CAR_Public/160406.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, April 6, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 69


                            Headlines


ACCESS MIDSTREAM: "Kovach" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss
ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Actos Direct Purchasers Suit Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends AndroGel Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Asacol Litigation
ALLERGAN PLC: Botox(R) Litigation Remains Pending

ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan's Appeal in Doryx(R) Litigation Still Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
ALLERGAN PLC: Judgment in Loestrin(R) 24 Case Vacated
ALLERGAN PLC: Named in 1,239 Benicar(R) Cases

ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs Resolves 4 of 5 Celexa/Lexapro Cases
ALLERGAN PLC: 187 Celexa/Lexapro Birth Defect Cases Pending
ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST: CREEC Class Action Deal Okayed
BARD CANADA: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Claims for $2.4 Million
BLUE CROSS: DK LTD Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Enforces Settlement Deal in "Jarvis"
BONCHON U.S.A.: Faces Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws
BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: FDA Probes Safety of Vaginal Mesh Implants
BRIXMOR PROPERTY: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
BUSINESS LAW GROUP: "Kamra" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.

CAPITAL BANK: Faces "Garfield" Class Action in Florida
CAPITAN WIRELINE: "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Violated Sherman Act, "Powers" Suit Claims
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Okla. Lawsuit for Alleged Price Fixing
CHICAGO, IL: Red Light Camera Systems Constitutional, Judge Rules

CLASSIC DISTRIBUTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
COCO'S DELI INC: Faces "Ganzhi" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed TransCanada Merger
CONSTRUCTOMICS LLC: Faces Artisan Suit Over Breach of Contract
CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

CORE CONSTRUCTION: "Delaney" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
COSTA COFFEE: Accused of Under-Filling Latte Product in UK
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Florida Court Stays "Zia" Suit
DS HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. over Misleading Financial Reports
EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Motion for Leave to Appeal Still Pending

EXXON MOBIL: 3rd Amended Suit, Bid to Intervene Okayed in "Nolan"
FEDEX CORP: Faces "Abdallah" Suit for Alleged Violation of TCPA
FLINT, MI: Another Water Crisis Community Meeting Held
FUSION AUTOPLEX: "Allen" Suit Seeks Wage & Overtime Pay
GREENE COUNTY, AL: Hospital Employees File Class Action

GURLEY MOTOR: Court Won't Offset Class Damages Awarded in "Yazzie"
HALE & HEARTY SOUPS: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
HALLIBURTON: Duncan Residents Set to Receive Settlement Payouts
HARTFORD ACCIDENT: "O'Brien" Suit Stays in D. Montana
IDAHO: Ordered to Safeguard People with Disabilities

IGT: Class Action Over DoubleDown Social Casino Site Dismissed
IPS ENGINEERING: Glencoe Residents Win Fire Class Action
JAMES CRAIG BAIR: Faces "Moreno" Suit in Col. Dist. Ct.
KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Mattley" Suit Claims
LIBERTY SILVER: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Bobby Genovese

LOS ANGELES, CA: Ex-Undersheriff Testifies in Jail Abuse Suit
LUXURY SUITES: Court Rules on Sinanyan's Discovery Bid
MARATHON PETROLEUM: Stipulation to Dismiss Merger Suit Okayed
MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL: Settles Nurse Case Manager's OT Wage Suit
MASTEC INC: Court Scheduled March 2017 Trial in "Wrigley" Case

MAXIMUM IDENTITY: Faces New Diamond Suit in New York
MERRILL LYNCH: Aug. 29 Final Approval Hearing in "Davis" Suit
MI BELLA: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Miguel" Suit Claims
MIAMI BOOMERS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Damages, OT Pay under FLSA
MIAMI JEWELRY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Labin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Moutauakil" Suit E.D.N.Y.
MIDLAND FUNDING: "Walkabout" Suit Dismissed
MILLER ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Amid Bankruptcy
MOST WORSHIPFUL: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action

NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIF: "Burgoon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Stabler's Ex-Wife File Concussion Class Action
NATIONWIDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Charges
NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Pay $7.5MM to Settle Investor Claims
NESTLE INDIA: FSSAI Issues Contradicting Guidelines

NEW MEXICO: Immigrant Advocates Call for Release of Tax Refunds
NEW RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Remains Pending
NEW YORK: "Cisco" Suit v. Governor Cuomo Closed
OBESITY RESEARCH: Faces "Bozic" Suit Over Weight Loss Pill Ads
OKINAWA SUSHI: "Zhao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

OMEGA ENGINEERING: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination
OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, "Orden" Says
OVASCIENCE INC: Securities Case Remanded to Mass. Superior Court
P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Black" Suit in Illinois Under FLSA
P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

PIZZA POINT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation
QUESTAR CORPORATION: Violated Exchange Act, "Ipson" Suit Claims
RA ARIAS LANDSCAPING: "Fragoso" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
SA PATHOLOGY: Faulty Cancer Testing Kits May Spur Class Action
SAHARA EAST RESTAURANT: "Dacaj" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay

SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Dismisses "St. Jon" Suit
SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of "Hall" Action
SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Plaintiffs Appeal Remand Order

SENTINEL OFFENDER: Needs Court Order for Probationers' Drug Test
SHAMROCKFOODS COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
SIRIUS XM: Continues to Face TCPA Class Suits
SOLVAY SOLEXIS: Settles Class Action Over Contaminated Water
SOUTHERN HEALTH: Mother Mulls Class Action Over Care Failings

STERLING BACKCHECK: Faces "Halem" Suit in E.D. Virginia
SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in N.D. Georgia
TD AMERITRADE: Judge's F&R Adopted as to SLUSA Preclusion Issue
TAKATA CORP: Cunningham Brothers Sues Over Defective Air Bags
TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action Now in Discovery Stage

UFC: Counsel Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents
UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certified in "Ward" Suit Over Pilot Wages
UNITY RECOVERY: Violated FLSA & WARN Act, "Hartel" Suit Claims
UNUM LIFE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Class Claim in "Davis"
UPTOWN WEST: Faces "Taveras" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Morris" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Committee Formed for Dealer Settlement Talks
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lambert" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Ferry Ticket Expiration Dates
WELLS FARGO: Engaged in Improper Collection, "Miller" Suit Claims

WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Clark" Suit in S.D. Indiana
WORLD WIDE VACATIONS: Faces "Makaron" Suit in C.D. California

* Employers Face Risk of Background Check, Credit Report Suits
* Firefighting Foam Likely Cause of Delaware C8 Contamination


                            *********


ACCESS MIDSTREAM: "Kovach" Suit Survives Bids to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LINDA KOVACH, et al., PLAINTIFFS, v. ACCESS
MIDSTREAM PARTNERS, L.P., et al., DEFENDANTS, Case No. 5:15-cv-616
(N.D. Ohio), Judge Sara Lioi denied the motions to dismiss filed
by Access Midstream Partners, L.P., n/k/a William Partners, L.P.
and by Chesapeake Energy Corporation.

The plaintiffs, who are parties to one of two types of leases with
subsidiaries of Chesapeake Energy Corporation, filed a complaint
alleging that Chesapeake, in response to its dire financial
situation, devised a fraudulent scheme with Access Midstream
Partners, L.P. whereby Chesapeake would secure much needed cash by
improperly withholding royalties owed to the plaintiffs.

The first amended complaint raised five causes of action.  The
first cause of action purported to set out a civil violation under
section 1962(c) of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations
Act (RICO) by which the plaintiffs alleged that an enterprise,
comprised of defendants and their respective officers and
directors, was formed for the purpose of facilitating a scheme to
defraud the plaintiffs and other mineral rights owners through
unwarranted deductions from the royalties owed to the plaintiffs.
The second cause of action alleged a conspiracy to violate RICO,
under section 1962(d).  The complaint also asserted numerous state
law claims for unjust enrichment, wrongful conversion of the
plaintiffs' property for the defendants' own use, and for civil
conspiracy under Ohio common law.

The defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing that the allegations in the
first amended complaint fail to state a cause of action under
federal or state law, and that the fraud allegations are not pled
with sufficient particularity to satisfy the heightened pleading
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b).

Judge Lioi found that the first amended complaint adequately
pleads federal claims for RICO conspiracy and substantive RICO
violations and thus, the judge was satisfied that the court has
subject matter jurisdiction over the action.  As to the state law
claims, Judge Lioi did not believe that it would be fruitful to
parse through the requirements of each state law claim at this
time, because many of these claims also relied on the same
allegations that formed the basis for the RICO claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Lioi's March 23, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at http://is.gd/Jbv6Cefrom Leagle.com.

Linda Kovach, Gary L. Teeter, Denise Teeter, Sarah A. Heilman,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Smolen --
danielsmolen@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, David A. Warta
-- davidwarta@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman, Dennis A.
Caruso,Donald E. Smolen, II -- donaldsmolen@ssrok.com -- Smolen
Smolen & Roytman, Jennifer L. Thomas, Robert M. Blakemore --
bobblakemore@ssrok.com -- Smolen Smolen & Roytman & William J.
Price, Elk & Elk.

Access Midstream Partners, L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael
J. Gibbens -- michael.gibbens@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy,
Roy A. Powell -- rapowell@jonesday.com -- Jones Day, Christopher
B. Woods -- christopher.woods@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe & Dunlevy,
Mack J. Morgan, III -- mack.morgan@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe &
Dunlevy, Michael R. Gladman -- mrgladman@jonesday.com -- Jones
Day, Susan E. Huntsman -- susan.huntsman@crowedunlevy.com -- Crowe
& Dunlevy & Victor E. Morgan -- victor.morgan@crowedunlevy.com --
Crowe & Dunlevy.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Defendant, represented by Seamus C.
Duffy -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath, Jessica
Knopp Cunning -- jkcunning@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater, Seymour &
Pease, Peter A. Lusenhop -- kmpeters@vorys.com -- Vorys, Sater,
Seymour & Pease, Timothy B. McGranor -- tbmcgranor@vorys.com --
Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease & William M. Connolly --
william.connolly@dbr.com -- Drinker Biddle & Reath.


