, Jackson Lewis P.C..


REGUS MANAGEMENT: Circle Click's 2nd Class Cert. Bid Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the United States District States
for the Northern District of California affirmed the judgment of
the district court Defendants' motion to dismiss both complaints
in the case captioned, CIRCLE CLICK MEDIA LLC, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. REGUS MANAGEMENT GROUP LLC, et al., Defendants, Case Nos. 12-
CV-04000-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Circle Click Media, LLC and CTNY Insurance Group filed
the putative class action against Defendants Regus Management
Group, LLC, Regus Business Centre LLC, Regus PLC, and HQ Global
Workplaces LLC. Regus is in the business of leasing fully equipped
commercial office space using an Office Service Agreement.
Plaintiffs allege that the actual monthly payment amount (as
stated in Regus's monthly invoices) exceed the monthly amount
stated on the OSA because Regus charges mandatory fees that are
not adequately disclosed until after the lease is signed. In
particular, Plaintiffs contend that Regus failed to adequately
disclose three required service fees: (1) a mandatory $30 per
month, per-person "Kitchen Amenities Fee"; (2) an "Office
Restoration Service" fee for normal wear and tear; and (3) a
"Business Continuity Service" fee for forwarding mail and phone
calls after a customer vacates the office.

Plaintiffs bring claims for: (1) violations of California Business
& Professions Code section 17200 (Unfair Competition Law) (UCL);
(2) violations of California Business & Professions Code section
17500 (California False Advertising Law) (FAL); and (3) unjust
enrichment. Plaintiffs previously moved for class certification in
June 2015, seeking certification of a California class and a New
York class. Judge Samuel Conti denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification without prejudice, finding problems with typicality
and predominance.

Defendants, meanwhile, moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' case for lack
of standing, which the Court (per Judge Conti) denied.

A copy of Judge Conti's Order dated October 29, 2015, is available
at http://is.gd/1LzYrhfrom Leagle.com.  Judge Conti said
Plaintiffs may, if they choose, file a new motion for class
certification with revised class definitions within 30 days upon
issuance of the order.

Defendants thereafter moved for leave to file a motion for
reconsideration of the order denying motion to dismiss.  But in an
Order dated December 10, 2015 available at http://is.gd/ZP14qe
from Leagle.com, Judge Chen, who took over the case after Judge
Conti retired from the bench, denied Defendants' motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration because there is no clear
error or manifest failure to consider material facts or
dispositive arguments.

On February 24, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a renewed motion for class
certification.  Plaintiffs seek to certify these classes and
subclasses:

     (1) California Class, which will include:

All persons who, on account of an office located in California,
either (1) entered into an office accommodation agreement (OSA)
using one of the Regus standard physical office space forms of
agreement (which are the same or substantially similar to one of
the forms identified as REGUS00657-00664, 00680-00686, 02093,
11477, 11478-11480 or 19664), did not have a corporate account,
and paid or were charged for, on or after May 8, 2008, one or more
of the Identified Charges which was not disclosed in the comments
section of the OSA or in an addendum to the OSA; or (2) entered
into an office accommodation agreement with an entity later
acquired by Regus, did not have a corporate account, and paid to
or were charged by Regus on or after May 8, 2008 one or more of
the Identified Charges.

     (2) California Telephone Subclass, which will include: "all
persons in the California Class who paid or were charged a
telephone handset rental fee."

     (3) California Class Action Waiver Subclass, which will
include: "all persons in the California Class whose OSA is dated
on or after January 1, 2014 and whose OSA included a class action
waiver substantially similar to the one in Regus19664."

     (4) New York Class, which will include:

All persons who, on account of an office located in New York,
either (1) entered into an office accommodation agreement (OSA)
using one of the Regus standard physical office space forms of
agreement (which are the same or substantially similar to one of
the forms identified as REGUS00657-00664, 00680-00686, 02093,
02097, 02099, 11477, 11478-11480 or 19664), did not have a
corporate account, and paid or were charged for, on or after
September 24, 2006, one or more of the Identified Charges which
was not disclosed in the comments section of the OSA or in an
addendum to the OSA; or (2) entered into an office accommodation
agreement with an entity later acquired by Regus, did not have a
corporate account, and paid to or were charged by Regus on or
after September 24, 2006 one or more of the Identified Charges.
(5) New York Class Action Waiver Subclass, which will include "all
persons in the New York Class whose OSA is dated on or after
January 1, 2014 and whose OSA included a class action waiver
substantially similar to the one in REGUS19664."

In his Order dated March 11, 2016 available at http://is.gd/nUfRLC
from Leagle.com, Judge Chen concluded that "Even assuming that
ascertainability and Rule 23(a)'s requirements are satisfied,
Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate predominance in this case as
required under Rule 23(b)(3). The Court therefore denies
Plaintiffs' motion for class certification."

Ali Ari Aalaei, Esq., Alyce Winn Foshee, Esq. --
afoshee@psalaw.net -- and Craig P Ramsdell, Esq. --
cramsdell@arilaw.com -- of Ari Law, P.C. and S. Chandler Visher,
Esq. -- chandler@visherlaw.com -- of Law Offices of S. Chandler
Visher serve as counsel for Plaintiff Circle Click Media LLC, a
California limited liability company

Daniel Thomas Rockey, Esq. -- daniel.rockey@bryancave.com -- Meryl
Macklin, Esq. -- meryl.macklin@bryancave.com -- Tracy Marie
Talbot, Esq. -- tracy.talbot@bryancave.com -- Christopher John
Schmidt, Esq. -- jschmidt@simmonsfirm.com -- Darci F. Madden, Esq.
-- dfmadden@bryancave.com -- Kenneth Lee Marshall, Esq. --
klmarshall@bryancave.com -- Stephanie Ann Blazewicz, Esq. --
stephanie.blazewicz@bryancave.com -- and Sara Ahmed,Esq. of Bryan
Cave LLP serve as counsel for Defendant Regus Management Group
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.


RELIABLE DRUG: Recalls Unexpired Lots of Compounded Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Reliable Drug Pharmacy is voluntarily recalling all unexpired lots
of compounded products due to concern of lack of quality assurance
and potential mislabeling. All unexpired lots are subject to the
recall. All recalled products were distributed to patients and
veterinarians within California. A few products were shipped to
Hawaii, New Mexico, and Michigan.

All recalled products have a label that includes Reliable Drug
name and expiration date. If unsure, Customers can call the
pharmacy to determine the expiration date. This recall impacts all
compounded products distributed between 09/24/2015 and 03/24/2016.

The recall was issued after a series of onsite inspections by the
FDA. Out of an abundance of caution, Reliable Drug is voluntarily
recalling all compounded product within expiry.

Customers that have recalled product should immediately stop using
it and contact the pharmacy to arrange for the return of unused
product. Customers should contact their physician or health care
provider if they have experienced any problems that may be related
to taking or using these products.

Customers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Reliable Drug Pharmacy by phone (415) 664-8800 Monday through
Friday 10 am - 6:30 pm and Saturday 9 am - 12:30 pm, or email its
media representative.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experiences with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
For reporting animal adverse drug events:
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ReportaProblem/uc
m055305.htm

Reliable Drug Pharmacy deeply regrets any disruption that this
voluntary recall and temporary suspension of compounding services
have on its Customers, but notes that safety and quality are its
primary concerns.
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration and California State Board of Pharmacy.


RICHLAND HOLDINGS: Class Certification Denied for "Purdy" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Lloyd D. George denied Sarah Purdy's motion for class
certification in the case captioned SARAH PURDY, Plaintiff, v.
RICHLAND HOLDINGS, Defendant, Case No. 2:11-cv-00211-LDG (CWH) (D.
Nev.).

In August 2015, Purdy sought certification of a class of
"consumers with Nevada addresses who, within one year prior to the
filing of this action, were contacted by the Defendant, and demand
was made by the Defendant for the consumer to pay any additional
amount incidental to the principal obligation to remove or delete
consumer debts from the consumer's credit reports."

In denying the requested class certification, Judge George found
that the record is sparse regarding numerosity such that the court
can only speculate as to whether all members of the proposed class
can be readily identified and receive notice, and whether the
number of class members is sufficiently numerous as to support
certification of the matter as a class action.

Judge George also raised an additional concern over the fact that
Purdy, who had alleged improper debt collection practice by the
defendant but is herself employed by a debt collector, has elected
to retain, as her counsel, her employer's attorneys.  The judge
stated that the nature of the relationship between Purdy, her
employer, her employer's business, and the issues raised in the
lawsuit certainly raises a significant concern whether counsel has
a conflict of interest in representing the proposed class, and
whether any potential conflict of interest can be waived by Purdy
on behalf of the class.

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

Sarah Purdy, Plaintiff, represented by Trent L Richards --
trichards@bourassalawgroup.com -- The Bourassa Law Group, LLC &
Mark J Bourassa -- mbourassa@bourassalawgroup.com -- The Bourassa
Law Group, LLC.

Richland Holdings, Inc, Defendant, represented by Kevin Rene
Hansen, Law Offices of Kevin R. Hansen, Sarah M Banda, Bowen Law
Offices, Jerome R. Bowen, Bowen Law Offices & Michael C Van,
Shumway Van & Hansen, Chtd.


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Court Denies Arbitration Bid in "Noble"
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Madeline Cox Arleo of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Defendant's motion to
compel arbitration, dismiss the class claims and stay the
proceeding in the case captioned, DAVID W. NOBLE, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG
ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-3713 (D.N.J.).

In early November 2014, Plaintiff David Noble viewed Samsung's
representations about battery life on its website, in press
releases, and advertisements. Based on these representations, he
bought a Smartwatch from an AT&T store in Georgia, where he lives.
He paid $199 for the product and entered into a two-year agreement
with AT&T to provide 3G mobile telecommunication technology on the
Smartwatch, for approximately $10 per month. Upon using the watch,
however, Noble noticed that the battery only lasted about four
hours until he had to recharge it.

Noble filed a class action complaint in June 2015 on behalf of
himself and a putative class of other purchasers of the
Smartwatch, asserting causes of action for (1) fraud under the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA), N.J. Stat. Ann. Sec. 56:8-2, et
seq.; (2) common law fraud; (3) negligent misrepresentation; (4)
breach of express warranty; (5) breach of the implied warranty of
merchantability; and (6) unjust enrichment.

In August 2015, Samsung filed the instant motion to compel under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Samsung does not address the merits of
the claims; rather, it contends that the claims must be arbitrated
in light of an arbitration provision contained in the product's
guide booklet. Samsung argues that Noble entered a binding
agreement to arbitrate that covers the individual claims he
asserts in this action. Noble responds that he did not agree to be
bound because he did not have actual notice of the provision and
was not on constructive notice given how Samsung concealed the
Arbitration Agreement within the Guide Booklet.

In her Opinion dated March 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Z7reKbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Arleo found that
Samsung's arguments fail because Noble did not enter into any
agreement to arbitrate, he likewise did not agree to arbitrate the
claims individually.

David W. Noble is represented by Joseph J. Depalma, Esq. --
jdepalma@litedepalma.com -- LITE, DEPALMA, GREENBERG, LLC &
Benjamin David Elga, Esq. --- belga@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT
& LADUCA LLP

Samsung Electronics America, Inc. is represented by Samuel Parker
Moulthrop, Esq. -- smoulthrop@riker.com -- Stephanie R. Wolfe,
Esq. -- swolfe@riker.com -- RIKER, DANZIG, SCHERER, HYLAND,
PERRETTI, LLP


SANTA FE NATURAL: Faces "White" Class Suit in New Mexico
--------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Santa Fe Natural
Tobacco Company, Inc.

The case is captioned Shannon White, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company,
Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-00209-KK-SCY (D.N.M., March 22, 2016).

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company, Inc. owns and operates a tobacco
company in New Mexico.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SANTANDER CONSUMER: Faces Securities Class Action in Texas
----------------------------------------------------------
Rigrodsky & Long, P.A., on March 22 issued the following
statement:

Do you, or did you, own shares of Santander Consumer USA Holdings
Inc.?

Did you purchase your shares between February 3, 2015 and March
15, 2016, inclusive?

Did you lose money in your investment?

Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. on March 22 disclosed  that a complaint has
been filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Texas on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased the common stock of Santander Consumer USA Holdings Inc.
("Santander" or the "Company") between February 3, 2015 and March
15, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period"), alleging violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company and
certain of its officers (the "Complaint").

If you purchased shares of Santander during the Class Period, or
purchased shares prior to the Class Period and still hold
Santander, and wish to discuss this action or have any questions
concerning this notice or your rights or interests, please contact
Timothy J. MacFall, Esquire or Peter Allocco of Rigrodsky & Long,
P.A., 2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120, Wilmington, DE 19803 at (888)
969-4242; by e-mail to info@rl-legal.com or at
http://is.gd/MOMsyR

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
made materially false and misleading statements, and omitted
materially adverse facts, about the Company's business, operations
and prospects.  As a result of defendants' alleged false and
misleading statements, the Company's stock traded at artificially
inflated prices during the Class Period.

According to the Complaint, on February 29, 2016, after the market
closed, the Company filed a NT 10-K with the SEC on Form 12b-25
revealing that Santander was unable to timely file its Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the Company's fiscal year ended December
31, 2015 because the Company's financial statements had not yet
been completed.  According to the Company, it has an open comment
letter from the Division of Corporation Finance of the SEC on the
Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014 and Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2015 with respect to the Company's credit loss allowance,
including the removal of seasonality and the increase in troubled
debt restructuring ("TDR") impairment during the quarter ended
September 30, 2015 as well as certain TDR disclosures in both
periods.  According to the Company, it is still discussing these
matters with the SEC and its independent accounting firm and will
file the Form 10-K as soon as possible.

Then, on March 15, 2016, the Company revealed that the Company was
unable to meet the March 15, 2016, extended filing deadline for
its 2015 Annual Report because it was still unable to complete its
financial statements.  According to the Company, it still has an
open comment letter from the Division of Corporation Finance of
the SEC on the Company's Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2014 and Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September
30, 2015 with respect to estimating the Company's credit loss
allowance, including the removal of seasonality and the increase
in TDR impairment during the quarter ended September 30, 2015 as
well as certain TDR disclosures.  According to the Company, as a
result of the review, the Company is changing its methodology for
estimating credit loss allowance on individually acquired retail
installment contracts and will correct prior periods in Item 9B in
the Form 10-K.  On March 15, 2016, the Company notified the New
York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") that it is not in compliance with
Rule 8.01E of the NYSE's listed company manual as a result of its
failure to file the Form 10-K within the extended time period.

On this news, shares of Santander dropped over 15% in the
following days, closing at $9.00 per share on March 16, 2016.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than May 17, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative
party acting on behalf of other class members in directing the
litigation.  Any member of the proposed class may move the court
to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may
choose to do nothing and remain an absent class member.


