CAR_Public/160331.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, March 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 65


                            Headlines


7-ELEVEN: Class Action Mulled Over Ethnic Franchisee Selection
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Benefit Plan Doesn't Meet ERISA Exemption
AIR LIQUIDE INDUSTRIAL: Violated IWC Order, "Alvarez" Suit Claims
ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Sued Over False Parmesan Cheese Ads
ALTRIA GROUP: Jury Returned Verdict for PM USA in "Donovan" Case

ALTRIA GROUP: Court Says PM USA Violated Mass. Consumer Laws
ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Lights Case Set for Trial Thru March 31
AMARIN CORP: Settles FDA Dispute Over Fish-Oil Drug Marketing
AMEREN CORPORATION: Missouri Municipal Taxes Case Still Pending
AMERICAN EQUITY: 9th Circuit Affirms Approval of Settlement

ANDRIES & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Marks" Suit Says
APIGEE CORPORATION: Shares Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims
APIGEE CORPORATION: Faces "Widlund" Securities Class Action
ATLANTIC COAST: "Tavarez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Ct.
BAXTER INT'L: Says Class Suit Settled Below Insurance Limits

BSONYC CORP: Fails to Pay OT, "Limehouse" Suit Says
CACH LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
CANADA: RCMP Class Action Certification Hearing Set for May
CARRIER CORP: Faces Asbestosis Class Action in Connecticut
CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: 4 Shareholder Class Suits Filed in Pa.

COMPLIANCE STAFFING: "Rangel" Suit Transferred to M.D.
COST PLUS: Violated Cal. Labor Code & CLRA, "Grady" Suit Claims
DOLMEN GROUP: Faces "Granja" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
DPL CONSTRUCTION: "Alcantara" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in O&R Case Negotiate Settlement

DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Die-Mension Case Negotiate Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Vinotemp Case Negotiate Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Flow Sciences Case Talk Deal
DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Altaflo Case Negotiate Settlement
DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Commenced in "Thomas" Case

EDISON SOLAR: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Zhu" Suit Claims
ELEGANT DESSERT NY: "Ordaz" Labor Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y, Brooklyn
ESA MANAGEMENT: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination
ESSEX PORTFOLIO: "Foster" Action Still Pending in N.D. Cal.
EVERBANK: Court Preliminarily Approves "Vathana" Case Settlement

FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Amonoo" Suit in N.J.
FLINT, MI: Lawsuits Over Water Crisis Pile Up
FLINT, MI: Independent Panel Releases Findings on Water Crisis
FREEWAY INSURANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Bonilla" Suit Says
FULL CIRCLE FINANCIAL: Violated FDC Act, "Shedler" Suit Claims

G&R MARINE LABOR: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Plaintiff Testifies in Ignition Switch Case
GENERAL MOTORS: No Verdict Yet in 2nd Ignition Switch Case
GEO GROUP: EEOC Findings Win Appellate Court Support
GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends Against "Freeman" Lawsuit

HESS CORP: Court Reinstates Heating Oil Adulteration Claims
INNER VALLEY TRANSPORT: "Alex" Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
INTEREXCHANGE INC: Magistrate Judge Rules in Au Pair Program Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $502MM Verdict in Hip Implant MDL
JUDGES RETIREMENT SYSTEM: Appellate Court Sustains Demurrer

L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Violated Magnuson-Moss Act, "Pittman" Claims
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 3 EoTech Class Actions Filed in Missouri
L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
LAS VEGAS SANDS: "Fosbre" Action in Preliminary Stage
LE BILBOQUET: Faces "Najib" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage

LEHMAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Pension Plan
LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Faces UA Local Fund Securities Suit
LAIBCO LLC: Faces "Menjivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage
LERNER NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cisneros" Suit Says
LINDE CORPORATION: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Trevorah" Suit Claims

LITHIA MOTORS: Tendered Defense of Class Actions to Auto Makers
LOVE GRACE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Juice Product Ads
LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Turner" Files Suit Over Defective Flooring
LYFT INC: Judge Questions Adequacy of Class Action Settlement
MARLTON 73: Faces "Sanford" Suit Over Wrongful Termination

MDL 2058: 2nd Cir. Vacates Order Denying Flanagan's Fee Request
MERCADOLIBRE INC: Parties Ordered to Produce Evidence
MI LLC: Texas Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Dewan"
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Parwani" Class Suit in S.D. Cal. Ct.
MINNESOTA: Status Update on June 6 in "Jensen" Suit

MIZUHO BANK: Ill. Judge Threatens to Move Bitcoin Suit to Calif.
MOM BRANDS: Sued in Illinois Over Misbranded Oatmeal
MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending
MOUSTACHE COFFEE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
MRI INTERNATIONAL: Nevada Judge Certifies Class in Ponzi Case

MSK MANAGEMENT: Violated FLSA & NJMWL, "Houssam" Suit Claims
MTC NOVO: Set to Take Over G4S amid Inmate Abuse Class Action
MULTI MOBILE IMAGING: Violated NYLL, "Cullen" Suit Claims
NABORS INDUSTRIES: Merger Class Action Still Pending
NANTKWEST INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sudunagunta" Suit Claims

NASDAQ, INC: Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit Still Pending
NASDAQ, INC: Provides Update on Facebook IPO Litigation
NASDAQ, INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Providence Case
NASDAQ, INC: Oral Argument Held in 2nd Circuit Appeal
NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Debtor Proves Loan to be Unconscionable

NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Settlement in "Good" Suit Wins Final Approval
NDO AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Juni" Suit Says
NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Settles Meningitis Class Suit for $10.5M
NEW GENERATION DONUTS: Ex-Employees Fail to Win Conditional Cert.
NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Retirees' COLA Suit

NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wins Appeal in Suit Over Infiniti SUVs
NQ MOBILE: May 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
NU SKIN: Reached Settlement of Securities Class Action
OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Data, "Mares" Suit Says
OHIO: Two Bills Against "Tampon Tax" Pending Amid Class Action

PATRIOT SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Arrieta" Suit Says
PELLA CORP: Faces "Cooks" Suit Over Defective Series Windows
PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Settles Mask Kickback Claims for $34.8MM
PIXAR: Ordered to Hand Over Ex-GC Emails in "No-Poach" Case
PRA GROUP: Settlement Reached in TCPA Litigation

PRIMERO AUTO: "Carvajal" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
PRIORITY WORKFORCE: Violated Labor Code, "Garcia" Suit Claims
R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in "Soffer"
RESTORATION HARDWARE: Justice Dismisses Class Member's Appeal
RW INSTALLATION: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA

SABAH INTERNATIONAL: "Correa" Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Gudmundson" Suit Seeks Damages Under UDTPA
SEMPRA ENERGY: 83 Suits Filed v. SoCalGas Over Leak
SHAKE SHACK: Faces "Vidal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SHANK CONCRETE: "McIntyre" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA

SKECHERS USA: Says Global Accord in Final Stages of Documentation
SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Fortin" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: "Harrison" Suit Moved to E.D.N.C.
SOUTHERN COMPANY: Court Approved Stipulated Order of Dismissal
STANCORP FINANCIAL: 4 Suits Consolidated in Multnomah Court

STEEL DYNAMICS: Additional Discovery Ongoing in Antitrust Suit
STS CONSULTING SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Lopez" Suit Claims
SUSHIN EXPRESS: "Loor" Suit Seeks Money Damages Under FLSA
TARGET CORP: Faces "Hara" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Ads
TARGET CORP: Faces "Aliano" Suit in Ill. Over Misbranded Oatmeal

TC PIPELINES: Still Defends ERS Class Action in Delaware
TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in Services Quality Suit Still Pending
TGI FRIDAY'S: Plaintiff Must Prove Injury in Drink Price Case
TGI FRIDAY'S: Class Certification in Drink Price Suit Reversed
THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Law Graduate Loses Job-Data Suit

THUMBTACK INC: Violated FCRA and UCL, "Rhom" Suit Claims
TINLEY PARK: "Stuckly" Files Suit Over Zoning Provisions
TRANSOCEAN LTD: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Section 14(a) Claim
TRICON AMERICAN: Violates Lease Contract, "Hernandez" Suit Says
TYSON FOODS: Class-Action Litigators Laud Supreme Court Ruling

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: French Court Upholds Geolocalization
UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in N.J. Ct.
UNITED FABRICS: Faces "Stanley" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
UNITED SERVICES: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Attorney Sanctions

UNITED STATES: Hamscom Air Base Faces Discrimination Class Action
UNITED STATES: Tea Party Activists Laud Court Ruling v. IRS
UNIVERSAL PROTEIN: Sued Over "Made Proudly In The USA" Ads
UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Investors File Securities Class Action
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Judge Dismisses Students' Due Process Suits

US OIL FUND: NY Action in Initial Stages for New Defendants
US OIL FUND: Canada Actions in Initial Stages
US OIL FUND: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed District Court Ruling
VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cornell" Suit Says
VISA INC: Judge Denies Retailers' Preliminary Injunction Request

VOLKSWAGEN AG: FTC Files Suit Over False "Clean Diesel" Claims
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Has Until April 21 to Draw Up Emissions Solution
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dealers Meet with German Execs Amid Class Actions
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Kentucky AG Files Suit Over Emissions Scheme
WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Data Breach Action in California

WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geismar Incident Suit Postponed
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Alaska High Court Decision Expected in Spring
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Action Pending
WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Facing Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger
WS BADCOCK: "Harp" Class Action Moved to M.D. Fla. Ct.

WWE NETWORK: Technology Shift May Spur Class Action
XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Violated FLSA, "Valverde" Suit Claims
YAHIRO INC: Faces "Guo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage
YAHOO! INC: Faces "Klingensmith" Suit in Ohio Court
ZYNGA INC: $23M Securities Class Action Settlement Has Final OK

* Justice Roberts Raises Thresholds for Class Action Plaintiffs
* Tobacco Cos. Can Face Punitive Damages in Individual Cases


                            *********


7-ELEVEN: Class Action Mulled Over Ethnic Franchisee Selection
--------------------------------------------------------------
James Robertson, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports
that a Sydney lawyer has alleged 7-Eleven employed a de facto
policy of ethnically screening its franchisees and, with ANZ,
luring them with "easy" loans they could not repay.

Mass underpayment of employees and fabrication of payroll records
within 7-Eleven franchises has been exposed by Fairfax Media and
the ABC.

But in an unpublished submission to a Senate Inquiry, Sydney
lawyer Stewart Levitt alleges the company practiced at least a "de
facto ethnic selection of franchisees" in order to select store
owners less likely to blow the whistle on employment practices.

Mr. Levitt is a partner at Levitt Robinson and represents about 30
7-Eleven franchisees and has announced an intended class action
against the company and ANZ bank.

His submission says the company's franchisees -- and employees --
are "overwhelmingly" migrants mainly from countries on the Indian
sub-continent with weak labour laws.

"Having addressed rallies of around 100 franchisees at a time [. .
.] it is rare to see a white face, it is counter-intuitive to
believe that this was not a deliberate policy," Mr. Levitt
alleges.

The submission also alleges that "easy loans", principally from
ANZ, helped "lure" franchisees into agreements.

The submission claims that ANZ extended franchisees credit to the
value of up to 70 per cent of a store's cost when typically only
30 per cent would be offered to non-franchise businesses.

"Unsuitable loans were made to franchisees, of whom the vast
majority had no relevant experience," the submission reads.

The submission notes a "substantial number" of cases of women with
young children and no work experiences co-securing loans of up to
100 per cent of a store's value by providing personal guarantees
against their homes.

"Franchisees and their families are each now 'on the hook' for
hundreds of thousands of dollars having had no demonstrable
capacity to repay," the submission reads.

Franchisees were left struggling to service the debts, the
submissions allege, because the projected profits of the
businesses they bought were based on an understatement of wage
costs.

Financial statements provided to prospective franchisees were
based on an average profit and loss of 7-Eleven franchises.  These
figures were inflated, Mr. Levitt alleges, because "few if any"
stores were paying award wages.

Mr. Levitt says 7-Eleven facilitated the loans and often entered
into three-way agreements whereby the company guaranteed loans
against default by its franchisees.

Potential franchisees must pay a $5000 application fee and are
"screened, interviewed and approved" by the company's head office.

A spokesman for 7-Eleven declined to comment on the allegations
because the company had not seen the submission.

The inquiry's full, 350-page report, titled "A National Disgrace",
was tabled to parliament this month.

The report said claims by company senior management that head
office was unaware of underpayment "defy belief".

Labor Senator Deborah O'Neill, who is on the Senate Education and
Employment References Committee, said she had been contacted by
confidential informants about ethnic selection practices.

"They're coming from a culture where payment of wages is a
different to what is expected in Australia," Ms. O'Neill said.

Back-pay claims from employees are expected to reach as much as
$50 million.

Ms. O'Neill said she also believed some 7-Eleven franchisees had
acted as brokers to encourage members of their ethnic communities
into buying stores.

Ms. O'Neill said at least one employee was told by a franchisee
that complaining about underpayment would "bring shame upon the
subcontinent".

ANZ did not respond to written questions by deadline.


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Benefit Plan Doesn't Meet ERISA Exemption
----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Ilana Rovner of the Court of Appeals, Seventh
Circuit, affirmed the opinion of the district court in the case
captioned, MARIA STAPLETON, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v.
ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK, AN ILLINOIS NON-PROFIT CORPORATION,
et al., Defendants-Appellants, Case No. 15-1368 (7th Cir.).

On appeal, the case explores the question whether a plan
established by a church-affiliated organization, such as a
hospital, is also exempt from ERISA's reach.

In the Decison dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/wk3IUifrom Leagle.com, Judge Rovner concluded that
Advocate's benefit plan does not meet the definition of an ERISA
church-plan exemption.

The plaintiffs, Maria Stapleton, Judith Lukas, Sharon Roberts, and
Antoine Fox are former and current Advocate employees with vested
claims to benefits under the Advocate retirement plan. They have
brought their complaint as a proposed class action on behalf of
all participants or beneficiaries of the Advocate plan. The
plaintiffs allege that Advocate has not maintained its pension
plan according to the standards set forth by ERISA, 29 U.S.C. Sec.
1001 et seq., and thus has breached its fiduciary duty and harmed
the plan's participants.

The plaintiffs argue in the alternative that if Advocate
successfully evades liability under the church plan exemption,
that this provision of ERISA is void as an unconstitutional
violation of the First Amendment's prohibition on state
establishment of religion.

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Advocate plan is a
benefits plan subject to the regulations of ERISA, or in the
alternative, a declaration that a church plan exemption is
unconstitutional. They also sought an injunction requiring
Advocate to reform the plan to comply with ERISA's requirements
and an award of civil penalties, and damages.

Advocate moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1), arguing that its plan falls
within the church plan exemption. The district court denied the
defendants' motion, holding that the plan "is not entitled to
ERISA's church plan exemption as a matter of law" because the
statutory definition required a church plan to be established by a
church.


AIR LIQUIDE INDUSTRIAL: Violated IWC Order, "Alvarez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Alvarez, individually and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Air Liquide
Industrial U.S. Limited Partnership, and Does 1-25, the
Defendants, Case No. BC614586 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles
County, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wages under the
Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) wage orders and California
Labor Code (CLC).

Air Liquide Industrial distributes bulk industrial gases
throughout the United States. The company was incorporated in 2004
and is based in Houston, Texas. Air Liquide Industrial U.S. LP
operates as a subsidiary of Air Liquide America Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael A. Gould, Esq.
          Aarin Seif, Esq.
          GOULD & ASSOCIATES
          17822 East 17th Street, Suite 106
          Tustin, CA 92780
          Telephone: (714) 669 2850
          Facsimile: (714) 544 0800
          E-mail: Michael@wageandhourlaw.com
                  Aarin@wageandhourlaw.com


ALBERTSONS COMPANIES: Sued Over False Parmesan Cheese Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Lang, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Albertsons Companies, Inc., an Idaho corporation; and
Supervalu, Inc., a Minnesota corporation, Case No. 2016-CH-03881
(Ill. Cir., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop Defendants from
misrepresenting that "Essential Everyday 100% Grated Parmesan
Cheese" contains "100%" Parmesan cheese, when, in fact, at least
8.8% of the Product consists of fillers and preservatives.

Albertsons Companies, Inc., an Idaho corporation, operates a chain
of grocery stores and does business under various names including
Jewel-Osco, Safeway, Vons, and Albertsons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re., Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 440-0020
     Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
             amy@attorneyzim.com
             jordan@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorney.zim.com


ALTRIA GROUP: Jury Returned Verdict for PM USA in "Donovan" Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the "Donovan" medical
monitoring class action, a Massachusetts jury on February 10,
2016, returned a verdict in favor of Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM
USA").

In medical monitoring actions, plaintiffs seek to recover the cost
for, or otherwise the implementation of, court-supervised programs
for ongoing medical monitoring purportedly on behalf of a class of
individual plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in these cases seek to impose
liability under various product-based causes of action and the
creation of a court-supervised program providing members of the
purported class Low Dose CT ("LDCT") scanning in order to identify
and diagnose lung cancer. Plaintiffs in these cases do not seek
punitive damages, although plaintiffs in Donovan have sought
permission from the court to seek to treble any damages awarded,
which the court denied. The future defense of these cases may be
negatively impacted by evolving medical standards and practice.
One medical monitoring class action is currently pending against
PM USA.

In Donovan, filed in December 2006 in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Massachusetts, plaintiffs purportedly brought the
action on behalf of the state's residents who are: age 50 or
older; have smoked the Marlboro brand for 20 pack-years or more;
and have neither been diagnosed with lung cancer nor are under
investigation by a physician for suspected lung cancer. The
Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, in answering questions
certified to it by the district court, held in October 2009 that
under certain circumstances state law recognizes a claim by
individual smokers for medical monitoring despite the absence of
an actual injury. The court also ruled that whether or not the
case is barred by the applicable statute of limitations is a
factual issue to be determined at trial. The case was remanded to
federal court for further proceedings.

In June 2010, the district court granted in part the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification, certifying the class as to
plaintiffs' claims for breach of implied warranty and violation of
the Massachusetts Consumer Protection Act, but denying
certification as to plaintiffs' negligence claim. In July 2010, PM
USA petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit for
appellate review of the class certification decision. The petition
was denied in September 2010. As a remedy, plaintiffs have
proposed a 28-year medical monitoring program with a cost in
excess of $190 million.

In October 2011, PM USA filed a motion for class decertification,
which motion was denied in March 2012. In February 2013, the
district court amended the class definition to extend to
individuals who satisfy the class membership criteria through
February 26, 2013, and to exclude any individual who was not a
Massachusetts resident as of February 26, 2013.

Trial began January 26, 2016 and will take place in multiple
phases. Phase I will address liability. To the extent a Phase II
is necessary, it would be tried to the court and address common
questions of remedies and costs.

In July 2015, both parties filed various motions relating to Phase
I, including motions for partial summary judgment and to exclude
certain evidence. In October 2015, the district court granted PM
USA's motion for partial summary judgment holding that e-vapor
products may not be deemed an alternative design for ordinary
cigarettes.


ALTRIA GROUP: Court Says PM USA Violated Mass. Consumer Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the "Aspinall"
Lights/Ultra Lights action, the trial court on February 19, 2016,
issued its "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law." The court
found that (1) Philip Morris USA Inc. ("PM USA") violated
Massachusetts consumer protection laws in marketing Marlboro
"Lights" and (2) plaintiffs proved that class members were
economically injured, but did not prove a specific measure of
damages. As a result, the court awarded statutory damages of $25
per class member, for a total of $4.9 million, plus interest,
attorneys' fees and costs.

In Aspinall, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court in August
2004 affirmed the class certification order. In August 2006, the
trial court denied PM USA's motion for summary judgment and
granted plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment on the
defenses of federal preemption and a state law exemption to
Massachusetts' consumer protection statute. On motion of the
parties, the trial court subsequently reported its decision to
deny summary judgment to the appeals court for review and stayed
further proceedings pending completion of the appellate review.

In March 2009, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court affirmed
the order denying summary judgment to PM USA and granting the
plaintiffs' cross-motion. In January 2010, plaintiffs moved for
partial summary judgment as to liability claiming collateral
estoppel from the findings in the case brought by the Department
of Justice

In March 2012, the trial court denied plaintiffs' motion. In
February 2013, the trial court, upon agreement of the parties,
dismissed without prejudice plaintiffs' claims against Altria
Group, Inc. PM USA is now the sole defendant in the case. In
September 2013, the case was transferred to the Business
Litigation Session of the Massachusetts Superior Court.

Also in September 2013, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
summary judgment on the scope of remedies available in the case,
which the Massachusetts Superior Court denied in February 2014,
concluding that plaintiffs cannot obtain disgorgement of profits
as an equitable remedy and that their recovery is limited to
actual damages or $25 per class member if they cannot prove actual
damages greater than $25.

Plaintiffs filed a motion asking the trial court to report its
February 2014 ruling to the Massachusetts Appeals Court for
review, which the trial court denied. In March 2014, plaintiffs
petitioned the Massachusetts Appeals Court for review of the
ruling, which the appellate court denied. In August 2015, the
trial court denied various pre-trial motions filed by PM USA,
including a motion for summary judgment on the ground that
plaintiffs have no proof of injury. Trial began in October 2015
and concluded in November 2015. On December 18, 2015, PM USA filed
a motion to decertify the class.


ALTRIA GROUP: 1 Lights Case Set for Trial Thru March 31
-------------------------------------------------------
Altria Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of January 26, 2016,
five Engle progeny cases, no individual smoking and health case
and one "Lights/Ultra Lights" class action against Philip Morris
USA Inc. ("PM USA"), are set for trial through March 31, 2016. One
medical monitoring class action against PM USA is currently in
trial. Cases against other companies in the tobacco ndustry are
also scheduled for trial during this period. Trial dates are
subject to change.

Plaintiffs in certain pending matters seek certification of their
cases as class actions and allege, among other things, that the
uses of the terms "Lights" and/or "Ultra Lights" constitute
deceptive and unfair trade practices, common law or statutory
fraud, unjust enrichment or breach of warranty, and seek
injunctive and equitable relief, including restitution and, in
certain cases, punitive damages. These class actions have been
brought against PM USA and, in certain instances, Altria Group,
Inc. or its subsidiaries, on behalf of individuals who purchased
and consumed various brands of cigarettes, including Marlboro
Lights, Marlboro Ultra Lights, Virginia Slims Lights and
Superslims, Merit Lights and Cambridge Lights. Defenses raised in
these cases include lack of misrepresentation, lack of causation,
injury and damages, the statute of limitations, non-liability
under state statutory provisions exempting conduct that complies
with federal regulatory directives, and the First Amendment. As of
January 26, 2016, a total of 11 such cases are pending in various
U.S. state courts.


AMARIN CORP: Settles FDA Dispute Over Fish-Oil Drug Marketing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Perrone, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
the maker of a prescription fish-oil drug says it has reached a
legal settlement that will allow it to promote unapproved uses of
its drug for lowering fat levels.

The closely watched case between Amarin Corporation PLC and the
Food and Drug Administration could strengthen the drug industry's
hand in the ongoing debate over promoting drugs for uses that have
not been declared safe and effective by regulators.

But the FDA said on March 8 the settlement is "specific to this
particular case and situation," and did not mark a new legal
precedent.

"The FDA is responsible for protecting the American public by
helping to ensure medical products meet the rigorous legal
standards for safety and effectiveness for their intended uses,"
the agency said in a statement.

Still, pharmaceutical experts said companies would likely pursue
more aggressive legal action against FDA, in light of the
settlement.

"We would expect companies throughout the country to ask courts to
provide the same legal reasoning," said attorney John Fleder, who
was not involved in the case.

In August, Amarin won a surprise victory over the FDA when a U.S.
District Court judge ruled that the company had a First Amendment
right to distribute journal articles about unapproved indications
for Vascepa.

Amarin said in a statement on March 8 that the FDA agreed to be
bound by the earlier court decision.

Drugmakers are not allowed to advertise drugs for "off-label"
uses, or those that have not been cleared by the FDA as safe and
effective.  But companies' ability to distribute independent
materials about their drugs -- such as medical journal articles --
has been subject to years of legal debate centering around the
limits of "commercial speech."

The FDA approved Vascepa in 2012 for patients with abnormally high
levels of triglycerides, a type of fat found in the bloodstream.
But the agency rejected a second use that would have allowed the
company to market the pill to patients with lower triglycerides
who also take statins -- drugs used to lower cholesterol.  The
agency said the company needed to submit more data on whether
lowering triglycerides actually translates into fewer heart
problems in those patients.  And FDA regulators suggested that
distributing information about the alternate use would be illegal.

Amarin responded in May with a pre-emptive lawsuit, arguing that
FDA efforts to stop the company from sharing "off-label"
information would violate the company's free speech protections.
In August, Judge Paul Engelmayer agreed, stating the company could
"engage in truthful and non-misleading speech" while promoting its
drug.

Doctors are free to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses,
regardless of FDA's prescribing recommendations.

Some attorneys cautioned on March 8 that the settlement had
"important limitations."

"It only applies to Amarin," said Lisa Dwyer.  "I don't think
we're at a point where it makes sense to extrapolate to other
companies."

Vascepa is Amarin's only approved product, a prescription strength
form of an omega-3 fatty acid found in wild fish.  Fish oil is
thought to lower heart disease risk, though no definitive studies
have yet established that benefit.


AMEREN CORPORATION: Missouri Municipal Taxes Case Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ameren Corporation, Union Electric Company and Ameren Illinois
Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that American continues to face a class
action related to Missouri municipal taxes.

The cities of Creve Coeur and Winchester, Missouri, on behalf of
themselves and other municipalities in Ameren Missouri's service
area, filed a class action lawsuit in November 2011 against Ameren
Missouri in the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri. The
lawsuit alleges that Ameren Missouri failed to collect and pay
gross receipts taxes or license fees on certain revenues. Ameren
and Ameren Missouri recorded immaterial liabilities on their
respective balance sheets as of December 31, 2015, representing
their estimate of taxes and fees due as a result of this lawsuit.
The ultimate resolution of any unpaid municipal tax or fees could
have a material adverse effect on the results of operations,
financial position, and liquidity of Ameren and Ameren Missouri.
Ameren Missouri believes its defenses are meritorious and is
defending itself vigorously; however, there can be no assurances
that Ameren Missouri will be successful in its efforts.

Ameren, headquartered in St. Louis, Missouri, is a public utility
holding company under PUHCA 2005.


AMERICAN EQUITY: 9th Circuit Affirms Approval of Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
American Equity Investment Life Holding Company said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
affirmed the District Court's approval of attorneys' fees and its
approval of the settlement agreement of a class action lawsuit.

"We were a defendant in a purported class action, McCormack, et
al. v. American Equity Investment Life Insurance Company, et al.,
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California, Western Division and Anagnostis v. American Equity, et
al., coordinated in the Central District, entitled, In Re:
American Equity Annuity Practices and Sales Litigation (complaint
filed September 7, 2005) (the "Los Angeles Case"), involving
allegations of improper sales practices and similar claims," the
Company said.

"The Los Angeles Case was a consolidated action involving several
lawsuits filed by putative class members seeking class action
status for a national class of purchasers of annuities issued by
us."

On July 30, 2013, the parties entered into a settlement agreement
and stipulated to certification of the case as a class action for
settlement purposes only. Notice of the terms of the settlement
was mailed to the members of the class on October 7, 2013 and
settlement claim forms were due from members of the class on or
before December 6, 2013.

On January 27, 2014, a hearing was held regarding the fairness of
the settlement. On January 29, 2014, the District Court signed a
final order approving the settlement and finding the settlement is
fair and represents a complete resolution of all claims asserted
on behalf of the class. On January 30, 2014, a final judgment was
entered dismissing the case on the merits and with prejudice.

On February 28, 2014, a member of the class filed an appeal of the
District Court's approval of the terms of the settlement agreement
with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. On
February 17, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's approval of attorneys'
fees and its approval of the settlement agreement.

"We recorded an estimated litigation liability of $17.5 million
during the third quarter of 2012 related to the Los Angeles Case,"
the Company said.

"We increased our estimated litigation liability for this matter
to $21.2 million during the fourth quarter of 2013 following the
passage of the deadline for submission of claims by class members
in the lawsuit and based upon information available at that time.
However, we decreased the liability by $2.3 million in the first
quarter of 2014 as additional information became available
concerning the nature and magnitude of the claims received. In
addition, during the first quarter of 2014, we paid $7.8 million
in legal fees to the plaintiffs' counsel. The estimated litigation
liability at December 31, 2015 is $11.1 million.

"While review of the claim forms has been stayed due to the appeal
and it is difficult to predict the amount of the liabilities that
will ultimately result from the completion of the claims process,
the $11.1 million litigation liability represents our best
estimate of probable loss with respect to this litigation. In
light of the inherent uncertainties involved in the matter
described above, there can be no assurance that such litigation,
or any other pending or future litigation, will not have a
material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, or
results of operations."

American Equity Investment Life Holding Company issues fixed
annuity and life insurance products through our wholly-owned life
insurance subsidiaries, American Equity Investment Life Insurance
Company ("American Equity Life"), American Equity Investment Life
Insurance Company of New York and Eagle Life Insurance Company
("Eagle Life").


ANDRIES & ASSOCIATES: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Marks" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Destin Ray Marks and Millie Kay Bouget, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated v. Andries and Associates, L.L.C.
d/b/a Evangeline Home Center, et al., Case No. 6:16-cv-00360 (W.D.
La., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay the proper wage and overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Andries and Associates, L.L.C. is a dealer of small mobile homes.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kenneth D. St. Pe, Esq.
     KENNETH D. ST. PE, LLC
     311 West University Avenue, Suite A
     Lafayette, LA 70506
     Telephone: (337) 534-4043


APIGEE CORPORATION: Shares Artificially Inflated, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron P. Beck, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Apigee Corporation; Chet Kapoor; Tim Wan; Bob L.
Corey; Neal Dempsey; Promod Haque; William "BJ" Jenkins, Jr.;
Edmond Mesrobian; Robert Schwartz; Stuart G. Phillips; Bay
Management Company X, LLC; Bay Partners X, LP; Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC; J.P. Morgan Securities LLC; Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC; Pacific Crest Securities, a division of Keybanc Capital
Markets Inc.; JPM Securities LLC; Nomura Securities International,
Inc.; and DOES 1-25, inclusive, Case No. CIV537817 (Cal. Super.,
March 17, 2016), alleges that the Registration Statement filed by
Apigee related to its initial public offering was negligently
prepared and, as a result, contained untrue statements of material
facts or omitted to state other facts necessary to make the
statements made not misleading, and was not prepared in accordance
with the rules and regulations governing its preparation; at the
time of the IPO, the Company's business and financial prospects
were not what defendants had led the market to believe they were
in the Registration Statement; the price of Apigee common stock
plummeted as the market learned, following the IPO, that the
Company's business metrics and financial prospects were not as
strong as represented in the Registration Statement; and as a
result, the price of Apigee common stock has plummeted to trade as
low as $5.14 and now trades well below $8.00 per share, or
approximately 47% of the price the stock was sold at in the IPO.

Apigee Corporation is a California-based software development
company that has developed a software platform designed to enable
application-programming interface ("API") based digital strategies
and business insights for enterprises.

Bay Management Company X, LLC and Bay Partners X, LP, are part of
a venture capital stake in Apigee and beneficially owned, through
partnerships they controlled over 18% of the Company's shares at
the time of the IPO.

Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit
Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Pacific Crest Securities, JPM
Securities LLC, and Nomura Securities International, Inc., are
investment banking firms that acted as underwriters of the IPO,
helping to draft and disseminate the IPO documents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     Post Montgomery Center
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Telephone: (415) 228-4545
     Facsimile: (415) 288-4534

          - and -

     James I. Jaconette, Esq.
     ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
     655 West Broadway Suite 1900
     San Diego, CA 92101-8498
     Telephone: (619) 231-1058
     Facsimile: (619) 231-7423

          - and -

     Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
     Shawn E. Fields, Esq.
     JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
     600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 230-0063
     Facsimile: (619) 255-1856


APIGEE CORPORATION: Faces "Widlund" Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Widlund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Apigee Corporation, Chet Kapoor, Tim
Wan, William D. Jenkins, Jr., Promod Haque, Bob L. Corey, Neal
Dempsey, Edmond Mesrobian, Robert Schwartz, Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Pacific Crest Securities, JMP Securities LLC, Nomura
Securities International, Inc., Bay Partners, LLC, Stuart G.
Phillips, Bay Management Company X, LLC, Bay Partners X, LP, and
Does 1- 25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CBV537871 (Cal
Super. Ct., County of San Mateo, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover
remedies from the harm caused by a materially misleading
Registration Statement, pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933
(Securities Act).

According to the complaint, the Defendant's Registration Statement
repeatedly touted Apigee's increase in revenues in recent
quarters. The Registration Statement, however, allegedly failed to
disclose that much of the growth was attributable to large, non-
recurring one-time transactions. The Registration Statement
further failed to disclose pending competition from Amazon.com,
Inc., the company that created a service in which Apigee's entire
API cloud infrastructure was running upon. This failure to
disclose these material facts rendered the Registration Statement
materially misleading.

Based on this misleading Registration Statement, the Company and
the Underwriter Defendants sold over 5. 1 million shares of the
Company's common stock to the public at over $ 16 per share,
raising nearly $87 million in gross proceeds ($80.9 million net of
underwriting fees and IPO costs).

Apigee is a software development company that has developed a
software platform designed to enable application programmable
interface ("API") based digital strategies and business insights
for enterprises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          George C. Aguilar, Esq.
          Jay N. Razzouk, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101 1Y
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com
                  jrazzouk@robbinsarroyo.com


ATLANTIC COAST: "Tavarez" Suit Moved to S.D. Fla. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------
Wilberto Tavarez, and other similarly situated car detailers v.
Atlantic Coast Collision II, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability
Company, and Nicholas Peppi, individually, Case No. 16-000659 DIV
08, was removed from the 17th Judicial Circuit, to U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of Florida (Ft Lauderdale).
The Southern District assigned Case No. 0:16-cv-60617-WJZ to the
proceeding.

Atlantic Coast Collision is engaged in auto body repair business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brody Max Shulman, Esq.
          Jason Saul Remer, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Courthouse Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: bshulman@rgpattorneys.com
                  jremer@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Carlos A Garcia, Esq.
          Jason A. Glusman, Esq.
          WICKER SMITH O'HARA MCCOY FORD, P.A.
          515 E. Las Olas Blvd., Suite 1400
          Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 847 4800
          E-mail: CGarcia1@wickersmith.com
                  jglusman@wickersmith.com


BAXTER INT'L: Says Class Suit Settled Below Insurance Limits
------------------------------------------------------------
Baxter International Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Baxter, certain of
its current and former executives or its Board of Directors were
sued in various forums for alleged failure to adequately oversee
the operations of the company or for allegedly issuing false and
misleading statements. Defendants denied all wrongdoing and those
matters are now settled or dismissed. A consolidated derivative
suit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois (N.D. Ill.) was settled with the plaintiffs
in February 2015. Two other derivative actions previously filed in
Lake County and Delaware Chancery state courts were dismissed. The
company also settled below its insurance limits a consolidated
alleged class action pending in the N.D. Ill. The court approved
the settlement in January 2016.

Baxter International Inc., through its subsidiaries, provides a
broad portfolio of essential renal and hospital products,
including home, acute and in-center dialysis; sterile IV
solutions; infusion systems and devices; parenteral nutrition;
biosurgery products and anesthetics; and pharmacy automation,
software and services.


BSONYC CORP: Fails to Pay OT, "Limehouse" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------
Tyreek Limehouse, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Bsonyc Corp. d/b/a Beauty of New York; Seok Gyu Kim;
any other related entities, Case No. 601844/2016 (N.Y. Sup., March
18, 2016) New York Labor Law.

Bsonyc Corp., a New York corporation, sells hair wig products.

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


CACH LLC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------
Karen Ferguson, v. Cach, LLC; Mandarich Law Group, LLP; and Does
1-10, Case No. CIV537818 (Cal. Super., March 17, 2016), seeks to
stop Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a
debt.

Cach, LLC is a debt collector and it regularly collects or
attempts to collect debts owed or due or asserted to be owed or
due another.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Mark T. Clausen, Esq.
     Murray Zatman, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MURRAY ZATMAN
     818-A College Avenue
     Santa Rosa, CA 95404
     Telephone: (707) 542-9700
     Cellular: (707) 235-3663
     Facsimile: (707) 542-9713
     E-mail: MarkToddClausen@yahoo.com


CANADA: RCMP Class Action Certification Hearing Set for May
-----------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Quan, writing for National Post, reports that
Linda Davidson "fell in love" with the idea of becoming a cop in
the early 1980s.

Over a 27-year career with the RCMP, she rose to the rank of
inspector -- the ninth female Mountie to do so -- and landed a gig
on the prime minister's protective detail.

"I loved every second of being on that detail," she gushed to a
local Ontario newspaper, the Huntsville Forester, shortly after
retiring in October 2012.  "I loved the excitement, I loved the
travel, I loved the life that went on around it, the meeting of
new people and visits to new countries."

But that glowing account masked what she now says was an ugly
truth -- that for most of her career, she was subjected to
bullying and belittling from male officers that left her mentally
anguished and even suicidal.

The harassment, she alleges in court papers, took many forms:
unwanted grabbing and kissing; crude jokes, including the
placement of ketchup-stained tampons in her locker; and constant
questioning about her sexual orientation and abilities.

"I experienced this treatment irrespective of my detachment,
posting, rank or seniority," she wrote in an affidavit.  "I never
felt that I could rely on senior officers to protect me."

The Bracebridge, Ont., mother, who now runs a security firm, is
the lead plaintiff in a proposed class-action lawsuit alleging
systemic gender-based harassment and discrimination in the RCMP
-- the second such lawsuit to hit the force in recent years.
Though it was filed in Ontario Superior Court last spring, the
lawsuit has gone largely unnoticed.

But it is definitely on the radar of police brass.

In a briefing document sent to the new public safety minister in
November and obtained by the National Post under access-to-
information laws, RCMP Commissioner Bob Paulson listed "harassment
litigation" as one of his top challenges, citing Davidson's
proposed class action, as well as one filed earlier in B.C. by
former Const. Janet Merlo.

While the force has implemented a number of respectful-workplace
initiatives, recruited more women and promoted more women to
senior positions, "the memory of a publicly floundering RCMP,
following a succession of very significant shortcomings, is not
yet distant enough in the minds of those we serve," Mr. Paulson
wrote.

"Therefore, we continue to maintain a sense of urgency in our
ongoing efforts toward transforming the force into a modern,
professional, national police force."

The harassment and discrimination that Davidson faced "forced her
to leave an organization she loved, and led to the premature end
of a distinguished career," her lawyer Megan McPhee said in an
email.

But even in retirement, it still took Ms. Davidson awhile before
she was comfortable going public with her allegations.

It wasn't until last year, when her PTSD, anxiety and depression
were "sufficiently manageable," she wrote in an affidavit, that
she decided to file the lawsuit.

In court documents, Ms. Davidson alleges multiple overt sexual
acts from male colleagues.

Early in her career, she says, an officer at the Grand Falls
detachment in Newfoundland put his hand down her shirt and grabbed
her breast.  She said she slapped him across the face.

In the mid-1990s, while working at Toronto's airport, she says a
sergeant without warning began to remove her tie and belt.  "I
told him to never lay his hands on me again."

In the early 2000s at the Hamilton-Niagara detachment, she says a
chief superintendent put his hands on her waist and tried to kiss
her and that a commanding officer sexually propositioned her.

She says she was also subjected to cruel jokes.

The first time she attended a fatal car accident, she alleges a
male colleague dropped a victim's detached finger, with ring still
attached, into the palm of her hand, causing her to vomit.

She claims colleagues in Newfoundland put sex toys in her work
basket and the same constable who reached down her shirt also tied
balloons to her desk to insinuate that he had had sex with her.

From 1979 to 2004, Ms. Davidson was married to a man, but she says
she faced constant questioning about her sexual orientation.

She says she was called "stud," "bitch" and "queer."

In 2008, she married a woman.

She claims colleagues on the prime minister's security detail
spread false rumours she was having sexual relations with women
who were not her spouse.

Meanwhile, she was regularly passed over for work on meaningful
cases and her skills were constantly questioned and tested,
according to her suit.

She was once sent alone into a bar fight involving about 30
people, she says.

As an inspector in Hamilton-Niagara, her male peers did not
respond helpfully when she wanted to discuss tactical issues, she
claims.

She says a male superintendent on the prime minister's security
team made derogatory remarks about women's physical abilities.

For the most part, Davidson says she kept quiet.  When she did
complain, she says she was told if she was "going to swim in the
shark tank," she'd better act like a shark.

Ms. Davidson says she turned to alcohol to cope.  In 1992, she
wrote, "I actually put a gun in my mouth, but I was crying so hard
that I could not hold it steady."

None of her allegations has been tested in court.  A statement of
defence has not been filed and the RCMP declined to comment.

Ms. Davidson's claim seeks $500 million in damages.  Her lawyer
says the number is based on the roughly 10,000 women who have been
on the force.

An application to certify the B.C. case as a class action was
argued last year and awaiting a decision.

A certification hearing in Davidson's Ontario case is set for May.


CARRIER CORP: Faces Asbestosis Class Action in Connecticut
----------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that a
most interesting asbestosis lawsuit is percolating in Hartford,
Connecticut, that carries various storylines and potential
outcomes: alleged asbestos exposure at the workplace when the
employer had emphatically stated there was no asbestos present,
followed by testing that confirmed there was; an asbestosis
compensation lawsuit recently approved for class-action status
even though Workers' Compensation law may prohibit some plaintiffs
from participating; a class-action lawsuit skewed toward future
medical monitoring given that exposure occurred within the last
six years, whereas it can take decades for asbestosis disease to
develop. . .