ALLERGAN PLC: Bid to Dismiss Actos Direct Purchasers Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Defendants have moved to dismiss the direct purchasers'
complaint in the Actos(R) antitrust litigation.

On December 31, 2013 two putative class actions, on behalf of
putative classes of indirect purchaser plaintiffs, were filed in
the federal court for the Southern District of New York against
Actavis plc and certain of its affiliates alleging that Watson
Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s ("Watson" now known as Actavis, Inc.) 2010
patent lawsuit settlement with Takeda Pharmaceutical, Co. Ltd.
related to Actos(R) (pioglitazone hydrochloride and metformin
"Actos(R)") is unlawful. Several additional complaints have also
been filed. Plaintiffs then filed a consolidated, amended
complaint on May 20, 2014. The amended complaint generally alleges
an overall scheme that included Watson improperly delaying the
launch of its generic version of Actos(R) in exchange for
substantial payments from Takeda in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and unspecified damages.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the amended complaint.

On September 23, 2015, the court granted the motion to dismiss the
indirect purchasers' complaint in its entirety.  In May 2015, two
additional putative class action complaints, each of which makes
similar allegations against the Company and Takeda, were filed by
plaintiffs on behalf of a putative class of direct purchasers.
Defendants have moved to dismiss the direct purchasers' complaint.

The Company believes that it has substantial meritorious defenses
to the claims alleged. However, these actions, if successful,
could adversely affect the Company and could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's business, results of operations,
financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Still Defends AndroGel Litigation
-----------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend against the AndroGel(R)
litigation in Georgia.

On January 29, 2009, the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and the
State of California filed a lawsuit in federal district court in
California alleging that the September 2006 patent lawsuit
settlement between Watson and Solvay Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
("Solvay"), related to AndroGel(R) 1% (testosterone gel) CIII is
unlawful. The complaint generally alleged that Watson improperly
delayed its launch of a generic version of AndroGel(R) in exchange
for Solvay's agreement to permit Watson to co-promote AndroGel(R)
for consideration in excess of the fair value of the services
provided by Watson, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaint sought equitable
relief and civil penalties.

On February 2 and 3, 2009, three separate lawsuits alleging
similar claims were filed in federal district court in California
by various private plaintiffs purporting to represent certain
classes of similarly situated claimants. On April 8, 2009, the
Court transferred the government and private cases to the United
States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The
FTC and the private plaintiffs filed amended complaints on May 28,
2009. The private plaintiffs amended their complaints to include
allegations concerning conduct before the U.S. Patent and
Trademark Office (the "USPTO"), conduct in connection with the
listing of Solvay's patent in the FDA "Orange Book," and sham
litigation. Additional actions alleging similar claims have been
filed in various courts by other private plaintiffs purporting to
represent certain classes of similarly situated direct or indirect
purchasers of AndroGel(R).

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML")
transferred all federal court actions then pending outside of
Georgia to that district. The district court then granted the
Company's motion to dismiss all claims except the private
plaintiffs' sham litigation claims. After the dismissal was upheld
by the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, the FTC petitioned the
United States Supreme Court to hear the case.

On June 17, 2013, the Supreme Court issued a decision, holding
that the settlements between brand and generic drug companies
which include a payment from the brand company to the generic
competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason" standard of
review and ordered the case remanded (the "Supreme Court AndroGel
Decision"). The case is now back in the district court in Georgia.

On August 5, 2014 the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed an
amended complaint which the Company answered on September 15,
2014.

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

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Warner Chilcott Still Defends Asacol Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Warner Chilcott continues to defend against the Asacol(R)
Litigation.

On June 22, 2015, two class action complaints were filed in
federal court in Massachusetts on behalf of a putative class of
indirect purchasers.  In each complaint plaintiffs allege that
they paid higher prices for Warner Chilcott's Asacol(R) HD and
Delzicol(R) products as a result of Warner Chilcott's alleged
actions preventing or delaying generic competition in the market
for Warner Chilcott's older Asacol(R) product in violation of U.S.
federal antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek
unspecified injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys'
fees. All of the actions were consolidated in the federal district
court.

On September 21, 2015, three additional complaints were filed on
behalf of putative classes of indirect purchasers, each raising
similar allegations to the complaints filed in June 2015.

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

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Botox(R) Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend the Botox(R) Litigation.

On February 24, 2015, a class action complaint was filed in
federal court in California. The complaint alleges unlawful market
allocation in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1, agreement in restraint of trade in violation of 15 U.S.C.
Sec.1 of the Sherman Act, unlawful maintenance of monopoly market
power in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C.
Sec.2 of the Sherman Act, violations of California's Cartwright
Act, Section 16700 et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code., and
violations of California's unfair competition law, Section 17200
et seq. of Calif. Bus. and Prof. Code. Plaintiffs filed an amended
complaint on May 29, 2015.

On June 29, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
complaint.  On October 20, 2015, the Court denied the Company's
motion to dismiss the complaint.

On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for partial
judgment on the pleadings or, in the alternative, for partial
summary judgment or adjudication.  The Company filed a response to
the motion for judgment on the pleadings on February 11, 2016.

The court has not yet scheduled oral argument on plaintiff's
motion.  The Company believes it has substantial meritorious
defenses and intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these
actions, if successful, could adversely affect the Company and
could have a material adverse effect on the Company's business,
results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Cipro(R) Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend the Cipro(R) Litigation.

Beginning in July 2000, a number of suits were filed against
Watson and certain Company affiliates including The Rugby Group,
Inc. ("Rugby") in various state and federal courts alleging claims
under various federal and state competition and consumer
protection laws. The actions generally allege that the defendants
engaged in unlawful, anticompetitive conduct in connection with
alleged agreements, entered into prior to Watson's acquisition of
Rugby from Sanofi Aventis ("Sanofi"), related to the development,
manufacture and sale of the drug substance ciprofloxacin
hydrochloride, the generic version of Bayer's brand drug,
Cipro(R). The actions generally seek declaratory judgment,
damages, injunctive relief, restitution and other relief on behalf
of certain purported classes of individuals and other entities.

While many of these actions have been dismissed, actions remain
pending in various state courts, including California, Kansas,
Tennessee, and Florida. There has been activity in Tennessee and
Florida since 2003.

In the action pending in Kansas, plaintiffs' motion for class
certification has been fully briefed. In the action pending in the
California state court, following the decision from the United
States Supreme Court in the  Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis
matter involving AndroGel(R), Plaintiffs and Bayer announced that
they reached an agreement to settle the claims pending against
Bayer and Bayer has now been dismissed from the action. Plaintiffs
are continuing to pursue claims against the generic defendants,
including Watson and Rugby. The remaining parties submitted letter
briefs to the court regarding the impact of the Supreme Court
AndroGel Decision and on May 7, 2015, the California Supreme Court
issued a ruling, consistent with the Supreme Court AndroGel
Decision, that the settlements between brand and generic drug
companies which include a payment from the brand company to the
generic competitor must be evaluated under a "rule of reason"
standard of review.

In addition to the pending actions, the Company understands that
various state and federal agencies are investigating the
allegations made in these actions. Sanofi has agreed to defend and
indemnify Watson and its affiliates in connection with the claims
and investigations arising from the conduct and agreements
allegedly undertaken by Rugby and its affiliates prior to Watson's
acquisition of Rugby, and is currently controlling the defense of
these actions.

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


ALLERGAN PLC: Mylan's Appeal in Doryx(R) Litigation Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Mylan's appeal in the Doryx(R) Litigation remains pending.

In July 2012, Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. ("Mylan") filed a
complaint against Warner Chilcott and Mayne Pharma International
Pty. Ltd. ("Mayne") in federal court in Pennsylvania alleging that
Warner Chilcott and Mayne prevented or delayed Mylan's generic
competition to Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products in violation of
U.S. federal antitrust laws and tortiously interfered with Mylan's
prospective economic relationships under Pennsylvania state law.

In the complaint, Mylan seeks unspecified treble and punitive
damages and attorneys' fees. Following the filing of Mylan's
complaint, three putative class actions were filed against Warner
Chilcott and Mayne by purported direct purchasers, and one
putative class action was filed against by purported indirect
purchasers. In addition, four retailers filed in the same court a
civil antitrust complaint in their individual capacities against
Warner Chilcott and Mayne regarding Doryx(R). In each of the class
and individual cases the plaintiffs allege that they paid higher
prices for Warner Chilcott's Doryx(R) products as a result of
Warner Chilcott's and Mayne's alleged actions preventing or
delaying generic competition in violation of U.S. federal
antitrust laws and/or state laws. Plaintiffs seek unspecified
injunctive relief, treble damages and/or attorneys' fees. All of
the actions were consolidated in the federal district court.

Warner Chilcott and Mayne's motion to dismiss was denied without
prejudice by the court in June 2013. Thereafter, Warner Chilcott
and Mayne reached agreements to settle the claims of the Direct
Purchaser Plaintiff class representatives, the Indirect Purchaser
Plaintiff class representatives and each of the individual
retailer plaintiffs. Warner Chilcott and Mylan filed motions for
summary judgment on March 10, 2014.

