CAR_Public/160405.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 68


                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Faces Seven Data Breach Class Actions
21ST CENTURY: Faces "Barbachak" Suit in M.D. Florida
A-TOW INC: "Pierce" Suit Seeks Overtime Premium
AERO AUTOMATIC: "Hurtado" Suit Seeks OT Recovery, Missed Breaks
AIR CANADA: Crash Class Certification Hearing Set for December

ALDI INC: "Griffin" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
AMAYA INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
AMERICAN BROTHER: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Ocegueda" Suit
AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
ANCHOR BANCORP: MOU Reached in "Parshall" Merger Suit

ANHEUSER-BUSCH: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Beer Labeling Suit
AZK RESTAURANT: "Mendoza" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay
BANK OF AMERICA: "Dorado" Suit Alleges Violation of FHA Rules
BLUE CROSS: Comet Capital Sues for Violation of Sherman Act
BLUE SKY: Settles Animation Workers' Wage-Price Fixing Suit

BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
CARDINAL LOGISTICS: April 7 Case Conference in "Holmby" Vacated
CERNER CORP: Employees' Overtime Class Action Can Proceed
CHESAPEAKE GROUP: "Gavin" Sues Over Leasehold Price Fixing
CHICAGO, IL: Court Tosses Red Light Camera Program Class Action

CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Klein" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Court Narrows Claims in "Labriola" Suit
CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Moran" Securities Action Transferred to Denver
CONCORDIA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Okeechobee" Sues Over TCPA Violations
CORAL VILLA: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay

CORE CARE: Faces Suit for Violation of FLSA, N.J. Wage Laws
CULTURAL HOMESTAY: Judge Allows Au Pair Wage Case to Proceed
DEMPSTER EYE CARE: "Seung" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
DMNO LLC: "Black" Sues for Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
DOW EMPLOYEES' PENSION: Additional Discovery in "Johnston"

DUPONT: Faces 3,500 Lawsuits in Mid-Ohio Valley Over C8 Exposure
ELECTROLUX HOME: 11th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in "Brown"
FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Josh Angel Revisits Implicit Guarantee
FLINT, MI: May Sue State Over Water Crisis
FRONT POCKET: Violated TCPA, "Norkett" Suit Claims

GENERAL MOTORS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Ignition Switch Case
GERASIMOS ENTERPRISES: Violated FLSA, "Rosales" Suit Claims
GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Faces "Zadel" Suit in Dist. of Arizona
H GRANADOS COMMUNICATIONS: Violated FLSA & UCL, "Au" Suit Claims
HAECO AMERICAS: Faces "Mansilla" Suit in Cal. Super Ct.

HEARTWARE INT'L: Retirement Fund Files Class Action in New York
HUMAN RESOURCE PROFILE: Faces "Langston" Suit in N.D. Georgia
HYUNDAI: Faces Calif. Class Suit Over Defective Paint
ILLINOIS: "Kolton" vs. Treasurer Seeks to Recover Lost Interests
INDEPENDENCE OILFIELD: "Renner" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay

JAPAN: Class Action Mulled Over HPV Vaccine Adverse Effects
JERRY CLARK: 7th Cir. Affirms Order in Bridgeview Healthcare Suit
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment Against Becknell Affirmed
JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with Big Product Liability Verdicts
JUAN CARLOS VAAMONDE: Violated FLSA, "Ruiz" Suit Claims

JUST ENERGY GROUP: Court Narrows Class Definition in "Wilkins"
KOHL'S: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Credit Card Add-On Fees
KOOS MFG: Violated CLC & IWC Wage Orders, "Rizo" Claims
KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Quinn" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Labeling
LBINARY: Two Law Firms Prepare Fraud Class Action

LENDTUIT HOLDING CORP: Faces "Gritz" Suit in E.D. Penn.
LENOVO INC: Faces "Howard" Suit for Sale of Defective Laptop
LINCOLN PROPERTY: "Montalvo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
LOEWEN DECOR: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL: No Interest on Developer Fee Refund

LOWE'S: Settles Background Check Class Action
MEAT SUPREME: "Meza" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Commission Payments Proper, Court Says
MERCK & CO: June 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MERCY HEALTH: Faces Class Action ERISA-Exempt Church Plan

NATERA INC: "Ellis" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
NEBRASKA: SNAP Processing Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
NEW YORK: Lieutenant Says NYPD Still Pursues Quotas
NEW YORK, NY: Faces "West" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wins Appeal in Dashboard Bubbling Suit

OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
PALOS VERDES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Lunada Bay Boys
PATENTHEALTH LLC: "Vasic" Suit Goes to Trial in S.D. California
PHARMERICA CORP: Says Class Action Now Concluded
PIXAR: Not Required to Disclose Ex-GC's E-mails in Antitrust Suit

PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
QUESTAR: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
RETROPHIN INC: June 10 Final Approval Hearing in "Kazanchyan"
REGIONS FINANCIAL: Court Conditionally Certifies Bonus-OT Claim
ROBERTO'S RESTAURANT: "Marquez" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Minimum Pay

RUBY TUESDAY: Waitress Files Minimum Wage Class Action
SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Whitworth" Labor Suit in N.D. California
ST. LOUIS RAMS: Faces Class Action Over Season-Ticket Licenses
STERICYCLE INC: Tiger Clinic Suit Consolidated in MDL 2455
STS CONSULTING: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

SUFFOLK COUNTY: Faces "Becker" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
SYNGENTA AG: "Borneman" Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
TAILORED BRANDS: "Makhlouf" Sues over Shadowy Merger Deal
TARGET CORPORATION: "Lynch" Suit Alleges Deceptive Cheese Label
TIME INC: Has Until April 26 to Respond to Data Sharing Suit

TOYTALK INC: Faces "Hayes" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
TU CASA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
TWITTER INC: Plaintiff's Firm Wants to Expand Gender Bias Suit
U.S. BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss "Wert" Suit Denied
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: CEO Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims

UNI-MART: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Deceptive Pricing
UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Colon" Says
UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed in "Caquelin" Complaint
VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces Securities Class Action
VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Culp" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.

VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: U.S. Dealers to File Deiselgate Class Action
WAL-MART STORES: Faces Employment Class Suit in Alameda County
YORK COUNTY, ME: Suit v. Judge Over Court Rescheduling Tossed

* Class Actions Still Face Threat Post-Scalia Despite Mixed Signs
* Federal Regulators Pushes for Limits on Consumer Arbitrations
* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record High in 2015


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Faces Seven Data Breach Class Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Susan D. Hall, writing for FierceHealthIT, reports that cancer
center chain 21st Century Oncology faces at least seven class-
action lawsuits related to a cyberattack that compromised the data
of 2.2 million people, according to Healthcare Info Security.

The suits claim the company, which operates 181 cancer treatment
centers, failed to adequately protect patient data.

They allege the company violated the Federal Trade Commission's
Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, in addition to claims of breach of
contract, unjust enrichment, negligence and invasion of privacy.

The lawsuits, which seek unspecified damages, likely will be
consolidated. Cases based on claims of FCRA violations have faced
an uphill battle.

A pair of lawsuits brought against Advocate Health and Hospitals
Corp. based on FCRA claims were dismissed last May and July, with
both decisions upheld by an appellate court last August.

One of the lawsuits against 21st Century includes a claim of
unjust enrichment, one of the newer tactics in class-action suits
based on the idea that an expectation of privacy was part of the
patient's purchase decision.  Health insurer AvMed in 2013 settled
such a case with some class members by refunding portions of their
paid premiums.

Privacy attorney Kirk Nahra of the law firm Wiley Rein tells
Healthcare Info Security that he doesn't see that tactic being
successful.

"This allegation that 'some unknown percentage of my payment to
you was for data security and I deserve it back' is creative, but
has not been successful and is not actually a subject of any kind
of negotiation in any meaningful commercial sense," he says.


21ST CENTURY: Faces "Barbachak" Suit in M.D. Florida
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against 21st Century Oncology, LLC. The
case is captioned as Frank Baburchak, Jeremy Miller, Kathleen
Shaver, Dolores Stubbs Robert Vosganian, Karen Vosgaian, and Lana
Izworski, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. 21st Century Oncology, LLC, 21st
Century Oncology, Inc., 21st Century Oncology Management Services,
Inc., 21st Century Oncology Services, LLC, and 21st Century
Oncology Holdings, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00245-
JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., Ft. Myers, March 30, 2016).

21st Century Oncology Holdings, together with its subsidiaries,
operates as a physician-led provider of integrated cancer care
services. Its radiation treatment services include external beam
therapies, such as conformal radiation therapy, intensity
modulated radiation therapy, and stereotactic radiosurgery, as
well as internal radiation therapies, such as high-dose and low-
dose rate brachytherapies. The company's radiation treatment
services also comprise image guided radiation therapy, Gamma
function testing, and respiratory gating.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony James Dimora, Esq.
          Charles PT Phoenix, Esq.
          Jason T. File, Esq.
          RHODES TUCKER PHOENIX CHARTERED
          551 S Collier Blvd. Ste. 2
          Marco Island, FL 34145-5501
          Telephone: (239) 394 5151
          Facsimile: (239) 394 5807
          E-mail: ad@rhodestucker.com
                  cptp@rhodestucker.com
                  jf@rhodestucker.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Jensen, Esq.
          Mary Meyer, Esq.
          GRAHAM & JENSEN
          17 Executive Park Drive, Suite 115
          Atlanta, GA 30329
          Telephone: (404) 842 9380
          Facsimile: (678) 904 3110

               - and -

          Jason W. Graham, Esq.
          GRAHAM & PENMAN, LLP
          17 Executive Park Dr., Suite 115
          Atlanta, GA 30329
          Telephone: (404) 842 9380
          Facsimile: (678) 904 3110
          E-mail: jason@grahamandpenman.com

               - and -

          Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
          GIRARDI & KEESE
          1126 Wilshire Blvd
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 977 0211
          Facsimile: (213) 481 1554
          E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com


A-TOW INC: "Pierce" Suit Seeks Overtime Premium
-----------------------------------------------
Edwin Pierce ("Pierce"), Armento Meredith ("Meredith"), Charles
Hightower ("Hightower") and Ronald Jones ("Jones"), individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v.
A-Tow, Inc, ("A-Tow") and Susan Page Porter ("Porter"),
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00590-ODE (N.D. Ga., February 25,
2016), seeks payment of overtime premium.  According to the
lawsuit, the Defendant failed to pay the Plaintiffs of their
overtime premium for work in excess of 40 hours in any workweek.
The Defendants willfully, arbitrarily and incorrectly designated a
portion of commission earned as overtime wages.

A-Tow is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
Georgia. A-Tow can be served via its registered agent S. Page
Porter at 180 Harriett Street SE, Atlanta, Georgia 30315.

Porter is a resident of Cobb County, Georgia. Porter is the CEO,
CFO, Secretary and Registered Agent of A-Tow.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles R. Bridgers, Esq.
     Kevin D. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Esq.
     DELONG CALDWELL BRIDGERS FITZPATRICK & BENJAMIN, LLC
     3100 Centennial Tower
     101 Marietta Street
     Atlanta, GA 30303
     Tel: (404) 979-3171
     Fax: (404) 979-3170
     E-mail: kevin.fitzpatrick@dcbflegal.com
             charlesbridgers@dcbflegal.com


AERO AUTOMATIC: "Hurtado" Suit Seeks OT Recovery, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
John Hurtado, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aero Automatic Sprinkler Company and Does
1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-01537 (N.D.
Cal., March 29, 2016), seeks compensatory damages, prejudgment
interest, liquidated damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs, equitable relief, unpaid overtime wages due with interest,
exemplary and punitive damages, declaratory relief, restitution
and disgorgement of profits under the California Labor Code.

Defendant is a Delaware Company with its principal place of
business located in Phoenix, Arizona where Plaintiff worked as a
fire sprinkler fitter for its public works and private
construction projects in California. Hurtado was not paid
overtime, denied rest periods and accuses Defendant for not
issuing accurate wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph W. Rose, Esq.
      Lisa L. Bradner, Esq.
      ROSE LAW APC
      11335 Gold Express Dr., Ste. 135
      Gold River, CA 95670
      Telephone: (916) 273-1260
      Facsimile: (916) 290-0148
      Email: legalteam@joeroselaw.com


AIR CANADA: Crash Class Certification Hearing Set for December
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Chronicle Herald reports that lawyers for passengers of the
Air Canada flight that crash landed a year ago in Halifax will be
in court in December for a certification hearing.

April 1 -- a year and two days after the crash -- attorney
Ray Wagner filed documents containing the initial pieces of
evidence with the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia.

The motion will be heard before the Hon. Justice Denise Boudreau
between December 12 and 15.

The hearing will determine whether the passengers as a group fit
the criteria for a class action rather having to sue individually.

"A Class 2 action will give all the passengers access to the
justice system without the formidable costs which would be borne
by individual plaintiffs," said Mr. Wagner.

Once a suit is certified, a notice goes to all passengers asking
them whether they want to participate.  If they don't respond,
they are automatically assumed to be part of the suit.

The proposed action is against Air Canada, the Halifax
International Airport Authority, NAVCanada, Airbus S.A.S. and
Transport Canada.

Mr. Wagner said that after conversations with Air Canada, the
pilots of AC624 have been taken out of the lawsuit.

"We understand they are still flying and we wanted to be
empathetic to the fact they wanted to continue with their
careers," he said.

They will be questioned as part of discovery, but Air Canada has
assumed responsibility for them, said Mr. Wagner.

Since last April, Mr. Wagner said 55 passengers have contacted
their office to participate in the action in various degrees.

For several, this including giving permission for their medical
records to be obtained and history examined in an effort to prove
what they have lost as a result of the landing, he said.

Other passengers have undergone psychological and neurological
testing related to PTSD and closed-head injuries.

He said it takes time to wait for a judge to be appointed to
determine certification and didn't wait for the investigation by
the Transportation Safety Board to conclude.

"That can take years," he said.

TSB spokesperson Chris Krepski said the board can't predict when
their report will be released.

"We have to take the time necessary to do a thorough
investigation," said, adding that investigators started their work
immediately following the incident.


ALDI INC: "Griffin" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Griffin, Mark McIndoo, and Susan Detomaso, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Aldi,
Inc. and Doe Defendants 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00354-
LEK-ATB (N.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), seeks an injunction against
the Defendant, recovery of unpaid overtime compensation, spread of
hours pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest, reasonable attorneys' and expert fees and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York
Labor Laws.

Aldi is a discount supermarket chain based in Illinois where
Plaintiffs worked as store managers at their New York stores. They
claim to have been denied overtime compensation for hours rendered
in excess of 40 per work week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank S. Gattuso, Esq.
      Dennis O'Hara, Esq.
      Frank Gattuso, Esq.
      O'HARA, O'CONNELL & CIOTOLI
      7207 E. Genesee Street
      Fayetteville, NY 13066
      Telephone: (315) 451-3810
      Facsimile: (315) 451-5585

           - and -

      Adam Gonnelli, Esq.
      Innessa S. Melamed, Esq.
      FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
      685 Third Ave., 26th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Telephone: (212) 983-9330
      Facsimile: (212) 983-9331


AMAYA INC: Block & Leviton Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Block & Leviton LLP on April 1 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit against Amaya Inc. following the Company's
announcement that its CEO faces insider trading charges.  The
lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York, docket number 16-cv-02406.  The
lawsuit affects all investors in Amaya securities purchased
between June 8, 2015 and March 23, 2016.

On March 23, 2016, Quebec's securities regulator Autorite des
march financiers (the "AMF") announced that it has charged Amaya's
CEO and founder, David Baazov and other key insiders with insider
trading.  The AMF has been working in conjunction with the Royal
Canadian Mounted Police, Quebec Police and U.S. regulators to
determine why a large number of investors placed forward-looking
bets on Amaya's stock prior to its $3.8 billion merger with
industry stalwart PokerStars.

The AMF has stated that its investigation is ongoing and it may
file additional charges.  On news of the charges against Baazov,
Amaya stock declined approximately 20%, resulting in a loss of
market capitalization to shareholders of approximately $275
million.  Baazov has since taken indefinite leave from Amaya to
address the charges.

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff, you must move the Court
no later than May 24, 2016.  As a member of the class, you may
move to serve as a lead plaintiff or take no action and remain an
absent class member.  If you have questions about your legal
rights, would like a copy of the complaint or if you have
information relevant to this lawsuit, please contact attorney
Steven Harte of Block & Leviton LLP, www.blockesq.com at (617)
398-5600 or at Steven@blockesq.com or attorney Brad Vettraino at
(617) 398-5600 or Bradley@blockesq.com

Confidentiality to whistleblowers or others with information
relevant to the lawsuit is assured.

Block & Leviton LLP -- http://www.blockesq.com-- is a securities
litigation firm representing investors nationwide and its
investigations into corporate wrong-doing have recently been
covered by the New York Times.  With offices in both offices in
Boston and the Bay Area, Block & Leviton represents some of the
nation's largest institutional investors and has recovered more
than a billion dollars for its clients.


AMERICAN BROTHER: Cal. App. Affirms Ruling in "Ocegueda" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTONIO OCEGUEDA et al., Plaintiffs and
Respondents, v. AMERICAN BROTHER CORPORATION INC. et al.,
Defendants and Appellants; GARY S. BROWN, Objector and Appellant,
No. H041380 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of California,
Sixth District, affirmed the judgment against American Brother
Corporation Inc. (ABC) and The Gallant Group Ltd., and affirmed
the order denying objector Gary S. Brown's motion to tax costs.

Antonio Ocegueda, Ines Ocegueda, Jorge Orejel, Gricelda Garcia,
and Judy Jones filed a class action against ABC, Gallant, and the
companies' chief executive officer, Adeel Amin for claims that
included breach of contract, unfair competition, and fraud in
relation to their contract for loan modification services.

Defaults were entered against ABC and Gallant after they failed to
respond to the first amended complaint.  The court subsequently
denied ABC and Gallant's motion for relief from default and
judgment was entered against them for more than $1 million.

Meanwhile, an appeal by Amin and his attorney at the time,
objector Gary S. Brown, from the trial court's sanction orders was
dismissed by the Court of Appeals of California.  In the trial
court, the plaintiffs sought attorney's fees of $31,435.50 in a
memorandum of costs on appeal.  Amin and Brown filed a motion to
tax costs, but this was denied by the trial court after conducting
an in camera review of time records submitted by the plaintiffs
and holding a further hearing.

ABC contended that the trial court erred in denying its motion for
relief from default because it was not properly served with
summons and the first amended complaint.  The Court of Appeals of
California, however, determined that the trial court correctly
found that ABC was properly served with the summons and complaint,
in view of the proof of service by the registered process server.
The appellate court also determined that the trial court correctly
found that ABC was properly served with the first amended
complaint.

Gallant also contended that its default should have been set aside
because, although it was a suspended corporation and could not
defend itself in the action for a period of time, it was diligent
and was eventually reinstated on the same day that the default was
entered against it.  The appellate court, however, held that the
trial court did not abuse its discretion when it determined that
Gallant was "dilatory" regarding reinstating its corporate powers,
and that Gallant had failed to demonstrate mistake, inadvertence,
surprise, or excusable neglect which would support relief from
default.

For his part, Brown contended that he was denied due process
because he did not have an opportunity to review or respond to
certain time records that the plaintiffs submitted for in camera
review by the court.  He also contended that the requirements for
attorney's fees under section 1021.5 of the California Rules of
Court have not been met in this case, and that the amount of
attorney's fees awarded was not reasonable.

The appellate court found that Brown failed to provide an adequate
record establishing that the trial court did not give him an
opportunity to review the records, or did not provide an
opportunity for him to make an argument based on those records.
The appellate court also found that Brown failed to demonstrate
that the trial court erred in determining that the attorney's fees
requested in the plaintiffs' memorandum of costs on appeal were
reasonably incurred.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 22,
2016 order is available at http://is.gd/uRDOxAfrom Leagle.com.


AMPIO PHARMACEUTICALS: Consolidated Amended Complaint Filed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ampio 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 plaintiffs have
filed a consolidated amended complaint in the stockholders' class
action lawsuit in California.

On May 8, 2015 and May 14, 2015, purported stockholders of the
Company brought two putative class action lawsuits in the United
States District Court in the Central District of California,
Napoli v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-cv-
03474-TJH and Stein v. Ampio Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al., Case
No. 2:15-cv-03640-TJH (the "Securities Class Actions"), alleging
that Ampio and certain of its current and former officers violated
federal securities laws by misrepresenting and/or omitting
information regarding the STEP study. The cases were consolidated,
and on February 8, 2016, plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended
complaint alleging claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and Rule
10b-5 under the Exchange Act and Sections 11 and 15 under the
Securities Act of 1933 on behalf of a putative class of purchasers
of common stock from January 13, 2014 through August 21, 2014,
including purchasers in the Company's offering on February 28,
2014. The lawsuits seek unspecified damages, pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs.

Ampio is a biopharmaceutical company focused primarily on the
development of therapies to treat prevalent inflammatory
conditions for which there are limited treatment options.


ANCHOR BANCORP: MOU Reached in "Parshall" Merger Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Old National Bancorp disclosed in a Form 8-K report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 1, 2016, that the
plaintiff and defendants in the class action lawsuit captioned as,
Parshall v. Anchor Bancorp Wisconsin, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-
CV-120 (W.D. Wis.), entered into a memorandum of understanding on
March 31, 2016, setting forth their agreement in principle to
settle the litigation.

The class action, filed on February 25, 2016, alleges state law
breach of fiduciary duty claims against the Anchor's board for,
among other things, seeking to sell Anchor through an allegedly
defective process, for an unfair price and on unfair terms. The
lawsuit seeks, among other things, to enjoin the consummation of
the Merger and damages. The complaint alleges that Old National
aided and abetted the Anchor directors' breaches of fiduciary
duty. The complaint also includes federal law claims alleging that
the registration statement omitted certain material information.

While the defendants deny the allegations in the complaint, they
have agreed to enter into the MOU to avoid the costs and
disruptions of any further litigation and to permit the timely
closing of the Merger. The MOU describes the terms that the
parties have agreed to include in the settlement agreement,
subject to confirmatory discovery by the plaintiff, and describes
the actions that the parties will take or refrain from taking
between the date of the MOU and the date that the settlement
agreement is finally approved by the court.

The MOU, among other things, requires supplemental disclosures
that the defendants have included in the proxy statement and
prospectus dated March 29, 2016. The MOU also provides that the
settlement agreement will include an injunction against
proceedings in connection with the complaint and any additional
complaints concerning claims that will be covered by the
settlement agreement. In addition, the MOU provides that the
settlement agreement will include a release on behalf of the
plaintiff, along with other members of the class of Anchor
stockholders certified for purposes of the settlement agreement,
in favor of the defendants and their related parties from any
claims that arose from or are related to the Merger. The
defendants have agreed to pay the plaintiff's attorneys' fees and
expenses as awarded by the court, subject to court approval of the
settlement agreement and the consummation of the Merger. There can
be no assurance that the parties will ultimately enter into the
settlement agreement or that the court will approve the settlement
even if the parties were to enter into such settlement agreement.
In such event, the MOU may be rendered null and void and of no
force and effect.

Old National and Anchor anticipate that the proposed merger of
Anchor with and into Old National will occur on May 2, 2016. The
closing remains subject to the adoption of the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated January 11, 2016, by and between Old National and
Anchor by the Anchor stockholders at the Special Meeting of Anchor
Stockholders on April 29, 2016 and satisfaction of all other
conditions described in the Merger Agreement.

Defendant Anchor is a Delaware corporation and maintains its
principal executive offices at Madison-Capitol Square, 25 West
Main Street, Madison, WI 53703. The Company operates as the
holding company for AnchorBank, fsb ("AnchorBank") that provides
retail and commercial banking services in Wisconsin.

Defendant Old National Bancorp is an Indiana corporation with its
corporate headquarters located at 1 Main Street, Evansville, IN
47708.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     K. Scott Wagner, Esq.
     Anne M. Plichta, Esq.
     WAGNER LAW GROUP, S.C.
     839 N. Jefferson Street, Suite 400
     Milwaukee, WI 53202
     Tel: (414) 278-7000

          - and -

     Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
     Brian D. Long, Esq.
     Gina M. Setta, Esq.
     RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
     2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
     Wilmington, DE 19803
     Tel: (302) 295-5310

          - and -

     Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
     RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
     995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
     Wayne, PA 19087
     Tel: (484) 588-5516


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: 6th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Beer Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: ANHEUSER-BUSCH BEER LABELING
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, No. 14-3653 (6th Cir.),
the United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, affirmed the
judgment of the district court dismissing the complaint against
Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC.

Class-action lawsuits were brought by various consumers in
numerous states alleging that Anheuser-Busch intentionally
overstates the alcohol content of many of its malt beverages on
those beverages' labels.

Anheuser-Busch moved to dismiss on the ground that any alleged
misstatement of alcohol content, even if intentional, fell within
a tolerance of 0.3 percent created by a federal beverage-labeling
regulation that has been incorporated into the relevant states'
law.  The district court agreed and dismissed the complaint after
observing that the plaintiffs had conceded that all of their
claims would fail if Anheuser-Busch's alleged misstatements did
not run afoul of federal regulations.

The plaintiffs appealed, arguing that the district court erred
when it failed to adopt an intent-based reading of 27 C.F.R.
section 7.71.  In the alternative, the plaintiffs also argued that
their claims in state consumer-protection law and the state law of
express and implied warranty would survive irrespective of how the
court might interpret section 7.71.

The 6th Circuit concluded that section 7.71 does not distinguish
between intentional and unintentional deviations from the alcohol
content listed on a malt-beverage label.  Because the plaintiffs
do not allege that Anheuser-Busch exceeded the tolerance created
by section 7.71(c)(1), the 6th Circuit agreed with the district
court that the record shows no violation of the relevant
regulations.

As to the plaintiffs' alternative argument that their claim
survives such an interpretation of section 7.71, the 6th Circuit
found that the plaintiffs have forfeited this argument because
they failed to clearly raise this in the district court.

A full-text copy of the Sixth Circuit's March 22, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/bXbIBjfrom Leagle.com.


AZK RESTAURANT: "Mendoza" Sues Over Unpaid Overtime, Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Mendoza, on beha1f of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. AZK Restaurant, Inc. and Konstantinos
Athanasiou, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-2286 (S.D.N.Y., March 29,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum, overtime and spread-of-
hours pay, liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest and attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, New York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage
Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant under the name 3 Guys Restaurant
with principal place of business at 1381 Madison Avenue, New York,
New York, where Plaintiff worked as a dishwasher, food preparer,
kitchen helper, porter and food delivery worker. Marquez accuses
the Defendant of not paying the mandated minimum wages, overtime
premium and withholding tips.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpdaw.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Dorado" Suit Alleges Violation of FHA Rules
-------------------------------------------------------------
VERONICA DORADO v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Case 1:16-cv-21147-PAS
(S.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), alleges that Defendant Bank of
America, N.A. has a systematic practice of collecting "post-
payment" interest on loans insured by the Federal Housing
Administration without first complying with the uniform provisions
of the promissory notes and the FHA regulations governing these
loans.