In spite of that, it has been reported that lead plaintiff
Danny Dougan has been wheezing and complaining of shortness of
breath.  Is it due to an unusually early onset of asbestosis lung
disease? Or is it due, as defendants suggest, from a years-long
smoking habit?

The Journal Inquirer reports that some workers involved in a 2010
reconstruction project at Sikorsky Aircraft, located in Stratford,
may have been exposed to asbestos in spite their employer
providing assurance that there was no asbestos present, or so it
has been alleged.

According to the asbestosis lawsuit report, employees of Sikorsky,
co-defendants Carrier Corp., and URS Corp. AES, and B-G Mechanical
Contractors Inc. of Chicopee, Massachusetts (B-G), were tasked
with the removal of pipes and fittings in a boiler house as part
of a reconstruction that occurred between March and July 2010.
The boiler house dated back to 1930 and is described as a
"cogeneration" plant that produced both heat and electricity.

The use of asbestos as insulation for pipes and boilers was common
practice in that era, prior to the carcinogenic risks of asbestos
becoming more widely known to the greater population.

Lead plaintiff Dougan was an employee of B-G.  Mr. Dougan and his
fellow plaintiffs from B-G as well as other workers involved in
the project inquired as to the presence of asbestos in the plant
and what the risks might be.  According to the asbestosis disease
lawsuit, the workers were subsequently informed by the defendants
that "testing had been done, that asbestos was not present on the
pipes and pipe fittings, and that it was safe for them to do the
work to which they had been assigned," according to court
documents related to the lawsuit.

It has been reported that workers commenced operations in the
cogeneration plant amidst continued misgivings, and continued to
raise the matter until testing was conducted in early July of that
year.

The tests revealed the presence of asbestos.  "Visible asbestos
and overloaded air samples" were found as a result of improper
disturbance of insulation containing asbestos on pipes and pipe
fittings, the lawsuit alleges.  "Despite these results, the
project was not shut down until approximately two weeks later,"
the suit continues, saying workers continued to be exposed during
that time.

It was at this time that licensed asbestos contractors were
brought in to safely remove asbestos.  Sikorsky employees, who
continued to operate the boilers and keep them active during the
reconstruction project, began to wear respirators following the
release of test results.

But by then, was it too late?

In approving class-action status for the asbestosis lung cancer
lawsuit, Judge Grant Miller of Hartford Superior Court noted that
employees of Sikorsky and Carrier would be limited as to their
participation in the class-action lawsuit given existing rules
governing Workers' Compensation.  The latter, according to the
Journal Inquirer, makes it relatively easy for workers to collect
asbestosis exposure compensation from their employers, but said
compensation could be limited under Workers' Compensation rules.
Plaintiffs would have to litigate that point individually, as well
as litigating the extent and nature of medical monitoring needed
in order to minimize the negative health impacts of asbestos
exposure going forward.

As noted earlier, the alleged exposure to asbestos occurred in
2010, or six years ago.  Typically, asbestosis pleural plaques can
languish within the body for upwards of 30 years before suddenly
emerging in the form of asbestosis cancer.  Thus the thrust of the
asbestos lawsuit -- which has been approved as a class action --
would be the potential for asbestosis lung complications in
forthcoming decades, and various applications of medical
monitoring to be conducted over time that may succeed in
minimizing adverse effects.

As for plaintiff Dougan, his situation is expected to generate
some polarizing testimony from two expert witnesses; one for the
plaintiffs and another for the defendants.  According to the
Journal Inquirer, Dr. M. Saul Anwar, a specialist in respiratory
diseases, is expected to testify for the plaintiff "that screening
and early detection can be life-saving and/or improve the quality
of life in those individuals who develop asbestos-related
diseases," according to court papers.

The defendants in the lawsuit are expected to respond with
Dr. Barry William Levine of Massachusetts General Hospital, who is
expected to testify that Mr. Dougan does not suffer from
asbestosis lung disease, but rather "Mr. Dougan does suffer from
severe emphysema attributable to his long history of smoking
cigarettes and, as a result, Mr. Dougan requires regular medical
surveillance."


CHECKPOINT SYSTEMS: 4 Shareholder Class Suits Filed in Pa.
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Checkpoint Systems faces
four shareholder class actions in Philadelphia alleging that the
planned $443 million merger with CCL Industries undervalues the
stock.


COMPLIANCE STAFFING: "Rangel" Suit Transferred to M.D.
------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Rangel, et al., individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated individuals v. Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC, a
Pennsylvania limited liability company; and Elite Storage
Solutions, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company; jointly and
severally, Case No. 3:16-cv-00030-CDL (M.D., March 17, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The case was originally filed on January 19, 2016, in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Eastern District of North
Carolina, Case No. 4:16-cv-00008, and was transferred to the U.S.
District Court for the Middle District of Georgia on March 17,
2016.

Compliance Staffing Agency, LLC, is a Pennsylvania limited
liability company and is a staffing company that specializes in
supplying safe, efficient, and productive employees to the energy
industry; it also provides staffing services to companies in the
coal, gas and industrial businesses.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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

          - and -

     Pedro Krompecher, Esq.
     KROMPECHER LAW FIRM, PLLC
     4010 Barrett Drive #203
     Raleigh, NC 27609
     Telephone: (919) 977-8082
     E-mail: pedro@krompecherlaw.com


COST PLUS: Violated Cal. Labor Code & CLRA, "Grady" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jill Grady, on behalf of herself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public, the Plaintiffs, v. Cost Plus, Inc.,
California corporation, and Does 1- 500, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. RG16808692 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda County,
(March 22, 2016), seeks to recover declaratory and ancillary
injunctive relief, and money had and received, as a result of
Defendants' violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the
Unlawful Business Practices, and California Civil Code (CLC).

The Defendants allegedly refused to redeem the remaining value of
gift cards for cash, and the consumer often forfeits the remaining
value of the card, unless he or she makes an unnecessary purchase
which would likely involve additional out-of-pocket costs. The
unredeemed portion of gift cards are customarily swept into
Defendants' coffers as revenue, with nothing provided in return,
the complaint says.

Cost Plus is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bed, Bath & Beyond Inc.,
a New York corporation. Cost Plus operates over 275 Cost Plus
World Market retail stores in thirty states with dozens of stores
in the State of California. According to public records, Cost Plus
has estimated yearly gross sales of almost one billion dollars.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary D. Garcia, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. GARCIA
          3333 Midway Drive, Suite 208
          San Diego, CA 92110
          Telephone: (619) 795 6580
          Facsimile: (619) 795 6582

               - and -

          Melvin B. Pearlston, Esq.
          Robert B. Hancock, Esq.
          PACIFIC JUSTICE CENTER
          50 California Street, Suite 1500
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 310 1940
          Facsimile: (415) 354 3508


DOLMEN GROUP: Faces "Granja" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------
Fanklin S. Granja, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Dolmen Group Inc.; and Alejandro Alvarez, individually, Case No.
1:16-cv-20982-JAL (S.D. Fla., March 17, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to pay overtime compensation in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Dolmen Group Inc., a Florida corporation, is a printing company
specialized in commercial printing, graphic design services, and
the productions of all kind of advertising and marketing related
materials, including banners, fliers, vinyl decals, labels etc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
     ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
     9100 S. Dadeland Blvd., Suite 1500
     Miami, FL 33156
     Telephone: (305) 446-1500
     Facsimile: (305) 446-1502
     E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


DPL CONSTRUCTION: "Alcantara" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Alcantara, individually, Luis Lara, individually, and other
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiffs, v. DPL
Construction Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation, individually;
Daniel Lora Pimentel, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
39299846 (11th Judicial Cir. Ct., in and for Miami-Dade County,
Fla., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover damages exceeding $15,000
excluding attorneys' fees or costs for unpaid wages under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, (FLSA).

DPL is engaged in the Commercial and High-End Residential
Millwork, Casework, and Door Installation Industry. The Company
provides Architectural Product Installations while maintaining
Safety. DPL employs Union Carpenters in the Western Washington
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com
                  apetisco@rgpattorneys.com
                  regueiro@rgpattorneys.com
                  pn@rgpattorneys.com


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in O&R Case Negotiate Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court
has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the
case, O&R Construction, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp.,
et al., No. 2:12 CV 02184 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.).

On December 13, 2012, plaintiff O&R Construction LLC filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Washington against the Company and DBCC. In
May 2015, the Company acquired the parent company of DBCC,
Credibility. The complaint alleged, among other things, that
defendants violated the antitrust laws, used deceptive marketing
practices to sell the CreditBuilder credit monitoring products and
allegedly misrepresented the nature, need and value of the
products. The plaintiff purports to sue on behalf of a putative
class of purchasers of CreditBuilder and seeks recovery of damages
and equitable relief.

DBCC was served with the complaint on December 14, 2012. The
Company was served with the complaint on December 17, 2012. On
February 18, 2013, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. On April 5, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint
in lieu of responding to the motion. The amended complaint dropped
the antitrust claims and retained the deceptive practices
allegations.

The defendants filed new motions to dismiss the amended complaint
on May 3, 2013. On August 23, 2013, the Court heard the motions
and denied DBCC's motion but granted the Company's motion.
Specifically, the Court dismissed the contract claim against the
Company with prejudice, and dismissed all the remaining claims
against the Company without prejudice.

On September 23, 2013, plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint
("SAC"). The SAC alleges claims for negligence, defamation and
unfair business practices under Washington state law against the
Company for alleged inaccuracies in small business credit reports.
The SAC also alleges liability against the Company under a joint
venture or agency theory for practices relating to
CreditBuilder(R).

As against DBCC, the SAC alleges claims for negligent
misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, unfair and deceptive
acts, breach of contract and unjust enrichment. DBCC filed a
motion to dismiss the claims that were based on a joint venture or
agency liability theory. The Company filed a motion to dismiss the
SAC.

On January 9, 2014, the Court heard argument on the defendants'
motions. It dismissed with prejudice the claims against the
defendants based on a joint venture or agency liability theory.
The Court denied the Company's motion with respect to the
negligence, defamation and unfair practices claims.

On January 23, 2014, the defendants answered the SAC. At a court
conference on December 17, 2014, plaintiff informed the Court that
it would not be seeking to certify a nationwide class, but instead
limit the class to CreditBuilder purchasers in Washington.

On May 29, 2015, plaintiff filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC. On July 29, 2015, Defendants filed
oppositions to the motions for class certification.

On September 16, 2015, plaintiff filed reply briefs in support of
the motions for class certification. The parties have since
executed a written term sheet to resolve the action, which is
subject to the negotiation and execution of a written settlement
agreement and Court approval.

At the request of the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court
entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification motions
without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines while the
parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Die-Mension Case Negotiate Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court
has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the
case, Die-Mension Corporation v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility
Corp. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00855 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No.
1:14-cv-392 (N.D. Oh.))

On February 20, 2014, plaintiff Die-Mension Corporation ("Die-
Mension") filed a putative class action in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the
Company and DBCC, purporting to sue on behalf of a putative class
of all purchasers of a CreditBuilder product in the United States
or in such state(s) as the Court may certify. The complaint
alleged that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products. As against the Company,
the complaint alleged a violation of Ohio's Deceptive Trade
Practices Act ("DTPA"), defamation, and negligence. As against
DBCC, the complaint alleged violations of the DTPA, negligent
misrepresentation and concealment.

On March 4, 2014, in response to a direction from the Ohio court,
Die-Mension withdrew its original complaint and filed an amended
complaint. The amended complaint contains the same substantive
allegations as the original complaint, but limits the purported
class to small businesses in Ohio that purchased the CreditBuilder
product.

On March 12, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the amended
complaint and on March 13, 2014, the Company agreed to waive
service. On May 5, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On June 9, 2014, the Ohio court issued an order granting the
Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer. On June 22, 2014, the case
was transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to
an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court,
this case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with
related cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended complaint.

In response, Die-Mension filed a second amended complaint on March
13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss
the second amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Die-Mension
filed its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply
briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Die-Mension filed
motions for class certification against the Company and DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss, and on September 10,
2015, it entered an order granting DBCC's motion to dismiss
without prejudice.

The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve
the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of
the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order
striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice
and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a
written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Vinotemp Case Negotiate Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court
has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the
case, Vinotemp International Corporation and CPrint(R), Inc. v.
Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al., No. 2:14-cv-01021
(TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 8:14-cv-00451 (C.D. Cal.))

On March 24, 2014, plaintiffs Vinotemp International Corporation
("Vinotemp") and CPrint(R), Inc. ("CPrint") filed a putative class
action in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California against the Company and DBCC. Vinotemp and
CPrint purport to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of California. The complaint
alleges that DBCC used deceptive marketing practices to sell the
CreditBuilder credit monitoring products, in violation of
Sec.17200 and Sec.17500 of the California Business and Professions
Code. The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC. As against the Company, the complaint
alleges that the Company entered false and inaccurate information
on credit reports in violation of Sec. 17200 of the California
Business and Professions Code, and also alleges negligence and
defamation claims.

On March 31, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint and on April 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
June 13, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 2, 2014, the California court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and on July 8, 2014, the case was
transferred to the Western District of Washington. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On April
3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, plaintiffs filed their oppositions
to the motions.

Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed motions for class certification against the
Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015, the Washington court
entered an order denying the Company's motion to dismiss.

The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve
the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of
the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order
striking plaintiff's class certification motions and DBCC's motion
to dismiss without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Flow Sciences Case Talk Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court
has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the
case, Flow Sciences Inc. v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et
al., No. 2:14-cv-01404 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 7:14-cv-
128 (E.D.N.C.))

On June 13, 2014, plaintiff Flow Sciences Inc. ("Flow Sciences")
filed a putative class action in the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of North Carolina against the Company and
DBCC. Flow Sciences purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of
DBCC's CreditBuilder product in the state of North Carolina. The
complaint alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive
practices in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder
credit monitoring products, in violation of North Carolina's
Unfair Trade Practices Act, N.C. Gen. Stat. Sec. 75-1.1 et seq. In
addition, as against the Company, the complaint alleges negligence
and defamation claims. The complaint also alleges negligent
misrepresentation and concealment against DBCC.

On June 18, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service of the complaint
and on June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint. On August 4, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint
Unopposed Motion to Transfer the litigation to the Western
District of Washington. On September 8, 2014, the North Carolina
court granted the motion to transfer, and on September 9, 2014,
the case was transferred to the Western District of Washington.
Pursuant to an order entered on December 17, 2014 by the
Washington court, this case was coordinated for pre-trial
discovery purposes with related cases transferred to the Western
District of Washington.

On January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order
setting forth the case management schedule. On January 15, 2015,
Defendants filed motions to dismiss the complaint. In response,
Flow Sciences filed an amended complaint on March 13, 2015. On
April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the amended
complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Flow Science filed its oppositions
to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on June 12, 2015. On
July 17, 2015, Flow Sciences filed motions for class certification
against the Company and DBCC.

On September 9, 2015, the Washington court entered an order
denying the Company's motion to dismiss and on October 19, 2015,
it entered an order denying DBCC's motion to dismiss.

The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve
the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of
the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order
striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice
and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a
written settlement agreement.

"Our ultimate liability related to this matter is contingent upon
our insurance coverage and we do not expect the impact will be
material to our financial results," the Company said.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Parties in Altaflo Case Negotiate Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court
has entered an order striking plaintiff's class certification
motions without prejudice and striking all upcoming deadlines
while the parties negotiate a written settlement agreement in the
case, Altaflo, LLC v. Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp., et al.,
No. 2:14-cv-01288 (TSZ) (W.D. Wash.) (filed as No. 2:14-cv-03961
(D.N.J.))

On June 20, 2014, plaintiff Altaflo, LLC ("Altaflo") filed a
putative class action in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey against the Company and DBCC. Altaflo
purports to sue on behalf of all purchasers of DBCC's
CreditBuilder product in the state of New Jersey. The complaint
alleges that the Company and DBCC engaged in deceptive practices
in connection with DBCC's sale of the CreditBuilder credit
monitoring products, in violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud
Act, N.J. Stat. Sec. 56:8-1 et seq. In addition, as against the
Company, the complaint alleges negligence and defamation claims.
The complaint also alleges negligent misrepresentation and
concealment against DBCC.

On June 26, 2014, the Company agreed to waive service of the
complaint, and on July 2, 2014, DBCC agreed to waive service. On
July 29, 2014, the Company and DBCC filed a Joint Unopposed Motion
to Transfer the litigation to the Western District of Washington.
On July 31, 2014, the New Jersey court granted the Defendants'
Joint Motion to Transfer, and the case was transferred to the
Western District of Washington on August 20, 2014. Pursuant to an
order entered on December 17, 2014 by the Washington court, this
case was coordinated for pre-trial discovery purposes with related
cases transferred to the Western District of Washington. On
January 6, 2015, the Court entered a stipulation and order setting
forth the case management schedule.

On January 15, 2015, Defendants filed motions to dismiss the
complaint. In response, Altaflo filed an amended complaint on
March 13, 2015. On April 3, 2015, Defendants filed motions to
dismiss the amended complaint, and on May 22, 2015, Altaflo filed
its oppositions to the motions. Defendants filed reply briefs on
June 12, 2015. On July 17, 2015, Altaflo filed motions for class
certification against the Company and DBCC. On September 9, 2015,
the Washington court entered an order denying the Company's motion
to dismiss, and on October 19, 2015, it entered an order granting
DBCC's motion to dismiss without prejudice.

The parties have since executed a written term sheet to resolve
the action, which is subject to the negotiation and execution of a
written settlement agreement and Court approval. At the request of
the parties, on October 30, 2015, the Court entered an order
striking plaintiff's class certification motions without prejudice
and striking all upcoming deadlines while the parties negotiate a
written settlement agreement. Our ultimate liability related to
this matter is contingent upon our insurance coverage and we do
not expect the impact will be material to our financial results.


DUN & BRADSTREET: Discovery Commenced in "Thomas" Case
------------------------------------------------------
The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery
has commenced in the case, Jeffrey A. Thomas v. Dun & Bradstreet
Credibility Corp., No. 2:15 cv 03194-BRO-GJS (C.D. Cal.)

On April 28, 2015, Jeffrey A. Thomas ("Plaintiff") filed suit
against DBCC in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California. The complaint alleges that DBCC violated
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") (47 U.S.C. Sec.
227) because it placed telephone calls to Plaintiff's cell phone
using an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS"). The TCPA
generally prohibits the use of an ATDS to place a call to a cell
phone for non-emergency purposes and without the prior express
written consent of the called party.  The TCPA provides for
statutory damages of $500 per violation, which may be trebled to
$1,500 per violation at the discretion of the court if the
plaintiff proves the defendant willfully violated the TCPA.
Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of similarly situated
individuals who received calls on their cell phones from an ATDS.

DBCC was served with a copy of the summons and complaint on April
30, 2015. On May 22, 2015, the Company made a statutory offer of
judgment. Plaintiff did not respond to the offer.

DBCC filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on June 12, 2015,
which the Court denied on August 5, 2015. DBCC filed an Answer and
asserted its Affirmative Defenses on November 12, 2015. Discovery
has commenced and the Court has issued a schedule for amended
pleadings, discovery, the filing of any class certification motion
and trial.

The Company is continuing to investigate the Complaint's
allegations.

The Dun & Bradstreet Corporation ("Dun & Bradstreet" or "we" or
"us" or "our" or the "Company") grows the most valuable
relationships in business. By uncovering truth and meaning from
data, we connect customers with the prospects, suppliers, clients
and partners that matter most, and have since 1841. Nearly ninety
percent of the Fortune 500, and companies of every size around the
world, rely on our data, insights and analytics.
Dun & Bradstreet(R) is the world's leading source of commercial
data, analytics and insight on businesses. Our global commercial
database as of December 31, 2015 contained more than 250 million
business records. We transform commercial data into valuable
insight which is the foundation of our global solutions that
customers rely on to make critical business decisions.


EDISON SOLAR: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "Zhu" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Yuankun Zhu, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
current and former employees, the Plaintiff, v. Edison Solar
Technology, Inc., and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. BC613421 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County, March 22, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime wages, attorney's fees and costs, and
unpaid wages, under the California Labor Code.

Edison Solar carries the solar system brands through their
network. The Company provides energy consultation and assistance
for energy needs.

          James W. Johnston, Esq.
          3890 Eleventh Street, Suite 203
          Riverside, CA 92501
          Facsimile: (877) 571 0091
          Telephone: (213) 291 0648
          E-mail: jj@johnstonlawoffice.com

               - and -

          Kelly Y. Chen, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF KELLY Y. CHEN
          13200 Crossroads Parkway North Suite 475
          City of Industry, CA 91746
          Telephone: (562) 692 5828
          Facsimile: (626) 389 5455
          E-mail: Attorney@KellyChenLaw.com


ELEGANT DESSERT NY: "Ordaz" Labor Suit Filed in E.D.N.Y, Brooklyn
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Elegant Dessert NY Inc.  The
case is captioned Angel Ordaz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Elegant Dessert NY
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01394 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn,
March 2, 2016).

Elegant Desserts is a frozen dessert company based in Brooklyn.
The Company makes desserts for all special occasions.

Angel Ordaz is a pro se plaintiff.


ESA MANAGEMENT: "Roberts" Suit Alleges Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Roberts v. ESA Management, LLC; Beata Combs and John Does
1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001047-16 (N.J. Super., March 21, 2016),
alleges harassment based on perceived disability, retaliatory
harassment, retaliation, aiding and abetting and violation of the
doctrine set forth in Pierce v. Ortho Pharmaceuticals.
Specifically, the Plaintiff alleges that defendant Beata Combs, a
District Manager and plaintiff's direct Supervisor, harasses the
plaintiff because she believed the plaintiff to be obese.  The
Plaintiff says she worked in the position of General Manager until
her unlawful termination in November 2015.  The Plaintiff requests
that the Court order the defendants to cease and desist all
conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the Complaint going
forward, both as to the specific plaintiff and as to all other
individuals similarly situated.

ESA Management, LLC operates hotels.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Telephone: (856) 727-9700


Richard Garner, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eze Truck Holdings, Inc.; and Patterson Motor Freight,
Inc. d/b/a Patterson Truck & Crane, Case 2:16-cv-00240-JRG-RSP
(E.D. Tex., March 17, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Eze Truck Holdings, Inc., is a Delaware limited liability company
operating a lift crane service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
     HOMMEL LAW FIRM
     1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
     Tyler, TX 75703
     Telephone: (903) 596-7100
     Facsimile: (469) 533-1618
     E-mail: bhommel@hommelfirm.com

                           *     *     *

Wadi Reformado, writing for Southeast Texas Record, reports that a
Texas man has filed a class-action lawsuit against Eze Truck
Holdings Inc. and Patterson Truck & Crane, citing alleged unpaid
wages.

Richard Garner filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on March 17, in the Marshall Division of the Southern
District of Texas against Eze Truck Holdings Inc. and Patterson
Motor Freight Inc., doing business as Patterson Truck & Crane,
alleging that they wrongfully failed to properly compensate their
employees by paying them over time wages.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that he worked
for more than 40 hours per week and did not receive any overtime
wages during his employment.  The plaintiff holds the defendants
responsible because the defendant allegedly paid their employees
on a salary basis regardless of the total number of hours they
worked.


ESSEX PORTFOLIO: "Foster" Action Still Pending in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Essex Portfolio, L.P. still defends the "Foster" Class action
lawsuit, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On December 19, 2014, a putative class action was filed against
the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, entitled Foster v. Essex Property Trust,
Inc. alleging that the Company failed to properly secure the
personally-identifying information of its residents. The lawsuit
seeks the recovery of unspecified damages and certain
injunctive relief. This lawsuit was filed in connection with a
cyber-intrusion that the Company discovered in the third quarter
of 2014.

At this point, the Company is unable to predict the developments
in, outcome of, and/or economic and/or other
consequences of this litigation or predict the developments in,
outcome of, and/or other consequences arising out of any
potential future litigation or government inquiries related to
this matter.

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

Essex Property Trust, Inc., a Maryland corporation, is an S&P 500
company that operates as a self-administered and self-managed real
estate investment trust.


EVERBANK: Court Preliminarily Approves "Vathana" Case Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted preliminary
approval of the settlement in the case captioned, EK VATHANA,
Plaintiff, v. EVERBANK, et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-CV-02338-
RS (N.D. Cal.).

On April 24, 2009 Lead Plaintiff filed an action in the Superior
Court of California, County of Santa Clara, alleging a single
cause of action for breach of contract on behalf of himself and a
class of purchasers of EverBank WorldCurrency certificates of
deposit denominated in Icelandic Krona against EverBank, its
parent corporation, and one of its divisions.

On May 27, 2009, EverBank removed the Action to the Northern
District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(a) and the
Class Action Fairness Act. The Court certified the Class,
consisting of "all purchasers of an EverBank WorldCurrency
Certificate of Deposit denominated in Icelandic Krona which
matured between October 8 and December 31, 2008," and appointed Ek
Vathana as the class representative and Michael Millen, Esq. as
class counsel.

The Parties and their counsel engage in arm's-length settlement
negotiations over the course of two months with the assistance of
Magistrate Judge Joseph Spero.

Subject to the approval of the Court and pursuant to Rule 23 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is the Amended Stipulation
and Agreement of Settlement entered into between and among Lead
Plaintiff Ek Vathana, on behalf of himself and the Class defined
herein and Defendants EverBank, EverBank Financial Corp, and
EverBank World Markets, by and through their respective duly
authorized counsel.

In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/AU9oR0
from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that the proposed Settlement
should be approved as: (i) the result of serious, extensive arm's-
length and non-collusive negotiations; (ii) falling within a 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.

The class counsel is authorized to retain Rust Consulting, Inc. as
the "Claims Administrator to supervise and administer the notice
procedure and the processing of claims under the supervision of
Class Counsel.

The Court scheduled the Fairness Hearing on July 7, 2016 at 1:30
p.m.

Ek Vathana is represented by:

     Michael Millen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL MILLEN
     119 Calle Marguerita #100
     Los Gatos, CA 95032
     Tel: (408) 871-0777

EverBank is represented by Brooks Russell Brown, Esq. -
bbrown@goodwinprocter.com -- Alexis L. Shapiro, Esq. --
ashapiro@goodwnprocter.com -- April Sun, Esq. --
asun@goodwinprocter.com -- Deborah Sager Birnbach, Esq. and Laura
Alexandra Stoll, Esq. -- astoll@goodwinprocter.com -- GOODWIN
PROCTER LLP


FIRSTSOURCE ADVANTAGE: Faces "Amonoo" Suit in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Firstsource Advantage, LLC.
The case is captioned Domonique Amonoo, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Firstsource Advantage,
LLC, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01601-
ES-JAD (D. N.J., Newark. March 2, 2016).

Firstsource Advantage offers collections and recovery solutions.
It provides debt recovery services for credit card issuers, retail
banking and mortgage. Firstsource was formerly known as
Firstsource LLC and changed its name in February 2007. The company
was founded in 1995 and is based in Amherst, New York. As of
October 8, 2004, Firstsource Advantage, LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Firstsource Solutions Limited.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


FLINT, MI: Lawsuits Over Water Crisis Pile Up
---------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that a flood of lawsuits has been filed over the water crisis in
Flint, Michigan, but the unprecedented situation that exposed
thousands of children to lead contamination has plaintiffs lawyers
scrambling to figure out who -- if anyone -- will pay.

As a U.S. House committee held hearings over the problems in
Flint, more than 30 cases hit the courts, boosting the total to
about 40 lawsuits.  The claims are all over the map. Some have
been filed under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, while others
assert gross negligence or constitutional claims. Some are class
actions, some individual cases.  And a lengthy list of government
officials named as defendants, including Michigan Gov. Rick
Snyder, who testified on Capitol Hill on March 17, has expanded to
include three engineering firms that studied Flint's water.

The myriad legal approaches reflect a tricky predicament for
plaintiffs lawyers -- one that most prominently features the
immunity defenses that government officials have, said
Peter Henning, a professor at Wayne State University Law School.

"This is an entire city contaminated by a series of governmental
decisions, so it implicates federal, state and local officials,"
Mr. Henning said.  "That's something we haven't seen before.  And
I guess there's a natural reaction to say someone ought to pay for
it. The problem is finding anyone who can be held liable."

Complaints about the color and odor of Flint's tap water began
soon after the city's water supply was temporarily shifted in 2014
from Lake Huron to the Flint River, despite studies warning that
its corrosive nature could risk lead from old pipes leaching into
the drinking water.  About 10,000 households have been tested for
contamination, among Flint's 100,000 residents.

The crisis surged to the national stage.  Gov. Snyder and Gina
McCarthy, administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, which has been under fire for its slow response to the
crisis, faced blistering attacks from members of the U.S. House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.  The committee,
which held its first hearing over the Flint crisis in February,
also heard testimony on March 15 from Susan Hedman, the former
administrator of the EPA's Midwest region who resigned on Feb. 1,
and two former Flint officials who have been named in many of the
lawsuits.

Dozens of government officials, some of whom lost their jobs, have
been accused in lawsuits of falsely assuring residents about the
safety of their drinking water despite knowing of its toxic levels
of lead.  The water supply source now comes from Lake Huron again,
but residents are suing after being diagnosed with lead poisoning
and other health problems. Some also want the pipes in their homes
fixed or want reimbursement for water bills.
Many of the government officials are due to respond in court in
April.

"There's an anger, a mob, and people want someone's head," said
Corey Stern, of counsel to New York's Levy Konigsberg, who filed
31 individual lawsuits on behalf of 75 children.

To circumvent government immunity defenses, Stern has sued three
engineering firms for professional negligence. The first firm,
Lockwood, Andrews & Newnam Inc., named in two prior class actions,
was tasked with preparing the water treatment plant for the water
supply transition.  A second firm, Rowe Professional Services Co.,
was hired by the city in 2011 to conduct a quality analysis on the
Flint River as a water source.  The third firm, Indianapolis-based
Veolia North America, made recommendations on how to reduce the
level of chemical compounds called trihalomethanes after
complaints began pouring in from Flint residents in 2015.

A spokesman for Houston's Lockwood said the allegations
mischaracterized its role, and Veolia spokesman Paul Whitmore said
the studies addressed the water's color and odor issues. "Lead and
copper testing were never included in the scope of work for
Veolia," he said.  Richard Mark, chief operating officer of Rowe,
declined to comment.

OVERCOMING IMMUNITY

Most of the other suits are class actions primarily focused on
government defendants, but they've asserted different claims to
overcome immunity defenses.  Initial suits made constitutional
arguments.  Michael Pitt, a lawyer in Royal Oak, Michigan, who
filed the first case over the Flint crisis on Nov. 13 in U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, has alleged
that residents had their due process rights violated under the
14th Amendment.

In a second class action filed on Jan. 20 in the Michigan Court of
Claims, he made arguments under the state constitution.  "If the
state or the governmental agency enhances the danger, creates the
danger, prolongs the danger to the plaintiff, due process is
implicated," said Pitt, of Pitt McGehee Palmer & Rivers.

A third case, filed on Jan. 19 in Michigan's Genesee County
Circuit Court, asserts gross negligence -- a claim that if proven
could defeat a government immunity defense, Mr. Pitt said.

Hunter Shkolnik of New York's Napoli Shkolnik, who filed a class
action on March 7, has added environmental claims to his case.  He
and the Natural Resource Defense Council Inc. and the American
Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which filed their own suit on
Jan. 27, have brought claims under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

"We tend to focus on the environmental statutes that apply, and we
think this is the appropriate venue," he said.  But those suits
have a "real uphill fight" since it's unclear whether the lawyers
have the right to bring a private lawsuit under the act, which is
primarily regulatory in nature, Mr. Henning said.  And the due
process lawsuits, he said, are "tough cases to win."


FLINT, MI: Independent Panel Releases Findings on Water Crisis
--------------------------------------------------------------
Melony Hill, writing for The Urban Twist, reports that the
contaminated water crisis in Flint, Michigan is far from over.  A
class action lawsuit was filed in February by a well known
Baltimore lawyer.  Attorney William H. "Billy" Murphy Jr. is the
lawyer who negotiated the 6.4 million dollar settlement between
the city of Baltimore and the family of Freddie Gray after his
death in police custody.  Now he has set his eyes on Flint,
Michigan.

Mr. Murphy and Flint attorney Val Washington filed the lawsuit
last month in U.S. District Court in eastern Michigan.  The
lawsuit calls for the city and state to refund $150 million in
water bills paid by affected Flint residents during the time the
water was being drawn from the contaminated river.  In fact data
from the Detroit Free Press show that Flint residents paid the
most for water compared to the 500 cities with the largest water
systems.

The suit also seeks compensation for what Mr. Murphy says are "all
of the damages that are a consequence of having to be forced to
use dangerous water, and includes the cost of changing the
interior plumbing in every house, and hot water heaters."

The water supply in Flint has been switched back to Detroit's
water system but it may be too little too late.  State officials
and residents alike are worried that the lead in the water may
have done too much damage to pipes in the city's homes and
businesses.  Lead poisoning is known to cause learning
disabilities and behavioral problems in children who have been
affected.

The lawsuit names not only the city of Flint and state of Michigan
but a slew of public officials as well as defendants. Among those
listed by name are former mayor Dayne Walling, Governor Rick
Snyder, Flint Emergency Managers Darnell Early and Gerald Ambrose.
The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the Michigan
Department of Health and Human Services are named in the suit as
well.

The lawsuit claims the city and state violated the residents'
rights by providing them with contaminated water and then telling
them the water was safe.  It also accuses the officials of
conspiring to cover up the problem even as residents were being
poisoned.  Emails have surfaced showing that Flint officials
trucked in water for the state buildings as local residents had
contaminated waters pumped into their homes and businesses.

Governor Snyder testified before congress earlier this month on
the crisis in Flint.

Two years after the city of Flint's water supply was switched to
being pumped from the Flint river residents are drinking and
bathing with bottled water.  Bottled water has been being trucked
into the city for months, ever since the water crisis came to
public attention.

On March 25 Gov. Rick Snyder announced that FEMA has approved the
state of Michigan's request to extend a presidential emergency
declaration for the city of Flint and Genesee County until
Aug. 14, 2016.  The extension authorizes federal supplies of
bottled water, water filters, replacement cartridges and test kits
to continue for another four months to ensure the health and
safety of Flint residents.  FEMA noted this is the final extension
and no further extensions will be granted.

Governor Snyder laid out a 75 point plan to get the city back on
track.  Under Gov. Snyder's plan, some pipes would be removed as
part of a pilot program, which is contrary to the demands of Flint
residents, that all the pipes be replaced. Flint residents and
many political leaders have said that Snyder needs to resign or be
fired.

"I want to solve the problem in Flint.  So that's my focal point,"
Gov. Snyder said.  "Glad to get 75 points out there that we're
going to work on putting in place."

An independent panel appointed by Governor Snyder himself released
their findings last week on the water crisis in Flint. The report
found that the crisis is as they put it "is a story of government
failure, intransigence, unpreparedness, delay, inaction and
environmental injustice."  The panel found fault in employees on
almost every level of state government.  The panel also found that
"The facts of the Flint water crisis lead us to the inescapable
conclusion that this is a case of environmental injustice."

"Flint residents, who are majority black or African-American and
among the most impoverished of any metropolitan area in the United
States, did not enjoy the same degree of protection from
environmental and health hazards as that provided to other
communities," the report concluded.

The panel in essence has said the same thing many have said
watching this play out in the news and on television. Many have
said that the complaints of residents were ignored because they
were mostly Black and no one cared.  Why doesn't everyone deserve
the same clean drinking water?

The 116-page report faulted local Flint officials and the federal
Environmental Protection Agency, and concluded that the Michigan
Department of Environmental Quality had "primary responsibility
for the water contamination in Flint and caused this crisis to
happen."

The panel made 44 recommendations, including that the governor's
office review the state's emergency manager law, that
environmental regulations be clarified, and that the governor's
office improve its method of assessing information.  It also
pointed out the inadequate funding of government services, which
leads to a slower response to problems and residents needs.

This situation is far from over.  The water is expected to be back
to drinkable soon but it doesn't change the damage done. It
doesn't make well those who have been affected by this
contaminated water.  This situation is one to keep a close eye on.


FREEWAY INSURANCE: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Bonilla" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Yolanda Bonilla, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and on behalf of the general public v. Freeway
Insurance Services, Inc., a California limited liability company,
and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Case No. BC614373 (Cal. Super.,
March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay proper wage in violation of the California Labor Code.

Freeway Insurance Services, Inc. is a privately held insurance
distribution company in the U.S.; it has operations throughout the
state of California, including Los Angeles County.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
     9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Telephone: (949) 379-6250
     Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


FULL CIRCLE FINANCIAL: Violated FDC Act, "Shedler" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been commenced against Full Circle Financial
Services, LLC, and Absolute Resolutions Corp.

The case is captioned Teresa Shedler, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Full Circle Financial
Services, LLC, and Absolute Resolutions Corp, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-01603-CCC-MF (Dist. N.J., Newark, March 22, 2016).

Full Circle Financial Services is engaged in the financial
advisory and assistance business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lawrence C. Hersh, Esq.
          17 Sylvan Street, Suite 102b
          Rutherford, NJ 07070
          Telephone: (201) 507 6300
          E-mail: lh@hershlegal.com


G&R MARINE LABOR: "Vargas" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Clemente Ponce Vargas, on behalf of himself and other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. G&R Marine Labor Services,
LLC and Walter Trammell, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02407
(E.D. La., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover from Defendants
unpaid wages, interest, liquidated damages, and attorneys' fees
and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

G&R is a domestic limited liability company organized under the
laws of Alabama with its principal place of business in
Citronelle, Alabama. The Company is in the business of blasting
and painting ships and all ship components for commercial ship
yards.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Roberto L. Costales, Esq.
          COSTALES LAW OFFICE
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 914 1048
          E-mail: costaleslawoffice@gmail.com

               - and -

          William Henry Beaumont, Esq.
          WILLIAM H. BEAUMONT LAW
          3801 Canal Street, Suite 207
          New Orleans, LA 70119
          Telephone: (504) 483-8008
          E-mail: whbeaumont@gmail.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Lead Plaintiff Testifies in Ignition Switch Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that the
credibility of the lead plaintiff in the second General Motors
ignition switch litigation was on the line on March 16 as she
tried to make the case that a defective switch, and not black ice,
caused her Saturn Sky to lose control on a stormy night
New Orleans in 2014.

Dionne Spain told a jury that she was not hurt enough to seek
medical treatment right after her car allegedly lost power and ran
into a bridge wall on Jan. 24, 2014.  But she said she did suffer
neck and shoulder injuries that later required treatment, and she
never would have bought the car had she known of the defect.

Ms. Spain was asked by her lawyer, Randall Jackson, "Did anyone
ever warn you that your car could cut off if, say, your knee
grazed the key chain or the car hit a bump?"

Ms. Spain answered "No" before Jackson asked if she would have
bought the car had she known about a defective switch that could
cause the car to lose power brakes and steering.

"I would not have purchased that car if I felt I would have put
myself in danger," she said.

Her testimony came in the third day of trial on her and fellow
plaintiff Lawrence Barthelemy's attempt to hold GM liable and win
compensatory damages for the same type of defective ignition
switches that already have cost the company hundreds of millions
of dollars in settlements and forced a massive recall.

The trial is the second of six bellwether cases being tried before
Southern District Judge Jesse Furman to set the parameters for
settlement, or nothing at all, from GM, which is fighting the last
few hundred cases in the multi-district litigation.
This case was selected by GM. Plaintiffs selected the first trial,
only to watch it crumble in January amid possible perjury by the
lead plaintiff and his wife on his injuries (NYLJ, Jan. 25).

After Mr. Jackson, a partner at Boies, Schiller & Flexner,
completed his direct examination, Kirkland & Ellis partner and GM
attorney Mike Brock, challenged Ms. Spain's version of events on
cross examination, trying to exploit discrepancies, such as
whether or not she saw cars spin out of control on the ice before
her accident.  More than 30 cars were involved in accidents on the
bridge that night that police attributed to black ice.

Mr. Brock focused heavily on the injury issue and Ms. Spain's
condition.  She went on to a social event that evening after her
car struck a Jersey barrier in the middle of the bridge.

"You were not in any pain or suffering when you were walking on
the bridge? Mr. Brock asked.

"No, not severe pain," Ms. Spain replied.

"You have described that you were not in pain, is that true or not
true?"

"I just said I wasn't in severe pain.  I didn't really feel the
impact of the accident at that point," she answered.


GENERAL MOTORS: No Verdict Yet in 2nd Ignition Switch Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Larry Neumeister, writing for The Associated Press, reports that a
jury in a New York City trial stemming from the General Motors
ignition switch controversy that resulted in millions of recalls
ended its first day of deliberations on March 29 without reaching
a verdict.

The jury deliberated in Manhattan federal court for more than two
hours after hearing a lawyer for a Louisiana man and woman blame a
defective ignition switch for a 2014 accident on a New Orleans
bridge.  A GM lawyer said there was no evidence the ignition
switch was to blame.

The trial will be used as a blueprint to define legal boundaries
for similar unsettled claims against the automaker, which has
issued recalls affecting more than 30 million vehicles since early
2014.