On April 16, 2015, the court issued an order granting Warner
Chilcott and Mayne's motion for summary judgment, denying Mylan's
summary judgment motion and entering judgment in favor of Warner
Chilcott and Mayne on all counts. Mylan is appealing the district
court's decision to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the
appeal is fully briefed.  The date for oral argument on the appeal
has not yet been set.

The Company intends to vigorously defend its rights in the
litigations. However, it is impossible to predict with certainty
the outcome of any litigation and whether any additional similar
suits will be filed.


ALLERGAN PLC: Lidoderm(R) Antitrust Suit Remains Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company continues to defend antitrust lawsuits related to
Lidoderm(R).

On November 8, 2013, a putative class action was filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain of its
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2012 patent lawsuit settlement
with Endo Pharmaceuticals, Inc. related to Lidoderm(R) (lidocaine
transdermal patches, "Lidoderm(R)") is unlawful.

The complaint, asserted on behalf of putative classes of direct
purchaser plaintiffs, generally alleges that Watson improperly
delayed launching generic versions of Lidoderm(R) in exchange for
substantial payments from Endo in violation of federal and state
antitrust and consumer protection laws. The complaint seeks
declaratory and injunctive relief and damages. Additional lawsuits
containing similar allegations have followed on behalf of other
classes of putative direct purchasers and suits have been filed on
behalf of putative classes of end-payer plaintiffs. The Company
anticipates additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or
similar allegations may be filed.

On April 3, 2014 the JPML consolidated the cases in federal
district court in California. Defendants filed motions to dismiss
each of the plaintiff classes' claims. On November 17, 2014, the
court issued an order granting the motion in part but denying it
with respect to the claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.
Plaintiffs then filed an amended, consolidated complaint on
December 19, 2014. Defendants have responded to the amended
consolidated complaint.

On March 5, 2015, a group of five retailers filed a civil
antitrust complaint in their individual capacities regarding
Lidoderm(R) in the same court where it was consolidated with the
direct and indirect purchaser class complaints. The retailer
complaint recites similar facts and asserts similar legal claims
for relief to those asserted in the related cases.  The five
retailers amended their complaint on July 27, 2015.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously. However, these actions, if
successful, could adversely affect the Company and could have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Judgment in Loestrin(R) 24 Case Vacated
-----------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that an appeals court has vacated judgment in the Loestrin(R) 24
Litigation.

On April 5, 2013, two putative class actions were filed in the
federal district court against Actavis, Inc. and certain
affiliates alleging that Watson's 2009 patent lawsuit settlement
with Warner Chilcott related to Loestrin(R) 24 Fe (norethindrone
acetate/ethinyl estradiol tablets and ferrous fumarate tablets,
"Loestrin(R) 24") is unlawful. The complaints, both asserted on
behalf of putative classes of end-payors, generally allege that
Watson and another generic manufacturer improperly delayed
launching generic versions of Loestrin(R) 24 in exchange for
substantial payments from Warner Chilcott, which at the time was
an unrelated company, in violation of federal and state antitrust
and consumer protection laws. The complaints each seek declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages. Additional complaints have been
filed by different plaintiffs seeking to represent the same
putative class of end-payors.

In addition to the end-payor suits, two lawsuits have been filed
on behalf of a class of direct payors. The Company anticipates
additional claims or lawsuits based on the same or similar
allegations.

After a hearing on September 26, 2013, the JPML issued an order
transferring all related Loestrin(R)24 cases to the federal court
for the District of Rhode Island. On September 4, 2014, the court
granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint.

The plaintiffs appealed the district court's decision to the First
Circuit Court of Appeals and oral argument was held on December 7,
2015.  On February 22, 2016 the First Circuit issued its decision
vacating the decision of, and remanding the matter to, the
district court.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses and
intends to defend itself vigorously including in the appeal of the
district court's decision granting the Company's motion to
dismiss. However, these actions, if successful, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ALLERGAN PLC: Named in 1,239 Benicar(R) Cases
---------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that the Company is named in approximately 1,239 actions involving
allegations that Benicar(R), a treatment for hypertension that
Forest co-promoted with Daiichi Sankyo between 2002 and 2008,
caused certain gastrointestinal injuries.

"Under Forest's Co-Promotion Agreement, Daiichi Sankyo is
defending us in these lawsuits," the Company said.


ALLERGAN PLC: Forest Labs Resolves 4 of 5 Celexa/Lexapro Cases
--------------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that Forest Laboratories and its affiliates are defendants in
approximately five actions pending in various federal district
courts involving allegations that Celexa(R)or Lexapro(R) caused or
contributed to individuals committing or attempting suicide, or
caused a violent event. The Company has reached agreements in
principle to resolve four of the five matters.  The remaining case
is stayed.


ALLERGAN PLC: 187 Celexa/Lexapro Birth Defect Cases Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Allergan plc and Warner Chilcott Limited said in their Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
February 26, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015,
that approximately 187 actions are pending against Forest
Laboratories and its affiliates involving allegations that
Celexa(R) or Lexapro(R) caused various birth defects. Several of
the cases involve multiple minor-plaintiffs. The majority of these
actions have been consolidated in state court in Missouri where
one case is set for trial in September 2016. Five actions remain
in New Jersey state court, none of which are set for trial.  There
are birth defect cases pending in other jurisdictions but none
currently are set for trial.

The Company believes it has substantial meritorious defenses to
the Celexa(R)/Lexapro(R) cases and maintains product liability
insurance against such cases. However, litigation is inherently
uncertain and the Company cannot predict the outcome of this
litigation. These actions, if successful, or if insurance does not
provide sufficient coverage against such claims, could adversely
affect the Company and could have a material adverse effect on the
Company's business, results of operations, financial condition and
cash flows.


ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST: CREEC Class Action Deal Okayed
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT
CENTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASHFORD HOSPITALITY TRUST, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00216-DMR (N.D. Cal.), Judge Donna M.
Ryu granted final approval of the proposed class settlement and
awarded attorneys' fees and costs to class counsel.

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center (CREEC), Ann Cupolo-
Freeman, and Julie Reiskin sought declaratory and injunctive
relief against Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc. for alleged
violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and
California's Unruh Civil Rights Act regarding the provision of
wheelchair-accessible transportation by hotels.

Following continued negotiations, the parties agreed to settle the
matter and executed a settlement agreement on October 23, 2015.
The court granted preliminary approval for the settlement
agreement on December 18, 2015.  The plaintiffs thereafter moved
for final approval of the settlement, which provides for a
comprehensive scheme for injunctive relief, requiring all Ashford-
owned and/or operated hotels to come into compliance with ADA
regulations that require hotels that offer transportation services
to provide equivalent transportation services to people who use
wheelchairs or scooters.

Judge Ryu found that the proposed class meets the requirements of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b)(2).  The judge
also found that viewed as a whole, the proposed settlement is
sufficiently "fair, reasonable and adequate."

Judge Ryu also awarded class counsel $157,597.12 in attorneys'
fees and $7,402.88 in expenses.

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

Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Plaintiff,
represented by Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement
Center, Hillary Jo Benham-Baker -- hillary@cbbllp.com -- Campins
Benham, Julia Campins -- julia@cbbllp.com -- Campins Benham, Julie
Wilensky, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement Center, Kevin W.
Williams -- kwilliams@ccdconline.org -- Colorado Cross-Disability
Coalition Legal Program & Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education &
Enforcement Center.

Ann Cupolo, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Campins, Campins
Benham-Baker, LLP, Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education &
Enforcement Center, Julie Wilensky, Civil Rights Education &
Enforcement Center, Kevin W. Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability
Coalition Legal Program & Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education &
Enforcement Center.

Julie Reiskin, Plaintiff, represented by Julia Campins, Campins
Benham, Julie Wilensky, Civil Rights Education & Enforcement
Center, Kevin W. Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition
Legal Program & Timothy P. Fox, Civil Rights Education &
Enforcement Center.

Ashford Hospitality Trust, Inc., Defendant, represented by Nolan
S. Armstrong, McNamara Law Firm.

RLJ Lodging Trust, Miscellaneous, represented by Steffanie Ann
Malla -- steffanie.malla@lewisbrisbois.com -- Lewis Brisbois
Bisgaard and Smith LLP.

Hospitality Properties Trust, Miscellaneous, represented by David
Howard Raizman -- david.raizman@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree,
Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C..


BARD CANADA: Settles Transvaginal Mesh Claims for $2.4 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
CTVNews.ca reports that several Canadian women who say they
suffered complications from transvaginal mesh used to treat
incontinence and organ prolapse have reached a settlement with one
of the mesh manufacturers.

Bard Canada, the makers of Avaulta, Align, and Adjust brands of
transvaginal mesh, has agreed to pay some $2.4 million to settle
claims against three products: Avaulta, Align, and Adjust.
Bard has agreed to the settlement "without admission of liability
or wrongdoing," the agreement notice reads.

While there have been individual pelvic mesh lawsuit settlements,
if approved, this would be the first class action settlement in
Canada.

An approval hearing is scheduled for May 2 in which the court will
determine whether the settlement agreement is fair, reasonable and
in the best interests of all the women listed as class members.

Transvaginal mesh has become a popular treatment to use as support
when pelvic organs such as the bladder descend in the abdomen.
Many doctors prefer the surgical mesh because it lifts internal
organs without full surgery, since the mesh can be implanted
through the vagina.

While the mesh has been successful for some women, thousands of
others in the U.S., Canada and parts of Europe have reported
complications. They include infection from mesh parts breaking off
inside the patient, leading to excruciating pain, painful sex, and
other internal damage.