SC AUTO: Faces "Marcos" Class Suit in New York Supreme Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against SC Auto Corp.
d/b/a Smithtown Toyota and any other Entities Affiliated with or
Controlled by SC Auto Corp. d/b/a Smithtown Toyota.

The case is captioned Pablo Marcos and other persons similarly
situated v. SC Auto Corp. d/b/a Smithtown Toyota and any other
Entities Affiliated with or Controlled by SC Auto Corp. D/B/A
Smithtown Toyota, Case No. 2730/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., March 18,
2016).

SC Auto Corp. owns and operates a used car dealership company in
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, ESQS.
      111 Broadway, Suite 1403
      New York, NY 10006
      Telephone: (212) 943-9080

The Defendant is represented by:
      GRESHIN ZIEGLER & AMICIZIA LLP
      199 E. Main St., POB 829
      Smithtown, NY 11787
      Telephone: (631) 265-2550


SERGEANT'S PET: Court Trims "Bietsch" Consumer Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sara L. Ellis of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted in part Sergeant's
Pet Care Product's motion to dismiss in the case captioned, RYAN
BIETSCH, BRYAN SCHNEIDER, and MICHAEL PFORTMILLER, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SERGEANT'S PET CARE PRODUCTS, INC., a Michigan corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 15 C 5432 (N.D. Ill.).

After their dogs became ill from Pur Luv pet treats, Plaintiffs
Ryan Bietsch, Bryan Schneider, and Michael Pfortmiller filed the
instant putative class action against Pur Luv Treats'
manufacturer, Defendant Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc.
(Sergeant's). Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of implied and
express warranties under state law and the Magnuson-Moss Warranty
Act (the MMWA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 2301 et seq., and for violation of
the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act
(ICFA), 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1 et seq., the Kentucky Consumer
Protection Act and nine other states' consumer fraud laws.

In the motion, Sergeant's contends that the Court should dismiss
Plaintiffs' state law warranty claims, MMWA claims, and consumer
fraud claims because Sergeant's alleged representations that the
Pur Luv Treats are nutritious, safe, and wholesome are non-
actionable opinion or puffery.

In her Opinion and Order dated March 15, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/vHCQ1tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ells found that
Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged representations that arguably
could mislead a consumer and are thus actionable with respect to
the warranty claims. The remaining warranty claims do not fail
based on Sergeant's claim of no pre-litigation notice. As for the
consumer fraud claims, Plaintiffs have sufficiently complied with
Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading requirements. Although the Court
expresses no opinion about the certifiability of Plaintiffs'
proposed class, it denies the motion to strike allegations as
premature, finding that the allegations are at least not so
deficient as to warrant striking them at the pleading stage.

Plaintiffs are represented by Joseph J. Siprut, Esq. ---
jsprut@siprut.com -- Richard Lane Miller, II, Esq. --
rmiller@siput.com -- Richard Steven Wilson, Esq. --
rwilson@siprut.com -- Todd Lawrence McLawhorn, Esq. --
tmclawhorn@siprut.com -- SIPRUT PC

Sergeant's Pet Care Products, Inc. is represented by Russell S.
Jones, Jr., Esq. -- rjones@polsinelli.com -- Paula S. Kim, Esq.
-- pkim@polsinelli.com -- Travis Lee Salmon, Esq. --
tsalmon@polsinelli.com -- POLSINELLI PC


SINO-FOREST: Directors May Still Face Claims Despite Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
Laura Fric, Esq. -- lfric@osler.com -- and Karin Sachar, Esq. --
ksachar@osler.com -- of Osler Hoskin & Harcourt LLP, in an article
for Lexology, report that the Ontario Superior Court has ruled
that claims for professional misconduct can still be brought
against directors and officers despite a class action settlement
and release regarding the same situation. The settlement was part
of Sino-Forest's Plan of Compromise and Reorganization following a
bankruptcy triggered by allegations of corporate fraud.  This
decision highlights the complexities of concurrent class action
and regulatory proceedings, especially in the context of the CCAA.

Background

A securities class action against Sino-Forest Corporation, its
senior officers and directors, and others was commenced in July
2011 after Sino-Forest filed for CCAA protection.  In July 2014,
the Ontario Superior Court approved a settlement with a former CFO
of the company, which required payment of $5.6 million for the
benefit of Sino-Forest's stakeholders and provided a release under
the auspices of the CCAA.  The notice for the class action
settlement was directed to all persons who acquired Sino-Forest
securities.

In June 2014, before the class action settlement was approved, the
CFO negotiated a separate settlement with the Ontario Securities
Commission.  The OSC settlement required him to make admissions
regarding allegations that he failed to exercise the skill, care
and diligence required of him as CFO.  At this point, the CFO's
counsel wrote to the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario
(CPAO) regarding the OSC settlement to determine whether the CPAO
would bring proceedings against the CFO.  Counsel did not mention
the proposed class action settlement to the CPAO at this time.

The Disciplinary Proceeding

In June 2015, after many months of discussions with the CPAO,
CFO's counsel for the first time informed the CPAO that it was
barred from commencing disciplinary proceedings against the CFO by
the class action settlement order.  The CPAO nevertheless
commenced regulatory proceedings alleging that the CFO breached
the Rules of Professional Conduct established by the Institute of
Chartered Accountants of Ontario, including by failing to perform
his professional services with due care while he was CFO of Sino-
Forest.  The CPAO is seeking a $75,000 fine and a two year
suspension from the practice of accounting.

Motion to Halt the Disciplinary Proceedings

The CFO brought a motion before the Ontario Superior Court for an
order declaring that the CPAO's allegations were released and
discharged pursuant to the class action settlement order and that
it was enjoined from bringing the disciplinary proceeding.

Justice Morawetz refused to grant this order.  He found that the
CPAO's claim of professional misconduct against the CFO did not
give rise to any financial claim against Sino-Forest or its
officers and directors, in their capacities as such, and was
therefore not able to be compromised under the CCAA.  The CPAO
allegations were with respect to the CFO's professional conduct as
a chartered accountant, independent of his role as a director or
CFO.

Moreover, Justice Morawetz found that the CFO "never intended or
understood that the regulatory powers of CPAO would be barred by
the settlements of the CCAA or the class proceedings."  If the CFO
wanted the release to be effective as against CPAO, "steps could
have been taken to serve CPAO."

The class action settlement therefore did not affect the right of
the CPAO to bring, continue or prosecute allegations against the
CFO.

Implications for Directors and Officers

This decision indicates that professional misconduct proceedings
brought against directors and officers may be commenced following
settlements in other matters unless specifically released.  It
also underscores the importance of giving notice of a settlement
to all parties intended to be bound in order to ensure an
enforceable full and final release.


SMALLBATCH PETS: Recalls Frozen Dog Sliders Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Smallbatch Pets Inc. is voluntarily recalling one lot of frozen
dog duckbatch sliders due to their potential to be contaminated
with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes can affect animals eating
the products and there is risk to humans from handling
contaminated pet products, especially if they have not thoroughly
washed their hands after having contact with the products or any
surfaces exposed to these products.

Healthy people infected with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
should monitor themselves for some or all of the following
symptoms: nausea, vomiting, diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, abdominal
cramping and fever. Rarely, Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes
can result in more serious ailments, including arterial
infections, endocarditis, arthritis, muscle pain, eye irritation,
and urinary tract symptoms. Consumers exhibiting these signs after
having contact with this product should contact their healthcare
providers.

Pets with Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes infections may be
lethargic and have diarrhea or bloody diarrhea, fever, and
vomiting. Some pets will have only decreased appetite, fever and
abdominal pain. Infected but otherwise healthy pets can be
carriers and infect other animals or humans. If your pet has
consumed the recalled product and has these symptoms, please
contact your veterinarian.

No pet or consumer illnesses from this product have been reported
to date. However, because of their commitment to safety and
quality, Smallbatch Pets is conducting a voluntary recall of this
product. Consumers should also follow the Simple Handling Tips
published on the Smallbatch Pets package, when disposing of the
affected product.

The potentially affected lots of dog duckbatch sliders were
distributed to retail pet food stores in States CA, CO, OR, WA
through pet food retailers/distributors. Eighty cases of this
product were sold between the dates of 2/23/16 - 3/10/16.

The affected products are sold frozen in 3lbs. bags. The products
affected by this recall are identified with the following
manufacturing codes:

  LOT #     Best By Date      UPC
  ----      ------------      ---
  CO27      01/27/17          713757339001

The "Best By" date is located on the back of the package below the
seal.

This recall was initiated after routine testing by the Food and
Drug Administration of a 3lb bag of dog duckbatch sliders, that
was collected at a distributor, revealed the presence of
Salmonella and Listeria monocytogenes.

This recall is being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration.

Consumers who have purchased the above lots of dog duck sliders
are urged to stop feeding them and return product to place of
purchase for a full refund or dispose of them immediately.

We do apologize for any inconvenience and for all consumer
questions, please call us at 888-507-2712, Monday - Friday, 9:00AM
- 4:00PM PST or email us at info@smallbatchpets.com.


SOUTHERN MARIN FIRE: Violated FLSA, "Allen" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey L. Allen, Jon Alper, Yvette Blount, Matthew Bouchard, Bret
Burger, Charles Casalnuovo, Michael Coleman, Brian Coman,
Robert Delong, Peter Falk, Mark Fischer, Travis Fox, Joe V.
Frazier, Daniel J. Gemma, Cary Gloeckner, Jason Golden, Peter
Gundolff, Ian Hanson, George Earl Hart, David Lloyd, Michael A.
Martinez, John C. Mchugh, Bruno Missio, Adam Monte, James D.
Moore, Thomas R. Moran, James O'Connor, Kenny O'Reilly, Kai
Pasquale, Douglas Paterson, Benjamin Pope, Ben Powers, Tim Pratt,
Dean Raffaini, Ronald R. Rosser, Jeff Smiley, Brett Stone, Cordi
Sullivan, Ryan Tokuda, Brandon Treat, Tony Vitalie, Adam Vollmer,
Laurence V. Yoell III, Dennis P. Young, the Plaintiffs, v.
Southern Marin Fire Protection District, the Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-00774-KAW (N.D. Cal., February 16, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, interest, reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Southern Marin Fire Protection District is an independent special
district established by the Marin County Board of Supervisors in
July of 1999. The District protects the communities including
Sausalito, Tamalpais Valley, and Strawberry. The District operates
a fleet of modern firefighting apparatus that support our highly
trained personnel in their duties of fire-fighting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gregg McLean Adam, Esq.
          Jonathan Yank, Esq.
          Jennifer S. Stoughton, Esq.
          MESSING ADAM & JASMINE LLP
          580 California Street, Suite 1600
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 266 1800
          Facsimile: (415) 266 1128
          E-mail: gregg@majlabor.com
                  jonathan@majlabor.com
                  jennifer@majlabor.com


SOY SAUCE: Court Certifies "Feng" Suit as Collective Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HANMING FENG on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SOY SAUCE LLC and GAVRIEL
BORENSTEIN, Defendants, No. 15 CV 3058 (ENV)(LB) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge
Lois Bloom granted in part and denied, in part, the motion filed
by Hanming Feng seeking conditional certification as a collective
action.

Feng brought an action on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated against Soy Sauce LLC and its owner Gavriel
Borenstein to recover unpaid wages and overtime premiums pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Feng then moved for (1)conditional certification as a collective
action; (2) production of the names and personal information of
potential opt-in plaintiffs; (3) authorization to post and
circulate a proposed notice of pendency to potential opt-in
plaintiffs; and (4) equitable tolling of the statute of
limitations pending expiration of the opt-in period.

Judge Bloom found that, of the three claims that Feng asserted
under the FLSA, Feng has only adequately alleged a FLSA overtime
and notice claim, but not the defendants' failure to pay minimum
wage.  The judge also found that Feng has met the minimal burden
necessary at the current stage for the court to determine that he
is similarly situated to all non-exempt, non-managerial current
and former employees of Soy Sauce who did not provide direct
service to customers, who did not receive overtime premiums or
notice of their rights under the FLSA overtime provision.

Judge Bloom also granted the Feng's motion to circulate and post
the proposed notice of pendencey, subject to the modifications set
forth in the judge's order.

As to the request for names and personal information of potential
opt-in plaintiffs, Judge Bloom ordered Borenstein to provide Feng
with the names, last known addresses, telephone numbers, and dates
of employment of all potential opt-in plaintiffs who have worked
for Soy Sauce within the three years preceding the date of his
order.

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

Hanming Feng, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Deperio
Hernandez, Troy Law PLLC & John Troy, Troy & Associates, PLLC.


SPECIALIZED BICYCLE: Recalls Bicycle Headlights and Taillights
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Specialized Bicycle Components Inc. (Specialized), of Morgan Hill,
Calif., announced a voluntary recall of about 110,000 specialized
bicycle headlights and taillights. Consumers should stop using
this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell
or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The headlights and taillights can overheat, posing fire and burn
hazards.

The recall includes Specialized Flux and Stix Sport and Comp model
bicycle headlights and taillights sold separately as aftermarket
equipment.  They have rechargeable batteries with USB ports.

Flux headlights: Flux headlights have a round, metal mounting
system that fits both flat and drop handlebars.  "Flux" is printed
on the side of the black, rectangular-shaped lights and on the
bottom of the pewter-colored aluminum casing.

Flux taillights: Flux taillights have a pewter-colored base with a
110-lumen light on the top. They mount on 27.2 mm, 30.9 mm and
Venge seat posts. The Specialized logo is printed on top of the
taillights. They have a sensor to boost output in flash mode
during the daytime.

Stix headlights: Stix headlights are black with a 70-lumen light
(Stix Sport) or a 105-lumen light (Stix Comp). They mount on
handlebars between 22.2 mm and 35 mm in diameter. Stix is printed
in white letters on the end of the headlight.

The firm has received four reports of Flux headlights or
taillights overheating and two reports of Stix headlights
expanding and bursting. No injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Fw60kD

The recalled products were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
Authorized Specialized retailers nationwide and online at
www.specialized.com from June 2014 through February 2016 for
between $100 and $275 for Flux model headlights and taillights and
for between $30 and $50 for Stix model headlights and taillights.

Consumers should immediately stop using these recalled headlights
and taillights. Return them an authorized Specialized bicycle
retailer for a free repair for Flux model headlights, or a free
replacement for Flux model taillights, and Stix model headlights
and taillights. Consumers who bought the bicycle lights directly
from Specialized should contact Specialized for return
instructions.