Defendant Bank of America, N.A. is a national banking association.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Brett M. Amron, Esq.
     BAST AMRON LLP
     One Southeast Third Ave. Suite 1400
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305-379-7904
     E-mail: bamron@bastamron.com

        - and -

     Steven J. Rosenwasser, Esq.
     Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
     BONDURANT, MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
     1201 W Peachtree St. NW, Suite 3900
     Atlanta, GA 30309
     Phone: 404-881-4151
     E-mail: rosenwasser@bmelaw.com
             ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com

        - and -

     Adam Hoipkemier, Esq.
     Matthew Wetherington, Esq.
     THE WERNER LAW FIRM
     2860 Piedmont Road NE
     Atlanta, GA 30305
     Phone: 404-564-4329
     E-mail: adam@wernerlaw.com
             matt@wernerlaw.com

        - and -

     Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Esq.
     Kevin E. Epps, Esq.
     FORTSON, BENTLEY AND GRIFFIN, P.A.
     2500 Daniell's Bridge Rd.
     Bldg. 200, Suite 3A
     Athens, GA 30606
     Phone: 706-548-1151
     E-mail: jwd@fbglaw.com
             kee@fbglaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Comet Capital Sues for Violation of Sherman Act
-----------------------------------------------------------
COMET CAPITAL LLC v. BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ALABAMA; PREMERA
BLUE CROSS, also d/b/a PREMERA BLUE CROSS BLUE CLASS ACTION
COMPLAINT SHIELD OF ALASKA; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF ARIZONA;
USABLE JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, d/b/a
ARKANSAS BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD; ANTHEM, INC., f/k/a
WELLPOINT, INC., d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE
COMPANY, and including its divisions or subsidiaries: BLUE CROSS
OF CALIFORNIA, BLUE CROSS OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, BLUE CROSS OF
NORTHERN CALIFORNIA, ROCKY MOUNTAIN HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL SERVICE
INC. d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF COLORADO and ANTHEM
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEVADA, ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS, INC., d/b/a
ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF CONNECTICUT, BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF GEORGIA, INC., d/b/a BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF GEORGIA,
ANTHEM INSURANCE COMPANIES, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
INDIANA, ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF KENTUCKY, INC., d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF KENTUCKY, ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF MAINE, INC.,
d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MAINE, ANTHEM BLUE CROSS
BLUE SHIELD OF MISSOURI, RIGHTCHOICE MANAGED CARE, INC., HMO
MISSOURI INC., ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF NEW HAMPSHIRE d/b/a ANTHEM
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, EMPIRE HEALTHCHOICE
ASSURANCE, INC. d/b/a EMPIRE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD, COMMUNITY
INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF OHIO,
ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS OF VIRGINIA, INC., d/b/a ANTHEM BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF VIRGINIA, and ANTHEM BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF
WISCONSIN; CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, d/b/a BLUE SHIELD OF
CALIFORNIA; HIGHMARK, INC., f/k/a HIGHMARK HEALTH SERVICES;
HIGHMARK BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD DELAWARE, INC.; HIGHMARK WEST
VIRGINIA, INC.; CAREFIRST, INC.; GROUP HOSPITALIZATION AND MEDICAL
SERVICES, INC. d/b/a CAREFIRST BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD; CAREFIRST OF
MARYLAND, INC. d/b/a
CAREFIRST BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
FLORIDA, INC.; HAWAII MEDICAL SERVICE ASSOCIATION d/b/a BLUE CROSS
AND BLUE SHIELD OF HAWAII; BLUE CROSS OF IDAHO HEALTH SERVICE,
INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS OF IDAHO; CAMBIA HEALTH SOLUTIONS, INC.,
f/d/b/a REGENCE BLUESHIELD OF IDAHO, REGENCE BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF OREGON, REGENCE BLUE CROSS BLUE
SHIELD OF UTAH, and REGENCE BLUE SHIELD IN WASHINGTON; HEALTH CARE
SERVICE CORPORATION, AN ILLINOIS MUTUAL LEGAL RESERVE COMPANY,
d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF ILLINOIS, BLUE CROSS AND BLUE
SHIELD OF NEW MEXICO, BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF OKLAHOMA, BLUE
CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, and
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TEXAS; CARING FOR MONTANANS, INC., f/k/a
HIGHMARK HEALTH SERVICES; WELLMARK, INC., d/b/a WELLMARK
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF IOWA; WELLMARK OF SOUTH DAKOTA,
INC., d/b/a WELLMARK BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH DAKOTA;
BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS, INC.; LOUISIANA HEALTH
SERVICE & INDEMNITY COMPANY d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
LOUISIANA; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MASSACHUSETTS, INC.; BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MICHIGAN; BCBSM, INC., d/b/a BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD OF MINNESOTA; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF MISSISSIPPI, A
MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF KANSAS
CITY; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NEBRASKA; HORIZON HEALTHCARE
SERVICES, INC., d/b/a HORIZON BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF NEW
JERSEY; HEALTHNOW NEW YORK INC., d/b/a BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD OF
WESTERN NEW YORK and BLUE SHIELD OF NORTHEASTERN NEW YORK;
EXCELLUS HEALTH PLAN, INC., d/b/a
EXCELLUS BLUECROSS BLUESHIELD; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
NORTH CAROLINA, INC.; NORIDIAN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY d/b/a
BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF NORTH DAKOTA; HOSPITAL SERVICE
ASSOCIATION OF NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA d/b/a BLUE CROSS OF
NORTHEASTERN PENNSYLVANIA; CAPITAL BLUECROSS; INDEPENDENCE
HOSPITAL INDEMNITY PLAN, INC., f/k/a and d/b/a INDEPENDENCE BLUE
CROSS; TRIPLE-S SALUD, INC.; BLUE CROSS & BLUE SHIELD OF RHODE
ISLAND; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BLUE
CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF TENNESSEE, INC.; BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD
OF VERMONT; BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OF WYOMING; and BLUE CROSS AND
BLUE SHIELD ASSOCIATION, Case 2:16-cv-00508-RDP (W.D. Va., March
1, 2016), was brought on behalf subscribers of BCBS-VA health
insurance to enjoin an ongoing alleged conspiracy between and
among BCBS-VA, the Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA to allocate
markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act.

BCBSA is owned and controlled by 36 health insurance plans that
operate under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade
names. BCBSA was created by these plans and operates as a licensor
for these plans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     William A. Isaacson, Esq.
     Richard A. Feinstein, Esq.
     Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
     J. Wells Harrell, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Phone: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (201) 237-6131
     E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com
             rfeinstein@bsfllp.com
             hhume@bsfllp.com
             wharrell@bsfllp.com

        - and -

     David J. Guin, Esq.
     Tammy Stokes, Esq.
     GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
     300 Richard Arrington Jr. Blvd. North
     Suite 600 / Title Building
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 503-4505
     E-mail: davidg@gseattorneys.com
             tammys@gseattorneys.com

        - and -

     David Boies, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER &FLEXNER LLP
     333 Main Street
     Armonk, NY 10504
     Phone: (914) 749-8200
     Fax: (914) 749-8200
     E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

        - and -

     Michael Hausfeld, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     E-mail: mhausfeld@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

     Cyril V. Smith, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER, LLP
     100 East Pratt Street, Suite 2440
     Baltimore, MD 21202-1031
     Phone: (410) 949-1145
     Fax: (410) 659-0436
     E-mail: csmith@zuckerman.com

        - and -

     Chris T. Hellums, Esq.
     PITTMAN, DUTTON & HELLUMS, P.C.
     2001 Park Place N, 1100 Park Place Tower
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 322-8880
     Fax: (205) 328-2711
     E-mail: chrish@pittmandutton.com

        - and -

     Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Phone: 1-800-424-6690
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

        - and -

     William A. Isaacson, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER &FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Phone: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (202) 237-6131
     E-mail: wisaacson@bsfllp.com

        - and -

     Karen Dyer, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER &FLEXNER LLP
     121 South Orange Ave., Suite 840
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (407) 425-7118
     Fax: (407) 425-7047
     E-mail: kdyer@bsfllp.com

        - and -

     Bryan Clobes, Esq.
     Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 864-2800
     Fax: (215) 864-2810
     E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
             emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

        - and -

     Patrick Cafferty, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     101 North Main Street, Suite 565
     Ann Arbor, MI 48104
     Phone: (734) 769-2144
     Fax: (734) 769-1207
     E-mail: pcafferty@caffertyclobes.com

        - and -

     Megan Jones, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 744-1970
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: mjones@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

     Charles T. Caliendo, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER
     485 Lexington Avenue
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (646) 722-8500
     Fax: (646) 722-8501
     E-mail: ccaliendo@gelaw.com

        - and -

     Kathleen Chavez, Esq.
     FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
     10 West State Street, Suite 200
     Geneva, IL 60134
     Phone: (630) 797-3339
     Fax: (630) 232-7452
     E-mail: kcc@fmcolaw.com

        - and -

     Robert Eisler, Esq.
     GRANT & EISENHOFER
     123 Justison Street
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 622-7000
     Fax: (302) 622-7100
     E-mail: reisler@gelaw.com

        - and -

     Gregory Davis, Esq.
     DAVIS & TALIAFERRO, LLC
     7031 Halcyon Park Drive
     Montgomery, AL 36117
     Phone: (334) 832-9080
     Fax: (334) 409-7001
     E-mail: gldavis@knology.net

        - and -

     Chris Cowan, Esq.
     THE COWAN LAW FIRM
     209 Henry Street
     Dallas, TX 74226-1819
     Phone: (214) 826-1900
     Fax: (214) 826-8900
     E-mail: chris@cowanlaw.net

        - and -

     Douglas Dellaccio, Esq.
     CORY WATSON CROWDER & DEGARIS, P.C.
     2131 Magnolia Avenue, Suite 200
     Birmingham, AL 32505
     Phone: (205) 328-2200
     Fax: (205) 324-7896
     E-mail: ddellaccio@cwcd.com

        - and -

     Daniel Gustafson, Esq.
     Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
     GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
     120 South Sixth Street, Suite 2600
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 333-8844
     Fax: (612) 339-6622
     E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
             dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com

        - and -

     Adam R. Shaw, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     30 South Pearl Street
     11th Floor
     Albany NY, 12207
     Phone: (518) 434-0600
     Fax: (518) 434-0665
     E-mail: ashaw@bsfllp.com

        - and -

     William Butterfield, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     1700 K Street NW, Suite 650
     Washington, DC 20006
     Phone: (202) 540-7200
     Fax: (202) 540-7201
     E-mail: wbutterfield@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
     Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
     DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
     200 First Avenue, Suite 300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 261-2393
     Fax: (412) 261-2110
     E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
             bsweet@dsclaw.com

        - and -

     Virginia Buchanan, Esq.
     LEVIN PAPANTONIO THOMAS MITCHELL RAFFERTY&PROCTOR, P.A.
     316 South Baylen Street, Suite 600
     Pensacola, FL 32502
     Phone: (850) 435-7000
     Fax: (850) 435-7020
     E-mail: vbuchanan@levinlaw.com

        - and -

     Robert M. Foote, Esq.
     FOOTE, MIELKE, CHAVEZ & O'NEIL, LLC
     10 West State Street, Suite 200
     Geneva, IL 60134
     Phone: (630) 797-3339
     Fax: (630) 232-7452
     E-mail: rmf@fmcolaw.com

        - and -

     Robert Methvin, Esq.
     James M. Terrell, Esq.
     MCCALLUM, METHVIN & TERRELL, P.C.
     The Highland Building
     2201 Arlington Avenue South
     Birmingham, AL 35205
     Phone: (205) 939-0199
     Fax: (205) 939-0399
     E-mail: rgm@mmlaw.net
             jterrell@mmlaw.net

        - and -

     Arthur Bailey, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Phone: (415) 744-1970
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

     Michael McGartland, Esq.
     MCGARTLAND & BORCHARDT LLP
     1300 South University Drive, Suite 500
     Fort Worth, TX 76107
     Phone: (817) 332-9300
     Fax: (817) 332-9301
     E-mail: mike@attorneysmb.com

        - and -

     Brent Hazzard, Esq.
     HAZZARD LAW, LLC
     447 Northpark Drive
     Ridgeland, MS 39157
     Phone: (601) 977-5253
     Fax: (601) 977-5236
     E-mail: brenthazzard@yahoo.com

        - and -

     H. Lewis Gillis, Esq.
     MEANSGILLIS LAW, LLC
     3121 Zelda Court
     Montgomery, AL 36106
     Phone: 1-800-626-9684
     E-mail: hlgillis@tmgslaw.com

        - and -

     John Saxon, Esq.
     JOHN D. SAXON, P.C.
     2119 3rd Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203-3314
     Phone: (205) 324-0223
     Fax: (205) 323-1583
     E-mail: jsaxon@saxonattorneys.com

        - and -

     David J. Hodge, Esq.
     MORRIS, KING & HODGE
     200 Pratt Avenue NE
     Huntsville, AL 35801
     Phone: (256) 536-0588
     Fax: (256) 533-1504
     E-mail: lstewart@alinjurylaw.com

        - and -

     Lawrence Jones, Esq.
     JONESWARD PLC
     312 South Fourth Street, Sixth Floor
     Louisville, Kentucky 40202
     Phone: (502) 882-6000
     E-mail: larry@jonesward.com

        - and -

     Jason Thompson, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ
     One Towne Square, 17th Floor
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 355-0300
     E-mail: jthompson@sommerspc.com

        - and -

     Andrew Lemmon, Esq.
     LEMMON LAW FIRM
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2335
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 581-5644
     Fax: (504) 581-2156
     E-mail: andrew@lemmonlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Larry McDevitt, Esq.
     David Wilkerson, Esq.
     VAN WINKLE LAW FIRM
     11 North Market Street
     Asheville, NC 28801
     Phone: (828) 258-2991
     E-mail: lmcdevitt@vwlawfirm.com
             dwilkerson@vwlawfirm.com

        - and -

     Dianne M. Nast, Esq.
     NASTLAW LLC
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2801
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Phone: (215) 923-9300
     Fax: (215) 923-9302
     E-mail: dnast@nastlaw.com

        - and -

     Carl S. Kravitz, Esq.
     ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP
     1800 M Street NW, Suite 1000
     Washington, DC 20036-5807
     Phone: (202) 778-1800
     Fax: (202) 822-8106
     E-mail: ckravitz@zuckerman.com

        - and -

     Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
     Christopher Coffin, Esq.
     PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
     Post Office Drawer 71
     Plaquemine, LA 70765
     Phone: (225) 687-6369
     E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com
             ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

        - and -

     Richard Rouco, Esq.
     QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
     2700 Highway 280 East, Suite 380
     Birmingham, AL 35223
     Phone: (205) 870-9989
     Fax: (205) 870-9989
     E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com

        - and -

     Edgar D. Gankendorff, Esq.
     Eric R.G. Belin, Esq.
     PROVOSTY & GANKENDORFF, LLC
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 2700
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 410-2795
     Fax: (504) 410-2796
     E-mail: egankendorff@provostylaw.com
             ebelin@provostylaw.com

        - and -

     Garrett Blanchfield, Esq.
     REINHARDT, WENDORF & BLANCHFIELD
     E-1250 First National Bank Building
     332 Minnesota Street
     St. Paul, MN 55101
     Phone: (651) 287-2100
     Fax: (651) 287-2103
     E-mail: g.blanchfield@rwblawfirm.com


BLUE SKY: Settles Animation Workers' Wage-Price Fixing Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ted Johnson, writing for Variety, reports that a settlement has
been reached between a group of animation workers and Blue Sky
Studios, the studio behind "The Peanuts Movie" and "Ice Age," in a
class action lawsuit alleging that Blue Sky and other companies
violated antitrust laws by conspiring to set animation wages via
nonpoaching agreements.

According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Jose on
March 31, the settlement provides for a cash payment of almost $6
million, with $10,000 for each of the named plaintiffs,
Robert Nitsch, David Wentworth and Georgia Cano.  Other
defendants, including the Walt Disney Co., DreamWorks Animation,
ImageMovers, Lucasfilm, Pixar and Sony ImageWorks, were not part
of the proposed settlement agreement filed on March 31.

Daniel Small -- dsmall@cohenmilstein.com -- of Cohen Milstein,
lead attorneys for the plaintiffs, said that the litigation is
continuing against the other defendants.

Last August, U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh refused to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended complaint, writing that they had "sufficiently
alleged facts showing that defendants reached an agreement to
conspire."

She wrote that the plaintiffs "have alleged that the defendants
systematically shared information, agreed not to solicit each
other's employees and that the purpose of the information sharing
and no-poach scheme was to suppress wages."

The plaintiffs have been seeking class certification.  Their
proposed settlement class includes certain animation and visual
effects employees who worked at Pixar from 2001 to 2010; Lucasfilm
from 2001 to 2010; DreamWorks Animation from 2003 to 2010; the
Walt Disney Co. from 2004 to 2010; Sony Pictures Animation and
Sony Pictures Imageworks from 2004 to 2010; Blue Sky from 2005 to
2010; and ImageMovers from 2007 to 2010.

Under the settlement proposal, a claims administrator would
determine the sum to be awarded based on a pro rata.  It will be
calculated based on an employee's total compensation compared to
the compensation of all class members during the time frame.

The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Nitsch, a former DreamWorks Animation
senior character effects artist; Wentworth, a former ImageMovers
Digital production engineer; and Cano, a digital artist who held
jobs at Rhythm & Hues, Walt Disney Feature Animation and
ImageMovers Digital.

The workers contend that the roots of the anti-poaching agreements
go back to the mid-1980s, when George Lucas and
Ed Catmull, the president of Steve Jobs' newly formed company
Pixar, agreed to not raid each other's employees.

Other companies then joined the conspiracy, the suit contended,
with agreements on such things as cold calling and notifying each
other when making an offer to an employee of another company.

A hearing on the proposed settlement is scheduled for June 16.

Lucasfilm and Pixar were already targets of a Justice Department
antitrust lawsuit in 2010, along with Apple, Google, Adobe
Systems, Intel Corp. and Intuit, in which the government contended
that their "no solicitation" agreements prevented highly skilled
employees from commanding better wages and job opportunities.  The
companies settled the litigation by agreeing to end such practices
for a period of five years.

In a settlement of a class action civil suit that Judge Koh
approved in May 2014, Lucasfilm and Pixar agreed to pay $9
million, and Intuit agreed to pay $11 million. But during the
litigation, emails were disclosed that appeared to link other
companies to the "no poaching" agreements.  The animation workers
filed their own class action lawsuit in December 2014.


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: Saxena White Files Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Saxena White P.A. on April 1 disclosed that it has filed a
securities fraud class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York against
Brixmor Property Group, Inc. ("Brixmor" or the "Company") on
behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired the common
stock of the Company during the period between October 27, 2014
and February 5, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period).
Brixmor is a publicly-traded real estate investment trust ("REIT")
that operates a wholly-owned portfolio of grocery-anchored
shopping centers, with 518 properties from California to Maine.
The Company is incorporated in Maryland and maintains its
principal executive offices in New York, NY.

The Complaint brings forth claims for violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.  The Complaint alleges that, throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements
and/or failed to disclose that: (1) the Company and its senior
executives purposefully misrepresented Brixmor's financial results
by manipulating income items for nine quarters in order to achieve
consistent quarterly same property NOI growth; (2) the Company
lacked adequate internal and financial controls; and (3) that, as
a result of the foregoing, Defendants' statements about Brixmor's
business, operations, and prospects were false and misleading
and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

You may obtain a copy of the Complaint at www.saxenawhite.com
If you purchased Brixmor stock between October 27, 2014 and
February 5, 2016, inclusive, you may contact Lester Hooker --
lhooker@saxenawhite.com -- at Saxena White P.A. to discuss your
rights and interests.

If you purchased Brixmor common stock during the Class Period of
October 27, 2014 and February 5, 2016, and wish to apply to be the
lead plaintiff in this action, a motion on your behalf must be
filed with the Court by no later than May 31, 2016.  You may
contact Saxena White P.A. to discuss your rights regarding the
appointment of lead plaintiff and your interest in the class
action.  Please note that you may also retain counsel of your
choice and need not take any action at this time to be a class
member.

Located in Boca Raton, Florida, Saxena White P.A. --
http://www.saxenawhite.com-- concentrates its practice on
prosecuting securities fraud and complex class actions on behalf
of institutions and individuals.  Currently serving as lead
counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions nationwide, the
firm has recovered hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of
injured investors and is active in major litigation pending in
federal and state courts throughout the United States.


CARDINAL LOGISTICS: April 7 Case Conference in "Holmby" Vacated
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUSTIN HOLMBY and RUBEN SILVA on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
CARDINAL LOGISTICS MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-03382-rs (N.D. Cal.), Judge Richard Seeborg ordered that the
Case Management Conference set for April 7, 2016 be vacated along
with any deadlines associated with the said date.  This was
pursuant to the joint stipulation of the parties, plaintiffs
Justin Holmby and Ruben Silva and defendant Cardinal Logistics
Management Corporation, that they have reached a tentative
settlement of the action.  Also upon the parties' proposal, Judge
Seeborg accorded the parties until April 29, 2016 to file a Motion
for Preliminary Approval of Class Action.

The lawsuit is filed on behalf of all drivers who were assigned to
a Cardinal operating terminal in California and were residents of
the State of California.  The lawsuit alleges that the Defendants
failed to minimum and overtime wages.

Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation owns and operates
trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial
work sites and does business in Alameda County and elsewhere
within California.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's March 21, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/HVWVUvfrom Leagle.com.

Justin Holmby, Plaintiff, represented by William David Turley --
bturley@turleylawfirm.com -- The Turley Law Firm, APLC, Christina
Ann Humphrey, Marlin & Saltzman & David Thomas Mara, The Turley
Law Firm, APLC.

Ruben Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Christina Ann Humphrey,
Marlin & Saltzman, James Alan Clark, Tower Legal Group & Tina
Mehr, Marlin & Saltzman LLP.

Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation, Defendant, represented
by Drew Robert Hansen -- dhansen@tocounsel.com -- Theodora
Oringher, PC, Kenneth E Johnson -- kjohnson@tocounsel.com --
Theodora Oringher PC & Walter Pena -- wpena@tocounsel.com --
Theodora Oringher PC.


CERNER CORP: Employees' Overtime Class Action Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Margolies, writing for KCUR, reports that Cerner Corp.
employees who claim the health care information giant improperly
calculated their overtime payments overcame a legal hurdle,
allowing their two-year-old lawsuit to move ahead.

A federal judge conditionally certified the workers as a class,
grouping them together after finding that they were "similarly
situated" under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  That will
allow them to proceed collectively, increasing the possibility of
a large damage award if the case goes to trial.

The 21-page order by U.S. District Court Judge Fernando Gaitan Jr.
is not a ruling on the merits of the employees' claims, but it
sets the stage for a possible legal showdown over Cerner's
overtime practices.

According to the lawsuit, the Kansas City-based company pays
nonexempt employees -- employees who must be paid overtime for any
hours worked beyond 40 each week -- a full pay period late and
fails to include all additional compensation in their regular rate
of pay.

The case is a so-called collective action under the FLSA, similar
to a class action with a couple of major differences.  Unlike a
class action, where plaintiffs who meet the class definition are
automatically included in the class unless they opt out, in
collective actions plaintiffs must actively opt in.

In addition, the legal standard for certifying a class in a
collective action is much more lenient than the one employed in a
class action.  As such, Judge Gaitan's ruling did not come as a
big surprise. But a lawyer for the employees said it was a step
forward.

"I think this order is significant in that it might get Cerner to
actually take some responsibility, but it's not a surprising
ruling," said the lawyer, Tracey George.

"It's 100 percent consistent with the law; it's what we expected
and the court got it right.  It's more significant to us in
getting Cerner to come around and realize that there are
consequences for trying to save money and take that from your
employees' pocket."

Cerner did not respond to a request for comment.

Judge Gaitan issued his ruling several months after Cerner asked
its nearly 17,000 workers in the United States to agree to submit
labor disputes to arbitration rather than sue it in court. Workers
who didn't agree are not eligible for performance-based raises.
The vast majority of employees, faced with that prospect, signed
the agreement.

The agreement, however, won't affect the lawsuit, since it was
filed before workers signed the agreement.

In his ruling, Judge Gaitan said that between 650 and 850 Cerner
employees had been paid as salary nonexempt workers over the
period covered by the case.  Ms. George, however, said that,
taking into account employee turnover and additional information
discovered in the case, the figure is probably closer to 3,000
workers.

Judge Gaitan's ruling stands in contrast to one handed down in
another overtime case against Cerner in 2007.  The plaintiffs in
that case sought to recover overtime on behalf of 4,500 "staff
associates" who were treated by Cerner as exempt from overtime
pay.

Judge Gaitan's colleague, U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey,
found that the plaintiffs had failed to meet "even their lenient
burden to establish that these fellow employees are similarly
situated to their own jobs as business analysts and software
engineers."

Another overtime suit against Cerner in federal court was settled
last year on undisclosed terms.  The settlement agreement was
sealed.

Two other cases, both class actions alleging overtime violations,
are pending in Jackson County and Cass County circuit courts. Both
allege that Cerner improperly classified workers as exempt.


CHESAPEAKE GROUP: "Gavin" Sues Over Leasehold Price Fixing
------------------------------------------------------------
Garvin Holdings LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Energy Corp., Chesapeake
Exploration LLC, Chesapeake Exploration LP, Sandridge Energy
Corp., Tom L. Ward and John Does 1-10, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-
cv-00297-F (W.D. Okla., March 29, 2016), seeks treble damages,
prejudgment and post-judgment interest, attorney fees and costs
and permanent enjoinment for violation of the Sherman Antitrust
Act and Sec. 4 and 1 of the Clayton Act.

Plaintiff is an Arizona corporation with mineral interests in
Oklahoma. It accuses the Chesapeake Group and Sandridge Energy of
conspiring to suppress the prices on the leaseholds and oil-
producing properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Simone Gosnell Fulmer, Esq.
      FULMER GROUP PLLC
      PO Box 2448
      Oklahoma City, OK 73101
      Tel: (405) 510-0077
      Fax: (405) 510-0077
      Email: sfulmer@fulmergrouplaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Court Tosses Red Light Camera Program Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Kidwell, writing for Chicago Tribune, reports that a
class-action lawsuit seeking to end Chicago's embattled red light
camera program and to reimburse drivers for hundreds of millions
of dollars in fines was tossed out April 1 by a Cook County judge
who ruled that the program "passes constitutional muster" and the
challenge was without legal basis.

The suit argued that the city had violated the state constitution
when it launched the robotic camera program in 2003, three years
before seeking approval from the state legislature.

But in a 39-page opinion, Circuit Judge Rita Novak ruled that the
administration of Mayor Richard Daley had acted within its
authority, agreeing with city lawyers that Chicago's home rule
power allowed the program.

She also said that none of the three remaining plaintiffs in the
case had received a ticket prior to 2006, when the legislature
passed a bill allowing red light camera programs in the state's
eight most populous counties.


CLIENT SERVICES: Faces "Klein" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Client Services, Inc.  The case
is captioned Rachel Klein, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Client Services,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01563 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn,
March 30, 2016).

Client Services operates as a customer relationship management
company that offers a suite of accounts receivable management,
business processing outsourcing (BPO), and healthcare solutions.
It provides customer care, technical support, customer
acquisition, cross sell/up-sell, customer retention,
product/account activation, appointment setting/reminders,
disaster support, first notice of loss, market research, customer
satisfaction surveys, and multi-channel interaction management
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT: Court Narrows Claims in "Labriola" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Rebecca R. Pallmeyer granted in part and denied, in part,
the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint in the case
captioned MICHELLE LABRIOLA and ANNA LAPINA individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated as class representative
under Illinois Law and/or as members of the Collective as
permitted under the Fair Labor Standards Act, Plaintiffs, v.
CLINTON ENTERTAINMENT MANAGEMENT, LLC, d/b/a as THE PINK MONKEY,
and John Does One and Two, Defendants, No. 15 C 4123 (N.D. Ill.).

Michelle Labriola and Anna Lapina initiated a class action against
the Pink Monkey, a club owned by Clinton Entertainment Management,
d.b.a. Pink Monkey, and two of its managers, alleging that the
defendants failed to pay minimum and overtime wages and
confiscated their tips, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA) and the Illinois Minimum Wage law (IMWL).  The
plaintiffs also brought common-law claims of unjust enrichment and
quantum meruit based on the same conduct.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim.

The defendants asserted that the plaintiffs' amended complaint
failed to state a claim for liability under the FLSA because it
did not contain sufficient factual allegations that they were
employees, as opposed to independent contractors, or that they
were denied minimum wages or overtime compensation to which they
were entitled.

Judge Pallmeyer disagreed, finding that the complaint contains
sufficient facts to support the plaintiffs' claim that they were
employees of Pink Monkey and has met the minimum pleading
requirements for unpaid minimum wage claims.  The judge, however,
found that with respect to the unpaid overtime wage claims, the
pleading requirement was met only with respect to Lapina, but was
insufficient as to Labriola's allegations.