Hundreds of claims remain against the automaker after GM revealed
two years ago that it had continued to sell flawed vehicles for
more than a decade after discovering an ignition switch defect in
Chevy Cobalts and other small cars.

Under certain conditions, the ignition switch can slip out of the
on position, making it difficult to steer or stop as the car
stalls. GM says it has fixed the problem.

Plaintiffs' attorney Randall Jackson told jurors there was
overwhelming evidence the defect was to blame in the crash.

He said a key chain pulled down by the weight of other keys might
have pulled it out of position. And he added that testimony that
the car turned off during the accident was "all you need to hear."

Mr. Jackson dismissed GM's counterarguments, saying: "You will
find they don't make sense."

General Motors attorney Mike Brock blamed the crash on ice, saying
the car's occupants had no serious injuries and nothing deserving
of compensation at trial.

"This accident was not caused by a defective switch," he said. Mr.
Brock noted that the only damage to the car was scrapes on a
bumper.

In September, GM announced it had settled 1,385 death and injury
cases for $275 million and a class-action shareholders' lawsuit
for $300 million.

The company paid nearly $600 million to settle 399 claims made to
a fund it established. Those claims covered 124 deaths and 275
injuries.  GM's fund rejected more than 90 percent of the 4,343
claims it received, according to figures the company released in
December.


GEO GROUP: EEOC Findings Win Appellate Court Support
----------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Consuelo M. Callahan of the United States Court of
Appeals, Ninth Circuit vacated the order of the district court and
remanded the case entitled STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Thomas C.
Horne, Attorney General; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Civil Rights
Division, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT
OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff, ALICE HANCOCK, Intervenor-
Plaintiff, v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, DBA
Arizona State Prison-Florence West and Central Arizona
Correctional Facility, Defendants-Appellees, RICK MAULDIN, an
individual, Defendant. STATE OF ARIZONA, ex rel. Thomas C. Horne,
Attorney General; ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF LAW, Civil Rights
Division, Plaintiffs, ALICE HANCOCK, Intervenor-Plaintiff, and
U.S. EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v. THE GEO GROUP, INC., a Florida corporation, DBA Arizona State
Prison-Florence West and Central Arizona Correctional Facility,
Defendant-Appellee. RICK MAULDIN, an individual, Defendant, Nos.
13-16081, 13-16292 (9th Cir.)

Geo Group, Incorporated (Geo) is a corporation that employs over
13,000 employees and provides corrections and detention
management, health and mental health services to federal, state,
and local government agencies. Geo contracts with the Arizona
Department of Corrections to maintain and operate the low-to-
medium security return-to-custody and driving-under the-influence
units at Florence West and the medium security sex-offender unit
at Central Arizona Correctional Facility.

Alice Hancock was employed by Geo as a correctional officer at the
Arizona State Prison, Florence West Facility. On June 5, 2009,
Hancock filed a charge of discrimination with the Arizona Civil
Rights Division (Division) and the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC). Hancock alleged that while working with
Sergeant Robert Kroen he grabbed her crotch and pinched her
vagina. Hancock filed an incident report with Geo, but contends
that Geo did not remedy the harassment. After Hancock complained
about Kroen's conduct, three of her coworkers complained that
Hancock had made an offensive comment. Geo placed Hancock on
unpaid administrative leave pending an internal investigation, and
later suspended her for 15 days without pay. Three months after
Hancock filed her charge of discrimination, Geo terminated
Hancock's employment.

After an investigation, the Division and EEOC found reasonable
cause to believe that Geo had violated the employment rights of
the corrections officer and a class of female employees.
Conciliation attempts failed, and the EEOC and the Division
brought suit on behalf of a class of female employees alleging
that Geo violated Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and
the Arizona Civil Rights Act (ACRA).

The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Geo
dismissing several employees whom neither the EEOC nor the
Division had identified until after filing the complaint. The
district court also dismissed several employees who had not
alleged acts within 300 days of the Division's Reasonable Cause
Determination. The district court dismissed the hostile work
environment claim of another aggrieved employee, Sofia Hines, on
the ground that the conduct she alleged was not sufficiently
severe or pervasive.

The Division and EEOC made an appeal and raise the following
issues: (1) the scope of the requirement that the EEOC and the
Division conciliate any claims with an employer prior to bringing
suit, (2) when Title VII's 300-day limitations period starts to
run in an EEOC class action; (3) whether, in an EEOC class action,
an aggrieved employee is required to file a new charge of
discrimination for acts that occur after the Reasonable Cause
Determination; and (4) whether aggrieved employee Sophia Hines has
presented material issues of fact as to her hostile work
environment claim.

Circuit Judge Callahan vacated the summary judgment and remanded
the case to the district court with instructions to reinstate the
EEOC and Division's dismissed claims brought on behalf of
aggrieved employees.

A copy of Circuit Judge Callahan's opinion dated March 14, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/1hRNFnfrom Leagle.com.

For plaintiff-Appellant EEOC:

     P. David Lopez, Esq.
     Lorraine C. Davis, Esq.
     Jennifer S. Goldstein, Esq.
     Anne Noel Occhialino, Esq.
     U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
     131 M Street, NE
     Washington, DC 20507
     Telephone: 202-663-4900

For plaintiffs-appellants State of Arizona and Arizona Department
of Law:

     Attorney General of Arizona Thomas C. Horne, Esq.
     Rose Daly-Rooney, Esq.
     Christian B. Carlsen, Esq.
     U.S. Department of Justice
     Civil Rights Division
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
     Office of the Assistant Attorney General, Main
     Washington, D.C. 20530
     Telephone: 202-514-4609

For Defendant-Appellee The Geo Group, Philip L. Ross --
plross@littler.com -- R. Shawn Oller -- soller@littler.com --
Kristy L. Peters -- kpeters@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson,
P.C.

The Ninth Circuit panel consists of Circuit Judges Consuelo M.
Callahan, Stephen Reinhardt and A. Wallace Tashima.


GRAHAM HOLDINGS: Still Defends Against "Freeman" Lawsuit
--------------------------------------------------------
Graham Holdings Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend a lawsuit by Sharon Freeman.

On December 22, 2014, a former student representative filed a
purported class- and collective-action lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, in which she
asserts claims under the Illinois Minimum Wage Law and the Fair
Labor Standards Act (Sharon Freeman v. Kaplan, Inc.). The
plaintiff alleges that she and other law students who were student
representatives, on their respective law school campuses, of
Kaplan's bar exam preparation business should have been classified
as employees and paid minimum wage. The Company cannot predict the
outcome of this inquiry.

Graham Holdings Company (the Company) is primarily a diversified
education and media company. The Company's Kaplan subsidiary
provides a wide variety of educational services, both domestically
and outside the United States.


HESS CORP: Court Reinstates Heating Oil Adulteration Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
adulteration claims against two of New York City's largest
suppliers of heating oil have been reinstated by the Appellate
Division, First Department, in a ruling on March 15.

Justice David Saxe, writing for the court, held that "if the goods
that are delivered do not conform to the goods contemplated by the
sale contract, the purchaser has a cause of action under the
Uniform Commercial Code."

The lower court had dismissed the class action complaints brought
by buyers of heating oil on the grounds that the plaintiffs had
shown no actual damages as a result of using heating oil allegedly
diluted with waste lubricating oil.

Manhattan Commercial Division Justice Shirley Werner Kornreich in
a September 2014 opinion, said that "far from being some shady,
quasi-criminal activity, burning used lubricating oil for fuel is
actually permitted and encouraged" to foster recycling.

But the panel said such laws do not "necessarily or automatically
justify its use for purposes of the parties' contracts, and does
not provide a basis for dismissal of these complaints."

Justice Saxe added that the damages were not speculative.  "Under
UCC 2-714(2), the measure of damages for breach of warranty is the
difference between the value of the goods delivered and the value
of the goods warranted," he wrote.

Justice Kornreich cited precedents, including the First Department
case Frank v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 292 AD2d 118 (1st Dept 2002),
lv. denied, 99 NY2d 502 (2002), for the proposition that "a
theoretical defect that never manifests itself in a product's poor
performance or causes harm is an insufficient ground upon which to
base a damage claim."

But Justice Saxe said the cases cited involved products liability
and were inapplicable to a breach of warranty claim brought under
the UCC.

Justices Peter Tom, Rosalyn Richter and Judith Gische joined in
the opinion.

The lead plaintiffs' firm, Wachtel Missry, had hired a private
investigation company to conduct surveillance of fuel suppliers,
and laboratory tested the fuel oil they delivered, the opinion
said.

The company's investigation was triggered by a 2013 state and
federal probe of adulteration allegations.

Defendant Hess Corporation mixed its fuel oil with 15-25 percent
waste oil, according to the complaint in BMW Group v. Castle Oil,
650910/13.

Castle Oil, which last year sold its fuel oil business, said it
never warranted that the oil did not contain recycled oils, and
said those additives met state and federal specifications.

Holland & Knight partner Robert Burns -- robert.burns@hklaw.com
-- who represents Castle, said the First Department decision
"requires the plaintiffs to prove what they will be unable to
prove.  We are confident that plaintiffs cannot show that they
were harmed by receiving exactly what they paid for: heating oil
that complied with all applicable definitions, laws and
regulations."


INNER VALLEY TRANSPORT: "Alex" Suit Filed in Cal. Super. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Inner Valley Transport, Inc.  The
case is captioned Alex Pena, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inner Valley
Transport, Inc., a California Company, the Defendant, Case No.
BCV-16-100625 (Cal. Super. Ct., Count of Kern, March 22, 2016).

Inner Valley Transport is a licensed and bonded freight shipping
and trucking company running freight hauling business from
Kingsburg, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig J. Ackermann, Esq.
          ACKERMANN & TILAJEF PC
          1180 South Beverly Drive, Suite 512
          Los Angeles, CA 90035
          Telephone: (310) 277 0614


INTEREXCHANGE INC: Magistrate Judge Rules in Au Pair Program Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya of the District of Colorado
issued a recommendation on several motions to dismiss filed by
defendants in the case JOHANA PAOLA BELTRAN, LUSAPHO HLATSHANENI,
BEAUDETTE DEETLEFS, DAYANNA PAOLA CARDENAS CAICEDO, and ALEXANDRA
IVETTE GONZALEZ, Plaintiffs, v. INTEREXCHANGE, INC., USAUPAIR,
INC., GREAT AUPAIR, LLC, EXPERT GROUP INTERNATIONAL INC., d/b/a
Expert AuPair, EURAUPAIR INTERCULTURAL CHILD CARE PROGRAMS,
CULTURAL HOMSTAY INTERNATIONAL, CULTURAL CARE, INC. d/b/a Cultural
Care Au Pair, AUPAIRCARE INC., AU PAIR INTERNATIONAL, INC., APF
GLOBAL EXCHANGE, NFP, d/b/a AuPair Foundation, AMERICAN INSTITUTE
FOR FOREIGN STUDY d/b/a Au Pair in America, AMERICAN CULTURAL
EXCHANGE, LLC, d/b/a/ GoAuPair, AGENT AU PAIR, A.P.EX. AMERICAN
PROFESSIONAL EXCHANGE, LLC d/b/a/ProAuPair, and 20/20 CARE
EXCHANGE, INC. d/b/a The International Au Pair Exchange,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-03074-CMA-KMT (D. Colo.)

The J-1 visa program was created to facilitate cultural exchange
between nations and the applicable visas are carried out under the
authority of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of
1961. The J-1 au pair program was created in 1986 and was
administered by the United States Information Agency (USIA).
Initially, the au pair program was considered solely a cultural
exchange program and was not subject to any employment or labor
law protections. However, the au pairs were required to work 45
hours per week providing child care services to their host
families. Under the program, the au pairs were paid $100.00 per
week for their services, plus room and board. The USIA delegated
oversight to entities that it designated to act as sponsors
(Sponsors) for the J-1 visa au pair program.

In 1990, in response to a Congressional request, the General
Accounting Office ("GAO") issued a report to Congress entitled,
"Inappropriate Uses of Educational and Cultural Exchange Visas"
(the "GAO Report"), in which the GAO determined,inter alia, that
the au pair program was in reality a work program administered
under the auspices of "cultural exchange" that required 45 hours
per week of work. Today, the United States Department of State
(DOS), rather than the USIA, oversees the au pair program.

Sponsor defendants are the exclusive entities authorized to
recruit and place au pairs with host families in the United
States. DOS regulations mandate that Sponsors ensure various
conditions of employment for the au pairs, including but not
limited to that host families are capable of and do meet various
requirements and that au pairs are compensated in compliance with
labor laws and do not work beyond specified limits.

Plaintiffs named each of the designated Sponsors as defendants in
the action and allege that in spite of the fact that the
applicable regulations require that au pairs receive not less than
the applicable minimum wage as compensation, sponsors have
conspired and agreed to set all of the au pairs' weekly wages at
the purported minimum amount, currently $195.75 per week plus room
and board. Additionally, plaintiffs contend the sponsors falsely
inform both au pairs and host families that the minimum wage is
the maximum wage au pairs are permitted to receive. Sponsors
universally advertise that the au pairs fees will be $195.75 per
week plus room and board. The required fees that each host family
must pay to each Sponsor range in amount from $7,000.00 to
$8,700.00.

Plaintiffs assert, on behalf of themselves and all those similarly
situated, federal claims under the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15
U.S.C. Section 1, et seq., the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. Section 1964, et seq., and the
FLSA, as well as state law claims based on Breach of Fiduciary
Duty, Negligent Misrepresentation, Constructive Fraud or
Fraudulent Concealment, Consumer Protection laws, Breach of
Contract or Quasi Contract, Unpaid Wages, and claims pursuant to
various state wage laws.

Before the court are defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to
dismiss all claims in first amended complaint pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 12(B)(6), motion to dismiss the first
amended complaint by defendant Interexchange, Inc., Defendant
American Cultural Exchange, LLC, D/B/A Go Au Pair's motion to
dismiss counts I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the first
amended complaint, joint motion by certain sponsor defendants to
dismiss the first amended complaint and certification of
compliance with Civil Practice Standard7.1D. and defendant
American Institute for Foreign Study's motion to dismiss amended
complaint.

Plaintiffs filed a consolidated opposition to defendants' motions
to dismiss, which each defendant replied. Also before the court is
defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to strike material in
plaintiffs' consolidated opposition to defendants' motions to
dismiss.

Plaintiffs filed a cross-motion to strike certain exhibits
submitted by the defendants.

Magistrate Judge Tafoya recommends that:

     -- the joint motion by certain defendants to dismiss the
first amended complaint and certification of compliance with Civil
Practice Standard 7.1D, should be denied;

     -- defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to dismiss all
claims in first amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(B)(6), motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint by defendant InterExchange, Inc., defendant American
Cultural Exchange, L.L.C., D/B/A Go Au Pair's motion to dismiss
Counts I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX and X of the first amended
complaint, and defendant American Institute for Foreign Study's
motion to dismiss amended complaint, should be granted in part and
denied in part;

     -- Plaintiffs' claim under the Utah Minimum Wage Act and
plaintiffs' claim for breach of contract should be dismissed;

     -- Plaintiffs' remaining claims should proceed; and

     -- defendant Cultural Care, Inc.'s motion to strike material
in plaintiffs' consolidated opposition to defendants' motions to
dismiss and plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike certain exhibits
submitted by the defendants be denied as moot.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Tafoya's recommendation dated February
22, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/O5QpUHfrom Leagle.com.

Johana Paola Beltran, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer
Louis -- llouis@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray
Skinner -- pskinner@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Randall Wade Jackson -- rjackson@bsfllp.com -- Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley -- smccawley@bsfllp.com --
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards
Justice

Lusapho Hlatshaneni, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer
Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander
Neville Hood, Towards Justice

Beaudette Deetlefs, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren Fleischer
Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane Schwartz, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP,
Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP & Alexander
Neville Hood, Towards Justice

Dayanna Paola Cardenas Caicedo, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren
Fleischer Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane
Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice

Alexandra Ivette Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by Lauren
Fleischer Louis, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Matthew Lane
Schwartz, Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Peter Murray Skinner,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Randall Wade Jackson, Boies
Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Sigrid Stone McCawley, Boies Schiller &
Flexner, LLP & Alexander Neville Hood, Towards Justice

InterExchange, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brooke A. Colaizzi
-- bcolaizzi@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.,
Raymond Myles Deeny -- rdeeny@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman &
Howard, L.L.C., Erica Lynn Herrera -- eherrera@shermanhoward.com -
- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C. & Heather Fox Vickles --
hvickles@shermanhoward.com -- Sherman & Howard, L.L.C.

USAuPair, INC, Defendant, represented by Chanda Marie Feldkamp,
Kelly & Walker, LLC & William James Kelly, III --
wkelly@kellywalkerlaw.com -- Kelly & Walker, LLC

GreatAuPair, LLC, Defendant, represented by Martin Jose Estevao
-- mestevao@armstrongteasdale.com -- Armstrong Teasdale, LLP &
Meshach Yustine Rhoades -- mrhoades@armstrongteasdale.com --
Armstrong Teasdale, LLP

Expert Group International, Inc, Defendant, represented by Bogdan
Enica, Bogdan Enica, Attorney at Law

EuRaupair InterCultural Child Care Programs, Defendant,
represented by Kathryn Anne Barrett, Brownstein Hyatt Farber
Schreck, LLP, Margo J. Arnold, Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck,
LLP-Los Angeles & Martha Louise Fitzgerald, Brownstein Hyatt
Farber Schreck, LLP

Cultural Homestay International, Defendant, represented by James
Edward Hartley, Holland & Hart, LLP & Mher Hartoonian, Holland &
Hart, LLP

Cultural Care, Inc., doing business as Cultural Care Au Pair,
Defendant, represented by Donald Joseph Gentile, Lawson & Weitzen,
LLP

Cultural Care, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Paul Allen,
Lawson & Weitzen, LLP & Walter Vernon Siebert, Sherman & Howard,
L.L.C.

AuPairCare, Inc., Defendant, represented by John Roger Mann,
Gordon & Rees, LLP & Thomas Baker Quinn, Gordon & Rees, LLP

Au Pair International, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian Alan
Birenbach, Rietz Law Firm, LLC, Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP & Toren G. E. Mushovic, Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell,
LLP

APF Global Exchange, NFP, Defendant, represented by Daniel C.
Perkins, Arapahoe County Attorney's Office, Lawrence L. Lee,
Fisher & Phillips, LLP & Susan M. Schaecher, Fisher & Phillips,
LLP

American Institute for Foreign Study, Defendant, represented by
Daniel C. Perkins, Arapahoe County Attorney's Office, Lawrence L.
Lee, Fisher & Phillips, LLP & Susan M. Schaecher, Fisher &
Phillips, LLP

American Cultural Exchange, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brian
Alan Birenbach, Rietz Law Firm, LLC, Kathryn A. Reilly, Wheeler
Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Toren G. E. Mushovic, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP

Agent Au Pair, Defendant, represented by Kathryn A. Reilly,
Wheeler Trigg O'Donnell, LLP & Toren G. E. Mushovic, Wheeler Trigg
O'Donnell, LLP

A.P.E.X. American Professional Exchange, LLC, Defendant,
represented by Christian Dow Hammond, Dufford & Brown, P.C. &
Lawrence Daniel Stone, Dufford & Brown, P.C.

20/20 Care Exchange, Inc, Defendant, represented by Christian Dow
Hammond, Dufford & Brown, P.C. & Lawrence Daniel Stone, Dufford &
Brown, P.C.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Issues $502MM Verdict in Hip Implant MDL
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a Dallas
federal jury delivered a $502 million verdict against Johnson &
Johnson and one of its subsidiaries.  The jury issued the decision
March 17 after a nine-week trial and one week of deliberations.

At the trial, eight plaintiffs had claimed damages related to the
companies' hip-replacement devices.  More than 4,000 other
plaintiffs have filed similar claims, which are pending in
multidistrict litigation (MDL) in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas in Dallas.

"We may have to whack them a couple more times, but I hope they
will find a fair resolution for these," said Mark Lanier of the
Lanier Law Firm in Houston, who represents the winning plaintiffs,
about Johnson & Johnson and its subsidiary, DePuy Orthopaedics.

According to Mr. Lanier, the jury held Depuy responsible for a
design defect and failure to warn, Johnson & Johnson for a
negligent undertaking, and both defendants for fraud and gross
negligence.  The verdict in Greer v. DePuy included $365 million
in punitive damages, Mr. Lanier said.

The companies plan to immediately file post-trial appellate
motions to overturn the verdict, according to an email from
Mindy Tinsley, a spokeswoman for DePuy.

"We have no greater responsibility than to the patients who use
our products, and our goal is to create medical innovations that
help people live more active and comfortable lives," Ms. Tinsley
wrote.  She noted that DePuy acted appropriately and responsibly
in the design and testing of its hip-replacement product.
At the trial, a team of lawyers from Skadden Arps Slate Meagher &
Flom and Locke Lord defended the companies.

"We expect this to be a pyrrhic victory for plaintiffs' counsel as
the grounds for appeal are strong and the punitive damages will be
reduced to around $10 million subject to the Texas statutory cap,"
John Beisner -- john.beisner@skadden.com -- a Skadden partner from
Washington, D.C. who is on the defense team, wrote in an email.

Mr. Beisner also wrote that "Lanier has a history of pushing the
evidentiary envelope at trial to score substantial verdicts, only
to have those trial court victories reversed on appeal.  We
believe this may be another such case, as we have substantial
grounds for appeal that we hope the Fifth Circuit will carefully
consider."

In October 2014, another Dallas federal jury issued a take-nothing
verdict in favor of Johnson & Johnson and Depuy in a related case
and the first one tried in the MDL in the Northern District.


JUDGES RETIREMENT SYSTEM: Appellate Court Sustains Demurrer
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Alex C. McDonald of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One affirmed the trial court's judgment
in the case FAY STANIFORTH et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v.
THE JUDGES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM, Defendant and Respondent; JOHN
CHIANG, as State Controller, etc., Real Party in Interest and
Respondent, No. D068174 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Faye Staniforth filed the an action on behalf of herself and
similarly situated persons alleging, as its principal claim
against The Judges' Retirement System (JRS), that JRS had not
adhered to its obligations to pensioners under their
interpretation of Olson I and that, as a result, over three
decades worth of pension payments had been underpaid to
pensioners. The principal claim, denominated the Olson I claims,
sought a declaratory judgment that, under Olson I, jurists who
served on California's trial court or appellate court bench during
the time that section 68203 provided for unlimited cost of living
adjustments, were entitled to have their pensions adjusted upward
based on the applicable COLA for each year, and the limit on the
amount of COLA's could not constitutionally be applied to pensions
earned by jurists who served on California's trial court or
appellate court bench during the time that section 68203 provided
for unlimited COLA's. The Olson I claims raised by pensioners
sought to compel the JRS to adhere to pensioners' interpretation
of Olson I and to recalculate the amount of judicial pensions owed
to pensioners using the uncapped COLA's, and to pay arrearages and
interest for the decades of underpaid pension payments.

The trial court sustains the demurrer filed by JRS and denied a
subsequent motion which sought to amend to separately state
certain additional claims by a subgroup of pensioners.

On appeal the Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District,
Division One concluded that the trial court correctly sustained
the demurrer by JRS to pensioners' Olson I claims, without leave
to amend but held that the trial court erroneously denied a
subsequent motion that, in effect, sought leave to amend to
separately state certain additional claims by a subgroup of
pensioners, hence the remand of the case.

On remand, an amended petition was filed that separately stated
claims by the heir or successors to each of the 10 jurists,
alleging the three retired appellate court justices had been
underpaid their retirement allowances between 1977 and 1987, and
alleging the seven retired trial judges had similarly been
underpaid on their retirement allowances through 1981. The
petition sought recovery of the unpaid principal amounts, along
with interest, on behalf of the various heirs of or successors to
the now-deceased jurists.

JRS demurred to this amended petition, arguing that all the stated
claims, which sought recovery for payments to the retired jurists
that allegedly should have been paid over two decades before the
present action was filed, were barred by the statute of
limitations under any possibly applicable statute.

The court sustained JRS's demurrer without leave to amend, and
dismissed the action. Petitioners appealed.

Justice Alex C. McDonald affirmed the judgment of the trial court.

A copy of Justice McDonald's opinion dated March 14, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/8f8kSmfrom Leagle.com.
Jorn S. Rossi and Paul G. Mast for all Plaintiffs and Appellants

For Defendant and Respondent, Harvey L. Leiderman --
hleiderman@reedsmith.com -- Dennis P. Maio -- dmaio@reedsmith.com
-- Jeffrey R. Rieger -- jrieger@reedsmith.com -- at Reed Smith

No appearance for Real Party in Interest and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Patricia D. Benke and
Justices Alex C. McDonald and Joan Irion.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Violated Magnuson-Moss Act, "Pittman" Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Clay Pittman, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. L-3 Communications Eotech, Inc. and
L-3 Communications Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
11051-NGE-EAS (E.D. Mich., March 22, 2016), seeks to recover under
the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, the Texas Business and Commerce
Code, and Common Law,  actual, consequential, punitive and/or
exemplary damages, equitable and declaratory relief, costs, and
reasonable attorney's fees from the Defendants who allegedly sold
EOTech's holographic weapons sights ("EOTech Sights").

The Defendants manufacture EOTech Sights, which are
technologically advanced gun sights with a viewing window that
superimposes a "reticle" (e.g., crosshairs) upon the object the
user is aiming the weapon. The sights are mounted on weapons to
accurately engage targets in a range of extreme and varying
environmental conditions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
          Andrew M. Gonyea, Esq.
          THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          950 West University Drive
          Rochester, MI 48307
          Telephone: 248-841-2200
          E-mail: ssa@millerlawpc.com
                  amg@millerlawpc.com

               - and -

          Keith Altman, Esq.
          Ari Kresch, Esq.
          EXCOLO LAW, PLL
          26700 Lahser Road, Suite 400
          Southfield, MI 48033
          Telephone: (516) 456 5885
          Facsimile: (516) 795 7599
          E-mail: kaltman@lawampmmt.com


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: 3 EoTech Class Actions Filed in Missouri
------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that in December 2015 and February 2016,
three putative class action complaints against the Company were
filed in the United States District Court for the Western District
of Missouri and the United States District Court of the District
of Oregon. The complaints allege that the Company's EoTech
business unit knowingly sold defective holographic weapons sights,
and seek monetary damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and
fees and expenses based on claims including breach of warranty,
fraud, violation of state consumer protection statues and unjust
enrichment.

The Company believes it has valid defenses with respect to these
actions and intends to defend against them vigorously. The Company
is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range of loss that
may be incurred in connection with these matters because the
proceedings are in their early stages.

L-3 Communications, a Delaware corporation, is a prime contractor
in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems,
aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and
maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image
intensification equipment, and security and detection systems. L-3
is also a leading provider of a broad range of communication and
electronic systems and products used on military and commercial
platforms.


L-3 COMMUNICATIONS: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
L-3 Communications Holdings, Inc. and L-3 Communications
Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to dismiss a
consolidated class action in New York remains pending.

In August 2014, three separate, putative class actions were filed
in the United States District Court for the Southern District of
New York (the District Court) against the Company and certain of
its officers. These cases were consolidated into a single action
on October 24, 2014. A consolidated amended complaint was filed in
the District Court on December 22, 2014, which was further amended
and restated on March 13, 2015.

The complaint alleges violations of federal securities laws
related to misconduct and accounting errors identified by the
Company at its Aerospace Systems segment, and seeks monetary
damages, pre- and post-judgment interest, and fees and expenses.

The Company believes the action lacks merit and intends to defend
itself vigorously. On April 24, 2015, the Company moved to dismiss
the amended and restated complaint. The motion has been fully
briefed.

The Company is unable to reasonably estimate any amount or range
of loss, if any, that may be incurred in connection with this
matter because the proceedings are in their early stages.

L-3 Communications, a Delaware corporation, is a prime contractor
in Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (ISR) systems,
aircraft sustainment (including modifications, logistics and
maintenance), simulation and training, night vision and image
intensification equipment, and security and detection systems. L-3
is also a leading provider of a broad range of communication and
electronic systems and products used on military and commercial
platforms.


LAS VEGAS SANDS: "Fosbre" Action in Preliminary Stage
-----------------------------------------------------
Las Vegas Sands Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the "Fosbre"
consolidated action is in a preliminary stage.

On May 24, 2010, Frank J. Fosbre, Jr. filed a purported class
action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC, Sheldon
G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged that
LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or approved
materially false information, or failed to disclose material
facts, through press releases, investor conference calls and other
means from August 1, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The complaint
sought, among other relief, class certification, compensatory
damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On July 21, 2010, Wendell and Shirley Combs filed a purported
class action complaint in the U.S. District Court, against LVSC,
Sheldon G. Adelson, and William P. Weidner. The complaint alleged
that LVSC, through the individual defendants, disseminated or
approved materially false information, or failed to disclose
material facts, through press releases, investor conference calls
and other means from June 13, 2007 through November 11, 2008. The
complaint, which was substantially similar to the Fosbre
complaint, discussed above, sought, among other relief, class
certification, compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 31, 2010, the U.S. District Court entered an order
consolidating the Fosbre and Combs cases, and appointed lead
plaintiffs and lead counsel. As such, the Fosbre and Combs cases
are reported as one consolidated matter. On November 1, 2010, a
purported class action amended complaint was filed in the
consolidated action against LVSC, Sheldon G. Adelson and William
P. Weidner. The amended complaint alleges that LVSC, through the
individual defendants, disseminated or approved materially false
and misleading information, or failed to disclose material facts,
through press releases, investor conference calls and other means
from August 2, 2007 through November 6, 2008. The amended
complaint seeks, among other relief, class certification,
compensatory damages and attorneys' fees and costs.

On January 10, 2011, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint, which, on August 24, 2011, was granted in part,
and denied in part, with the dismissal of certain allegations. On
November 7, 2011, the defendants filed their answer to the
allegations remaining in the amended complaint. On July 11, 2012,
the U.S. District Court issued an order allowing defendants'
Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the U.S District Court's
order dated August 24, 2011, striking additional portions of the
plaintiffs' complaint and reducing the class period to a period of
February 4 to November 6, 2008.

On August 7, 2012, the plaintiffs filed a purported class action
second amended complaint (the "Second Amended Complaint") seeking
to expand their allegations back to a time period of 2007 (having
previously been cut back to 2008 by the U.S. District Court)
essentially alleging very similar matters that had been previously
stricken by the U.S. District Court. On October 16, 2012, the
defendants filed a new motion to dismiss the Second Amended
Complaint. The plaintiffs responded to the motion to dismiss on
November 1, 2012, and defendants filed their reply on November 12,
2012.

On November 20, 2012, the U.S. District Court granted a stay of
discovery under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
pending a decision on the new motion to dismiss and therefore, the
discovery process has been suspended. On April 16, 2013, the case
was reassigned to a new judge. On July 30, 2013, the U.S. District
Court heard the motion to dismiss and took the matter under
advisement. On November 7, 2013, the judge granted in part and
denied in part defendants' motions to dismiss. On December 13,
2013, the defendants filed their answer to the Second Amended
Complaint. Discovery in the matter has re-started.

On January 8, 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to expand the
certified class period, which was granted by the U.S. District
Court on June 15, 2015. Fact discovery closed on July 31, 2015,
and expert discovery closed on December 18, 2015.

On January 22, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary
judgment as did co-defendant Mr. Weidner.

This consolidated action is in a preliminary stage and management
has determined that based on proceedings to date, it is currently
unable to determine the probability of the outcome of this matter
or the range of reasonably possible loss, if any. The Company
intends to defend this matter vigorously.

Las Vegas Sands Corp. ("LVSC," or together with its subsidiaries
"we" or the "Company") is a Fortune 500 company and the leading
global developer of destination properties (integrated resorts)
that feature premium accommodations, world-class gaming,
entertainment and retail, convention and exhibition facilities,
celebrity chef restaurants and other amenities.


LE BILBOQUET: Faces "Najib" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage
----------------------------------------------------------------
Loubna Najib, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Le Bilboquet NY, LLC, d/b/a Le Bilboquet; and Philippe
Delgrange, Case No. 1:16-cv-02008-PAE (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay the proper
wage and overtime compensation in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Le Bilboquet NY, LLC, is a New York corporation that operates Le
Bilboquet restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     D. Maimon Kirschenbaum, Esq.
     Josef Nussbaum, Esq.
     JOSEPH KIRSCHENBAUM LLP
     32 Broadway, Suite 601
     New York, NY 10004
     Telephone: (212) 688-5640
     Facsimile: (212) 688-2548


LEHMAN BROTHERS: 2nd Cir. Tosses Class Action Over Pension Plan
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Bedell, writing for Law.com, reports that for the second time,
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit dismissed a long-
running case against directors of a Lehman Brothers pension plan,
saying the U.S. Supreme Court's reversal of its earlier dismissal
did not change the circuit's previous conclusion that "plaintiffs
have failed to plausibly allege a breach of duty claim."

The Supreme Court's ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014) vacated a July 2013 Second Circuit ruling
(NYLJ, July 16, 2013) that had granted the Lehman directors a
"presumption of prudence," shielding them from charges they had
failed to anticipate that Lehman's stock would crash as the 2008
financial crisis deepened.

The circuit said that even without the shield, the plaintiffs, a
putative class of former Lehman employees who had invested
retirement savings in the company's stock, could not assemble any
set of facts to prove their claims.

The plaintiffs had argued that the plan directors had breached
fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, by continuing to purchase
Lehman stock for its Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP.

The ESOP was one of several retirement fund options employees
could select.  Under the ESOP's rules, all of its investments had
to be in Lehman stock, except for cash reserves held to satisfy
liquidity requirements.

The plaintiffs said warning signs beginning six months before
Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy filing should have caused the
plan directors to stop purchasing new shares and sell what was in
the fund.  They estimated their clients lost about $50 million
over the period.

Judges Dennis Jacobs, Richard Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston,
writing in a per curiam opinion in In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and
ERISA Litig., 15-2229, rejected the claim.

Quoting Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan's July 2015 ruling
dismissing the case, the circuit said the plaintiffs' reliance on
"a cacophony of ominous news articles, the volatility of Lehman's
stock price, increased trading volumes, downgrades from various
ratings agencies, and criticism from investment analysts" added up
to no more than a showing of "mixed signals" the directors faced
as the crisis developed.

The panel relied on language in Fifth Third holding an ERISA
fiduciary cannot be sued, except if there are "special
circumstances" for accepting "the reliability of the market price
as an unbiased assessment of a stock's value in light of all
public information."

The plaintiffs' claim that a July 2008 SEC order suspending
certain kinds of short selling of Lehman stock did not amount to
"special circumstances," the panel said, asserting their revised
complaint merely "parrots language from Fifth Third."

The panel also rejected claims against plan directors who were
also directors of Lehman Brothers Holding Company, including
Lehman's CEO, Richard Fuld.  The plaintiffs claimed those
directors had an obligation to warn the ESOP of Lehman's dire
financial condition before it became public.

The panel agreed with Kaplan's assessment that the plaintiffs had
failed to set forth a plausible means of determining how they
would uncover the alleged inside information.

"Though this court has not yet squarely addressed the issue," the
panel said, "we would be unlikely to conclude that the directors,
including Mr. Fuld, had a duty to keep the plan managers apprised
of material, nonpublic information regarding the soundness of
Lehman as an investment."

"ERISA's fiduciary duty of care requires prudence, not
prescience," the panel said.

"The same standard of prudence applies to all ERISA fiduciaries,
including ESOP fiduciaries, except that an ESOP fiduciary is under
no duty to diversify the ESOP's holdings," the panel concluded.

Partners Daniel Krasner -- krasner@whafh.com -- and Matthew Guiney
-- guiney@whafh.com -- of Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz
argued for the plaintiffs, along with Thomas McKenna --
tjmckenna@gme-law.com -- and Gregory Egleston --
gegleston@gme-law.com -- partners at Gainey McKenna & Egleston.
They declined to comment.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partner Jonathan Youngwood and senior
counsel Janet Gochman and associate Alexander Li, argued for the
plan directors.

Mr. Youngwood said his clients were "pleased, that after seven
years of litigation, the circuit has affirmed dismissal for a
second time."

Todd Fishman -- todd.fishman@allenovery.com -- a partner at Allen
& Overy, represented Richard Fuld.  He did not respond to a
request for comment.

Related Decisions:

Alex E. Rinehart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Jo Anne Buzzo, Monique Miller Fong, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Maria DeSousa, Linda DeMizio,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v.Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Richard S.
Fuld, Jr., MaComber, Erin M. Callan, Wendy M. Uvino, The Employee
Benefit Plans Committee, John Doe, 1-10, Mary Pat Archer, Amitabh
Arora, Michael Branca, Evelyne Estey, Adam Feinstein, David
Romhilt, Defendant-Appellees,15-2229.

For the second time, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit dismissed a long-running case against directors of a
Lehman Brothers pension plan, saying the U.S. Supreme Court's
reversal of its earlier dismissal did not change the circuit's
previous conclusion that "plaintiffs have failed to plausibly
allege a breach of duty claim."

The Supreme Court's ruling in Fifth Third Bancorp v. Dudenhoeffer,
134 S. Ct. 2459 (2014) vacated a July 2013 Second Circuit ruling
(NYLJ, July 16, 2013) that had granted the Lehman directors a
"presumption of prudence," shielding them from charges they had
failed to anticipate that Lehman's stock would crash as the 2008
financial crisis deepened.

The circuit said that even without the shield, the plaintiffs, a
putative class of former Lehman employees who had invested
retirement savings in the company's stock, could not assemble any
set of facts to prove their claims.

The plaintiffs had argued that the plan directors had breached
fiduciary obligations under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, 29 U.S.C. Secs. 1001, by continuing to purchase
Lehman stock for its Employee Stock Ownership Plan, or ESOP.

The ESOP was one of several retirement fund options employees
could select.  Under the ESOP's rules, all of its investments had
to be in Lehman stock, except for cash reserves held to satisfy
liquidity requirements.

The plaintiffs said warning signs beginning six months before
Lehman's September 2008 bankruptcy filing should have caused the
plan directors to stop purchasing new shares and sell what was in
the fund.  They estimated their clients lost about $50 million
over the period.

Judges Dennis Jacobs, Richard Wesley and Debra Ann Livingston,
writing in a per curiam opinion in In Re: Lehman Bros. Sec. and
ERISA Litig., 15-2229, rejected the claim.

Quoting Southern District Judge Lewis Kaplan's July 2015 ruling
dismissing the case, the circuit said the plaintiffs' reliance on
"a cacophony of ominous news articles, the volatility of Lehman's
stock price, increased trading volumes, downgrades from various
ratings agencies, and criticism from investment analysts" added up
to no more than a showing of "mixed signals" the directors faced
as the crisis developed.

The panel relied on language in Fifth Third holding an ERISA
fiduciary cannot be sued, except if there are "special
circumstances" for accepting "the reliability of the market price
as an unbiased assessment of a stock's value in light of all
public information."

The plaintiffs' claim that a July 2008 SEC order suspending
certain kinds of short selling of Lehman stock did not amount to
"special circumstances," the panel said, asserting their revised
complaint merely "parrots language from Fifth Third."

The panel also rejected claims against plan directors who were
also directors of Lehman Brothers Holding Company, including
Lehman's CEO, Richard Fuld.  The plaintiffs claimed those
directors had an obligation to warn the ESOP of Lehman's dire
financial condition before it became public.

The panel agreed with Kaplan's assessment that the plaintiffs had
failed to set forth a plausible means of determining how they
would uncover the alleged inside information.

"Though this court has not yet squarely addressed the issue," the
panel said, "we would be unlikely to conclude that the directors,
including Mr. Fuld, had a duty to keep the plan managers apprised
of material, nonpublic information regarding the soundness of
Lehman as an investment."

"ERISA's fiduciary duty of care requires prudence, not
prescience," the panel said.

"The same standard of prudence applies to all ERISA fiduciaries,
including ESOP fiduciaries, except that an ESOP fiduciary is under
no duty to diversify the ESOP's holdings," the panel concluded.

Partners Daniel Krasner and Matthew Guiney of Wolf Haldenstein
Adler Freeman & Herz argued for the plaintiffs, along with Thomas
McKenna and Gregory Egleston, partners at Gainey McKenna &
Egleston. They declined to comment.

Simpson Thacher & Bartlett partner Jonathan Youngwood --
jyoungwood@stblaw.com -- and senior counsel Janet Gochman and
associate Alexander Li, argued for the plan directors.

Mr. Youngwood said his clients were "pleased, that after seven
years of litigation, the circuit has affirmed dismissal for a
second time."

Todd Fishman, a partner at Allen & Overy, represented Richard
Fuld. He did not respond to a request for comment.

Related Decisions:

Alex E. Rinehart, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Jo Anne Buzzo, Monique Miller Fong, on behalf of herself
and others similarly situated, Maria DeSousa, Linda DeMizio,
Plaintiffs-Appellants v. Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc., Richard S.
Fuld, Jr., MaComber, Erin M. Callan, Wendy M. Uvino, The Employee
Benefit Plans Committee, John Doe, 1-10, Mary Pat Archer, Amitabh
Arora, Michael Branca, Evelyne Estey, Adam Feinstein, David
Romhilt, Defendants-Appellees,15-2229

Practice Area(s): AppellateCorporate and Securities
Industry: Cases and CourtsIn-house


LENDINGCLUB CORPORATION: Faces UA Local Fund Securities Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
UA Local 13 Pension Fund, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, plaintiff, v. Lendingclub Corporation,
Renaud Laplanche, Carrie Dolan, Daniel T. Ciporin, Jeffrey Crowe,
Rebecca Lynn, John J. Mack, Mary Meeker, John C. (Hans) Morris,
Lawrence H. Summers, Simon Williams, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC,
Goldman, Sachs & Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Stifel,
Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp.,
William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, and
Does 1- 25, Inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV537868 (Cal.,
Super. Ct., San Mateo County, March 22, 2016), seeks to pursue
strict liability and negligence remedies under the Securities
14 Act of 1933 regarding materially false and misleading
Statements.