SPRINT CORP: "McGlon" Suit Seeks Damages and Relief Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael McGlon, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sprint Corporation, a Kansas
Corporation, and Sprint/United Management Company, a Kansas
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02099 (Dist. Ks.,
February 16, 2016), seeks to recover damages and other relief
relating to violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Sprint is engaged in interstate commerce by, among other things,
selling and providing wireless communication services to persons
and businesses throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          R. Brent Hankins, Esq.
          R. BRENT HANKINS, P.C.
          117 West 20th Street, Ste. 201
          Kansas City, MO 64108
          Telephone: (816) 471 8419
          Facsimile: (816) 531 3600
          E-mail: brent@hankinslaw-pc.com


STARBUCKS CORP: Responds to Latte Underfilling Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
SenecaGlobe, citing MarketWatch, reports that Starbucks on
March 22 responded to a class-action lawsuit that accuses the firm
under fills its latte drinks by emphasizing the hand-prepared
nature of its drinks and varying customer preferences.

A spokesperson for Starbucks stated that they are aware of the
plaintiffs' claims, which they fully believe to be without merit.
The suit contends the sizes represented on the Starbucks menu 12
fluid ounces for tall, 16 ounces for grande, and 20 ounces for
venti are not the actual amounts that customers get when they
order a latte drink.  Starbucks reported different amounts are to
be anticipated when drinks are made to order. Hand-prepared
beverages increase the likelihood of variations, as revealed in
the nutritional section of their website.

Customers often tell them how they want their beverage prepared;
therefore beverage volumes are largely collaborative. If a
customer is unhappy with their beverage preparation then they are
happy to remake it to their satisfaction.  The plaintiffs accuse
that a standardized recipe put in place in 2009 in order to save
on the cost of milk resulted in beverages that are plainly
underfilled.  In addition, according to lawsuit, baristas are
instructed not to fill cups that are sized to the exact amount
outlined on the menu.

Whole Foods Market, Inc. disclosed that it will be the first food
retailer to offer strawberries certified by the Fair Food Program,
an alliance that brings together workers, customers, growers and
retailers in support of humane labor standards and fairer wages in
United States agriculture.  Whole Foods Market started supporting
the Fair Food Program in 2008, four years before any other
supermarket joined the effort. By offering Fair Food strawberries,
the firm has agreed to pay an additional amount for each case of
strawberries it purchases, with the additional money being passed
on to farmworkers to supplement their income.

Matt Rogers, Senior global produce coordinator for Whole Foods
Market stated that they advocate for and support sustainable,
transparent, long-lasting labor and farmworker welfare solutions,
both inside and outside the United States.  The Fair Food Program
is the leading worker welfare success story in the United
States.They are proud of their history with the Coalition of
Immokalee Workers and are thrilled to support their certification
as they extend beyond tomatoes.

Jon Esformes, Chief Executive of Sunripe Certified Brands stated
as the first tomato grower to implement the Fair Food Program at
all of their tomato operations, Sunripe Certified Brands is proud
to be the first grower to extend the guarantee of a safe and fair
workplace to the strawberry fields of Florida.  They're honored
and humbled to play a part in creating change for the most
vulnerable of American workers, and strongly urge other growers to
join this significant movement.


STARION ENERGY: "Orange" Suit Over Alleged Contract Breach Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN D. ORANGE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. STARION ENERGY PA, INC.;
STARION ENERGY PA, INC. i/t/d/b/a STARION ENERGY; STARION ENERGY
PA; STARION ENERGY PA, i/t/d/b/a STARION ENERGY; STARION ENERGY
INC; STARION ENERGY INC., i/t/d/b/a STARION ENERGY, Defendants,
Civil Action No. 15-773 (E.D. Pa.), Judge C. Darnell Jones, II
granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiff's amended
complaint for failure to state a claim.

John D. Orange initiated a class action suit, alleging that
Starion Energy breached a contract to supply Orange with energy.
Starion sought dismissal of the complaint, claiming: (1) no duty
was breached under the contract; (2) any purported claim of breach
of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing based upon
arbitrary pricing is without merit; and (3) 52 Pa. Code section
54.5(c)(2)(i).

Judge Jones found that Orange's amended complaint does not present
a plausible claim for breach of contract based upon  breach of a
duty imposed therein.  Orange asserted that Starion Energy
breached the contract by not fulfilling its obligation to keep the
variable rate tied to market conditions.  The contract, however,
provided that the pricing and market conditions in other specific
territories, as well as additional factors listed in the contract,
could potentially play a part in pricing.  Thus, Judge Jones
concluded that it is not possible to draw a reasonable inference
that Starion breached the same just by looking at how Starion
Energy's price varied from the local supplier during a particular
period of time when Starion's rates were lower at other times.

Judge Jones also held that Orange's action for breach of contract
under the theory of good faith and fair dealing cannot be
sustained because no other duty under the contract was breached
and the facts do not show that rate was set unreasonably.

A full-text copy of Judge Jone's March 16, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/35ZMG7from Leagle.com.

John D. Orange, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub, Kohn
Swift & Graf PC, Scott A. George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com --
Seeger Weiss & Troy M. Frederick, Marcus & Mack PC.

Starion Energy PA, INC, Defendant, represented by Casey A. Coyle
-- ccoyle@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC
& Keith E. Smith -- ksmith@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert, Seamans,
Cherin & Mellott, LLC.

Starion Energy PA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Casey A. Coyle,
Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC, Keith E. Smith, Eckert,
Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC & Mitchell L. Bach --
mbach@eckertseamans.com -- Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott LLC.


STATE FARM: Court Rules on Bid to Dismiss "Dennington" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Susan O. Hickey granted in part and denied, in part, the
motion filed by State Farm Fire and Casualty Company and State
Farm General Insurance Company (collectively "State Farm") to
dismiss the case captioned JEFF DENNINGTON and JAMES STUART,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. STATE FARM FIRE AND CASUALTY COMPANY and STATE FARM
GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendants, Case No. 4:14-cv-4001 (W.D.
Ark.).

Jeff Dennington, James Stuart and Careda L. Hood brought a class
action complaint alleging breach of contract and unjust enrichment
claims against State Farm for depreciating the cost of labor in
the "actual cash value" of their claims under their replacement
cost policy.  State Farm moved to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

Judge Hickey found that a settlement agreement in the earlier
case, Chivers v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., State Farm
Lloyds and State Farm General Insurance Co., Case No. CV-2010-
251-3 (Ark. Cir. Ct.), in which Dennington is a class member,
embodies a sweeping and encompassing release and accordingly,
renders non-actionable Dennington's 2009 contract and unjust
enrichment claims, which could have been alleged at the prior
time.  Alternatively, Judge Hickey also found that, even without
the Chivers release, plaintiffs' claims for damages resulting from
alleged losses incurred before April 30, 2010 should be dismissed
on the ground that they are barred by res judicata.

Judge Hickey, however, found that the plaintiffs' pleadings are
sufficient to state a claim for breach of contract through the
wrongful depreciation of labor in the actual cash value payment.

Judge Hickey also held that, as to the unjust enrichment claim,
the plaintiffs' assertions that money was unlawfully deducted and
withheld from their payments are sufficient to allege that State
Farm has retained money to which they may not have been entitled.

Lastly, Judge Hickey found that State Farm has not met its burden
to dismiss State Farm General based on the pleadings.

As such, the defendants' motion to dismiss was granted with
respect to all of the plaintiffs' claims, including all of
Dennington's claims, arising as part of the Chivers settlement,
but was denied in all other respects.

A full-text copy of Judge Hickey's March 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/5YQZoHfrom Leagle.com.

Jeff Dennington, James Stuart, Plaintiffs, represented by D. Matt
Keil, Attorney at Law,George L McWilliams, Law Office of George L.
McWilliams, P.C., James M. Pratt, Jr., James M. Pratt, Jr., P.A.,
Jason Earnest Roselius -- jason@mrlawok.com -- The Roselius Law
Firm, John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, William B. Putman --
wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor Law Partners, A.F.
Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry,
Jack Austin Mattingly, Jr. -- jackjr@mroklaw.com -- Mattingly
Roselius PLLC, Kenneth Castleberry, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold,
Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff -- mmustokoff@ktmc.com
-- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin Weber, Jr. --
mweber@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP, Richard E Norman -
- rnorman@crowleynorman.com -- Crowley Norman LLP, Richard A.
Russo, Jr. -- rrusso@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP,
Stephen C. Engstrom, Stephen Engstrom Law Office & Tanner Hicks --
tanner@mrlawok.com -- Mattingly Roselius PLLC.

Careda L. Hood, Plaintiff, represented by George L McWilliams, Law
Office of George L. McWilliams, P.C., James M. Pratt, Jr., James
M. Pratt, Jr., P.A., Jason Earnest Roselius, The Roselius Law
Firm, John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson,William B. Putman, Taylor
Law Partners, A.F. Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold,
Skinner & Castleberry, Kenneth Castleberry, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Crowley Norman LLP,
Richard E Norman, Crowley Norman LLP, Richard A. Russo, Jr.,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP & Stephen C. Engstrom, Stephen
Engstrom Law Office.

State Farm Fire and Casualty Company, State Farm General Insurance
Company, Defendants, represented by John E. Moore --
john.moore@mrmblaw.com -- Munson, Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A.,
Beverly A. Rowlett -- beverly.rowlett@mrmblaw.com -- Munson,
Rowlett, Moore & Boone, P.A., Heidi Dalenberg, Riley Safer Holmes
& Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph A. Cancila, Jr., Riley Safer
Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice, Nick Kahlon, Schiff Hardin LLP
& Tal C. Chaiken, Riley Safer Holmes & Cancila LLP, pro hac vice.


T.G.I. FRIDAYS: Grace's Claims vs Sentinel & Tri-Artisan Tossed
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Michael GRACE, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. T.G.I. FRIDAYS, INC., et
al., Defendants, Civil No. 14-7233 (RBK/AMD) (D.N.J.), Judge
Robert B. Kugler granted the motions filed by Sentinel Capital
Partners, LLC and Tri-Artisan Capital Partners, LLC to dismiss the
plaintiff's claims for lack of personal jurisdiction and for
insufficient service of process.  The judge, however, denied the
defendants' motion to strike Grace's amended complaint.

Grace filed a putative class action in the Superior Court of New
Jersey, Law Division, Burlington County on October 6, 2014.
T.G.I. Fridays, Inc. (TGIF) was served with a copy of the Summons
and Complaint on October 22, 2014, and the defendants timely
removed Grace's complaint to the district court on November 20,
2014.  Neither Sentinel nor Tri-Artisan were served with Summons
and Complaint in the state court action as of the filing of the
notice of removal.  Grace filed his amended complaint on July 28,
2015.

The defendants sought to strike the amended complaint because it
was filed without leave of court.  Although Judge Kugler found
that Grace was outside the time in which he could amend his
complaint as a matter of course, the judge nevertheless accepted
the amended complaint as the operative complaint because it was
filed a day after plaintiff's remand motion was denied.

Judge Kugler, however, granted Sentinel and Tri-Artisan's motions
to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and for insufficient
service of process, and dismissed Grace's claims against Sentinel
and Tri-Artisan without prejudice.  The judge explained that Grace
failed to allege facts suggesting that his breach of contract and
unjust enrichment claims arise out of or relate to Sentinel or
Tri-Artisan's activities in New Jersey.  Further, Judge Kugler
also found that Grace presented no evidence that he ever
effectuated a valid service of process upon Sentinel or Tri-
Artisan.

Judge Kugler granted jurisdictional discovery limited to the issue
of whether Grace has standing to bring his claims for breach of
contract and unjust enrichment.

A full-text copy of Judge Kugler's March 14, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Je1FlKfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Grace, Plaintiff, represented by Sander D. Friedman, Law
Office Of Sander D. Friedman, LLC & Wesley Glenn Hanna, Law Office
Of Sander D. Friedman, LLC.

T.G.I. Fridays, Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew S. Schultz
-- matthew.schultz@leclairryan.com -- LeClair Ryan.


TACO BELL: Bid for Rule 50(a) Judgment in Wage & Hour Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case
No. 1:07-cv-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Stanley A. Boone issued
an order denying the motion filed by the defendants Taco Bell
Corp. and Taco Bell of America, Inc. for judgment as a matter of
law pusuant to Rule 50(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Six putative class actions against Taco Bell were consolidated on
June 9, 2009.  Jury trial commenced on February 22, 2016.  On
March 7, 2016, prior to the matter being submitted to the jury,
Taco Bell filed a motion for judgment as a matter of law under
Rule 50(a).  Taco Bell argued that the plaintiffs did not submit
any evidence by which the jury could determine damages for any
class in the action.

On March 9, 2016, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the
plaintiffs for the Underpaid Meal Premium Class and in favor of
the defendants for the Late Meal Period and Missed Rest Period
Classes.  As the jury has found liability only for the Underpaid
Premium Class, Judge Boone found that the Rule 50(a) motion is
moot as to the additional classes and claims raised.

Judge Boone found that sufficient evidence was introduced during
the trial for the Underpaid Meal Premium Class claims to be
submitted to the jury.  The judge found that there was evidence
that raw punch data was communicated electronically to form some
basis for the payroll verification reports from which autopay
issued for late meal periods.  The judge also added that the
payroll verification reports are in evidence which was admitted by
stipulation of the parties.

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

Sandrika Medlock, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski -- andrew.sokolowski@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone
Law APC, Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Capstone Law Group, Jonathan Sing
Lee -- jonathan.lee@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Monica Balderrama -- mbalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- Initiative
Legal Group APC,Raul Perez -- raul.perez@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat --
rebecca.labat@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,Robert J.
Drexler -- robert.drexler@capstonelawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC,
Stuart Rowe Chandler, Law Office Of Stuart R. Chandler & Matthew
Thomas Theriault -- matthew.theriault@capstonelawyers.com --
Capstone Law APC.

Lisa Hardiman, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Renee Bagosy,
Capstone Law Group & Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC,
Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jonathan Sing Lee,
Capstone Law APC, Marc Primo Pulisci, Initiative Legal Group LLP,
Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC & Monica Balderrama,
Initiative Legal Group APC.

Miriam Leyva, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Timothy Donahue, Law Offices
Of Timothy Donahue.

Loraine Naranjo, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Kenneth Yoon, Law Offices Of Kenneth
H. Yoon, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Peter M. Hart
-- hartpeter@msn.com -- Law Offices of Peter M. Hart, Raul Perez,
Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J.
Drexler, Capstone Law APC & Larry W. Lee, Diversity Law Group.

Endang Widjaja, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Jerusalem F. Beligan, Bisnar Chase,
LLP, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone
Law APC & Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC.

Christopher Duggan, Hilario Escobar, Plaintiffs, represented by
Andrew Joseph Sokolowski, Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas
Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca
Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC, Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law
APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of Mark Yablonovich,Mark
Yablonovich, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich & Patrick Joseph
Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich.