The defendants also asserted that the FLSA does not provide a
cause of action for the plaintiffs seeking the return of
additional tip money from their employer or others.  Judge
Pallmeyer agreed, pointing out that Section 216(b) of the FLSA
makes clear that employer liability under the statute is limited
to unpaid minimum and overtime compensation.

Applying the same analysis, Judge Pallmeyer also dismissed the
plaintiffs' IMWL claim based on allegedly confiscated tips and
Labriola's claim based on overtime pay, but the plaintiffs' IMWL
claim that they were denied minimum wages and Lapina's overtime
pay claim survived the defendants' motion.

Judge Pallmeyer also dismissed the plaintiffs' unjust enrichment
and quantum meruit claims based on alleged unpaid minimum and
overtime compensation as these are preempted by the FLSA.
Preemption however was not an issue with respect to the
plaintiffs' allegations that the defendants improperly confiscated
portions of the plaintiffs tips.  As such, Judge Pallmeyer denied
the motion to dismiss the claim for tip recovery.

A full-text copy of Judge Pallmeyer's March 22, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/s2bGDLfrom
Leagle.com.

Michelle Labriola, Plaintiff, represented by John Craig Ireland,
The Law Firm of John C. Ireland.

Clinton Entertainment Management LLC., Defendant, represented by
Michael Z. Gurland, The Gurland Law Firm.


CLOVIS ONCOLOGY: "Moran" Securities Action Transferred to Denver
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Moran, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Clovis Oncology, Inc., Patrick J.
Mahaffy and Erle T. Mast, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-05323-RS
(N.D. Cal., November 20, 2015), seeks compensatory damages caused
by Defendants' misrepresentation or misleading statements.

During the Class Period, Clovis securities were traded on an
active and efficient market. The Plaintiff and the other members
of the Class was relying on the materially false and misleading
statements which the Defendants made, issued or caused to be
disseminated, or relying upon the integrity of the market,
purchased or otherwise acquired shares of Clovis securities at
prices artificially inflated by Defendants' wrongful conduct.

The Plaintiff alleged that the "Safe Harbor" warning accompanying
the Company's business forward looking statements ("FLS") issued
during the Class Period were ineffective to shield those
statements from liability.

On Feb. 26, 2016, the Case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court, District of Colorado (Denver), and assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-00459-RM-MEH.

Defendant Clovis is a biopharmaceutical company focusing on
acquiring, developing and commercialized anti-cancer agent in the
U.S. and internationally. Clovis is a Delaware corporation,
headquartered in Boulder, Colorado with an office at 499 Illinois
Street, Suite 230, San Francisco, California.

Defendant Patrick J. Mahaffy ("Mahaffy") has served as the
Company's President and Chief Executive Officer ("CEO") throughout
the Class Period.

Defendant Erle T. Mast ("Mast") has served as the Company's Chief
Financial Officer ("CFO") and Executive Vice President throughout
the Class Period.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laurence M. Rosen, SBN 219683
     The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.
     355 South Grand Avenue, 2450
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Telephone: (213) 785-2610
     Facsimile: (213) 226-2684
     Email: lrosen@rosenlegal.com


CONCORDIA PHARMACEUTICALS: "Okeechobee" Sues Over TCPA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S.A.S.B. Corporation d/b/a Okeechobee Discount Drug, individually
and as the representative of a class of similarly-situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. Concordia Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Shionogi
Pharma, Inc., Zylera Pharmaceuticals, LLC and John Does 1-12,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-14108-KAM (S.D. Fla., March 29,
2016), seeks punitive damages, reasonable attorney's fees and
costs of suit and such other further relief under the federal
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 USC Sec. 227.

Defendants sent advertisements via fax in an attempt to market
their prescription drug, Ulesfia. This was done without prior
consent of the Plaintiff.

Concordia is the owner of the Ulesfia prescription drug, Shionogi
is the registered trademark holder for Ulesfia lotion and Zylera
has an exclusive agreement with Concordia, Shionogi, and/or other
entities with an interest in the Ulesfia prescription drug product
to commercialize and distribute Ulesfia in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St, Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: 312-658-5500


CORAL VILLA: "Gutierrez" Suit Seeks Minimum, Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------
Armidia Y. Gutierrez, Plaintiff, v. Coral Villa Adult Care Inc.
and Solange Castro, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
21108-JAL (S.D. Fla., Miami Division, March 29, 2016), seeks
compensatory and liquidated damages, reasonable attorney fees,
costs and expenses, recovery of back pay and other benefits
wrongly denied and such other and further relief pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Florida Assisted Living Facility licensed to
provide room, board and personal assistance to elder and
psychiatric patients/residents where Gutierrez worked as a
caregiver and cook. She claims to be paid below minimum wage rate
and denied overtime pay.

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
      Email: zep@thepalmalawgroup.com


CORE CARE: Faces Suit for Violation of FLSA, N.J. Wage Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
JESSICA CREARY and FRANK RUBLE v. CORE CARE TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
and JOHN DOES 1-10, Case 1:16-cv-01793-JBS-AMD (D.N.J., March 31,
2016), alleges violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act, the New
Jersey Wage and Hour Law, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

CORE CARE TECHNOLOGIES INC is a medical supplies facility.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel A. Horowitz, Esq.
     SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
     1101 North Kings Highway, Suite 402
     Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
     Tel: (856) 685-7420
     Fax: (856) 685-7417


CULTURAL HOMESTAY: Judge Allows Au Pair Wage Case to Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Donna Bryson, writing for Associated Press, reports that a case
should go ahead against companies that provide au pairs to
families across the country, a federal judge said in an opinion
that noted evidence from the plaintiffs that the companies
cooperated to keep wages low.

The defendants are all 15 of the companies authorized by the U.S.
State Department to arrange for young foreigners to stay with
Americans and look after their children.  The companies were sued
by a group of au pairs who say they were unlawfully denied the
minimum wage, overtime and other compensation.

In an opinion issued on March 31, U.S. District Judge Christine
Arguello agreed with an earlier magistrate's ruling in Colorado
that the companies, which had sought to have the au pairs' claims
summarily dismissed, had a case to answer.

Tom Areton, whose nonprofit California-based Cultural Homestay
International is among the defendants, said au pairs should not be
seen as professionals protected by labor law.  Many of the au pair
websites, though, stress the visitors' child care experience and
refer to them as nannies.

"These are young girls who want to come, experience the culture,
maybe improve their English," he said in a telephone interview.

Judge Arguello said the federal Fair Labor Standards Act, which
establishes wage, overtime and other rules, did apply to the case.
She also noted that the au pairs had gathered evidence showing
several company officials had agreed among themselves to keep
payments to each au pair at $195.75 a week, or less than $5 an
hour.

The magistrate, Judge Arguello said, "properly considered these
allegations and took them to be true, and this court must do the
same."

Mr. Areton said $195.75 a week was sufficient, noting that au
pairs also had their air fare to and from the United States paid
and, because they were living with families, did not have room and
board costs.  He said companies like his could not survive if they
were forced to pay the minimum wage, and that their collapse would
hurt middle-class families seeking affordable childcare.
California Gov. Jerry Brown was scheduled to sign a bill on
April 4 raising the state's $10 hourly minimum to $10.50 next
year, $11 in 2018 and $15 by 2022.

Nina DiSalvo, a lawyer who is helping to represent the au pairs
and who is executive director of Colorado-based nonprofit Towards
Justice, said that while Judge Arguello's ruling was preliminary,
it was significant.

"'I would hope that families who employ au pairs would
hear and understand the ramifications," she said in an interview.

Ms. DiSalvo began the case with an au pair who was working in
Colorado.  Others joined who worked in Utah and Pennsylvania. In
all, five au pairs from Latin America and Africa are named as
plaintiffs in the class-action lawsuit.  The companies are based
in Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Massachusetts, New York,
Oregon, Texas and Utah as well as California.


DEMPSTER EYE CARE: "Seung" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------------
Seung Hun La, Plaintiff, v. Dempster Eye Care, P.C. and Sun Ae Ma,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-03794 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2016), seeks
recovery of overtime pay, punitive damages, reasonable attorney's
fees and costs and such other and further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201, et. seq. and the Illinois
Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants are engaged in an optometry practice under Dempster Eye
Care where Plaintiff worked. Seung claims to have been denied
overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan J. Kim, Esq.
      INSEED LAW, P.C.
      2454 E. Dempster St., Suite 301
      Des Plaines, IL 60016


DMNO LLC: "Black" Sues for Fair Labor Standards Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
JAMES BLACK, et. al v. DMNO, LLC, et. al, Case 2:16-cv-02708 (E.D.
La., March 31, 2016), seeks wages owed and/or tips allegedly
wrongfully taken from employees in Defendant's New Orleans
restaurant.

DMNO, LLC operates a restaurant called Doris Metropolitan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Laura L. Catlett, Esq.
     650 Poydras Street, Suite 1414
     New Orleans, LA 70130
     Phone: (504)521-7958
     Fax: (866)587-6697
     E-mail: LauraLCatlettLaw@gmail.com

        - and -

     Megan Jacqmin, Esq.
     301 N. Columbia Street
     Covington, LA 70433
     Phone: (504)655-5066
     Fax: (504)335-0646
     E-mail: Megan.Jacqmin@gmail.com


DOW EMPLOYEES' PENSION: Additional Discovery in "Johnston"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT JOHNSTON, individually and on behalf
of a class of all other persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
DOW EMPLOYEES' PENSION PLAN and DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY RETIREMENT
BOARD, Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-10427 (E.D. Mich.), Judge Thomas
L. Ludington granted in part Robert Johnston's Motion to Compel.
The judge likewise granted the Motion to Compel filed by the Dow
Employees' Pension Plan (the "Plan") and the Dow Chemical Company
Retirement Board (the "Board").

A class action was brought by Robert Johnston against the Plan and
the Board, with a purported class consisting of employees
initially employed by the Dow Chemical Company, transferred to
DuPont Dow Elastomers (DDE), a joint venture between Dow and E. I.
du Pont de Nemours and Company, and then transferred back to Dow
after the joint venture concluded.  Johnston claimed that the
Board improperly introduced a new method of calculating the
retirement benefit into the Plan for employees that were
transferred from Dow to DDE and then back to Dow.

Motions to compel were filed by each of the parties, seeking
information related to Johnston's claims.

Johnston sought to compel information from the defendants related
to the manner in which it calculated benefits for similarly
situated non-class plan participants, specifically: (a)
participants whose pension assets were transferred between Dow and
another Dow-affiliated entity; and (b) who were subject to the
Plan's general credited-service proration factor.

On the other hand, the defendants sought to compel testimony from
Johnston concerning a release of claims provision he agreed to
when signing a severance package with Dow Chemical, as well as the
production of emails between Johnston and putative class members
after litigation was underway.

Judge Ludington granted in part Johnston's Motion to Compel.  The
judge directed the defendants to produce for Johnston a list of
individuals employed by Dow and Dow AgroSciences that are subject
to the Plan's section 9.6 proration factor. Johnston was also
directed to select three individuals from that list, and the
defendants were then directed to produce calculation data for
those three individuals.

Judge Ludington also granted the defendants' motion to compel, and
ordered Johnston to make himself available for deposition by the
defendants and to produce for the defendants copies of his emails
with putative class members and the responses of those class
members that have been requested by the defendants.

A full-text copy of Judge Ludington's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/pKz9OSfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Johnston, Plaintiff, represented by Jacob Richards --
jrichards@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P., Jeffrey G.
Lewis -- jlewis@kellerrohrback.com -- Keller Rohrback L.L.P.,
Teresa Renaker, Renaker Hasselman LLP & Robert B. June.

Dow Employees' Pension Plan, Dow Chemical Company Retirement
Board, Defendants, represented by Amanda S. Amert --
aamert@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP, Craig C. Martin --
cmartin@jenner.com -- Jenner & Block LLP & Jonathan E. Lauderbach
-- jlauderbach@wnj.com -- Warner Norcross & Judd, LLP.


DUPONT: Faces 3,500 Lawsuits in Mid-Ohio Valley Over C8 Exposure
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for The News Journal, reports that no one in
the Mid-Ohio Valley ever wanted to sue DuPont.

The company employs thousands in the region and supports charities
and community organizations.  In some families, multiple
generations owe their livelihood to the Delaware-based chemical
giant.

But as livestock started dying and thousands of residents
contracted unexplained illnesses, evidence pointed to pollution
from DuPont manufacturing as the cause -- pitting the community's
health against the area's already struggling economy.

"A guy called my wife and asked, 'If I lose my job are you going
to pay for my wife and kids?'" said Joe Kiger, a Parkersburg, West
Virginia, school teacher and the lead plaintiff in the 2001 class-
action lawsuit against DuPont over high levels of the toxic
chemical C8 in the region's water supplies.

C8 is the chemical behind DuPont's powerhouse product Teflon, used
on nonstick cookware worldwide.  Studies have shown that nearly
every person on earth has at least traces of C8 in their
bloodstream.  But in 2005 around Parkersburg, about 2 miles from
DuPont's Washington Works manufacturing plant, residents' blood
levels registered far above Environmental Protection Agency
guidelines for C8.

The company now faces 3,500 lawsuits filed in Federal Court by
Mid-Ohio Valley residents in a 185-square-mile area around
Parkersburg.  They claim DuPont's release of C8 into the air,
ground and water is responsible for their illnesses.  Regulatory
filings show DuPont's liability could exceed $1 billion.


ELECTROLUX HOME: 11th Cir. Vacates Class Certification in "Brown"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit, vacated the
district court's certification of two statewide classes in the
case captioned ROBERT BROWN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, MICHAEL VOGLER, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. ELECTROLUX
HOME PRODUCTS, INC., d.b.a. Frigidaire, Defendant-Appellant, No.
15-11455 (11th Cir.), and remanded the case for further
proceedings.

Consumers from California and Texas filed a class action against
Electrolux Home Products, the manufacturer of Frigidaire front-
loading washing machines, alleging warranty claims and consumer
claims arising from the defective nature of the washing machines'
convoluted bellow which allowed mildew to grow in the machines.
Upon motion by Robert Brown and Michael Vogler, the district court
certified two statewide classes: the California class represented
by Brown, and the Texas class represented by Vogler.

Electrolux filed a petition for permission to take an
interlocutory appeal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), which was
granted by the Eleventh Circuit.  Electrolux contended that the
district court articulated the wrong standard for class
certification and that Brown and Vogler cannot satisfy the
predominance requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3).

The Eleventh Circuit found that the district court misstated the
standard for class certification when it said it "resolves doubts
related to class certification in favor of the certifying class."
On the contrary, the appellate court pointed out that it is the
party seeking class certification that has the burden of proof and
as such, a district court that has doubts about whether "the
requirements of Rule 23 have been met should refuse certification
until they have been met."

The Elevent Circuit further found that the district court also
misstated the law when it said it "accepts the allegations in the
complaint as true," and "draws all inferences and presents all
evidence in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs."  The
appellate court explained that the party seeking class
certification has the burden of proof, not a burden of pleading,
and must "affirmatively demonstrate his compliance with Rule 23"
by proving that the requirements are "in fact" satisfied.

Lastly, the Eleventh Circuit held that class certification must be
vacated because the district court abused its discretion in
assessing predominance.  The appellate court agreed with
Electrolux's contention that the plaintiffs cannot prove causation
on a classwide basis and that the district court was wrong to
conclude that predominance is satisfied for the warranty claims
without first answering several preliminary questions of state
law.

The case was remanded to the district court for further
proceedings.

A full-text copy of the Eleventh Circuit's March 21, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/IcOElFfrom Leagle.com.


FANNIE MAE & FREDDIE MAC: Josh Angel Revisits Implicit Guarantee
----------------------------------------------------------------
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shareholder Joshua J. Angel
expressed his opposition in In re Third Amendment Litigation, MDL
No. 2713 (J.P.M.L.), Friday to the government's request for
transfer and consolidation of current and future lawsuits
challenging the on-going Net Worth Sweep of the housing finance
giants' profits.  Mr. Angel opposes FHFA's move because he doesn't
plan to sue to unwind the Third Amendment.  He plans to sue Fannie
and Freddie's directors because they've failed to treat similarly
situated pre-conservatorship preferred shareholders equally.

Once again, Mr. Angel hits hard on the government's breach of the
GSEs' preferred shares' implicit guarantee.  Central to Mr.
Angel's response are these three concepts:

    (A) the government's implicit guarantee of preferred shares
        has always been in place;

    (B) that implicit guarantee did not change when the GSEs
        were placed into conservatorship; and

    (C) the guaranty is still in place today.

Mr. Angel's decades of corporate restructuring experience tell him
there's significant economic value in the GSEs' preferred
securities and speculative FIfth Amendment taking value in the
GSEs' common stock.  And Mr. Angel isn't speaking hypothetically
or otherwise pontificating.  He has his own money invested in
Fannie and Freddie's preferred securities and he expects the U.S.
government to honor its contractual obligations.  Mr. Angel points
to a variety of government documents which we'll examine in
tomorrow's newsletter.

On Mar. 1, 2016, Mr. Angel sent letters to each of Fannie and
Freddie's directors urging them to "seek and obtain clarification
from outside counsel regarding your duties and liabilities . . .
and to begin taking steps to behave as an informed, active board."
Mr. Angel's received nothing in response -- not even FHFA general
counsel's one-page form letter saying HERA prohibits shareholder
lawsuits.

At http://gselinks.com/pdf/Govt_Perfidy_Angel.pdfis a copy of Mr.
Angel's paper entitled "Government Perfidy and Mismanagement of
the GSEs in Conservatorship" released in late-Feb. 2016 and
provided by Mr. Angel to each current GSE director on Mar. 1.

It is interesting to us that Mr. Angel is the only party focused
on the government's implicit guarantee of the GSE's preferred
shares.   It's surprising to us there aren't more shareholders
expressing outrage at what Mr. Angel labels "Animal Farm equality,
where all preferred shareholders are equal, but some are more
equal than others."

Mr. Angel is represented by:

          Hanh V. Huynh, Esq.
          HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP
          2 Park Avenue
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 592-1482
          E-mail: hhuynh@herrick.com


FLINT, MI: May Sue State Over Water Crisis
------------------------------------------
Jonathan Oosting and Chad Livengood, writing for Detroit News,
report that Mayor Karen Weaver said on April 1 she is not
currently planning to sue the state over the Flint water crisis
despite filing a "notice of intention" to do so, a development
that caught the Snyder administration off guard and prompted
criticism from House Speaker Kevin Cotter.

Ms. Weaver's March 24 filing with the state Court of Claims cited
"grossly negligent oversight" by the Department of Environmental
Quality, whose decisions not to require corrosion control
chemicals led to lead leaching into the drinking water and
"irreversible" damage to municipal infrastructure.

The filing was intended to preserve Flint's ability to sue the
state, according to Ms. Weaver, who said she does not plan to
exercise that right at this time.

"It is my expectation that we can continue working with the state
to help Flint recover from this water crisis," Ms. Weaver said in
a statement. "I called Governor Snyder to re-affirm our commitment
to work together for the benefit of the families of Flint."

But news about a potential lawsuit earlier on April 1 riled
Republican leaders in Lansing who are considering additional
assistance for the beleaguered city.

The Snyder administration, in an April 1 letter to a city
attorney, asked Flint to withdraw the notice "because it is
factually and legally unsupported and it creates an unnecessary
conflict between the parties that will damage ongoing efforts to
resolve this crisis."

Mr. Cotter, R-Mount Pleasant, called the notice of intent "very
unfortunate and very reckless on the part of the mayor."

The Legislature has approved $67 million in funding for Flint.
Cotter said he would be open to further supplemental spending
proposals once the state budget is completed in June.

Mr. Snyder has requested another $165 million for Flint, with $126
million recommended as supplemental funding in this fiscal year,
and another $39 million recommended for next fiscal year that
starts in October.

"I think that the mayor's actions here could potentially blow up
the state's checkbook, and I think it's going to have a real
chilling effect on the House, as to providing any further
resources in the interim," Mr. Cotter said.

Senate Minority Leader Jim Ananich, D-Flint, defended Ms. Weaver.
While he won't comment on legal action, spokeswoman
Angela Wittrock said he feels "strongly that what we have here is
a mayor doing everything in her power to get clean and safe
drinking water into her community, and a speaker who wants to make
this a political issue, which is incredibly disappointing."

The notice claims that because of decisions by the state, the city
"has suffered or will suffer" damage to its municipal water
system, costs related to the emergency, medical claims, reduced
property values, reputational damage, permanent loss of water
system customers, increased legal liability and more.

Flint City Attorney Stacy Erwin Oakes said the legal notice was
filed March 24 on the 180-day deadline to preserve the city's
right to sue the state.  She said Flint wants the state to cover
all legal bills stemming from dozens of civil lawsuits against the
city because Snyder-appointed emergency managers switched the city
of Flint River water.

"All people have determined it wasn't the fault of the residents
of the city of Flint, therefore they should not have to pay the
bill," Ms. Oakes told The Detroit News.  "It is our intent to
continue to work with the state, the governor."

Flint also wants the state to pay for legal representation for
city employees being deposed in criminal investigations launched
by Genesee County Prosecutor David Leyton, Attorney General Bill
Schuette and the U.S. Attorney's Office in Detroit.

"It would be nice to have some coordinated efforts between these
depositions," said Oakes, a former state representative who became
Flint's top attorney on March 28.

Depositions 'very taxing'

On March 31, Mr. Schuette's special prosecutor, Todd Flood,
deposed the first of several city employees who have been
subpoenaed, Oakes said. Flood wants to depose more city employees
on April 1, she said.

"That in of itself is very taxing on the city," Ms. Oakes said.

Unlike Mr. Snyder, the cash-strapped city has not yet hired
criminal defense attorneys, Ms. Oakes said.

"Anything said in those criminal depositions can be used against
us civilly," she said.

Mr. Snyder has retained the Warner Norcross & Judd LLP law firm
for up to $800,000 in legal expenses to represent him and his
office in the criminal investigations.  Separately, Mr. Snyder's
office has a $400,000 contract with Detroit attorney
Eugene Driker and his law firm, Barris, Scott, Denn & Driker law
firm of Detroit, to represent the governor and his office in the
civil lawsuits.

The potential legal action points to a growing rift between the
Democratic mayor and Republican Gov. Rick Snyder, who described
their relationship as "a challenging situation."

Mr. Snyder spokesman Ari Adler said on April 1 the administration
was "very surprised" to hear about the court filing, noting aides
for the governor and mayor "talk daily" about the water crisis
response.

"If the goal is to have an open dialogue, as partners to solve
problems, that is much more difficult if one of the partners is
suing the other," Mr. Adler said.

Friends or foes?

The state and city are co-defendants in class-action lawsuits over
the Flint water crisis, but a suit by the city would put them in
an adversarial position.

The notice was served to the Michigan Attorney General's Office
and the Department of Environmental Quality.  It names the state
as a defendant, along with DEQ employees Mike Prysby, Steve Busch,
Adam Rosenthal and Pat Cook.

"The damage to the water system infrastructure by the MDEQ
employees' grossly negligent oversight is irreversible," reads the
court document.

Mr. Snyder has criticized department employees for failing to use
"common sense" in not requiring the city to add corrosion control
treatments to the Flint River water.  The harsh water ended up
damaging aging pipes that leached lead into the system.

Ms. Weaver has been asking both the state and federal government
to provide additional funding for her "fast start" program to
remove underground lead service lines throughout the city.

"I'm not going to get rid of them; the city is the party that is
responsible for replacing lead pipes," Mr. Snyder told a at a
journalism conference in New York on March 31.  "We want to be a
partner and figure out how to get them replaced.  It's a question
of time frame and resources."


FRONT POCKET: Violated TCPA, "Norkett" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------
Brian Norkett, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Front Pocket Marketing,
LLC, d/b/a Mortgagemapp, Washington Limited Liability Company, the
Plaintiff, v. the Defendant, Case No. 2016-CH-04424 (Illinois,
Cook Cty. Ct., Chancery Div., March 29, 2016), seeks an injunction
requiring Defendant to cease all wireless spam activities and an
award of statutory or actual damages, together with costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

The Defendant is a Washington limited liability company, based in
Washington. The Company operates a mobile application service
through its website, MortgageMapp.com, which helps customers
create personalized mobile mortgage applications. It solicits
customers from Illinois and throughout the nation to use its
personalized mobile application service, and helps promote its
customers' mortgage-related services to potential consumers
throughout Illinois and the rest of the nation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          Facsimile: (312) 275 7895
          E-mail: emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  eturin@mcgpc.com


GENERAL MOTORS: Obtains Favorable Ruling in Ignition Switch Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett, writing for Law.com, reports that a Southern
District jury declined to link what it found to be a defective
ignition switch in a General Motors car to an accident on an icy
New Orleans bridge.

Handing a setback to plaintiffs seeking to hold GM liable for
switches that can be jostled or jarred into the accessory or off
position, causing a loss of power brakes and steering, jurors took
less than five hours to clear the company of liability for the
alleged injuries to driver Dionne Spain and passenger Lawrence
Barthelemy.

Spain's 2007 Saturn Sky spun out of control and hit a Jersey
barrier on the Crescent City Connection Bridge on Jan. 24, 2014.
The Sky was one of a number of GM models with defective ignition
switches that forced the company to issue a massive recall and pay
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages.

The Spain case was the second win in a row for GM and it came in
the second of six bellwether trials before Southern District Judge
Jesse Furman that are designed to set the parameters for
settlement talks between GM and plaintiffs who declined
compensation from the company and instead opted to litigate In re:
General Motors Ignition Switch Litigation, 14-md-02543.

Plaintiffs' lawyers selected the first bellwether trial, only to
watch it dissolve amid revelations that plaintiff Robert Scheuer
and his wife Lisa may have lied about his accident and his
injuries in the aftermath (NYLJ, Jan. 25).

The Spain case, however, was selected by GM, and for good reason -
- her Saturn Sky was one of 39 cars that lost control on a stretch
of black ice on the bridge that same night.

The GM legal team, led by Mike Brock, a partner in Kirkland &
Ellis, opted for the Spain case because of the black ice and
because the injuries, if any, were relatively minor.

In closing arguments on March 28, Mr. Brock urged the eight-person
jury to stay away from speculating on a tie between a defect that
only plagued roughly half of the sample of cars tested, and the
Spain accident, saying the plaintiffs were asking the panel to
"twist yourself into a pretzel, make some assumptions, and turn
those assumptions into a guess" (NYLJ, March 30).

But plaintiffs lawyer Randall Jackson, a partner at Boies,
Schiller & Flexner, told the jury in his closing argument that
they only needed to find by a preponderance of the evidence that
the car left the factory with the defect and that "common sense"
linked the defect to the accident.

The jury indeed found the car was unreasonably dangerous "because
it deviated in a material way from [pre-bankruptcy] Old GM's
specifications or performance standards for the product, or from
otherwise identical products manufactured by GM."

The jury also found the Sky was unreasonably dangerous, as it "had
a characteristic that might cause damage and Old GM failed to use
reasonable care (either at the time the car left its control or
upon learning later about the characteristic that might cause
damage) to provide an adequate warning of that characteristic and
its danger to Ms. Spain."

But while finding Spain and Mr. Barthelemy were injured, the jury
refused to find that the defect was the proximate cause of those
injuries.

"We definitely disagree with the overall verdict, but we're
pleased with the findings the jury made that out client's car was
unreasonably dangerous," Mr. Jackson said.

In a separate statement, Mr. Jackson said "the jury's findings are
a victory for consumers and will advance the cause of all of the
plaintiffs in the MDL."

GM issued a statement saying, "The jurors studied the merits of
the case and saw the truth: this was a very minor accident that
had absolutely nothing to do with the car's ignition switch.  The
evidence was overwhelming that this accident -- like more than 30
others that occurred in the same area that night -- was caused by
the driver losing control on an icy bridge during a state-wide
winter weather emergency."

The Spain case is one of 235 that the company has not settled.
Most of those cases are before Furman, who has four more
bellwether trials scheduled through November.  The next one is
scheduled to begin May 2.