On August 27, 2014, LendingClub filed its Registration Statement
with the SEC on Form S-1. The Registration Statement was
subsequently amended and declared effective on December
10, 2014, and the Company filed the final Prospectus for the
Offering, which forms part of the Registration Statement, on
December 11, 2014. The Company sold 50.3 million shares at
$15.00 per share, the selling stockholders sold another 7.7
million shares, and the underwriters of the Offering exercised
their option to purchase an additional 8.7 million shares,
bringing the total number of shares sold to 66.7 million.

LendingClub operates as an online marketplace that connects
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 families, banks and
finance companies, insurance companies, hedge funds, foundations,
pension plans and university endowments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Conrad Walton, Esq.
          Shawn A. Williams, Esq.
          James I. Jaconette
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101-3301
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          E-mail: davew@rgrdlaw.com
                  shawnw@rgrdlaw.com
                  amesj@rgrdlaw.com


LAIBCO LLC: Faces "Menjivar" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeannette Menjivar, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Laibco, LLC, a California limited liability company;
and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC614307 (Cal. Super.,
March 18, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay proper wage and overtime compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Laibco, LLC is a nursing facility and convalescent hospital.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Nourmand, Esq.
     James A. De Sario, Esq.
     THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
     8822 West Olympic Boulevard
     Beverly Hills, California 90211
     Telephone: (310) 553-3600
     Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


LERNER NEW YORK: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cisneros" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Cisneros and Faranak Safa, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Lerner New York Inc., a Delaware
corporation dba New York & Co; Does 1-10, individuals, and Does
1-10, business entities, inclusive, Case No. BC614197 (Cal.
Super., March 18, 2016), alleges that Defendants failed to pay the
Plaintiffs the proper wage in violation of the California Labor
Code.

Lerner New York Inc. is a specialty manufacturer and retailer of
women's fashion apparel and accessories business entities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Amir Mostafavi, Esq.
     MOSTAFAVI LAW GROUP, APC
     11835 W Olympic Blvd., STE 1055
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Telephone: (310) 473-1111
     Facsimile: (310) 473-2222
     E-mail: amir@mostafavilaw.com


LINDE CORPORATION: Violated FLSA & PMWA, "Trevorah" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Trevorah, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
employees, the Plaintiff, v. Linde Corporation, the Defendant,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00492-UNa (N.D. Penn., March 22, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and prejudgment interest, liquidated
damages, reasonable attorney fees, expenses, and litigation cost,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).

Defendant owns and operates a company that primarily services
Pennsylvania's natural gas industry, providing customers with
services such as, for example, the construction, installation,
inspection, testing, and/or maintenance of well pads, pipelines,
waterlines, sewage and waste disposal systems, compressor
stations, water intake systems, and trenchless technology systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian Jonathan Petula, Esq.
          CROSSOVER LAW, LLC
          1143 Northern Blvd #121
          Clark Summit, PA 18411
          Telephone: (570) 561 1080
          Facsimile: (877) 815 6530
          E-mail: brian@crossoverlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter D. Winebrake, Esq.
          WINEBRAKE & SANTILLO, LLC
          Twining Office Center, Suite 211
          715 Twining Rd
          Dresher, PA 19025
          Telephone: (215) 884 2491
          Facsimile: (215) 884 2492
          E-mail: pwinebrake@winebrakelaw.com


LITHIA MOTORS: Tendered Defense of Class Actions to Auto Makers
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lithia Motors, Inc. has tendered defense of class action cases to
car manufacturers, and the manufacturers have honored their
contractual defense and indemnity obligations to date, Lithia
Motors said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

In September 2015, Volkswagen and related entities admitted
utilizing software in certain diesel engine vehicles to detect
when they were being emissions tested and to temporarily change
performance to improve results. According to Automotive News,
approximately 11 million vehicles built between 2009 and 2015 are
affected and will be recalled and Volkswagen is potentially facing
lawsuits and significant penalties from regulators worldwide. The
current and future impact on Volkswagen's operations, consumer
reputation and future vehicle demand is unclear, as is the effect
on our business for the Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche brands.

Lithia currently operates five Volkswagen, three Audi and one
Porsche stores, and approximately 3% of 2015 and 2014 new vehicle
unit sales were within these brands.

"Changes in demand for Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche vehicles could
significantly affect our business from those brands," the Company
said.

Certain of the Company's related entities that operate its
Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche stores have been named as defendants
or otherwise served in certain putative class actions filed by
automobile owners against dealerships selling these brands. The
Company has tendered defense of these cases to the manufacturers,
and the manufacturers have honored their contractual defense and
indemnity obligations to date.

Lithia Motors is an operator of automotive franchises and a
retailer of new and used vehicles and related services.


LOVE GRACE: Sued in N.Y. Over Misleading Juice Product Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
James Anestis, individually on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Love Grace, Inc. and Love Grace, LLC, Case
No. 03079/2016 (N.Y. Sup., March 18, 2016), alleges that
Defendants made material misrepresentations and omissions in their
products.  According to the lawsuit, the labels and advertising:

     -- fail to indicate that the products maybe unsafe for human
        consumption;

     -- omit any information regarding the treatment of the
        Products subsequent and in addition to being cold-pressed;

     -- fail to indicate that the products are "not been
        pasteurized";

     -- omit any information regarding the treatment of the
        Products by high pressure pasteurization; and

     -- omit any qualifying information regarding the production
        of the Products as "cold-pressed," thereby implying to
        reasonable consumers that the Products have only been
        subjected to being cold-pressed.

Love Grace Inc. manufactures, sells, market, distributes,
advertises, and promotes juice products throughout the State of
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joshua Levin-Epstein, Esq.
     LEVIN-ESPTEIN & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     1 Penn Plaza
     Suite 2527
     New York, NY 10119
     Telephone: (212) 792-0046
     Facsimile: (212) 563-7108
     E-mail: Joshua@levinepstein.com


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Turner" Files Suit Over Defective Flooring
---------------------------------------------------------------
Benjamin Turner, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Lumber Liquidators, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02772-AJT-TRJ (M.D. La., March 2,
2016), seeks to recover damages arising from and relating to
Plaintiff's purchase and installation of defendant's Chinese wood
flooring materials (Chinese Flooring).

The action arises out of the Defendant's scheme to import into the
United States, and falsely warrant, advertise and sell, Chinese
Flooring that fails to comply with relevant and applicable
formaldehyde standards, which renders the Chinese Flooring
defective. The Defendant manufacturers, sells, and distributes,
Chinese Flooring that allegedly emits and off-gases excessive
levels of formaldehyde, which is categorized as a known human
carcinogen by the United States National Toxicology Program and
the International Agency for Research on Cancer.

Lumber Liquidators is a Delaware corporation with its office
located at Toano, Virginia. It is one of the largest specialty
retailers of hardwood flooring in the United States selling
primarily to homeowners directly or to contractor's action on
behalf of homeowners through its extensive network of retail
stores nationwide. Lumber Liquidators has mills in, and buys many
of its source wood flooring material from, China. The company
recently established a representative office in Shanghai, China
and assumed "direct control" of its entire product sourcing in
China (through its headquarters in China).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Klibert, Esq.
          Salvadore Christina, Jr., Esq.
          Matthew B. Moreland, Esq.
          BECNEL LAW FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Drawer H
          Reserve, LA 70084
          Telephone: (985) 536 1186
          Facsimile: (985) 536 6446
          E-mail: kklibert@becnellaw.com
                  schristina@becnellaw.com
                  mmoreland@becnellaw.com


LYFT INC: Judge Questions Adequacy of Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge posed tough questions on March 24 about the adequacy of a
proposed $12.25 million settlement between Lyft Inc. and its
drivers but held off on ruling.

U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria of the Northern District of
California seemed particularly skeptical that the deal
sufficiently compensates the company's most frequent drivers.  The
lawsuit claims that all Lyft drivers should be classified as
employees -- not independent contractors -- and are entitled to
reimbursement for mileage and other costs back to May 2012.

"I have always been of the view that these claims are much more
valuable for the people who drove full time," Judge Chhabria said
during a hearing on preliminary approval for the proposed
settlement.  While the judge acknowledged that the settlement uses
a formula that apportions a band of "frequent" drivers 50 percent
more money compared to infrequent drivers, he held open that he
may decide that's insufficient.

Arguing for Lyft, James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- of
Keker & Van Nest suggested that if the judge feels the premium for
frequent drivers is not high enough, the court should instruct
parties to address that without dismantling the overall
"structure" of the peace deal.

But Judge Chhabria also also grilled lawyers for the drivers --
Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan and Matthew Carlson
of Carlson Legal Services -- about whether the overall
amount of the settlement is really enough.

At the hearing, he directed plaintiffs lawyers to walk him through
how they calculated the potential value of a win.  He disagreed
with some of their numbers, and was surprised to learn that --
because the number of Lyft drivers and users has grown so fast --
potential damages may now be more than double the $70 million
plaintiffs estimated when the settlement terms were hashed out
last November.

Taking into account Lyft's latest driver data, the settlement is
now about 8 percent of the potential value of the drivers' damages
claims, Liss-Riordan acknowledged.  When the settlement was agreed
to, it represented closer to 17 percent of potential damages,
based on Lyft data current through June 2015.  The plaintiffs
lawyers are asking for one-third of the $12.25 million settlement,
or $3.67 million.

"I don't think counsel for plaintiffs have represented plaintiffs
anything less than tenaciously," Judge Chhabria said, making clear
he did not think there had been any "improper collusion" of any
sort. But he stressed that his job is still to determine whether
the settlement is reasonable.

Under the terms of the settlement, the average payment Lyft
drivers will receive is $56.14.  However, those who drove more
than 30 hours per week for half the weeks they drove for Lyft
would be paid 50 percent more than those who drove less than that
amount, given that their claims for employee status are seen as
stronger.  On average, they would be paid more than $670.

Lyft says only 755 people are "frequent drivers," and that 99.5
percent of its drivers do not surpass that threshold, dragging
down the average payment.

Judge Chhabria seemed to discount arguments by a group of drivers
arguing the settlement should be rejected because it fails to
reclassify drivers as employees.  They were represented at the
hearing by Costa Kerestenzis -- ckerestenzis@beesontayer.com -- of
Beeson, Tayer & Bodine.

Judge Chhabria noted there is a real dispute over whether drivers
should be classified that way, and that there was risk for both
sides about how a jury would resolve that issue.  He also seemed
to view favorably some of the nonmonetary aspects of the
settlement despite the fact that they do not address the
classification issue.

Aside from the money, the settlement includes changes to Lyft's
terms of service that provide job security protections that are
actually more akin to what are typically provided to independent
contractors.  Specifically, the drivers are to be provided with a
reason for any termination, and can contest the reasoning in
arbitration if they feel it is unfair.  Judge Chhabria pressed Mr.
Kerestenzis on why that was "more than minimal protection."


MARLTON 73: Faces "Sanford" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
----------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Sanford v. Marlton 73 Restaurant, LLC; Hristos Kolovos and
John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001050-16 (N.J. Super., March
21, 2016), alleges that Defendants terminated the Plaintiff's
employment for discrimination due to her age. The Plaintiff
requests that the Court order the Defendants to cease and desist
all conduct inconsistent with the claims made in the complaint
going forward, both as to the specific Plaintiff and as to all
other individuals similarly situated.

Marlton 73 Restaurant, LLC, a New Jersey limited liability
company, engaged in the restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Telephone: (856) 727-9700


MDL 2058: 2nd Cir. Vacates Order Denying Flanagan's Fee Request
---------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge John M. Walker, Jr. of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, vacated the district court's order denying a fee request
by Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim in the securities class
action lawsuit, In re Bank of America Corp. Sec. Litig., No. 09
MDL 2058 (DC) (S.D.N.Y.).

In April 2009, the Ohio Public Employees Retirement System and the
State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio (Ohio Lead Plaintiffs)
hired Flanagan to represent them in an action against Bank of
America, Merrill Lynch, and several officers and directors of the
two companies. Ohio Lead Plaintiffs' action was one of 28 separate
securities lawsuits alleging the insufficiency of public
disclosures made in connection with the companies' merger.

On April 14, 2009, Flanagan and the Ohio Attorney General, acting
on behalf of Ohio Lead Plaintiffs and as their statutory legal
counsel, executed a retention agreement. Ohio Lead Plaintiffs also
retained the law firms of Bernstein, Litowitz, Berger & Grossman
(BLB&G) and Kaplan, Fox & Kilsheimer (Kaplan Fox).

On June 30, 2009, the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York consolidated the 28 separate actions
into a single class action lawsuit.  The district court then
appointed a group of Lead Plaintiffs that included Ohio Lead
Plaintiffs. The district court also appointed BLB&G; Kaplan Fox;
and Kessler, Topaz Meltzer & Check as Co-Lead Counsel. All Lead
Plaintiffs (including Ohio Lead Plaintiffs) had executed retainer
agreements with their respective counsel (including Co-Lead
Counsel and Flanagan) that included an identical fee schedule. The
fee schedule capped total attorneys' fees for the actions at a
specific percentage of class recovery; the fee schedule was set
forth in a grid, such that the percentage compensation was
graduated according to settlement amount and status of the case at
the time of resolution.

Lead Plaintiffs ultimately agreed to settle their claims for
$2,425,000,000. On February 19, 2013, with the prior approval of
Lead Plaintiffs, Co-Lead Counsel filed a request that "Plaintiffs'
Counsel" be awarded attorneys' fees in an amount representing
6.56% of the settlement fund less Plaintiffs' Counsel's expenses
(amounting to $158,549,766.46 in total fees), as well as
reimbursement of $8,082,828.32 in litigation expenses. As support
for the requested percentage, Co-Lead Counsel affirmed that
Plaintiffs' Counsel had expended 193,547 hours in the litigation,
amounting to a lodestar value of $88,307,135; the requested fees
yielded a multiplier of 1.8 on the lodestar. The fee request
explicitly defined "Plaintiffs' Counsel" to include Flanagan. The
request also included Flanagan's hours and expenses in its hour
and expense totals.

The district court denied the portion of the fee request
pertaining to Flanagan's fees and expenses. The district court
noted that it was not contesting that Flanagan may have done
"valuable work" in the litigation and explicitly declined to
challenge Flanagan's claims regarding the quantity and nature of
that work.

On April 8, 2013, the district court entered an order that awarded
Co-Lead Counsel attorneys' fees in the amount of $152,414,235.89,
plus interest, and litigation expenses in the amount of
$8,069,985.04. The district court explained that Flanagan was not
entitled to its fee because "the record does not establish that
services rendered by Flanagan were for the benefit of the class."

On appeal, Flanagan argues that the proper standard for assessing
Flanagan's fee application is not the "substantial benefit" test
outlined in Victor v. Argent Classic Convertible Arbitrage Fund
L.P., 623 F.3d 82, 87 (2d Cir. 2010), but rather a standard of
deference to lead plaintiffs and that the Second Circuit should
apply the analytical framework in In re Cendant Corporation
Securities Litigation, 404 F.3d 173, 199 (3d Cir. 2005) ("Cendant
II").

In his Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/9zzkitfrom Leagle.com, Judge Walker, Jr. held that:

     -- "the district court should have afforded a rebuttable
presumption of correctness to Lead Plaintiffs' proposed allocation
of fees to Flanagan. Lead Plaintiffs consistently maintained, in
submissions before the court and through statements made by Co-
Lead Counsel, that Flanagan's fee was reasonable both with respect
to the amount of work done and in light of the firm's overall
contribution to the class. While the district court is still
tasked with overseeing the compensation decisions of Lead
Plaintiffs, those decisions were nonetheless entitled to greater
deference than they received."

     -- "We are also troubled by the district court's order
prohibiting Co-Lead Counsel from sharing their fees with Flanagan.
While we appreciate the district court's understanding of its role
as guardian of class rights, we note that if Lead Counsel were to
share with Flanagan a portion of their own awarded fee, such an
arrangement would not reduce class recovery at all. Where, as
here, there has been no suggestion of corruption or collusion by
class counsel, we can see no reason to interfere in any decision
Co-Lead Counsel might make to share their own portion of fees with
a law firm that produced work at Co-Lead Counsel's behest."

The Second Circuit panel consists of Judge Walker, Jr., and Judges
Debra Ann Livingston and Dennis Jacobs.

The appellate case is captioned, FLANAGAN, LIEBERMAN, HOFFMAN &
SWAIM, Appellant, v. OHIO PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
STATE TEACHERS RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF OHIO, Movants-Appellees, v.
PUBLIC PENSION FUNDS, THE PUBLIC PENSION FUND GROUP, STEVEN J.
SKLAR, AS (IRA ACCOUNT BENEFICIARY), ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, RHONDA WILSON, MICHAEL R. BAHNMAIER,
ALMA ALVAREZ, MARK ADAMS, ELIZABETH EAGEN, VERNON C. DAILEY,
RICHARD ADAME, ARLENE KAHN, PETRA CHATMAN, STICHTING PENSIOENFONDS
ABP, GRANT MITCHELL, NEW YORK STATE TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION OF COLORADO, STEVE R.
GRABER, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ASSIGNEE OF CLAIMS OF THE SRG 2008
TRUST, SCHWAB SP500 INDEX FUND, SCHWAB 1000 INDEX FUND, SCHWAB
INSTITUTIONAL SELECT SP500 FUND, SCHWAB DIVIDEND EQUITY FUND,
SCHWAB CORE EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB PREMIER EQUITY FUND, SCHWAB
FUNDAMENTAL US LARGE COMPANY INDEX FUND, SCHWAB TOTAL STOCK MARKET
INDEX FUND, SCHWAB SP500 INDEX PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB MARKETTRACK
GROWTH, PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB MARKETTRACK BALANCED PORTFOLIO, SCHWAB
INVESTMENTS, SCHWAB CAPITAL TRUST, DR. SALOMON MELGEN, FLOR
MELGEN, SFM HOLDINGS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, INTERNATIONAL FUND
MANAGEMENT S.A., DEKA INTERNATIONAL S.A. LUXEMBURG, DEKA
INVESTMENT GMBH, DI, AARON KATZ, JOEL KATZ, JEREMY FINEBERG,
SYLVIA WEISSMANN, PARKER FAMILY INVESTMENTS L.L.C., JEFFREY R.
PARKER, THE 1997 JEFFREY R. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, DREW E. PARKER,
THE 1994 DREW E. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, KEITH D. PARKER, JULIE M.
SORIN, THE 1991 JEFFREY R. PARKER FAMILY TRUST, THE 1994 JULIE P.
MANTELL FAMILY TRUST, MICHAEL A. PARKER, MARK D. WENDER, ELLIOT
WENDER, PENINA WENDER, STANLEY L. WENDER, RAZELLE M. WENDER, JILL
W. GOLDSTEIN, JERRY E. FINGER, AMBASSADOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
SELECT INVESTORS EXCHANGE FUND, L.P., RICHARD FINGER, JEF FAMILY
TRUST, 1976 REAL ESTATE TRUST, WALTER FINGER, THE JERRY E. FINGER
FAMILY TRUST D/T/D 12/28/1989, THE JERRY E. FINGER FAMILY TRUST,
LEO R. JALENAK, PEGGY E. JALENAK, KERS & CO., ROBERT GEGNAS, 198
LOCHA DRIVE, JUPITER, FL 33458-7752, STEVEN L. SHAPIRO, HARVEY M.
MITNICK, NATHAN A. FRIEDMAN, BONNIE FRIEDMAN, KENNETH A. CIULLO,
JOANNA CIULLO, THOMAS P. DINAPOLI, COMPTROLLER OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, AS ADMINISTRATIVE HEAD OF THE NEW YORK STATE AND LOCAL
RETIREMENT SYSTEMS AND AS SOLE TRUSTEE OF THE NEW YORK STATE
COMMON RETIREMENT FUND, SCHWAB FINANCIAL SERVICES FUND,
Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. BANK OF AMERICA CORP., GARY A. CARLIN,
NELSON CHAI, KENNETH D. LEWIS, JOHN A. THAIN, WILLIAM BARNET, III,
FRANK P. BRAMBLE, SR., JOHN T. COLLINS, GARY L. COUNTRYMAN, TOMMY
R. FRANKS, CHARLES K. GIFFORD, MONICA C. LOZANO, WALTER E. MASSEY,
THOMAS J. MAY, PATRICIA E. MITCHELL, THOMAS M. RYAN, O. TEMPLE
SLOAN, JR., MEREDITH R. SPANGLER, ROBERT L. TILLMAN, JACKIE M.
WARD, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC., NEIL A. COTTY, JOE L. PRICE, BANC
OF AMERICA SECURITIES L.L.C., MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH INCORPORATED, BANK OF AMERICA, J. STEELE ALPHIN, AMY WOODS
BRINKLEY, BARBARA J. DESOER, LIAM E. MCGEE, TIMOTHY J. MAYOPOULOS,
BRIAN T. MOYNIHAN, BRUCE L. HAMMONDS, RICHARD K. STRUTHERS, BANK
OF AMERICA CORPORATION CORPORATE BENEFITS COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS,
BANK OF AMERICA COMPENSATION AND BENEFITS COMMITTEE DEFENDANTS,
KEITH T. BANKS, TERESA BRENNER, CAROL T. CHRIST, ARMANDO M.
CODINA, VIRGIS W. COLBERT, GREGORY CURL, JOHN D. FINNEGAN, GREGORY
FLEMING, FOX-PITT KELTON COCHRAN CARONIA WALLER (USA) L.L.C., J.C.
FLOWERS & CO., L.L.C., JUDITH MAYHEW JONAS, PETER KRAUS, AULANA L.
PETERS, JOSEPH W. PRUEHER, ANN N. REESE, MICHAEL ROSS, CHARLES O.
ROSSOTTI, PETER STINGI, THOMAS K. MONTAG, BANK OF AMERICA
CORPORATION, KENNETH D. DAVIS, MARTIN I. FINEBERG, KENNETH A.
LEWIS, MERRILL LYNCH & CO., 4 WORLD FINANCIAL CNETER, NEW YORK, NY
10080, JOSEPH L. PRICE, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 13-2919
(2nd Cir.).

Flanagan, Lieberman, Hoffman & Swaim is represented by:

     Kevin P. Parker, Esq.
     Michelle M. Carreras, Esq.
     Evan M. Janush, Esq.
     Arthur Miller, Esq.
     THE LANIER LAW FIRM, P.C.
     6810 FM 1960 West
     Houston, TX 77069
     Tel: (713)659-5200


MERCADOLIBRE INC: Parties Ordered to Produce Evidence
-----------------------------------------------------
MercadoLibre, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the parties in the class
action lawsuit by Consumidores Financieros have been ordered to
produce evidence.

On June 13, 2014, the consumer association called "Consumidores
Financieros Asociacion Civil Para Su Defensa" ("Consumidores
Financieros") filed a class action against the Company's Argentine
subsidiary, MercadoLibre S.R.L. ("MercadoLibre"), in the First
Instance National Court on Commercial Matters Number Four of
Buenos Aires, Argentina (the "Court"). Consumidores Financieros
acts on behalf of customers who have used MercadoPago in Argentina
and claims that MercadoLibre has infringed certain consumer
provisions of the Consumer Protection Law, mostly related to
certain information to be provided to consumers in relation to the
transactions performed through MercadoPago by users holding credit
cards that are not associated to MercadoLibre's promotions, and
charged them excessive interest rates when users paid by
installments.

Consumidores Financieros seeks that (i) MercadoLibre provides
clear and complete information about the costs of its service
MercadoPago in Argentina, (ii) MercadoLibre reimburse users who
have used MercadoPago in the last 10 years, an amount equivalent
to the difference between the interest rate actually charged by
MercadoLibre for the users that pay through MercadoPago by
installments and the interest rate set down by the section 36 of
the CPA in cases of violation of the duty of information as per
section 36 (average annual rate set down by the Argentine Central
Bank, which is 26.31% as of the date of this report), (iii) the
Court establish the interest rate to be charged in future
transactions where users pay by installments, estimate by
Consumidores Financieros in twice the interest rate charged by the
Banco de la Nacion Argentina in commercial transactions (as of the
date of this report the doubled interest rate is estimated at
50%), and (iv) condemn MercadoLibre to pay punitive damages on the
amount of AR$500 per each transaction performed in alleged
violation to section 36 of the CPA. The Company filed its defense
on October 3, 2014.

On April 17, 2015, the court decided to begin with the evidence
stage, and ordered the production of the parties' evidence.

"The opinion of our management, based on the external legal
counsel opinion, is that the risk of MercadoLibre losing the case
is remote," the Company said.

MercadoLibre, Inc. hosts the largest online commerce platform in
Latin America, which is focused on enabling e-commerce and its
related services.


MI LLC: Texas Judge Rules on Summary Judgment Bids in "Dewan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Melinda Harmon of the Southern District of Texas,
Houston Division ruled on the parties' motion in the case MATTHEW
DEWAN, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. M-I, L.L.C. d/b/a M-I SWACO, Defendant,
Civil Action No. H-15-1746 (S.D. Tex.)

Matthew Dewan brought a complaint individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and alleges that from approximately
September 2010 through November 2012, Dewan worked as a nonexempt
drilling fluid specialist for M-I, L.L.C. d/b/a
M-I SWACO. A drilling fluid specialist's job is to ensure the
properties of the drilling fluid (a/k/a drilling mud) are within
designed specifications.

Dewan asserts that in willful violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), instead of paying drilling fluid specialists
time and a half for all hours worked beyond 40 per week, M-I pays
them a fixed sum that does not take into consideration the number
of hours per week that they have worked. Dewan also argues that if
M-I has classified him as exempt from FLSA's overtime
compensation, M-I has misclassified him. He further charges that
M-I failed to keep accurate records of its employees' time worked.

Dewan originally filed the suit on December 14, 2014, in the
Southern District of Texas.  Dewan's original complaint defines
the FLSA class as:

"All current and former drilling fluid specialists or any other
employee who: (1) worked at any business located in the United
States that was owned, operated, and/or acquired by Defendant
during the class period; (2) claim they were misclassified as
exempt from overtime compensation or was [sic] an hourly employee
and now seek payment for overtime hours worked; and/or (3) were
compensated on any basis where they were not properly paid at a
rate of time and a half for hours worked in excess of forty (40)."

Meanwhile, Sarmad Syed and Ashley Balfour (the Syed Plaintiffs),
also former drilling fluid specialists for M-I alleging that they
were improperly classified as exempt employees and not paid
overtime under the FLSA and additionally alleging Rule 23 class
action for wage and hour violations under the California Labor
Code, had previously filed a collective action in the Eastern
District of California on October 18, 2012 and moved for
conditional nationwide certification on July 8, 2013. The Syed
Plaintiffs subsequently filed in the Southern District of Texas a
motion to intervene and transfer the later filed Dewan matter to
the Eastern District of California.  The District Judge in Texas
granted the motion.

M-I argued, however, that the Syed Plaintiffs' statement of facts
in support of a current collateral estoppel argument demonstrated
that their prior motion to transfer the Dewan matter to the
Eastern District of California was made in bad faith upon
misrepresentations for the purposes of delay and forum shopping.

Accordingly, Senior District Judge Anthony W. Ishi of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of California in
the Order dated June 18, 2015, available at http://is.gd/d4N6p9
from Leagle.com, grated Defendant's motion to transfer the Dewan
case to the Southern District of Texas to promote judicial
efficiency and avoid conflicting piecemeal litigation.

Now before the Texas court are (1) defendant's motion for summary
judgment on the grounds that Dewan and William J. Casey do not
qualify as exempt employees under the administrative, outside
sales, and/or combination exemptions from the FLSA overtime
provision and (2) Plaintiff Dewan and Opt-in plaintiff Casey's
motion for partial judgment on the pleadings as to M-I's
affirmative defenses relating to exemptions and good faith under
the FLSA.

M-I argues that because the action was never even conditionally
certified as a collective action and the time to move to do so has
expired, because Casey has opted in only as a collective action
participant, and because Dewan has never moved to amend to name
Casey as a plaintiff, Casey has not appeared as a named party and
his claims should be severed and dismissed.  Alternatively, if the
court considers Casey's claims on the merits, they should be
dismissed for the same reasons as Dewan's.
Dewan and Casey argue that conditional class certification is not
necessary or sufficient for a representative action to exist under
the FLSA because Congress expressly conferred on employees the
right to become a party to any collective action.  Parties may
opt-in by filing consents before as well as after conditional
certification, or even if no class certification is requested.

Judge Harmon ordered that the motions to dismiss opt-in plaintiff
Casey are denied and Casey may proceed as a full plaintiff. M-I's
motion for summary judgment as to dismissal of Casey is denied and
Dewan's motion for partial summary judgment on the pleadings as to
certain affirmative defenses is denied. M-I's motion for summary
judgment on the grounds that Dewan and Casey are not entitled to
overtime pay because they qualify as exempt employees under the
administrative exemptions and that M-I did not misclassify them is
granted.

A copy of Judge Harmon's opinion and order dated February 22,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/8fq98ofrom Leagle.com.

Matthew Dewan, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Curt Christopher Hesse, Esq.
     Melissa Moore, Esq.
     MOORE & ASSOCIATES
     440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
     Houston, TX 77002
     Telephone: 713-581-9001

          - and -

     R Ira Spiro, Esq.
     SPIRO LAW CORP
     10573 West Pico Blvd. 865
     Los Angeles, CA 90064
     Telephone: 310-235-2350

M-I, L.L.C., Defendant, represented by Patricia S Riordan --
priordan@morganlewis.com - at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP; Samuel
Zurik, III -- sz@kullmanlaw.com -- Martin J Regimbal --
mjr@kullmanlaw.com -- Robert P Lombardi -- rpl@kullmanlaw.com --
at The Kullman Firm

Schlumberger Technology Corp, Defendant, represented by Patricia S
Riordan -- priordan@morganlewis.com - at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
LLP

Sarmad Syed, Intervenor, represented by Jennifer L. Conner, Spiro
Law Corp., Jennifer Lynn Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Ira
Spiro, Spiro Law Corp. &Richard J Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC

Ashley Balfour, Intervenor, represented by Jennifer L. Conner,
Spiro Law Corp., Jennifer Lynn Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer,
Ira Spiro, Spiro Law Corp. & Richard J Burch, Bruckner Burch PLLC


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Parwani" Class Suit in S.D. Cal. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A class action has been filed against Midland Credit Management,
Inc.  The case is captioned Nargis P. Parwani and Pouya
Abdolrasoul, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Midland Credit Management, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00691-JAH-JLB (S.D. Cal., San Diego,
March 22, 2016).

Midland Credit Management provides debt collections and
information management services. It collects on credit cards,
automobiles, unsecured consumer debts, and telecom accounts. The
company was founded in 1953 and is based in San Diego, California.
Midland Credit Management, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Encore
Capital Group, Inc.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Asil Mashiri, Esq.
          MASHIRI LAW FIRM
          11251 Rancho Carmel Drive, Suite 500694
          San Diego, CA 92150
          Telephone: (858) 348 4938
          Facsimile: (858) 348 4939
          E-mail: alexmashiri@yahoo.com


MINNESOTA: Status Update on June 6 in "Jensen" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Molly Willms, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Minnesota appears to be complying with a settlement agreement
related to the state's care of disabled individuals, but the
criteria for evaluating compliance leave a lot to be desired, a
federal judge in St. Paul, Minn. ruled.

U.S. District Judge Donovan Frank announced that conclusion after
evaluating the ninth update of Minnesota's compliance with the
settlement in Jensen. v. DHS, a 2009 class action focusing on the
care of disabled individuals in state-run facilities.

Jensen accused Minnesota of improperly restraining and secluding
as many as 300 patients with developmental disabilities in a
residential facility.

Judge Frank approved the state's Olmstead plan, named for the
landmark 1999 Supreme Court case, Olmstead v. L.C., on Sept. 29,
2015.  In Olmstead the Supreme Court found the unjustified
segregation of people with disabilities is a form of unlawful
discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act.

While the parties mediated aspects of the case last year, the
state's reporting requirement on compliance with the terms of the
settlement was stayed.  As a result, a 113-page report submitted
Feb. 2 covered the period from May 1 - Sept. 30, 2015.

Judge Frank noted the state has developed a new "internal
structure" to monitor compliance with the settlement.

The Jensen Implementation Office, within the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, will develop a "Department Wide Quality
Assurance Plan, a Jensen Implementation Office specific Quality
Assurance Plan, expanded Jensen Internal Reviewer
responsibilities, and start[] the process for contracting with
Independent Subject Matter Experts," according to the report.

These experts will provide external evaluations of the state's
compliance with the plan, Frank wrote.  But he also expressed
concern, complaining the report does not go far enough to verify
its current compliance -- or set up a method to verify future
compliance in its updates.

"Verification information should be included in the body of the
report, in a separate table, or both, connecting the report
information to the verification steps," the judge said. "Providing
verification in the report itself will hopefully eliminate the
need for the Court or the Court Monitor to independently evaluate
the report content."

Frank's non-exhaustive list of examples included subject matter
expert evaluation of staff training and restraint use following
911 calls, and internal evaluation of community support services.

The judge also expressed concern that while several of the
"evaluation criteria" have been met, but there are no deadlines
for actions to meet the remaining criteria.

Frank ended by tasking the state with clearing "public
misconception" that the Olmstead plan and the Jensen settlement
will limit choices for people with disabilities.

The judge cautioned against this critical view of the programs
becoming a reality when he approved the Olmstead plan, advising
the state in his September ruling that the plan "is not about and
should not be construed as forcing the closure of certain
facilities or forcing integration where it is neither appropriate
nor desirable."

"Only when such misconceptions and fears are eliminated will the
Class members and individuals affected by this landmark settlement
agreement be able to say that their lives have truly improved,"
Frank wrote, noting that he has heard ongoing concerns from
individuals and families.

The parties will next meet for a status update on June 6, 2016.

The case captioned, James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians,
Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen;
James Brinker and Darren Allen, as parents, guardians, and next
friends of Thomas M. Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent,
guardian, and next friend of Jason R. Jacobs; and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Director,
Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota
Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota;
Clinical Director, the Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a
program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas Bratvold,
individually and as Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott TenNapel, individually
and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended Treatment
Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services,
an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the State of Minnesota,
Defendants., Civil No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.)


MIZUHO BANK: Ill. Judge Threatens to Move Bitcoin Suit to Calif.
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Gary Feinerman of the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division, denied a motion to dismiss the case
GREGORY GREENE and JOSEPH LACK, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. MIZUHO BANK, LTD. and
MARK KARPELES, Defendants, No. 14 C 1437 (N.D. Ill.)

Judge Feinerman, however, said the putative class counsel must
file by April 4, 2016, a third amended complaint naming as a
putative class representative an Illinois resident who is a member
of the so-called Deposit Subclass. If counsel fails to do so, the
case will be transferred to the Central District of California,
where plaintiff Joseph Lack resides and where Mizuho is subject to
personal jurisdiction.

Mt. Gox Bitcoin (Mt. Gox) is a digital payment system, and
bitcoins are the system's unit of account. Mt. Gox has its base in
Tokyo, Japan and Mark Karpeles was Mt. Gox's President, CEO, and
majority shareholder.

To fund their activities on the exchange, Mt. Gox users could
either (1) transfer bitcoins directly into their accounts at Mt.
Gox or (2) wire fiat currency (government-issued money, like
dollars and euros) to Mizuho Bank, which would deposit the money
into a bank account it held on behalf of Mt. Gox.  Mizuho Bank,
Ltd. (Mizuho), which is headquartered in Tokyo, earned service
fees from processing the wire deposits. To withdraw fiat currency,
a Mt. Gox user would make a request through her account at Mt.
Gox, which would send the request, along with the user's banking
details, to Mizuho, which in turn would transfer the requested
amount to the user's bank.

Gregory Greene is an Illinois resident who opened a Mt. Gox
account in 2012.

Joseph Lack, a California resident, did not join Mt. Gox until
January 22, 2014, about six months after Mizuho had barred all
withdrawals from its Mt. Gox account.  He wired $40,000 in fiat
currency from his local Wells Fargo branch to Mizuho on February
3, 2014, and Mizuho accepted the transfer.

On February 7, 2014, Karpeles halted all Mt. Gox users' ability to
withdraw bitcoins from the Mt. Gox Bitcoin exchange. On February
24, the Mt. Gox website became inaccessible, and on February 28,
Mt. Gox filed for bankruptcy protection in Japan.

Greene was unable to access approximately $25,000 in bitcoins from
his Mt. Gox account. Lack was unable to recover his $40,000 in
fiat currency from Mizuho, and that sum was not reflected in his
Mt. Gox account. Greene filed a suit against various Mt. Gox
entities and Karpeles, and then in an amended complaint added Lack
as a plaintiff and Mizuho among others, as a defendant. The case
was stayed for some time, and after a settlement attempt failed,
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed all defendants other than Mizuho
and Karpeles.

The operative complaint has seven counts. Counts I-III name only
Karpeles. Count IV is brought by Greene and Lack on behalf of the
entire putative class and alleges that Mizuho, in limiting
withdrawals from Mt. Gox's bank account, tortiously interfered
with plaintiffs' agreements with Mt. Gox by undermining Mt. Gox's
ability to do business. Counts V-VII are brought on behalf only of
Lack and the "Deposit Subclass," defined as those class members
who deposited fiat currency into their Mt. Gox accounts through
Mizuho after Mizuho had stopped processing withdrawals. Count V
alleges that Mizuho unjustly enriched itself by accepting
transaction fees in connection with incoming wire transfers from
Deposit Subclass members after it had halted Mt. Gox withdrawals
without disclosing that it had done so.  Count VI alleges that
Mizuho fraudulently concealed from Lack and the Deposit Subclass
that it had halted such withdrawals.  Count VII seeks an order
requiring Mizuho to provide a full and complete accounting of all
transactions or records relating to the deposit, transfer, and
processing of the Deposit Subclass's assets.

Mizuho moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction.

A copy of Judge Feinerman's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 14, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/XV5aRWfrom
Leagle.com.

Gregory Greene, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia Elaine Hwang --
ahwang@edelson.com -- Ari Jonathan Scharg -- ascharg@edelson.com
-- Christopher Lillard Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- Jay Edelson,
Edelson PC -- jedelson@edelson.com -- Alexander T.H. Nguyen --
anguyen@edelson.com -- Benjamin Scott Thomassen --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- John Aaron Lawson -- alawson@edelson.com
-- at Edelson P.C.; Robert A. Clifford -- rac@cliffordlaw.com --
Shannon Marie McNulty -- SMM@CliffordLaw.com -- at Clifford Law
Offices; Steven Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- at
Woodrow & Peluso, LLC; Scott Bennett Kitei -- skitei@honigman.com
-- at Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP

Joseph Lack, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Jonathan Scharg --
ascharg@edelson.com -- Alexander T.H. Nguyen --anguyen@edelson.com
-- John Aaron Lawson-- alawson@edelson.com -- at Edelson P.C.;
Steven Lezell Woodrow -- swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com -- at Woodrow
& Peluso, LLC

Mark Karpeles, Defendant, represented by Mark Karpeles

Mizuho Bank, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jason A. Frye --
jfrye@ngelaw.com -- Jonathan Stuart Quinn -- jquinn@ngelaw.com --
at Neal, Gerber & Eisenberg; Jeffrey Resetarits --
jeffrey.resetarits@shearman.com -- Jerome Steven Fortinsky --
jfortinsky@shearman.com -- John A. Nathanson --
john.nathanson@shearman.com -- at Shearman & Sterling LLP


MOM BRANDS: Sued in Illinois Over Misbranded Oatmeal
----------------------------------------------------
Mario Aliano, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Mom Brands Company, LLC, and Post Holdings, Inc., Case
No. 2016-CH-03879 (Ill. Cir., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop
Defendants from misrepresenting that their food products contain
maple syrup and/or maple sugar, when, in fact, maple syrup and
maple sugar are not ingredients in the products.

Mom Brands Company, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company,
which manufacture, market, distribute, and sell a variety of
BetterOats Maple & Brown Sugar instant oatmeal products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re., Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 440-0020
     Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
             amy@attorneyzim.com
             jordan@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorney.zim.com


MOMENTA PHARMACEUTICALS: Motion to Dismiss Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's
motion to dismiss and to transfer a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On October 14, 2015, The Hospital Authority of Metropolitan
Government of Nashville and Davidson County, Tennessee, d/b/a
Nashville General Hospital ("NGH") filed a class action suit
against us and Sandoz in the United States District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee on behalf of certain purchasers of
LOVENOX or generic enoxaparin sodium injection. The complaint
alleges that, in connection with filing the September 2011 patent
infringement suit against Amphastar and Actavis, we and Sandoz
sought to prevent Amphastar from selling generic enoxaparin sodium
injection and thereby exclude competition for generic enoxaparin
sodium injection in violation of federal anti-trust laws. NGH is
seeking injunctive relief, disgorgement of profits and unspecified
damages and fees.

"In December 2015, we and Sandoz filed a motion to dismiss and a
motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts. These motions are pending
before the court. While the outcome of litigation is inherently
uncertain, we believe this suit is without merit, and we intend to
vigorously defend ourself in this litigation,"

Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is a biotechnology company focused
on developing generic versions of complex drugs, biosimilars and
novel therapeutics for oncology and autoimmune disease.