Dozens of lawsuits are underway in the U.S. and Canada.  This is
the first class action to be settled in Canada.

"This is a significant settlement to be able to bring compensation
to women," said Matthew Baer -- baer@mckenzielake.com -- of
McKenzie Lake Lawyers in an email to CTV News.

"Bard should be commended for working out something fair and
reasonable in those circumstances."

Donna O'Brien of Cambridge, Ont. received Bard Align transvaginal
mesh in December, 2010, to treat incontinence.  In a matter of
weeks, she says started suffering pain and infections.

"I was going to the hospital every week" Ms. O'Brien told CTV
News.

She says the mesh had started to erode and migrate through her
vagina.  Doctors attempted to remove the mesh but were
unsuccessful.  The continuing infections she says caused fluid to
build around her heart, triggering a heart attack in 2011.

Ms. O'Brien says she welcomes the settlement and hopes to use the
money to find a doctor who will try again to remove the remaining
mesh.

"Hopefully, it will help me to find someone to get fixed -- even
outside of Canada," she said.

Some 18 mesh lawsuits have been settled in the U.S., some with
multi-million dollar awards.

"Hopefully, (the Bard settlement) will serve as a catalyst towards
all women who have suffered similarly receiving compensation,
regardless of manufacturer," said Mr. Baer.

The settlement provides for $400,000 to the women who used
Avaulta; $1.5 million to those who used Ajust and Allign, a
special circumstances fund of $300,000, and $225,000 for notice
and claims administration.


BLUE CROSS: DK LTD Antitrust Suit Transferred to N.D. Ala.
----------------------------------------------------------
DK LTD, et al., Plaintiffs v. Blue Cross Blue Shields of Alabama,
et al., Defendants, Case No. CIV-16-182-M (W.D. Okla., February
25, 2016), alleges that Defendants artificially inflates the
premiums charged to consumers.

On March 29, 2016, the case was transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama and assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-00507-RDP.  The case was assigned to Judge R. David
Proctor.

Blue Cross provides health insurance coverage in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   R. Christopher Cowan, Esq.
   THE COWAN LAW FIRM
   One Meadows Building
   5005 Greenville Avenue, Suite 200
   Dallas, TX 75206
   Tel: 214-826-1900
   Fax: 214-826-8900
   Email: chris@cowanlaw.net

          - and -

   Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq.
   ATTORNEY & COUNSELOR AT LAW
   Centennial Plaza
   2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Suite 100
   Edmond, OK 73013
   Tel: 405-330-9860
   Fax: 888-493-6648
   Email: bb@bbarneslaw.com

          - and -

   Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
   PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.
   Post Office Drawer 71
   Plaquemine, LA 70765
   Tel: 225-687-6396
   Fax: 225-687-6398
   Email: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

          - and -

   Ami Swank, Esq.
   Ami Swank Law Firm
   811 Timberdell Road
   Norman, OK 73072
   Tel: (405) 361-2797
   Fax: (405) 236-5303
   E-mail: ami@swank.net


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Court Enforces Settlement Deal in "Jarvis"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John E. Steele granted the defendant's motion to enforce a
settlement agreement in the case captioned KAREN JARVIS, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated and MICHAEL
JARVIS, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
2:14-cv-654-FtM-29CM (M.D. Fla.).

Following the purchase of a BMW 2014 MINI Cooper, Karen and
Michael Jarvis filed a class action complaint against BMW of North
America, LLC (BMW NA), alleging various claims related to the
purchase of the vehicle.

Over the course of September and October 2015, the parties
discussed terms regarding an individual settlement.  BMW NA
transmitted to the plaintiff's counsel a draft Confidential
Settlement Agreement.  After several email exchanges with
revisions to the draft, the plaintiff's counsel acknowledged that
a complete agreement as to all essential terms had been reached
and transmitted a copy of the final Confidential Settlement
Agreement to BMW NA for execution.  On November 12, 2015, BMW NA
executed the agreement and returned it to the plaintiffs.  The
plaintiffs' counsel, however, advised BMW NA that the plaintiffs
refused to sign the agreement.  As such, BMW NA moved the court to
enforce the Confidential Settlement Agreement.

Judge Steele found that the exchange of emails and the acceptance
expressed therein by the plaintiffs created a binding and
enforceable settlement agreement.  The judge explained that while
the plaintiffs did not physically sign the settlement agreement,
there is no legal requirement that the agreement be memorialized
in a formal document in order for it to be enforceable.

Judge Steele thus granted BMW NA's motion to enforce the
settlement agreement.  Pursuant to the agreement, the case was
dismissed with prejudice.

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

BMW of North America, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark C.
Anderson -- mark.anderson@bipc.com -- Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney,
PC & Christopher J. Dalton -- christopher.dalton@bipc.com --
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney.


BONCHON U.S.A.: Faces Lawsuit Under FLSA, New York Labor Laws
-------------------------------------------------------------
MOISES ISAIAS COXOLCA SUY, LUIS MIGUEL LARES CUTZAL, and JULIO
LUCAS v. BONCHON U.S.A., INC.(d/b/a BONCHON CHICKEN), JINDUK SEH,
and HONG TAE KIM, Case 1:16-cv-02454 (S.D.N.Y., April 2, 2016),
seeks unpaid minimum and overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the N.Y. Labor Law and the "spread of hours" and
overtime wage orders of the New York Commissioner of Labor.

Defendants own, operate, or control a Korean/Asian restaurant.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


BOSTON SCIENTIFIC: FDA Probes Safety of Vaginal Mesh Implants
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Weisman, writing for Boston Globe, reports that federal
regulators said on April 1 that they are examining allegations
Boston Scientific Corp. used counterfeit raw material in vaginal
mesh implants that treat urinary incontinence and other pelvic
organ problems in women.

The Food and Drug Administration disclosed the probe as it issued
a safety alert about the products.  The agency didn't recommend
women remove the implants.

"Available data do not suggest any decreased benefit associated
with the device," the FDA said. However, the alert said, "the FDA
believes that health care professionals and their patients should
be aware of this investigation."

FDA officials also said Boston Scientific will conduct new tests
on the safety and effectiveness of the product -- technically
called urogynecologic surgical mesh 00 over the next few months,
and the agency will review the results.

In a statement, Marlborough-based Boston Scientific said it "does
not use 'counterfeit' or 'adulterated' materials" in its medical
devices.

"We have the highest confidence in the safety of our mesh
devices," the statement said.  "We have shared our test data with
the FDA, and are fully cooperating with the agency's requests for
information as part of our ongoing discussions."

Boston Scientific and other companies that market vaginal mesh
implants have been the targets of thousands of lawsuits over the
past decades by women who have used the products to fix a common
gynecologic condition called pelvic organ prolapse.  Many have
reported painful sexual intercourse, infections, urinary problems,
overall discomfort, and bleeding.

In its safety alert, the FDA said it "is not currently aware that
the alleged counterfeit raw material contributes to adverse events
associated with these products."

Mostyn Law, a Houston law firm, in January filed a suit in US
court in West Virginia accusing Boston Scientific of selling
defective vaginal mesh implants made from materials smuggled from
China, and putting the health of thousands of women at risk.  The
suit, which seeks class-action status, asks for unspecified
damages for as many as 55,000 women a year who received the mesh
product since 2012.

Boston Scientific denied the charges and said it would vigorously
fight the suit. The company, which already faces about 30,000
lawsuits for its vaginal mesh products, paid $119 million last
year to settle about 3,000 of these cases.

Mostyn Law petitioned the FDA seeking a recall of Boston
Scientific's mesh products. But an FDA spokeswoman said that the
agency had not received the petition and declined to comment on
it.

Amber Mostyn, an attorney at Mostyn Law, faulted the FDA for not
recalling the product, saying "it is absurd to rely on testing by
the company."


BRIXMOR PROPERTY: May 31 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC ("KSF") and KSF partner, the former
Attorney General of Louisiana, Charles C. Foti, Jr., remind
investors that they have until May 31, 2016 to file lead plaintiff
applications in a securities class action lawsuit against Brixmor
Property Group Inc., if they purchased the Company's securities
between October 27, 2014 and February 5, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").  This action is pending in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of New York.

What You May Do

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

If you wish to serve as a lead plaintiff in this class action, you
must petition the Court by May 31, 2016.

About the Lawsuit

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

On February 8, 2016, Brixmor announced that its Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Accounting Officer, and an
unnamed accounting employee had resigned after an internal
accounting review by the Company's Audit Committee showed
discrepancies in the Company's financial statements.  The Company
stated that "specific company accounting and financial reporting
personnel, in certain instances, were smoothing income items, both
up and down, between reporting periods in an effort to achieve
consistent" net operating income results.

On this news, the price of Brixmor's shares plummeted by over 20%
and it was downgraded by multiple analysts.

                About Kahn Swick & Foti, LLC

KSF -- http://www.ksfcounsel.com-- is a law firm focused on
securities, antitrust and consumer class actions, along with
merger & acquisition and breach of fiduciary litigation against
publicly traded companies on behalf of shareholders.  The firm has
offices in New York, California and Louisiana.


BUSINESS LAW GROUP: "Kamra" Suit Moved to M.D. Fla.
---------------------------------------------------
Kevin K. Kamra, individually and on behalf of those similarly
situated v. Business Law Group, P.A., and LM Funding, LLC, Case
No. 16-CA-001801, was removed from the Hillsborough County Court,
to the US District Court for the Middle District Court of Florida,
Tampa. The Middle District assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00786-CEH-TBM
to the proceeding.