Debra Doyle, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski,
Capstone Law APC, Matthew Thomas Theriault, Capstone Law APC, Raul
Perez, Capstone Law APC, Rebecca Maria Labat, Capstone Law APC,
Robert J. Drexler, Capstone Law APC, Joseph Hoff, Law Offices Of
Mark Yablonovich,Mark Yablonovich, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich
& Patrick Joseph Clifford, Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich.

Taco Bell Corp., Taco Bell of America, Inc., Defendants,
represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter and Hampton,
Nora K. Stiles -- nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin
Richter and Hampton & Tracey Adano Kennedy --
tkennedy@sheppardmullin.com -- Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton
LLP.


TARGET CORPORATION: Faces "Zachary" Suit Over Deceptive Marketing
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Zachary, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 4:16-cv-00369 (E.D.
Miss., March 18, 2016), alleges that the Defendant has been
manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling containers of
its 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese products and 100% Parmesan &
Romano Cheese product throughout the United States for many years,
in an unlawful, false, misleading and deceptive manner.

Target Corporation operates discount retail stores throughout the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


TOKANA CAFE: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Pineda" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Jose Hernandez Pineda, Moises Luna Rodriguez, and Natalio Pastor
Cristobal, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Tokana Cafe Bar Restorant Inc.
d/b/a Little Rascal, Murat Atilgan, Fuat Feyzioglu, and Halil
Gundogdu, jointly and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01155 (S.D.N.Y., February 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid or
underpaid minimum wages, overtime compensation, other relief
available by law, spread-of-hours wages, other wages not timely
paid, and double damages and reasonable attorney fees, pursuant to
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Minimum Wage
Act(NYMWA), and the New York Labor Law (NYLL).

Tokana Cafe Bar Restorant Inc. operates a restaurants business at
Windham Loop Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, N.Y. 10007 2036
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


TRADER JOE'S: Recalls Chocolate Sticks Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------
Trader Joe's of Monrovia, California is voluntarily recalling all
codes of Trader Joe's Chocolate Orange Sticks (UPC 00847162) and
Trader Joe's Chocolate Raspberry Sticks (UPC 00847122) because the
products may contain more than the stated "traces of milk" on the
label. All affected product has been removed from store shelves.
People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

Trader Joe's Chocolate Orange Sticks and Trader Joe's Chocolate
Raspberry Sticks are packaged in an 18 oz. clear tub. The products
were distributed to Trader Joe's stores nationwide. Trader Joe's
initiated the voluntary removal of these products after noticing
the chocolate coating appeared lighter in color than expected. Two
allergic reactions have been reported to date.

Customers who have purchased the Trader Joe's Chocolate Orange
Sticks and/or Trader Joe's Chocolate Raspberry Sticks may return
them to Trader Joe's for a full refund. Customers with questions
may contact Trader Joe's customer relations at (626) 599- 3817,
6AM-6PM PST, Monday-Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/NqaIM5


TRINITY SERVICES: "Glover" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lurana Glover, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Trinity Services Group. Inc., the
the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-00355-VMC-AEP (M.D. Fla., Tampa
Div., February 16, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Trinity Services Group provides correctional food service for
secure facilities in the public and private sector in the United
States, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. It engages in
the management and delivery of customized food service programs
for inmates and staff of secure facilities. The company also
provides commissary services, inmate training programs, and
laundry services. Trinity Services Group, Inc. was founded in 1990
and is based in Oldsmar, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William John Gadd, Esq.
          W. JOHN GADD, ATTORNEY AT LAW
          2727 Ulmerton Rd., Suite 250
          Clearwater, FL 33762
          Telephone: (727) 524 6300
          Facsimile: (727) 524 6330
          E-mail: wjg@mazgadd.com


TRUMP MODEL: Judge Tosses Jamaican Model's Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Allissa Wickham and Kevin Penton, writing for Law360, report that
a New York federal judge on March 23 threw out a Jamaican model's
class action accusing Donald Trump's modeling agency of
underpaying her and engaging in fraud in connection with H-1B
visas, saying she hadn't exhausted the administrative process.

U.S. District Judge Analisa Torres granted Trump Model Management
LLC's request to dismiss the suit brought by model Alexia Palmer,
who claimed the Trump-owned agency paid her just $3,880 for three
years of work, despite promising a $75,000 annual salary.

Ms. Palmer had also alleged the agency took a 20 percent cut of
her income as fees, and charged her for expenses like limousine
rides, postage and makeup kits, visits to a dermatologist, and
lessons on how to walk.

But Judge Torres found that Ms. Palmer's minimum wage claim
failed, saying she hadn't specified the number of hours worked and
hadn't challenged the agency's argument that she was actually paid
above minimum wage.

The judge also dismissed a claim brought under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, alleging the agency took
part in wire fraud by submitting H-1B applications.  Specifically,
Palmer claimed TMM mailed the government a "labor condition
application" -- which is used to support H-1B visa requests --
saying it would provide a $75,000 salary, even though she was
eventually paid much less.

However, Judge Torres noted that a worker who thinks her employer
lied on a labor application has specific steps to follow,
including filing a complaint with the U.S. Department of Labor.
Because Ms. Palmer had failed to exhaust the administrative
process, she couldn't bring an immigration claim in court,
according to the ruling.

The court also chucked Ms. Palmer's breach of contract, fraud,
unjust enrichment and conversion claims, but didn't prevent them
from being raised in state court.

Lawrence Rosen, who handled the case for TMM alongside Patrick
McPartland, told Law360 that his team was pleased with the ruling,
and that Trump had called and was "very happy with the decision."

"We fully expected to prevail because we didn't believe that the
plaintiff's claims were viable in this context," Mr. Rosen said.

Naresh Gehi, who is representing Ms. Palmer, told Law360 that he
will be filing the grievance before the DOL.

"The best way to to describe the situation is [that] it's a venue
change," Mr. Gehi said.  "The action is not going anywhere, it's
just going to be changed to a different venue."

Mr. Rosen, however, cast doubt on the case going to the Department
of Labor, saying the claim is time-barred.

Ms. Palmer is represented by Naresh Gehi of Gehi & Associates.

TMM is represented by Lawrence S. Rosen -- LRosen@LHRGB.com -- and
Patrick McPartland -- PMcpartland@LHRGB.com -- of Larocca Hornik
Rosen Greenberg & Blaha LLP.

The case is Alexia Palmer v. Trump Model Management LLC et al.,
case number 1:14-cv-08307, in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Plaintiff May Withdraw; May 6 Pretrial Hearing
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bianca Bruno, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Diego has allowed the lead plaintiff in a
six-year-long class action against Trump University to withdraw
from the case, with stipulations.

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel ruled March 21, that Tarla
Makaeff is allowed to withdraw as one of two lead plaintiffs in
the years-long class action filed against Republican presidential
front-runner Donald Trump and Trump University for allegedly
defrauding students who paid to learn insider knowledge about real
estate investing.

But some major stipulations came attached to Curiel's order, which
Makaeff will have to agree to in order to remain an absent class
member in the case and another San Diego class action against
Trump.

Curiel sided with Trump attorney Daniel Petrocelli - who argued at
the motion hearing that his team's main strategy centers on
Makaeff's claims and deposition - to allow the defense to depose
again the other main plaintiff, Sonny Low.

Trump's attorneys must take Low's deposition again within 21 days.

In addition to Low's deposition, Curiel denied Makaeff's request
to enter partial judgment and bar Trump from any further
litigation he may file against her.

Makaeff's individual claims were also dismissed, according to
March 21 order.

If Makaeff does not agree to Curiel's stipulations, she must
withdraw her motion by March 28.

According to Curiel's 25-page order, Makaeff moved to withdraw
"because of the personal and professional toll that the case has
taken on her."

"She expresses concern that involvement with a 'high-profile
trial' will exacerbate her existing health problems, take her away
from family obligations and cause her to 'miss too much work as
she attempts to transition into a new career,'" the ruling states.

Curiel called Makaeff's request to withdraw at the pre-trial stage
"unusual," but added it is not unreasonable given the media
attention the case has garnered.

"Defendants' assertion that Makaeff anticipated in 2011 the degree
to which this case would attract public attention due to the 2016
presidential campaign is risible. Neither pundits, counsel or the
parties anticipated the media obsession that this case would
create due to defendant Trump becoming a candidate for President
of the United States," Curiel wrote.

Trump University argued dismissing Makaeff would undermine its
discovery strategy, claiming if she were absent from testifying
during the trial, it would "cripple defendant's ability to defend
the case."

But Curiel disagreed, finding that, "given the legal issues at
trial," Makaeff's absence would not cripple Petrocelli's ability
to litigate the case.

Curiel noted it will "be up to Sonny Low" to prove that three
representations made to the public were not true. The judge also
added that, even if Makaeff does not testify live, nothing will
stop Petrocelli from using her deposition testimony at trial.

The three claims at the center of the case against Trump include:
whether Trump University was an accredited university, whether
students would be taught by real estate experts, professors and
mentors hand-selected by Trump, and whether students would receive
one year of expert support and mentoring.

Trump also argued Makaeff's motion to withdraw came on the eve of
trial and her "alleged health issues obviously did not deter her
from engaging in a highly orchestrated public press tour."

The GOP candidate's argument that Makaeff's motion failed to
provide justifiable basis lacks merit, Curiel ruled.

The judge also found the case was not filed in bad faith, noting
the plaintiffs in the case have remained the same since September
2012.

Trump additionally argued that, were Makaeff not a class
representative, key motions from throughout the litigation may
have been decided differently. Curiel disagreed, finding that none
of the court orders in the case relied solely on Makaeff's
allegations.

The order did not rule on awarding attorney's fees and costs
associated with Makaeff's involvement in the case, which Curiel
noted will not be hashed out until the trial has concluded. He
added that Trump will "likely be entitled to some award of fees
and costs."

Petrocelli, as well as Makaeff's attorneys Rachel Jensen and Jason
Forge, did not immediately return emailed requests for comment.

A pretrial conference in the case is set for May 6.

The case captioned, TARLA MAKAEFF, et al., on Behalf Of Herself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. TRUMP
UNIVERSITY, LLC, (aka Trump Entrepreneur Initiative) a New York
Limited Liability Company, DONALD J. TRUMP, and DOES 1 through 50,
Inclusive, Defendants., Case No. 10cv0940 GPC (WVG)(S.D. Cal.).


TYSON FOODS: Supreme Court Sends Wage Suit Back to District Court
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John M. Husband, Esq., of Holland & Hart LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that in the absence of actual time records, time
spent by employees donning and doffing protective gear may be
established by representative evidence in order to establish the
employer's liability for unpaid overtime pay in a class action
lawsuit, ruled the U.S. Supreme Court on March 22.  The Court
rejected the company's argument that each employees' wage claim
varied too much to be resolved on a classwide basis. Instead, the
Court upheld the class certification, sending the case back to the
district court to determine how to distribute to class members the
$2.9 million dollar jury award. Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo,
577 U.S. ___ (2016).

Pay For Donning and Doffing Protective Gear

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), it is well established
that employers must pay employees for time spent performing
preliminary or postliminary activities that are "integral and
indispensable" to their regular work.  In the Tyson Foods case,
over 3,300 pork processing employees sued, alleging that the
company failed to pay them for time spent putting on and taking
off required protective gear at the start and end of their work
shifts and at meal periods.  The employees argued that such time
was "integral and indispensable" to their work and that when added
to their weekly work hours, pushed them beyond 40 hours per week
resulting in unpaid overtime.

Because Tyson Foods did not keep any time records for donning and
doffing time, the employees presented representative evidence of
the time spend on those activities, including employee testimony,
video recordings of the donning and doffing process at the plant,
and a study by an industrial relations expert, Dr. Kenneth
Mericle.  Dr. Mericle analyzed 744 videotaped observations to
determine how long various donning and doffing activities took,
concluding that employees in the kill department took an estimated
21.25 minutes per day while workers in the cut and retrim
departments took an estimated 18 minutes per day.  Using that
data, another expert added that time to each employees' recorded
work time to determine how many hours each employee worked per
week.

Tyson Foods argued that because the workers did not all wear the
same protective gear, each individual plaintiff spent different
amounts of time donning and doffing the gear.  Therefore, Tyson
Foods maintained that whether and to what extent it owed overtime
pay to each individual employee was a question that could not be
resolved on a class-action basis.  Importantly, Tyson Foods did
not attack the credibility of the employees' expert or attempt to
discredit the statistical evidence through its own expert, but
instead opposed class certification on the basis that the
individual variances of the time spent by each employee made the
lawsuit too speculative for classwide recovery.

Employee-Specific Pay Inquiries Do Not Destroy Class Action

The Court determined that the employees' use of Dr. Mericle's
representative study was permissible to establish hours worked in
order to fill the evidentiary gap created by the employer's
failure to keep time records of the donning and doffing
activities.  The Court refused to define a broad-reaching rule
about when statistical evidence may be used to establish classwide
liability, stating instead that it would depend on the purpose for
which the evidence was being introduced and the elements of the
underlying action.  It ruled it appropriate to rely on sample
evidence when each class member could have relied on that sample
to establish liability if he or she had brought an individual
lawsuit.  In the wage and hour context, if the sample data could
permit a reasonable jury to find the number of hours worked in
each employees' individual action, the "sample is a permissible
means of establishing the employees' hours worked in a class
action."

The Court, in its 6-to-2 decision, refused to rule on the issue of
how the jury's $2.9 million award would need to be dispersed among
the class members and how to prevent uninjured class members
(i.e., those whose donning and doffing time did not result in
overtime) from recovering any part of the award.  In fact, Chief
Justice Roberts, writing a separate concurring opinion, expressed
his concern that the district court would not be able to devise an
allocation method that would award damages only to those class
members who suffered an actual injury.  But, because the majority
found that the allocation methodology issue was not before the
Court, the case gets sent back to the trial court for that
determination.

Litigation Tactics To Oppose Class Certification

The Court noted numerous litigation strategies by Tyson Foods that
may have proved fatal to its case. First, Tyson Foods failed to
move for a hearing to challenge the admissibility of the
employees' expert study by Dr. Mericle.  A so-called Daubert
hearing would have offered Tyson the chance to keep the
representative sample out of the trial which may have eliminated
the employees' evidence of time spent donning and doffing
protective gear.

Second, the Court noted that Tyson Foods did not attempt to
discredit Dr. Mericle's sample evidence through an expert of its
own.  By focusing its trial strategy only on attacking the class
certification issue, the jury was left without any rebuttal to the
employees' experts.

Finally, Tyson Foods rejected splitting the jury trial into two
phases, a liability phase and a damages phase.  Instead, it
insisted on a single proceeding in which damages would be
calculated in the aggregate and by the jury.  The jury came back
with a $2.9 million award, which was half of what the employees'
sought, but still a significant award against Tyson Foods.