Before the jury came in to announce the verdict, Judge Furman
cautioned that the case was only a small slice of the overall
litigation "and it would be a mistake" to draw conclusions from
what is really just one step in the process.


GERASIMOS ENTERPRISES: Violated FLSA, "Rosales" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Roberto Velasquez Rosales, Osvaldo Llanos, Esteban Rivera
Carbajal, Fernando Perez Tornado, Rosanyer Coste Hernandez, and
Miguel Antonio Liriano, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Gerasimos Enterprises Inc.
(d/b/a Pita Press), 32 Bakery Corporation (d/b/a Stir Cafe), DGT
Cedar Enterprises Inc. (d/b/a Liberatos Pizza), Dennis Liberatos,
Telly Liberatos, and Jerry Liberatos, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02278-RA (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), seeks to recover
minimum and overtime wages and liquidated damages, interest,
costs, and attorney's fees for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA.), the New York Labor Law (NYLL), and
associated rules and regulations.

The Defendants own, operate, and/or control three restaurants
located at New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200


GLOBAL RECEIVABLES: Faces "Zadel" Suit in Dist. of Arizona
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Global Receivables Solutions
Incorporated. The case is captioned Cynthia Zadel, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Global Receivables Solutions Incorporated, a Delaware corporation,
and Alorica Incorporated, a California corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (D. Ariz., Phoenix Div.,
March 29, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. Bridget S.
Bade.

Global Receivables Solutions is engaged in accounts receivable
management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott B Seymann, Esq.
          Steven Jay German, Esq.
          ADELMAN GERMAN PLC
          8245 N 85th Way
          Scottsdale, AZ 85258
          Telephone: (480) 607 9166
          Facsimile: (480) 607 9031
          E-mail: scott@adelmangerman.com
                  steve@adelmangerman.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Steven L Woodrow, Esq.
          WOODROW & PELUSO LLC
          3900 E Mexico Ave., Ste. 300
          Denver, CO 80210
          Telephone: (720) 213 0675
          Facsimile: (303) 927 0809
          E-mail: swoodrow@woodrowpeluso.com


H GRANADOS COMMUNICATIONS: Violated FLSA & UCL, "Au" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Au, individually, and on behalf of all employees similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. H Granados Communications, Inc., a
California corporation, HG Communications, Inc., a California
corporation, Henry Granados, an individual, Charter
Communications, Inc., which will do business in California as
Charter Communications (CCI) Inc., a Delaware Corporation, the
Defendants, Case No. BC615210 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles
County, March 29, 2016), seeks to recover wages including overtime
pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Unfair
Competition Law (UCL).

HG Communications was founded in 1999. The Company is a
telecommunications customer service fulfillment company
specializing in residential & commercial installation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard E. Quintilone, Esq.
          QUINTILONE & ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: Req@quintlaw.com


HAECO AMERICAS: Faces "Mansilla" Suit in Cal. Super Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Haeco Americas Line Services,
LLC. The case is captioned Almir C. Mansilla, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Haeco Americas Line Services, LLC, a North Carolina
limited liability corporation, and Brice Manufacturing Company,
Inc. a California corporation and DOES 1-100, Case No. BC615310
(Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles County, March 29, 2016).

HAECO Americas provides aircraft maintenance, and repair and
overhaul services; and related products to commercial, government,
and private customers in the United States. It offers cabin
products, such as passenger seats, cabin optimization items,
galleys, crew rest modules, carpets, PMA parts, lavatories, parts
kitting solutions, and other monuments.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave., Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355


HEARTWARE INT'L: Retirement Fund Files Class Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heartware 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 the St. Paul
Teachers' Retirement Fund Association filed on January 22, 2016, a
putative class action complaint (the "Complaint") in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the company from June 10, 2014 through January
11, 2016 (the "Class Period"). The Complaint claims that the
company and two of our executives violated Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making false and
misleading statements about, among other things, the company's
response to the June 2014 FDA Warning Letter, the development of
the MVAD System and the acquisition of Valtech. The Complaint
claims that the disclosure of the purportedly false and misleading
statements caused the price of the company's stock to drop, and
seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers or acquirers
of the company's stock during the Class Period. The company
intends to vigorously defend itself against these claims. Because
of the many questions of fact and law that may arise, the outcome
of this legal proceeding is uncertain at this point.

HeartWare is a medical device company that develops and
manufactures miniaturized implantable heart pumps, or ventricular
assist devices, to treat patients suffering from advanced heart
failure.


HUMAN RESOURCE PROFILE: Faces "Langston" Suit in N.D. Georgia
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Human Resource Profile, Inc.  The
case is captioned Erin Langston, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Human Resource
Profile, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01025-ELR-WEJ (N.D.
Ga., Atlanta, March 30, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is
Hon. Walter E. Johnson.

Human Resource Profile is a full service, trusted resource with
over 20 years of experience in all areas of Employment Screening
and Verification. Providing Background Checks, Drug Tests,
Criminal and Court Checks, Reference and Education Verification.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 254 0842
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

               - and -

          Oscar Eugene Prioleau Jr., Esq.
          PRIOLEAU & MILFORT, LLC, Suite 520
          271 17th Street, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 526 9400
          E-mail: oprioleau@mindspring.com


HYUNDAI: Faces Calif. Class Suit Over Defective Paint
-----------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Hyundai Santa Fe, Sonata and
Elantra models from 2006 to 2016 have defective paint that
bubbles, peels and flakes, a class action claims in Santa Ana,
California Federal Court.


ILLINOIS: "Kolton" vs. Treasurer Seeks to Recover Lost Interests
----------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony D. Kolton and S. David Goldberg, individually and on
behalf of classes of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Michael W. Frerichs, Treasurer of the State of Illinois,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-03792 (N.D. Ill., March 29, 2016),
seeks recovery of confiscated interest, dividends or other income
derived from Plaintiff's property delivered to the State,
attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses and such other and
further relief under the provision of the Uniform Disposition of
Unclaimed Property Act, 765 ILCS Sec. 1025/1, et seq.

Plaintiffs own properties which have been held in custody by the
State because it was wrongfully presumed as abandoned. They now
claim lost opportunity and/or revenue costs associated with the
said properties.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Terry Rose Saunders, Esq.
      THE SAUNDERS LAW FIRM
      120 N. LaSalle Street, Suite 2000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: 312-444-9656
      Email: tsaunders@saunders-lawfirm.com

           - and -

      Arthur Susman, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARTHUR SUSMAN
      55 WestWacker Drive, Suite 1400
      Chicago, IL 60601
      Tel: 312-800-2351
      Email: arthur@susman-law.com

           - and -

      Thomas A. Doyle, Esq.
      WEXLERWALLACE LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3300
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Tel: 312-346-2222
      Email: tad@wexlerwallace.com


INDEPENDENCE OILFIELD: "Renner" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Renner, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Independence Oilfield Chemicals, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-00835 (S.D. Tex., Houston Division,
March 29, 2016), seeks unpaid compensation with corresponding
liquidated damages, unpaid benefits, prejudgment and post-judgment
interest pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Renner worked for the Defendants as a Frac Tech/Frac Assistant,
and usually worked in excess of 40 hours a week without receiving
any overtime compensation.

Independence is an oilfield services company and provides drilling
fluid products and services to wells throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Richard J. Burch, Esq.
      BRUCKNER BURCH, P.L.L.C.
      8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
      Houston, TX 77046
      Tel: (713) 877-8788
      Fax: (713) 877-8065
      Email: rburch@brucknerburch.com


JAPAN: Class Action Mulled Over HPV Vaccine Adverse Effects
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zosia Chustecka, writing for Medscape, reports that in Japan,
lawyers acting on behalf of girls and young women who still have
symptoms, including pain disorders, after vaccination against
human papillomavirus (HPV) are now planning a class-action suit
against the Japanese government, which launched a national
vaccination program, and the two manufacturers of the vaccines
-- Merck & Co (Gardasil) and GlaxoSmithKline (Cervarix).

"Many victims are still suffering from side effects . . . , which
include overall pain and disorders of perception, movement, and
memory," said lawyer Masumi Minaguchi, a representative from the
planned lawsuit's defense team.  He was speaking at a news
conference in Tokyo on March 30, according to a report in The
Japan Times.

There are currently 12 plaintiffs, aged from 10 to 20 years, and
the lawyers are looking for more to join in, so they intend to
publicize the issue in seminars planned for April and May.  The
team plans to file the lawsuit sometime after June at four
district courts, in Fukuoka, Nagoya, Osaka, and Tokyo, according
to the report.

In Japan, the health ministry began recommending that girls
between the ages of 12 and 16 be vaccinated against HPV to protect
against cervical cancer in April 2013, after the National Diet
revised the Preventive Vaccination Law.  However, the ministry
halted the recommendations in June 2013 following a number of
cases involving reported adverse effects.

The report notes that, according to health ministry figures, an
estimated 2.59 million had received injections of Cervarix by the
end of 2014, with 2022 people reporting adverse effects, and an
estimated 790,000 people had been given Gardasil, with 453
reporting adverse effects.

Last year, the Japanese Ministry of Health and Welfare put into
place a scheme specifically to manage the symptoms after HPV
vaccinations, with guidance for health professionals and special
centers around the country to deal with these cases.

As previously reported by Medscape Medical News, the issue of
adverse effects, symptoms, and pain syndromes after HPV
vaccination has also been reported in many other countries,
including the United States.

Last year, this issue was investigated by the European Medicines
Agency (EMA), which concluded that evidence does not support that
the vaccines cause complex regional pain syndrome or postural
orthostatic tachycardia syndrome.  However, researchers from
Denmark, where many of these cases were first reported, said that
the EMA investigation was "not valid," as it relied mostly on
published cases, and the Danes launched their own independent
study in November 2015.

In the United States, the health authorities say there is no
problem.

"HPV vaccines have an excellent safety record," Tom Shimabukuro,
MD, MPH, MBA, deputy director of the Immunization Safety Office at
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), told
Medscape Medical News last year.

The vaccine has been in use for nearly a decade.  The first, the
quadrivalent HPV vaccine (Gardasil), was licensed in the United
States in 2006, followed by the bivalent HPV vaccine (Cervarix),
which was licensed in 2009, and the nine-valent HPV vaccine
(Gardasil 9), which was licensed in 2014.

"Approximately 79 million doses of HPV vaccines have been
distributed for use in the United States, and no causal
association or links between HPV vaccines and atypical or unusual
pain syndromes or autonomic dysfunction have been identified in
either prelicensure clinical trials or postlicensure safety
monitoring conducted by CDC," Dr. Shimabukuro said.

"Most side effects to HPV vaccines are mild and go away on their
own, like pain and redness from the shot. Occasionally, patients
might faint after receiving HPV, or any injectable vaccine," he
noted.


JERRY CLARK: 7th Cir. Affirms Order in Bridgeview Healthcare Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRIDGEVIEW HEALTH CARE CENTER, LTD., an
Illinois corporation, individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JERRY
CLARK, d/b/a Affordable Digital Hearing Defendant-Appellee, Nos.
14-3728, 15-1793 (7th Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals,
Seventh Circuit, affirmed the district court's ruling which
granted partial summary judgment in the plaintiffs' favor.

A class-action lawsuit was brought by Bridgeview Health Care
Center arising out of unsolicited fax ads that were blasted across
multiple states in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act (TCPA).  While the parties agreed that the TCPA was violated,
they dispute who was responsible for sending the fax ads:  Jerry
Clark, whose Affordable Digital Hearing company in Terra Haute,
Indiana was advertised in the faxes, or the Business to Business
(B2B) marketing company that actually sent the faxes.

The district court certified all fax recipients as a class and
granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs,
holding that Clark was liable for violating the TCPA by
authorizing fax ads to plaintiffs within 20 miles of Affordable
Digital Hearing, but not for those more than 20 miles from the
company.  Bridgeview challenged the trial outcome, while Clark
cross-appealed the court's rulings on class certification.

Applying agency analysis, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the
district court's finding that Clark did not "direct" B2B to send
faxes beyond the 20-mile radius and that there is "no sense in
which the faxes sent beyond Terra Haute were sent on [Clark's]
behalf."  According to the appellate court, the record established
that Clark only told B2B that it should send 100 faxes within 20
miles of Terre Haute.

Clark, for his part, argued that the district court should have
created a subclass of plaintiffs within 20 miles of Terre Haute,
as distinct from class members more than 20 miles away, and that
Bridgeview could not adequately represent the plaintiffs within 20
miles.  The Seventh Circuit however, concluded that the district
court did not abuse its discretion in certifying one class because
the vast majority of recipients were outside that 20-mile radius
and Bridgeview was in the same position as the vast majority of
fax recipients.

Lastly, the Seventh Circuit also concluded that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in declining to decertify the class
because decertification would not affect Clark's liability to any
plaintiff, while the judgment is already limited to class members
within 20 miles of Terra Haute.

A full-text copy of the Seventh Circuit's March 21, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/8X4EtTfrom Leagle.com.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Summary Judgment Against Becknell Affirmed
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN M. BECKNELL, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Appellant, v. SEVERANCE PAY PLAN
OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND U.S. AFFILIATED COMPANIES; PENSION
COMMITTEE OF JOHNSON & JOHNSON, No. 15-2660 (3rd Cir.), the United
States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit, affirmed the decision of
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granting
summary judgment in favor of Severance Pay Plan for Johnson &
Johnson and Affiliated U.S. Companies ("J & J").

A putative class action was commenced by Alan M. Becknell, seeking
severance benefits under the Employment Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).  J & J had previously denied Becknell's
request for severance benefits, stating that he did not qualify
because his termination did not result from one of the "Severance
Events" enumerated in J & J's Severance Pay Plan, and that
Becknell ceased to be eligible for benefits when he began
receiving long-term disability benefits because he was unable to
work, with or without reasonable accommodation.  Upon
administrative appeal, this determination was upheld by the
Benefits Claims Committee (BCC).

J & J moved for summary judgment which was granted by the district
court, rendering moot Becknell's previously submitted motion for
class certification.

On appeal, Becknell asserted that the district court erred in
reviewing J & J's denial of his claim under the deferential abuse
of discretion standard.  Becknell argued, that the failure of the
BCC to issue a written decision within the 60 days the plan
requires rendered his claim "deemed denied," which the Third
Circuit must review de novo.  Under the de novo standard, Becknell
claimed that he would have prevailed since ambiguity in an ERISA
plan is construed in favor of the insured.

Regardless of the standard of review, however, the Third Circuit
found that the plan language underlying the plan administrator's
determination is unambiguous, and the plan administrator's
interpretation was within its discretion and consistent with the
purpose of the plan.  As such, the appellate court held that
Becknell's claim fails under either deferential or de novo
standard of review.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's March 21, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/YPcZRJfrom Leagle.com.


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Hit with Big Product Liability Verdicts
----------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant and Max Mitchell, writing for New Jersey Law
Journal, report that plaintiffs lawyers haven been winning a
steady stream of big products liability verdicts against Johnson &
Johnson recently, and some have suggested the company's size makes
it a bigger target for litigation -- and also more willing to take
cases to trial.

All the litigation hasn't kept Wall Street from taking a liking to
Johnson & Johnson -- several brokerages upgraded their ratings on
the company's stock in recent weeks, including Goldman Sachs,
which changed its prognosis for Johnson & Johnson to "neutral,"
after rating it "sell" for 14 months.  But the heavy burden of
litigation facing the company may have some questioning the
company's direction and management.

On March 17, a federal jury in Dallas ordered the company to pay
$502 million to five plaintiffs who claimed the company's Pinnacle
artificial hips failed prematurely.  And on Feb. 22, a state jury
in Missouri returned a $72 million verdict in the case of a woman
whose death from ovarian cancer was linked to long-term use of
Johnson & Johnson's talcum powder products.  The company is
expected to appeal both verdicts.

On another front, Johnson & Johnson's Janssen Pharmaceuticals has
been hit with plaintiff verdicts in three of the four cases tried
before Philadelphia juries in the past year concerning a tendency
by antipsychotic drug Risperdal to cause male users to develop
breasts.  The company has seen verdicts of $500,000, $2.5 million
and $1.75 million in those cases.  Also in Philadelphia, the
company was hit with verdicts of $12.5 million in January and
$13.5 million in February over its pelvic mesh products.  And in
the fall, the company faces the first trial in multidistrict
litigation in Philadelphia of 217 suits claiming that Tylenol
causes liver damage.

In addition, on March 29, the New Jersey Appellate Division upheld
an $11.1 million verdict against Johnson & Johnson subsidiary
Ethicon Inc. in the first bellwether pelvic mesh trial in New
Jersey state court.

Erik Gordon, who studies drug companies as an assistant professor
at the University of Michigan's Ross School of Business, said he
sees a departure from the vow by Johnson & Johnson's founders to
put patients' interests ahead of those of stockholders.

"J&J seems to have changed from a company that lived its famous
credo of putting patients first to a company that puts 'hit the
sales numbers' first and cites the credo, with feeling, when it is
in a public relations mess related to allegedly defective
products," Mr. Gordon said.

The root cause of the verdicts lies in the conduct of Johnson &
Johnson, said Shanin Specter -- Shanin.Specter@KlineSpecter.com
-- of Kline & Specter in Philadelphia, who recently tried two
pelvic mesh cases against the company to verdict for a total of
$26 million in jury awards.

"Johnson & Johnson is being told by juries that they have acted
negligently and recklessly more than any other company in the
United States," Mr. Specter said.  "Their internal documents
demonstrate that they are a company that has lost its way, and
they are putting sales over safety."

Mr. Specter added that the history of punitive damage awards
against Johnson & Johnson is striking. In his pelvic mesh cases,
$17 million of the $26 million awarded were for punitives.  In the
Pinnacle case in Texas, $360 million of the $502 million awarded
were for punitives, and in the Missouri talcum powder case, $62
million of the $72 million were for punitives.

In addition, the $11.1 million verdict in the New Jersey pelvic
mesh case included a $7.76 million punitive damages award, which
the appeals court held was "more than adequately supported" by the
evidence.

"Remember that punitive damages are a rare event in the United
States, so to see J&J be assessed these damages over and over
again is a regrettably meaningful statement about the culture of
the company," Mr. Specter said.  "You don't see this happen with
the same frequency with other huge companies."

Still, other lawyers said that punitive damages are particularly
vulnerable on appeal, and that the $502 million Texas verdict is
likely to be overturned.

The heavy toll of plaintiffs' verdicts against Johnson & Johnson
and other drug companies comes as the pharmaceutial industry is
undergoing a shift in public perceptions, said Christopher
Placitella of Cohen, Placitella & Roth in Red Bank, who represents
plaintiffs in mass tort suits.


JUAN CARLOS VAAMONDE: Violated FLSA, "Ruiz" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Elisa Ruiz, and other similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff,
v. Juan Carlos Vaamonde, the Defendant, Case No. 2016-007816-CA-01
(Fla. Cir. Ct., Miami-Dade Cty., March 29, 2016), seeks to recover
damages exceeding $15,000, unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages,
liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's
fees and costs, under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Juan Carlos Vaamonde has its main place of business in Miami Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason Saul Remer, 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: jremer@rgpattorneys.com


JUST ENERGY GROUP: Court Narrows Class Definition in "Wilkins"
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEVONNA WILKINS, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. JUST ENERGY GROUP, INC.,
JUST ENERGY ILLINOIS CORP., and COMMERCE ENERGY, INC., Defendants,
Case No. 13 C 5806 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Joan B. Gottschall partly
granted the defendants' motion to reconsider the court's class
certification order and held in abeyance plaintiff Levonna
Wilkins' motion for leave to file a third amended complaint to add
an additional plaintiff.

Defendants Just Energy Group, Inc., Just Energy Illinois Corp.,
and Commerce Energy, Inc., sought reconsideration of the court's
class certification order, arguing that Wilkins did not satisfy
the predominance element of class certification and that the class
definition is overly broad because it includes all of Just Energy
defendants.  The defendants argued that predominance does not
exist due to individual questions about damages and the lack of a
viable way to compute damages on a class-wide basis.  The
defendants asserted that Wilkins was exclusively associated with
Just Energy Illinois and that the class should include only Just
Energy Illinois door-to-door workers.

Wilkins opposed the motion and, alternatively, sought leave to
file a third amended complaint to add as plaintiff, Robin Lewis,
who worked for Commerce Energy.

Judge Gottschall denied without prejudice the defendants' motion
to reconsider the certification based on their arguments about
damages, holding that the fact that potential damages for
individual class members vary is not fatal to a motion for class
certification if substantial common issues outweigh individual
issues regarding damages.

Judge Gottschall, however, granted the defendants' motion to the
extent that Wilkins can proceed as a named plaintiff for a class
of only Just Energy Illinois door-to-door workers during the class
period.  The judge held that the juridical link doctrine does not
allow Wilkins to proceed as a named plaintiff representing class
members who worked for Commerce Energy.

Lastly, Judge Gottschall held in abeyance Wilkins' motion for
leave to file a third amended complaint to add Lewis as a
plaintiff, pending submission of evidence regarding when Lewis
stopped working for Commerce Energy in order to determine whether
or not Lewis falls outside the class period.

A full-text copy of Judge Gottschall's March 22, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/b9jH7hfrom Leagle.com.

Levonna Wilkins, Plaintiff, represented by Nicole T. Fiorelli --
nfiorelli@dowrkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.p.a.,
Terrence Buehler, The Law Office of Terrence Buehler,Frank Bartela
-- fbartela@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein, Co., L.p.a.,
James A. Deroche, Seaman Garson, L.l.c., Patrick J. Perotti --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein Co., L.p.a. &
Richard N Selby -- rselby@dworkenlaw.com -- Dworken & Bernstein
Co., L.p.a..

Just Energy Group, Inc., Just Energy Illinois Corp., Commerce
Energy, Inc., Defendants, represented by James J. Oh --
joh@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Amanda Elaine Inskeep
ainskeep@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Catherine Sarah
Lindemann -- clindemann@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.c. &
Jennifer L. Schilling -- jschilling@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, P.C..


KOHL'S: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over Credit Card Add-On Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gina Passarella, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
Kohl's and Capital One have successfully winnowed the claims
against them in a putative class action alleging the companies
charged excessive fees for add-on programs associated with the
department store's credit cards.

U.S. District Judge Wendy Beetlestone of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania found a number of the plaintiffs' claims were either
time-barred or pre-empted by a settlement in a similar suit
against Chase Bank, which previously owned the Kohl's credit card
line.

The plaintiffs in Gordon v. Kohl's Department Stores took issue
with fees charged for two "enhancement products" tacked on to
their Kohl's-branded credit card accounts that were issued by
Capital One.

Kohl's Account Ease, or KAE, was designed to cancel the balance
on a credit card up to $10,000 in the event of unemployment,
disability or death.  The cost for the program was $1.60 per each
$100 of a customer's ending monthly balance, according to the
opinion.

Privacy Guard was the second program at issue in the case.  It was
meant to provide customers with monitoring and credit report
retrieval services in exchange for a monthly fee of $14.99.
Capital One purchased the Kohl's credit card program from Chase
Bank in 2011, under which the only term of the cardholder
agreement that changed was that Virginia law instead of Delaware
law applied.

The plaintiffs' second amended complaint raised a claim for unjust
enrichment and one for breach of the implied covenant of good
faith and fair dealing.  Judge Beetlestone lumped the plaintiffs'
various arguments into two broad categories.

Under what Judge Beetlestone called the "No Value" theory, the
plaintiffs argued that, regardless of whether their enrollment in
the programs was proper, the programs provided little or no value.
Under this theory, Judge Beetlestone said, the plaintiffs argued
the unilateral enrollment and continued billing for the programs
constituted either an improper exercise of the defendants' rights
to impose new terms or unjust enrichment.

The second theory Judge Beetlestone coined was the "No
Authorization" theory, under which the plaintiffs argued that the
sale of the credit card program from Chase to Capital One did not
also transfer to Capital One the rights to automatically enroll
and bill the plaintiffs for the KAE and privacy programs.
Judge Beetlestone found that many of the plaintiffs' claims would
survive a motion to dismiss, but ultimately found a large portion
of them were time-barred.

Judge Beetlestone said the plaintiffs' unilateral enrollment into
KAE, where the complaint alleges they seldom received benefits,
was enough for a fact-finder to determine the enrollment in the
difficult-to-cancel program was not a meaningful benefit.

And while Judge Beetlestone found Capital One's purchase of the
cards from Chase also transferred the KAE program to Capital One,
she found one element did support the plaintiffs' "No
Authorization" theory.  The change to Virginia law was an adverse
change in that Delaware law did not require proof of reliance to
succeed on a claim of deceptive practices, while Virginia law did
require that proof.

"Thus, a change in governing law from Delaware to Virginia would
have required notice to customers," Judge  Beetlestone said.  "If,
as plaintiffs allege, there was no written notice of the new terms
contained in the Capital One KAE amendment, arguably those terms
could not have been implemented in full when the accounts were
transferred to Capital One or when the Capital One Cardmember
Agreement was issued."

Judge Beetlestone similarly found that the sole plaintiff alleging
claims regarding Privacy Guard could survive a motion to dismiss
under both the "No Authorization" and "No Value" theories.


KOOS MFG: Violated CLC & IWC Wage Orders, "Rizo" Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Rizo, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Koos Manufacturing, Inc., a California
corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC615268 (Cal. Super. Ct. - Los Angeles County, March 29, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid rest and meal period
compensation, penalties, and other equitable relief, and
reasonable attorney's fees and costs under the California Labor
Code (CLC) & Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders.

Koos Manufacturing manufactures and distributes men's, women's,
and children's jeans. It offers denim jeans and casual twill
trousers. The company operates manufacturing facilities in Los
Angeles and Mexico. Koos Manufacturing, Inc. was founded in 1978
and is based in South Gate, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R Hawkins, Esq.
          JAMES HAWKINS APLC
          9880 Research Drive Suite 200
          Irvine, CA 92618
          Telephone: (949) 387 7200
          Facsimile: (949) 387 6676
          E-mail: james@jameshawkinsaplc.com


KRAFT HEINZ: Faces "Quinn" Suit Over Parmesan Cheese Labeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rosemary Quinn and Alfonso Fata, Plaintiffs, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. The Kraft Heinz
Company ("Kraft"), Defendant, Case No. 7:16-cv-01471 (S.D.N.Y.,
February 25, 2016), is brought on behalf of themselves and three
classes of similarly-situated individuals who purchased, in New
York, Connecticut and Florida "Kraft" 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese.

The suit alleges that the Defendant acted deceptively by labeling
the Product as containing 100% parmesan because it in fact
contains a significant amount of filler that is not cheese but
instead an artificial chemically-produced form of wood chips
called cellulose.  The Defendant also misrepresented the Product
as containing 100% cheese.

The Kraft Heinz Company is incorporated in Delaware with
headquarters in Chicago, Illinois and Pittsburg, Pennsylvania.
The Defendant is the third largest food and beverage company in
North America and does extensive business in New York, Connecticut
and Florida.  It Defendant develops, manufactures, distributes,
sells and advertises "Kraft" 100% Grated Parmesan Cheese"
nationwide including in New York, Connecticut and Florida as part
of its billion-dollar "Kraft" brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Todd Garber, Esq.
     D. Greg Blankinship, Esq.
     FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP.
     1311 Mamaroneck Avenue
     White Plains, NY 10605
     Telephone: (914) 298-3283
     Fax: (914)824-1561
     E-mail: tgarber@fbfglaw.com
             gblankinship@fbfglaw.com


LBINARY: Two Law Firms Prepare Fraud Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Victor Golovtchenko, writing for Finance Magnates, reports that
International law firm Giambrone Law and London-based financial
litigation boutique firm Healys LLP have teamed up to prepare two
class action lawsuits against a duo of binary options brokerages,
LBinary and NRGbinary, who have allegedly defrauded nearly 70
investors from their deposits, in excess of EUR4.3 million.  The
majority of claimants are from Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, with some
European clients from Germany and Italy joining the class action.

Two separate cases will be filed before the High Court of Justice
in London.  The English jurisdiction has been selected due to the
role played by Moneynetint Ltd, a London based payments company,
authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority, which served as a
vehicle for these brokerages to receive funds from its investors.
There is currently no evidence that Moneynetint is involved with
the alleged frauds.