Business Law Group is a law firm comprising of attorneys with
experience in complex litigation, construction defect litigation,
insurance claim litigation, and real estate litigation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brad F. Barrios, Esq.
          Kenneth George Turkel, Esq.
          BAJO CUVA COHEN TURKEL, PA
          100 N Tampa St, Suite 1900
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 443 2199
          Facsimile: (813) 443 2193
          E-mail: brad.barrios@bajocuva.com
                  kturkel@bajocuva.com

               - and -

          James Dan Clark, Esq.
          Matthew A. Crist, Esq.
          CLARK & MARTINO, PA
          3407 W Kennedy Blvd
          Tampa, FL 33609-2905
          Telephone: (813) 879 0700
          Facsimile: (813) 879 5498
          E-mail: dclark@clarkmartino.com
                  mcrist@clarkmartino.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Charles M. Harris, Jr., Esq.
          John D. Goldsmith, Jr., Esq.
          William Albert McBride, Esq.
          TRENAM KEMKER
          200 Central Avenue, Suite 1600
          St Petersburg, FL 33701
          Telephone: (727) 896 7171
          E-mail: cmharris@trenam.com
                  jgoldsmith@trenam.com
                  wam@trenam.com


CAPITAL BANK: Faces "Garfield" Class Action in Florida
------------------------------------------------------
Capital Bank Financial Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a case captioned
Robert Garfield v. Capital Bank Financial Corp., et al., Index No.
2016-001194-CA-01 (Fla. Cir. Ct.), was filed on January 16, 2016,
on behalf of a putative class of Capital Bank Financial
shareholders against Capital Bank Financial, its directors, and
CommunityOne in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit
in Miami-Dade County, Florida in connection with the merger. The
complaint alleges, among other things, that the Capital Bank
Financial director defendants breached their fiduciary duties by
approving the merger, that CommunityOne aided and abetted such
breaches, and that Capital Bank Financial, its directors and
CommunityOne failed to disclose material information in connection
with the merger. The complaint seeks, among other things, an order
enjoining the merger, as well as other equitable relief and/or
money damages, interest, costs, fees (including attorneys' fees)
and expenses.

"We believe that the claims are without merit," the Company said.

Capital Bank is a bank holding company incorporated in late 2009
with the goal of creating a regional banking franchise in the
southeastern region of the United States through organic growth
and acquisitions of other banks, including failed, underperforming
and undercapitalized banks.


CAPITAN WIRELINE: "Corona" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Corona, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Capitan Wireline, LLC, Cutters Wireline and
Billy Perkins, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-00077 (W.D. Tex.,
March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Capitan Wireline, LLC and Cutters Wireline are engaged in cased-
hole electric wireline services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   James M. Loren, Esq.
   George Z. Goldberg, Esq.
   Rachael Rustmann, Esq.
   GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
   3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450
   Dallas, TX 75201
   Tel: 800-719-1617
   Fax: (954) 585-4886
   Email: jloren@lorenlaw.com
          rrustmann@golbergloren.com
          ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Violated Sherman Act, "Powers" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ida Powers and Larry Powers, the Plaintiffs, v. Chesapeake Energy
Corp., Chesapeake Exploration, L.L.C., as successor by merger to
Chesapeake Exploration, L.P., Sandridge Energy, Inc., Sandridge
Exploration and Production L.L.C., Tom L. Ward, and John Does 1-
50, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00301-M (W.D. Okla, March 31,
2016), seeks to recover damages resulting from Defendant's alleged
conspiracy to rig bids and depress the price of royalty and bonus
payments exchanged for purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold
interests and interests in properties containing producing oil and
natural gas wells by Chesapeake Energy Corp., under the Sherman
Antitrust Act.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation is a petroleum and natural gas
exploration and production company headquartered in Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Dennis A. Caruso, Esq.
          CARUSO LAW FIRM, P.C.
          The Colonial Building
          1325 East 15th Street, Suite 201
          Tulsa, OK 74120
          Telephone: (918) 583 5900
          E-mail: dcaruso@carusolawfirm.com

               - and -

          Christopher J. Cormier, Esq.
          Richard A. Koffman, Esq.
          Emmy L. Levens, Esq.
          Robert W. Cobbs, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC
          2443 S. University Blvd., No. 232
          Denver, CO 80210-5407
          Telephone: (720) 583 0650
          E-mail: ccormier@cohenmilstein.com
                  rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com
                  elevens@cohenmilstein.com
                  rcobbs@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
          Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          E-mail: ecramer@bm.net
                  mdellangelo@bm.net

               - and -

          Donald L. Perelman, Esq.
          Roberta D. Liebenberg, Esq.
          Gerard A. Dever, Esq.
          FINE, KAPLAN & BLACK, R.P.C.
          One South Broad Street, Suite 2300
          Philadelphia, PA 19107
          Telephone: (215) 567 6565
          E-mail: dperelman@finekaplan.com
                  rliebenberg@finekaplan.com
                  gdever@finekaplan.com


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Okla. Lawsuit for Alleged Price Fixing
---------------------------------------------------------------
CURTIS L. CRANDALL and JANET K. CRANDALL v. CHESAPEAKE ENERGY
CORPORATION, CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.L.C., as successor by
merger to CHESAPEAKE EXPLORATION, L.P., SANDRIDGE ENERGY, INC.,
AND TOM L. WARD, Case 5:16-cv-00306-HE (W.D. Okla., April 1,
2016), seeks to recover treble damages for an alleged conspiracy
of Defendants to rig bids, fix prices and depress the market for
purchases of oil and natural gas leasehold and working interests
in violation of the Sherman Act.

Chesapeake Energy Corp. and its subsidiaries are the second-
largest producer of natural gas and the eleventh largest producer
of oil and natural gas liquids (NGL) in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Terry W. West, Esq.
     Bradley C. West, Esq.
     THE WEST LAW FIRM
     124 West Highland Street
     Shawnee, OK 74801
     Phone: (405) 275-0040
     Fax: (405) 275-0052
     E-mail: brad@thewestlawfirm.com
             terry@thewestlawfirm.com

        - and -

     R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
     Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
     MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
     12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
     P.O. Box 505
     Charleston, SC 29451
     Phone: (205) 238-6757
     Fax: (904) 239-5388
     Fax: (662) 368-1506
     E-mail:bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
            srnccluer@mccul1eymcc1uer.com

        - and -

     A. Hoyt Rowell, III, Esq.
     James L. Ward, Jr., Esq.
     RICHARDSON, PATRICK, WESTBROOK & BRICKMAN LLC
     P.O. Box 1007
     Mt. Pleasant, SC 29465
     Phone: (843) 727-6500
     Fax: (843) 216-6509
     E-mail: hrowell@rpwb.com
             jward@rpwb.com

        - and -

     Christopher J. Stucky, Esq.
     Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
     STUCKY & FIELDS LL
     214W.18th St., Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64108
     Phone: (816) 659-9970
     Fax: (816) 659-9969
     E-mail:chris@2stuckyfields.com


CHICAGO, IL: Red Light Camera Systems Constitutional, Judge Rules
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that the
city of Chicago will be allowed to continue to hand out tickets to
motorists caught on camera running red lights after a Cook County
judge garaged another legal challenge arguing both the city's
ordinance and a state law enabling cities, villages and counties
within the Chicago and St. Louis metropolitan areas to set up red
light camera systems were valid and constitutional.

On April 1, Cook County Circuit Judge Rita M. Novak ruled in favor
of Chicago in turning back a "Herculean challenge" brought against
the ordinance and its enabling legislation in a class action led
by several motorists who had received and paid $100 tickets issued
under the city's red light camera program.

The class action lawsuit, brought in 2012 by named plaintiffs
Terie L. Kata, Maureen Sullivan, Nicholas Clarke, Bohdan Gernaga
and Niraj Rami, had demanded the city's red light program be
shuttered and the hundreds of millions of dollars in fines paid
since 2006 be refunded. The city collects more than $60 million in
fines under the program each year.

The judge's ruling marks the latest chapter in ongoing efforts to
challenge the red light camera program and its various facets on
multiple fronts.  In February, for instance, a Cook County judge
refused to dismiss a class action brought by plaintiffs who
claimed the city's policies concerning how much notice is required
to those issued tickets through the red light camera program
before the city can actually move to collect fines and late fees,
if the fines aren't paid.

However, the lawsuit brought by Ms. Kata and her fellow plaintiffs
directly challenged the validity of the program under the Illinois
constitution.

The lawsuit asked the judge to declare a state law enabling only
municipal governments in eight counties -- Cook, DuPage, Kane,
Lake, McHenry and Will counties in the Chicago metro area and
Madison and St. Clair counties in the St. Louis metro area -- to
install red light cameras is an unconstitutional "local law,"
illegally applying for no rational reason to just certain
communities.  The state constitution generally forbids laws in
most instances from applying only to certain areas of the state,
when laws covering the whole state are more applicable.

The plaintiffs noted, for instance, that, while the eight counties
are among the most populous in Illinois, they do not include all
of the state's most populous counties, particularly noting
Winnebago County, which encompasses the city of Rockford, is
excluded from the authorizing legislation.  Further, the
plaintiffs said, the irrational nature of the law is revealed in
inconsistencies among the municipalities allowed to install red
light camera systems.  For instance, the plaintiffs said, tiny
towns on the outskirts technically considered to be in the Chicago
metro area in McHenry and Will counties could install the cameras,
while larger communities just as far from Chicago or St. Louis are
not similarly authorized.

While calling the argument "valiant," Judge Novak said they are
"ultimately unavailing," noting precedent allows the state to
enact special laws applying to communities and regions "uniquely
situated" compared to the rest of the state.  She said this
particular law could be considered "rational" as state lawmakers
could have easily decided the traffic needs of the eight counties
closest geographically, in general, to Chicago and St. Louis would
be different from those of the rest of the state.