Blow To Businesses Defending Class Actions

Although the Court refrained from approving the use of
representative data in all class-action cases, the Court's
decision makes it more difficult for employers to object to sample
data when defending a class or collective action.  Noting that
representative data is not an appropriate means to overcome the
absence of a common employer policy that applies to all class
members, per its 2011 Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes decision, the
Court allowed representative data to fill the evidentiary gap
regarding hours worked where each employee worked in the same
facility, did similar work, and was paid under the same policy.


TYSON FOODS: High Court Upholds $2.9MM Jury Verdict in Wage Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fisher, writing for Forbes, reports that the U.S. Supreme
Court refused to throw out a class-action verdict against Tyson
Foods over the time workers spent donning and doffing protective
gear, dashing hopes of conservatives who saw the case as a key
test of the validity of "trial by formula."

The high court, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, left the
$2.9 million jury award intact, although Kennedy noted problems
with how it will be distributed since even the plaintiffs' experts
acknowledged hundreds of workers probably failed to exceed the 40-
hour threshold for receiving damages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  Chief Justice John Roberts, in a concurrence, went
further, saying "it remains to be seen whether the jury verdict
can stand."

That phrase, even though it comes in a concurrence, is "perhaps
the most important part of the opinion," said Noelle Reed, a
partner in Skadden's commercial litigation group in Houston. Given
that the majority also expressed doubts about the legality of the
jury award and said Tyson can challenge whatever allocation method
the lower court comes up with, she said, "the more reasonable
inference is they would agree with him."

"What Chief Justice Roberts points out is the trial court can
never figure it out under the facts of this case," added
Jeff Klein, chair of Weil's employment practice group in
New York.  "That's why employers shouldn't panic over the
implications of this decision."

Tyson v. Bouaphakeo also featured an unusual concurrence/dissent
by Justice Samuel Alito, who joined Roberts in saying class
actions cannot compensate uninjured plaintiffs, and joined Justice
Clarence Thomas in a dissent saying the district court erred by
failing to determine whether common questions predominated.

The decision upholds the concept of using statistical evidence to
establish class actions, at least in employment cases where
companies fail to keep adequate time records.  The late Justice
Antonin Scalia, in his opinion in Wal-Mart v. Dukes, derided the
concept of "trial by formula" in rejecting a sex-discrimination
class action on behalf of 1.5 million female employees.  But
Kennedy noted important differences between the Wal-Mart and Tyson
cases, most importantly that there was no single corporate policy
that plaintiffs could cite to explain statistical differences in
female pay and promotion.

Tyson had complained the plaintiff experts in this case sampled 53
employees to establish the donning and doffing times for 3,344
workers.  But the donning times actually varied from a little more
than 30 seconds to more than 10 minutes.  One expert said that
even using the 18-minute average for donning and doffing, 212
employees would have no claim at all since they hadn't exceeded 40
hours. Lowering the average to 15 minutes would eliminate another
400 or so.

The jury clearly had questions about the study, since it cut the
expert's recommended damages in half without explaining why.


TYSON FOODS: Ruling Modest Win for Class Actions Post-Scalia
------------------------------------------------------------
Noah Feldman, writing for Bloomberg View, reports that one of
Justice Antonin Scalia's chief policy concerns -- some might call
it an obsession -- was class actions, which he saw as excuses for
plaintiffs' lawyers to make money by aggregating small individual
claims to the detriment of corporate defendants.  On March 22 the
U.S. Supreme Court hinted that, in Scalia's absence, class-action
law might not continue to be interpreted narrowly.  It cautiously
upheld the use of representative sampling as evidence for common
claims among plaintiffs -- a small but meaningful victory for
class actions in a decision that, under the precedent established
by Scalia, might've gone the other way.

The case, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, is a fairly ordinary one.  It
involves the classic labor-law question of compensation for time
spent putting on and taking off protective gear, in this instance
by workers killing hogs and trimming pork products at Tyson's
plants in Iowa.  The Supreme Court has been considering such
"donning and doffing" cases since before 1947, when Congress
passed the Portal-to-Portal Act requiring pay for preparation that
is "integral and indispensable" to the job.

Yet somehow, some 80 years after the birth of modern labor law,
employers such as Tyson still want to avoid paying workers for
time spent doing things necessary to do their jobs.

Tyson paid some, but not all, of its workers for four to eight
extra minutes of work for putting on and taking off protective
gear.  It never kept records of how long it took individual
employees to don and doff.

When the workers brought suit, they had no way of knowing exactly
how much each of them was owed.  But they sued en masse anyway.

To get certified by the court as a class, the worker-plaintiffs
had to prove, in the words of the definitive treatise quoted by
the court, that "the same evidence will suffice for each member to
make a prima facie showing [that] the issue is susceptible to
generalized, class-wide proof."  That means that to avoid
thousands of separate suits and get a court to decide their cases
all at once, the workers had to show that they didn't need to
provide separate evidence in every case but could rely on proof
common to all.

To do that, the plaintiffs offered a study done by an industrial-
relations expert.  It drew on a representative sample of 744
observations of workers, and concluded that, on average, it took
trimming workers 18 minutes to put and on and take off gear, and
21.25 minutes for workers in the hog-killing department.

Tyson argued that the differences among individual workers
rendered the case unsuitable for a class action.  As precedent, it
relied on a Scalia classic, the 2011 Wal-Mart v. Dukes decision.
In that case -- considered a landmark -- the court refused to
consider 1.6 million female Wal-Mart workers as a class for
purposes of their allegations of sex discrimination.

The core of the 5-4 Wal-Mart opinion was Scalia's conclusion that
the Wal-Mart employees' claims were too disparate to count as a
common question of fact or law.  Tyson said that principle applied
to their suit.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the March 22 decision for a 6-2
majority that included the liberals as well as Chief Justice John
Roberts.  He distinguished the Wal-Mart case sharply.  That
precedent, he said, "does not stand for the broad proposition that
a representative sample is an impermissible means of establishing
classwide liability."

Instead, Justice Kennedy reasoned, a representative sample is,
like all evidence, "a means to establish or defend against
liability."  A sample is perfectly admissible to establish a
common class provided it's a good piece of statistical analysis.

This narrowing of Wal-Mart would never have satisfied Justice
Scalia, who would no doubt have dissented sharply and maybe
carried Kennedy with him.  With no Justice Scalia, the decision
stood criticized only by Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence
Thomas, who dissented but without Scalia's brio.

Justice Roberts couldn't resist a clever move of his own in his
separate concurrence.  He noted that the court didn't decide how
damages should be allocated, remanding that issue to the lower
court.  Then he offered free advice to Tyson.  He suggested that
there would be no way to use the representative sample to decide
who exactly should get what damages, and that damages must be
allocated based on actual injury, not a statistical average.
Otherwise, Justice Roberts concluded, the jury verdict might have
to be thrown out anyway, on the grounds that it couldn't withstand
logical scrutiny with respect to damages.

Justice Roberts is a brilliant doctrinalist, and his argument is
certainly clever.  Of course it could be answered by saying that
if statistics are good enough for proof, they should be good
enough for damages.  That's certainly common sense.  But it might
not be doctrine, which sadly isn't always the same thing.

Yet notwithstanding the possibility that the verdict may still be
struck down on remand or on appeal back to the Supreme Court, the
March 22 decision is still a modest win for class actions. Post-
Scalia, class-action lawyers are no longer faced with the mace
that was Scalia -- even if they must still deal with the rapier
that is Roberts.


U.S. NAVY: Court Narrows Suit by Protestant Chaplains
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: NAVY CHAPLAINCY, Case No. 1:07-mc-269
(GK) (D.C.), Judge Gladys Kessler granted in part and denied, in
part, the defendants' motion to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds.

Current and former Non-liturgical Protestant chaplains in the
United States navy, their endorsing agencies, and a fellowship of
non-denominational Christian evangelical churches, brought a
consolidated action against the Department of the Navy and several
of its officials, alleging that the defendants discriminated
against Non-liturgical Protestant chaplains on the basis of their
religion, maintained a culture of denominational favoritism in the
Navy, and infringed on their free exercise and free speech rights.

The defendants moved to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds,
addressing their challenges to the plaintiffs' claims in three
categories, to wit: (1) plaintiffs' "as applied" challenges to
alleged Chaplain Corps personnel policies or practices; (2)
plaintiffs' "as applied" challenges to alleged conditions of
hostility and bias in the Chaplain Corps; and (3) plaintiffs'
challenges to alleged ad hoc actions against certain plaintiffs.

Judge Kessler dismissed the plaintiffs challenge to the alleged
Chaplain Corps personnel policies or practices, finding that the
plaintiffs either lack standing to challenge the alleged policy or
practice or have conceded to the defendants' arguments.

Judge Kessler also concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to
establish standing to challenge the alleged culture of bias and
hostility in the Chaplain Corps.  The judge found that the
plaintiffs have failed to establish a causal relationship between
the injuries alleged and the alleged culture of bias and
hostility, and also failed to identify a single potential remedy
that would redress the plaintiffs' injuries.

As to the last category of claims, Judge Kessler found that the
plaintiffs lack standing to challenge the alleged failure to
consider prior officer fitness reports and the alleged
interference with certain plaintiffs' ministries.  Judge Kessler,
however, found that the plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged
injury-in-fact and redressability to support standing in their
claim for alleged interference with prayer.

Lastly, Judge Kessler agreed with the defendants that the claims
of specific plaintiffs should be partially or entirely dismissed
as time-barred.  The judge, however, denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' non-selection for promotion claims upon
finding that these claims challenge policies relating to selection
boards and therefore fall within the exception to the exhaustion
of administrative remedies requirement.

A full-text copy of Judge Kessler's March 16, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/teYsAefrom Leagle.com.

In Re, NAVY CHAPLAINCY, represented by Matthew J.B. Lawrence, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

Robert H. Adair, Michael Belt, Gregory R. De Marco, Furniss
Harkness, Michael Lavelle, George W. Linzey, Timothy D. Nall,
Thomas Rush, James M. Weibling, John Witherspoon, Michael A.
Wright, William C. Blair, Larry Farrell, Rafael J. Quiles, Lyle
Swanson, David S. Wilder, Martha Carson, Mark R. Johnston, Klon K.
Kitchen, Jr., Denise Y. Merritt, Daniel E. Roysden, Mary Helen
Spalding, David L Gibson, Richard L. Arnold, Ray A. Bailey, George
P. Byrum, Associated Gospel Churches, All Gibson Plaintiffs, All
Adair Plaintiffs, All Chaplain/Full Gospel Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs,
represented by Arthur A. Schulcz, Sr., Law Office Of Arthur A.
Schulcz Chaplains' Counsel.

United States Navy, Secretary Of Department Of Navy, Hansford T.
Johnson, Gerald L. Howeing, Louis V. Iasiello, Deputy Chief Of
Chaplains, Byron Holderby, Jr., Defendants, represented by
Christopher R. Hall, U.S. Department Of Justice, Eric B.
Beckenhauer, U.S. Department Of Justice, Kieran Gavin Gostin, U.S.
Department Of Justice & Matthew J.B. Lawrence, U.S. Department Of
Justice.

U.S. SOCIAL SECURITY: "Heard" Suit Over Tax Refund Offsets Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TINA HEARD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED
STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants, Civil
Action No. 15-230 (RBW) (D.C.), Judge Reggie B. Walton granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Rule
12(b)(1).  All other pending motions were denied as moot.

Tina Heard, Pearline Snow, and Carolyn Graham, filed a putative
class action against the United States Social Security
Administration (SSA), the United States Department of the
Treasury, and the District of Columbia, challenging the SSA's
referral of debts to the Treasury for tax refund offsets, and the
Treasury's and the District's subsequent actions in effectuating
the offsets.   The plaintiffs thereafter moved for class
certification.

The federal defendants moved to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).  The District of Colombia also sought
dismissal of the complaint pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) only.

The federal defendants argued that the court lacks jurisdiction,
one of the asserted grounds being that the plaintiffs' claims are
moot due to the SSA's post-filing refund of the amounts that were
allegedly seized improperly.

Judge Walton agreed with the federal defendants and found that it
lacks jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' claims because no case or
controversy exists, and as a result, the complaint must be
dismissed in its entirety.  Judge Walton further held that,
because the court lacks jurisdiction to resolve the defendants'
motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and the pending class
certification motion, these motions shall be denied as moot.

A full-text copy of Judge Walton's March 15, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/0ILZFgfrom Leagle.com.

TINA HEARD, PEARLINE SNOW, CAROLYN GRAHAM, Plaintiffs, represented
by Chinh Q. Le -- cle@legalaiddc.org -- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Daniel G. Jarcho -- daniel.jarcho@alston.com
-- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, Jahnisa P. Tate --
jahnisa.loadholt@alston.com -- ALSTON & BIRD LLP, pro hac vice,
Jennifer Mezey -- jmezey@legalaiddc.org -- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF
D.C., Nina Wu -- nwu@legalaiddc.com -- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA & Thomas C. Papson -- tpapson@legalaiddc.com
-- LEGAL AID SOCIETY OF THE DISTRIT OF COLUMBIA.

UNITED STATES SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION, UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Defendants, represented by Steven A.
Myers, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant, represented by Edward Paul
Henneberry, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR DC.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over "Risk Corridors"
-------------------------------------------------------
Seth Chandler, writing for Forbes' The Apothecary, reports that a
class action lawsuit brought by a failed health insurer in Oregon
against the United States over a federal program called "Risk
Corridors" has serious implications for the doctrine of separation
of powers that has been a crucial part of our constitutional
Republic.  If differing views on separation of powers are not
fully presented in that lawsuit, there is the danger of a ruling
that, if not carefully written, could permit future presidents to
bypass limitations in the Constitution on the power of the purse.
Although there are other vehicles by which diverse views could be
heard, the most straightforward would be a decision by Speaker of
the House, Paul Ryan, pursuant to existing House Resolution 676,
to intervene in that lawsuit. Speaker Ryan should intervene in the
Risk Corridors class action. Swiftly.

The lawsuit brought on behalf of insurers does not just raise
academic separation of powers issues that fascinate a small subset
of law professors.  A successful class action could revitalize, at
least for a time, some of the insurers who have been selling
policies, often at a substantial loss, on the exchanges under the
ACA and who might be thinking of exiting. Funds from the federal
government would also provide a way by which the co-ops created
under Obamacare, many of whom have large Risk Corridor
receivables, could repay their large debts.  According to a report
from the Majority Staff of House Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations, many of these co-ops, including the class action
plaintiff Health Republic, owe the federal taxpayer for the $2.4
billion in loans from that capitalized them.  In many instances,
these health insurers also owe medical providers for reimbursement
obligations that they failed to pay.