According to the investigations conducted by Giambrone Law, both
LBinary and NRG Binary share a similar ownership structure with
both defendants domiciled in the UK.

The claimants are alleging that the same individuals are behind
the ownership of several other binary brokerages which are
operating a group of companies from Israel.  The lawsuit comes at
a time when Israeli authorities are heavily clamping down on the
industry, giving companies connected with binary options trading
30 days to cease their operations.

In addition to NRGbinary and LBinary, Giambrone Law is also in the
process of preparing similar class actions against IronFX, Titan
Trade and Ivory Options.

The claimants are aiming to obtain a money judgment which would
lead to an insolvency declaration of the brokerages and the
appointment of trustees in bankruptcy.  If successful, banks which
are holding the funds of the companies will be asked to freeze the
defendants' accounts.

Commenting to Finance Magnates on the litigation prospects,
Gabriele Giambrone stated that the total claims from both lawsuits
may well reach up to EUR10 million.

"We are aiming to find out to what extent the banks are expected
to enforce their due diligence procedures on binary options and
forex companies and whether the banks can be made liable to
indemnify the victims of fraudulent binary options and forex
brokers," Ms. Giambrone explained to Finance Magnates.

In what could be an important legal precedent, the case is aiming
to establish a principle that can be wide reaching irrespective of
the jurisdiction where the funds have been deposited from.

NRG BINARY operated a binary options trading platform on the
nrgbinary.com website and was cleared and operated by MHGG Tech
Solutions Limited of 47 Park Royal Road, London MHGG Tech
Solutions Ltd is a Private Limited Company, incorporated in
England and registered in the English Companies House.  It was
registered on 2 July 2014 and its director was Anous Kostikian, a
Greek citizen, born in September 1992 and resident of Cyprus.

Recently NRG Binary has been struck off from the company register
in the UK.  LBinary is not stating the jurisdiction from which the
website operator is running its binary options business.


LENDTUIT HOLDING CORP: Faces "Gritz" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Lendtuit Holding Corporation. The
case is captioned David Gritz, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lendtuit Holding
Corporation, Finance Store, Inc., Finance Agents, Inc., and
Timothy Tim Mccormack, individually, the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-01437-JFL (E.D. Penn, Allentown, March 29, 2016).
The assigned Presiding Judge is Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.

Lendtuit Holding Corporation is a California Corporation, based in
Irvine, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Barry L. Cohen, Esq.
          ROYER COOPER COHEN BRAUNFELD LLC
          101 W Elm St Ste 220
          Conshohocken, PA 19428
          Telephone: (484) 362 2628
          Facsimile: (484) 362 2630
          E-mail: bcohen@rccblaw.com


LENOVO INC: Faces "Howard" Suit for Sale of Defective Laptop
------------------------------------------------------------
JASON HOWARD v. LENOVO (UNITED STATES), INC., Case 4:16-cv-00288-
GAF (W.D. Mo., March 31, 2016), seeks to recover monetary damages
and injunctive relief resulting from Lenovo's alleged wrongful
sale of defective laptop computers that have fundamental defects
in the main hinge that renders the product useless and of greatly
reduced value.

Lenovo is a China-based company that designs, manufactures and
sells a broad range of desktop computers and laptop computers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert A. Horn, Esq.
     Joseph A. Kronawitter, Esq.
     HORN AYLWARD & BANDY, LLC
     2600 Grand Boulevard, Suite 1100
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 421-0700
     Fax: (816) 421-0899
     E-mail: rhorn@hab-law.com
             jkronawitter@hab-law.com

        - and -

     Kirk J. Goza, Esq.
     GOZA & HONNOLD, LLC
     11150 Overbrook Road, Suite 200
     Leawood, KS 66211
     Phone: (913) 451-3433
     Fax: (913) 273-0509
     E-mail: kgoza@gohonlaw.com


LINCOLN PROPERTY: "Montalvo" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Charlene Montalvo, individually & on behalf of all similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. Lincoln Property Company & Lincoln
Property Company Commercial, Inc. Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00859-M (N.D. Tex., Dallas Division, March 29, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime pay, liquidated damages and reasonable
attorney fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendants are property management companies developing and
managing both residential communities and commercial real estate.
They are both located at 2000 McKinney Ave. Ste. 1000, Dallas,
Texas 75201.

Montalvo accuses the Defendants of not paying the mandated
overtime premium for hours rendered in excess of 40 hours per week
as a result of their pay-capping policy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN
      20 N Orange Ave. Ste. 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Tel. (407) 420-1414
      Email: BMazaheri@forthepeople.com


LOEWEN DECOR: "Mercado" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Donys Francisco Gonzalez Mercado, Ernesto Jose Hernandez Amador,
and all others similarly, Plaintiff, vs. Loewen Decor, Inc.,
Andres S. Lowentraut, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21112-JAL (S.D.
Fla., March 29, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime pay,
double damages and reasonable attorney fees pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Mercado worked for Loewn Decor as a carpenter and accuses the
Defendants of not paying the mandated overtime premium for hour
rendered in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J.H. Zidell, Esq.
      J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
      300 71st Street, Suite 605
      Miami Beach, Florida 33141
      Tel: (305) 865-6766
      Fax: (305) 865-7167


LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL: No Interest on Developer Fee Refund
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division
Eight, affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining the Los
Angeles Unified School District's demurrer and dismissing the case
captioned MERKOH ASSOCIATES, LLC, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOS
ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, Defendant and Respondent, No.
B265178 (Cal. Ct. App.).

Merkoh Associates, LLC paid $25,052 in school district development
fees to obtain a permit for residential construction at a single
family residence on North Fuller Avenue.  On July 30, 2013, Merkoh
filed a "request for refund of fees for demolition credit."  On
April 16, 2014, the Los Angeles Unified School District issued a
refund in the amount of $8,852.  The refund did not include
interest.

On August 21, 2014, Merkoh filed a complaint on its behalf and on
behalf of persons similarly situated alleging causes of action for
money had and received and declaratory relief.  Merkoh sought
interest in the amount of $632.98 pursuant to Civil Code section
3287, from the time of its application to the school district for
a refund of fees for demolition credit to the time of refund.  The
school district demurred to the complaint.

The Court of Appeals of California agreed with the trial court in
concluding that Civil Code section 3287 cannot be the basis for
interest on the refund of developer fees because Government Code
section 66020, subdivision (e) more specifically sets forth the
interest available on the development fee refund.  The appellate
court affirmed the trial court's judgment sustaining the school
district's demurrer because Merkoh's claim for interest was time-
barred pursuant to Government Code section 66020.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 22,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/gKxiPEfrom Leagle.com.

Steve A. Hoffman -- stevehoffman@asu.edu -- for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

David Holmquist, Gregory L. McNair, Carl J. Piper and Sung Yon Lee
for Defendant and Respondent.


LOWE'S: Settles Background Check Class Action
---------------------------------------------
Andrew Sorensen, writing for Time Warner Cable News, reports that
Mooresville-based Lowe's is hammering out a settlement on a class
action lawsuit that could cost the company tens of millions of
dollars.

People who applied to jobs at Lowe's between October 2012 and July
2015 have started receiving letters offering a $50 Lowe's gift
card or a $35 check because of slip-ups on background checks.

"That's a difficult statute to be honest.  It has a lot of
technicalities and intricacies to it," said attorney
Tamara Huckert -- tamara@strilaw.com -- with the Charlotte-based
firm Strainese.

She says background checks fall under the Fair Credit Reporting
Act, and it's not common, but issues do pop up.

Here are the basics on this case: several people brought the
lawsuit to the federal court in Charlotte in 2013.

One plaintiff, Jason Brown, says he applied for an assistant
manager job at a store in Texas back in 2011.

Lowe's bought a background check from a company called Lexis-
Nexis.

Lexis-Nexis, the suit says, had "several entries of criminal
history information that belong to a different Jason Brown."

Lowe's told Brown they wouldn't hire him, according to Brown's
lawyers, because of the criminal history.

You're supposed to give applicants an opportunity to dispute that
prior to taking action.

Another plaintiff says a felony conviction which was later
overturned led to his dismissal as an applicant.

There's another problem that came up in court.

The plaintiffs' lawyers say Lowe's had a phrase inside the form
applicants had to sign to approve a background check.

The liability waiver basically said an applicant couldn't sue
Lowe's or Lexis-Nexis over the background check. Ironically, the
plaintiffs are suing over that waiver.

Ms. Huckert says they have a case on that, "[Lowe's] might think
they have a valid release, but if they have it on the wrong form,
it doesn't count."

Lowe's isn't admitting wrongdoing, but the claims could affect
more than 450,000 people.

That could cost them more than $22.5 million.  It shows why
companies should sweat the small stuff, Ms. Huckert says.

"You need to be careful, and make sure that you're following the
laws, and the processes that you're using to hire applicants,
because it can be a big deal," she said.

People applying for a claim settlement, are filing to object, or
want to waive the settlement to file their own claim need to file
that before May 16th.

There's a hearing at the federal court in Charlotte in June when a
judge will decide whether they'll accept the settlement.

Lowe's noted they're only settling part of the original complaint.


MEAT SUPREME: "Meza" Suit Seeks Overtime Compensation
-----------------------------------------------------
Columba Meza and Vianey Rivas Duenas, Plaintiffs, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs v. 1947-86th
Street Meat Market Inc. (d/b/a Meat Supreme), Bartholomew
Castellano, Joseph Castellano and Michael Castellano, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00956 (E.D.N.Y., February 25, 2016), contends
that the Defendant, in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act,
failed to pay the Plaintiffs overtime compensation at rates of 1.5
times the regular rate of pay for each hour has worked in excess
of 40 hours in a workweek.

Defendant 1947-86th Street Meat Market Inc., (d/b/a Meat Supreme)
is a domestic corporation organized and existing under the laws of
the state of New York. Meat Supreme maintains its principal of
business at 1947 86th Street, Brooklyn, New York 11214.

Defendant Bartholomew Castellano is sued individually in his
capacity as, on information and belief, an owner, officer and/or
agent of Defendant Corporation. Defendant Bartholomew Castellano
determined the wages and compensation of the employees of
Defendants.

Defendant Joseph Castellano is sued individually in his capacity
as, on information and belief, an owner, officer and/or agent of
Defendant Corporation. Defendant Joseph Castellano determined the
wages and compensation of the employees of Defendants.

Defendant Michael Castellano is sued individually in his capacity
as, on information and belief, an owner, officer and/or agent of
Defendant Corporation. Defendant Michael Castellano possesses or
possessed operation control over Defendant Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michael Faillace
     MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
     New York, NY 10165
     Telephone: (212) 317-1200
     Facsimile: (212) 317-1620


MEDLINE INDUSTRIES: Commission Payments Proper, Court Says
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned David Cohan and Susan Schardt, on behalf of
themselves and other similarly situated persons, known and
unknown, Plaintiffs, v. Medline Industries, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14 C 1835 (N.D. Ill.), Judge Robert Blakey
denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment.

A purported class action was filed concerning the allegedly
improper payment of commission by Medline Industries, Inc. and
its subsidiary, MedCal Sales LLC (collectively, "Medline") to
their salespeople, in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and
Collection Act (IWCPA) and several state wage payment statutes.
As to the state wage payment statutes, the individual plaintiffs
alleged claims under the New York Labor Law and California Labor
Code.  Proceedings on class certification were stayed to allow for
resolution of the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment on
the individual plaintiffs' claims.

Judge Blake found that the plaintiffs David Cohan and Susan
Schardt have not performed enough work in Illinois for the IWCPA
to apply, as they were only present in Illinois for a few days
every year and while here, they were engaged primarily in training
and not the actual sales work for which they were employed.
Further, Judge Blake also found that, even if the IWCPA were to
apply to the plaintiffs, Medline nevertheless had not violated the
IWCPA because Medline's commission calculations were compliant
with the parties' agreements.

Judge Blake also concluded that Medline did not violate the
California or New York laws.  The judge found that there is
nothing in Cohan's and Schardt's employment agreements requiring
that their commissions be calculated without reference to sales
declines, and there is nothing in the record indicating that
Medline agreed to such a calculation.  Judge Blake found instead
that the actions of Cohan and Schardt in this matter manifested a
clear intent to agree to the commissions as paid by Medline.

A full-text copy of Judge Blakey's March 21, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/40GfXwfrom
Leagle.com.

David Cohan, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Caffarelli,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd., Alexis D Martin, Caffarelli &
Associates Ltd. & Lorraine Teraldico Peeters, Caffarelli &
Associates Ltd..

Susan Schardt, Plaintiff, represented by Alejandro Caffarelli,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd. & Lorraine Teraldico Peeters,
Caffarelli & Associates Ltd..

Medline Industries, Inc., MedCal Sales LLC, Defendants,
represented by Frederick Lewis Schwartz -- fschwartz@littler.com
-- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Amy Dickerson Rettberg --
arettberg@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C., Amy Schaefer
Ramsey -- aramsey@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C. &
Christina A. Andronache -- candronache@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson.


MERCK & CO: June 28 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN RE MERCK & CO., INC. SECURITIES,
DERIVATIVE & "ERISA" LITIGATION
MDL No. 1658 (SRC)
Civil Action No. 05-1151 (SRC) (MAS)
Civil Action No. 05-2367 (SRC) (MAS)

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
THE SECURITIES CLASS ACTION

Summary Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses

TO:   All persons and entities who, from May 21, 1999, through
October 29, 2004, inclusive (the "Settlement Class Period"),
purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of Merck & Co.,
Inc. ("Merck Common Stock") or call options on Merck Common Stock,
or sold put options on Merck Common Stock (the "Settlement
Class").

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY; YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS
COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that the Lead Plaintiffs in the class
action (the "Action"), on behalf of themselves and the Court-
certified Settlement Class, have reached a proposed Settlement of
the Action with Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., on behalf of its
affiliates and subsidiaries, including defendant Merck & Co.,
Inc.1, and Edward M. Scolnick and Alise S. Reicin (collectively,
the "Individual Defendants," and together with Merck,
"Defendants").  The Settlement provides for a payment of $830
million (the "Settlement Class Fund") for the benefit of the
Settlement Class, and another $232 million (the "Fee/Expense
Fund") from which Court-awarded Lead Plaintiffs' attorneys' fees
and Litigation Expenses and the fees of the Special Master
appointed by the Court regarding the award of attorneys' fees and
expenses shall be paid.  To the extent the Court awards attorneys'
fees and Litigation Expenses in an amount less than $232 million,
any amount remaining in the Fee/Expense Fund, after the payment of
the Special Master's Fees and any Taxes owed by the Fee/Expense
Fund, will be credited to the Settlement Class Fund and will not
revert back to any of the Defendants or their insurers.  In
return, the Court will dismiss with prejudice the claims asserted
in this Action on behalf of Settlement Class Members against
Defendants and grant the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement dated February 8, 2016
(the "Stipulation").

A hearing will be held on June 28, 2016 at 10:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Stanley R. Chesler, U.S.D.J., in Courtroom No. 2 of the
U.S. Courthouse and Post Office Building, 2 Federal Square,
Newark, New Jersey, 07102, to determine:  (1) whether the proposed
Settlement should be approved as fair, reasonable, and adequate;
(2) whether the Action should be dismissed with prejudice against
Defendants, and the Releases specified and described in the
Stipulation should be granted; (3) whether the proposed Plan of
Allocation for the proceeds of the Settlement should be approved
as fair and reasonable; and (4) whether Co-Lead Counsel's
application for an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of
Litigation Expenses should be granted.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS DESCRIBED, YOUR RIGHTS
WILL BE AFFECTED AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO SHARE IN THE
SETTLEMENT CLASS FUND.  If you have not yet received the full
printed Notice of (I) Proposed Settlement and Plan of Allocation;
(II) Settlement Fairness Hearing; and (III) Motion for an Award of
Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Litigation Expenses (the
"Settlement Notice"), you may obtain copies by contacting the
Claims Administrator at:

In re Merck & Co., Inc. Vioxx Securities Litigation
c/o  Epiq Systems
P.O. Box 6659
Portland, OR 97228-6659
Tel.: (866) 752-0067

Copies of the Settlement Notice, which more completely describes
the Settlement and your rights thereunder, and the Proof of Claim
Form ("Claim Form") are also available at
www.merckvioxxsecuritieslitigation.com

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, in order to be
eligible to share in the distribution of the proceeds of the
Settlement you must submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than
September 12, 2016.

The Court previously certified a class consisting of all persons
and entities who, from May 21, 1999 to September 29, 2004,
inclusive (the "Certified Class Period"), purchased or otherwise
acquired Merck Common Stock or Merck Call Options, or sold Merck
Put Options (the "Certified Class").  The Certified Class Period
was shorter than, and is encompassed by, the Settlement Class
Period.  The Notice of Pendency of Class Action mailed in
September 2013 provided members of the Certified Class with an
opportunity to request exclusion from the class.  If you
previously submitted a request for exclusion and you wish to
remain excluded, no further action is required and you will be
excluded from the Settlement Class.  Persons who previously
submitted a request for exclusion may, however, opt back into the
Settlement Class for the purpose of being eligible to receive a
payment from the Settlement.  In order to opt back into the
Settlement Class, you must submit a request to do so in writing
such that it is received no later than June 23, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice.  Any Person who previously submitted a request for
exclusion and timely opts back into the Settlement Class shall be
afforded all the rights and obligations of a Settlement Class
Member.  If you previously submitted a request for exclusion from
the Certified Class and do not opt back into the Settlement Class
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice, you will not be bound by any judgments or orders entered
by the Court in the Action and you will not be eligible to share
in the Settlement.

Members of the Certified Class, who were previously given an
opportunity to request exclusion, do not have a second opportunity
to request exclusion at this time.  However, if your only
purchases of Merck Common Stock or Merck Call Options or sales of
Merck Put Options during the Settlement Class Period occurred from
September 30, 2004 through October 29, 2004, inclusive, you may
request exclusion from the Settlement Class.  If you fit these
criteria and wish to exclude yourself from the Settlement Class,
you must submit a request for exclusion such that it is received
no later than May 14, 2016, in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Settlement Notice.  If you properly exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action and you
will not be eligible to share in the Settlement.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of
Allocation, or the application for attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses must be filed with the Court and
delivered to Co-Lead Counsel and representative Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than May 14, 2016, in
accordance with the instructions set forth in the Settlement
Notice.

Inquiries, other than requests for copies of the Settlement Notice
and Claim Form, which may be obtained at
www.merckvioxxsecuritieslitigation.com should be directed to the
Claims Administrator at (866) 752-0067, or Co-Lead Counsel:

Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP
Brower Piven, A Professional Corporation
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
David A.P. Brower, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas, 44th Floor
475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
New York, NY 10020
New York, NY 10016
Tel:  800-380-8496
Tel: 212-501-9000

Milberg LLP
Stull, Stull & Brody
Robert A. Wallner, Esq.
Mark Levine, Esq.
One Pennsylvania Plaza
6 East 45th Street
New York, NY 10119
New York, NY 10017
Tel: 212-594-5300
Tel: 800-337-4983

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

1 As used herein, "Merck" means Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. and
Merck & Co., Inc., the named defendant in this action, together
with any of their subsidiaries and affiliates.


MERCY HEALTH: Faces Class Action ERISA-Exempt Church Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that another
Cincinnati hospital has been sued for treating its pension plan as
an ERISA-exempt church plan.

The proposed class action -- which accuses Mercy Health of
underfunding its pension plan by nearly $210 million -- asks a
question that more than a dozen recent lawsuits have asked,
including one filed against fellow Cincinnati hospital St.
Elizabeth Medical Center Inc.  The suits ask whether a religiously
affiliated hospital can treat its pension plan as a "church plan"
exempt from the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, or must
comply with the statute's funding, vesting and disclosure
requirements.

A loss in one of these lawsuits could be costly for a hospital,
particularly if a judge orders it to make up a pension funding
deficiency totaling hundreds of millions of dollars.

Successful Challenges

This lawsuit against Mercy Health comes on the heels of a
nationwide litigation effort dating back to 2013 and led by
plaintiffs' firms Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC and Keller
Rohrback LLP.

The district judges hearing these challenges have been evenly
split, issuing decisions in favor of Ascension Health, Catholic
Health East and Trinity Health Corp. Other rulings have gone
against Saint Peter's Healthcare System, Advocate Health Care
Network and Dignity Health.

So far, two appellate courts have weighed in on this line of
cases, both ruling against the hospitals. In 2015, the Third
Circuit disallowed Saint Peter's from using ERISA's church plan
exemption.  The Seventh Circuit followed suit earlier in March in
a case against Advocate.

The next appellate decision is likely to come from the Ninth
Circuit, which heard arguments in a case against Dignity Health in
February.

The Sixth Circuit -- which controls the district courts hearing
the suits against Mercy Health and St. Elizabeth -- was scheduled
to hear a challenge to Ascension Health's pension plan, but that
case settled for $8 million in 2015.

New Allegations

The complaint against Mercy Health challenges the pension plan's
underfunding and its failure to comply with ERISA's notice and
disclosure requirements, which mandate certain annual reports and
funding notices.

It also accuses the plan's fiduciaries of breaching their duties
and operating under conflicted loyalties.

According to the complaint, Mercy Health is the largest health
system in Ohio and the fourth largest employer in Ohio, operating
23 hospitals and employing 32,000 people.

The complaint was filed March 30 in the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio by Cincinnati-based Strauss Troy.

Mercy Health didn't immediately respond to Bloomberg BNA's request
for comments.


NATERA INC: "Ellis" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------
M. Jim Ellis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Jonathan Sheena,
Herm Rosenman, Roelof F. Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward C. Driscoll,
James I. Healy, John Steuart, Sequoia Capital XII, LP, SC XII
Management LLC, Lightspeed Venture Partners VIII, LP, Lightspeed
Ultimate General Partner VIII Ltd, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Cowen
and Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W. Baird & Co.
Incorporated, Wedbush Securities Inc., Cowen and Company, LLC,
Piper Jaffray & Co., Wedbush Securities Inc., Case No. CIV537896,
was removed from the San Mateo County Superior Court, to the US
District Court for the Northern District of California. The
District Court clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01554-CW to the
proceeding.

Natera, a genetic testing company, develops and commercializes
non-invasive methods for analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in
the United States and Europe. The company primarily offers
Panorama, a non-invasive prenatal test for fetal chromosomal
abnormalities; Horizon test; and pre-implantation genetic
screening and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis tests under the
Spectrum brand to analyze chromosomal anomalies or inherited
genetic conditions during an in vitro fertilization. The Company
is based in San Carlos, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kathleen Ann Herkenhoff, Esq.
          THE WEISER LAW FIRM P.C.
          12707 High Bluff Drive, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 794-1441
          Facsimile: (858) 794-1450
          E-mail: kah@weiserlawfirm.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bruce Gordon Vanyo, Esq.
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 788 401
          Facsimile: (310) 788 4471
          E-mail: bruce@kattenlaw.com


NEBRASKA: SNAP Processing Class Action Settlement Gets Court OK
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lori Pilger, writing for Lincoln Journal Star, reports that a
federal judge on April 1 approved a settlement in a class-action
lawsuit over Nebraska's slow turnaround time for processing
applications and renewals for the Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program commonly known as food stamps.

Rather than a typical settlement that involves a cash judgment,
this one set SNAP processing requirements for the state Department
of Health and Human Services and oversight by a nonprofit advocacy
group.

In 2014, the Nebraska Appleseed Center sued HHS on behalf of
Tami Leiting-Hall of Lincoln, a single working mom who had applied
in mid-June for a renewal of benefits and still hadn't received
word from HHS or received aid for July.

Generally, all applicants to the program that helps low-income
people buy food must be approved or denied within 30 days,
according to federal rules.

The judge later allowed the case to go forward as a class-action
suit.

Last month, HHS and the Appleseed Center posted notices of the
proposed settlement, and at the April 1 hearing attorneys on
either side told U.S. District Judge John Gerrard they received no
objections.

Judge Gerrard determined the settlement was fair, reasonable and
adequate and in the best interests of the class and approved it,
calling it "a win for all the citizens of Nebraska."

Specifically, the settlement requires HHS to timely process at
least 96 percent of SNAP applications.  The court's jurisdiction
would end when HHS maintains compliance for 25 out of 28 months.

HHS also will have to provide the Appleseed Center monthly reports
to show how long it is taking to process new and renewal
applications, and the center could go to HHS about applications
where the deadline has been missed.

In a news release last month, HHS said workers had timely
processed 95.35 percent of SNAP applications between April and
September 2015, above the federal benchmark of 85 percent.

It put Nebraska at 27th nationally.

Judge Gerrard also approved an agreement for HHS to pay the
Nebraska Appleseed Center $230,000 for attorney fees and costs, an
amount he called fair given the challenging nature of the
litigation.


NEW YORK: Lieutenant Says NYPD Still Pursues Quotas
---------------------------------------------------
Sarah Wallace, writing for NBC 4 New York, reports that an NYPD
lieutenant is the latest active-duty cop to say that the
department still uses arrest and summons quotas, despite a 2010
state ban on the practice and a denial from the city's top cop.
The lieutenant, who asked not to be identified for fear of
retaliation, told the I-Team that the 10 active-duty cops in a
federal class-action lawsuit against the NYPD who recently came
forward "were telling the truth" about the illegal practice.

"There is still a quota system within the NYPD," the lieutenant
said.

In an interview with the I-Team that aired on March 31, the 10
officers in the suit said that the NYPD still pursues quotas and
punishes officers who don't hit numerical goals.  The NYPD has
repeatedly denied that quotas exist but that the department
expects officers "to do their jobs."

The lieutenant, who is not part of the class-action suit, said
cops are under constant pressure to meet quota numbers and that
officers who don't hit numbers are refered to as "zeros."
"You know, every time I get called in the captain's office, it's
'one of your cops is a zero,'" the lieutenant said.

The lieutenant also reiterated the 10 officers' claims that cops
were told to primarily target minority areas, and that cops who
don't keep pace with quota numbers are punished.

"They are punished to the fact they will get very low
evaluations," the lieutentant said.

The I-Team first learned of the alleged quotas from the lead
plaintiff in the suit, Edwin Raymond.  Mr. Raymond said that he
had been secretly recording his supervisors for two years in an
effort to prove the alleged quotas.

"This is something coming from the top that trickles its way down,
and that's why we're here," Mr. Raymond told the I-Team on March
31.

Top NYPD officials have repeatedly denied the I-Team's requests
for comments, but NYPD Commissioner Bill Bratton responded to
Mr. Raymond's claims in February by calling them "bulls---."
The department and Mr. Bratton have said that policies are focused
on the quality of arrests and citations, not the quantity.

In a statement on March 31, the NYPD added "There are no numerical
quotas in the NYPD.  However, we expect our members to do their
jobs.  Just like any other organization, there are performance
standards through which employees are evaluated.  Our officers and
supervisors are evaluated according to how effectively and
appropriately they address the conditions within their area of
responsibility."

The city has asked a federal judge to dismiss portions of the
federal lawsuit, claiming the officers haven't begun to prove a
case for either quotas or racial discrimination.  A decision could
come at any time.


NEW YORK, NY: Faces "West" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the City of New York. The case is
captioned Mary West and on behalf David DiCarlo, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
The City of New York, New York City Department of Transportation,
and Polly Trottenberg, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02299
(S.D.N.Y. Foley Square, March 29, 2016).

The City of New York, often called New York City or simply New
York, is the most populous city in the United States. Located at
the southern tip of the State of New York, the city is the center
of the New York metropolitan area, one of the most populous urban
agglomerations in the world. A global power city, New York City
exerts a significant impact upon commerce, finance, media, art,
fashion, research, technology, education, and entertainment, its
fast pace defining the term New York minute.  Home to the
headquarters of the United Nations, New York is an important
center for international diplomacy and has been described as the
cultural and financial capital of the world.

The Plaintiff is appears pro se.