"It was rational for the General Assembly to presume that there
are more cars and intersections in the affected areas," Judge
Novak wrote.  "As such, the occurrence of red light violations is
also presumably higher.  Further because more cars are likely to
be near an intersection at any given time in the affected areas,
the risk of a serious accident occurring as a result of a red
light violation goes up.  Accordingly, the legislature could have
rationally concluded that these areas have different enforcement
needs than the rest of the state."

Alternatively, the plaintiffs had also argued that the city's
ordinance concerning the red light camera program should have been
considered void following the passage of the 2006 state law. And,
since that ordinance was never reenacted, the lawsuit argued
tickets under that ordinance should also have been considered
void.

The city, in response, had argued it had the inherent authority
under its home rule powers to enact the ordinance.  Judge Novak
disagreed with this assertion, saying state law would have
preempted the city's ordinance.  However, she said the ordinance
would not have been void, meaning, after the state enacted its
2006 law, the ordinance took effect and did not need to be
reenacted.  And that, in turn, meant the city's red light camera
tickets were similarly supported by state law.

Finally, the judge brushed aside plaintiffs' assertions that the
city's red light camera program should be invalidated because the
city's traffic signals do not conform to generally recommended
principles declaring yellow lights should last a minimum of three
seconds.  In Chicago, the yellow lights can be considerably
shorter, making it more likely motorists could inadvertently run a
red light and receive a citation.

Judge Novak, however, said those standards, which she noted are
considered by "a majority of jurisdictions" to be "nothing more
than a guideline," cannot be applied to a facial challenge to the
law, saying such allegations would be more applicable under a
negligence claim resulting from a traffic accident at an
intersection monitored by red light cameras.  But none of the
plaintiffs involved in the case were involved in such a crash.

Plaintiffs in the case were represented by the firm of Roberts
McGivney Zagotta, of Chicago.  The city was defended by its
corporation counsel from its Department of Law.


CLASSIC DISTRIBUTING: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lorenso Hernandez, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated and on behalf of the general public v. Classic
Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc. and Does 1-100, Case No.
BC615317 (Cal. Super. Ct., March 30, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Classic Distributing and Beverage Group, Inc. owns and operates
trucks, industrial trucks, industrial vehicles, and industrial
work sites in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jamie Serb, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619) 234-4048


COCO'S DELI INC: Faces "Ganzhi" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Coco's Deli, Inc. The case is
captioned Patricio Ganzhi, on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Coco's Deli, Inc., and Josef
Ben Moha, in his individual and professional capacity, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02411 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, March
31, 2016).

Coco's Deli, founded in 1993, is a small meat market & deli in New
York, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COLUMBIA PIPELINE: Sued in Del. Over Proposed TransCanada Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen M. Vann and Dennis Zuke, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc.,
TransCanada Pipelines Limited, TransCanada Pipeline USA Ltd.,
Taurus Merger Sub Inc., TransCanada Corporation, Robert C. Skaggs
Jr., Sigmund L. Cornelius, Marty R. Kittrell, W. Lee Nutter,
Deborah S. Parker, Teresa A. Taylor and Lester P. Silverman, Case
No. 1215 (Del. Ch. Ct., March 30, 2016), is brought on behalf of
all public stockholders of Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc., to
enjoin the proposed sale of CPG to TransCanada Corporation,
through an unfair and improper process, which, in turn, has
resulted in an unfair price for CPG stockholders.

Columbia Pipeline Group, Inc. operates approximately 15,000 miles
of strategically located interstate pipeline, gathering and
processing assets extending from New York to the Gulf of Mexico,
including an extensive footprint in the Marcellus and Utica shale
production areas.

Transcanada Corporation operates an energy company based in
Calgary, Alberta, developing and operating energy infrastructure
in North America.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Bruce McNew, Esq.
      Samuel L. Moultrie, Esq.
      WILKS LUKOFF & BRACEGIRDLE LLC
      1300 North Grant Avenue, Suite 100
      Wilmington, DE  19806
      Telephone: (302) 225-0850
      Facsimile: (302) 225-0024
      E-mail: mcnew@wlblaw.com
              smoultrie@wlblaw.com

         - and -

      David T. Wissbroecker, Esq.
      Edward M. Gergosian, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: DWissbroecker@rgrdlaw.com
              EGergosian@rgrdlaw.com


CONSTRUCTOMICS LLC: Faces Artisan Suit Over Breach of Contract
--------------------------------------------------------------
Artisan Kitchens, LLC d/b/a Artisans & Company, on behalf of
itself and all other persons similarly situated as trust fund
beneficiaries of Lien Law Trusts of which Constructomics, LLC, is
Trustee v. Constructomics, LLC, Trevor A. Prince and John Doe No.
1 through John Doe No. 5, Case No. 651688/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
March 30, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of
contract, specifically by failing to pay $36,512.44 to Artisan for
furnishing certain labor, materials, services and equipment
necessary for the improvement of the property located at 20-41
45th Road, Long Island City, New York, 11105.

The Defendants own and operate a construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jose Aquino, Esq.
      DUANE MORRIS LLP
      1540 Broadway
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 692-1000
      E-mail: jaaquino@duanemorris.com


CORE LABORATORIES: "Ashcraft" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip E. Ashcraft and Christopher D. Gandara, Plaintiffs,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v. Core
Laboratories LP d/b/a Protechnics, Core Laboratories LLC and John
Kalika, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00823 (S.D. W.V., March 16,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant Pro Technics provides laboratory analytics services to
the petroleum industry including crude oil essays, liquid and ion-
chromatography, mercury and arsenic trace analysis and ultralow
sulphur and nitrogen detection.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Mark Goldner, Esq.
   Maria W. Hughes, Esq.
   HUGHES & GOLDNER, PLLC
   10 Hale Street, Fifth Floor
   Charleston, WV 25301
   Tel: (304) 400-4816
   Fax: (304) 205-7729
   Email: mark@wvemploymentrights.com
          maria@wvemploymentrights.com


CORE CONSTRUCTION: "Delaney" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Cody D. Delaney, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Core Construction & Development,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00292 (E.D. Tex., March 29,
2016), seeks payment for all hours worked and overtime hours
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Core Construction & Development, Inc. is a commercial contractor.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   William S. Hommel, Jr., Esq.
   HOMMEL LAW FIRM
   1404 Rice Road, Suite 200
   Tyler, TX 75703
   Tel: 903-596-7100
   Fax: 469-533-1618


COSTA COFFEE: Accused of Under-Filling Latte Product in UK
----------------------------------------------------------
Anne Sewell, writing for Inquisitr, reports that Costa Coffee, the
second largest coffee chain after Starbucks, has been accused of
under-filling their latte product in the United Kingdom and has
confessed.

Costa Coffee, a popular coffee bar franchise, was recently accused
of selling the regular amount of latte in their larger cups for
30p ($1) more.  The company has now admitted this fact.

It seems a couple of the most popular coffee outlets in the U.S.
and the United Kingdom are under-serving their valued customers.
The Inquisitr recently reported the story of a class-action
lawsuit, launched against Starbucks for their less-than-full
lattes. In that case, the coffee giant was under-filling cups by
as much as 25 percent.

However Starbucks was also accused of short-changing people with
their espressos, after a regular client ran a video experiment
with his own, well marked, shot glass.

Now Costa Coffee is facing similar accusations in the United
Kingdom, after they made a promotional statement: "When purchasing
a large Costa Express drink you are receiving an extra shot of
coffee and additional drink, compared to a regular size."
It turns out that when purchasing the large drink, you are
definitely getting a bigger cup, but no more coffee.

Earlier in the week a London man, Paul Hopkinson, posted a video
on Facebook -- which has since gone viral -- where he pours the
entire contents of a large latte into a regular sized cup, without
spilling a single drop.

In the video Mr. Hopkinson explains that he and his colleagues had
noticed they were paying more for their large coffee and wanted to
find out exactly what they were getting for their money.

Mr. Hopkinson bought his latte from a Costa Coffee self service
machine and easily fitted it into a smaller cup, saying: "There
you go, country of England, the regular and the large are indeed
exactly the same size. Whoops Costa, oh dear."

The video was reportedly posted by Hopkinson to Costa Coffee's
Facebook page, a post which has, apparently, since been deleted.
However, despite the fact it was taken down from the Costa page,
the clip has received more than 12 million views, leaving the
United Kingdom coffee giant a little explaining to do.

As reported by the Irish Mirror, initially a spokesperson for
Costa Coffee told Hopkinson in a response: "Despite what it looks
like I can assure you you're not being duped in anyway."

"The regular cup is a 12oz and the large is a 16oz so there is 4
fluid oz in size difference.

"Plus you also get the extra shot of coffee, hence the price
difference!"

They added that for safety reasons, there is no way they would be
able to fill the large cup that high, "as it would end up burning
someone."

Despite that, the company has now fessed up, and told Buzzfeed UK
that while other coffee drinks they serve in the United Kingdom
-- including the cappuccino and Americano -- do contain an
additional shot, the large and regular lattes both only contain
the regular two shots of coffee.

According to a spokesman for Costa Coffee in the United Kingdom,
the additional 30p ($1) is to cover the cost of an additional 4
fluid oz of milk instead, adding: "A large Costa Express latte is
the only drink where both the large and regular has two shots."

Mr. Hopkinson immediately updated his Facebook post saying he
feels vindicated, but addressing the popular coffee giant as
follows: "Dear Costa, I posted this to your page & you deleted
it!?? When it hit 219,000 views!!!!!! You were commenting on the
wall etc . .  you deleted it? Why?? If there is nothing to hide?
You don't delete other posts . . Is it because it got so many
hits?"