Part of the Affordable Care Act, which was enacted in March of
2010, was a program known as "Risk Corridors."  You can find it in
section 1342 of the Affordable Care Act or at 42 U.S.C.
Sec. 18062.  Under subsection (b)(1), if insurers lost money
selling insurance on the new exchanges between 2014 and 2016,  the
Treasury reimbursed the losing insurers for some of their losses.
And, under subsection (b)(2), if insurers made money selling
insurance on the new exchanges between 2014 and 2016, the
profiting insurers paid some of their earnings into the Treasury.
There is a catch, however.  The way the government defined profits
and losses under the Risk Corridors program is, to put it mildly,
convoluted.  There will thus be many instances in which the Risk
Corridors "profitability" of an insurer lies at some substantial
deviation from its more real profitability.

Insurers needed to consider the Risk Corridor program in making a
decision whether to enter the exchanges and, if so, what sort of
products and prices to offer.  On its face, the program meant that
there was much less risk than would otherwise exist selling
insurance in this new market, but also much less chance of making
a lot of money.  And there is no doubt but that insurers did
consider Risk Corridors to at least potentially be very important.
In a free market, assuming it could find someone trusting enough
to enter such an arrangement, a business would have to pay a
fortune for the sort of financial derivative the Affordable Care
Act's Risk Corridors program gave insurers for free.

In their plan design and pricing decisions for 2014, insurers also
needed to consider, however, whether any funds had been identified
to pay for the Risk Corridor obligations.  Insurers who
investigated at some point during the three-plus years between
passage of the ACA and the time they needed to make plans found
out that Risk Corridors was and remains a major front in the war
over the implementation of Obamacare. Indeed, some might well
consider this lawsuit as just the extension to the judicial branch
of what had been a battle in only the legislative and executive
branches.

Clearly, Congress never made any explicit appropriation to pay for
the Risk Corridors program.  If the losing insurers were going to
get paid, it was either going to come from one of two types of
funds.  It might come from sources internal to the Risk Corridors
program.  In other words, it might come out of the money the
winning insurers paid the government under subsection (b)(2).
This payment has been interpreted as a "user fee" by the General
Accounting Office for the incredible privilege of selling health
insurance on the Exchanges. Or it might come from some external
source of funds, a source implicitly set forth elsewhere in the
law.


UNITED STATES: Immigrants' Suit in Calif. to Proceed to Trial
-------------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
class of immigrants claiming they were denied phone access while
in U.S. custody awaiting deportation proceedings will go to trial
on their procedural due process and First Amendment claims.

In a recent order, U.S. District Judge in San Francisco Edward
Chen said there were outstanding factual disputes on the
availability of private phone calls at Immigration and Customs
Enforcement's facilities throughout California, which kept him
from granting the government full summary judgment.

The three-year old lawsuit claims ICE routinely restricts
telephone access and prolongs detentions in violation of the U.S.
Constitution and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Four facilities are named in the class action: Yuba County Jail,
Rio Cosumnes Correctional Center in Sacramento County, West County
Detention Facility in Contra Costa County and Mesa Verde Detention
Facility in Kern County.

Lead plaintiff Audley Barrington Lyon Jr., a Jamaican immigrant,
was held at the West County Detention Facility between October
2013 and April 2015 where with the help of his wife, he worked on
getting a visa granted to immigrants who are victims of crime. But
he had difficulty communicating with wife because he couldn't
afford to call her.

Plaintiff Nancy Neria-Garcia was held at three of the four ICE
facilities between June 2014 and October 2015, and says she was
often unable to make private phone calls with her immigration
attorney.

Chen wrote that while he'd found "substantial undisputed evidence
of prejudice suffered by the class as a whole," they nonetheless
failed to show that immigration authorities denied them class-wide
substantive due process rights, or the right to counsel and a full
and fair hearing under the Immigration and Nationality Act.

"Here, while plaintiffs present evidence that telephone
restrictions result in difficulty locating, retaining, and
consulting with counsel, plaintiffs have not presented evidence
that these restrictions were 'tantamount to denial of counsel,'"
Chen wrote.

He added, "With the exception of the two named plaintiffs,
plaintiffs' evidence shows that the vast majority of detainees are
held for less than three weeks. Based on the evidence in the
record, plaintiffs have failed to show that as a class they have
established a substantive due process claim based on systemic
prolonged detention."

ACLU attorneys representing the class were unable to comment,
citing time constraints.

The case captioned, AUDLEY BARRINGTON LYON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 13-cv-05878-EMC (N.D. Cal.)


UNITED STATES: Court Criticizes IRS Targeting of Tea Party Groups
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Dinan, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
federal appeals court spanked the IRS on March 22, saying it has
taken laws designed to protect taxpayers from the government and
turned them on their head, using them to try to protect the tax
agency from the very tea party groups it targeted.

The judges ordered the IRS to quickly turn over the full list of
groups it targeted so that a class-action lawsuit, filed by the
NorCal Tea Party Patriots, can proceed.  The judges also accused
the Justice Department lawyers, who are representing the IRS in
the case, of acting in bad faith -- compounding the initial
targeting -- by fighting the disclosure.

"The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied
tradition of defending the nation's interests and enforcing its
laws -- all of them, not just selective ones -- in a manner worthy
of the Department's name.  The conduct of the IRS's attorneys in
the district court falls outside that tradition," Judge Raymond
Kethledge wrote in a unanimous opinion for a three-judge panel of
the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.  "We expect that the IRS will
do better going forward."

Justice Department officials declined to comment on the judicial
drubbing, and the IRS didn't respond to a request for comment on
the unusually strong language Judge Kethledge used.

The case stems from the IRS' decision in 2010 to begin subjecting
tea party and conservative groups to intrusive scrutiny when they
applied for nonprofit status.

An inspector general found several hundred groups were asked
inappropriate questions about their members' activities, their
fundraising and their political leanings.


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 in the
case 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.).

This litigation stems from a class action filed in 1999, alleging
that the U.S. Department of Agriculture discriminated against
Native American farmers in its provision of loans. Following over
a decade of litigation, the parties to this class action reached a
settlement agreement that created a Compensation Fund of
$680,000,000 "for the benefit of the Class." The Fund was to be
used in part to cover the attorney-fee award and individual awards
to those who served as class representatives. Primarily, however,
the Fund would "pay Final Track A Liquidated Awards, Final Track A
Liquidated Tax Awards, Final Track B Awards, and Debt Relief Tax
Awards, to, or on behalf of, Class Members pursuant to the Non-
Judicial Claims Process."

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."

In 2013, after the entire distribution process had been completed,
Class Counsel notified the Court that approximately $380,000,000
remained in the fund. The Settlement Agreement mandates that this
excess be distributed pursuant to a cy pres remedy. Many involved
in this case would like to modify those provisions of the
Settlement Agreement. Some prefer a modification that would direct
that the $380,000,000 be distributed as supplemental payments to
class members who succeeded under the non-Judicial Claims Process.
Others have suggested reopening the Claims Process to new or
previously unsuccessful claimants. Still others believe that
opposition from the Department of Agriculture has made it
impossible to obtain a modification that would alter the cy pres
status of the funds, and have proposed modifications that would
create cy pres distribution procedures to better handle the
massive amount of money to be distributed.

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 Hawkins and Lake 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. 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: Sued in Nevada Over Gun Regulations
--------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that the
federal government violates the Second Amendment rights of
nonviolent felons by misconstruing gun regulations, a Nevada man
claims in a federal class action in Las Vegas.

Barry Michaels says he was convicted of a nonviolent felony and
completed his sentence more than five years ago, hasn't committed
any crimes since, isn't a fugitive from justice, and meets all
conditions for owning a firearm.  But Michaels says he hasn't
bought a gun because he fears criminal prosecution, which he
claims deprives him of his Second Amendment rights.

He sued U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Thomas Brandon,
head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives,
on March 15, claiming they unconstitutionally apply section 18 of
the Gun Control Act of 1968. Michaels says the law does not
prevent law-abiding citizens from buying and owning firearms and
ammunition.

The act is only intended to prevent violent criminals from owning
firearms, according to Michaels' lawsuit, and his conviction was
for a nonviolent felony.

Michaels says federal prosecutors would put him in prison if he
obtained a firearm.

The lawsuit's proposed class is comprised of all U.S. citizens
convicted of nonviolent felonies and who completed their sentences
more than five years ago, committed no crimes since, are not
fugitives from justice, were not dishonorably discharged from the
military, are not addicted to drugs or adjudicated mentally ill,
are not on parole or probation, are subject to indictments or
restraining orders, and want to buy firearms but don't due to fear
of criminal prosecution.

Michaels poses several questions in his complaint, including
whether current enforcement of the Gun Control Act "amounts to
legislative determination of guilt" in violation of the U.S.
Constitution, and whether it violates Eighth Amendment protections
against cruel and unusual punishment and Fifth Amendment due
process rights.

Michaels also wants the Nevada Federal Court to determine whether
nonviolent felons are entitled to the "same presumption of being
'law-abiding citizens'" as ordinary citizens, and if there is any
basis for concluding that citizens convicted of nonviolent
felonies and who have been crime-free for five years would become
a violent offender if allowed to own a firearm.

Without such a basis, Michaels says it's a violation of civil
rights to prosecute him and other class members for owning
firearms. He wants the court to declare the proposed class is law-
abiding and can exercise their Second Amendment rights.

Class attorney Michael Zapin of Boca Raton, Fla., was not
immediately available by telephone on March 18.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Sued in New York Over Private Exchange Offer
--------------------------------------------------------------
William Rowland, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC, VNR Finance
Corp., Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR Holdings, LLC, Vanguard
Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners Operating LLC, and Encore
Clear Fork Pipeline LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02021 (S.D.N.Y., March
18, 2016), is an action for damages as a result of the decision of
the Defendants to engage in a private exchange offer open only to
Qualified Institutional Buyers (QIBs) , notwithstanding the fact
that the 2020 Notes were sold pursuant to registration statements
and purchased by non-QIBs, was unfair to holders of 2020 Notes who
were excluded from the private exchange offer.

The Defendants own and operate an independent energy company
focused on the acquisition and development of mature, long-lived
oil and natural gas properties in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay W. Eisenhofer, Esq.
      Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
      David M. Haendler, Esq.
      GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
      485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (646) 722-8500
      Facsimile: (646) 722-8501
      E-mail: jeisenhofer@gelaw.com
              gnovod@gelaw.com

         - and -

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


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Hillsborough to Join Emissions Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Salinero, writing for The Tampa Tribune, reports that
Hillsborough County plans to join hundreds of other plaintiffs in
a class-action lawsuit against German auto maker Volkswagen, which
has admitted installing devices that help vehicles break air
emission rules.

County commissioners voted unanimously to file a federal lawsuit
against Volkswagen for violating the county's mobile source air
emission rule.  The action likely will be rolled into a class-
action suit now underway in the federal Northern District of
California in San Francisco.

Volkswagen has admitted installing software in VW and Audi diesel
vehicles that detect when a car's emissions are being tested.  The
so-called "defeat device" was put in 11 million vehicles worldwide
and about 600,000 in the United States.

Volkswagen officials could not be reached for comment.

The vehicles with the software emit much higher volumes of
pollutants than allowed under air emission rules set forth by the
county's Environmental Protection Commission and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, said EPC general counsel
Rich Tschantz.

"There are vehicles that started to have this equipment on them as
far back as 2009," Mr. Tschantz said.  "These vehicles emit
anywhere from 10 to 40 times the NOx emissions that are allowed by
the EPA."  NOx stands for nitrogen oxides, indirect greenhouse
gases that contribute to ozone pollution.

Lawyers from two local firms were responsible for bringing the
violation of the EPC mobile emission rule to the county's
attention.  The rule's language speaks specifically about
tampering with a vehicle's air emission control system.

"Fortunately, the EPC has a clear law that is perfectly on point
that penalizes anyone for tampering with a vehicle's emission
system, and the law provides a clear penalty," Truett Gardner, one
of the lawyers who will handle the lawsuit, said in a written
statement.

Hillsborough is the only county in Florida that has such an
emission rule, Mr. Tschantz said.  The penalty prescribed for
violating the rule is a fine of up to $5,000 per vehicle per day.
EPC officials believe 1,187 cars in the county have been violating
county emission rules because of the software.

"A case could be brought and a case should be brought here due to
the action of this company being so egregious and how much
emissions are being put into the atmosphere here in Hillsborough
County on a daily basis," Mr. Tschantz said.

Gardner Brewer Martinez-Monfort will represent the county in the
lawsuit, along with another Tampa firm, Thomas Young.

Commissioners also approved hiring the Beasley Allen firm of
Montgomery, Alabama. Beasley Allen is one of 19 law firms chosen
by a steering committee consolidating the lawsuits in San
Francisco.

The three firms will be paid 33.3 percent of any amount awarded
the county.  If the county gets no money, neither do the lawyers.

U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer in San Francisco is
overseeing more than 500 lawsuits in what is known as multi-
district litigation, or MDL.  Judge Breyer has been quoted as
saying the Volkswagen case is different than most MDLs because the
automaker has admitted certain facts, and because of the large
number of consumers who are having problems with their VW or Audi
vehicles.  Those factors could mean a quick settlement, according
to the judge.

Judge Breyer picked former FBI director Robert Mueller to help
move Volkswagen and the plaintiffs toward a settlement.

So far, five states -- Kentucky, Texas, New Mexico, West Virginia
and New Jersey -- have filed suit against Volkswagen, along with
Harris County, Texas.  The car company is also negotiating with
the U.S. Department of Justice, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and the state of California.

"This is probably one of the largest class-action cases ever in
the United States," Mr. Tschantz said.


WABTEC CORP: "Busker" Suit Stays in Federal Court
-------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JOHN BUSKER, on behalf of himself, and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WABTEC CORPORATION,
MICHAEL MARTIN, and DOES 1 through 100, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-
cv-08194-ODW-AFM (C.D. Cal.), Judge Otis D. Wright, II denied the
plaintiff's motion to remand the case back to Los Angeles Superior
Court.

A putative class action was filed by John Busker in the Los
Angeles Superior Court against Wabtec Corporation and Mark Martin
arising out of Busker's and other putative class members' work on
a public works project, under the employment of Wabtec.  An
amended complaint was later filed in state court.

The defendants removed the action to federal court, invoking
jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairneess Act of 2005 (CAFA).
Busker then moved to remand the action back to Los Angeles
Superior Court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing
that the defendants failed to prove that the amount in controversy
exceeds $5 million and that the defendants failed to establish,
that in the aggregate, the plaintiff class is made up of more than
100 putative class members.

Busker asserted that the defendants improperly included in its
Notice of Removal a manager, a deceased supervisor, four
engineers, and seven inspectors who are not based on the pleaded
class of "workers," as well as 14 duplicate names.  Judge Wright,
however, found that the evidence the defendants provided did not
include duplicate names.  The judge also found that the
individuals sought to be excluded performed installation work on
the Metrolink project and thus fall within the scope of the  class
which has been defined as: "All workers engaged in the execution
of the scope of WABTEC, a subcontractor of PARSONS, under Contract
No. H1636-10."  Accordingly, Judge Wright concluded that even
discounting defendant Martin and the deceased supervisor from the
list of 114 putative class members, the defendants have met their
burden to show that the class is over the required threshold of
100 putative class members.