MOUSTACHE COFFEE: Sued in Cal. Over Automatic Renewal Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Jarrod Secola, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. The Moustache Coffee Club, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. BC614268 (Cal.
Super., March 18, 2016) alleges that Defendants:

     -- made automatic renewal or continuous service offers to
        consumers in California and, at the time of making the
        automatic renewal or continuous service offers, failed to
        present the automatic renewal offer terms or continuous
        service offer terms, in a clear and conspicuous manner
        and in visual proximity to the request for consent to
        the offer before the subscription or purchasing agreement
        was fulfilled in violation of the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code;

     -- charged Plaintiff's credit or debit cards, or third-party
        account without first obtaining Plaintiff's affirmative
        consent to the agreement containing the automatic renewal
        offer terms or continuous service offer;

     -- failed to provide an acknowledgment that includes the
        automatic renewal or continuous service offer terms,
        cancellation policy, and information regarding how to
        cancel in a manner that is capable of being retained by
        the consumer.

As a result, the Complaint contends, all goods, wares,
merchandise, or products sent to Plaintiff under the automatic
renewal of continuous service agreements are deemed to be an
unconditional gift.

The Moustache Coffee Club, Inc. operates a website which markets
coffee and coffee-related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gillian L. Wade, Esq.
     MILSTEIN, ADELMAN, JACKSON, FAIRCHILD & WADE, LLP
     10250 Constellation Blvd.
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 396-9600
     E-mail: gwade@milsteinadelman.com

          - and -

     Scott J. Ferrell, Esq.
     Richard H. Hikida, Esq.
     David W. Reid, Esq.
     Victoria C. Knowles, Esq.
     NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP
     4100 Newport Place, Ste. 800
     Telephone: (949) 706-6464
     Facsimile: (949) 706-6469
     E-mail: sferrel@trialnewport.com
             rhikida@trialnewport.com
             dreid@trialnewport.com
             vknowles@trialnewport.com


MRI INTERNATIONAL: Nevada Judge Certifies Class in Ponzi Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in Nevada granted class certification to Japanese
investors who claim they were duped into investing in a Las Vegas-
based firm that was nothing more than a massive Ponzi scheme.

Nine Japanese investors sued MRI International Inc. its founder
and officers in federal court on July 5, 2013.

MRI International was founded in Las Vegas and operates a branch
office in Tokyo, Japan. It holds itself out as a firm dealing in
"medical account receivables" -- the account receivables that U.S.
medical providers hold against insurance providers.  But in their
complaint, the plaintiffs said despite assurances that their
investments were safe and managed by an independent escrow agent,
in reality, "MRI used the investors' money to pay off earlier
investors and fund its principals' lavish lifestyles."

In addition, the plaintiffs said, MRI International "misled
investors about U.S. regulatory and legal oversight and
guarantees; and lied to Japanese regulators who investigated the
scam."

The investors also claimed that by the time they filed their
lawsuit and asked the court to grant certification of a purported
class of 8,700, MRI International had "stopped paying . . . its
matured obligations" and its Las Vegas headquarters was empty.

U.S. District Judge Howard McKibben granted the sought class
certification, finding Shige Takiguchi and the other lead
plaintiffs had sufficiently demonstrated that a common class does
exist, and that defendant MRI International "makes common defense
arguments against individual claims."

McKibben said the potential plaintiff class is comprised of
between 4,000 and 8,000 people, who invested in MRI International
between July 5, 2008 and May 1, 2013, and expect a loss of
investments through the alleged scheme.

MRI International argued there is no way to prove on a class-wide
basis that individual plaintiffs relied on the representations it
made to them, but McKibben disagreed.

"Individual issues of reliance are no bar to finding commonality,"
and MRI International made the same core representations to
investors, including in written materials, the judge wrote.
"The sales pitch was thus virtually identical from investor to
investor," he said.

MRI International also argued individual plaintiffs do not
properly comprise a potential class, that a group of attorneys
have filed similar actions in Japan, and if those attorneys
prevail in Japan's courts, they are less likely to continue with
the case.

But McKibben found the argument "unpersuasive."

He said defendants have substantial assets in the United States,
which would be easier to collect, and MRI International's argument
"implicitly concedes" the class contains members and non-members
to the court actions in Japan.

McKibben also dismissed MRI International's claim that the
plaintiff class members lack credibility, and cited as proof 16 of
25 named plaintiffs did not attend or agree to attend depositions.

McKibben said the named plaintiffs have been reduced from 25 to 9,
thus rendering MRI International's argument moot.

McKibben certified the class, which consists of all people who
bought MRI International securities from July 5, 2008, through May
1, 2013, and were injured by defendants' actions.  He excluded
from the class 26 individuals who have existing court actions
against MRI International in Japan.

In a related criminal case, federal prosecutors last July charged
Edwin Fujinaga, of Las Vegas, and Junzo Suzuki and Paul Suzuki,
both of Tokyo, with eight counts of mail fraud and nine counts of
wire fraud.

Fujinaga also is charged with three counts of money-laundering.

Fujinaga and the Suzukis owe thousands of investors more than $1.5
billion for money they fraudulently solicited from 2009 to 2013,
U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden said in a statement.

The case captioned, Shige Takiguchi, Fumi Nonaka, Mitsuaki Takita,
Tatsuro Sakai, Shizuko Ishimori, Yuko Nakamura, Masaaki Moriya,
Hatsune Hatano, and Hidenao Takama, Individually and on Behalf of
All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, vs. MRI International,
Inc., Edwin J Fujinaga, Junzo Suzuki, Paul Musashi Suzuki, LVT,
Inc., dba Sterling Escrow, and Does 1-500, Defendants.,  2:13-cv-
01183-HDM-VCF (D. Nev.).


MSK MANAGEMENT: Violated FLSA & NJMWL, "Houssam" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Lahcen Houssam, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. MSK Management, LLC, Limited Liability
Company, Adams Pizza, Inc., Boonton Pizza Corporation,
Caldwell Pizza, Inc., Elizabeth Pizza, Incorporated, Haroon Pizza,
Inc., Jersey Pizza, Inc., Khan Enterprises, Inc., Leonia
Pizza, Inc., Nek Pizza Enterprises, Inc., Pachiot Pizza, Inc.,
Passaic Pizza, Inc., Plainfield Pizza, Inc., Shaan Enterprises,
Inc. and Does 1-30, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00932-MCA-MAH
(Dist. Newark Div., February 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
New Jersey Minimum Wage Law (NJMWL).

Defendants together have operated approximately 47 Domino's
franchise stores in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania. They
employ delivery drivers who use their own automobiles to deliver
pizzas and other food items to Defendants' customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jack D. McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL McINNES LLP
          601 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984 8101
          E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

               - and -

          Kenneth B. Fromson, Esq.
          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          E-mail: KFromson@lawampm.com
                  jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997 9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997 9170


MTC NOVO: Set to Take Over G4S amid Inmate Abuse Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Afua Hirsch, writing for Sky News, reports that England's troubled
young offender centers could be taken over by an American company
accused of managing prisons riddled with violence, corruption and
drugs.

Two "Security and Training Centres" (STCs) are being sold by
private security firm G4S, after evidence of abuse and neglect
emerged at its Medway centre in January, leading to the arrest of
five G4S officers.

Another STC in Rainsbrook in Northamptonshire has already been
taken away from G4S after inspectors found staff involved in drug
use and "racist and degrading" treatment last year.

Sky News has learned that one of the frontrunners to succeed G4S
is MTC Novo, part of a company currently named in legal action in
the US, where inmates claim they were abused.

MTC runs the East Mississippi Correctional Facility, a prison
described in legal documents as "an extraordinarily dangerous"
place.

Sky News has obtained CCTV footage from another MTC-run prison,
Walnut Grove, depicting inmates set upon by gangs and savagely
beaten.  Security staff are nowhere to be seen.

American civil liberties groups are backing litigation against
Mississippi, whose prisons were run by MTC at the time of some of
the allegations.

Yet MTC Novo has already won control of Rainsbrook, a centre
plagued by controversy since 15-year-old Gareth Myatt was killed
there following a restraint in 2004.

An inquest found failures in the running of the centre were partly
responsible for his death.

The prospect of MTC Novo succeeding G4S in running the centre is
causing growing concern.

"MTC has a pretty terrible record," said Carl Takei, attorney at
the American Civil Liberties Union.

"In 2015, a federal judge found that MTC had failed to take
adequate steps to protect the security of prisoners inside,
including by allowing prisoners to have their own gang escorts."

"It's disturbing that MTC would be able to expand in the UK, given
its record in the United States."

British human rights groups have written to the Youth Justice
Board, which manages the process of awarding STC contracts to
companies, highlighting MTC's track record in the US.

"The fact that they are looking to give this contract to a private
company which, as far as I'm aware, is under investigation in at
least one instance in the US, and in respect of a prison but also
a class action that's ongoing, it's very concerning," said Tabitha
Kassem from the Howard League for Penal Reform.

"I also think that this company as far as I'm aware has no
experience of running a residential establishment for vulnerable
children."

The Youth Justice Board said that it had rigorously assessed MTC
Novo, and that the company "met the Ministry of Justice
requirements in relation to capability, human rights and
equalities".

A Ministry of Justice spokesperson said: "The company submitted a
high quality tender which showed its extensive experience and
understanding in managing and rehabilitating young people."

MTC said it inherited pre-existing problems at the prisons it ran
in Mississippi, and that under its ownership violence, drug use
and disciplinary incidents had significantly reduced.

But the sale of G4S's STCs has raised wider questions about the
privatization of services for children.

Two young people detained at Medway said they experienced
mistreatment there seven years ago and felt abandoned by the
criminal justice and social care system.

"It's the worst place for a vulnerable child. There's no support
there for you," said Roni Moss, who served two sentences at Medway
and says she began self-harming after repeated restraints.

"It's not that we are bad and we wanted to be bad. It's actually
that we need help."

"A lot of the children there have been through some awful things,"
said Lela Xhemajli.

"So to go in there and not get support . . . you lose a lot of
faith in the system.

"It should be run by people who know how to deal with children."

Ms. Kassem said private companies were incapable of delivering
that kind of care for young offenders.

"Private companies are not fit for this purpose -- this is about
safeguarding vulnerable children. And when an organization is
running for profit, there is an inherent difficulty with that."

Defending its record, a spokesman for G4S told Sky News: "Our
commitment to the wellbeing of young people in our care continues
throughout the sale process, as demonstrated by the recent
inspection of G4S-managed Oakhill secure training centre by
Ofsted, which rated the centre as 'good'."


MULTI MOBILE IMAGING: Violated NYLL, "Cullen" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Susan Cullen, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Multi Mobile Imaging, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 701979/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.., County of Queens,
February 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid compensation,
liquidated damages, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs relating to Defendant's
alleged violations of the New York State Labor Law (NYLL).

Multi Mobile Imaging is a national mobile diagnostics company
offering physicians a portable, integrated medical solution.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David L. Scher, Esq.
          BLOCK O'TOOLE & MUPRHY, LLP
          One Penn Plaza, Suite 5315
          New York, NY 10119
          Telephone: (212) 736 5300


NABORS INDUSTRIES: Merger Class Action Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Nabors Industries Ltd. continues to defend a class action lawsuit
over the merger transaction with C&J Energy Services, Inc., Nabors
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015.

"On March 24, 2015, we completed the merger (the "Merger") of our
Completion & Production Services business with C&J Energy
Services, Inc. ("C&J Energy")," the Company said.

"On July 30, 2014, we and Red Lion, along with C&J Energy and its
board of directors, were sued in a putative shareholder class
action filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court of Chancery"). The plaintiff alleges that the members
of the C&J Energy board of directors breached their fiduciary
duties in connection with the Merger, and that Red Lion and C&J
Energy aided and abetted these alleged breaches. The plaintiff
sought to enjoin the defendants from proceeding with or
consummating the Merger and the C&J Energy stockholder meeting for
approval of the Merger and, to the extent that the Merger was
completed before any relief was granted, to have the Merger
rescinded.

"On November 10, 2014, the plaintiff filed a motion for a
preliminary injunction, and, on November 24, 2014, the Court of
Chancery entered a bench ruling, followed by a written order on
November 25, 2014, that (i) ordered certain members of the C&J
Energy board of directors to solicit for a 30 day period
alternative proposals to purchase C&J Energy (or a controlling
stake in C&J Energy) that were superior to the Merger, and (ii)
preliminarily enjoined C&J Energy from holding its stockholder
meeting until it complied with the foregoing. C&J Energy complied
with the order while it simultaneously pursued an expedited appeal
of the Court of Chancery's order to the Supreme Court of the State
of Delaware (the "Delaware Supreme Court").

"On December 19, 2014, the Delaware Supreme Court overturned the
Court of Chancery's judgment and vacated the order. This case
remains pending.

Nabors owns and operates the world's largest land-based drilling
rig fleet and is a leading provider of offshore platform workover
and drilling rigs in the United States and numerous international
markets.


NANTKWEST INC: Violated Exchange Act, "Sudunagunta" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sunil Sudunagunta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick
Soon-Shiong, Richard J. Tajak, Angela Wilson, and Richard Gomberg,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01947 (C.D. Cal, March 22, 2016),
seeks to recover damages caused by Defendants' violations of the
federal securities laws, and to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, the 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:
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; 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 facilities; the
Company lacked effective internal financial controls; and as a
result of the foregoing, NantKwest's public statements were
materially false and misleading.

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. Formerly known as
Conkwest, Inc., the Company was founded in 2002 and changed its
name to NantKwest, Inc. in July 2015. NantKwest is headquartered
in San Diego, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Joseph Alexander Hood, II, Esq.
          Jennifer Pafiti, Esq.
          Patrick V. Dahlstrom, Esq.
          POMERANTZ, LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          Facsimile: (212) 661 8665
          E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
                  ahood@pomlaw.com
                  jpafiti@pomlaw.com
                  pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

               - and -

          Michael Goldberg, Esq.
          Brian Schall, Esq.
          GOLDBERG LAW PC
          13650 Marina Pointe Dr. Ste. 1404
          Marina Del Rey, CA 90292
          Telephone: (800) 977 7401
          Facsimile: (800) 536 0065
          E-mail: michael@goldberglawpc.com
                  brian@goldberglawpc.com


NASDAQ, INC: Motion to Dismiss "Rabin" Suit Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is a
defendant in a putative class action, Rabin v. NASDAQ OMX PHLX
LLC, et al., No. 15-551 (E.D. Pa.) filed February 5, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania.  "Our motion to dismiss the complaint is currently
pending with the court. We believe the claims to be without merit
and intend to litigate them vigorously," the Company said.


NASDAQ, INC: Provides Update on Facebook IPO Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc., in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, provided update on In re Facebook, Inc.,
IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389 (S.D.N.Y.).

The Company said, "We became a party to several legal and
regulatory proceedings in 2012 and 2013 relating to the Facebook,
Inc. IPO that occurred on May 18, 2012. . . . we were named as a
defendant in a consolidated matter captioned In re Facebook, Inc.,
IPO Securities and Derivative Litigation, MDL No. 2389
(S.D.N.Y.)."

"On May 22, 2015, the parties executed a stipulation of
settlement, and on November 9, 2015, the trial court entered an
order approving the settlement.

"Facebook and other defendants in a separate class action alleging
securities fraud intervened in the proceeding relating to the
settlement for the purpose of clarifying its potential effect on
their own case, and have appealed one aspect of the court's order.
We and the class plaintiffs with whom we have settled had informed
the trial court that either the approved settlement language or
the alternative language being advocated by the Facebook
defendants is acceptable to the settling parties."

"In our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March
31, 2013, we identified a demand for arbitration from a member
organization seeking indemnification for alleged losses associated
with the Facebook IPO. In April 2015, we reached an agreement to
settle the claims asserted by the member organization by allowing
it to file a claim under the accommodation plan that had been
established for claims by other members.

"We established a reserve of $31 million to cover the costs of
these settlements. During the second half of 2015, we recorded an
insurance recovery which offset the loss reserve," the Company
said.

Nasdaq is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology,
regulatory, securities listing, information and public company
services across six continents.


NASDAQ, INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of Providence Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have appealed
the dismissal of the case, City of Providence v. BATS Global
Markets, Inc., et al.

"We also are named as one of many defendants in City of Providence
v. BATS Global Markets, Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 2811 (S.D.N.Y.),
which was filed on April 18, 2014 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York. The district court
appointed lead counsel, who filed an amended complaint on
September 2, 2014. The amended complaint names as defendants seven
national exchanges, as well as Barclays PLC, which operated a
private alternative trading system. On behalf of a putative class
of securities traders, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
engaged in a scheme to manipulate the markets through high-
frequency trading; the amended complaint asserts claims against us
under Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, as well as
under Section 6(b) of the Exchange Act. We filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint on November 3, 2014.

In response, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on
November 24, 2014, which names the same defendants and alleges
essentially the same violations. We then filed a motion to dismiss
the second amended complaint on January 23, 2015. The district
court heard oral argument on the motion on June 18, 2015. On
August 26, 2015, the district court entered an order dismissing
the second amended complaint in its entirety with prejudice,
concluding that most of the plaintiffs' theories were foreclosed
by absolute immunity and, in any event,  that the plaintiffs
failed to state any claim.

The plaintiffs have appealed the judgment of dismissal to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Given the
preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to estimate
what, if any, liability may result from this litigation. However,
we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to litigate
them vigorously.

Nasdaq is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology,
regulatory, securities listing, information and public company
services across six continents.


NASDAQ, INC: Oral Argument Held in 2nd Circuit Appeal
-----------------------------------------------------
Nasdaq, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit scheduled oral argument for March 3, 2016, in the
case Lanier v. BATS Exchange Inc., et al.

"We are named as one of many exchange defendants in Lanier v. BATS
Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3745 (S.D.N.Y.), Lanier v. BATS
Exchange Inc., et al., 14 Civ. 3865 (S.D.N.Y.), and Lanier v. Bats
Exchange Inc., 14 Civ. 3866 (S.D.N.Y.), which were filed between
May 23, 2014 and May 30, 2014 in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York," the Company said.

The plaintiff is the same in each of these cases, and the three
complaints contain substantially similar allegations. On behalf of
a putative class of subscribers for market data provided by
national exchanges, the plaintiff alleges that the exchanges
provided data more quickly to certain market participants than to
others, supposedly in breach of the exchanges' plans for
dissemination of market data and subscriber agreements executed
under those plans. The complaint asserts contractual theories
under state law based on these alleged breaches.

On September 29, 2014, we filed a motion to dismiss the
complaints. The district court heard oral argument on the motion
on January 16, 2015. On April 28, 2015, the district court entered
an order dismissing the complaints in their entirety with
prejudice, concluding that they are foreclosed by the Exchange Act
and, in any event, do not state a claim under the contracts. The
plaintiff has appealed the judgment of dismissal to the United
States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The Second Circuit
has scheduled oral argument for March 3, 2016.

Given the preliminary nature of the proceedings, we are unable to
estimate what, if any, liability may result from this litigation.
However, we believe the claims to be without merit and intend to
litigate them vigorously.

Nasdaq is a provider of trading, clearing, exchange technology,
regulatory, securities listing, information and public company
services across six continents.


NATIONAL FINANCIAL: Debtor Proves Loan to be Unconscionable
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case GLORIA JAMES, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendant, C.A. No. 8931-VCL (Del. Ch.), Vice Chancellor J. Travis
Laster of the Court of Chancery of Delaware favored plaintiff and
declared the loan to be invalid.

Gloria James is a resident of Wilmington, Delaware. From 2007
through 2014, James worked in the housekeeping department at the
Hotel DuPont. As a part-time employee, her hours varied. On
average, after taxes, James took home approximately $1,100 per
month.

Defendant National Financial, LLC (National) is a consumer finance
company that operates under the trade name Loan Till Payday.

In May 2013, James obtained a loan from National for $200, were
James earned $11.83 per hour. National described the loan product
as a Flex Pay Loan. In substance, it was a one-year, non-
amortizing, unsecured cash advance.

James thought she was getting a payday loan with a block rate of
$30 on $100. As James understood it, she would pay $60 to borrow
the $200, but, National was no longer making traditional payday
loans. Effective January 1, 2013, the General Assembly amended
Delaware's statutory framework for closed-end consumer credit to
impose limits on payday loans. Despite shifting to longer-dated
installment loans, National continued to frame its finance charges
using a block rate. National adhered to the practice since it made
a high cost loan product sound cheaper than it was.

The terms of the loan called for James to make 26, bi-weekly,
interest-only payments of $60, followed by a 27th payment
comprising both interest of $60 and the original principal of
$200. The total repayments added up to $1,820, representing a cost
of credit of $1,620. James defaulted. After National rejected her
request for a workout agreement, she filed an action seeking to
rescind the loan.

On September 20, 2013, after voluntarily dismissing her federal
action, James filed a lawsuit on behalf of herself and other
similarly situated borrowers. Count I of the complaint sought a
permanent injunction barring National from collecting on the loans
made to James and other class members. Count II sought a
declaration that the terms of National's loan documents were
unconscionable. Count III alleged that National breached the
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing inherent in the
loan agreements. Count IV alleged that National unjustly enriched
itself at the expense of the class members. Count V alleged
violations of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, 6 Del. C. Sections
2511-2527. James later dropped Counts IV and V.

On October 10, 2013, National moved to compel arbitration.
National also sought to dismiss the complaint under the creative
theory that James could not state a claim for a class action. Vice
Chancellor Laster denied the motion to dismiss, noting that James
had opted out of arbitration and that National's arguments against
class certification were premature. James moved for Rule 11
sanctions and the same was granted.

On May 6, 2014, James filed an amended complaint that added a
claim that National violated the federal Truth in Lending Act
("TILA"), 15 U.S.C. Section 1501 et seq., by failing to accurately
disclose APRs on its loan agreements. She proved at trial that the
disputed loan was unconscionable, resulting in an order of
rescission. She also proved that National violated the federal
Truth in Lending Act.

Vice Chancellor Laster held that the loan is invalid and entered
judgment in favor of James in the amount of $3,237. Pre- and post-
judgment interest on the amount will accrue at the legal rate,
compounded quarterly, beginning on May 7, 2013. James is awarded
her attorneys' fees and costs. Counsel shall submit a Rule 88
affidavit. If the parties can agree on an amount, they shall
submit a form of final order and judgment that is agreed as to
form. Otherwise they shall propose a schedule for a fee
application.

A copy of Vice Chancellor Laster's opinion dated March 14, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/k6xBmLfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Gloria James, represented by, Richard H. Cross, Jr. --
rcross@crosslaw.com -- Christopher P. Simon -- csimon@crosslaw.com
-- at CROSS & SIMON, LLC; Alexander J. Pires, Jr. -- Diane E.
Cooley -- at PIRES COOLEY

Defendant National Financial, LLC, represented by:

     Edward T. Ciconte, Esq.
     Daniel C. Kerric, Esq.
     CICONTE, SCERBA & KERRICK, LLC
     1300 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Telephone: 302-658-7101
     Facsimile: 302-658-4982

National Financial is also represented by Kenneth M. Dubrow, Esq.,
at The Chartwell Law Offices.


NATIONWIDE CREDIT: Settlement in "Good" Suit Wins Final Approval
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania granted final approval of the class action settlement
in the case, BRADLEY GOOD et al., Plaintiffs, v. NATIONWIDE
CREDIT, INC., Defendant, Civil Action No. 14-4295 (E.D. Pa.)

On September 9, 2013, Nationwide Credit, Inc. (Nationwide) sent
plaintiff Edward K. Soucek a dunning letter on behalf of creditor
GE Capital Retail Bank offering to settle his account for less
than the amount owed. The letter included the following language:
"GE CAPITAL RETAIL BANK is required to file a form 1099C with the
Internal Revenue Service for any cancelled debt of $600 or more.
Please consult your tax advisor concerning any tax questions."

On December 10, 2013, Nationwide sent plaintiff Bradley Good a
similar letter on behalf of creditor American Express. The letter
included the following language: "American Express is required to
file a form 1099C with the Internal Revenue Service for any
cancelled debt of $600 or more. Please consult your tax advisor
concerning any tax questions.

Plaintiffs filed a complaint and claim that the language is false
and misleading and constitute a collection ploy in violation of
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Section
1692e in its entirety. The complaint proposed a class comprised of
all persons with addresses in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania who
were sent one or more collection letters from defendant that
included the challenged statement or a substantially identical
statement.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss which the court denied.
Through discovery, plaintiffs learned that defendant sent
collection letters containing the challenged statement on behalf
of its clients GE Capital Bank and American Express from September
2012 to July 1, 2015.  Defendant mailed such letters to
approximately 15,225 Pennsylvania consumers in the one-year period
preceding plaintiffs' filing of their Complaint.

In May 2015, the parties informed the court that they had reached
a class-wide settlement in principle. Plaintiffs moved for
preliminary approval of their proposed settlement and class
certification, which the court granted after some amendments.

Plaintiffs filed an uncontested motion for final approval of
amended class settlement and for approval of attorneys' fees and
costs.

Judge Robreno granted the motion for final approval of the
settlement and granted plaintiffs' attorney's fees and costs in
the amount of $125,000. Named plaintiffs shall receive $1,000 as
an incentive award.

A copy of Judge Robreno's memorandum dated March 14, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/LCGyC7from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Cary L. Flitter, Esq.
     Andrew M. Milz, Esq.
     FLITTER MILZ, P.C.
     450 N. Narberth Avenue, Suite 101
     Narberth, PA 19072
     Telephone: 610-266-7863
     Facsimile: 610-667-0552

          - and -

     CARLO SABATINI, Esq.
     SABATINI LAW FIRM LLC
     216 North Blakely St.
     Dunmore, PA 18512
     Telephone: 570-341-9000

Nationwide Credit, Inc., Defendant, represented by Alfred W.
Putnam, Jr. -- Alfred.Putnam@dbr.com -- Andrew P. Reeve --
Andrew.Reeve@dbr.com -- at Drinker Biddle & Reath Llp; Clay J.
Pierce at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP


NDO AMERICA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Juni" Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Natividad Juni, an individual, individually and on behalf of
herself and on behalf of others similarly situated v. NDO America,
Inc., Does 1 through 20, inclusive, Case No. CIV537848 (Cal.
Super., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay proper wages and overtime compensation in violation
of California Labor Code.

NDO America, Inc., is engaged in the business of transport,
logistics and freight forwarding.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     G. Eric Lambdin, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF G. ERIC LAMBDIN
     980 9th Street, 16th Floor, #1728
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Telephone: (530) 924-0221
     Facsimile: (530) 924-0844


NEW ENGLAND COMPOUNDING: Settles Meningitis Class Suit for $10.5M
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that the federal government and defendants
have reached a settlement for the case of meningitis outbreak in
2012.  The outbreak is known to have infected more hundreds of
people.

According to Fox 17 Online, a settlement has been agreed in the
class-action lawsuit filed for Michigan Clinic over a 2012 fungal
meningitis outbreak.  The outbreak infected more than 750 people
in 20 states and killed 64 people.  The deal that was reached on
March 25 will cover the 311 patients of Michigan Pain Specialists.
The survivors of the outbreak is set to share the $10.5 million
settlement money.

The patients of Genoa Township clinic were injected with tainted
steroids for pain, as reported by CBS Detroit.  However, the
steroid solution was a mixture from Framingham, Massachusetts and
then shipped to other states.

Attorney of the clinic, Randy Hackney, told the press that the
settlement was a fair offer.  The patients are also under a $210
million settlement involving the Massachusetts center.  The
patients received injection with preservative-free
methylprednisolone acetate prepared by the New England Compounding
Center located in the Framingham.

Detroit Free Press wrote that the contaminated steroid solution
was generally used in treatments for people with back pain.  Even
Judge David Reader stated that he was injected with such steroid
to relieve his back pain.  However, he added that the treatment
was done several years ago before the outbreak.

Meanwhile, patients and survivors signed individual agreements to
settlement terms with a pledge not to bring any further actions
against the clinic.  Though, it was not a requirement, it was the
key to reaching the said amount.  The two-year court proceedings
saw the patients expressed their concerns on when they would
receive their payment as many will face medical costs.  These
medical costs are being feared to exceed their insurance coverage
while other said that they are concerned if the infections will
affect their health in the future.


NEW GENERATION DONUTS: Ex-Employees Fail to Win Conditional Cert.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV of the District of
Massachusetts denied plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification in the case PAMELA PIKE and SALLY ZISCHKE,
individually and as representatives of a proposed collective
action, Plaintiffs, v. NEW GENERATION DONUTS, LLC, CADETE
ENTERPRISES, INC., and JOHN CADETE, individually and in his
capacity as manager, Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-12226-FDS (D.
Mass.)

Sally Zischke worked as a Dunkin' Donuts store manager in
Massachusetts from November 2009 to June 2011 while Pamela Pike
worked in the same position at a different Dunkin' Donuts store
from March 2011 to May 2011. Both Dunkin' Donuts stores were
franchises owned and operated by two corporate entities, the New
Generation Donuts, LLC and Cadete Enterprises, Inc. whose common
president is John Cadete.

Pursuant to agreements that they signed with Cadete Enterprises,
Pike and Zischke were expected to work no less than a six day, 48
hour work week. However, plaintiffs contend that they frequently
worked seven days and more than 60 hours per week because they
were forced to cover the shifts of absent hourly employees.

On October 15, 2012, Pike and Zischke filed suit in state court
alleging that defendants violated the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Section 207(a), by misclassifying them as exempt
employees and refusing to pay them overtime. The complaint also
alleged state-law claims for intentionally failing to pay
plaintiffs their earned hourly wages as required by the
Massachusetts Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 149, Section 148, and
intentionally failing to pay them overtime wages as required by
the Massachusetts Fair Minimum Wage Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 151,
Section 1A. Plaintiffs did not, however, file notices of consent
to pursue a collective action under 29 U.S.C. Section 216(b).

Defendants removed the case to the present court and on January
16, 2013, the parties filed a joint motion to stay the case
pending the outcome of a related action, Marzuq v. Cadete
Enterprises, Inc., No. 11-cv-10244-FDS, which was scheduled for a
summary judgment hearing in April 2013.

In January 2016, the stay was lifted when the First Circuit issued
its opinion in Marzuq. On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed
notices of consent pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Section 256(b) and moved
to conditionally certify a collective action pursuant to 29 U.S.C.
Section 216(b).

Defendants contend that the motion should be denied because, among
other reasons, the two-year limitations period for non-willful
FLSA violations expired before plaintiffs commenced their
collective action by filing notices of consent. Plaintiffs contend
that the court should equitably toll the limitations period
because the case was stayed.

Judge Saylor denied plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification.

A copy of Judge Saylor's memorandum and order dated February 20,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/fQZwdLfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Benjamin Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- at
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C

Defendants, represented by Nicholas B Carter --
ncarter@toddweld.com -- Maria T. Davis -- mdavis@toddweld.com --
at Todd & Weld LLP


NEW JERSEY: Supreme Court Hears Arguments in Retirees' COLA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Booth, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the New Jersey Supreme Court heard arguments March 14 over whether
a 1997 pension law guarantees yearly cost-of-living adjustments to
pensions received by retired state and local public-sector
workers.

The administration of Republican Gov. Chris Christie asked the
justices to overturn an Appellate Division ruling in Berg v.
Christie that said the 1997 statute created non-forfeitable COLAs.

Conversely, the lead plaintiffs, 26 retired attorneys who
previously worked for state or local governments, urged the court
to affirm the appeals court's ruling, saying the Legislature
purposefully used the statute to guarantee pension benefits and
COLAs.  Public-sector unions filed a separate lawsuit and the
Supreme Court has consolidated the cases.

The court will have to determine if the COLA portion of
Gov. Christie's landmark 2011 pension reform statute known as
Chapter 78 -- which guaranteed that the state would fully fund
financially troubled pension plans in exchange for an increase in
contributions from public-sector workers and a COLA freeze -- is
enforceable.

The court, in a divided ruling last year in Burgos v. Christie,
sided against public-sector unions and with Christie.
Gov. Christie had initially championed Chapter 78 but later argued
that its funding mandate was unconstitutional after diverting $2.5
billion from the scheduled pension fund payments to balance the
state's budget.

In February, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the unions'
appeal of the 5-2 Burgos ruling, which was written by Justice
Jaynee LaVecchia.

The pension funds currently have an unfunded liability of about
$89 billion, and Moody's Investors Services has told the state
that if the court rules in favor of the Berg plaintiffs, it could
expand the unfunded liability by about $13 billion.

Assistant Attorney General Jean Reilly said that, like in Burgos,
future legislatures cannot be bound by statutes created by earlier
legislatures that contractually require them to make certain
appropriations.

"The sovereign power to set policy cannot be surrendered,"
Ms. Reilly said.

Only the voters, through constitutional amendments, can require
future legislatures to make appropriations, she argued.
"The stakes are so high," Ms. Reilly said.

A ruling in the plaintiffs' favor, she said, would lead to
"drastic limitations on the power of the state."

Appellate Division Judge Mary Cuff, temporarily assigned, asked
whether the state could ever move to eliminate COLAs altogether.
Reilly said that since that wasn't the issue here, that question
hasn't been researched.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wins Appeal in Suit Over Infiniti SUVs
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff D. Gorman, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Nissan's claims about its vehicles' high quality should not have
caused it to lose a class action lawsuit related to dashboard
bubbling, a Missouri appeals court ruled.

Nissan began to receive complaints about the dashboard of its
Infiniti FX sport utility vehicle in 2005. The company offered an
extended warranty in 2010.

Before Nissan made this offer, Robert Hurst filed a class-action
lawsuit for violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices
Act.

The trial court certified a class of drivers who owned an Infiniti
FX35 or FX45 from the model years 2003 through 2008.

At trial, class member Susan Oelke said she had expected the
Infiniti to be a "higher quality" vehicle after learning about it
from commercials and the marketing materials at the Nissan
dealership.  Other class members made similar statements that they
thought the Infiniti FX would be an "upscale," "luxury" vehicle.

Nathan Lyst, senior manager of Infiniti marketing communications,
testified that Nissan was trying to market the FX as a "very
refined" vehicle featuring "premium automotive machinery."

Hurst prevailed in the lawsuit, and the court ordered Nissan to
pay $2,000 to each of the 326 members of the class. The plaintiffs
were also awarded a total of $1.8 million in attorney's fees.

Nissan appealed, arguing that its statements about the cars'
quality were inactionable puffery.

The Missouri Court of Appeals agreed and reversed the lower
court's ruling in a decision written by Judge James E. Welsh.  He
explained that advertisers are allowed some latitude for the
"puffing of wares" without fear of having to defend their claims
in court.

"Thus, a pasta maker may declare that it is 'America's Favorite
Pasta' and Papa John's may proclaim 'Better Ingredients, Better
Pizza' without incurring liability," Welsh wrote.

He added, "Indeed, to hold Nissan liable in this case under the
MMPA would result in Nissan being liable to consumers because the
consumers deemed their expectations unmet and would essentially
obviate Nissan's limited warranty because basically everything
would be guaranteed forever."

Also, Welsh noted, the plaintiffs are no longer entitled to
attorney fees because they are not the prevailing party.

The case captioned, ROBERT HURST, Respondent, v. NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Appellant., WD78665 (Mo. Ct. App.).


NQ MOBILE: May 21 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Notice of class action lawsuit filing on March 3, 2016 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York, Daniel Finocchiaro, et al. v. NQ Mobile, Omar Sharif Khan,
Matthew Mathison, Civil Action No.:1:15-cv-06385-NRB, on behalf of
all purchasers of NQ Mobile, Inc. ("NQ" or "the Company") from
January 1, 2014 through May 15, 2015, inclusive "the Class
Period").  The Complaint alleges failure to disclose adverse facts
and false and misleading disclosures during the Class Period,
specifically that Defendants violated US securities laws by
misrepresenting the financial condition of NQ and making material
omissions by failing to disclose private acquisitions in 2014,
drastically diluting share value, when a public buyout offer from
Bison Capital, Inc. was made, in months leading up to the six
months delayed 2013 20F filing on October 27, 2014, in addition to
subsequent misleading statements and disclosures, all made with
scienter and proximately caused economic loss to investors, and
Defendants actions and omissions resulted in artificially inflated
stock prices during the Class Period, when there was a presumption
of reliance on the market. If you purchased NQ stock during the
Class Period, then you have until May 21, 2016, to move the Court
to serve as lead plaintiff, if you choose to do so.


NU SKIN: Reached Settlement of Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, that
on February 22, 2016, the Company entered into a Settlement Term
Sheet (the "Agreement") in potential settlement of the previously
reported putative securities class action consolidated lawsuit
captioned In re Nu Skin Enterprises, Inc. Sec. Litig., No. 2:14-
cv-00033-JNP-BCW. The litigation was brought against the Company
and certain of the Company's officers (collectively, the
"Defendants") on behalf of a class consisting of persons or
entities that publicly traded the Company's common stock during
the period from May 4, 2011 through January 17, 2014 and were
allegedly damaged thereby.

The terms of the Agreement provide for, among other things, a
settlement payment by or on behalf of the Company of $47 million.
The settlement payment is expected to be entirely funded by the
Company's insurers, and as a result, the Company does not expect
to incur a net charge to its income statement in respect thereof.

The Agreement does not constitute an admission of wrongdoing by
any of the Defendants, and in connection with the settlement, the
parties have agreed to execute mutually agreeable releases. The
settlement remains subject to court approval and may be cancelled
by the Defendants at their election in certain limited
circumstances. Final court approval of the settlement is expected
to occur in mid-2016 but could be delayed by circumstances beyond
the Company's control. Upon final approval of the settlement by
the court, the litigation will be dismissed, with prejudice.


OCWEN LOAN: Illegally Collects Data, "Mares" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------
Frank Mares and Joann Mares, individuals, on their own behalf and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ocwen Loan
Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited company, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, Case No. BC614358 (Cal. Super., March 18, 2016),
alleges that Defendants acquired consumers' credit reports despite
the absence of any credit or business relationship that would
justify invasion of privacy.

Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
is a large mortgage servicer and services tens or hundreds of
thousands of mortgages in California.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     David C. Parisi, Esq.
     Suzanne Havens Beckman, Esq.
     PARISI & HAVENS LLP
     212 Marine Street, Suite 100
     Santa Monica, CA 90405
     Telephone: (818) 990-1299
     Facsimile: (818) 501-7852
     E-mail: dcparisi@parisihavens.com
             shavens@parisihavens.com

          - and -

     Ethan Preson, Esq.
     PRESTON LAW OFFICES
     4054 McKinney Avenue, Suite 310
     Dallas, TX 75204
     Telephone: (972) 564-8340
     Facsimile: (866) 509-1197
     E-mail: ep@eplaw.us


OHIO: Two Bills Against "Tampon Tax" Pending Amid Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Randy Ludlow, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
Ohio's "tampon tax" is under attack, both legally and
legislatively, as discriminatory against women.

A lawsuit filed in the Ohio Court of Claims this month seeks
class-action status, an end to the collection of sales tax on
feminine hygiene products and the refund of at least $66 million
to female consumers.

Two bills pending in the House of Representatives also would end
the taxation of tampons and pads, which Rep. Greta Johnson,
D-Akron, calls "a medical necessity -- not a luxury item."

The lawsuit filed on behalf of four Cleveland-area women claims
the sales tax on the hygiene products violates the equal
protection clause of both the U.S. and Ohio constitutions.  "A tax
on tampons and pads is a tax on women," the complaint reads.

Ohio exempts prescription drugs, durable medical equipment and
similar items from the sales tax. The U.S. Food and Drug
Administration classifies tampons and pads as "medical devices,"
but 40 states continue to tax them.

Based on 3 million women spending $70 each a year on hygiene
products, the lawsuit estimates the state's 5.4 percent share of
the sales tax brings in about $11 million a year and seeks the
return of taxes collected during at least the past six years.
Under that scenario, the state sales tax amounts to less than $4 a
woman. Local sales taxes can tack on up to 3.35 percent more.

"It really is unequal protection and discriminatory," said
Sandra Kelly, a Cleveland lawyer involved in the lawsuit.  "I
can't imagine something else that is medically necessary for women
that is taxed."

The Ohio Department of Taxation, the defendant in the lawsuit,
does not comment on pending litigation, a spokesman said.

Rep. Johnson, the mother of two daughters, is sponsor of one of
the bills to abolish the tampon tax.  "It is a disparate tax
because it doesn't happen to men," she said.  "We have to do
things to address the cost of being a woman, particularly in the
state of Ohio."

The second bill also would exempt non-prescription drugs and
disposable baby diapers from the sales tax.

President Barack Obama has objected to the tampon tax this year,
saying, "I have to tell you, I have no idea why states would tax
these as luxury items.  I suspect it's because men were making the
laws when those taxes were passed."

Republican Gov. John Kasich, a father of twin girls who is running
for Obama's job, also declined to comment because of the pending
lawsuit, a spokesman said.


PATRIOT SOLAR: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Arrieta" Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Emilio Arrieta, and other similarly situated individuals v.
Patriot Solar Group LLC, a Foreign Limited Liability Company,
individually, Case No. CACE16005079 (Fla. Cir., March 21, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
compensation in violation of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Patriot Solar Group LLC, operates as a racking manufacturing
company in the solar industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Anthony M. Georges-Pierre
     REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
     44 West Flagler St., Suite 2200
     Miami, FL 33130
     Telephone: 305-416-5000
     Facsimile: 305-416-5005


PELLA CORP: Faces "Cooks" Suit Over Defective Series Windows
------------------------------------------------------------
SYLVIA R. COOKS, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pella Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00232-JTT-KK (W.D. La., February 19,
2016), seeks to recover damages for Defendant's intentional
concealment or failure to disclose material facts on the poor
quality and short life of the Architect Series Windows.