Of course, the Facebook post has had many more millions of views
since then.

When buying a latte from Costa Coffee in the United Kingdom it
seems you must beware, unless you are happy to pay the extra money
for more milk, not more coffee.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Florida Court Stays "Zia" Suit
------------------------------------------------
Judge Darrin P. Gayles granted CitiMortgage, Inc. and Citibank,
N.A.'s motion to stay proceedings in the case captioned RIZVAN
ZIA, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. CITIMORTGAGE, INC., and CITIBANK, N.A., Defendants,
Case No. 15-23026-CIV-GAYLES (S.D. Fla.).

Rizvan Zia filed a prospective class action seeking statutory
damages, alleging that CitiMortgage and Citibank did not timely
present certificates of discharge for his mortage, in violation of
New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law section 1921
and Real Property Law section 275.

The defendants requested that the court stay the proceedings
pending the United State's Supreme Court's decision in Spokeo,
Inc. v. Robins, 135 S.Ct. 1892 (2015), on the question of
"[w]hether Congress may confer Article III standing upon a
plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm, and who therefore could
not otherwise invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court, by
authorizing a private right of action based on a bare violation of
a federal statute."  The defendants contended that if the Supreme
Court anwers the question in the negative, such answer would
likely dispose of the entire case.

Judge Gayles concluded that a stay is warranted and thus granted
the defendants' motion.  The judge found that Zia has not shown
that he would be unduly prejudiced or harmed by a short stay --
slightly more than three months -- of the proceedings.  In
contrast, Judge Gayles found that the defendants would be harmed
if they were forced to engage in several more months of discovery,
incurring additional expenses that could all be for naught
depending on the Supreme Court's ruling.

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

Rizvan Zia, Plaintiff, represented by D. Gregory Blankinship --
gblankinship@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein Blankinship Frei-Pearson &
Garber LLP, pro hac vice, Nathan C. Zipperian, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP, Scott Rhead Shepherd, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLP & Todd S. Garber --
tgarber@fbfglaw.com -- Finkelstein, Blankinship, Frei-Pearson &
Garber, LLP, pro hac vice.

CitiMortgage, Inc., Citibank, N.A., Defendant, represented by
April Lynn Boyer -- april.boyer@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP,
Christopher S. Comstock -- ccomstock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown, LLP, pro hac vice, Thomas V. Panoff --
tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, pro hac vice & Yamilet
Hurtado -- yamilet.hurtado@klgates.com -- K&L Gates LLP.


DS HEALTHCARE: Sued in Fla. over Misleading Financial Reports
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dana W. Walker, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. DS Healthcare Group, Inc., Daniel Khesin, Renee
Barchniles, and Mark Brockelman, Case No. 0:16-cv-60674-FAM (S.D.
Fla., March 30, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

DS Healthcare Group, Inc. and its subsidiaries purportedly develop
proprietary technologies and products for hair care and personal
care needs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lester R. Hooker, Esq.
      SAXENA WHITE P.A.
      5200 Town Center Circle, Suite 601
      Boca Raton, FL 33486
      Telephone: (561) 206-6708
      Facsimile: (561) 394-3382
      E-mail: lhooker@saxenawhite.com

         - and -

      Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
      Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
      Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
      GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
      1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100
      Los Angeles, CA 90067
      Telephone:  (310) 201-9150
      Facsimile:  (310) 201-9160
      E-mail: lglancy@glancylaw.com
              lportnoy@glancylaw.com


EMPIRE STATE REALTY: Motion for Leave to Appeal Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Empire State Realty Trust, 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 plaintiffs'
motion for leave to appeal to the New York Court of Appeals is
fully submitted and awaiting a ruling from the appellate court.

Commencing December 24, 2013, four putative class actions, or the
"Second Class Actions," were filed in New York State Supreme
Court, New York County, against Malkin Holdings LLC, Peter L.
Malkin, Anthony E. Malkin and Thomas N. Keltner, Jr. on behalf of
former investors in Empire State Building Associates L.L.C.
Generally, the Second Class Actions alleged that the defendants
breached their fiduciary duties and were unjustly enriched.

"One of the Second Class Actions named us and our operating
partnership as defendants, alleging that they aided and abetted
the breaches of fiduciary duty," the Company said.  "The Second
Class Actions were consolidated on consent, and co-lead class
counsel was appointed by order dated February 11, 2014. A
Consolidated Amended Complaint was filed February 7, 2014, which
did not name us or our operating partnership as defendants. It
seeks monetary damages."

"On March 7, 2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Second
Class Actions, which the plaintiffs opposed and was fully
submitted to the court on April 28, 2014. The court heard oral
arguments on the motion on July 7, 2014, and the motion to dismiss
was granted in a ruling entered July 21, 2014.

The plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal on August 8, 2014.  On
January 12, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to supplement the
record on appeal to include additional materials from the Original
Class Action, which the defendants opposed. The motion was denied
on March 5, 2015. The plaintiffs perfected this appeal by filing
their brief and the appellate record with the court on March 23,
2015. Oral argument on the appeal was held on October 28, 2015. On
November 25, 2015, the appellate court affirmed dismissal of the
Second Class Actions.

The plaintiffs have moved the appellate court for leave to appeal
to the New York Court of Appeals. That motion is fully submitted
and awaiting a ruling from the appellate court.

Empire State is a self-administered and self-managed real estate
investment trust, or REIT, that owns, manages, operates, acquires
and repositions office and retail properties in Manhattan and the
greater New York metropolitan area, including the Empire State
Building, the world's most famous building.


EXXON MOBIL: 3rd Amended Suit, Bid to Intervene Okayed in "Nolan"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TONGA NOLAN, ET AL. v. EXXON MOBIL
CORPORATION, ET AL., Civil Action No. 13-439-JJB-EWD (M.D. La.),
Judge Erin Wilder-Doomes granted the plaintiffs' second motion for
leave of court to file a third supplemental and amending complaint
and motion to intervene.

On or about June 13, 2013, the plaintiffs filed a class action
petition for damages against Exxon Mobil Corporation, alleging
that the ExxonMobil Baton Rouge Facility repeatedly failed to meet
regulatory standards resulting in numerous leaks causing personal
injury and property damage.

After filing a second restated and superseding class action
complaint, the plaintiffs moved for class certification on
November 17, 2014.  This was denied by the court on May 13, 2015
based on the plaintiffs' failure to establish that common
questions of law or fact predominated over individual questions of
causation and damages.  The plaintiffs then filed their first
motion for leave of court to file a third supplemental and
amending complaint, seeking to add more than 100 new plaintiffs by
simply amending paragraph 1 of the second restated complaint to
name them as plaintiffs.  This was denied by the court without
prejudice on June 5, 2015.  On September 11, 2015, the plaintiffs
filed a second motion for leave of court to file a third
supplemental and amending complaint.

On September 8, 2015, a motion to intervene was filed by 20
proposed intervenors, asserting that they "would have been members
of the class for which certification was denied" and alleging that
they were "employees of the Energy LA Station who were exposed on
or about June 14-15, 2012.

Despite the defendants' assertion that the plaintiffs' and
proposed intervenors' exposure allegations "remain threadbare,"
Judge Wilder-Doomes found that the proposed supplemental and
amending complaint and the proposed intervention complaint
complied with the court's previous instruction to include specific
allegations regarding each plaintiffs' exposure to a particular
release, and provided the defendants with sufficient notice to
outline each plaintiff's claim.

Judge Wilder-Doomes also found that the proposed intervention was
timely filed and that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)
are satisfied.  Thus, the judge permitted the proposed intervenors
to intervene into the action by right.

A full-text copy of Judge Doomes's March 23, 2016 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/kTKyiTfrom Leagle.com.

Lawrence J. Alexander, Mary T. George, Preston A. George, Sr.,
Joseph B. Eaglin, Flora H. Dupree, Gussie Johnson, Plaintiffs,
Keisha L. Smith, Movant, represented by Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith
Stag, L.L.C., Michael G. Stag, Smith Stag, LLC, Robert D.
McMillin, Smith Stag, LLC,Sean Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC,
Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag, LLC &Stuart Housel Smith, Smith Stag,
LLC.

Plaintiff, represented by Ashley M. Liuzza, Smith Stag,
L.L.C.,Michael G. Stag, Smith Stag, LLC, Robert D. McMillin, Smith
Stag, LLC & Sean Seton Cassidy, SmithStag, LLC.

Gussie Johnson, Individually and on behalf of her minor children
Plaintiff, represented by Stephen Wussow, Smith Stag, LLC.
Gussie Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Stuart Housel Smith,
Smith Stag, LLC.

Exxon Mobil Corporation, ExxonMobil Oil Corporation, ExxonMobil
Catalyst Services, Inc., Defendants, represented by James Conner
Percy -- jpercy@joneswalker.com -- Jones, Walker, Andrew G.
Phillips -- aphillips@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP, pro
hac vice, Angela M. Spivey -- aspivey@mcguirewoods.com --
McGuireWoods LLP, pro hac vice, Kelly Beth Hapgood --
khapgood@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LP, pro hac vice,
Lindsey Hargrove Raspino, McGuire Woods LLP, pro hac vice, Ronald
G. Franklin -- rfranklin@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP,
pro hac vice & William D. Lampton -- wlampton@joneswalker.com --
Jones, Walker.