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Wins Appeal in Dashboard Bubbling Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT HURST, Respondent, v. NISSAN NORTH
AMERICA, INC., Appellant, No. WD78665 (Mo. Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Missouri, Western District, reversed the circuit
court's judgment and remanded for the circuit court to enter a
judgment nothwithstanding the verdict in favor of Nissan North
America, Inc.

A jury verdict awarded $2,000 in damages to each class member in a
class action lawsuit that sought damages under the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) against Nissan arising from the
dashboard bubbling in certain Infiniti FX vehicles.  The circuit
court determined that 326 class members established claims and
were entitled to payment as per the jury's verdict, and also
awarded class plaintiffs $1,819,785 in attorney's fees.  Nissan
moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, or in the
alternative, a new trial and asked the circuit court to decertify
the class.

On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals of Missouri concluded
that the circuit court erred in denying Nissan's motion for
judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the named plaintifff,
Richard Hurst, failed to show that Nissan made an actionable
misrepresentation in connection with the FX's advertising.  The
appellate court found that the statements relied upon by Hurst
were not actionable statements of fact as required by the MMPA.
Consequently, the Court of Appeals also found that attorney's fees
are no longer authorized under the MMPA because Hurst and the
class he represents are no longer the prevailing party.

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of Missouri's March 22,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/fi74jMfrom Leagle.com.


OREXIGEN THERAPEUTICS: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Orexigen Therapeutics, 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 a California
district court has not yet ruled on the Company's motion to
dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit.

The Company said, "On March 10, 2015, a purported class action
lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our officers in the
United States District Court, for the Southern District of
California, captioned Colley v. Orexigen, et al. The following
day, two additional putative class action lawsuits were filed in
the same court, captioned Stefanko v. Orexigen, et al., and Yantz
v. Orexigen, et al., asserting substantially similar claims."

On June 22, 2015, the court consolidated the lawsuits and
appointed a lead plaintiff. On August 20, 2015, the lead plaintiff
filed a consolidated complaint. The consolidated complaint
purports to assert claims on behalf of a class of purchasers of
the Company's stock between March 3, 2015 and May 12, 2015. It
alleges that defendants violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by purportedly making false and
misleading statements regarding the interim results and
termination of the Light Study. The consolidated complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages, attorneys' fees and equitable or
injunctive relief.

On October 5, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated complaint. "The court has not yet ruled on our
motion," the Company said.

"Although management believes that the claims lack merit and
intends to defend against them vigorously, there are uncertainties
inherent in any litigation and we cannot predict the outcome."

Orexigen(R) Therapeutics, Inc. is a biopharmaceutical company
focused on the treatment of obesity.


PALOS VERDES, CA: Faces Class Action Over Lunada Bay Boys
---------------------------------------------------------
Matthew B. Shaw, writing for Surfer, reports that while neither
localism nor disputes over beach access are anything new, the
Federal Class Action Lawsuit aimed at the group of Palos Verdes
Estates locals known to impede access to Lunada Bay is
unprecedented.  Accusations of assault, vandalism, and police
negligence have attracted national media attention, and the issue
of restricted access has drawn the ire of the California Coastal
Commission.  Plus, there's a gang injunction being brought against
a group allegedly composed largely of third-generation
millionaires.

All of these factors are conspiring to bring about the end of an
era at one of California's most notoriously localized surf zones.

Filed in California on March 29 by lead plaintiffs Diana Melina
Reed, Cory Spencer, and a group called the Coastal Protection
Rangers, the lawsuit asks that a judge require the municipality to
prosecute crimes committed by a group of surfers known locally as
the Lunada Bay Boys.  The lawsuit seeks to fine nine named
defendants (with the potential to add dozens more) $30,000 each
and bar each "gang-member" from surfing the point for an
unspecified amount of time.

This wouldn't be the first time locals were banned from their home
breaks.  In 2003, a federal court in San Francisco prohibited two
Fort Point locals from admission to all federal beaches for a
period of three years, after the duo's brutal assault of a visitor
was caught on film. Like the situation at Fort Point's famed
novelty left, there is said to be video evidence in the Lunada Bay
case, as well.

The Bay Boys have survived lawsuits before.  In 1996, a member of
the group agreed to pay a $15,000 fine.  The city of Palos Verdes
Estates was forced to issue a proclamation that the beach was open
to everyone. Yet the intimidation continued, and local police did
little to enforce the proclamation.

Tyson Shower -- an attorney from Hanson Bridgett, the law firm
representing the plaintiffs -- thinks this lawsuit has the
potential to change things at Lunada Bay.  By naming the City of
Palos Verdes and its police department as defendants in the
lawsuit, law enforcement will be tasked to "step up" and "do what
they're supposed to do," says Shower.

After months of pro-bono work, Hanson Bridgett attorneys have
built a multilayered case in which the plaintiffs ask that a judge
label the Bay Boys as a gang.

"Under the law, this junction would keep individuals who have been
involved in the harassment from congregating," says
Mr. Shower.

Accounts of affluent middle-aged men throwing eggs, verbally
harassing women -- often from the self-made rock fort where they
typically gather -- hardly conjure up images of stereotypical gang
members.

Several of the defendants do have rap sheets, though.
Michael Rae Papayans was described by the New York Daily News as
"a friend of Backstreet Boy Nick Carter" and is facing assault
charges for two other incidents, one of which involved
Mr. Papayans pummeling a Mets fan outside Dodger Stadium.

The lawsuit makes clear, as defined by the law, that a gang "is a
group of three or more individuals with a common name or common
symbol and whose members . . . engage in or have engaged in a
pattern of criminal gang activity, and has as one of its primary
activities the commission of enumerated 'predicate crimes,'
including but not limited to assault, battery, vandalism,
intimidation, harassment, extortion, and, upon information and
belief, the sale and use of illegal controlled substances."

Professor Alu Orange, who studies gang charges at USC, told the
L.A. Times that it's highly unusual for a group of private
citizens -- rather than a government entity -- to seek a gang
injunction," but that it would be refreshing to see it used in a
constitutional way, as the Lunada Bay Boys "live in an area where
the median income is $170,000 and they can vandalize, assault and
batter people, and can do it all under the watchful eye of the
police."

Meanwhile, The California Coastal Commission has joined the fight,
sending a letter to the city of Palos Verdes Estates last month
stating that the actions of the Lunada Bay Boys are subject to the
commission's watchdog regulations and permitting processes.

"Precluding full public use of the coastline at Palos Verdes
Estates, including the waters of Lunada Bay, whether through
physical devices  . . . or impediments, such as threatening
behavior intended to discourage public use of the coastline
represents a change of access to water, and, thus, constitutes
development," the commission's letter says.

Coastal Commission officials have since met with the city of Palos
Verdes Estates, telling the L.A. Times that they'll continue their
push to remove the stone structure at the water's edge allegedly
constructed by the Lunada Bay Boys as a party spot and outpost for
coordinating the harassment of outsiders.

None of the named defendants have commented publicly, but the
grandmother of Michael Rae Papayans told The Daily Breeze that the
Bay Boys are preparing countersuits against at least one of the
plaintiffs.

Meanwhile, Mr. Showers and the attorneys at Hanson and Bridgett
continue to build their case.  "The media coverage has helped
bring people out of the woodwork," says Mr. Showers.  "I've
received over 50 phone calls, personally, since March 29 and
everybody has the same story: 'We knew this intimidation was going
on, we just didn't know how bad it was.'"

When SURFER asked if, in his legal opinion, the wave at Lunada Bay
was really worth all the hassle, Mr. Showers laughed.  "No
comment," he said.


PATENTHEALTH LLC: "Vasic" Suit Goes to Trial in S.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant denied the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in the case captioned DRAGAN VASIC, On Behalf of Himself
and All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PATENTHEALTH,
L.L.C., et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-849-BAS(MDD) (S.D.
Cal.).

Dragan Vasic commenced a class action arising out of the
advertising and sale of a glucosamine-based health supplement
against Patent Health, LLC and Arthur Middleton.  The second
amended complaint asserted violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), California Civil Code section 1750, et sq.,
and a violation of the California Business and Professions Code
section 1720, et seq.

The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing that: (1) Vasic
cannot prove the falsity of their advertising claims; (2) Vasic
did not comply with the notice standard of the CLRA; (3) Vasic
cannot prove the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL); and (4)
Vasic lacks standing to bring the claims.

Denying the defendants' motion, Judge Bashant found that:

          -- Vasic has produced evidence that sufficiently
             demonstrates that Glucosamine and Chondroitin
             sulfate are incapable of the effects advertised by
             the defendants such that there is a genuine issue of
             material fact.

          -- Vasic had complied with the notice requirement
             pursuant to California Civil Code section 1782(d).

          -- Vasic may prove damages because he did not receive a
             refund for his purchase even after the expiration of
             the defendants' 90-day satisfaction guarantee, and
             that Vasic can plausibly claim that the CLRA was
             violated.

          -- Trigo-FA is substantially similar to Trigo-MS such
             that Vasic had standing even if he purchased only
             Trigo-MS, and that Vasic was asserting false claims
             and not "lack of substantiation" claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/BLblXmfrom Leagle.com.

Dragan Vasic, Plaintiff, represented by James Richard Patterson,
Patterson Law Group, APC & Todd D. Carpenter, Carlson Lynch Sweet
Kilpela & Carpenter LLP.

Patenthealth, L.L.C., Arthur Middleton Capital Holdings, Inc.,
Defendant, represented by D Jay Ritt -- ritt@rtthlaw.com --
Bensinger Ritt Tai & Thvedt, Tiffany W Tai -- tai@rtthlaw.com --
Ritt, Tai, Thvedt & Hodges, LLP & Susan E. Holley --
holley@rtthlaw.com -- Ritt, Tai, Thvedt & Hodges, LLP.


PHARMERICA CORP: Says Class Action Now Concluded
------------------------------------------------
Pharmerica 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 a Florida class action
lawsuit has concluded.

On October 29, 2013, a complaint was filed in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida by Pines
Nursing Homes (77), Inc. as a putative class action against the
Corporation. The complaint alleged that the Corporation sent
unsolicited advertisements promoting the Corporation's goods or
services by facsimile to individuals or entities, and that such
communications did not include an opt-out clause, all in violation
of the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA").  The
Complaint did not specify the amount of damages sought, but the
TCPA provides a statutory remedy of $500 per facsimile
communication sent in violation of the statute, which may be
trebled in the event of a willful violation.

On August 18, 2014, the Corporation entered into a Settlement
Agreement with the putative class and class counsel resolving all
claims raised in the complaint.  The parties moved on September 8,
2014 for, among other things, certification of the putative class
for the purposes of effectuating the settlement and preliminary
approval of the parties' settlement.

On June 26, 2015, the Court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement and the Court approved the settlement on November 12,
2015.  The matter is concluded.


PIXAR: Not Required to Disclose Ex-GC's E-mails in Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Vanessa Blum, writing for The Recorder, reports that after giving
a scare to defense lawyers for Pixar, a federal judge ruled on
March 30 that the company will not be required to disclose
communications involving its former general counsel to plaintiffs
lawyers under the crime-fraud exception.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal wrote that plaintiffs lawyers
who accuse The Walt Disney Co.-owned animation studio of engaging
in anti-competitive recruiting pacts failed to prove that the
communications were part of an illegal conspiracy and should
therefore be stripped of attorney-client privilege.

Judge Grewal's order, issued following his personal review of the
documents, embraced a central argument made by Pixar's Covington &
Burling defense team that whether the alleged anti-recruiting
agreements violated antitrust laws has yet to be determined.

"[B]eyond highlighting the 'gentleman's agreement' that it
challenges in this case, plaintiffs offer insufficient case law to
establish their theory that this agreement qualify as an illegal
'restraint of trade,'" Judge Grewal wrote.

He emphasized that an earlier ruling requiring Pixar's attorneys
to provide the documents for in camera review was based on a lower
evidentiary standard.  Ordering full production of the documents
would require proof by preponderance of the evidence that the
legal advice was made in furtherance of a crime or fraud, he
wrote. "Critically, nothing in the documents reviewed moves
plaintiffs closer to the goal line."

Plaintiffs in In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litigation, 14-
4062, are visual-effects artists who claim they were harmed by
illegal "no-poach" agreements between Pixar and other animation
companies.

Plaintiffs attorneys at Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro, and Susman Godfrey argued that Lois Scali, a
former Irell & Manella partner who served as Pixar's general
counsel from 2003 to 2007, was directly involved in the "no poach"
conspiracy.  Therefore, the plaintiffs team maintained, Ms.
Scali's communications should not be shielded by attorney-client
privilege.

In arguing for application of the crime-fraud exception,
plaintiffs pointed to Pixar's 2010 settlement with the U.S.
Justice Department in a suit alleging that the nonsolicitation
agreements with other technology companies suppressed wages.

Judge Grewal noted that the government's case was settled without
admission of a legal violation.  Ultimately, he stated, plaintiffs
may prevail on their claim that the "no-poach" pacts were illegal
under federal antitrust laws.  However, he wrote, that "is a
question for a finder of fact on a complete record."


PLATFORM SPECIALTY: Faces Securities Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------------
Shareholder rights law firm Robbins Arroyo LLP on April 1
disclosed that a class action complaint was filed against Platform
Specialty Products Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of Florida.  The plaintiff brings the complaint
on behalf of all purchasers of Platform securities between
February 17, 2015 and March 14, 2016, for alleged violations of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by Platform's officers and
directors.  Platform produces and sells specialty chemical
products in the Americas, the Asia-Pacific, and Europe.

Platform Accused of Violating the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices
Act

According to the complaint, Platform submitted multiple filings
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") and
issued several press releases discussing the company's acquisition
of Arysta Lifescience Limited ("Arysta"), a crop protection and
life science company that operates worldwide. Platform stated that
the acquisition allowed it to expand its leadership capabilities,
outperform the sector, and realize over $65 million in synergies
from the combination of these businesses in the next three years.
Platform also emphasized its Business Conduct and Ethics Policy,
which sets an expectation of compliance with anti-corruption laws
at all levels within the company.  The complaint alleges that
these statements were misleading because Platform failed to
disclose that Arysta had made improper third-party payments in
West Africa that were unlawful under the U.S. Foreign Corrupt
Practices Act ("FCPA"), which prohibits companies and their
intermediaries from making illegal payments to non-U.S. government
officials to obtain or retain business or secure any other
improper advantage.

On March 11, 2016, Platform disclosed in its 2015 annual report
that the company had "discovered certain payments made to
third-party agents in connection with Arysta's government tender
business in West Africa which may be illegal or otherwise
inappropriate" and had "engaged outside counsel and an outside
accounting firm to conduct an internal investigation to review the
legality of these and other payments . . . including Arysta's
compliance with the FCPA."  On March 14, 2016, the Wall Street
Journal published a story addressing Platform's disclosures.
Following these disclosures, Platform stock fell by $0.90 per
share, or over 10%, to close at $7.95 per share on March 15, 2016.

Platform Shareholders Have Legal Options

Concerned shareholders who would like more information about their
rights and potential remedies can contact attorney Darnell R.
Donahue at (800) 350-6003, DDonahue@robbinsarroyo.com or via the
shareholder information form on the firm's website.

Robbins Arroyo LLP is a shareholder rights law firm.  The firm
represents individual and institutional investors in shareholder
derivative and securities class action lawsuits.


QUESTAR: Wolf Haldenstein Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP on April 1 disclosed
that it has  filed a class action lawsuit in the United States
District Court for the District of Utah (the "Court"), on behalf
of the shareholders of Questar Corporation ("Questar") against
Questar, its Board of Directors, and Dominion Resources, Inc.
("Dominion"), for, among other things, violations of sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") and U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
Rule 14a-9 promulgated thereunder.

The complaint arises out of a February 1, 2016 press release
announcing that Questar had entered into a definitive merger
agreement with Dominion, pursuant to which Questar shareholders
would receive $25.00 for each share of Questar owned (the
"Proposed Transaction").  The complaint seeks injunctive relief on
behalf of the named plaintiffs and all other similarly situated
shareholders of Questar as of February 1, 2014 (the "Class").  The
named plaintiff is represented by Wolf Haldenstein.

If you owned shares of Questar Corporation prior to February 1,
2016, and still hold your shares, you may, no later than May 31,
2016, request that the Court appoint you lead plaintiff of the
proposed class.

The named plaintiff alleges that certain of the defendants, in
connection with the Proposed Transaction, breached or aided and
abetted the other defendants' breaches of their duties and
obligations owed to Questar shareholders.  The complaint further
alleges that, in an attempt to secure shareholder approval of the
Proposed Transaction, the defendants filed a materially false and
misleading proxy statement on Form 14 with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission in violation of the Exchange Act and their
duties of candor and full disclosure.  The omitted and/or
misrepresented information is believed to be material to Questar
shareholders' ability to make an informed decision whether to
approve the Proposed Transaction.

Wolf Haldenstein has extensive experience in the prosecution of
securities class actions and derivative litigation in state and
federal trial and appellate courts across the country.  The firm
has attorneys in various practice areas; and offices in New York,
Chicago and San Diego.  The reputation and expertise of this firm
in shareholder and other class litigation has been repeatedly
recognized by the courts, which have appointed it to major
positions in complex securities multi-district and consolidated
litigation.

If you wish to discuss this action or have any questions regarding
your rights and interests in this case, please immediately contact
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP by telephone at (800)
575-0735, via e-mail at classmember@whafh.com


RETROPHIN INC: June 10 Final Approval Hearing in "Kazanchyan"
-------------------------------------------------------------
Retrophin, 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 Court has
preliminarily approved the settlement in the Kazanchyan class
action lawsuit and scheduled a final approval hearing for June 10,
2016.

On October 20, 2014, a purported shareholder of the Company filed
a putative class action complaint in federal court in the Southern
District of New York against the Company,  Martin Shkreli, Marc
Panoff, and Jeffrey Paley (Kazanchyan v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No.
14-cv-8376). On December 16, 2014, a second, related complaint was
filed in the Southern District of New York against the same
defendants (Sandler v. Retrophin, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-9915). The
complaints assert violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection with defendants'
public disclosures during the period from November 13, 2013
through September 30, 2014.

In December 2014, plaintiff Kazanchyan filed a motion to appoint
lead plaintiff, to approve lead counsel, and to consolidate the
two related actions. On February 10, 2015, the Court consolidated
the two actions, appointed lead plaintiff, and approved lead
counsel. Lead plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on
March 4, 2015, which again named the Company, Mr. Shkreli, Mr.
Panoff, and Mr. Paley as defendants, but which also named Steven
Richardson, Stephen Aselage, and Cornelius Golding as additional
defendants.

On May 26, 2015, with the consent of the lead plaintiff, the court
ordered that the claims against Mr. Paley be dismissed. The
remaining defendants, including the Company, filed motions to
dismiss the consolidated amended complaint, which were fully-
briefed as of October 29, 2015. On December 1, 2015, counsel
jointly informed the Court that the parties had reached a
comprehensive settlement, subject to Court approval.

On January 29, 2016, the parties filed motion for preliminary
approval of the settlement and supporting papers, including a
stipulation of settlement. On February 2, 2016, the Court
preliminarily approved the settlement and scheduled a final
approval hearing for June 10, 2016.

Any amounts owed by the Company would be covered by Director and
Officer Insurance.

Retrophin is a biopharmaceutical company with approximately 130
employees headquartered in San Diego, California, focused on the
development, acquisition and commercialization of therapies for
the treatment of serious, catastrophic or rare diseases.


REGIONS FINANCIAL: Court Conditionally Certifies Bonus-OT Claim
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BETTY WILSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. REGIONS
FINANCIAL CORPORATION, et al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 2:14-
CV-105-RWS (N.D. Ga.), Judge Richard W. Story granted the
plaintiff's emergency motion for reconsideration of its previous
denial of conditional certification for the plaintiffs' bonus-
overtime claim.

Betty Wilson, Linda Wick, and Susan Colbert brought a putative
class action under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to recover
unpaid overtime compensation.

The court granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification, granting conditional
certification of the plaintiffs' claims only as to employees at
the defendants' mortgage-operations center (MOC) in Gainesville,
Georgia who worked off the clock in excess of 40 hours per week,
and whose time records were altered to reduce the number of
compensable overtime hours.

The court denied conditional certification of the claim as to
employees at all MOCs whose bonuses were excluded from the
calculation of their regular pay rate used to calculate overtime
pay.  In denying certification of the bonus-overtime claim, the
court found that there were a substantial number of putative class
members who appeared not to have valid claims, based on the
declaration of Brenda Pearce, the Corporate Payroll Manager at
defendant Regions Bank, that the defendants paid all eligible MOC
employees a "true up" payment that compensated them for past
overtime based on a rate of pay that included production bonus
payments.

The plaintiffs sought reconsideration of the court's denial of
conditional certification of their bonus-overtime claim, arguing
that the defendants' "true up" payment did not extinguish their
bonus-overtime claim because they are still entitled to liquidated
damages.

Judge Story agreed with the plaintiffs that under the language of
29 U.S.C. section 216(b) and the case law interpreting that
statute, the defendants' "true up" payment had no impact on th
plaintiffs' right to liquidated damages.  The judge acknowledged
that it committed a clear error of law when it concluded that a
substantial number of potential bonus-overtime class members
appeared not to have valid claims.  Further, Judge Story found
that the plaintiffs have met all the requirements necessary to
conditionally certify their bonus-overtime claim as originally
proposed.  Judge Story also established two subclasses: the first
encompassing only the Gainesville MOC employees; and the second
encompassing all MOC employees, but including only the plaintiffs'
bonus-overtime claim.

The plaintiff's emergency motion to shorten defendants' response
time was denied as moot.

A full-text copy of Judge Story's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/lLmy57from Leagle.com.

Betty Wilson, Linda Wick, Susan Colbert, Plaintiffs, represented
by Alan Howard Garber, The Garber Law Firm, P.C., Jack Rosenberg,
Jack Rosenberg, Attorney-Mediator & Marc N. Garber, The Garber Law
Firm, P.C..

Regions Financial Corporation and Regions Bank, Defendants,
represented by Anthony Craig Cleland --
craig.cleland@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C., Kristy Georgette Offitt --
kristy.offitt@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C. & Margaret Hutchins Campbell --
meg.campbell@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak &
Stewart, P.C..


ROBERTO'S RESTAURANT: "Marquez" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Minimum Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Marquez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Roberto's Restaurant Corp. and Roberto
Paciullo, Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02304 (S.D.N.Y., March 29,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and overtime wages, tips,
liquidated damages, prejudgment and post-judgment interest and
attorneys' fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act, New
York Labor Laws and the New York State Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Defendants operate a restaurant under the name Roberto's with
principal place of business at 603 Crescent Avenue, Bronx, New
York 10468, where Plaintiff worked as a busboy and waiter. Marquez
accuses the Defendant of not paying the mandated minimum wages,
overtime premium and withholding tips.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Giustino Cilenti, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue -


6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpdaw.com


RUBY TUESDAY: Waitress Files Minimum Wage Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
Tim Omarzu,w riting for Times Free Press, reports that
Charlene Craig, a waitress at the Ruby Tuesday on Highway 153 in
Hixson, has brought a class-action lawsuit that alleges the chain
restaurant underpays its servers and bartenders for "side work"
and has a corporate culture that encourages them to work off the
clock.

Ms. Craig and other employees at Ruby Tuesday's 658 restaurants in
44 states were made to do side work, such as cutting lemons,
filling ice bins and rolling silverware, while only being paid a
server's wage of as little as $2.13 an hour -- and not earning any
tips, said a lawsuit filed on March 30 in U.S. District Court in
Chattanooga.

Under federal regulations, servers and bartenders can spend up to
20 percent of their time doing non-tipped side work -- but must be
paid at least $7.25 per hour after that, said lawyer
Chris Hall -- chall@hallandlampros.com -- of Hall & Lampros in
Atlanta, which filed the class-action suit with Trief and Olk, a
New York City law firm.

"She's doing a whole lot of side work," Mr. Hall said.  "It's over
20 percent."

Ruby Tuesday restaurants are centrally controlled from the chain's
headquarters in Maryville, Tenn., the lawsuit says, and the
company's policies and practices encourage servers and bartenders
to work off the clock without pay.

"A lot of times, the employees will say I'm just not going to
clock in while I'm doing this side work," he said.  "Management
knows.  It's kind of a wink-wink, everybody knows."

Ruby Tuesday said on March 30 it will fight the class-action suit.

"While we cannot comment on pending litigation, we are committed
to our Ruby Tuesday team members, and we will be providing a
vigorous defense of the company on this matter in the appropriate
forum," the company said in a statement.

Ruby Tuesday suit one of many

Ms. Craig has worked at the Hixson Ruby Tuesday since September,
still works there and is protected from retribution.

"If you complain, they can't fire you for that," Mr. Hall said.
"She had the same situation happen at Red Lobster."

The law firms that brought suit against Ruby Tuesday have created
a website -- www.rubytuesdayclassaction.com -- that explains the
lawsuit and encourages anyone who's worked in the last three years
as a Ruby Tuesday server or bartender to join the class action
suit.  If the court determines workers were shortchanged, they
could be eligible for $10.24 an hour, Mr. Hall said, or double the
difference between the $2.13 they were paid and the $7.25 they
should have gotten.

Ruby Tuesday is one of a number of restaurant chains that have
been subject to lawsuits over employees' wages, Mr. Hall said,
including Logan's Roadhouse.

"There've been a lot of chains, because they focus so much on
labor costs, that have been sued," he said.  "The reason there's
so many suits, is because you'd rather pay someone $2.13 an hour
to do manual labor, if you can."

The precedent-setting case was a ruling against Applebee's
International that the U.S. Supreme Court upheld in 2012 that said
if a server spends more than 20 percent of the time doing general
maintenance and preparation work, he or she is entitled to full
minimum wage.  Applebee's International wound up paying $9.1
million to 5,680 people.


SOLARCITY CORP: Faces "Whitworth" Labor Suit in N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against SolarCity Corp. The case is
captioned Ravi Whitworth, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. SolarCity Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01540 (N.D. Cal., San Francisco, March
29, 2016).

SolarCity designs, manufactures, installs, monitors, maintains,
leases, and sells solar energy systems to government, residential,
and commercial customers in the United States. The company
provides solar energy systems, and solar lease and solar power
purchase agreements.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ST. LOUIS RAMS: Faces Class Action Over Season-Ticket Licenses
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Hargett, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a
Missouri man is suing a National Football League team over claims
his season-ticket buying license will be unusable after the team
relocates.

Ronald McAllister, individually and for all others similarly
situated, filed a class-action lawsuit Feb. 9 in U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of Missouri Eastern Division
against the St. Louis Rams LLC, doing business as the St. Louis
Rams Partnership, alleging unjust enrichment, money had and
received, breach of contract, breach of good faith and fair
dealing and violation of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act.

The suit states that tens of thousands of St. Louis Rams season-
ticket holders purchased personal seat licenses (PSLs), which gave
them the right to buy Rams season tickets through the 2024 season.

However, the team announced in January that it was relocating to
Los Angeles, allegedly rendering these PSLs valueless.

The Rams have allegedly not reimbursed PSL owners for what they
paid for the portion of the licenses that are now purportedly
unusable.

Mr. McAllister and others in the class seek declaratory judgment
that the PSL agreements between them and the Rams are illusory
contracts of no force and effect, restitution, punitive and
compensatory damages, attorney fees, costs of the suit, and a jury
trial.  They are represented by attorneys Richard S. Cornfeld of
the Law Office of Richard S. Cornfeld in St. Louis; Anthony S.
Bruning, Anthony S. Bruning Jr., and Ryan L. Bruning of The
Bruning Law Firm in St. Louis; and Mark Goldenberg, Thomas P.
Rosenfeld -- tom@ghalaw.com -- and Kevin P. Green --
kevin@ghalaw.com -- of Goldenberg Heller & Antognoli in
Edwardsville, Illinois.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, Eastern
Division Case number 4:16-CV-00172-NAB


STERICYCLE INC: Tiger Clinic Suit Consolidated in MDL 2455
----------------------------------------------------------
Tiger Clinic, Inc., individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Stericycle Inc., Stericycle Specialty
Waste Solutions, Inc., and Stericycle Environmental Solutions,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00049, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia., to
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
(Chicago). The Northern Illinois District Court clerk assigned
Case No. 1:16-cv-03781 to the proceeding.