Pella designs, manufactures, markets, advertises, warrants, and
sell its Pella Architect series Windows to the general public. The
Defendant is an Iowa Corporation conducting business in Louisiana
and throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew A. Lemmon, Esq.
          Irma L. Netting, Esq.
          LEMMON LAW FIRM, L.L.C.
          P.O. BOX 904
          Hahnville, LA 70057
          Telephone: (985) 783 6789
          Facsimile: (985) 783 1333
          E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com
                  irma@lemmonlawfirm.com


PHILIPS RESPIRONICS: Settles Mask Kickback Claims for $34.8MM
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a company that makes breathing
masks for people with sleep apnea has agreed to pay $34.8 million
to settle claims it paid kickbacks to suppliers that sold its
products.

Philips Respironics Inc. of Murrysville provided free customer
support through its medSage call center to suppliers whose
customers used Respironics masks.  Suppliers that sold masks made
by competitors had to pay for the call center services, which made
the suppliers more likely to use Respironics masks, according to
the U.S. Department of Justice, which announced the settlement on
March 23.

Kickbacks "in any form to induce patient referrals threatens
public confidence in the health care system," said Benjamin Mizer,
who handled the litigation for the Justice Department.

The masks can be covered by Medicaid or Medicare programs, and
it's against the law to induce medical suppliers to use a
particular company's product for any government-covered medical
service, the Justice Department said.

Dr. Gibran Ameer, a South Carolina pharmacist who has worked for
various medical supply companies, filed a whistleblower lawsuit in
federal court two years ago and will receive nearly $5.4 million
under the settlement. The federal government will receive more
than $28.7 million.  Philips Respironics will also pay about
$660,000 to cover claims by state Medicaid programs.

The Justice Department, 29 states and the District of Columbia
joined the lawsuit.

Alicia Cafardi, a spokeswoman for Philips Respironics, said the
company had a "good-faith belief" that it wasn't doing anything
wrong when it "bundled" the call center service in the price of
its sleep apnea masks.

The government called that fictitious, saying suppliers paid
nothing extra for their Respironics masks but were charged 99
cents a month for each patient with a non-Respironics mask who
used the call center service.  The call center contacted patients
with sleep apnea who used any breathing machine to remind them to
regularly replace masks, tubes and filters that are part of their
devices.

That means a supplier saved $11.88 per year for each patient that
used a Respironics mask.  A supplier that had 10,000 patient
customers would save $118,800 annually if they sold Respironics
masks instead of a competitor's, the government said in the
lawsuit.

Dr. Ameer was an executive for one such medical supplier when
Philips Respironics tried to sell that arrangement to his company,
according to his attorney, Andrew Melling.

"Dr. Ameer recognized that what was being offered was kickbacks,"
Melling said.

Ms. Cafardi said Philips Respironics has since "made a business
decision" to restructure the call center pricing.

Medical supply companies who use the medSage call center service
now pay a flat monthly price for each patient, regardless of
whether the patient uses a Respironics mask, Ms. Cafardi said.


PIXAR: Ordered to Hand Over Ex-GC Emails in "No-Poach" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Ruiz, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal judge
has ordered Pixar to hand over communications involving its former
general counsel for in-camera review in a case that accuses the
Disney-owned animation studio of masterminding a web of anti-
competitive recruiting pacts.

Siding with plaintiffs lawyers, U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal
said the crime-fraud exception may apply to the communications of
Lois Scali, a former Irell & Manella partner who served as Pixar's
general counsel from 2003 to 2007.  The documents had been
withheld by Pixar citing attorney-client privilege, but plaintiffs
lawyers argued that they were made in furtherance of an illegal
conspiracy to restrain competition for labor and suppress wages.

"The evidence showing Scali's involvement in Pixar's alleged
conspiracy suggests that plaintiffs are reasonable and in good
faith in believing that Pixar was engaged in or planning a
criminal or fraudulent scheme when it sought Scali's advice to
further that scheme," Judge Grewal wrote in an order issued on
March 23.  Pixar, represented by Covington & Burling and Keker &
Van Nest, has until April 1 to hand over the documents.

Judge Grewal pointed to several email chains submitted into
evidence that included Ms. Scali.  In one 2005 email, Ms. Scali
alerted recipients that she was planning to hire a lawyer into her
department from Lucasfilm Ltd. "Naturally, we will observe our
usual protocol of talking to appropriate folks at Lucas before
officially moving forward, but we are hopeful that Lucas is
agreeable," Ms. Scali wrote.

Ms. Scali, who supervised Pixar's top human resources executive,
has been inactive with the State Bar of California since 2009.
Covington partner Emily Johnson Henn -- ehenn@cov.com -- and Keker
partner John Keker -- jkeker@kvn.com -- did not return calls
seeking comment.

Plaintiffs in In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, 14-
4062, are visual-effects artists who claim they were harmed by
illegal "no-poach" agreements that involved Pixar and other
animation companies.

Judge Grewal's order follows a discovery motion that was filed in
February by co-lead plaintiffs attorneys at Cohen Milstein Sellers
& Toll; Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro; and Susman Godfrey. Hagens
Berman partner Steve Berman and Cohen Milstein partner Daniel
Small did not return calls seeking comment.

In the motion, the lawyers argued that Ms. Scali, a member of
Pixar's top executive team, was not only privy to the no-hire
pacts, but that she "personally implemented the conspiracy."  They
used emails to support their contention that Ms. Scali was
directly involved in the hiring policy.

In one email cited by plaintiffs lawyers, a Pixar producer warned
Ms. Scali and other executives about employees that almost left
the company for jobs with Sony Corp.  The producer referenced a
plan to have someone "call the Sony women and remind them of our
gentleman's agreement not to raid each other and to let us know
when we are talking with key employees."

The text of another 2005 email, sent to Ms. Scali by Pixar's then-
CEO Steve Jobs, was fully redacted aside from the subject line,
"Fwd: Disney trying to hire Pixar employees."

That is evidence, the plaintiffs team wrote, that Ms. Scali was
deeply involved in the alleged conspiracy and that attorney-client
privilege should be pierced.

"The justice system has a strong incentive to ferret out crime-
fraud issues involving in-house counsel to ensure the fox is not
guarding the henhouse," their brief states.

As the dispute intensified, Pixar's lawyers vigorously opposed
even in-camera review, accusing their opponents of seeing to
"cripple" the attorney-client privilege.

In a series of emails between the sides, one Covington lawyer
insisted that there had been no crime to trigger the crime-fraud
exception, and that asking a judge to review documents that could
establish such a crime would encroach on the central merits of the
case.


PRA GROUP: Settlement Reached in TCPA Litigation
------------------------------------------------
A settlement has been reached in litigation alleging violation sof
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, PRA Group, Inc. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company has been named as defendant in a number of putative
class action cases, each alleging that the Company violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA") by calling consumers'
cellular telephones without their prior express consent. On
December 21, 2011, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multi-District
Litigation entered an order transferring these matters into one
consolidated proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of California (the "Court"). On November 14,
2012, the putative class plaintiffs filed their amended
consolidated complaint in the matter, now styled as In re
Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC Telephone Consumer Protection
Act Litigation, case No. 11-md-02295 (the "MDL action").

Following the ruling of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission
on June 10, 2015 on various petitions concerning the TCPA, the
Court lifted the stay of these matters that had been in place
since May 20, 2014. In January 2016, the parties reached a
settlement agreement in principle under which the parties have
agreed to seek court approval of class certification and the
proposed settlement.

The Company has fully accrued for the settlement amount as of
December 31, 2015. During the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014
and 2013, the amounts charged to earnings through Outside fees and
services expense, related to the accrual for this matter were $8.0
million, $0 and $1.2 million, respectively. The 2015 amount is net
of expected insurance proceeds.

Headquartered in Norfolk, Virginia and incorporated in Delaware,
PRA Group is a leading company in the acquisition and collection
of nonperforming loans in the Americas and Europe.


PRIMERO AUTO: "Carvajal" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wage Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Luis M. Carvajal, and other similarly situated employees by and
through the undersigned counsel, Plaintiff, v. Primero Auto Parts,
Inc. and Emilio Bruscantini, individually, and Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-20619-PAS (S.D. Fla. Miami Div., February 20, 2016),
seeks to recover money damages for unpaid overtime wages under the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Primero Auto Parts is a small organization in the auto and home
supply stores industry located in Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


PRIORITY WORKFORCE: Violated Labor Code, "Garcia" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Garcia, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Priority Workforce, Inc., a California
corporation, Bonert's Incorporated, a California corporation; and
Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS
(S.D. Fla., February 18, 2016), seeks to recover overtime and
minimum wages, premium wages for missed meal and rest periods,
penalties, and reasonable attorneys' fees and cost, pursuant to
the California Business and Professions Code, and Labor Code, and
the California Code of Regulations.

Since 1989, PriorityWorkforce has provided professional staffing
solutions throughout Southern California, Northern California,
Arizona, Nevada and Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Mehrdad Bokhou, Esq.
          BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
          1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-2328
          Telephone: (310) 438 5555
          Facsimile: (310) 300 1705


R.J. REYNOLDS: Fla. Supreme Court Reverses Judgment in "Soffer"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Barbara J. Pariente of the Florida Supreme Court reversed
the judgment of the Second District and remanded the matter for
further proceedings in the case captioned, LUCILLE RUTH SOFFER,
etc., Petitioner, v. R.J. REYNOLDS TOBACCO COMPANY, Respondent,
Case No. SC13-139 (Fla.).

Maurice Soffer died in May of 1992 from lung cancer caused by
smoking. After the Court issued its decision in Engle, 945 So. 2d
at 1254, requiring class members to file their own individual
actions within a year, Soffer's widow, Lucille Soffer, brought a
wrongful death action against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company
pursuant to that decision. Her complaint asserted four causes of
action, all of which had been pled in the Engle class litigation:
negligence, strict liability, fraud by concealment, and conspiracy
to commit fraud.

Approximately a year prior to trial, Soffer filed a motion to
amend her complaint to add a demand for punitive damages pursuant
to Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.190(f) and section 768.72,
Florida Statutes. Soffer's request for the amendment was not
limited to any one count.

R.J. Reynolds objected based on its position that the allegations
in support of the motion to amend were "conclusory assertions that
defendants' conduct was grossly negligent or willful and wanton"
and without "factual support."

The trial court entered judgment for the plaintiffs for a total
amount of $2,000,000. Soffer appealed, asserting that the trial
court erred in instructing the jury that it was prohibited from
awarding punitive damages on the counts for negligence and strict
liability. The First District affirmed the trial court on the
issue, noting that Soffer chose to bring her individual action
pursuant to Engle based on the benefits that membership in the
Engle class confers.

Judge Lewis dissented from the First District's holding in Soffer,
reasoning that res judicata did not bar a plaintiff from seeking
punitive damages on all properly pled counts because this Court's
Engle decision never required Engle progeny plaintiffs to file
identical claims. Judge Lewis asserted that in his view, based on
the error, Soffer should be entitled to a new trial, limited
solely to the issue of punitive damages.

On appeal, R.J. Reynolds asks the state Supreme Court whether
Engle progeny plaintiffs may pursue an award of punitive damages
under theories of negligence or strict liability, or whether they
are limited to seeking punitive damages only as to the intentional
tort counts of fraudulent concealment and conspiracy that were
permitted in the original Engle class action.

In her Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/fSLxwcfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pariente held that the
trial court erred by preventing the jury from considering Soffer's
request for punitive damages on all four counts. The Engle trial
court's denial of the motion to amend the class action complaint
to include a demand for punitive damages on the counts for
negligence and strict liability was not based on the merits of the
request but instead rested on the procedural posture at the time.

Lucille Ruth Soffer is represented by James William Gustafson, Jr.
Esq. -- JWG@searcylaw.com -- SEARCY DENNEY SCAROLA BARNHART &
SHIPLEY, P.A.

Soffer is also represented by:

     John Stewart Mills, Esq.
     Courtney Rebecca Brewer, Esq.
     THE MILLS FIRM, P.A.
     325 North Calhoun St.
     Tallahassee, FL 32301
     Tel: (850)765-0897

          - and -

     Rodney Warren Smith, Esq.
     Mark Alexander Avera, Esq.
     Dawn Marie Vallejos-Nichols, Esq.
     AVERA & SMITH, LLP
     2814 SW 13th St.
     Gainesville,  FL 32608
     Tel: (352)372-9999

R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is represented by Gregory George
Katsas, Esq. - ggkatsas@jonesday.com -- JONES DAY, & Robert Bruce
Parrish, Esq. -- bparrish@mppkj.com -- & Charles M. Trippe, Jr.,
Esq. -- cmtrippe@mppkj.com -- MOSELEY, PRICHARD, PARRISH, KNIGHT &
JONES


RESTORATION HARDWARE: Justice Dismisses Class Member's Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Alex C. McDonald of the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One dismissed the appeal in the case
MIKE HERNANDEZ et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, FRANCESCA
MULLER, Plaintiff and Appellant; v. RESTORATION HARDWARE, INC.,
Defendant and Respondent, No. D067091 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Michael Hernandez filed an action in 2008 alleging defendant
Restoration Hardwarre, Inc. (RHI) violated Civil Code section
1747.08 by requesting and recording ZIP codes from consumers who
used a credit card in purchase transactions in RHI's California
retail stores. After years of litigation, the court ultimately
certified the case as a class action, appointed Michael Hernandez
and Amanda Georgino as class representatives, and appointed
Patterson Law Group and Stonebarger Law as counsel for the class.
In a post-trial proceedings, class representatives requested the
court order an award of attorney fees of $9,103,087.50, a 25% of
the total maximum fund of $36,412,350 created by the judgment to
be payable to class counsel from the fund. RHI agreed it would not
contest that request.

Francesca Muller, a class member requested the court order notice
of the attorney fee motion be sent to all class members. The court
denied Muller's request, granted the attorney fee motion, and
entered judgment in the action. Muller then filed a notice of
appeal from the judgment.

Muller asserts the court erred when it declined to order that
notice be given to all class members of the hearing on the
attorney fee award, and that the award was calculated in violation
of applicable standards and procedures. Muller also claims the
court's award was an abuse of its discretion.

Class representative Hernandez asserts Muller does not have
standing to appeal the judgment and that the appeal should
therefore be dismissed. Hernandez alternatively argues (1) no
notice to the class of the attorney fee hearing was mandated and
(2) the amount awarded as fees, as well as the procedure employed
by the trial court for determining the amount of the attorney fees
award, was proper.

Justice McDonald dismissed Muller's appeal.

A copy of Justice McDonald's opinion dated March 14, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/JfVSENfrom Leagle.com.

For Plaintiff and Appellant:

     Lawrence W. Schonbrun, Esq.
     Law Office of Lawrence W. Schonbrun
     86 Eucalyptus Rd
     Berkeley, CA 94705
     Telephone: 510-547-8070

For Plaintiffs and Respondents, James R. Patterson --
jim@pattersonlawgroup.com -- Allison H. Goddard --
ali@pattersonlawgroup.com -- at Patterson Law Group; Gene J.
Stonebarger -- gstonebarger@stonebargerlaw.com -- at Stonebarger
Law

No appearance for Defendant and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Fourth District, Division One
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Richard D. Huffman and
Justices Alex C. McDonald and Gilbert Nares.


RW INSTALLATION: "Saavedra" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Silvio Jesus Saavedra, Silvio Saavedra, and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. RW Installation Inc., RW Glazing
Inc., Robert Wszendybyl, And Marlena Stettner, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-20620-DPG (S.D. Fla., February 21, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid overtime and minimum wages under the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

RW Installations is engaged in the business of receiving, storing,
delivery and installation of goods. The Company is
located in Davie, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          Attorney For Plaintiff
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


SABAH INTERNATIONAL: "Correa" Suit Asserts Labor Code Violations
----------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel D. Correa and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Sabah International Incorporated, Does 1-100 inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D. Fla., February 18,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wage, unpaid minimum wages,
liquidated damages, interest, penalties, attorney fees and costs,
and such other penalties and legal and equitable remedies
under the California Unfair Competition Law, Business and
Professions Code, the Labor Code, and Private Attorney General Act
of 2004 (PAGA).

Sabah International is a California corporation which is engaged
in the business of installing and servicing fire alarms, sprinkler
systems and other safety related systems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brian F. Van Vleck, Esq.
          VAN VLECK TURNER & ZALLER LLP
          6310 San Vicente Boulevard, Suite 430
          Los Angeles, CA 90048
          Telephone: (323) 592 3505
          Facsimile: (323) 592 3506


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Gudmundson" Suit Seeks Damages Under UDTPA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Desire Gudmundson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Co., Inc. and Reynolds American Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00020 (Dist. V.I., Div. of St. Thomas & St. John, February
20, 2016), seeks to recover punitive damages due to alleged
intentional misleading advertisements to increase profits at the
expense of the public and reckless conduct which constitutes
malice and fraud and evinces a conscious or reckless indifference
to the rights, health, well-being and safety of others, pursuant
to the Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices (UDTPA).

The Defendants' product labeling and advertising describes their
cigarettes as "Natural", "Additive Free", "100% Additive Free",
"Organic", and an "unadulterated tobacco product". These terms are
intended to suggest a healthier and safer cigarette, allowing
Defendants to charge a price premium for the cigarettes. A
reasonable consumer, faced with the choice between Defendants'
cigarettes and those with labels that do not bear these deceptive
statements, would conclude that American Spirit cigarettes are
substantially healthier and cause less harm than other cigarettes.

Defendants manufacture, market, and sell Natural American Spirit
cigarettes (American Spirits).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J. Russell B. Pate, Esq.
          THE PATE LAW FIRM
          P.O. Box 890
          St. Thomas, USVI 00804
          Telephone: (340) 777 7283
          E-mail: Pate@SunLawVI.com


SEMPRA ENERGY: 83 Suits Filed v. SoCalGas Over Leak
---------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, and Southern
California Gas Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of February 24,
2016, 83 lawsuits have been filed against SoCalGas, some of which
have also named Sempra Energy, and, in derivative claims on behalf
of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas, certain officers and directors of
Sempra Energy and SoCalGas.

In October 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San
Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility,
which has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972, is situated in the
Santa Susana Mountains. SS25 is more than one mile away from and
1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one of more than 100
injection and withdrawal wells at the storage facility.

Stopping the Leak and Mitigation Efforts

SoCalGas worked closely with several of the world's leading
experts to stop the leak, including planning and obtaining all
necessary approvals for drilling relief wells. After discovering
the leak, SoCalGas made seven unsuccessful attempts to plug SS25
by pumping fluids down the well shaft. In early December 2015,
SoCalGas began drilling a relief well designed to stop the leak by
plugging the well at its base.

On February 11, 2016, SoCalGas began pumping heavy fluids through
the relief well into SS25 near the base of the well, which
controlled the flow of natural gas through the well and stopped
the leak. In order to permanently seal the well and consistent
with directives from the DOGGR and CPUC, SoCalGas then injected
cement into SS25 at its base and on February 18, 2016, the DOGGR
confirmed that the well was permanently sealed.

Pursuant to a stipulation and order and in response to claims made
pursuant to lawsuits, SoCalGas has been providing temporary
relocation support to residents in the nearby community who
request it. In addition, SoCalGas has been providing air
filtration and purification systems to those residents in the
nearby community requesting them. As a result of receiving the
confirmation from DOGGR that the SS25 well was permanently sealed,
SoCalGas started winding down its temporary relocation support.
Subject to certain exceptions, the period for temporary relocation
support to residents who temporarily relocated to short-term
housing, such as hotels, concluded on February 25, 2016.

This deadline has been challenged and is subject to a recent court
order extending such period for an additional 22 days for certain
residents. SoCalGas has appealed this order extending the support
period. Additionally, residents who have been placed in rental
housing will have through the agreed term of their leases to
return home. In addition, SoCalGas also intends to mitigate the
GHG emissions from the actual natural gas released.

The total costs incurred to remediate and stop the leak and to
mitigate environmental and local community impacts will be
significant, and to the extent not covered by insurance, or if
there were to be significant delays in receiving insurance
recoveries, such costs could have a material adverse effect on
SoCalGas' and Sempra Energy's cash flows, financial condition and
results of operations.

Governmental Investigations and Civil and Criminal Litigation

Various governmental agencies, including the DOGGR, Los Angeles
County Department of Public Health, SCAQMD, CARB, CPUC, EPA, Los
Angeles District Attorney's Office, and California Attorney
General's Office, are investigating this incident.  SoCalGas has
been working in close cooperation with these agencies.

As of February 24, 2016, 83 lawsuits have been filed against
SoCalGas, some of which have also named Sempra Energy, and, in
derivative claims on behalf of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas, certain
officers and directors of Sempra Energy and SoCalGas. These
various lawsuits assert causes of action for negligence, strict
liability, property damage, fraud, nuisance, trespass, and breach
of fiduciary duties, among other things, and additional litigation
may be filed against us in the future related to this incident.
Many of these complaints seek class action status, compensatory
and punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys' fees. The
Los Angeles City Attorney and Los Angeles County Counsel have also
filed a complaint on behalf of the people of the State of
California against SoCalGas for public nuisance and violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law. The California Attorney
General, acting in her independent capacity and on behalf of the
people of the State of California and the CARB, joined this
lawsuit.

The complaint, as amended to include the California Attorney
General, adds allegations of violations of California Health and
Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting discharge of air
contaminants that cause annoyance to the public, and 25510,
requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material, as well
as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief
for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an
order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to
impose civil penalties. The SCAQMD also filed a complaint against
SoCalGas seeking civil penalties for alleged violations of several
nuisance-related statutory provisions arising from the leak and
delays in stopping the leak. That suit seeks up to $250,000 in
civil penalties for each day the violations occurred.


SHAKE SHACK: Faces "Vidal" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Vidal, et al., on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly situated v. Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC, Case No.
651418/2016 (N.Y. Sup., March 17, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Shake Shack Enterprises, LLC -- https://www.shakeshack.com/ -- is
a roadside burger stand which serves burgers, hot dogs, frozen
custard, shakes, beer, wine and more.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Rachel Bien, Esq.
     Michael N. Litrownik, Esq.
     OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
     3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Telephone: (212) 245-1000


SHANK CONCRETE: "McIntyre" Suit Seeks OT Compensation Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Patrick McIntyre, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Shank Concrete, LLC c/o Its Statutory
Agent Jade Shank, Jade Shank, and April Shank, the Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00394 (N.D. Ohio, February 19, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

Based Napoleon, Ohio, Shank Concrete is engaged in the
construction business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Charles S. Herman, Esq.
          CHARLES HERMAN LAW
          411 N. Michigan, Suite 300
          Toledo, OH 43604
          Telephone: (419) 244 7500
          Facsimile: (419) 244 7805
          E-mail: charles@charleshermanlaw.com


SKECHERS USA: Says Global Accord in Final Stages of Documentation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Skechers U.S.A., Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the global settlement
program in the personal injury lawsuits involving its shape-ups
products are in the final stages of being documented.

On February 20, 2011, Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc.
II and Skechers Fitness Group were named as defendants in a
lawsuit that alleged, among other things, that Shape-ups are
defective and unreasonably dangerous, negligently designed and/or
manufactured, and do not conform to representations made by the
company, and that the Company failed to provide adequate warnings
of alleged risks associated with Shape-ups.

"In total, we are named as a defendant in 1,141 currently pending
cases (some on behalf of multiple plaintiffs) filed in various
courts that assert further varying injuries but employ similar
legal theories and assert similar claims to the first case, as
well as claims for breach of express and implied warranties, loss
of consortium, and fraud," the Company said.  "Although there are
some variations in the relief sought, the plaintiffs generally
seek compensatory and/or economic damages, exemplary and/or
punitive damages, and attorneys' fees and costs."

"On December 19, 2011, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation issued an order establishing a multidistrict litigation
("MDL") proceeding in the United States District Court for the
Western District of Kentucky entitled In re Skechers Toning Shoe
Products Liability Litigation, case no. 11-md-02308-TBR.

"Since 2011, a total of 1,235 personal injury cases have been
filed in or transferred to the MDL proceeding and 414 additional
individuals have submitted claims by plaintiff fact sheets.
Skechers has resolved 481 personal injury claims in the MDL
proceedings, comprised of 90 that were filed as formal actions and
391 that were submitted by plaintiff fact sheets.

"Skechers has also settled 1,332 claims in principle -- 1,101
filed cases and 231 claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheets --
either directly or pursuant to a global settlement program that
has been approved by the claimants' attorneys (described in
greater detail below). Further, 42 cases in the MDL proceeding
have been dismissed either voluntarily or on motions by Skechers
and 38 unfiled claims submitted by plaintiff fact sheet have been
abandoned. Between the consummated settlements and cases subject
to the settlement program, all but two personal injury cases
pending in the MDL have been or are expected to soon be resolved.

On August 6, 2015, the Court entered an order staying all
deadlines, including trial, pending further order of the Court.

Skechers U.S.A., Inc., Skechers U.S.A., Inc. II and Skechers
Fitness Group also have been named as defendants in a total of 72
personal injury actions filed in various Superior Courts of the
State of California that were brought on behalf of 920 individual
plaintiffs (360 of whom also submitted MDL court-approved
questionnaires for mediation purposes in the MDL proceeding). Of
those cases, 68 were originally filed in the Superior Court for
the County of Los Angeles (the "LASC cases").

"On August 20, 2014, the Judicial Council of California granted a
petition by our company to coordinate all personal injury actions
filed in California that relate to Shape-ups with the LASC cases
(collectively, the "LASC Coordinated Cases"). On October 6, 2014,
three cases that had been pending in other counties were
transferred to and coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases.

"On April 17, 2015, an additional case was transferred to and
coordinated with the LASC Coordinated Cases. Thirty-five actions
brought on behalf of a total of 476 plaintiffs, have been settled
and dismissed. We have also settled in principle an additional 31
actions brought on behalf of 405 plaintiffs pursuant to a global
settlement program that has been approved by the plaintiffs'
attorneys.

"One single-plaintiff lawsuit and the claims of 28 additional
plaintiffs in multi-plaintiff lawsuits have been dismissed
entirely, either voluntarily or on motion by us. The claims of 21
additional persons have been dismissed in part, either voluntarily
or on motions by us. Thus, taking into account both consummated
settlements and cases subject to the settlement program, only five
lawsuits on behalf of a total of ten plaintiffs are expected to
remain in the LASC Coordinated Cases. Discovery is continuing in
those five remaining cases. No trial dates have been set.

"In other state courts, a total of 12 personal injury actions
(some on behalf of numerous plaintiffs) have been filed that have
not been removed to federal court and transferred to the MDL. Ten
of those actions have been resolved and dismissed.

"One of the remaining actions that includes the claims of 65
plaintiffs has been settled in principle pursuant to a global
settlement program that has been approved by the plaintiffs'
attorneys (described in greater detail below). The last remaining
action in a state court other than California was recently filed
in Missouri on January 4, 2016 on behalf of a single plaintiff. We
have not yet been served in that action.

With respect to the global settlement programs, the personal
injury cases in the MDL and LASC Coordinated Cases and in other
state courts were largely solicited and handled by the same
plaintiffs law firms. Accordingly, mediations to discuss potential
resolution of the various lawsuits brought by these firms were
held on May 18, June 18, and July 24, 2015. At the conclusion of
those mediations, the parties reached an agreement in principle on
a global settlement program that is expected to resolve all or
substantially all of the claims by persons represented by those
firms. The global settlement program involves complex monetary and
non-monetary terms that are in the final stages of being
documented.

"If the group settlements are not finalized and the litigation
proceeds, it is too early to predict the outcome of any case,
whether adverse results in any single case or in the aggregate
would have a material adverse impact on our operations or
financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be
adequate to cover any losses.

"The settlements have been reached for business purposes in order
to end the distraction of litigation, and we continue to believe
we have meritorious defenses and intend to defend any remaining
cases vigorously. In addition, even if the global settlement is
finalized, it is too early to predict whether there will be future
personal injury cases filed which are not covered by the
settlement, whether adverse results in any single case or in the
aggregate would have a material adverse impact on our operations
or financial position, and whether insurance coverage will be
available and/or adequate to cover any losses.

The Company designs and markets Skechers-branded lifestyle
footwear for men, women and children, and performance footwear for
men and women under the Skechers GO brand name.


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Fortin" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Fortin v. SolarCity Corporation; Ryan Coogin and John Does
1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001051-16 (N.J. Super., March 21, 2016),
alleges that Defendants wrongfully terminated the Plaintiff's
employment for reason of physical limitations due to surgery from
hernia and cyst growth.  The Plaintiff requests that the Court
order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent
with the claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to
the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly
situated.

SolarCity Corporation offers solar power energy services. It
provides design, financing, installation, monitoring, and energy
efficiency services. It serves homeowners, businesses, schools,
non-profits, and government organizations in the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Telephone: (856) 727-9700


SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: "Harrison" Suit Moved to E.D.N.C.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robin Harrison, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, v. Southeastern Grocers, LLC, and Winn-Dixie Stores,
Inc. Case No. 6:15-CV-676, was transferred from US District Court
for the Middle District of Florida, Orlando Division, to the
US District Court for Eastern District for North Carolina. The
Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 7:16-mc-00004-RN to the
proceeding.

Southeastern Grocers operates supermarkets in the Southeastern
United States. The company's stores provide non-perishable
products, including grocery, dairy, frozen food, general
merchandise, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, and fuel products;
perishable products comprising fresh and packaged meat, seafood,
deli, bakery, produce, and floral products; pharmacy products; and
other products. As of July 10, 2013, it operated 685 stores
serving various metropolitan areas in Florida, Georgia, Alabama,
Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, North Carolina, and
Tennessee under the Winn-Dixie, BI-LO, Super BI-LO, and BI-LO at
the Beach supermarket banners.


SOUTHERN COMPANY: Court Approved Stipulated Order of Dismissal
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Southern Company, Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power
Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and
Southern Power Company said in their Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the court has
approved a stipulated order of dismissal of a class action lawsuit
related to the AGL Resources merger litigation.

AGL Resources and each member of the AGL Resources board of
directors were named as defendants in four purported shareholder
class action lawsuits filed in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia in September and October
2015. These actions were filed on behalf of named plaintiffs and
other AGL Resources shareholders challenging the Merger and
seeking, among other things, preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief enjoining the Merger, and, in certain circumstances,
damages. Southern Company and Merger Sub were also named as
defendants in two of these lawsuits. On October 23, 2015, the
court consolidated the four lawsuits into a single action.

On January 4, 2016, the parties filed a proposed stipulated order
of dismissal, asking the court to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint without prejudice, which the court approved on January
5, 2016.

Proposed Merger with AGL Resources

On August 23, 2015, Southern Company entered into the Merger
Agreement to acquire AGL Resources. Under the terms of the Merger
Agreement, subject to the satisfaction or waiver (if permissible
under applicable law) of specified conditions, Merger Sub will be
merged with and into AGL Resources. AGL Resources will survive the
Merger and become a wholly-owned, direct subsidiary of Southern
Company. Upon the consummation of the Merger, each share of common
stock of AGL Resources issued and outstanding immediately prior to
the effective time of the Merger (Effective Time), other than
shares owned by AGL Resources as treasury stock, shares owned by a
subsidiary of AGL Resources, and any shares owned by shareholders
who have properly exercised and perfected dissenters' rights, will
be converted into the right to receive $66 in cash, without
interest and less any applicable withholding taxes (Merger
Consideration). Other equity-based securities of AGL Resources
will be cancelled for cash consideration or converted into new
awards from Southern Company as described in the Merger Agreement.
In accordance with GAAP, the Merger will be accounted for using
the acquisition method of accounting whereby the assets acquired
and liabilities assumed are recognized at fair value as of the
acquisition date. The excess of the purchase price over the fair
values of AGL Resources' assets and liabilities will be recorded
as goodwill. Southern Company expects total cash of $8.2 billion
to be required to fund the purchase price of approximately $8.0
billion to acquire AGL Resources common stock, options to purchase
shares of AGL Resources common stock, and restricted stock units
payable in shares of AGL Resources common stock and to fund
acquisition-related expenses and financing costs of approximately
$200 million. Southern Company will also assume AGL Resources'
outstanding indebtedness.

The Merger was approved by AGL Resources' shareholders on November
19, 2015, and the waiting period under the Hart-Scott-Rodino
Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 expired on December 4, 2015.
Consummation of the Merger remains subject to the satisfaction or
waiver of certain closing conditions, including, among others, (i)
the approval of the California Public Utilities Commission,
Georgia PSC, Illinois Commerce Commission, Maryland PSC, and New
Jersey Board of Public Utilities, and other approvals required
under applicable state laws, and the approval of the Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) for the transfer of control over
the FCC licenses of certain subsidiaries of AGL Resources, (ii)
the absence of a judgment, order, decision, injunction, ruling, or
other finding or agency requirement of a governmental entity
prohibiting the consummation of the Merger, and (iii) other
customary closing conditions, including (a) subject to certain
materiality qualifiers, the accuracy of each party's
representations and warranties and (b) each party's performance in
all material respects of its obligations under the Merger
Agreement. Southern Company completed the required state
regulatory applications in the fourth quarter 2015 and the
required FCC filings in February 2016.

On February 24, 2016, a stipulation and settlement agreement
between Southern Company, AGL Resources, the Maryland PSC Staff,
and the Maryland Office of People's Counsel was filed with the
Maryland PSC. The proposed settlement remains subject to the
approval of the Maryland PSC. Additionally, Southern Company
received the approval of the Virginia State Corporation Commission
in February 2016.

Subject to certain limitations, either party may terminate the
Merger Agreement if the Merger is not consummated by August 23,
2016, which date may be extended by either party to February 23,
2017 if, on August 23, 2016, all conditions to closing other than
those relating to (i) regulatory approvals and (ii) the absence of
legal restraints preventing consummation of the Merger (to the
extent relating to regulatory approvals) have been satisfied. Upon
termination of the Merger Agreement under certain specified
circumstances, AGL Resources will be required to pay Southern
Company a termination fee of $201 million or reimburse Southern
Company's expenses up to $5 million (which reimbursement shall
reduce on a dollar-for-dollar basis any termination fee
subsequently payable by AGL Resources). Southern Company currently
expects to complete the transaction in the second half of 2016.
During 2015, the Company incurred external transaction costs for
financing, legal, and consulting services associated with the
proposed Merger of approximately $41 million.


STANCORP FINANCIAL: 4 Suits Consolidated in Multnomah Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stancorp Financial Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Multnomah
County Circuit Court has consolidated four lawsuits for purposes
of hearing and trial.

"Since entering into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger
Agreement") dated July 23, 2015 with Meiji Yasuda Life Insurance
Company ("Meiji Yasuda") and MYL Investment (Delaware) Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary of Meiji Yasuda
("Merger Sub"), we, members of our Board of Directors (the
"Board") and the Meiji Yasuda parties have been named as
defendants in four putative class action lawsuits brought by our
purported shareholders on behalf of our shareholders challenging
the merger," the Company said.

"The four lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for the County of Multnomah under the following captions:
Shiva Stein, et al. v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 15CV20372, filed July 31, 2015, Bud and Sue Frashier
Family Trust, et al. v. J. Greg Ness, et al., Case No. 15CV20832,
filed August 7, 2015, Grant Causton, et al. v. StanCorp Financial
Group, Inc., et al., Case No. 15CV22197, filed August 20, 2015,
and Janet Shock v. StanCorp Financial Group, Inc., et al., Case
No. 15CV23748 (later amended to substitute Hillery Scott as
plaintiff), filed September 8, 2015. On January 14, 2016, the
Multnomah County Circuit Court granted an order of consolidation
and appointment of co-lead counsel, consolidating the four
lawsuits for purposes of hearing and trial (the "Oregon Action").

"The complaints allege, among other things, that our directors
violated their fiduciary duties to our shareholders by entering
into the Merger Agreement, by putting their personal interests and
the interests of the Meiji Yasuda parties ahead of the interests
of our shareholders, and by failing to provide our shareholders
with material information to make an informed vote on the approval
of the Merger Agreement. The complaints also allege that we and
the Meiji Yasuda parties knew of alleged breaches of fiduciary
duties and aided and abetted those breaches.

"Based on these allegations, the complaints seek certain
injunctive relief, including enjoining the Merger, and, to the
extent already implemented, rescission of the Merger. The
complaints also seek other damages, including recovery of all
damages suffered by the plaintiffs as a result of the individual
defendants' alleged wrongdoing, including rescissory damages, and
costs of the actions, including attorneys' fees.

"On November 3, 2015, we, each of the members of our Board, Meiji
Yasuda, and Merger Sub entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
(the "MOU") with the plaintiffs in the Oregon Action, which sets
forth the parties' agreement in principle for a settlement of the
Oregon Action in which we would make certain supplemental
disclosures regarding the Merger in exchange for a release. As set
forth in the MOU, we, the members of our Board, Meiji Yasuda, and
Merger Sub have agreed to the settlement solely to eliminate the
burden, expense, distraction, and uncertainties inherent in
further litigation, and without admitting any liability or
wrongdoing. The settlement is subject to court approval.

"We made the agreed-upon additional disclosures related to the
Merger in a Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on November 3, 2015. As contemplated by
the MOU, nothing in the Form 8-K or any stipulation of settlement
is an admission of the legal necessity or materiality of any of
the disclosures set forth in the Form 8-K.

StanCorp, headquartered in Portland, Oregon, is a holding company
and conducts business through wholly-owned operating subsidiaries
throughout the United States. Through its subsidiaries, the
Company has the authority to underwrite insurance products in all
50 states as well as the District of Columbia and the U.S.
territories of Guam, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.


STEEL DYNAMICS: Additional Discovery Ongoing in Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Steel Dynamics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that additional discovery is
ongoing in a class action antitrust suit in Chicago, Illinois.

"We are involved, along with two other remaining steel
manufacturing company defendants, in a class action antitrust suit
in federal court in Chicago, Illinois, originally against eight
companies," the Company said.  "The Complaint alleges a conspiracy
on the part of the original defendants to fix, raise, maintain and
stabilize the price at which steel products were sold in the
United States during a specified period between 2005 and 2007, by
artificially restricting the supply of such steel products. All
but one of the Complaints were brought on behalf of a purported
class consisting of all direct purchasers of steel products. The
other Complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all indirect purchasers of steel products within the
same time period."

"In addition, another similar complaint was filed in December 2010
purporting to be on behalf of indirect purchasers of steel
products in Tennessee.

"All Complaints have been consolidated in the Chicago action and
seek treble damages and costs, including reasonable attorney fees,
pre- and post-judgment interest and injunctive relief.

"Following an extensive period of discovery and related motions
concerning class certification matters, the Court, on September 9,
2015, certified a class, limited, however, to the issue of the
alleged conspiracy alone, and denied class certification on the
issue of antitrust impact and damages. As a result, some
additional discovery is ongoing.

"We have also filed a motion for summary judgment, as has co-
defendant SSAB, and this matter is currently pending."

Steel Dynamics, Inc. (the company) is one of the largest steel
producers and one of the largest metals recyclers in the United
States based on a current estimated annual steelmaking and coating
capability of approximately 11 million tons, and actual recycling
volumes.


STS CONSULTING SERVICES: Violated FLSA, "Lopez" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Lopez, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. STS Consulting Services, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00034-NDF (Dist. Wyo., February 19,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, and prejudgment interest, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

STS is a servicing corporation providing pipeline inspections to
oil and gas companies throughout the United States. The Company is
headquartered at Longview, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael B. Rosentha, Esq.
          HATHAWAY & KUNZ
          P O Box 1208
          Cheyenne, WY 82003-1208
          Telephone: (307) 634 7723
          Facsimile: (307) 634 0985
          E-mail: mike@hkwyolaw.com

               - and -

          Sharon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
          Camille Fundora, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE PC
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  apiazza@bm.net
                  cfundora@bm.net


SUSHIN EXPRESS: "Loor" Suit Seeks Money Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Franklin G. Loor, and other similarly-situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. Sushin Express, Inc., d/b/a Lan Pan Asian Caf‚,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-20618-KMM (S.D. Fla., Miami Div.
February 20, 2016), seeks to recover money damages for unpaid
regular and overtime wages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

Sushin Express, a Florida corporation, operates a restaurant
business. The restaurant specializes in East and Southeast Asian
cuisine including dishes from Japan, China, Korea, Thailand, and
Vietnam.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zandro E. Palma, Esq.
          ZANDRO E. PALMA, P.A.
          Miami, FL 33156
          Telephone: (305) 446 1500
          Facsimile: (305) 446 1502
          E-mail: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Hara" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Ads
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hara, et al., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Target Corporation; Kraft Heinz Foods
Company; and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 0:16-cv-00686-JNE-HB
(D. Minn., March 17, 2016), alleges that Defendants made a false
and misleading advertising on their Parmesan cheese Products as
containing "100%" Parmesan cheese; the front labels of all
Defendant's packaging prominently proclaim that their Products
contain "100%" grated Parmesan cheese; however, these
representations are false.

Target Corporation manufactures, sells, distributes and advertises
Market Pantry "100%" grated Parmesan cheese.

Kraft Heinz Foods Company manufactures, sells, distributes and
advertises Kraft "100%" grated Parmesan cheese.