Judge Wright also found that the defendants have satisfied their
burden by proving that the plaintiff's damages under its Second
Cause of Action alone, for failure to pay prevailing wages,
exceeds the jurisdictional minimum.

In the alternative, Busker also argued that the court must decline
to exercise jurisdiction over the lawsuit because of the "local
controversy" exception.  Judge Wright, however, held that the
exception does not apply because Busker failed to prove that
Martin is a defendant from whom significant relief is sought and
whose alleged conduct forms a significant basis for the claims
asserted.

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

John Busker, Plaintiff, represented by Judith L Camilleri, Donahoo
and Associates, Richard E Donahoo, Donahoo and Associates, PC,
Sarah Louise Kokonas, Donahoo and Associates, Aaron Lee Arndt --
aarndt@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle and Curtis LLP, Justin
P Karczag -- jkarczag@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle and
Curtis LLP, Muhammed Talal Hussain -- mhussain@foleybezek.com --
Foley Bezek Behle and Curtis LLP & Thomas Foley --
tfoley@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle and Curtis LLP.

WABTEC Corporation, Mark Martin, Defendants, represented by
Christopher J Kondon -- christopher.kondon@klgates.com -- K and L
Gates LLP, Patrick M Madden -- patrick.madden@klgates.com -- K&L
Gates LLP, pro hac vice, Suzanne J Thomas --
suzanne.thomas@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP, pro hac vice & Saman
M Rejali -- saman.rejali@klgates.com -- K and L Gates LLP.


WASHINGTON TRUST: Black Rock Golf Club Members Lose Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Maben, writing for The Spokesman-Review, reports that former
members of a luxury golf club on Lake Coeur d'Alene have lost a
class-action lawsuit seeking millions of dollars in membership
refunds after the club was surrendered to a
Spokane-based bank in 2010.  The plaintiffs sued Washington Trust
Bank and subsidiary West Sprague Avenue Holdings LLC, arguing that
they were entitled to almost $29 million in club initiation fees
paid to The Club at Black Rock LLC.  They also sought $15 million
in interest and other damages.  Following a two-week trial in U.S.
District Court in Coeur d'Alene, a jury on March 21 decided the
defendants were not responsible for refunding fees to about 300
former members of the club, built by developer Marshall Chesrown
between 2000 and 2003.


WAYNE COUNTY, MI: Summary Disposition of "Corey" Suit Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAMES ROBERT COREY, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.
WAYNE COUNTY and CATHY M. GARRETT, Defendants-Appellees, No.
325465 (Mich. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Michigan affirmed
the trial court's order granting the defendants' motion for
summary disposition and dismissing James Robert Corey's complaint.

In August 2014, Corey filed a class action lawsuit in Wayne County
Circuit Court, pertaining to the collection of an $80 fee by the
clerk of court, Cathy Garrett, when Corey filed a motion regarding
custody of his minor child in a divorce action filed by his then-
wife.  Corey asserted that Garrett illegallly collected this fee
contrary to MCL 600.2529(1)(d)(i) and the directives of the
Supreme Court Administrative Office (SCAO).  Corey brought the
action "on behalf of himself and all other individuals who have
been illegally charged the $80 fee contrary to MCL 600.2529(1),
and who have not received a refund of that particular fee."

The defendants Garrett and Wayne County moved for summary
disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(8), arguing that they
are immune from tort liability under the Government Tort Liability
Act, (GTLA) MCL 691.1401 et seq., and that Corey's non-tort claims
could not be maintained.

The trial court granted the defendants' motion for summary
disposition with respect to all of Corey's claims and dismissed
the complaint against the defendants.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Michigan held that Garrett, as
Wayne County Clerk, an elected executive official of the County,
is entitled to absolute immunity from tort liability because she
was acting within the scope of her "executive authority" when she
collected the $80 filing fee.  The appellate court found that MCL
600.2529(1)(d)(i) explicitly directs the clerk of the court to
collect the $80 filing fee before entry of a final judgment in an
action in which the custody or parenting time of minor children is
determined or modified.

The appellate court also found that the defendants could not have
been unjustly enriched by collecting the fees because under a
statutory scheme, Wayne County and/or Garrett could not retain any
of the fees collected for their own benefit; rather, the fees
collected must be used to fund the Friend of the Court, an arm of
the circuit court.

With regards to Corey's claims of due process violations, the
appellate court held that the defendants' failure to establish a
mechanism for an automatic refund of the $80 fee did not interfere
with, or deprive Corey of, his right to a refund of the fees or a
meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue because Corey
could have simply just sought a refund of the allegedly
erroneously charged fee.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of Michigan's March 15,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/PDCWAYfrom Leagle.com.


WELLS FARGO: $12M Class Action Deal in "Manuel" Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TERRELL MANUEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WELLS
FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Civil No. 3:14cv238
(DJN) (E.D. Va.), Judge David J. Novak granted the plaintiffs'
motion for final approval of class action settlement, application
for service award to the class representative, and application for
award of attorney's fees.

On April 1, 2014, Terrell Manuel commenced a class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that
Wells Fargo willfully failed to comply with the pre-adverse action
notification requirements of the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA),
before taking an adverse employment action against him.  Manuel
also later alleged that Wells Fargo willfully failed to comply
with the disclosure and authorization requirements set forth in 15
U.S.C. Section 1681b(b)(2) before obtaining a consumer report
about him for employment purposes.

The parties eventually entered into a settlement agreement which
required Wells Fargo to pay $12 million into a settlement fund for
the benefit of the settlement class, and from which fund the
settlement administrator, Epiq Class Action & Claims Solutions,
Inc., will be sending a check to every class member.  The
settlement was preliminarily approved on December 17, 2015.  On
March 4, 2016, the plaintiffs moved for final approval of the
settlement.  A Final Fairness Hearing was conducted on March 15,
2016.

Judge Novak found that the settlement agreement presents a fair,
reasonable and adequate bargain between the defendants and all
members of the two certified classes of consumers.  The judge also
found that the process of delivering the notice was "the best
practicable under the circumstances" as required by Rule 23.

Judge Novak also found reasonable the class counsel's request for
an award of 25% of the common fund for attorneys' fees.  The judge
pointed out that "Class Counsel expended large amounts of time and
labor on the matter, demonstrated skill commensurate to their
reputations, and achieved an excellent result for the classes in
this large and complex action."

Judge Novak likewise found the requested $10,000 service award for
Manuel as the named class representative to be appropriate.

A full-text copy of Judge Novak's March 15, 2016 memorandum
opinion is available at http://is.gd/pXMuAMfrom Leagle.com.

Terrell Manuel, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Colt North,
Leonard Anthony Bennett, Consumer Litigation Associates, Susan
Mary Rotkis, Consumer Litigation Associates & William Leonard
Downing, The Consumer and Employee Rights Law Firm PC.

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association, Defendant, represented by
Jimmy Frank Robinson, Jr. -- jimmy.robinson@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak & Stewart PC & James Clay Rollins --
clay.rollins@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart PC.

Frank D Caligiuri, Defendant, represented by Brent F. Vullings,
Warren & Vullings, LLP, pro hac vice & Richard William Ferris,
FerrisWinder PLLC.


WHITE LOTUS: Court Rejects Preliminary Injunction Bid in "Stelly"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard G. Kopf of the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska denied Plaintiff's motion for
issuance of preliminary injunction in the case captioned, MATTHEW
C. STELLY, on behalf of himself and the class he seeks to
represent, Plaintiff, v. ARUN AGARWAL and WHITE LOTUS MANAGEMENT,
Defendants, Case No. 8:15CV407 (D. Neb.).

Plaintiff Matthew Stelly filed a "Complaint for a Preliminary
Injunction" on November 6, 2015. Stelly has been given leave to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Stelly purports to bring the action on behalf of a class of
"objectors" or "potential objectors" who oppose Defendants'
purchase of property in Omaha, Nebraska, known as the Great Plains
Black Museum. Stelly does not allege that Defendants are state
actors or that the property at issue is public property. Stelly
wishes to stop the purchase of the property because he believes
the purchase will "create a hostile atmosphere throughout the
community as the purchaser is someone who has not put any time or
work into said area.

Stelly asks the court to intervene by issuing a preliminary
injunction restraining Defendants from purchasing the property.
The court conducts an initial review of Plaintiff's claims to
determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1915(e)(2).

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/r4e7Rdfrom Leagle.com, Judge Kopf found that Stelly
has failed to establish a basis upon which the court may exercise
jurisdiction in the matter.

Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of the Memorandum and
Order to file an amended complaint that sets forth the basis for
the court's subject matter jurisdiction.


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Won't Certify Class in "Better" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned STAN BETTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YRC
WORLDWIDE INC., et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 11-2072-KHV
(D. Kan.), Judge Kathryn H. Vratil overruled the motion filed by
co-lead plaintiffs Stan Better and YRC Investors Group for class
certfication.

Better and YRC Investors Group sued YRC Worldwide Inc., William D.
Zollars, Michael Smid, Timothy A. Wicks, F. Joseph Whitsel III and
Stephen L. Bruffett for violations of federal securities laws.
The plaintiffs sought to certify class composed of those who
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of YRC Worldwide
Inc. between April 24, 2008, and November 2, 2009, inclusive, and
were damaged thereby.

Declining to certify the class, Judge Vratil found that the
plaintiffs have not shown that proposed representatives and
counsel will adequately represent the interests of absent class
members, and have therefore failed to satisfy the requirements of
the Federal Rules of Procedure Rule 23(a)(4).

A full-text copy of Judge Vratil's March 14, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/80c1yAfrom Leagle.com.

Stan Better, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley L. Ricket, Dollar,
Burns & Becker, LC, David A. P. Brower -- brower@browerpiven.com
-- Brower Piven, PC, pro hac vice, Frank J. Johnson --
frankj@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson & Weaver, LLP, pro hac
vice, J. Ryan Lopatka, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro hac vice, John
M. Parisi -- jparisi@sjblaw.com -- Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman,
Chtd., Lynn R. Johnson -- ljohnson@sjblaw.com -- Shamberg, Johnson
& Bergman, Chtd., Matthew P. Woodard, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro
hac vice, Shane D. Pendley, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro hac vice &
Shawn E. Fields -- shawnf@johnsonandweaver.com -- Johnson &
Weaver, LLP, pro hac vice.

YRC Investors Group, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce W. Dona, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC, pro hac vice, David A. P. Brower, Brower Piven,
PC, pro hac vice, J. Ryan Lopatka, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro hac
vice, John M. Parisi, Shamberg, Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Kim E.
Miller, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro hac vice, Lewis S. Kahn, Kahn
Swick & Foti, LLC, pro hac vice, Lynn R. Johnson, Shamberg,
Johnson & Bergman, Chtd., Matthew P. Woodard, Kahn Swick & Foti,
LLC, pro hac vice & Shane D. Pendley, Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC, pro
hac vice.

YRC Worldwide, Inc., Defendant, represented by J. Emmett Logan --
emmett.logan@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Jill M.
Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice, Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann -- kpohlmann@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice,Kristin L. Farnen --
kristin.farnen@stinson.com -- Stinson Leonard Street LLP, Laura
Hughes McNally -- lmcnally@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice & Marc J. Sonnenfeld --
msonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro
hac vice.

William D. Zollars, Michael Smid, Timothy A. Wicks, Stephen L.
Bruffet, Defendants, represented by J. Emmett Logan, Stinson
Leonard Street LLP, Jill M. Baisinger, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius,
LLP, pro hac vice, Karen Pieslak Pohlmann, Morgan, Lewis &
Bockius, LLP, pro hac vice,Kristin L. Farnen, Stinson Leonard
Street LLP & Marc J. Sonnenfeld, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP, pro
hac vice.


ZYNGA INC: Judge OKs $23MM Securities class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on March 18 approved a $23 million settlement of a
securities fraud class action against game maker Zynga Inc.,
permitting plaintiffs' lawyers to receive a quarter of that
amount.

Under the approval motion signed by U.S. Magistrate Judge
Jaqueline Scott Corley, the lead plaintiff's counsel in the class
action at Berman DeValerio and Newman Ferrara will get $5.75
million of the settlement.

How the remainder is divvied up will depend on how many members of
the class can prove they held shares in Zynga, maker of the
FarmVille and Words with Friends social games, for the relevant
period in 2011 and 2012, how many shares they owned, and when they
bought them.

The suit contends Zynga executives knew -- and failed to disclose
-- that Facebook Inc. was making changes to its platform that
would weaken Zynga's appeal to Facebook users.  Jeffrey Norton,
chair of the class action and complex litigation group at Newman
Ferrara, said that as of the March 11 deadline, between 25,000 and
26,000 individuals had submitted notices claiming to be part of
the class.  It will likely be September or August before the
amounts are calculated and payments are made, he added.

Mr. Norton said the fee amount was on the low end considering the
hours that went into the case, and was consistent with the 25
percent benchmark that federal courts in California have embraced.

The lead plaintiff's lawyers argued in their Jan. 28 motion for
approval of the settlement that the $23 million itself is a
respectable prize.  The amount is about 14 percent of what the
plaintiff's lawyers calculate the potential damages to be, whereas
most such cases settle for closer to 2 percent, they wrote.

Mr. Norton noted that litigating securities fraud suits is no slam
dunk, pointing to the fact that the law requires plaintiffs to
show both an intent to defraud on behalf of the company and that
the alleged activity actually caused a drop in share price.
Proving both of those are high hurdles, he said.

"Ultimately you have to go into a court of law and prove your
claims, and maybe you will satisfy that burden and maybe you
won't.  Executives of companies and people being sued don't always
say what you want them to say," he said.

Anna Erickson White -- awhite@mofo.com -- of Morrison & Foerster,
who represented Zynga, declined to comment on the approval of the
settlement. Zynga did not respond to requests to comment. The
company never admitted wrongdoing in the case.

The company's shares peaked at $15.96 in March 2012 and fell to
less than $3 that July, and have been largely stuck there since.
It still faces other securities suits in California state and
federal courts.