Stericycle, together with its subsidiaries, provides regulated and
compliance solutions to the healthcare, retail, and commercial
businesses in the United States and internationally. The company
collects and processes regulated and specialized waste for
disposal services, as well as collects personal and confidential
information for secure destruction. It offers regulated solutions
for medical waste disposal, pharmaceutical waste disposal, and
hazardous waste management; sustainability solutions for expired
or unused inventory; and secures information destruction of
documents and e-media.

The Tiger case is being consolidated with MDL 2455 in re:
Stericycle, Inc., Sterisafe Contract Litigation. The MDL was
created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation on August 6, 2013. The actions involved
are putative class actions sharing factual issues arising from
similar allegations made by Stericycle customers who agreed to the
form Stericycle service agreement. In its August 6, 2013 order,
the MDL Panel found that the actions in this MDL involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern
District of Illinois will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Milton I. Shadur.
The lead case is 1:13-cv-05795.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael H. Cummings II, Esq.
          MICHAEL H. CUMMINGS II ATTORNEY AT LAW
          10 Seed Tick Road
          P.O. Box 1568
          Clayton, GA 30525
          Telephone: (706) 782 9297
          E-mail: attorneymhc@windstream.net

               - and -

          Richard H. Middleton Jr., Esq.
          THE MIDDLETON FIRM, LLC
          P.O. Box 10006
          107 East Gordon St.
          Savannah, GA 31412
          Telephone: (912) 234 1133
          Facsimile: (912) 233 1750
          E-mail: rhm@middletonfirm.com


STS CONSULTING: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Lopez, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. STS Consulting Services LLC Defendants,
Case No. 6:16-cv-00246-MHS (D. Wyo., February 19, 2016), seeks
back pay and overtime pay with damages, liquidated damages,
attorney's fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a Texas company that provides pipeline inspection
services where Plaintiff worked as an inspector. Lopez did not
receive overtime compensation for all hours rendered.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Rosenthal, Esq.
      HATHAWAY & KUNZ, P.C.
      P.O. Box 1208
      Cheyenne, WY 82003-1208
      Tel: (307) 634-7723
      Fax: (307) 634-0985
      Email: mike@hkwyolaw.com

           - and -

      Shannon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      LEONARD LAW OFFICE, LLP
      63 Atlantic Avenue, 3rd Floor
      Boston, MA 02110
      Tel: (617) 329-1295
      Email: pleonard@theleonardlawoffice.com

           - and -

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      Joseph Lipari, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
      1622 Locust St.
      Philadelphia, PA
      Tel: (215) 875-3000
      Fax: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net


SUFFOLK COUNTY: Faces "Becker" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Suffolk County.  The case is
captioned John Becker individually and as President of the Suffolk
County Deputy Sheriffs Police Benevolent Association; Thomas
Bivona, individually and as Treasurer of the Suffolk County Deputy
Sheriffs Police Benevolent Association; Todd Cobe, individually
and as Secretary of the Suffolk County Deputy Sheriffs Police
Benevolent Association; John Goldbach, individually and as Second
Vice President of the Suffolk County Deputy Sherifffs Police
Benevolent Association; Arthur Sanchez, individually and as First
Vice President of the Suffolk County Deputy Sheriffs Police
Benevolent Association; Suffolk County Deputy Sheriffs Police
Benevolent Association, and all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. County of Suffolk, Steven Bellone, individually and
in his official capacity as County Executive of Suffolk County,
Suffolk County Sheriff's Office, and Vincent F. DeMarco, in his
official capacity as the Suffolk County Sheriff the Defendants,
Case No. 2:16-cv-01561 (E.D.N.Y., Central Slip, March 30, 2016).

Suffolk County is a suburban county on Long Island and the
easternmost county in the U.S. state of New York. At the 2010
census, the county's population was 1,493,350, estimated to have
increased to 1,501,587 in 2015, making it the fourth-most populous
county in New York. Its county seat is Riverhead, though some
county offices are located in Hauppauge. The county was named
after the county of Suffolk in England, from where its earliest
European settlers came.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


SYNGENTA AG: "Borneman" Suit Removed to N.D. Illinois
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Borneman, Trustee, individually and on behalf of a class of
others similarly situated, Karen Borneman, and Glen Borneman/GB
Trust 12-12, Plaintiffs, v. Syngenta AG, Syngenta Corporation,
Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC, Syngenta Seeds, Inc., and Syngenta
Crop Protection AG, Defendants, was removed on March 8, 2016, from
the Ogle County, Illinois Circuit Court, case number (2015 L 36),
to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02943.  The case is assigned to
Honorable Marvin E. Aspen.

Defendants Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC,
Syngenta Seeds, Inc. also have filed a motion in District Court to
stay the proceedings pending transfer by Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael Joseph Schirger, Esq.
     Schirger Law Offices, LLC
     695 North Perryville, Suite 4
     Rockford, IL 61107
     Tel:(815) 977-5211
     Email: mjs@schirger.com

The Defendants, Syngenta Corporation, Syngenta Crop Protection,
LLC, and Syngenta Seeds, Inc., are represented by:

     Jordan Mitchell Heinz, Esq.
     Kirkland & Ellis LLP
     300 North LaSalle Street
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 862-2000
     Email: jheinz@kirkland.com


TAILORED BRANDS: "Makhlouf" Sues over Shadowy Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------------
Peter Makhlouf, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tailored Brands, Inc. and Douglas S.
Ewert, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00838 (S.D. Tex., March 29,
2016), seeks compensatory damages, reasonable attorneys' and
expert fees and such other and further relief pursuant to Sections
10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiff accuses Tailored Brands, Inc. and its officers and
directors for disseminating materially false and misleading
statements about their true financial condition, business
prospects and practices. Tailored Brands offered to buy its rival
Jos. A. Bank Clothiers, Inc. for $1.8 billion which Plaintiffs
claim was too overpriced.

Makhlouf is a shareholder of Tailored Brands, which is a Texas-
based specialty apparel retailer in the United States, Puerto Rico
and Canada with Douglas S. Ewert as CEO and a member of the board
of directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas E. Bilek, Esq.
      THE BILEK LAW FIRM, LLP
      700 Louisiana, Suite 3950
      Houston, TX 77002
      Tel: (713) 227-7720
      Email: tbilek@bileklaw.com

           - and -

      Gregory M. Nespole
      WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
      270 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 545-4600
      Facsimile: (212) 686-0114
      Email: nespole@whafh.com

           - and -

      E. Powell Miller, Esq.
      Sharon S. Almonrode, Esq.
      THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      950 West University Drive, Suite 300
      Rochester, MI 48307
      Tel: (248) 841-2200
      Fax: (248) 652-2852


TARGET CORPORATION: "Lynch" Suit Alleges Deceptive Cheese Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Lynch, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. ICCO-Cheese Company, Inc., and
Target Corporation, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02971 (N.D. Ill.,
March 8, 2016), seeks redress for the Defendants' unlawful and
deceptive practice of labeling and selling parmesan cheese as
"100% Parmesan cheese" when it in fact contains substantial
amounts of cellulose "filler."

The case is assigned to Honorable John W. Darrah.

Plaintiff requests trial by jury of all claims that can be so
tried.

Defendant ICCO-Cheese Company, Inc., is a nationwide provider of
prepared food products, including grated cheeses, sold under
private, store-brand labels across the country.

Defendant Target Corporation is a nationwide retailer.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     Paul T. Geske, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Floor
     Chicago, Illinois 60601
     Tel: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     Email: emeyers@mcgpc.com
            eturin@mcgpc.com
            pgeske@mcgpc.com


TIME INC: Has Until April 26 to Respond to Data Sharing Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
AdAge reports that Time Inc. has until Apr. 26 to respond to a
lawsuit seeking class-action status filed in Michigan in February
by People magazine subscriber Carolyn Perlin.

The suit alleges that Ms. Perlin's personal information was
divulged to unnamed third-party, data-mining companies without the
consent required under Michigan state law.

"Had she known that Time would disclose her Personal Reading
Information to third parties without her permission, Perlin would
not have purchased her subscription," the suit says.  "Thus,
Perlin has suffered concrete economic harm in the form of the
monies paid to Time in exchange for the magazine subscription."
Ms. Perlin proposed to sue on behalf of all Michigan residents who
have directly purchased a subscription to a Time Inc. publication.

Over the last few years, several cases have been filed against
magazine publishers using Michigan's Preservation of Personal
Privacy Act, which expands on the federal Video Rental Privacy
Act.

"The VRPA prohibits companies like Time from disclosing -- without
written permission -- any information that specifically identifies
a person as having purchased written materials, such as
magazines," according to the Perlin complaint.

Several of those cases have been settled.  In early February, a
judge approved a plan for publisher Meredith to pay $7.5 million
to settle a class-action lawsuit tied to the VRPA.  Meredith, as
part of the settlement, agreed to refrain from disclosing
information about Michigan subscribers to third-party companies
for four years "without the prior express written consent of the
affected subscribers."

Rodale, another industry heavyweight, has a pending, $4.5-million
settlement over a subscriber-privacy case in Michigan.  Bauer
similarly settled a case in 2014, for $775,000.

There are subscriber-privacy cases pending against Hearst, Forbes
Media and Mansueto Ventures, publisher of Inc. and Fast Company
magazines. (Hearst representatives did not respond to a request
for comment, and Forbes and Mansueto representatives declined
comment.)

"We intend to fight this lawsuit," a Time Inc. spokeswoman told Ad
Age.

Time Inc. recently prevailed in another, similar case, Rose
Coulter-Owens v. Time Inc., on summary judgement, the spokeswoman
pointed out.

Mr. Scharg, whose team also represents the plaintiffs in Rose
Coulter-Owens v. Time Inc., said the cases are different because
Ms. Perlin bought her subscription directly from Time Inc. rather
than through a third party.

The judge in Rose Coulter-Owens v. Time Inc., when dismissing the
case in February, said the state's privacy protections apply only
to direct, retailer-to-customer subscription sales, suggesting
that the third-party subscription seller would be considered the
retailer in that instance.

"This one alleviates that concern," Mr. Scharg said.  "It's a
direct purchase." (His team is also appealing the judge's decision
in Coulter-Owens.)

A judge, in certifying the class in Coulter-Owens ("All Michigan
residents who between March 31, 2009 and November 15, 2013
purchased a subscription to TIME, Fortune, or Real Simple
magazines through any website other than Time.com, Fortune.com,
and RealSimple.com"), concluded that subscriber information was
being shared with third-party companies. Mr. Scharg said he
expects a similar determination to be made in the Perlin case.

Specifically, in the July 2015 certification order, the judge said
that "all of defendant's subscriber information -- including
people who purchase a subscription from one of defendant's third
party agents -- is sent by defendant to Acxiom Corporation
('Acxiom'), a 'marketing database vendor,' on a weekly or
bi-weekly basis."  Marketing intelligence company Wiland was also
mentioned in the order.

Time Inc., in response, said at the time that Acxiom "has some
limited access to subscriber information for the purposes of
managing and performing technical troubleshooting related to the
subscriber database, to assist Time in fulling list rental orders,
and to append data to assist in marketing to customers." (Acxiom
declined to comment on any potential involvement in the Perlin
case.)

Asked about the genesis of the lawsuits, Mr. Scharg said his legal
team discovered that magazine subscriber information was being
passed on to third-party companies when it investigated data-
mining more broadly.  His team has been interviewing a number of
magazine subscribers in Michigan.

It's not yet clear whether the cases lodged and settled in
Michigan could spread around the country, though Jeff Kosseff, an
attorney and professor of cybersecurity law and policy at the
United States Naval Academy, said "the Michigan law is an
outlier," and called it a "relic" of an earlier era of
jurisprudence.

"I haven't heard of any significant efforts for other states or
the federal government to adopt similar legislation," he
continued.  "That said, the Michigan law has national
implications, because any media company that has customers in
Michigan can face costly class action lawsuits under this statute.
Michigan has nearly 10 million residents, so even if a fraction of
those residents are customers of a media company, that company
could face tens of millions of dollars in potential damages in a
class action lawsuit. "

The Perlin suit seeks "actual damages or $5,000.00, whichever is
greater, per Class member."

"I'd be shocked if there are any national media companies that are
not paying attention to the Michigan law," Mr. Kosseff said. "The
potential for significant damages is tremendous."

Asked whether a settlement was likely, Mr. Scharg said "that's up
to Time."  He added: "We look forward to presenting the case to a
jury, and I hope that we have the opportunity to."


TOYTALK INC: Faces "Hayes" Class Action in C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against ToyTalk, Inc.  The case is
captioned Ashley Archer Hayes, individually, on behalf of C.H., a
minor child, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, C.
H., a minor by and through Ashley Archer Hayes, Charity Johnson
individually, and on behalf of all other similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. ToyTalk, Inc., a Delaware corporation, Mattel,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, Samet Privacy, LLC, a California
limited liability company, dba kidSAFE Seal Program, the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02111 (C.D. Cal, Western Division -
Los Angeles March 29, 2016).

ToyTalk, Inc. develops mobile applications. The company was
incorporated in 2011 and is based in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TU CASA: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jovany Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Tu Casa #2 Restaurant Corp.(D/B/A Tu Casa
Restaurant), William Alba Jr. and William Alba Sr., Defendants.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01521 (E.D. N.Y., March 29, 2016), seeks damages,
unpaid overtime wages, damages for any improper deductions or
credits taken against wages, liquidated damages, recovery of
spread of hours pay by Order of the New York Commission of Labor,
attorneys' fees and costs under the New York Labor Laws.

Tu Casa Restaurant is a restaurant owned by William Alba Jr. and
William Alba Sr. located at 30-10 Steinway Street, Astoria, New
York 11103, where Hernandez was employed as a delivery person. He
regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per work week without
overtime compensation and claims to have been denied the required
spread-of-hours pay for any day in which he had to work over 10
hours a day.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 317-1200


TWITTER INC: Plaintiff's Firm Wants to Expand Gender Bias Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that lawyers for a
former Twitter Inc. software engineer are ready to argue that the
company's culture around job promotions holds back women at all
rungs of its engineering ranks.

Jason Lohr, an attorney with San Francisco-based Lohr Ripamonti &
Segarich, said his firm was set to submit on April 1 an amended
complaint that expands the scope of a proposed gender bias class
action against Twitter to include all female software engineers.
The case, filed in March 2015 by former Twitter software engineer
Tina Huang, alleges violations of the California Fair Employment
and Housing Act and wrongful termination.  It is proceeding in San
Francisco Superior Court before Judge Mary Wiss.

Ms. Huang's lawyers, who initially sought to represent a narrower
class, contend that they have obtained information through
discovery showing that the same promotions process is used at
every job level in Twitter's software engineering department.

Earlier in March, Judge Wiss said she would allow Huang's lawyers
to amend their complaint, over the objections of Twitter's
lawyers.

Whereas the original filing sought to certify a class of women who
had been denied promotions to only four software engineering
positions, the amended complaint will seek to cover women who have
held or currently hold any of the eight titles within the software
engineer "technical ladder."  That includes the lowest rung,
Software Engineer I.

Mr. Lohr said it's not clear how many more people would be scooped
up by the broadened class definition.  But he predicted that it
would be sizable.

"We anticipate that the addition of this entry job title will have
a significant impact on the class because a disproportionate
number of women are represented in the lower tier engineering
titles," he said in an email.

The original complaint said that the class exceeds 50 former and
current female employees of Twitter.  Ms. Huang's lawyers have
still not brought a motion to certify the class, but that is sure
to be a flashpoint in coming months.

Twitter is being defended in the case by Lynne Hermle --
lchermle@orrick.com -- a partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
who grabbed headlines last year in defending venture-capital firm
Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers at trial against sex
discrimination claims brought by Ellen Pao.

Ms. Hermle did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment
on March 31.  A spokesperson for Twitter declined to comment.

"Black box"

Ms. Huang -- who joined Twitter in 2009, two years after the
company was founded -- rose through several positions in the
software engineer hierarchy and became a "staff engineer" in 2011.
But after being nominated for a promotion in winter 2013, Ms.
Huang claimed she was denied a higher position via an opaque
committee process that the complaint calls a "black box."
Ms. Huang says she was turned back despite receiving consistently
positive performance reviews.

After she requested an investigation into the decision in 2014,
Ms. Huang said she was unexpectedly placed on personal leave.
That leave, which was only supposed to last for one week, ended up
stretching for almost three months.  Feeling in limbo, Huang
submitted her resignation in May 2014.

Her complaint alleges that Twitter maintains policies and
practices that deny equal job opportunities to women, including
effectively discouraging women from seeking or applying for
senior-level and leadership positions.  Her suit seeks to end
these practices, as well as to recover damages including lost
compensation and job benefits.


U.S. BANCORP: Bid to Dismiss "Wert" Suit Denied
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Cynthia Bashant denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
case captioned MONICA R. WERT, Individually and on Behalf of Other
Members of the Public Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S.
BANCORP, et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-3130-BAS(BLM) (S.D.
Cal.).

On November 13, 2013, Monica R. Wert commenced an employment class
action against U.S. Bancorp and U.S. Bank National Association.
The defendants moved to dismiss Wert's third claim for relief for
violation of California Labor Code section 512 brought under the
Private Attorney General Act of 2004 (PAGA) on the grounds that
the claim is both legally and factually unsupported.  Wert's claim
was for PAGA penalties for the defendants' alleged failure to
provide compliant meal periods, but the defendants' argued that
Wert sought impermissible double recovery where the defendants
already paid their employees meal-period penalties under
California Labor Code section 226.7.

Judge Bashant held that allowing aggrieved employees to recover
individual statutory penalties under the Labor Code in addition to
PAGA penalties on behalf of the Labor and Workforce Development
Agency (LWDA) for the same violation is consistent with PAGA's
express statutory language, the California Supreme Court's
interpretation, and the legislature's intent.  The judge also
added that the payment of penalties under section 226.7 does not
cure meal-period violations under section 512.

Lastly, Judge Bashant held that Wert satisfies the pleading
requirements where she pleads eligibility for meal periods under
section 512.

A full-text copy of Judge Bashant's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/xntXexfrom Leagle.com.

Monica R. Wert, Plaintiff, represented by George C Aguilar --
gaguilar@robbinsarroyo.com -- Robbins Arroyo LLP, London D.
Meservy -- london@meservylaw.com -- Meservy Law, P.C., Matthew S.
Dente -- matt@denterichard.com -- Dente Richard LLP & Diane
Elizabeth Richard, Dente Richard LLP.

U.S. Bancorp, U.S. Bank National Association, Defendant,
represented by Emilie C. Woodhead -- ewoodhead@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn LLP, Joan B Tucker Fife -- jfife@winston.com --
Winston & Strawn & Emily C. Schuman -- eschuman@winston.com --
Winston and Strawn LLP.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: CEO Loses Bid to Dismiss Antitrust Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Stempel, writing for Reuters, reports that
Travis Kalanick, chief executive officer of Uber Technologies Inc,
failed on March 31 to win the dismissal of an antitrust lawsuit
accusing him of scheming to drive up prices for passengers who use
the popular ride-sharing service.

U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff in Manhattan said Mr. Kalanick must
face claims he conspired with drivers to ensure they charge prices
set by an algorithm in the Uber smartphone app to hail rides,
including "surge pricing" during periods of peak demand.

Passengers led by Spencer Meyer of Connecticut claimed that
drivers conspired with Mr. Kalanick to charge fares set by the
algorithm, with an understanding that other Uber drivers would do
the same, even if they might fare better acting on their own.

Judge Rakoff said the plaintiffs "plausibly alleged a conspiracy"
to fix prices in this manner, and could also pursue claims that
Mr. Kalanick's actions drove out rivals such as Sidecar, enabling
Uber to command 80 percent of mobile-app generated ride shares.

"The advancement of technological means for the orchestration of
large-scale price-fixing conspiracies need not leave antitrust law
behind," the judge wrote.

Meyer's lawsuit seeks class-action status on behalf of Uber
passengers nationwide who have used the app and a subclass of
passengers subjected to surge pricing.

Uber takes a share of the revenue that drivers generate.

"We disagree with this ruling," Uber said in response to a request
for comment on behalf of Mr. Kalanick and the San Francisco-based
company.  "These claims are unwarranted and have no basis in
fact."

Andrew Schmidt, a lawyer for Meyer, welcomed the decision.

"In creating Uber, Kalanick organized price-fixing among
independent drivers who should be competing with one another on
price," he said.  "The decision confirms that apps are not exempt
from the antitrust laws."

Uber was not named as a defendant, despite being valued at well
over $50 billion in recent funding rounds.

Judge Rakoff said in a footnote that Uber passengers are subject
to "user agreements" requiring them to resolve various disputes
through arbitration.

He said that while claims in the lawsuit against Mr. Kalanick were
"intimately founded in and intertwined with" the user agreements,
Mr. Kalanick had not sought to compel arbitration, and passengers
were not barred from suing him in federal court.

The case is Meyer v Kalanick, U.S. District Court, Southern
District of New York, No. 15-09796.


UNI-MART: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Deceptive Pricing
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Halpin, writing for Times Tribune, reports that a gas sale
earlier this year has led to a class-action lawsuit alleging
Uni-Mart engaged in deceptive business practices by charging
credit-card prices to debit- card users.

The lawsuit alleges Exeter resident Cataldo Saitta bought
approximately 4« gallons of gas at the Uni-Mart at 805 Shoemaker
Ave., West Wyoming, on Jan. 3 and paid for it with a debit card
but was charged the higher credit-card price for the gas.

The complaint was filed in Luzerne County court on March 31 by
attorneys from the Philadelphia law firm Anapol Weiss and West
Pittston attorney Michael J. Cefalo.

The business' advertisements on that day did not differentiate
between rates for customers paying by credit card, debit card or
cash, the complaint says.

The lawsuit was filed as a class action, open to all others in
similar circumstances because debit cards are not subject to the
same transaction fees as are credit cards, Mr. Cefalo said.

"You don't have to pay a fee for (debit cards)," he said. "They
get charged the credit price, and it's not fair."

An official at Uni-Mart did not immediately return a message
seeking comment Friday.

The lawsuit targets Uni-Marts LLC, based in State College, as well
as the location in West Wyoming.

The suit's potential class could be very large.  According to the
complaint, 40 percent of consumers used credit cards to buy gas
last year, with an additional 38 percent using debit cards.

The complaint alleges Uni-Mart violated state law and
misrepresented the discounted purchase price by failing to clearly
advertise the conditions needed to receive the discount price.

Uni-Mart signs advertised a discount of five cents per gallon
discount for cash but failed to disclose that customers using
debit cards would not get that discount, according to the
complaint.

"Uni-Marts' deceptive pricing scheme advertised a discounted
'cash' price as compared to the credit price but was silent as to
the price-per-gallon charge for debit card purchases," the
complaint alleges.

The lawsuit, which alleges violations of the state's Unfair Trade
Practices and Consumer Protection Law, seeks unspecified damages.

Sadie Martin, spokeswoman for the state attorney general's office,
said businesses can violate that law by failing to disclose they
are charging extra fees to credit or debit card users.

They could also be in violation for failing to differentiate
bet-ween fees charged for different types of cards, she said.

"If it's in any way confusing . . . then it would be a violation
of the Consumer Protection Act," Ms. Martin said.


UNITED RECOVERY SYSTEMS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Colon" Says
--------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Colon, on behalf of himself individually and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. United Recovery Systems, LP.,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01163 (E.D.N.Y., March 8, 2016),
alleges violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED STATES: Appeal Filed in "Caquelin" Complaint
---------------------------------------------------
The United States of America filed an appeal on March 4, 2016,
with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The
appellate case is, Norma E. Caquelin and Kenneth Caquelin, for
themselves and as representatives of a class of similarly situated
persons, Plaintiffs, v. United States, Defendant, Case No. 16-1663
(Fed. Cir., March 9, 2016).

The U.S. Government takes an appeal from a decision by the United
States Court of Federal Claims in the case, 1:14-cv-00037-CFL.

Defendant's brief is due May 9, 2016.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Thomas Scott Stewart, Esq.
     Stewart Wald & McCulley, LLC
     2100 Central
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Tel: (816) 303-1500

The Defendant is represented by:

     Director, Commercial Litigation Branch
     Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice
     Department of Justice
     PO Box 480
     Ben Franklin Station
     Washington, DC 20044


VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces Securities Class Action
-----------------------------------------------
Glancy, Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 1 disclosed that a
class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of individuals who
beneficially held 7.875% Senior Notes due 2020 ("2020 Notes") of
Vanguard Natural Resources, LLC ("Vanguard" or the "Company") from
February 10, 2016 to the present.

Vanguard 2020 Notes holders are encouraged to contact Lesley
Portnoy of GPM to discuss their legal rights in this class action
at 310-201-9150 or by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com

According to the complaint, Vanguard and its subsidiary, VNR
Finance Corp., orchestrated a private debt exchange offer that
excluded certain investors from participating in the exchange, and
negatively impacted the value of the retail bondholders' 2020
Notes.

On January 8, 2016, Vanguard announced a proposed private debt
exchange only for Qualified Institutional Buyers -- bondholders
who own and invest at least $100 million in securities -- and
persons located outside of the U.S. (the "Exchange Offer").
Non-qualified investors could not participate in the exchange and
did not receive any documents informing them of how the Exchange
Offer would affect their interests.  Additionally, Vanguard did
not disclose the negative impact of the Exchange Offer on the 2020
Notes in terms of liquidity and marketability of the 2020 Notes.

The Complaint alleges that Vanguard administrators knew that the
Exchange Offer would negatively impact the liquidity,
marketability, and market price of the 2020 Notes, and concealed
this information from the class members.  Vanguard officials
benefited from The Exchange Offer at the expense of the class
members, whose 2020 Notes dropped in value. Vanguard's choice to
pursue the transaction benefiting only a minority of 2020 Note
holders allegedly violated the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing.  The obligations in the 2020 Notes were made
secondary to the obligations in the 2023 Notes, weakening class
members' right to receive payment of the principal and interest
under the 2020 Notes and the right to sue to compel such payment.

If you are a Vanguard 2020 Notes holder, have information or would
like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire,
of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles California
90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://glancylaw.com

If you inquire by email please include your mailing address,
telephone number and number of shares purchased.


VANGUARD NATURAL: Faces "Culp" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Vanguard Natural Resources.  The
case is captioned Lawrence Culp, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC, VNR Finance Corp., Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR
Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners
Operating LLC, Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02303-UA (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, March 29,
2016).

Vanguard Natural Resources is an independent natural gas and oil
company. The Company develops and exploits mature, long-lived
natural gas and oil properties. Vanguard's primary business
objective is to generate stable cash flows allowing them to make
monthly cash distributions to our unitholders.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gordon Z. Novod, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A. (NY)
          485 Lexington Avenue, 29th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 722 8500
          Facsimile: (646) 722 8501
          E-mail: gnovod@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Meagan Alicia Farmer, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          Tower 56, 126 E. 56th St. 8th fl.
          New York, NY 10022
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          Facsimile: (212) 905 0508
          E-mail: mfarmer@gardylaw.com


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: June 23 Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Labaton Sucharow LLP
regarding the In re Vocera Communications, Inc., Securities
Litigation.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION

This Document Relates to: All Actions.

MASTER FILE NO. 3:13-cv-03567 EMC

CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL PERSONS AND ENTITIES THAT PURCHASED OR ACQUIRED THE
PUBLICLY TRADED SECURITIES OF VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS, INC. BETWEEN
MARCH 28, 2012 AND MAY 2, 2013, INCLUSIVE, (THE "CLASS PERIOD"),
AND WERE ALLEGEDLY DAMAGED THEREBY.