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. manufactures, sells, distributes and
advertises its Great Value "100%" grated Parmesan cheese.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark Reinhardt, Esq.
     Brant D. Penney, Esq.
     REINHARDT WENDORF BLANCHFIELD
     E-1250 First National Bank Building
     332 Minnesota Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Telephone: (651) 287-2100
     Facsimile: (651) 287-2103
     E-mail: m.reinhardt@rwblawfirm.com
             b.penney@rwblawfirm.com


TARGET CORP: Faces "Aliano" Suit in Ill. Over Misbranded Oatmeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Aliano, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Target Corporation, Case No. 2016-CH-03885, (Ill.
Cir., March 18, 2016), seeks to stop Defendant from
misrepresenting that its Market Pantry Oatmeal food products
contain maple syrup and/or maple sugar, when, in fact, maple syrup
and maple sugar are not ingredients in the products.

Target Corporation, a Minnesota corporation, owns and operates 83
Target stores in the state of Illinois, each of which sell Market
Pantry brand products, including Market Pantry Oatmeal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Esq.
     Amelia S. Newton, Esq.
     Jordan M. Rudnick, Esq.
     Matthew C. De Re., Esq.
     Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq.
     Maebetty Kirby, Esq.
     ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES, P.C.
     77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1220
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Telephone: (312) 440-0020
     Facsimile: (312) 440-4180
     E-mail: tom@attorneyzim.com
             amy@attorneyzim.com
             jordan@attorneyzim.com
             matt@attorneyzim.com
             nick@attorneyzim.com
             maebetty@attorney.zim.com


TC PIPELINES: Still Defends ERS Class Action in Delaware
--------------------------------------------------------
TC PipeLines, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend the case, Employees Retirement System of the City of St.
Louis v. TC PipeLines GP, Inc., et al.

On October 13, 2015, an alleged unitholder of the Partnership
filed a class action and derivative complaint in the Delaware
Court of Chancery against the General Partner, TransCanada
American Investments, Ltd. (TAIL) and TransCanada, and the
Partnership as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges direct
and derivative claims for breach of contract, breach of the duty
of good faith and fair dealing, aiding and abetting breach of
contract, and tortious interference in connection with the 2015
GTN Acquisition, including the issuance by the Partnership of $95
million in Class B Units and amendments to the Partnership
Agreement to provide for the issuance of the Class B Units.
Plaintiff seeks, among other things, to enjoin future issuances of
Class B Units to TransCanada or any of its subsidiaries,
disgorgement of certain distributions to the General Partner,
TransCanada and any related entities, return of some or all of the
Class B Units to the Partnership, rescission of the amendments to
the Partnership Agreement, monetary damages and attorney fees. The
Partnership has moved to dismiss the complaint and intends to
defend vigorously against the claims asserted.

TC PipeLines is a Delaware master limited partnership, and its
common units are traded on the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE)
under the symbol TCP.  It was formed by TransCanada Corporation
and its subsidiaries (TransCanada) in 1998, to acquire, own and
participate in the management of energy infrastructure businesses
in North America.  Its pipeline systems transport natural gas in
the U.S.


TELEFONICA BRASIL: Appeal in Services Quality Suit Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Telefonica Brasil S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the appeal in the
Services Quality Class Action remains pending.

The Public Prosecutor Office of the state of Sao Paulo commenced a
class action suit claiming moral and property damages suffered by
all consumers of telecommunication services from 2004 to 2009 due
to the bad quality of service and failures of the communications
system. The Public Prosecutors Office suggested a total award
against the company of R$1 billion. A judgment was rendered on
April 20, 2010 imposing the payment of damages to all consumers
who proved to be eligible for the award. Alternatively, if clients
do not prove themselves eligible in a number compatible with the
severity of the damage after a period of one year, the judgment
establishes that R$60 million should be deposited in a special
fund for protection of diffuse customer interests (Fundo Especial
de Defesa de Reparacao de Interesses Difusos Lesados).

It is not possible to estimate how many consumers may present
themselves in this procedure nor the values to be claimed by them.
The parties filled an appeal and the effects of the sentence were
suspended. The appellate court has ruled in our favor and changed
the lower court decision. The plaintiff filed an appeal to the
Supreme Court, which is awaiting decision.

"Despite the possible degree of risk, no value amount was
attributed to this action because currently we are unable to
calculate the total amount to be paid by us in the event we lose
and, as a result, we have not recorded any provisions," the
Company said.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Plaintiff Must Prove Injury in Drink Price Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
the viability of a putative class suit against T.G.I. Friday's for
failing to disclose beverage prices on its menu depends on whether
the lead plaintiff bought his drink at the behest of his lawyers,
a federal judge has ruled.

Named plaintiff Michael Grace claims he suffered monetary injury
because the $10.39 he was charged for a mixed drink at Friday's on
Sept. 30, 2014 was unreasonable and unknown until he got the bill.
For federal court jurisdiction, the plaintiff must demonstrate an
injury in fact, and whether he retained counsel before or after he
visited the restaurant is relevant to whether he suffered an
injury, U.S. District Judge Robert Kugler of the District of New
Jersey ruled March 14 in Grace v. T.G.I. Friday's.

Judge Kugler said Friday's can conduct discovery to determine
whether Grace was instructed by his lawyer to purchase the drink
in question.

Grace claims the amount he was charged for the drink at the
Friday's in Evesham was more than he expected.  His suit names
Friday's and two co-defendants, Sentinel Capital Partners and Tri-
Artisan Capital, and brings claims for breach of contract and
unjust enrichment on behalf of a putative class of customers who
visited Friday's restaurants in New Jersey.

The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint based on
allegations that it was filed without their consent or that of the
judge, but Judge Kugler denied the motion.  Judge Kugler did
dismiss defendants Sentinel and Tri-Artisan, which are described
in court papers as "indirect equity investors," without prejudice
for lack of personal jurisdiction because the plaintiff failed to
plead any facts to support that they were party to any contract
between the plaintiff and Friday's.  The codefendants were also
dismissed for insufficient service of process.

Friday's argued that Grace lacks standing if his lawyer directed
him to go to the Evesham Friday's and order a beverage.  In court
papers, the company notes that only six days separate his visit to
the restaurant and the filing of his suit.

"If Mr. Grace retained counsel before he went to TGIF on
Sept. 30, 2014, or if he went to TGIF intending to manufacture a
case or controversy, he has not sustained a true injury-in-fact
and does not have Article III standing to prosecute this lawsuit,"
Friday's said in court papers.

Judge Kugler said the timeline of events is relevant and that the
plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing at each
successive stage of the litigation.

"Plaintiff's breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims rest
on allegations that plaintiff suffered a monetary injury because
TGIF charged him in excess of what was reasonable for a beverage,
and plaintiff did not know the price until after consuming the
beverage and receiving the invoice," Judge Kugler said.  "Whether
plaintiff retained counsel prior to his Sept. 30, 2014, visit to
the Evesham TGIF or in the week between his visit and plaintiff's
counsel filing his complaint on Oct. 6, 2014, is therefore
relevant and dispositive to whether plaintiff suffered any injury
in fact," Judge Kugler said.

Instead of stating when he hired his lawyers, Sander Friedman and
Wesley Hanna of the Law Office of Sander Friedman in West Berlin,
the plaintiff said only that the defendant's standing argument is
"premature" and that it's "entirely plausible" that he hired
counsel soon after purchasing the drink, Judge Kugler said.  But
the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing at each
successive phase of the litigation, the judge added.

Judge Kugler gave each side 30 days to submit supplemental briefs
on the standing issue.  The judge said he would consider the
restaurant chain's motions to dismiss the class allegations and to
dismiss the complaint only after the standing issue is resolved.

Another suit over undisclosed drink prices, filed by
Messrs. Friedman and Hanna against the Applebee's and
International House of Pancakes chains, was dismissed in 2012.
That suit, Watkins v. DineEquity Inc., alleged violations of the
New Jersey Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act.

Mr. Friedman also filed a separate suit against Friday's, Dugan v.
T.G.I Fridays, BUR-L-126-10, which is pending in state court in
Burlington County.  That suit cites unposted drink prices but
focuses on allegations that drinks are more expensive in the
chain's dining room than in the bar.  In court papers in the Grace
suit, Friday's said the plaintiff's standing is further called
into question by the fact that the judge in the Dugan case issued
a ruling ordering the class period closed Sept. 5, 2014, just a
few weeks before the Grace suit was filed.

Mr. Friedman said in an email message that he is confident his
case will "survive the jurisdictional discovery allowed by the
court," adding that the defendant "will make a case out of any and
every technicality" to avoid answering why it won't disclose
beverage prices on the menu.


TGI FRIDAY'S: Class Certification in Drink Price Suit Reversed
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
March has proven to be a month of bitter drams to swallow for
plaintiffs claiming TGI Friday's menus served up consumer fraud in
failing to list drink prices.

The Appellate Division on March 24 reversed certification of a
class of Friday's beer, liquor and soda purchasers going back to
2004, and directed the three named plaintiffs to proceed in the
trial court individually.

The ruling came less than two weeks after a federal judge called
into question the viability of a similar suit filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of New Jersey -- based on whether
the named plaintiff purchased drinks of his own volition or at his
attorneys' urging.

In the state court suit, Dugan v. TGI Friday's Inc., plaintiffs
Debra Dugan, Alan Fox and Robert Cameron claimed they paid
different prices for drinks -- even during the same visits --
depending on whether they ordered from the bar or a table.  The
suit alleged "menu engineering" and asserted claims under the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (CFA) and Truth in Consumer Contract
Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

The first of the suits was filed in 2010 and already made one trip
up the appellate ladder: Friday's appealed a denial of dismissal,
which the Appellate Division declined to hear until the Supreme
Court directed it to do so.

In an October 2011 decision, an appeals panel found that Dugan's
pleadings were sufficient to make out claims.  The other named
plaintiffs joined after that.

Burlington County Superior Court Judge Marc Baldwin denied bids
for summary judgment by Friday's and Carlsons Restaurants
Worldwide Inc., which previously owned the chain.  The judge
certified a class of patrons who "relied upon" menus, but
purchased beverages for which no price was listed, at one of 14
corporate-owned Friday's restaurants in New Jersey from Jan. 12,
2004, to June 18, 2014 -- the latter date representing when
Carlsons sold the chain.

The class excluded those who had tipped back their glasses at
franchised Friday's locations.

Baldwin, at the plaintiffs' request, later broadened the class by
removing the "relied upon" language from the class definition, and
approved class notices.  The defendants appealed again -- and were
once again sent to the Appellate Division on a Supreme Court order
-- contending that the plaintiffs fell short of establishing a
class.

In the March 24 published decision, Appellate Division Judges
Joseph Yannotti, Michael Guadagno and Francis Vernoia found that
the plaintiffs couldn't demonstrate that common fact questions
predominate over individual ones in determining ascertainable loss
-- a necessary element to a CFA claim.

Stated more plainly by the court: "a patron may have chosen to
purchase a particular beverage on a specific date for any number
of reasons that have nothing to do with the lack of menu pricing."

"If a person did not look at the beverage section of the menu,
TGIF's failure to list prices on the menu had no causal nexus to
the person's decision to purchase a particular beverage," Judge
Yannotti wrote for the panel.

The panel rejected the plaintiffs' claims, based on marketing
studies, that Friday's patrons spend $1.72 more per beverage if
the price is not listed.

Judge Yannotti said, "even if this allegation is proven, it would
not establish that all persons . . . spent more on these beverages
because prices were not listed on the menus."


THOMAS JEFFERSON SCHOOL: Law Graduate Loses Job-Data Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Karen Sloan, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that
Thomas Jefferson School of Law did not defraud an alum by
inflating its graduate employment statistics, a San Diego jury has
found.

In a 9-3 vote, the 12-member jury on March 24 rejected the claims
of plaintiff Anna Alaburda, who graduated from Thomas Jefferson in
2008 but struggled to find full-time legal employment.  The jury
deliberated for a day following nearly three weeks of testimony,
during which Ms. Alaburda's attorney, Brian Procel, argued that
the law school's process for collecting postgraduate employment
data was deeply flawed and designed to make the school's alumni
appear more successful on the job market than they actually were.

Attorney Mike Sullivan, representing Thomas Jefferson, argued that
Ms. Alaburda had turned down several job offers after graduation
and that she hadn't offered proof that the school deliberately
fudged its job numbers.  He also told jurors that
Ms. Alaburda -- who had sought $125,000 -- had not suffered any
damages and attended the San Diego law school because it was the
only one she got into. Moreover, she received a $20,000
scholarship from the school, he said in court.

Ms. Alaburda and Mr. Procel declined to speak to reporters
immediately after the verdict, according to local news reports.

"I am pleased that the jury affirmed that Thomas Jefferson School
of Law did not falsify its post-graduate employment statistics,"
said Thomas Jefferson dean Thomas Guernsey in a written statement.
"The decision by the jury further validates our unwavering
commitment to providing our students with the knowledge, skills
and tools necessary to excel as law students, pass the bar exam
and succeed in their professional careers."

The case was closely watched in the legal academy in part because
it is the only one of 15 similar lawsuits to go to trial.  Dozens
of law graduates across the country sued their alma maters in 2011
and 2012 claiming they used deceptive graduate employment numbers
to lure students.  Most of those cases, filed against schools in
Illinois, New York, Michigan, Florida and California, were
dismissed, with judges finding a lack of specific evidence that
the schools had lied and said unhappy alumni should have done more
research.


THUMBTACK INC: Violated FCRA and UCL, "Rhom" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Rhom, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Thumbtack, Inc. a Delaware Corporation, Does 1-
50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551067 (Cal. Super.
Ct., County of Sam Francisco, March 22, 2016), seeks to recover
compensatory and punitive damages due to Thumbtacks's alleged
systematic and willful violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA), the Cal. Civil Code, California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL), and the Cal. Bus., & Prof. Code.

Thumbtack is an online directory service for local businesses. The
Company's service allows the consumer to vet, contact, and book
service professionals the moment they are found. The Company
services both the consumer and the seller, and brings them
together for transaction. The Company is based in San Francisco,
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq.
          Counsel One, PC
          9301 Wilshire Blvd Ste 650
          Beverly Hills, CA 90210
          Telephone: (310) 277 9945
          Facsimile: (424) 277 3727
          E-mail: anthony@counselonegroup.com


TINLEY PARK: "Stuckly" Files Suit Over Zoning Provisions
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Stuckly, Patricia Carey, Eileen Carpenter, Sandra
Connolly, Karen Lyons, Hobert Lyons, Ed Maloney, Patricia Maloney,
Monica Ruban, individually, the Plaintiffs, v. Village Of Tinley
Park, a Municipal Corporation, David G. Seaman, Mayor, Patrick E.
Rea, Clerk, Brian S. Maher, T.J. Grady, Michael J. P Annitto,
Jacob C. Vandenberg, Brian H. Younker, Bernard E. Brady, Trustees,
Thomas Melody, Village Attorney, Amy Connolly, Planning Director,
Rita Walker, Chairman, Plan Commission,
Art Pierce, Rvtember, Plan Commission, Bob Mcclellan, Member, Plan
Commission, Bill Reidy, Mark Moylan, Member, Plan Commission, Tom
Mahoney, Member, Plan Commission, Jeff Ficaro, L\1ember, Plan
Commission, Tim Stanton, Member, Plan Commission, and Gina Miller,
Member, Plan Commission, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-Ch-03974
(Ill. Cir. Ct., Cook County, Chancery Division, March 22, 2016),
seeks unenforcibility declaration of an alleged unlawful, and
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable decision of the Defendants
to amend the "Legacy Code" zoning provisions of the Tinley Park
Zoning Ordinance.

The Village of Tinley Park, is a municipal corporation duly
established and authorized under the laws of the State of
Illinois. David G. Seaman, is the duly appointed and qualified
Mayor/Village President of the Village of Tinley Park, Cook and
Will Counties, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen E. Eberhardt, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN E. EBERHARDT
          16710 Oak Park Avenue
          Tinley Park, IL 60477
          Telephone: (708) 633 9100
          Facsimile: (708) 633 9102


TRANSOCEAN LTD: 2nd Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Section 14(a) Claim
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Jose A. Cabranes of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, affirmed the March 14, 2014 judgment of the district
court dismissing the Section 14(a) claim asserted by plaintiff-
appellant DeKalb County Pension Fund in the case captioned, DEKALB
COUNTY PENSION FUND, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRANSOCEAN LTD., ROBERT L. LONG,
JON. A MARSHALL, and TRANSOCEAN INC., Defendants-Appellees, Case
Nos. 2:15-CV-864 (WHW-CLW) (2nd Cir.).

On October 2, 2007, GlobalSantaFe Corp. (GSF), "an offshore oil
and gas drilling contractor," and defendant-appellee Transocean
Inc. (Transocean), "one of the largest international providers of
offshore contract drilling services for oil and gas," jointly
disseminated a proxy statement concerning a proposed merger
between the companies. The proxy statement included numerous
representations regarding Transocean's compliance with various
environmental laws, its training and safety programs, and its
equipment maintenance, among other subjects. GSF's shareholders,
including DeKalb, approved the merger at a November 9, 2007
shareholder meeting. Pursuant to the merger's terms, DeKalb
exchanged each of its GSF shares for 0.4757 Transocean shares and
a $22.46 cash payment.

On September 30, 2010, Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5,
Ohio Pension Fund (Bricklayers) filed a class-action complaint
against Transocean, as well as defendants-appellees Robert L. Long
and Jon A. Marshall, the chief executive officers of Transocean
and GSF, respectively, at the time of the merger. Bricklayers
alleged that the proxy statement disseminated in advance of the
merger "contained false and material statements and omissions
regarding Transocean's dangerously lax safety protocols for oil
drilling and reoccurring issues with its blowout preventer
technology," in violation of Section 14(a).

On April 7, 2011, the DeKalb-Bricklayers Group filed an amended
class-action complaint, in which it asserted violations of Section
14(a), Rule 14a-9, and Section 20(a). "Section 20(a) establishes
secondary liability for 'every person who, directly or indirectly,
controls any person' directly liable under the" 1934 Act. "To
state a claim of control person liability under Section 20(a), a
plaintiff must show," inter alia, "a primary violation by the
controlled person.

On March 30, 2012, the District Court dismissed Bricklayers from
the action for lack of standing, finding that it had "failed to
proffer any facts showing that it was eligible to vote" on the
merger or "that it retained its Transocean stock after" the
Deepwater Horizon disaster. This dismissal left DeKalb as the sole
lead plaintiff.

DeKalb filed a second amended class-action complaint on April 18,
2012, in which it again asserted Section 14(a), Rule 14a-9, and
Section 20(a) claims.

On August 30, 2013, defendants-appellees filed a motion under Rule
12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss
DeKalb's Section 14(a) claim on the ground that it was time-barred
by the applicable statutes of repose, which motion the District
Court granted on March 14, 2014. In granting the motion, the
District Court borrowed the three-year statutes of repose that
applied to Sections 9(f) and 18(a) before the passage of SOX and
applied them to DeKalb's Section 14(a) claim, but did not address
whether SOX had extended Section 9(f)'s or Section 18(a)'s
statutes of repose to five years, apparently assuming that it had
not.

On appeal, DeKalb's argues that it requires the Court to determine
which section is most analogous to Section 14(a) and then to apply
that section's repose language to Section 14(a) and that even if
it did not appear in the action until after the applicable
statutes of repose had run, "the District Court's opinion would
still need to be reversed [or] remanded because Bricklayers'
original class action complaint was timely filed" on September 30,
2010, and DeKalb's "lead plaintiff motion of December 3, 2010
relates back to the initial filing."

In his Decision dated March 17, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/F9Gni2from Leagle.com, Judge Cabranes found DeKalb's
arguments to be without merit, and held that the District Court's
March 14, 2014 judgment dismissing DeKalb's Section 14(a) claim is
time-barred by the applicable three-year statutes of repose and
its Section 20 claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can
be granted.

The Second Circuit panel consists of Judge Cabranes and Judges
Reena Raggi and Richard C. Wesley.

DeKalb County Pension Fund is represented by Thomas L. Laughlin,
Esq. -- tlaughlin@scott-scott.com -- & David R. Scott, Esq. --
david.scott@scott-scott.com -- SCOTT+SCOTT LLP

Transocean, Inc. is represented by John W. Spiegel, Esq. --
John.Spiegel@mto.com -- MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP


TRICON AMERICAN: Violates Lease Contract, "Hernandez" Suit Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Encarnacion Hernandez, et al., individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Tricon American Homes LLC, and Does
1-20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. BC614255 (Cal. Super.,
March 18, 2016), alleges that Tricon breached the lease contract
where it charged excessive and unreasonable post move out "clean-
up" fees; failed to provide written notice of Plaintiffs' right to
a pre-move out inspection, the right to be present during the
inspection, and an opportunity to be present during the
inspection; failed to provide an itemized statement specifying
repairs or cleanings; failed to provide the opportunity, following
an initial inspection, to remedy any identified discrepancies and
to clean the premises; failed to return Plaintiffs' security
deposit; failed to provide copies of documents showing charges
incurred and deducted by Tricon to repair or clean the residential
premises; and charged for utilities (gas, water, and/or power)
incurred after vacating and moving out.

Tricon American Homes LLC, engaged in the business of acquiring
and leasing single-family homes, including predominantly lower-
income and minority communities.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Adrian R. Bacon, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN, P.C.
     324 S. Beverly Dr., #725
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Telephone: (877) 206-4741
     Facsimile: (866) 633-0228
     E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com
             abacon@attorneysforconsumers.com


TYSON FOODS: Class-Action Litigators Laud Supreme Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for The National Law Journal, reports that in
the second win this term for class action plaintiffs, the U.S.
Supreme Court on March 22 ruled, 6-2, in favor of Tyson Foods
employees seeking payment for time spent donning and doffing
protective gear.

The court rejected arguments by Tyson Foods that the employees'
work experiences were not similar enough to sustain a class
action.

"In this case each employee worked in the same facility, did
similar work, and was paid under the same policy," Justice Anthony
Kennedy wrote for the majority.  "Under these circumstances the
experiences of a subset of employees can be probative as to the
experiences of all of them."

Class-action litigators praised the decision. "This was a huge
David v. Goliath victory for over 3,000 low income workers who
took on the second largest meat packer in the planet, Tyson
foods," said Carl Mayer of Mayer Law Group in New York.  "Their
claim was simple: the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act requires
workers to get all of their wages they are entitled too, including
the time they spend putting on protective gear before slaughtering
animals."

Justice Kennedy cautioned, however, that the ruling was narrow.
"While petitioner, respondents, or their respective amici may urge
adoption of broad and categorical rules governing the use of
representative and statistical evidence in class actions, this
case provides no occasion to do so."

He also said the ruling does not resolve the question of whether
uninjured plaintiffs should be compensated as part of the class
action.  That issue, Justice Kennedy wrote, is not yet "fairly
presented by this case, because the damages award has not yet been
disbursed, nor does the record indicate how it will be disbursed."

Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. wrote a concurrence expressing
concern about that aspect of the ruling.  Justice Samuel Alito Jr.
agreed with part of Roberts' concurrence as well as a dissent
written by Justice Clarence Thomas.  Justice Thomas objected to
the district court's handling of evidence in the case, and
disagreed with most aspects of the majority's reasoning.

Class action defense lawyers drew solace from the court's decision
to sidestep the issue of non-injured plaintiffs.  "The question
that interested most of the class action bar -- when it is proper
to certify a class that includes uninjured class members -- was
not decided," said Kevin McGinty of Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris,
Glovsky and Popeo.

The ruling in Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo upholds a nearly $6
million verdict in favor of workers at an Iowa pork processing
plant who jointly challenged the underpayment.  The U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the class action.

It was the most recent of several Supreme Court cases dealing with
the compensability of time needed by workers for "donning and
doffing" work outfits and safety gear.  The Tyson case was also
the second class action class ruled on this term, with two more
still pending. The first, Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, also went in
favor of plaintiffs in a ruling issued in January.

The decision on March 22 was a win for David Frederick of Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, who represented the Tyson
plaintiffs. Carter Phillips of Sidley Austin argued on behalf of
Tyson.  It was clear from oral argument last November that the
justices were sympathetic to the plaintiffs' cause.

Mr. Phillips argued that the class was invalid because of the
"widely differing" amounts of time workers at the plant take
depending on the gear needed for different tasks at the processing
plant.

But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said "it did not seem like that
wide a disparity," and Justice Kennedy said, "I just don't
understand your argument." Justice Sonia Sotomayor also said
during oral argument, "I'm completely at a loss as to what you're
complaining about."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: French Court Upholds Geolocalization
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that France's top administrative
court has upheld the right of car services like Uber to use
geolocalization for potential customers, dealing a blow to a law
pushed by taxi drivers who say the app-based ride-hailing company
is competing unfairly.

The March 9 decision found that the law violated European Union
rules by targeting a specific service.  But the decision upheld
France's effort more generally to regulate car services.  French
taxi drivers have protested repeatedly, and sometimes violently,
against Uber, and two of its French executives went on trial over
allegations that the company's now-defunct low-cost offering
operated illegally.

Uber continues to operate with professional drivers in France.  It
is banned entirely in Spain and Italy and under pressure elsewhere
in Europe.


UNITED COLLECTION BUREAU: Faces "Sandoval" Suit in N.J. Ct.
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc.
The case is captioned Georgina Sandoval, on behalf of herself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. United Collection
Bureau, Inc., John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. #: 2:16-cv-
01583-WJM-MF (Dist. N.J., Newark, March 22, 2016).

United Collection Bureau provides debt collection and accounts
receivable management services. It serves various industries,
including commercial, credit card, education, financial,
government, healthcare, telecommunications, and utilities. The
company was formerly known as UCB, Inc. United Collection Bureau,
Inc. was founded in 1959 and is based in Toledo, Ohio with
additional offices in Florida and Michigan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, NJ 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117


UNITED FABRICS: Faces "Stanley" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dyshell Stanley v. United Fabrics, Inc., Robert Grobman; Neal
Grobman; John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001046-16 (N.J.
Super., March 21, 2016), alleges that Defendants wrongfully
terminated the Plaintiff's employment after one month of medical
leave caused by renal failure.  Plaintiff requests that the Court
order the defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent
with the claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to
the specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly
situated.

United Fabrics, Inc. is a wholesale to-the-trade distributor of
upholstery and decorative fabrics, vinyl and genuine leather.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Telephone: (856) 727-9700


UNITED PARCEL: Faces "Kelly" Suit Over Wrongful Termination
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Kelly v. United Parcel Service, Inc.; Pete Dempsey; Jill
Baker and John Does 1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-001049-19 ((N.J.
Super., March 21, 2016), alleges that Defendants wrongfully
terminated the Plaintiff's employment due to depression and PTSD-
like symptoms.  Plaintiff requests that the Court order the
defendants to cease and desist all conduct inconsistent with the
claims made in the Complaint going forward, both as to the
specific plaintiff and as to all other individuals similarly
situated.

United Parcel Service, Inc. is an express carrier and package
delivery company, and a provider of specialized transportation,
logistics, capital, and e-commerce services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kevin M. Costello, Esq.
     COSTELLO & MAINS, LLC
     18000 Horizon Way, Suite 800
     Mount Laurel, NJ 08054
     Telephone: (856) 727-9700


UNITED SERVICES: Judge Has Yet to Decide on Attorney Sanctions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Friedman, writing for Arkansas Business, reports that Judge
P.K. Holmes III presided over the show-cause hearing at the
federal courthouse in Fort Smith.

As of March 27, an order had not been issued involving possible
sanctions against 17 lawyers who were involved in a class-action
lawsuit.

On Feb. 18, U.S. District Judge P.K. Holmes III held a show-cause
hearing in a courtroom of the Judge Isaac C. Parker Federal
Building & Courthouse in Fort Smith.  He had invited the lawyers
to explain why they shouldn't be sanctioned for maneuvers made in
the case that appeared to him to be forum shopping.

The attorneys denied doing anything wrong.

At the end of the Feb. 18 hearing, Judge Holmes said he would take
the matter under advisement, and the earliest he would have a
ruling would be in four weeks -- which was March 17.  There isn't
a deadline for the ruling to be made.

At the center of the hearing was the class-action case of Adams v.
United Services Automobile Association (USAA).  It had been on
Holmes' docket for 17 months, when it was dismissed in June 2015
and immediately refiled in state court with a settlement already
attached. Holmes didn't know the case had been refiled in state
court until he read about it in Arkansas Business.

If the lawyers do get sanctioned, it's unclear what it might mean
for their careers.

"It would have to be disclosed, certainly if they were trying to
practice in another state, even if only temporarily," said
W. Bradley Wendel, a law professor who teaches ethics at Cornell
Law School in Ithaca, New York.  Mr. Wendel, who wasn't familiar
with the facts in the Adams' case, said the effect on an
attorney's career would depend on the nature of the severity of
the sanctions.

"It could potentially be important if the judge makes the finding
that they engaged in serious misconduct," he said.  "Then it's the
kind of thing that would have an effect on their ability to
practice elsewhere."

In the show-cause hearing, attorney David Matthews of Rogers
represented the attorneys for USAA in the class-action case,
including Lyn Pruitt of the Mitchell Williams firm in Little Rock,
and Wystan Ackerman and Stephen Goldman, both of Robinson Cole of
Hartford, Connecticut.

Mr. Matthews told Judge Holmes that sanctions against the
attorneys could damage his clients' careers.

"They have each spent their entire careers in ways that have led
them to being acknowledged to be among the best of our profession,
serving in important roles both in adjunct academia and in
professional organizations," he said.  "Yet a life of achievement
is now in jeopardy of being tainted."

All of Mr. Matthews' clients have national practices and often
have to apply to courts in states where they aren't licensed to
try a single case.

"Thus a sanction in this case could presumably be used to try to
preclude their participation in future cases in different courts,"
Mr. Matthews said.  "Their very livelihood is at stake."

As long as attorneys are allowed to resume practice after a
sanction, it might not be a huge stain on their career, said
Geoffrey Hazard, a law professor at the University of California
Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco who specializes in
legal ethics and professional responsibility.

"I'm sure they don't like the idea at all," said Mr. Hazard, who
also was unfamiliar with the facts in the case.  "It's very
important symbolically, morally, professionally, but functionally,
not so much."

Mr. Wendel said that judges understand that issuing sanctions is a
"regrettable necessity."

"I think judges understand that it's part of the job that they
have to exercise control," he said.  "And they have to make sure
the lawyers respect the rules."


UNITED STATES: Hamscom Air Base Faces Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Redmond, writing for Lowell Sun, reports that in his three
decades as a civilian worker at Hanscom Air Force Base,
Mike Griffin, a program manager, has been in charge of overseeing
the multibillion-dollar AWACS warning and control system and other
expensive weapons systems.

"We (program managers) buy weapons systems for the Department of
Justice," said Mr. Griffin, who has worked at Hanscom, either
privately or as a government employee, since 1987.

"I am entrusted to do that, but now I am training the people who
are 40 or younger who are getting promoted to a job I'm already
doing without the pay," he said.  "It's demoralizing."

Mr. Griffin and nine other Hanscom workers age 55-65 filed an age-
discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission in 2014 claiming Hanscom officials have
repeatedly bypassed older workers for promotion in favor of
younger, less experienced workers.

Tom Siracusa, a GS13 at Hanscom and union local president of
SEIU/NAGE, sought class-action status due to the potential of
hundreds of employees at other governmental facilities facing the
same alleged discrimination.

Last August, EEOC Administrative Judge Kathleen Mearn Clarke
denied the class-action status, not due to merit, but due to
numbers.  Judge Clarke ruled that a small group of only 10 workers
at Hanscom does not qualify for class-action status.

As for the merits of the complaint, Judge Clarke wrote that
Mr. Siracusa showed that Hanscom officials "engaged in a pattern
and practice of age discrimination based upon non-selection of
older workers in favor of significantly younger, less qualified
workers . . ."

Since 2010, when the government began offering GS13 positions,
GS12 workers like Griffin, 63, of Mr.  Methuen, and Mr. Siracusa,
65, of Wilmington, began applying for the promotions and the
corresponding $5,000 bump in their $90,000 or so annual salary, a
potential increase of $35,000 to $40,000 to their retirement.

But Mr. Siracusa claims the promotion rules changed. In the past,
the three-panel interviewers gave more weight to the applicant's
resume and references and a less weight to the interview.

Now all three aspects are equal, so someone who does well during
the interview can be chosen over someone with more experience, Mr.
Siracusa said.

Some senior employees have interviewed up to 20 times and can't
get past the subjective standards of the interview.

Messrs. Griffin and Siracusa have taken their complaints to the
next step.  The EEOC has assigned each person moving forward with
a complaint an investigator who will probe the allegations and
issue a report either substantiating the claims or rejecting them.

When contacted by The Sun, Chuck Paone, director of public affairs
at Hanscom, released a statement: "These allegations are currently
being investigated," he states.  "As a matter of policy, we do not
comment on ongoing investigations."

But as both men near retirement age, time to resolve what they see
as unfairness in the promotion process is not on their side.

"What we really want is for them to just acknowledge the problem
and fix it for the people who come after us," Mr. Griffin said.


UNITED STATES: Tea Party Activists Laud Court Ruling v. IRS
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dan Sewell, writing for The Associated Press, reports that tea
party activists are heartened by a federal appeals court ruling
that strengthens their legal push against the IRS for alleged
targeting in past election cycles.

A three-judge panel of the Cincinnati-based 6th U.S. Circuit Court
of Appeals chastised government foot-dragging while ordering the
agency to give attorneys for tea party groups details on tax-
exempt applicants.  A U.S. district judge in Cincinnati this year
certified the case as a class action.

Tea Party Patriots co-founder Jenny Beth Martin praised the
original plaintiffs for "relentless pursuit of the truth."

The 2013 lawsuit was among litigation, congressional hearings and
federal investigations over treatment of conservative groups who
said they were singled out for extra IRS scrutiny.  The Justice
Department decided against any criminal charges after its probe.

"It's about time," Tim Savaglio of the Liberty Township Tea Party
said of the federal order to release IRS records.

The IRS inspector general said in a 2013 report that applications
with such words as "tea party" and "patriots" were set aside,
among hundreds of applications including some from liberal groups
that languished.  Groups on agency "Be On the Lookout" lists
received what the 6th Circuit ruling called "crushing demands" for
additional information such as lists of donors, the content of
speeches and presentations, details of activities and copies of
newsletters, emails and advertising materials.

Mr. Savaglio said his group went more than a year without response
to its application, then received a letter seeking more
information about its activities.  He said that after providing
information, the tea party group got another letter asking for
clarification. IRS employees, he said, took exception to such
things as postings on the group's Facebook page, including reposts
by people not in their group.

"We considered ourselves an education group," Mr. Savaglio said.
He said his group hasn't responded to an IRS request to re-apply
for special tax status.

Ms. Martin praised the NorCal Tea Party Patriots, the California-
based group since joined by other groups in the Cincinnati
lawsuit.  The group alleged violation of privacy laws and its
constitutional rights.

"The entire movement owes the NorCal Tea Party their thanks for
keeping the pressure on the IRS and never giving up the fight,"
she said in a statement.

Much of the agency's top leadership was replaced, and the
government says changed have been made in how tax-exempt
applications are handled.

The Justice Department didn't respond immediately to a request for
comment on the 6th Circuit ruling.

Judge Raymond Kethledge of 6th Circuit wrote that the IRS'
response to the lawsuit "has only compounded the conduct that gave
rise to it," and said the court expects it "will do better going
forward" and comply immediately with court-ordered discovery.


UNIVERSAL PROTEIN: Sued Over "Made Proudly In The USA" Ads
----------------------------------------------------------
Marcus Giffin v. Universal Protein Supplements Corporation d/b/a
Universal Nutrition, Universal USA, and/or Animal Pak, Case No.
BC613414 (Cal. Super., March 21, 2016), alleged that Defendants
packaged, advertised, marketed, promoted, and sold its Class
Products as "Made Proudly In The USA," or some derivative thereof;
however, although Defendant represents that its Class Products are
made in the USA, or some derivative thereof, Defendant's Class
Products are wholly and/or substantially manufactured or produced
with components that are manufactured, grown and/or sourced
outside of the U.S.

Universal Protein Supplements Corporation, a New Jersey
corporation, is an American conglomerate that manufactures and/or
distributes various products, including consumable consumer
packaged goods such as dietary supplements and over the counter
workout products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
     Andrei Armas, Esq.
     KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
     245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626
     Telephone: (800) 400-6808
     Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
     E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
             andrei@kazlg.com

          - and -

     Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
     HYDE & SWIGART
     2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
     San Diego, CA 92108-3551
     Telephone: (619) 233-7770
     Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
     E-mail: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


UNIVERSITY OF PHOENIX: Investors File Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reports that University of
Phoenix sued for prohibited recruitment tactics, as well as its
parent company Apollo Education Group Inc., after investors claim
the for-profit college hid millions of revenue dollars which came
from a sophisticated, yet prohibited, strategy of targeting
veterans.

On March 21, investors of a class-action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court of Arizona said the University of Phoenix violated
federal securities laws by touting its financial success while at
the same time covering up "a substantial portion" of its profits
came from military recruitment tactics and marketing which are
prohibited. Apollo's stock, as a result, "traded at artificially
inflated levels," the investors wrote.

The improper recruiting by the University of Phoenix was brought
to attention after a Reveal investigation exposed how the school
violated a 2012 executive order intended to protect veterans from
abusive recruiting tactics by for-profit colleges.  The order was
bypassed by the University of Phoenix after about $1 million was
paid to the military in recent years to allow exclusive access to
several military bases, where they held events disguised as r‚sum‚
workshops and included military logos without permission on
"challenge coins" distributed by recruiters.

As a result of the investigation, the Pentagon prompted the
University of Phoenix to be put on probation and ban troops from
using federal funds for the school's classes in October.  In
January, the Pentagon lifted the ban, although the school remains
under formal probation and will be monitored closely by the
Pentagon until 2017.

According to the class-action lawsuit, the errors the University
of Phoenix made with the military caused its stocks to drop.  The
lawsuit stated Apollo Education's stocks dropped 80 percent after
recent events, "erasing more than $3 billion in market
capitalization," stated the lawsuit.


UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS: Judge Dismisses Students' Due Process Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
Miriam Rozen, writing for Texas Lawyer, reports that a state
district judge has dismissed lawsuits filed by two men who claimed
the University of Texas unfairly targeted them and denied them due
process after they were accused of committing sexual assaults.

The two, each only identified as "John Doe" in the litigation,
both denied the sexual assault allegations and neither face
criminal charges.

The two men -- one is an undergraduate, and the other already
earned a degree -- asked the court to bar UT from meting out
punishments based on the sexual assault allegations.  Those
punishments could include stripping one of his degree and
expelling the other, said Brian Roark of Austin's Botsford &
Roark, who represents the two men.

But on Feb. 29, 345th District Court Judge Stephen Yelenosky
dismissed the cases because the two men had not yet exhausted the
university's administrative procedures.

J.B. Bird, director of media outreach for UT-Austin, had no
comment.

In answers filed in court, UT denied the men's allegations.
Roark said he was not surprised by the dismissals, although he
disagreed with them.

"We filed this early because UT's administrative hearing is itself
a violation of due process," Mr. Roark said.  "This ruling was not
about the merits of our cases."

Mr. Roark expects his clients to work through the UT
administrative hearing process and then pursue all necessary
appeals through the university.

But Mr. Roark holds out little hope for success in that arena
because the UT administrative proceedings deny them due process,
he said. Specifically, the rules UT has established for the
proceedings do not require that his clients are provided with any
or all exculpatory evidence, an advocate at hearings, or --
perhaps, most significantly -- the right to cross-examine their
accusers, Mr. Roark said.  So most likely, eventually his clients
will return to the courthouse to re-file claims against UT,
Mr. Roark said.

Nationwide, students who have been accused of sexual assaults and
punished by their schools have filed claims against those
universities, including Columbia, Brown, and Amherst.  In those
claims, several of which are pending in federal courts, the
students allege that the schools violated their civil rights and
discriminated against them because of their gender.

Universities began bolstering their punishments of those accused
of sexual assaults about four years ago.  The trend started after
2011 when, in response to reports of widespread sexual assaults on
U.S. campuses, the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil
Rights issued a directive, which stressed that the federal agency
would withhold federal funding if schools did not pursue and stop
sexual assaults on campus.

Mr. Roark believes that the schools, such as UT, became
overzealous about disciplining students to ensure their federal
funding.


US OIL FUND: NY Action in Initial Stages for New Defendants
-----------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on July 31, 2015,
RBC Capital Markets, LLC was added as a new defendant in a pending
putative class action initially filed in November 2013 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. The action is brought against multiple foreign exchange
dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among other allegations,
in foreign exchange trading. The action is in its initial stages
as it relates to the new defendants, including RBC Capital
Markets, LLC.


US OIL FUND: Canada Actions in Initial Stages
---------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that class action
lawsuits in Canada are in their initial stages.

On September 11, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and a motion for authorization
of a class action was filed in the Quebec Superior Court, both on
behalf of an alleged class of Canadian investors, against Royal
Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and a number of other
foreign exchange dealers. The Canadian class actions allege that
the defendants conspired to manipulate the prices of currency
trades and are in their initial stages. Based on the facts
currently known, it is not possible to predict the ultimate
outcome of the Foreign Exchange Matters or the timing of their
ultimate resolution.


US OIL FUND: Del. Supreme Court Affirmed District Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
United States Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Delaware Supreme
Court has affirmed the Court of Chancery with respect to both the
appeal and cross-appeal in a class action lawsuit.