* Canada Braces for Climate Change Litigation
---------------------------------------------
Chidinma Thompson, Esq., and Sandi Shannon, Esq., of Borden Ladner
Gervais LLP, in an article for Mondaq, report that the bold move
towards climate change litigation is progressing in Canada as seen
in last year's Voters Taking Action on Climate Change v. British
Columbia (Energy and Mines), 2015 BCSC 471 ("VTACC").  Examples of
similar litigation in other jurisdictions around the world are
outlined below.  The Alberta Environmental Law Center noted that
at the end of 2013, there were 420 climate change cases in the
United States and 173 in the rest of the world out of which
approximately 10 cases are in Canada.  It has been observed that
some of the cases are brought pursuant to common law tortious
causes of actions while others challenge decisions of regulatory
authorities pursuant to specific legislation and are aimed at
driving the course of climate change regulation.  Further, some of
the cases arise in the context of specific project approvals and
others are petitions affecting a particular industry sector.
While climate change litigation in Canada is in its infancy and,
as in other jurisdictions faces significant legal challenges to
its success, it poses a tangible risk to development projects.

Recent Climate Change Court Decisions

In VTACC v. British Columbia (Energy and Mines), VTACC challenged
two decisions regarding the proposed expansion of Texada Quarrying
Ltd.'s (TQL's) coal handling and storage operation on Texada
Island.  The two decisions under review related to the Minister of
Energy and Mines' (MEM) issuance of a permit and the Minister of
Environment (MOE) refusal to exercise its statutory power to
require TQL to obtain a permit for the proposed expansion.  TQL is
a subsidiary of Lafarge Canada Inc. VTACC attempted to
characterize the primary argument as a jurisdictional one.  They
argued that because the Mines Act does not regulate bulk coal
storage and handling operations the Chief Inspector did not have
the power to authorize such operations. VTACC asserted that the
jurisdiction over TQL's operation rested with the MOE under the
Environmental Management Act ("EMA").  In the alternative, VTACC
argued that the Chief Inspector breached his duty of procedural
fairness and natural justice by not making new material that had
been received, that was relevant to issues raised by the public,
publically available.

The Court upheld the decisions of the MEM and the MOE. However,
the portion of the decision which will be relevant to future
climate change litigants is the Court's reasons for denying VTACC
public interest standing.  VTACC's self-described mission is to
urge governments to take meaningful action to address climate
change through reduced reliance on carbon intensive fuels such as
coal.  They argued that TQL's stored coal would eventually be
exported and burned and would therefore contribute to greenhouse
gas emissions that drive climate change, and that climate change
is an issue of paramount importance on an international, national
and local level.  Granting public interest standing requires the
court to weigh three factors: whether the case raises a serious
justiciable issue; whether the party bringing the action has a
real stake or a genuine interest in its outcome; and whether,
having regard to a number of factors, the proposed suit is a
reasonable and effective means to bring the case to court.

The Court found that the question raised was not a serious
justiciable issue as it did not raise a constitutional issue and
was not a question of public importance that transcends the
interests of those directly affected.  VTACC's issue was that the
Mines Act is intended to regulate mines, not coal storage and
handling facilities, and that the EMA is the applicable statutory
regime because it applies to bulk storage facilities.  The Court
did not take a position on the seriousness of climate change.  The
issue before the courts was found to be very narrow, despite
VTACC's attempts to broaden the scope.  The Court found that the
proposed litigation would be a poor use of limited judicial
resources and that it did not engage the issue that VTACC was
pursuing, which was to urge governments to take meaningful action
to address climate change.  The Court further noted that the
residents of Texada Island, who are more directly affected, were
not represented by VTACC and that Sliammon First Nations, did not
oppose the project.  While standing could be an obstacle for
climate change litigants, the Court did not rule out climate
change as a potential support for public interest standing.

Similar to the objectives of VTACC is the Dutch Urgenda
Foundation, a citizens' platform which develops plans and measures
to prevent climate change.  The Urgenda Foundation represented 886
individuals in the August 2015 case of Urgenda Foundation v The
State of the Netherlands (Ministry of Infrastructure and the
Environment) [summary of the English translation].  The Hague
District Court had a different view of climate change than the
British Columbia Supreme Court.  The Dutch Court ruled that in the
Netherlands, the State must take more action to reduce the
greenhouse gas emissions.  The District Court held that the State
must do more to avert the imminent danger caused by climate
change, given its duty of care to protect and improve the living
environment.  Since the State is responsible for effectively
controlling the Dutch emission levels, the costs of the measures
ordered by the court were not unacceptably high.  The District
Court rejected the argument that solution to the global climate
problem does not depend solely on Dutch efforts.  In that Court's
view, any reduction of emissions contributes to the prevention of
climate change.  The Court insisted that it had not entered the
domain of politics as it must provide legal protection also in
cases against the government while respecting the government's
scope for policymaking.

There are notable examples in the United States of cases similar
to VTACC and Urgenda Foundation in the category of climate change
litigation aimed at driving the course of climate change
regulation by challenging actions or inactions under specific
legislation.  In Massachusetts et al v Environmental Protection
Agency et al, (2007) 549 U.S. 497 (US Supreme Court), cited as the
leading climate change case in the U.S. on standing, a group of
environmental organizations with states and local governments
intervening, petitioned for review of an order of the
Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") denying a petition for
rulemaking to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from motor
vehicles under the U.S. Clean Air Act.  The group alleged that EPA
had abdicated its responsibility under the United States' Clean
Air Act to regulate greenhouse gases.  The U.S. Supreme Court held
that the State of Massachusetts had standing, considering that
EPA's refusal to regulate presented a risk of harm to
Massachusetts from rise in sea levels associated with global
warming that was both "actual" and "imminent," and that there was
a substantial likelihood that judicial relief requested would
prompt EPA to take steps to reduce that risk.  The Court held that
the EPA could not avoid taking regulatory action based on
scientific uncertainty and policy judgments that a number of
voluntary executive branch programs already provide an effective
response to the threat of global warming. However, in Washington
Environmental Council v. Bellon, 732 F.3d 1131 where environmental
advocacy organization also brought action under Clean Air Act
against state and regional environmental agencies, alleging that
agencies failed to enforce state implementation plan ("SIP") that
required them to define reasonably available control technology
("RACT") for greenhouse gases and to apply RACT standards to oil
refineries.  The Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit held that the
causal nexus between failure of environmental agencies to define
emissions limits was too attenuated to harms suffered by
environmental organizations, for purposes of constitutional
standing, and that there was no evidence that the imposition of
emissions limits would curb a significant amount of greenhouse gas
emissions.

In Canada, obiter comments of judges in judicial decisions are
being quoted as examples of judicial notice of climate change
causes of action.  The Federal Court in Syncrude Canada Ltd. v
Attorney General of Canada [(2014) FC 776 para. 83] has been cited
as recognizing a real and measured reasonable apprehension of harm
resulting from the enabling of climate change through the
combustion of fossil fuels.  The context of this comment however
was a response to Syncrude's assertion, in its constitutional
challenge of the federal Renewable Fuel Regulations, that the
production and consumption of petroleum fuels are not dangerous
and do not pose a risk to human health or safety.  Based on these
comments, the Environmental Law Center concludes that as climate
change litigation accelerates in Canada, Courts should remain
alert to the fact that significant scientific consensus on the
existence, mechanisms and impacts of climate change is already
reasonably established.

Apart from challenges under specific statutes, there is the
category of climate change cases pursuant to common law tort
actions in respect of specific projects which we have not yet seen
in Canada.  American Electric Power, Inc v Connecticut et al,
(2011), 564 US No 10-174 9 US SCt) was a clear nuisance case
wherein eight states, New York City, and three land trusts
separately sued the same electric power corporations that owned
and operated fossil-fuel-fired power plants in twenty states,
seeking abatement of the defendants' ongoing contributions to
public nuisance of global warming.  The US Supreme Court held that
while the Plaintiffs had standing under Massachusetts v. EPA, the
Clean Air Act and EPA actions it authorize have displaced any
federal common law right to seek abatement of carbon dioxide
emissions from fossil-fuel fired power plants.  The Court did not
decide the availability of a claim under state nuisance law.
Similarly, in Comer v Murphy Oil USA, 839 F Supp (2d) 849 property
owners brought action individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, against oil companies, asserting public and
private nuisance, trespass, and negligence claims.  They alleged
that oil companies' release of by-products that increased global
warming led to development of conditions that formed hurricanes
and resulted in higher insurance premiums and caused sea level to
rise. Granting the oil companies' motions to dismiss, the Court
held that the case presented non-justiciable political questions,
where there were no judicially discoverable and manageable
standards for resolving the issues presented, and the case would
require the court and jury to make initial policy determinations,
including whether companies' emissions were reasonable, which had
been entrusted to the EPA by Congress.

In Native Village of Kivalina v ExxonMobil Corp, 696 F 3d 849 (9th
Cir 2012), residents brought action for damages under federal
common-law claim of public nuisance, and dependent civil
conspiracy claim, against multiple oil, energy, and utility
companies, alleging that companies' massive greenhouse gas
emissions had resulted in global warming which in turn severely
eroded land upon which the city was situated.  The District Court
for the Northern District of California granted companies' motions
to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  The Court of
Appeal held that the Clean Air Act and EPA action authorized
thereunder displaced federal common law, precluding claim for
public nuisance. Apart from standing and justiciability issues,
proof on evidentiary standards and causation have been difficult
even where such claims are framed as straightforward tort claims.
The Court in Comer v Murphy Oil USA held that it was not
substantially likely that the companies' particular emissions,
rather than other manmade and naturally-occurring sources, caused
global warming, which caused sea temperatures to rise, which in
turn caused glaciers and icebergs to melt, which caused sea levels
to rise, which may have strengthened Hurricane Katrina, which
damaged owners' property.

Relevance of Climate Change Litigation in Interjurisdictional
Pipeline Development in Canada

While climate change litigation is novel in Canada, the
implications for Canadian pipeline and other development projects
are significant as citizens continue to demand for climate change
considerations in regulatory proceedings and actively seeking
judicial review of regulatory decisions on those grounds.  More
recently, the National Energy Board ("NEB") finds itself in new
territory with public demands for dealing with climate change and
upstream and downstream Green House Gas management in four major
interprovincial pipelines: (a) TransCanada Keystone Pipeline GP
Ltd. OH-1-2009, March 2010 ("Keystone XL"); (b) Application for
the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project (OH-4-2011)
("Northern Gateway"); (c) Application for Trans Mountain Expansion
Project (OH-001-2014) ("Trans Mountain Pipeline"); and (d)
Application for the Energy East Project and Asset Transfer
("Energy East").  The NEB has held that it assesses Greenhouse Gas
emissions from pipelines to the extent that they contribute
"meaningfully" to provincial or national inventories. [TransCanada
Keystone Pipeline GP Ltd Facilities and Toll Methodology, Reasons
for Decision OH-1-2009, March 2010 at 75 ("KeystoneDecision")]
Pipeline certificate conditions have included GHG emission
assessment, monitoring and mitigation measure reporting, though
this was done by consent of the applicant in the 2010 Keystone
Decision.  But relative to cumulative impact assessment
requirements, the NEB insists that it is required to consider only
the direct Greenhouse Gas emissions from the specific project.
The test, the NEB said, is whether there is a nexus or direct
connection between the upstream production facilities and the
pipeline under consideration.

The Federal Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the NEB on this
point in Forest Ethics Advocacy Association v. Canada (National
Energy Board) [2014 FCA 245. See also 2015 FCA 26.]. Litigants
will face similar issues of nexus or causation in the context of
climate change litigation.  In City of Vancouver v National Energy
Board, and TransMountain Pipeline ULC, the Federal Court of Appeal
denied the City of Vancouver's application for leave to appeal
NEB's scoping decision refusing to consider Trans Mountain's
impact on global climate change.  To provide guidance on this
issue, Canada has recently announced interim rules for federal
decision-making on natural resource projects. For more information
on the Government of Canada's interim rules please see a recent
blog post, In Process? New Federal Rules for Pipeline Approvals.

General Implications for Litigants and Project Proponents

There are key legal challenges to the success of climate change
litigation in all jurisdictions whether pursuant to specific
legislation or under common law.  These include, but are not
limited to, standing, justiciability, jurisdiction, causation,
proof on evidentiary standards, forum, duty of care, and
apportionment of liability.  While these challenges exist, the
risk to project development of climate change litigation is real.
The delay and financial costs raised by such suits are capable of
rendering a project uneconomic.  The rise in environmental
awareness serves an important societal purpose. However, like most
litigation, the costs of climate change litigation to development
and, more broadly, investment may be high including reputational
cost.


* Class Action Activity in Financial Services Sector Increases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cyril Tuohy, writing for Insurance News, reports that the
financial services industry has emerged as an unexpected source of
increased class action activity in the past year, a new survey has
found.

Further, an attorney with the law firm that conducted the survey
said he believes it's only a matter of months before more life
insurance carriers are sued.

At issue are cost-of-insurance (COI) class action matters that
have cropped up in the past 18 months and over which the courts
appear divided.

In the latest round of class action disputes involving life and
annuity carriers, plaintiffs say life insurers are unfairly
targeting specific groups of policyholders for premium increases.
Consumer watchdogs have called upon regulators to block rate hikes
on universal life contracts.

Carriers are looking to raise COI rates to compensate for low
interest rates, mortality costs and people holding on to life
insurance policies longer.  Insurers say they are well within
their contractual rights to raise premiums.

Referring to four major life insurers that recently announced rate
increases, "We expect all the carriers to be sued," Carlton Fields
shareholder Stephen J. Jorden told InsuranceNewsNet. "There's a
lot of chatter in the plaintiffs' bar newsletter and it's only a
matter of months before everyone has been sued."

Class Action Spending On The Rise

The nationwide law firm Carlton Fields released its fifth annual
class action survey, which showed an increase in spending on class
action disputes in 2015, the first such increase in four years.
Spending on class action litigation rose to $2.1 billion in 2015,
marking a 3.4 percent increase compared with 2014, the survey
found.

Class action litigation is expected to rise further to $2.14
billion in 2016, according to the survey.  The survey data was
collected from 381 large companies across 25 industries.

Class action disputes involve one or two plaintiffs suing on
behalf of an entire class of plaintiffs, often numbering in the
dozens, hundreds or thousands.

A proposed Consumer Financial Protection Bureau rule to limit
arbitration also is expected to give rise to new class action
disputes, according to the report.  The annual class action survey
is designed to give in-house corporate lawyers a feel for
developing trends in a narrow sliver of the $19.4 billion market
for U.S. legal services.

The survey found that 13.7 percent of respondents predicted a wave
of class action suits flowing from a possible CFPB ruling, whereas
there was no such concern in 2014, according to the report.
Arbitration is designed to prevent expensive and extensive legal
disputes from clogging the courts.

Consumer fraud accounted for 24.6 percent of all class action
matters and 25 percent of all class action spending in 2015, the
report found.  Insurance-related class action disputes, excluding
fraud, accounted for 7 percent of class action matters and 6.9
percent of class action spending in 2015.

Respondents indicated they each expect, on average, 2.8 new class
action matters in 2016.  This is an increase from 2.3 new class
action matters last year and 1.5 new class action cases in 2014,
the report found.



                            *********

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  * * *