You may be entitled to receive money from a class action
settlement.  The average recovery in the settlement per allegedly
damaged share is estimated to be approximately $0.64 per share,
before the deduction of any Court-approved fees and expenses, and
approximately $0.44 per allegedly damaged share, after the
deduction of the attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California, that Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System and Baltimore County Employees'
Retirement System (collectively, "Lead Plaintiffs"), on behalf of
themselves and the Settlement Class, and Vocera Communications,
Inc. ("Vocera"), Robert J. Zollars, Brent D. Lang, and William R.
Zerella (collectively, the "Individual Defendants" and, with
Vocera, the "Defendants") have reached a proposed settlement in
the above-captioned action (the "Action") in the amount of
$9,000,000 in cash (the "Settlement Amount") that, if approved,
will resolve all claims in the Action (the "Settlement").

A hearing will be held before the Honorable Edward M. Chen of the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California in Courtroom 5, 17th Floor of the San Francisco
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94102 at
1:30 p.m. on June 23, 2016 to, among other things, determine
whether: (1) the proposed Settlement should be approved by the
Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (2) this Action should be
dismissed with prejudice as set forth in the Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement, dated January 14, 2016; (3) the proposed
Plan of Allocation for distribution of the Settlement Amount, and
any interest thereon, less Court-awarded attorneys' fees, Notice
and Administration Expenses, Taxes, and any other costs, fees, or
expenses approved by the Court (the "Net Settlement Fund") should
be approved as fair and reasonable; and (4) the application of
Lead Counsel for an award of attorneys' fees and payment of
litigation expenses should be approved.  The Court may change the
date of the Settlement Hearing without providing another notice.
You do NOT need to attend the Settlement Hearing in order to
receive a distribution from the Net Settlement Fund.

IF YOU ARE A MEMBER OF THE SETTLEMENT CLASS, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE
AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND YOU MAY BE ENTITLED TO
SHARE IN THE NET SETTLEMENT FUND.  If you have not yet received
the full Notice of Pendency of Class Action, Proposed Settlement,
and Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Notice") and a
Proof of Claim and Release form ("Proof of Claim"), you may obtain
copies of these documents by contacting the Claims Administrator
or visiting its website:

Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation
c/o GCG
P.O. Box 9349
Dublin, OH 43017-4249
800-231-1815
www.vocerasecuritieslitigation.com
questions@vocerasecuritieslitigation.com

Inquiries may also be made to Lead Counsel:

LABATON SUCHAROW LLP
Jonathan Gardner, Esq.
Carol C. Villegas, Esq.
140 Broadway
New York, NY 10005
888-219-6877
www.labaton.com
settlementquestions@labaton.com

If you are a Settlement Class Member, and wish to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, you must submit a Proof
of Claim postmarked or received on or before July 18, 2016,
establishing that you are entitled to participate in any recovery.
If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not timely submit a
valid Proof of Claim, you will not be eligible to share in the
distribution of the Net Settlement Fund, but you will nevertheless
be bound by any judgments or orders entered by the Court in the
Action.

To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a
written request for exclusion in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice such that it is received on or before June
2, 2016.  If you are a Settlement Class Member and do not exclude
yourself from the Settlement Class, you will be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement, Plan of Allocation,
and/or application for attorneys' fees and payment of expenses
must be filed with the Court in accordance with the instructions
set forth in the Notice on or before June 2, 2016.  If you object,
but also want to be eligible for a payment from the Settlement,
you must still submit a Proof of Claim or you will not receive a
payment from the Settlement.

PLEASE DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, DEFENDANTS, OR DEFENDANTS'
COUNSEL REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  ALL QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS NOTICE,
THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT, OR YOUR ELIGIBILITY TO PARTICIPATE IN THE
SETTLEMENT SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO LEAD COUNSEL AT THE ADDRESS
LISTED ABOVE.

Dated: April 1, 2016

BY ORDER OF THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: U.S. Dealers to File Deiselgate Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Tsaousis, writing for Car Scoops, reports that amid
compensating its customers and the authorities over the, now
infamous, diesel engine emissions scandal, the VW Group has to
deal with another potential threat.

This time, it is its own US dealers who are ready to file a
lawsuit due to the damage they have sustained in the aftermath of
Dieselgate.

Attorney Leonard Bellavia of Mineola, N.Y., told Autonews "a
complaint is already drafted and just waiting on my desk", so the
dealers mean business. Whether it is filed or not, said
Mr. Bellavia, is a matter of the company offering a fair
compensation for their losses -- and if it does get filed, it will
be a class action on behalf of his clients, whose identities he
did not disclose.

The draft includes allegations of breach of contract and fraud
over the nearly 580,000 diesel vehicles sold with emissions-
cheating software and asking for punitive damages due to a
practice that was "fraudulent, intentional and designed to deceive
government regulators and the public."

Although their beef with the German automaker was expressed early
on, this is the first open threat and it comes right after a VW
dealer council memo noting that some of them "have reached a
breaking point and feel that pursuing a legal course is the only
option."

VW execs will hold a meeting with dealers at the National
Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) convention in Las Vegas this
Saturday, April 9.

"My goal is that VW and the dealers can reach a settlement on
amicable terms without the added distraction of litigation,"
Mr. Bellavia said, adding that any action would be taken only
after hearing VW's proposal at the NADA meeting.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces Employment Class Suit in Alameda County
--------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that workers fired separate class
actions in Oakland, Calif. against Wal-Mart, AmeriPride Services,
Compass Group USA, YRC Global, and US Foodservice, all in Alameda
County Court.


YORK COUNTY, ME: Suit v. Judge Over Court Rescheduling Tossed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tammy Wells, writing for Journal Tribune, reports that a Superior
Court justice has ruled in favor of a York County probate judge in
a class action lawsuit initiated by a woman who claimed the
judge's rescheduling of court dates resulted in her losing
guardianship of her granddaughter.

But in his ruling, issued on March 29, Superior Court Justice
Thomas Warren also criticized Probate Judge Robert M.A. Nadeau for
changing the schedule for what he found to be in response to York
County commissioners rejecting his request for more court time and
a salary increase.

The class action civil suit was filed by Renee LeGrand of
New Hampshire, who claimed changes Judge Nadeau made in his court
schedule in April 2015 led to her losing guardianship of her
granddaughter last fall.

Justice Warren noted that Ms. LeGrand, the lead plaintiff in the
case, had not been denied access to the probate court, as she had
alleged.  He also noted that the custody situation has since been
resolved -- the girl lives with Ms. LeGrand in a co-custody
situation with the child's mother, who has visitation rights --
and that attorneys for the plaintiff had not identified any other
case with comparable circumstances.

"The schedule changes were, at least in part, intended to cause
harm in the form of delay affecting probate court litigants in
order to send a message to County Commissioners," Warren wrote in
his 22-page decision.  "However there is certainly a question
whether Judge Nadeau's actions met the high standard of
outrageousness necessary for a substantive due process violation."

Justice Warren said he was reluctant to question a judge's
decision that more time was needed to prepare for cases and to
research and write decisions, particularly when Nadeau often
exceeds the 64 hours a month on which York County bases his
$54,000 salary.

As well, the Superior Court is not well-equipped to intervene in
the scheduling of probate court matters, as Ms. LeGrand had
requested. "Absent a very compelling reason, another court should
not attempt to back-seat drive that process," Justice Warren
wrote.

But Justice Warren also pointed out that Judge Nadeau ordered that
April 2015 scheduling change to be immediate rather than through a
transition, causing delays and disruption to the court schedule.
Judge Nadeau then referred litigants to county commissioners or
the county manager if they had concerns about scheduling, Justice
Warren noted.

"Although Judge Nadeau stated that his schedule changes were made
to serve litigants, he knew that the schedule changes would cause
or exacerbate delays that would harm those litigants," Justice
Warren wrote.  "In large part, the schedule changes were intended
to get back at the County Commissioners, who had rejected Judge
Nadeau's request for an increase in salary and court time.

"It bears emphasis that the court is not ruling that a request to
the County Commissioners for some additional court time would
necessarily been unjustified.  What was unjustified was Judge
Nadeau's response to the Commissar's denial of his request to have
his salary increased to $90,000, or $119,476."

Justice Warren did acknowledge that one of the scheduling changes
made by Judge Nadeau was beneficial, and noted that this year,
Judge Nadeau has made modifications to the schedule he'd adopted
in 2015.  As of February, there was no backlog, with the exception
of a three-month delay in getting to routine cases, Justice Warren
wrote.

Judge Nadeau said on March 31 he was pleased that Justice Warren
based his decision on all of the evidence, and that the due
process rights of users of the probate court continue to be
protected by him, "despite woefully inadequate county funding for
more badly needed judicial time."

"The families and children who depend on our probate court need
much more county support for it than they have been receiving,
particularly in the face of an exploded opiate epidemic,"
Judge Nadeau said.  "The same is true for our growing population
of aging parents and other adult incapacitated loved ones faced
with the possibility of guardianship but struggling to maintain as
many of their legal rights, independence and dignity as possible."

Judge Nadeau disputed Justice Warren's finding that he made the
2015 scheduling changes to "get back" at county commissioners.

A backlog of cases involving heroin-related child custody and
adoption had developed in 2014, and was exacerbated by increasing
numbers of contested adult guardianship cases, he said.

"I made the changes to ultimately enhance efficiencies and full
and fair hearings, despite Justice Warren's recent, collateral
misunderstanding to the contrary," Judge Nadeau said.  "The notion
that I changed the scheduling as a form of 'retaliation' as the
county commissioners, manager and register who know virtually
nothing about judicial work have asserted is simply incorrect.

"The success of my changes have since proven that success, as the
superior court indicated in its decision. . . . It isn't and has
never been about salary."

Judge Nadeau urged county commissioners to meet with him to learn
about the probate court and support it.

Judge Nadeau isn't completely out of the woods.  In January, the
committee on Judicial Responsibility and Disability recommended to
the Maine Supreme Judicial Court that he be suspended for the
remainder of his elected term -- which ends Dec. 31 -- after
finding he breached a number of canons that govern judicial
conduct, including the rescheduling issue.

And as of press time this morning, the state's high court had not
rendered a decision involving findings made by the judicial
oversight committee after holding oral arguments in November on a
case that originated in 2012.

In that case, the oversight committee found that Judge Nadeau
violated provisions of the judicial code in connection with
comments he made about a district court judge, his reference to a
remark made about him as a judge in correspondence involving his
private law practice, and issues with his website and social media
accounts.

In 2007, Judge Nadeau was censured by the Maine Supreme Judicial
Court and ordered suspended for 30 days for misrepresentations he
made concerning his opponent in his 2004 pre-primary election
advertising.

And he was reprimanded twice by a single justice of the Maine
Supreme Judicial Court in 2006 in connection with his conduct in
his private law practice.  A third count was dismissed with a
warning.

Judge Nadeau served as the county's probate judge from about 1997
to 2008.  He lost the 2008 election, but was elected in November
2012 for a four-year term that winds down Dec. 31. He said he is
seeking re-election.


* Class Actions Still Face Threat Post-Scalia Despite Mixed Signs
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John C. Coffee Jr., writing for New York Law Journal, reports that
when the U.S. Supreme Court's current term opened in October,
things looked bleak for the class action.  Three major cases were
on the court's docket, and each seemed handpicked as a vehicle for
the court's conservatives to curb the availability of the class
action.  Now, barely six months later, it is clear that this
assault has fallen short.  The high water mark in this hostile
tide was probably reached in 2011 when the court decided both Wal-
Mart Stores v. Dukes1 and AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion.2 In these
cases, the court both tightened the standards for class
certification and opened the doors for the widespread use of
boilerplate arbitration clauses in consumer contracts.  Then, in
2013, in Comcast v. Behrend, the court wrote a more ambiguous
decision that threatened to require that damages in a class action
be established on a class-wide basis (thereby barring class
certification in cases in which individualized damage
determinations would be necessary).  Lower courts (including the
redoubtable Judge Richard Posner) resisted this change, and
Comcast was susceptible to narrower readings. But at least one of
the cases before the court this term seemed to provide an
opportunity for the court to more strictly enforce its earlier
statements about the need for a common damages model.

Still, before the court received that opportunity to reconsider
Comcast, the tide shifted in other areas.  In 2014, in Halliburton
v. Erica P. John Fund (Halliburton II), the court reaffirmed the
"fraud on the market" doctrine, thereby permitting securities
class actions to continue pretty much as before.  Stare decisis
won out over a concerted attack from the financial industry and
conservative activists.  A year later, in Omnicare v. Laborers
Dist. Council Constr. Indus. Pension Fund, the court actually
liberalized the standards for liability in connection with
statements of opinion.  Although the decision was limited to Sec11
of the Securities Act of 1933, it seems likely to leak over into
Rule 10b-5 litigation as well.

Despite these inconsistent signs, the 2015-2016 Term still
threatened to close down the class action.  Not only was the grant
of certiorari in three cases a sign that the court intended to
focus on the class action context, but each of the three following
cases hinted that the conservative wing had a specific agenda in
mind.

'Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez'

The first of these three cases, Gomez v. Campbell-Ewald Co., posed
the issue of whether defendants could pick off the class
representative by offering it full individual relief in order to
thereby moot both the class representative's claims and the
putative class action.  Although the Ninth Circuit had declined to
hold that such an offer mooted the class action, decisions in the
Fourth, Sixth and Third Circuits had come to the opposite
conclusion, finding that federal courts were deprived of Article
III jurisdiction by the absence of any representative with a
"live" claim.  Moreover, in 2013, the court had decided a similar
case in General Health Care v. Symczyk,8 where it found that if
the defendant served the plaintiff with an offer of judgment
pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that
fully satisfied the plaintiff's individual damages claim, then the
class action could not be maintained.  The narrow difference
between General Health Care and Campbell-Ewald was that the
plaintiff in General Health Care did not dispute that her
individual claim had been mooted by the defendant's offer.  In
contrast, plaintiff Gomez in Campbell-Ewald made no such
concession.  In violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, defendants had placed a phone call to Gomez, using an
automatic dialing system (specifically, a text message was sent to
his cellular phone).  Nothing about the case carried any hint of
fraud or abuse, as Campbell-Ewald was acting as a marketing agency
for the U.S. Navy in a Navy recruiting campaign.  Still, because
Gomez the plaintiff had not consented to this call, he was
entitled to his "actual monetary loss" or $500, "whichever is
greater," and the damages could be trebled if "the defendant
willfully or knowingly violated the Act."  Plaintiff sued for
treble statutory damages, costs, attorney fees and also sought an
injunction.  Defendant offered to pay $1,503 per message (i.e.,
the trebled amount) plus costs (but not attorney fees) and to
consent to an injunction (which injunction, however, "denied
liability and the allegations in the complaint, and disclaimed the
existence of grounds for the imposition of an injunction").
One can see here why the conservative Justices might have seen
this as an attractive vehicle. The defendant had at worst made a
negligent error, and the plaintiff had a "negative value" claim
that would not have justified litigation, but for the prospect of
a class action recovery.  Nonetheless, Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsberg, writing for a five Justice majority, essentially agreed
with Justice Elena Kagan's earlier dissent in General Health Care
and held that an unaccepted offer is a legal nullity that did not
moot plaintiff's individual claim.  Thus, Justice Ginsberg wrote:
"Absent Gomez's acceptance, Campbell's settlement offer remained
only a proposal, binding neither Campbell nor Gomez."

But there is a mystery here. Why did Justice Anthony Kennedy, who
had sided with the conservative majority in General Health Care,
join with the dissenters in that case to form a new majority in
Campbell-Ewald? A narrow answer might be that the defendant's
offer in Campbell-Ewald was marginally narrower than the relief
sought by the plaintiff (it did not cover plaintiff's attorney
fees and the injunction was narrower and more equivocal than that
sought by the plaintiff Gomez).

More revealing, however, are two sentences at the end of the
court's mootness analysis, which read very much like a concession
made by the majority in Campbell-Ewald to hold onto the decisive
swing vote of Justice Kennedy:

We need not, and do not, now decide whether this 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. That question is appropriately reserved for a case in
which it is not hypothetical.

This narrow distinction between a mere offer and an actual tender
of payment leaves us with a major uncertainty: Can defendants
still pick off the class representative if they actually tender
the full amount that satisfies the representative's individual
claim? Although the court reserved that issue for a future case,
that future may not be long in coming.  On remand in Campell-
Ewald, defendants could do precisely that, depositing the funds,
and again claiming that the case is moot.  Will Justice Kennedy
change his position over that small a change? As a practical
matter, the intervening death of Justice Antonin Scalia (who, of
course, dissented in Campbell-Ewald) implies that the dissenters
could not today hope for more than a four to four tie for the
interim future.  But because a tie leaves the lower court opinion
in place, this would permit those three Circuits (at least the
Third, Fourth and Sixth) that had permitted the class
representative to be picked off to continue to do so.

Even if such a tactic is still possible in some Circuits, would
such an effort by defendants to pick off the class representative
be worth the effort? In some contexts, the answer is clearly "no."
In a securities class action, the lead plaintiff will be a
typically large institutional investor.  Paying it all its
asserted losses would be prohibitively expensive when the typical
recovery in a securities class action settlement is only around 2
percent or so of the economic loss.  Moreover, plaintiff's counsel
could quickly find another large institution to substitute for it.
In a "negative value" class action (as Campbell-Ewald clearly
was), the effort may make more economic sense. But there are
probably ways to combat this tactic in those few Circuits that
still permit it.  For example, plaintiffs could seek more detailed
and burdensome injunctions that go well beyond requiring the
defendant to cease violations of the law and instead mandate more
specific affirmative relief.  Plaintiffs would be unlikely to win
these at trial, but that is not the point. The real goal is to
make it too painful for defendants to settle the class
representative's case.

'Tyson Foods'

The decision most eagerly awaited by the defense bar (at least as
of last October) was probably Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, which
came down on March 22.  Potentially, this case gave the court's
conservatives the opportunity both to revisit Justice Scalia's
assertion in Wal-Mart that individualized determinations of
damages could not be replaced by "Trial by Formula" and to enforce
and extend Comcast v. Behrend's holding that the damages model
must fit the specific legal theory advanced by the plaintiffs.
Finally, defense counsel hoped that the court would react to the
clear fact that many in the Tyson Foods class had not been
injured.  Although this is not uncommon (and proof of injury is
later required post-settlement at the claims resolution stage),
the most zealous foes of the class action hoped that the court
would require that the class be defined to include only those
truly injured.  For plaintiff's counsel, this could have been a
straitjacket.

Yet, if Tyson Foods could have been a "game-changer," those
expectations were dashed.  In overview, Tyson Foods was a simple
case that made a poor vehicle for deciding general principles
about how statistics can be used in complex litigation.  In Tyson
Foods, plaintiffs brought a federal collective action claim under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) on behalf of employees at a
single pork processing plant in Iowa, alleging that Tyson had
failed to pay them for time spent donning and doffing special
protective gear.  Plaintiffs also brought a Rule 23 class action
under an Iowa state law that largely tracked the substantive
provisions of the FLSA.  The defendant had not kept records of how
many minutes each worker spent donning and doffing gear each day,
so plaintiffs conducted their own study.

The controversy in the case turns on the proof that plaintiffs
presented.  The plaintiffs produced two experts and the more
controversial expert had timed more than 700 instances of workers
donning and doffing gear and averaged the amount of time it took
each one to do so.  In introducing this evidence, plaintiffs
relied on the well-established practice of using representative
evidence in FLSA cases.  A 1946 Supreme Court had permitted fairly
simple, even casual, procedures.  The defendant argued at trial
and on appeal that the use of representative evidence obscured the
differences between groups of workers -- some wearing much more
gear and taking more time; others wearing less gear and presumably
taking less time.  This can be characterized as a question of
class cohesion that arguably offended the predominance requirement
of Rule 23(b)(3), but it can also be characterized as simply an
evidentiary question.

Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy took the latter view.
But along the way, he said much more.  First, he noted that
"petitioner and various of its amici maintain that the Court
should announce a broad rule against the use in class actions of
what the parties call 'representative evidence'."  But he quickly
rejected such a "categorical" rule, saying "it would make little
sense."16 Instead, he wrote: "Whether and when statistical
evidence may be used to establish classwide liability will depend
on the purposes for which the evidence is being introduced and on
'the elements of the underlying cause of action.'"  Here, he
emphasized that plaintiff's representative sample was being
introduced "to fill an evidentiary gap created by the employer's
failure to keep adequate records."  More importantly, he reached
out to add that:

Wal-Mart does not stand for the broad proposition that a
representative sample is an impermissible means of establishing
classwide liability.

The key distinction, he said, was that an individual worker, suing
in an individual case, could have also cited the same study
presented in Campbell-Ewald to sustain the jury's finding in his
individual case.


* Federal Regulators Pushes for Limits on Consumer Arbitrations
---------------------------------------------------------------
George Calhoun, Esq. and Jeff Ifrah, Esq., of Ifrah Law, in an
article for JDSupra, report that since the Federal Arbitration Act
(FAA) of 1925, the United States has had a policy preference for
arbitration, even when an arbitration provision includes language
barring class action litigation.  It was seen most recently in
December 2015 when the Supreme Court reversed a decision by a
California Court of Appeal to invalidate a class-arbitration
waiver within a service agreement between DirecTV and its
customers.  But not everyone thinks arbitration is so great a
thing.  Encouraged by consumer groups and trial lawyers, federal
regulators are pushing for limits on arbitration provisions in
consumer contracts.

At its core, the debate is about whether companies may compel
consumers to arbitrate rather than litigate disputes and --
perhaps more significantly -- bar consumers from class action
remedies as part of the arbitration requirement.  Critics of
mandatory arbitration say that it restricts consumer redress and
is tantamount to a deceptive trade practice because the
arbitration provisions are usually contained in the "fine print"
of a contract.  The new rules being proposed reportedly are
designed to eliminate mandatory arbitration provisions and
facilitate class action litigation.

Despite the criticisms of consumer groups, arbitration often is
cheaper and more effective for both individual consumers and
companies.  By interfering with Americans' freedom of contract to
prevent the use of mandatory arbitration, the government could
severely damage U.S. business interests by exposing them to a
marked increase in expensive class action litigation.  In turn,
that would result in more limited choices and increased costs for
consumers.

The government's efforts to eliminate mandatory arbitration
provisions in consumer-related contracts have been highlighted in
several recent agency actions.  In its list of near-term goals,
the Bureau of Consumer Financial Protections (CFPB) said that new
rules to govern arbitration in consumer contracts would be a
priority in 2016.  The Department of Education announced that it,
too, was reviewing mandatory arbitration provisions in college
enrollment contracts.  And despite multiple appellate decisions to
the contrary, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) again
concluded that class action waivers in arbitration agreements
infringe on an individual's rights under Section 7 of the National
Labor Relations Act.

All of this has happened in the space of three months, indicating
a clear effort by the government to diminish businesses' ability
to require arbitration that shields them from often frivolous and
costly class action litigation.  The acts of some Congressmen have
made this agenda even more transparent.  In February 2016, Senator
Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would modify the scope of the
FAA and curtail the use of mandatory arbitration.  The bill is
unlikely to pass in the current Republican Congress, but Congress
previously empowered federal agencies to curtail the use of
mandatory arbitration provisions on a significant, but more
limited, basis.

The CFPB's current actions were authorized by the 2010 Dodd-Frank
Act, which barred the use of arbitration clauses in certain
mortgage contacts and gave the SEC power to ban or restrict the
use of arbitration in other disputes.  Deepak Gupta, then the
CFPB's senior counsel for enforcement strategy, stated that
prohibiting or restricting mandatory arbitration would be "the
single most transformative thing the bureau can do" for consumers.
In March 2015, the CFPB released a 728-page study of arbitration
in consumer contracts, which was criticized by some academics and
trade groups for misstating the impact of mandatory arbitration
provisions on consumers.  Since then, members of Congress have
engaged in deeply partisan squabbling over the need for additional
rulemaking on consumer arbitration or to limit class action
litigation in other ways.

Despite the criticism and opposition, CFPB director
Richard Cordray reiterated the agency's plans to release new rules
aimed at banks and other financial firms.  Earlier comments by the
agency confirm that the new rules will be designed to prevent
arbitration clauses from restricting class action remedies.  The
Law firm thinks such changes would quickly spread to encompass
telephone, Internet, and other commonplace consumer agreements.

American companies should be concerned with how executive
agencies, e.g., the CFPB, the Department of Education, and the
NLRB, will carry out their plans to introduce regulations that
restrict the use of arbitration clauses in a broad range of
consumer contracts.  We will not be surprised to see some
companies restrict their consumer offerings or increase prices to
account for these new rules.  If you work in American business, we
urge you to take notice of these changes and review how to protect
your company from undue litigation in future contracts. Among
other options, you should analyze the inclusion of non-mandatory
arbitration provisions, the separation of class-action waivers
from arbitration provisions, and the option of raising prices to
contend with increased litigation.


* Securities Class Action Settlements Hit Record High in 2015
-------------------------------------------------------------
There were 80 securities class action settlements approved in
2015, the highest number since 2010, according to a new report
from Cornerstone Research.  The report, Securities Class Action
Settlements -- 2015 Review and Analysis, shows that total
settlement dollars rose to more than $3 billion, an increase of
184 percent over the historic low in 2014.

"The surge in securities class action settlements in 2015 can be
attributed in part to three consecutive year-over-year increases
in the number of case filings," said Dr. Laura Simmons, a senior
advisor of Cornerstone Research and a coauthor of the report.

"The increases in case filings may suggest that higher numbers of
settlements will persist in the near future.  While settlement
volume fluctuates from year to year, the size of the typical
settlement tends to remain fairly consistent."

In 2015 there were eight mega settlements ($100 million or
greater), compared to only one in 2014.  This increase was likely
driven by a corresponding rise in cases with very high "estimated
damages," a simplified calculation representing a proxy for
damages.  The median "estimated damages" for mega settlements in
2015 was the second highest in the last 10 years.

"Settlements in class action securities litigation can be viewed
as rather predictable phenomena," observed Professor Joseph A.
Grundfest, director of the Stanford Law School Securities Class
Action Clearinghouse.  "You can only get a high settlement value
for a strong case that alleges substantial damages, and those
factors can often be assessed relatively early in the litigation
process.  When the number of mega filings is up, you can expect an
increase in mega settlements three or more years down the road,
with the larger settlements taking longer to reach, and that's the
process that seems to be at work in the 2015 settlement data."

While larger damages appear to have driven up settlement values
for some cases in 2015, other factors associated with higher
settlements were less prevalent.  For example, the proportion of
settlements of $50 million or greater involving financial
statement restatements, public pension plan lead plaintiffs,
and/or SEC actions was lower than most years since the passage of
the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Highlights

Total settlement dollars in 2015 were 9 percent higher than the
average for the prior five years.

The average settlement size increased from $17 million in 2014 to
$37.9 million in 2015 (an increase of 123 percent), while the
median settlement amount (representing the typical case) remained
relatively flat ($6.0 million in 2014 and $6.1 million in 2015).
Average "estimated damages" rose 151 percent from 2014.  Since
"estimated damages" is the most important factor in predicting
settlement amounts, this increase contributed to the substantially
higher average settlement amounts in 2015.

Median settlements as a percentage of "estimated damages"
decreased to historic low levels in 2015.

In 2015, 35 percent of accounting-related cases had a named
auditor defendant, representing a 50 percent increase over the
prior 10-year average.  Underwriter defendants were named in 76
percent of cases with Section 11 claims.

Although the proportion of securities class action settlements
involving financial sector firms was lower in 2014 and 2015
compared to prior years, these cases continue to be some of the
largest when measured by "estimated damages."  In 2015, 55 percent
of financial sector cases had "estimated damages" greater than $1
billion.

The Second and Ninth Circuits continued to lead all circuits in
the number of settlements.

Dollar amounts are adjusted for inflation; 2015 dollar equivalent
figures are used.

                    About Cornerstone Research

Cornerstone Research -- http://www.cornerstone.com-- provides
economic and financial consulting and expert testimony in all
phases of complex litigation and regulatory proceedings.  The firm
works with an extensive network of prominent faculty and industry
practitioners to identify the best-qualified expert for each
assignment.  Cornerstone Research has earned a reputation for
consistent high quality and effectiveness by delivering rigorous,
state-of-the-art analysis for over 25 years.  The firm has 600
staff and offices in Boston, Chicago, London, Los Angeles, Menlo
Park, New York, San Francisco, and Washington.


                            *********

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  * * *