On October 14, 2014, the Delaware Court of Chancery (the Court of
Chancery) in a class action brought by former shareholders of
Rural/Metro Corporation, held RBC Capital Markets, LLC liable for
aiding and abetting a breach of fiduciary duty by three
Rural/Metro directors, but did not make an additional award for
attorney's fees. A final judgment was entered on February 19, 2015
in the amount of US$93 million plus post judgment interest.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC appealed the Court of Chancery's
determination of liability and quantum of damages, and the
plaintiffs cross-appealed the ruling on additional attorneys'
fees. On November 30, 2015, the Delaware Supreme Court affirmed
the Court of Chancery with respect to both the appeal and cross-
appeal.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC is cooperating with an investigation by
the SEC relating to this matter.

The United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a Delaware limited
partnership organized on May 12, 2005. USO maintains its main
business office at 1999 Harrison Street, Suite 1530, Oakland,
California 94612. USO is a commodity pool that issues limited
partnership interests ("shares") traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc.
(the "NYSE Arca"). It operates pursuant to the terms of the Sixth
Amended and Restated Agreement of Limited Partnership dated as of
March 1, 2013 (as amended from time to time, the "LP Agreement"),
which grants full management control to its general partner,
United States Commodity Funds LLC ("USCF").


VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Fails to Pay Proper Wage, "Cornell" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Leticia Cornell, an individual, for herself and all members of the
putative class v. Verizon California, Inc., a California
corporation; and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC614461
(Cal. Super., March 21, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay proper wage or compensation in violation of the
California Labor Code.

Verizon California, Inc. provides domestic wireline
telecommunications services to local access transport areas in
California; offers exchange telecommunication service for the
transmission of telecommunications among customers located within
a local calling area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     R. Rex Parris, Esq.
     Kitty K. Szeto, Esq.
     John M. Bickford, Esq.
     Eric N. Wilson, Esq.
     R. REX PARRIS LAW FIRM
     43364 10th Street West
     Lancaster, CA 93534
     Telephone: (661) 949-2595
     Facsimile: (661) 949-7524


VISA INC: Judge Denies Retailers' Preliminary Injunction Request
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for Law.com, reports that U.S. District Judge
William Alsup didn't take kindly to a request for a preliminary
injunction filed by lawyers for small Florida retailers who are
pursuing antitrust claims against credit card companies and large
banks.

Judge Alsup on March 17 denied the plaintiffs' request for a
nationwide ban on a shift in liability for fraudulent credit card
transactions to merchants just days after it hit his docket. Alsup
wrote that the motion filed by lawyers at Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd and Florida-based Devine Goodman Rasco & Watts-FitzGerald was
"so deficient that it would be a monumental waste of resources to
require the eighteen defendants to respond and oppose the motion."

The plaintiffs' team filed suit claiming Visa Inc., MasterCard
Inc., American Express Co., Discover Financial Services and a
collection of large banks conspired to shift liability for
fraudulent transactions in the U.S. to merchants last October as
part of the move to cards that include electronic chips.  To avoid
liability, retailers had to install new chip-compatible equipment
and have it inspected by third-party certifiers by the October
deadline.  According to the suit, certification has been a
"nebulous process that was utterly outside [merchants'] control."
Shortly after filing the complaint, plaintiffs asked for an
injunction barring the so-called "liability shift" until after
plaintiffs' systems are certified.

Judge Alsup pointed out the only record supporting the plaintiffs'
motion so far consists of two 1 1/2-page declarations: One from a
liquor store cashier who said customers have been disgruntled that
they have to swipe their cards and show ID and another from an
executive assistant who handles chargebacks for the stores noting
an increase from one or two per week to upwards of 15 since
October.

"The sworn record shows no more than an uptick in inconvenience,
lost time, unhappy customers, and lost sales, all of which can be
compensated for via a damage award," Judge Alsup wrote. "These
well-heeled defendants will be good for the judgment."  Robbins
Geller's Patrick Coughlin didn't respond to a message seeking
comment.  As of March 18, only defense counsel for Visa Inc. had
entered an appearance on the docket.  The company is represented
by Robert Vizas and Sharon Mayo of Arnold & Porter.

Judge Alsup wrote toward the end of the March 17 order that his
decision on the preliminary injunction "in no way blesses the
challenged combination and in no way rules that the complaint
fails to state a claim for relief (except to note that a Florida
business is unlikely to have any claim for relief under
California's Cartwright Act)."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: FTC Files Suit Over False "Clean Diesel" Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Biesecker and Tom Krisher, writing for The Associated
Press, report that a federal consumer watchdog sued Volkswagen on
March 29, charging the company made false claims in commercials
promoting its "Clean Diesel" vehicles as environmentally friendly.

The German automaker hastily pulled the ads following last year's
admission it had installed illegal software on its diesel vehicles
to cheat emissions tests.  U.S. regulators say Volkswagen's
engines spewed up to 40 times the allowed levels of air pollutants
in real-world driving conditions.

The Federal Trade Commission alleges that Volkswagen deceived
customers during a seven-year period by selling its diesel cars
based on fraudulent claims made through its marketing campaigns.
That campaign included Super Bowl ads, online social media
campaigns and print advertising targeted to "environmentally
conscious" consumers.

"Hybrids? They're so last year," Volkswagen proclaimed in a mailer
to customers promoting its 2009 Jetta TDI.  "Now going green
doesn't have to feel like you're going green."

The FTC's action is the latest blow to Volkswagen, which also
faces more than $20 billion in potential fines for violating U.S.
clean air regulations.

"For years Volkswagen's ads touted the company's 'Clean Diesel'
cars even though it now appears Volkswagen rigged the cars with
devices designed to defeat emissions tests," said FTC Chairwoman
Edith Ramirez.  "Our lawsuit seeks compensation for the consumers
who bought affected cars based on Volkswagen's deceptive and
unfair practices."

The Justice Department and the Environmental Protection Agency are
also weighing potential criminal charges against the company and
senior executives.  The company also faces hundreds of class
action lawsuits filed on behalf of angry customers.

A federal judge in California overseeing the raft of civil
litigation has given the company until April 21 to come up with a
recall and compensation plan covering the nearly 600,000 diesel
cars sold in the U.S. containing the so-called "defeat devices"
designed to game government emissions tests.

Volkswagen Group of America spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan said on
March 29 the company is reviewing the latest lawsuit and
"continues to cooperate with all relevant U.S. regulators."

"Our most important priority is to find a solution to the diesel
emissions matter and earn back the trust of our customers and
dealers as we build a better company," Ms. Ginivan said.

With scores of unsold diesels collecting dust on the lots of VW's
dealers, legal and auto industry analysts predicted the company's
woes will continue to deepen.

"Every government agency that is even remotely impacted by this
situation will sue to recoup what they consider damages to the
agency's constituents," said Rebecca Lindland, senior analyst at
Kelley Blue Book.  There's really no end in sight to this
situation and all VW can do is continue to cooperate and work on a
fix."

Alan Brown, general manager of a VW dealer in Lewisville, Texas,
and chairman of the company's National Dealer Advisory Council,
said dealers are eager to get the scandal behind them.  He said
diesel-powered VWs previously accounted for 25 percent to 40
percent of sales for many U.S. dealerships.

Ms. Brown said he didn't think the latest lawsuit will hurt sales
any further because it raises issues that have been aired
previously.

"I think at this stage of the game, nothing really shocks any of
us," he said of the FTC lawsuit.  "The dealers just want the
distractions to go away.  There's nothing worse than the public
wanting your product and you can't sell it."


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Has Until April 21 to Draw Up Emissions Solution
---------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad and David Ruiz, writing for Law.com, report that a
federal judge in San Francisco has given Volkswagen A.G. until
April 21 to come up with a plan to fix the emissions problems
plaguing its diesel vehicles.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who is overseeing 500 lawsuits
against Volkswagen, originally had set a deadline to come up with
a plan to fix about 600,000 diesel vehicles in the United States
with a defeat device in them designed to cheat emissions tests.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has said the cars emit as
much as 40 times the standard for nitrogen oxides.

In court on March 24, Judge Breyer said that Volkswagen and the
EPA had made "substantial progress," based on the status reports
of former FBI director Robert Mueller, who is serving as
settlement master, but both sides were "unable to announce what
that resolution is because there continues to be engineering
technicalities that all the parties are diligently working on
resolving."

In setting a new deadline for April, Judge Breyer emphasized that
the plan must be "specific and detailed as to the proposed timing,
what cars are involved, payments to the consumer, and the like."
If no plan is reached, Judge Breyer said he would "seriously
consider whether to hold a bench trial this summer."

Lead plaintiffs lawyers in the litigation have pushed for a July
trial, but Volkswagen's lawyers have called that timetable
premature.

Volkswagen spokeswoman Jeannine Ginivan wrote in an email:
"Volkswagen is committed to resolving the U.S. regulatory
investigation into the diesel emissions matter as quickly as
possible and to implementing a solution for affected vehicles."

On Feb. 22, lead plaintiffs lawyers filed three consolidated
nationwide class actions: One for individual car owners and
lessees of Volkswagen's "clean diesel" cars, one for used car
dealerships that haven't been able to sell those cars and one for
dealerships that haven't been able to sell competing "clean
diesel" vehicles, such as those made by General Motors Co.  The
complaints raise various claims including violations of the
federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, and the Lanham Act, and several state
laws involving advertising, warranties and consumer protection.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Dealers Meet with German Execs Amid Class Actions
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that Volkswagen
dealers have had enough.

Promises of 800,000 sales never came true. Eurocentric product
planning created a car-heavy lineup in the U.S. market, where
crossovers are king.  The diesel emissions scandal has dented
business and soured customer sentiment.

The abrupt departure of Michael Horn, who was CEO of VW of
America, on March 9 seemed to be the last straw for VW dealers,
many of whom felt they had lost their only champion with the clout
to get things done at company headquarters in Wolfsburg, Germany.

Mr. Horn's exit set Alan Brown, chairman of the Volkswagen
National Dealer Advisory Council, into action.  The council issued
a stern press release denouncing Mr. Horn's departure, while talks
of class-action lawsuits began to gain steam from elsewhere in
VW's dealer network.

To head off a mutiny, Mr. Brown and two others on VW's dealer
council brought their concerns directly to VW, meeting with global
brand chief Herbert Diess, newly appointed North America chief
Hinrich Woebcken, global sales boss Juergen Stackmann and North
America sales boss Ludger Fretzen.

Now, Mr. Brown, 44, says VW needs to sell 500,000 units annually
for a healthy dealer network.

Mr. Brown, who is general manager and partner of Lewisville
Volkswagen near Dallas, spoke with Staff Reporter Ryan Beene.

Mr. Brown told Automotive News' Mr. Beene "The agenda of the
meeting in Germany was to really settle in and prepare this new
leadership for NADA.  This new leadership team in Dr. Diess, Mr.
Stackmann and Mr. Woebcken, they want to win.  They want to make
their mark, and they see it as a great opportunity to make their
mark because all of the leadership prior to this has been
ineffective in the U.S. market."

"The core of the conversation was very simple: 330,000 units does
nothing but lose Volkswagen a ton of money and puts the dealer at
about half of NADA [guidelines] on return on sales.  It's a train
wreck for both of us. Volkswagen AG has made this great investment
in the last seven years.  The dealer network has made this great
infrastructure investment in the last seven years, and we're both
looking at each other saying "this ain't working." We're going to
have to be in that 450,000 to 500,000 unit range as a new baseline
that we build from."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Kentucky AG Files Suit Over Emissions Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Schreiner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Kentucky Attorney General Andy Beshear sued Volkswagen on
March 22, claiming the German automaker's diesel emissions
cheating scheme violated the state's consumer protection law.

The lawsuit, filed in a state court, seeks civil penalties
potentially totaling millions of dollars, plus restitution for the
owners of nearly 3,800 vehicles registered in Kentucky,
Mr. Beshear said.

"We have a very strong law that is meant to prevent companies like
this . . . from making an outright lie that they then use to sell
what's a pretty expensive product," Mr. Beshear said at a state
Capitol news conference.

Kentucky's suit continues the fallout against Volkswagen since its
admission last year that nearly 600,000 cars were sold in the U.S.
with software that regulators say was designed to cheat on
required emissions tests.

Mr. Beshear said Volkswagen must be held accountable for false
promotion of its vehicles in Kentucky.

"They convinced Kentuckians that wanted to own a 'green' vehicle
that they were buying one," the Democratic attorney general said.
"All the while their cheat devices were convincing the public that
these vehicles were clean when they in fact were not."

A VW spokeswoman, Jeannine Ginivan, said on March 22 that the
company typically doesn't comment on litigation.  Volkswagen is
working with federal environmental regulators and others to
resolve the matter as quickly as possible, she said.

Kentucky's suit was filed in Franklin County Circuit Court in
Frankfort.

Four other states -- Texas, New Mexico, New Jersey and West
Virginia -- have filed separate lawsuits against the automaker,
according to Mr. Beshear's office.

The company potentially faces more than $20 billion in fines from
state and federal regulators, as well as hundreds of class-action
lawsuits filed on behalf of angry vehicle owners.

Volkswagen in September admitted to U.S. regulators that it had
used illegal software installed in its so-called "Clean Diesel"
engines.  The move allowed cars to pass laboratory emissions tests
while spewing levels of harmful nitrogen oxide at up to 40 times
the level allowed when operating on real roads.

The automaker's lone U.S. plant is in Tennessee.


WEB.COM GROUP: Faces Data Breach Action in California
-----------------------------------------------------
Web.com Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on February 2, 2016, a
putative class action was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company.
The complaint arises from the data breach discovered and disclosed
by the Company in August 2015, and alleges that the Company
violated the California Unfair Competition Law, the California
Data Breach Act and the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing, and a claim for money had and received. The plaintiff
seeks unspecified monetary damages, restitution, injunctive
relief, and other relief against the Company.

Web.com Group, Inc. provides a full range of Internet services to
small businesses to help them compete and succeed online.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Trial in Geismar Incident Suit Postponed
------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the trial in one
lawsuit related to the Geismar Incident has been postponed to
September.

"Multiple lawsuits, including class actions for alleged offsite
impacts, property damage, customer claims, and personal injury,
have been filed against us. To date, we have settled certain of
the personal injury claims for an aggregate immaterial amount that
we have recovered from our insurers. The trial for certain
plaintiffs claiming personal injury, that was set to begin on June
15, 2015, in Iberville Parish, Louisiana, has been postponed to
September 6, 2016.

"We believe it is probable that additional losses will be incurred
on some lawsuits, while for others we believe it is only
reasonably possible that losses will be incurred. However, due to
ongoing litigation involving defenses to liability, the number of
individual plaintiffs, limited information as to the nature and
extent of all plaintiffs' damages, and the ultimate outcome of all
appeals, we are unable to reliably estimate any such losses at
this time. We believe that it is probable that any ultimate losses
incurred will be covered by our general liability insurance
policy, which has an aggregate limit of $610 million applicable to
this event and retention (deductible) of $2 million per
occurrence."

Williams Companies is primarily an energy infrastructure company
focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon
resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Alaska High Court Decision Expected in Spring
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Alaska
Supreme Court's decision in the in Alaska Refinery Contamination
Litigation is expected this spring.

In 2010, James West filed a class action lawsuit in state court in
Fairbanks, Alaska on behalf of individual property owners whose
water contained sulfolane contamination allegedly emanating from
the Flint Hills Oil Refinery in North Pole, Alaska. The suit named
our subsidiary, Williams Alaska Petroleum Inc. (WAPI), and Flint
Hills Resources Alaska, LLC (FHRA), a subsidiary of Koch
Industries, Inc., as defendants. We owned and operated the
refinery until 2004 when we sold it to FHRA. We and FHRA made
claims under the pollution liability insurance policy issued in
connection with the sale of the North Pole refinery to FHRA. We
and FHRA also filed claims against each other seeking, among other
things, contractual indemnification alleging that the other party
caused the sulfolane contamination.

In 2011, we and FHRA settled the James West claim. We and FHRA
subsequently filed motions for summary judgment on the other's
claims. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed all FHRA's claims and
entered judgment for us.

On August 6, 2014, FHRA appealed the court's decision to the
Alaska Supreme Court, which heard oral arguments in October of
2015. The Supreme Court's decision is expected this spring.


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Action Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the motion to
dismiss a stockholder class action in Delaware remains pending.

"In July 2015, a purported stockholder of us filed a putative
class and derivative action on behalf of us in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware," the Company said.  "The action
names as defendants certain members of our Board of Directors as
well as WPZ, and names us as a nominal defendant."

"On December 4, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint for
such action, alleging that the preliminary proxy statement filed
in connection with our proposed merger with Energy Transfer is
false and misleading. As relief, the complaint requests, among
other things, an injunction requiring us to make supplemental
disclosures and an award of costs and attorneys' fees. On December
9, 2015, we moved to dismiss the amended complaint. We cannot
reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this time."


WILLIAMS COMPANIES: Still Facing Suit Over Energy Transfer Merger
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Williams Companies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that between October
5, 2015 and January 19, 2016, purported stockholders of us filed
seven putative class action lawsuits in the Delaware Court of
Chancery, one suit in U.S. District Court in Delaware, and one
suit in U.S. District Court in Oklahoma, each challenging our
proposed merger with Energy Transfer.

"The complaints assert various claims against the individual
members of our Board of Directors, certain entities affiliated
with Energy Transfer (the "ETE defendants"), and us," the Company
said.  "The allegations include claims that our Board of Directors
breached its fiduciary duties to our stockholders by agreeing to
sell us through an allegedly unfair process and for an allegedly
unfair price, that the ETE defendants and/or we aided and abetted
this purported breach of fiduciary duties, and that our directors
violated their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose
material information about the merger. Two lawsuits also claim
that disclosures about the merger violate federal securities laws
and our Directors, we, and ETE defendants are liable for such
violations. The complaints seek, among other things, an injunction
against the merger and an award of costs and attorneys' fees.

"We cannot reasonably estimate a range of potential loss at this
time."

Williams Companies is primarily an energy infrastructure company
focused on connecting North America's significant hydrocarbon
resource plays to markets for natural gas, NGLs, and olefins.


WS BADCOCK: "Harp" Class Action Moved to M.D. Fla. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------
Michael Harp, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. W.S. Badcock Corporation, doing business
as: Badcock & More, Case No. 2016-CA-619, was removed from the
Polk County Court, to the US District Court for the Middle
District Court of Florida, Tampa. Middle District Court assigned
Case No. 8:16-cv-00712-EAK-MAP to the proceeding.

W.S. Badcock owns and operates home furniture retail stores. The
company sells sofas, loveseats, sectional sofas, chaises, chairs,
recliners, sleeper sofas, accent tables, ottomans, beds, chests,
media chests, dressers and mirrors, nightstands, linens, bunk
beds, trundle beds, cabinets, barstools, and mattresses and
pillows. It also sells refrigerators and freezers, washers and
dryers, microwaves, dishwashers, cookware, vacuum cleaners,
televisions, computers and tablets, home theaters, electronic
accessories, desks, bookcases and storage cabinets, office chairs,
lamps and lighting, table top accessories, and wall decors. The
company was founded in 1904 and is based in Mulberry, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David P. Steffen, Esq.
          Hannah Choi, Esq.
          CONSTANGY, BROOKS & SMITH, LLP
          100 N Tampa St-Ste 3350
          PO Box 1840
          Tampa, FL 33601-1840
          Telephone: (813) 223 7166
          Facsimile: (813) 223 2515
          E-mail: dsteffen@constangy.com
                  hchoi@constangy.com


WWE NETWORK: Technology Shift May Spur Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
Ecumenical News reports that the WWE has already suffered from
dipping ratings compounded by the absence of WWE stars as of to
date but more trouble could be brewing ahead.

With the WWE Network becoming the new channel for watching pay-
per-views and old WWE footages, such has sorely affected the sales
of DVDs and Blu-rays.  With that in mind, revenue resulting from
royalties of such have been severely affected.

Under the WWE Network, wrestlers are not getting any part of the
revenue generated from showing previous and present clips.  And
with the turn of attention to the WWE Network as far as showcasing
such footages, former WWE stars could end up joining together to
file a class action suit against the WWE to get their due from the
technology shift.

In the past, two personalities have tried but failed to seek
royalties from the WWE Network -- Doug Summers and Eddie Gilbert.
Matches for both have been shown on TV but the two wrestlers were
not amply given their share of royalties.

As it stands right now, the present scenario could offer something
different if the lawsuit does gain ground.  The WWE Network has
obviously enjoyed earnings from paid subscription of previous and
current shows so it seems only common to find wrestlers joining
the cause and fight for what they are properly entitled to.

The WWE charges monthly subscription fees for customers to gain
access to new and old footages and the revenue generated from such
alone is something that former stars believe they should be
getting.

There is no definite number yet on the wrestlers who could come on
board and air their cause but the WWE may find itself in more
trouble moving forward.

Right now, the WWE is gearing up for its major annual offering in
Wrestlemania 32.  The annual WWE extravaganza is trying to make do
with the current crop of stars they have, with most of the
mainstays held out due to varying injuries.


XCLUSIVE STAFFING: Violated FLSA, "Valverde" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------
Emma Gannon, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Colorado hotel workers claim in a class action in Denver that a
national staffing company and major hotels that relied on them as
temporary help routinely cheated them on their paychecks.

Isabel Valverde, the lead plaintiff in the federal lawsuit, says
Xclusive Staffing and its clients, including Marriott
International Inc. and Omni Hotels, failed to pay temporary
workers for overtime and made unfair deductions from the workers'
paychecks.

Valverde says that not only did Xclusive staffing automatically
subtract 30 minutes from his hours for lunch breaks he wasn't
always allowed to take, but they also charged him $3 per paycheck
fee just to have his paycheck issued.

In other words, the March 22 complaint says, he and his co-workers
had to "pay to get paid."

Xclusive Staffing has already had issues with federal and state
labor laws. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Labor found at least
five instances in which the company had broken minimum wage and
overtime laws, after which, the complaint says, "Xclusive promised
to conform."

But Valverde says they have failed to clean up their business
practices, and that the unwarranted deductions from his paycheck
occurred after the federal investigation.

The complaint, says that the company's consistent underreporting
of employee work hours over the wires constitutes wire fraud --
and that promises on Xclusive's website that it always complies
with state and federal minimum wage laws constitutes a "website
scheme."

Valverde also claims that Xclusive wrongly blames its clients for
the wage violations when they are discovered and reported.

He asserts that when Labor Department investigators accused Diane
Astley, who owns Xclusive, of failing to account for missed lunch
breaks on Xclusive's employee's time cards in 2012, Astley blamed
their client, Grand Hyatt.

But further investigation proved that to be untrue, Valverde says.

"Grand Hyatt was only deducting time for lunch breaks for its non-
Xclusive employees when the breaks actually taken," the complaint
says. "Xclusive was deducting time for lunch breaks regardless of
whether the breaks were taken."

In addition to class certification Valverde is seeking unspecified
damages on claims of violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, failure to
pay overtime, and breach of contract.

Representatives of Xclusive Staffing were not immediately
available for comment.

The case is, Isabel Valverde; and those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Xclusive Staffing, Inc., Xclusive Management, LLC,
d.b.a. Xclusive Staffing, Xclusive Staffing Of Colorado, LLC,
Diane Astley, Omni Interlocken Company, L.L.C., Omni Hotels
Management Corporation, Select Hotels Group, L.L.C. d.b.a. Hyatt
House Denver Tech Center, d.b.a. Hyatt Place Denver Tech Center,
and Marriott International, Inc. the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00671 (D. Col., March 22, 2016).

Xclusive Management specializes in providing staff on a short
notice. The Company operates and serves clients 24 hours a day, 7
days a week. Xclusive provides already trained personnel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alexander Hood, Esq.
          TOWARDS JUSTICE
          1535 High St., Suite 300
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (720) 239 2606
          Facsimile: (303) 957 2289
          E-mail: alex@towardsjustice.org


YAHIRO INC: Faces "Guo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Proper Wage
------------------------------------------------------------
Jianshe Guo, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Yahiro Inc. d/b/a The Loop; Raku Restaurant Inc.; Nobutaka Inc.
d/b/a Raku--It's Japanese II; and Long Ji Chen, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02014 (S.D.N.Y., March 17, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay proper wage and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New
York Labor Law.

Yahiro Inc., a New York corporation, operates a Japanese food
restaurant.

Raku Restaurant Inc., a New York corporation, operates a Japanese
food restaurant.

Nobutaka Inc., a New York corporation, operates a Japanese food
restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John Tory, Esq.
     TROY LAW, PLLC
     41-25 Kissena Blvd., Suite 119
     Flushing, NY 11355
     Telephone: (718) 762-1324
     Facsimile: (718) 762-1342
     E-mail: johntroy@troypllc.om


YAHOO! INC: Faces "Klingensmith" Suit in Ohio Court
---------------------------------------------------
Michael Klingensmith, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Yahoo!, Inc., d/b/a Yahoo!
Sports Daily Fantasy, the Defendant, Case No. CV-16-859231 (Ohio
Ct. of Common Pleas, Cuyahoga County, February 19, 2016), seeks to
recover all monies lost as a result of Yahoo's void gaming
contracts, as well as punitive damages.

Yahoo!, Inc., is a company operating a Daily Fantasy Sports (DFS)
website in a manner that violates Ohio law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Abens, Esq.
          David L. Harvey III, Esq.
          Matthew B. Abens, Esq.
          Jason T. Hartzell, Esq.
          HARVEY ABENS IOSUE CO., LPA
          3404 Lorain Avenue
          Cleveland, OH 44113
          Telephone: (216) 651 0256
          Facsimile: (216) 651 1131
          E-mail: dvdharv@harvlaw.com
                  mbabens@harvlaw.com
                  jhartzell@harvlaw.com


ZYNGA INC: $23M Securities Class Action Settlement Has Final OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco entered a final judgment
approving a $23 million class action settlement of claims that
video game developer Zynga artificially inflated its share prices.

Lead plaintiff David Fee claimed in the 2012 lawsuit that Zynga
executives, aware of the company's poor financial condition, sold
their shares in the company for hundreds of millions of dollars.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley ordered that the
settlement be awarded to a class defined as "all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zynga common stock Dec. 15, 2011
to July 25, 2012."

Up to 25 percent of the settlement fund -- about $5.7 million --
will go to attorneys' fees.

Jeffrey Norton, who represents the plaintiff, told Courthouse News
in October 2015 that he expects about 100,000 class claimants.

The case captioned, IN RE ZYNGA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION, Lead
Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSC (N.D. Cal.)


* Justice Roberts Raises Thresholds for Class Action Plaintiffs
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy M. Creelan and Daniel H. Wolf, writing for Law.com, report
that in recent years, the Roberts Court has raised the thresholds
for class action plaintiffs and other plaintiffs to bring and
sustain their claims. In Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S.
544, 562 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009),
the court announced heightened Rule 8 pleading standards,
requiring plaintiffs' claims to rise to a more stringent level of
plausibility. In Wal-Mart v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2551 (2011),
the court announced more rigorous standards that made it tougher
for plaintiffs to establish commonality and predominance under
Rule 23 class certification analysis.  And in several recent
arbitration cases, the court has sided with defendants and
required class action plaintiffs to arbitrate their claims out of
court.1 In AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, the court articulated a
concern that underlies many of these decisions -- that "[f]aced
with even a small chance of a devastating loss" as a result of
these high-impact claims, "defendants will be pressured into
settling questionable claims." Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 350.

At the start of this Supreme Court term, the court appeared poised
to continue this threshold-raising trend, granting defendants'
petitions for certiorari in three class action cases: Campbell-
Ewald Co. v. Gomez, No. 14-857 (whether an unaccepted settlement
offer of relief moots the class action); Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,
No. 13-1339 (whether a named plaintiff has Article III standing
based only on the violation of a statutorily created right); and
Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, No. 14-1146 (whether a class may be
maintained where there are uninjured members).

During oral argument in all three cases, a majority of the court
appeared to lean toward a restrictive approach to class actions,
and many commentators expected decisions favoring the defendants
in all three.  Later during the term, the court granted the
defendant's petition for certiorari in Microsoft Corp. v. Baker,
No. 15-457, another class action case, but the court recently
postponed argument in that case until the court's next term, when
the court's balance may be substantially different than it was
when certiorari was granted.

On Jan. 20, 2016, the court issued its first decision in any of
these cases.  Surprising many court watchers, the court affirmed
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's decision in
Campbell-Ewald and held that an unaccepted settlement offer of
full relief does not moot the action. Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez,
136 S. Ct. 663, 666 (2016).  Its holding prevents defendants from
unilaterally ending the class action through an unaccepted Rule 68
offer of judgment, which the court referred to as a "gambit" in
order to avoid class liability.

Despite the pro-plaintiff result in Campbell-Ewald, there is an
underlying logic to the decision that can be squared with the
court's recent class-action opinions raising the threshold
requirements faced by plaintiffs.  By heightening Rule 23
requirements and limiting which types of claims and class members
may be in the class, the court limits plaintiffs' ability to use
the "gambit" of unsupported or insufficient allegations to coerce
settlements from defendants before such "questionable claims" are
truly tested in court. See Concepcion, 563 U.S. at 350.  Taken
together, Campbell-Ewald and these earlier decisions manifest a
consistent goal of maintaining the class action device free from
manipulation of the process by either side. Of course, the
question remains as to which practices the court views as
impermissible procedural "gambits."

Whenever it is decided, Microsoft v. Baker, in which the defendant
argues that the plaintiffs are engaging in the former type of
practice, should shed further light on the court's jurisprudence
in this area.

"Campbell-Ewald"

In March 2010, Jose Gomez sued Campbell-Ewald Company (Campbell),
alleging a violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA) on behalf of a nationwide class based on unsolicited text
messages he received and which had been authorized by Campbell.
Campbell eventually offered the plaintiff $1,503 per unsolicited
text message and injunctive relief -- together representing the
full individual relief available to a plaintiff under the TCPA.
Campbell simultaneously filed an offer of judgment with the
district court pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68,
which establishes the procedure for the entry of judgment if an
opposing party accepts judgment within 14 days of the offer being
made.

When Gomez did not accept the offer, Campbell moved to dismiss the
case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the
offer of complete relief had mooted Gomez's claim and eliminated
the case or controversy under Article III.  The district court
denied the motion to dismiss and the Ninth Circuit affirmed that
holding. See Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, 805 F.Supp.2d 923, 931 (C.D.
Cal. 2011); Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald, 768 F.3d 871, 874-75 (9th
Cir. 2014).

On Jan. 20, 2016, the Supreme Court affirmed the Ninth Circuit's
decision in a five-member opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, with Justice Clarence Thomas concurring in the judgment,
and a three-member dissent authored by Chief Justice John Roberts.
Relying on basic principles of contract law, the court held that
Campbell's unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot the case.
Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 670. Having declined the defendant's
offer, Gomez "remained empty handed," with his complaint "wholly
unsatisfied." Id. at 672.

Significantly, the court cited to an earlier case in which it had
rejected a similar "gambit" by a defendant, noting that in this
case Campbell "sought to avoid a potential adverse decision, one
that could expose it to damages a thousand-fold larger than the
bid Gomez declined to accept." Id. In support of its holding, the
court noted several appellate court decisions, including last
year's U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision in
Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195, 199-200 (2d Cir. 2015)
(holding that an unaccepted Rule 68 offer did not moot plaintiff's
case and a district court "should not enter judgment against the
defendant if it does not provide complete relief").

The protection Campbell-Ewald offers class action plaintiffs may
be largely illusory.  Notwithstanding its holding on mootness, the
court noted that it was not deciding "whether the result would be
different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the
plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the
plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in
that amount," reserving that question "for a case in which it is
not hypothetical." Campbell-Ewald, 136 S. Ct. at 672.

Two recent district court decisions within the Second Circuit have
addressed that scenario or a similar one, reaching contrary
results.  Future case law on this likely recurring scenario will
define the practical impact of Campbell-Ewald.

"Microsoft v. Baker"

On Jan. 15, 2016, the court agreed to review Microsoft v. Baker, a
Ninth Circuit decision concerning the ability of plaintiffs to
dismiss with prejudice a putative class action complaint
voluntarily in order to create a "final judgment" on class
certification that is ripe for appellate review.  If it is decided
in accordance with Campbell-Ewald, how the court resolves
Microsoft will hinge on whether a majority of the court's members
views the plaintiffs' practice as an impermissible "gambit" or as
an acceptable way to obtain timely judicial review of a
substantive district court ruling.

In late 2005, Microsoft began selling the Xbox 360 video game
console.  In 2007, a putative class of Xbox owners sued Microsoft,
alleging that a design defect in the Xbox scratched their game
discs and rendered them permanently unusable.  The district court
denied class certification, finding that individual issues would
predominate under Rule 23(b), in part because only 0.4 percent of
Xbox owners reported having experienced the disc-scratching
problem, and thus any defect did not uniformly manifest itself in
the Xbox. In re Microsoft Xbox 360 Scratched Disc Litig., No. C07-
1121-JCC, 2009 WL 10219350, at *7 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 5, 2009). The
plaintiffs did not appeal.

In 2011, a putative class of plaintiffs filed a new action against
Microsoft asserting the same claims at issue in the 2005 case but
claiming that an intervening Ninth Circuit decision had changed
the law.  Defendants moved to strike the complaint's class action
allegations.  Granting defendants' motion, the court adopted a
rule from a treatise published by the American Law Institute,
which provides that a prior denial of class certification on the
same subject matter should be afforded a rebuttable presumption of
correctness.

The court held that the presumption had not been rebutted, and it
struck plaintiffs' class action allegations. Baker v. Microsoft,
851 F.Supp.2d 1274, 1280 (W.D. Wash. 2012).  After the Ninth
Circuit denied plaintiffs' interlocutory appeal petition, the
parties stipulated to dismiss the case voluntarily with prejudice
without any type of settlement.  With a final judgment in hand,
the plaintiffs appealed as of right to the Ninth Circuit.

The Ninth Circuit rejected Microsoft's argument that the circuit
court did not have appellate jurisdiction to consider the case
under 28 U.S.C. Sec1291.  The court held that because the parties'
stipulated dismissal of the action did not include any type of
settlement, the parties "retain[ed] sufficient adversity to
sustain an appeal." Baker v. Microsoft, 797 F.3d 607, 612 (9th
Cir. 2015). The court then reversed the district court's decision
to strike the class allegations, holding that the lower court had
misinterpreted the intervening Ninth Circuit opinion regarding
class certification. Id. at 615.

Petitioning to the Supreme Court, Microsoft appealed only the
jurisdictional holding, presenting a single question for review:
"Whether a federal court of appeals has jurisdiction to review an
order denying class certification after the named plaintiffs
voluntarily dismiss their claims with prejudice." Microsoft relied
upon Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U.S. 463 (1978), in which
the Supreme Court held that interlocutory review of the denial of
class certification is discretionary.  In that case, the court
rejected the "death knell" doctrine, in which several circuits had
held that interlocutory review of class certification denial was
mandatory if such a denial was tantamount to the "death knell" of
plaintiffs' case.

In its petition, Microsoft argued that the plaintiffs' "voluntary
dismissal tactic" was an end run around Coopers & Lybrand, and
that there was neither jurisdiction nor a case or controversy
sufficient to support appellate review.  Microsoft suggested that
the court should review the case in part because there was a 5-2
circuit split against this tactic.  It noted that the Second
Circuit was in the minority of courts allowing the tactic, citing
Gary Plastic Packaging v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith,
903 F.2d 176 (2d Cir. 1990).  In their opposition brief, the
plaintiffs argued that there had been no denial of class
certification; rather, the district court had struck the class
allegations from the complaint.  The plaintiffs also deemed the
circuit split "illusory."

On Jan. 15, 2016, the Supreme Court granted Microsoft's petition
for certiorari.  The court stated it would consider: "Whether a
federal court of appeals has jurisdiction under both Article III
and 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 to review an order denying class
certification after the named plaintiffs voluntarily dismiss their
individual claims with prejudice."  Although the court initially
agreed to hear the case in its current term, it recently announced
that argument would be postponed until the following term.  The
nomination and confirmation of a justice to replace Justice
Antonin Scalia, who has consistently voted for the interests of
class-action defendants, could have a substantial effect on the
outcome of Microsoft v. Baker.

Acceptable Gambit?

Microsoft's petition repeatedly refers to the plaintiffs'
voluntary dismissal and appeal as a "tactic," evoking the type of
gaming of the system the court has recently rejected.  Citing to
the court's concern with defendants being pressured into
settlements articulated in Concepcion, Microsoft referred to the
plaintiffs' conduct as a "one-way ratchet [that] distorts
litigation and settlement incentives."

One amicus brief laid out the perceived manipulation in even
clearer terms, calling it a "one-way street for opportunistic
plaintiffs looking to force defendants into high-dollar settlement
through multiple appeals despite the existence of a meritorious
defense."  The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit,
addressing the practice in the Fair Labor Standards Act collective
action context, deemed it a "procedural sleight-of-hand to bring
about finality" and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
Camesi v. Univ. of Pittsburgh Med. Ctr., 729 F.3d 239, 245-46 (3d
Cir. 2013).

As the parties' briefs note, the Second Circuit in Gary Plastic
allowed appellate review of a class certification denial after the
named plaintiffs' claims were dismissed for failure to prosecute -
- a holding that would support the plaintiffs' position in
Microsoft v. Baker.  In fact, there appear to be several recent
instances in which plaintiffs within the Second Circuit appealed
class certification denials following voluntary dismissal of their
claims.

The plaintiffs in Microsoft v. Baker may look to Gary Plastic for
ways to frame their approach as a valid use of class action
procedure to obtain a review of a substantive decision by the
district court on their claims.  In Gary Plastic, the Second
Circuit held that the concerns the Supreme Court had with the
"death knell" doctrine -- such as the discretionary nature of
courts "formulating an appealability rule" and the "waste of
judicial resources" in determining when the denial of class
certification was the "death knell" of the plaintiffs' action,
among others -- were not present where the named plaintiffs'
claims were dismissed with prejudice.

Under this view, the plaintiffs' dismissal of their individual
claims with prejudice and subsequent appeal is a straightforward
review of a final order. Even if a "gambit," it is only available
to named plaintiffs "who risk forfeiting their potentially
meritorious individual claims," Gary Plastic, 903 F.2d at 179.
Moreover, given the impracticality of taking individual
plaintiffs' claims, which may be for very small amounts of money,
all the way to summary judgment or trial, the Supreme Court may
find it an acceptable gambit.

Conclusion

However Microsoft v. Baker is resolved, the court's decision will
speak to whether the underlying logic to this body of law will
continue with a focus on preventing parties from short-circuiting
the consideration of sound class action claims or sustaining weak
claims beyond the case's earliest stages.  And whoever the new
justice appointed to the court may be, and whenever that
appointment may come to pass, that justice may have a heavy
influence on the underlying balance between these two objectives.
By the end of the court's next term, we will have a clearer
picture of which practices are improper gambits and which are
valid efforts to sustain a party's "day in court."


* Tobacco Cos. Can Face Punitive Damages in Individual Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that
tobacco companies can be held liable for punitive damages in
individual smoker cases that stemmed from a disbanded statewide
class action, the Florida Supreme Court ruled on March 17.

Lower-level appellate courts split on the issue of whether members
of the defunct Engle class and their survivors could pursue
punitive damages on negligence or strict liability theories after
the class was eliminated in 2006.

"The procedural posture of the case changed entirely when this
court vacated the entire punitive damages award of $145 billion
and the related findings on punitive damages, thus wiping the
slate clean as it relates to punitive damages and requiring each
individual plaintiff to prove entitlement to punitive damages in
his or her individual lawsuit," Justice Barbara Pariente wrote in
the unanimous opinion.

The legal standard for establishing entitlement to punitive
damages does not vary depending on the underlying legal theory,
the court added.

The opinion approved the Second District Court of Appeal's
approach and rejected the reasoning used by the First, Third and
Fourth DCAs.

To be covered by the Engle class findings accepted as the law of
the case, plaintiffs must show their smoking-related disease
manifested itself before Nov. 21, 1996.  Findings of product
defect, negligence, fraudulent concealment and conspiracy to
conceal were established as a matter of law.

The case before the court was filed by Lucille Soffer, whose
husband died of lung cancer in 1992. She filed a wrongful death
action against R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. and sought punitive
damages.

R.J. Reynolds argued punitive damages could be considered only on
the fraudulent concealment and conspiracy counts based on the
procedural posture, or case history, of the original Engle class
action. The trial court agreed, as did the First DCA.

The district court reasoned the decision disbanding the class
action "did not suggest plaintiffs could bring other claims and
remedies that had not been timely asserted as part of the Engle
litigation," according to Justice Pariente's opinion.  The high
court said that conclusion was flawed.

Instead, the justices agreed with the Second DCA's reasoning: If
the court wanted to prevent punitive damages claims by the so-
called Engle progeny plaintiffs, it would have stated as much.
After all, the court was specific about which findings would fall
under res judicata, meaning the issues had been decided and the
same parties could not argue them further.

"Our decision in Engle specifically set forth those findings to
which res judicata applies; nothing within our decision expanded
the res judicata effect to the ability to pursue the remedy of
punitive damages," Justice Pariente wrote.

Ms. Soffer's attorneys were thrilled with the decision, which came
15 months after oral argument.

"It changes everything for plaintiffs," said Dawn Vallejos-Nichols
of Avera & Smith in Gainesville, who represented
Ms. Soffer.  "It makes them be able to plead punitive damages on
all of their counts."

Ms. Vallejos-Nichols said she was pleased the court rejected R.J.
Reynolds' argument that the original Engle decision prevented
punitive damages on unintentional torts.


                            *********

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  * * *