John Nixon, Movant, Rebecca Anderson, Elizabeth Christopher, Dawn
Farmer, Michael Franklin, Robin Gilton, Emery Jackson, Kenneth
Johnson, Kevin LeBlanc, Cynthia Lockett, Travis Martin, Shawn
Moton, Eula Ordoyne, Steven Reid, Dana Rohilliard, Sylvester
Tilley, Raymond Verrette, Cassie Wade, Leo Washington, Charles
Williamis, Intervenor Plaintiffs, represented by Donna Unkel
Grodner -- info@grodnerlaw.com -- Grodner and Associates, APLC.


FEDEX CORP: Faces "Abdallah" Suit for Alleged Violation of TCPA
---------------------------------------------------------------
NAJEH ABDALLAH v. FEDEX CORPORATION, Case: 1:16-cv-03967 (N.D.
Ill., April 1, 2016), alleges that the Defendant placed
unauthorized telephone calls to consumers in violation of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

The Defendant is a provider of domestic and international package
delivery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Myles McGuire, Esq.
     Eugene Y. Turin, Esq.
     Paul T. Geske, Esq.
     MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
     55 W. Wacker Dr., 9th Floor
     Chicago, IL 60601
     Phone: (312) 893-7002
     Fax: (312) 275-7895
     E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
             eturin@mcgpc.com
             pgeske@mcgpc.com


FLINT, MI: Another Water Crisis Community Meeting Held
------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Emery, writing for Mlive, reports that The Flint Water
Class Action Team and Erin Brockovich was set to be holding
another community meeting for Flint residents affected by the
water crisis.

The famed environmental activist Brockovich is joining the legal
team, along with water expert Bob Bowcock at the Dort Federal
Event Center, 3501 Lapeer Road in Flint.  The community meeting
was scheduled to be held on April on 5 from 6:30 p.m. until 8:30
p.m.

Previously the Flint Water Class Action Team held a meeting at the
Northbank Center in downtown Flint as an informational meeting on
class action lawsuits related to the city's water crisis.  More
than 300 people attended that meeting with dozens more turned away
because there wasn't enough room.

Ms. Brockovich has been speaking openly since mid-January 2015 on
her Facebook page about the water situation in Flint.  In
February, 2015 she sent Mr. Bowcock to the city where he
participated in a public demonstration for clean water.

Mr. Bowcock also made recommendations in a Monday, Feb. 17, 2015
letter to Mayor Dayne Walling and the City Council.  Those
recommendations covered the water plant, distribution system,
rates, and source water, and suggestions include discontinuing the
practice of fluoridation, removing more organic material from
Flint River water before chlorination, and taking at least one
storage reservoir out of service.


FUSION AUTOPLEX: "Allen" Suit Seeks Wage & Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Rodney Allen, et al., Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Fusion Autoplex LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-00833 (S.D. Tex., March 29, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for failure to pay wages and overtime
compensation in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Fusion Autoplex LLC is a used car dealership selling mostly high-
end luxury vehicle.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Taft L. Foley, II, Esq.
   THE FOLEY LAW FIRM
   3003 South Loop West, Suite 108
   Houston, TX 77054
   Tel: (832) 778-8182
   Fax: (832) 778-8353
   Email: Taft.Foley@thefoleylawfirm.com


GREENE COUNTY, AL: Hospital Employees File Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Gauntt, writing for WBRC, reports that a recently filed
class action lawsuit claims Greene County hospital's CEO Elmore
Patterson and the hospital's board took money out of employees'
paychecks and used it to pay hospital bills, inflate wages and pay
bonuses to upper management.

"If they have a withdrawal for their state retirement, AFLAC
insurance or some child support obligation they may have, they
take the money out of employees check but it doesn't go to AFLAC,
it doesn't go to the court system, they're using it to pay their
own operating expenses with it," Jeff Smith, who represents one of
the former hospital employees.

Tuscaloosa attorney Jeff Smith filed the lawsuit on behalf of
former employee Marilyn Atkins and others.  Mr. Smith says once
Atkins brought up the allegations to the hospital in October, she
was fired.  Mr. Smith said if employees bring up these
allegations, they would be fired for suspicious reasons.

"She presented that issue to the board and within one week she was
fired for allegedly a no-call, no show which we feel very
confident we can prove she actually called in that day,"
Mr. Smith said.

The hospital has around 250 employees.  Mr. Smith says the case is
causing a lot of financial headaches right now for many people.
Mr. Smith feels this has been going on for about a year.

"This is the employees hard-earned money that they're basically
getting an unsecured loan without the knowledge or consent of the
employees and it's putting the employees at risk," Mr. Smith
added.


GURLEY MOTOR: Court Won't Offset Class Damages Awarded in "Yazzie"
------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge James A. Parker denied the defendants' request for offset in
the case captioned EUGENE YAZZIE and PHYLLIS YAZZIE, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
GURLEY MOTOR CO. and RED ROCK INVESTMENT CO., Defendants, No. CIV
14-555 JAP/SCY (D.N.M.).

A class action lawsuit was filed on June 16, 2014 asserting, inter
alia, that Red Rock Investment Co.'s standardized repossession
practices violated the New Mexico Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
On March 8, 2016, the court determined that Red Rock's form
"Notification Before Disposition of Collateral" violated the UCC
and consequently, entered summary judgment on liability against
Red Rock in favor of the plaintiffs and the UCC class that the
court certified on October 30, 2015.

The defendants filed a request for offset, alleging that "the
proceeds received" from the sale of the class members' repossessed
vehicles "were uniformly less than the amount which the [class
members] owed to Red Rock" as the holder of the promissory note.
Thus, the defendants maintained that each of these consumers
continue to owe Red Rock money that should be "offset" against any
class damages awarded under the UCC.

Judge Parker found that, while styled as a "request for offset,"
the defendants' motion is actually asking the court to enter
deficiency judgments, in various undetermined amounts, against
each of the UCC class members.  In denying the motion, the judge
found that the defendants failed to show the existence of a
recoverable deficiency as they have not presented proof of the
fair market value of the repossession sales, and that further, the
defendants have never asserted deficiency counterclaims on which
the court can enter a judgment.

A full-text copy of Judge Parker's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/j564J9from Leagle.com.

Eugene Yazzie, Phyllis Yazzie, Plaintiffs, represented by Nicholas
H. Mattison, Feferman & Warren & Richard N. Feferman, Feferman &
Warren.

Gurley Motor Co., Red Rock Investment Co, Defendants, represented
by Mark D. Jarmie -- mjarmie@jarmielaw.com -- Jarmie & Associates.


HALE & HEARTY SOUPS: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C.  The
case is captioned Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hale & Hearty Soups
L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. #: 1:16-cv-02394 (S.D.N.Y., Foley
Square, March 31, 2016).

Hale & Hearty Soups operates restaurants in Manhattan, Brooklyn,
and Long Island. It offers soups, and soup-sandwich and soup-salad
combos; fresh tossed-to-order salads with lettuce mix, salad
toppings, salad dressings, bread/crackers, and ready-made salads;
and gourmet sandwiches and wraps. The company also provides
corporate catering services with soups, sandwiches, entree salads,
breakfasts, specialty platters, and desserts for breakfasts,
lunches, and special events. Hale & Hearty Soups L.L.C. was
founded in 1995 and is based in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


HALLIBURTON: Duncan Residents Set to Receive Settlement Payouts
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Betancourt, writing for The Duncan Banner, reports that
Duncanitesm, who according to their attorneys were exposed to
water contaminated by Halliburton for almost 40 years, are set to
start receiving settlements four years after a lawsuit was
initiated.

The plaintiffs are represented by Duncan Law Firm Leach and
Sullivan and New York City Law Firm Weitz and Luxenberg.  The case
is heard by the Hon. Vicki Miles-LaGrange in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma.

Court documents state 65 of the 66 plaintiffs representing 44 of
the 45 properties and represented by Leach & Sullivan have agreed,
signed the necessary paperwork and finalized settlement. Fifty out
of the 57 plaintiffs representing 44 of the 45  properties
represented by Weitz & Luxenberg have done the same.

"The status of the remaining three property claims (the golf
course and commercial development properties); negotiations have
continued for the two commercial properties," stated the
documents.  "No offer or counter has been made on the golf course
since the last status report. The parties expect to have further
negotiations on the two commercial properties before the next
status report is due."

David Page, an attorney with Leach and Sullivan who has been
working on the case for four years, said the settlements were
confidential but fair to his clients.

"As lawyers for our clients, we are satisfied with the terms of
the settlements," said Mr. Page.  "We had 45 settlements that the
lawyers had agreed to recommend to their clients.  That represents
69 people."

Halliburton Global Communications and Change Management Lead,
Integration Team director of public relations Emily Mir said the
company could not comment on the case due to the settlements not
being finalized.

"There have been settlements and a remediation plan is being
developed in conjunction with regulatory authorities to address
the environmental issues associated with the site, but there are
still open items in the case so we cannot comment further at this
time," she said.

In order to remove the contaminants from the ground water,
according to Mr. Page, the EPA and the Department of Environmental
Quality ordered Halliburton to follow an extensive cleanup effort
to rid the area of contaminants.

"First they have to remove the contaminated soil . . . because
every time it rains it leaks the contamination in the ground water
again," he said.  "Based on what (DEQ) required, (Halliburton) is
taking out the most contaminated soil.  The DEQ required
Halliburton to stop the contaminated water from leaving the site
by putting some trenches. Third they put in a pump system . . . to
try to pump out the ground water, clean it . . . and dump the
clean water into Cow Creek."

Mr. Page said the settlements only pertaining to property cases as
bodily injury and emotional distress cases were still pending
litigation. Court documents showed Halliburton offered settlements
for the emotional distress cases, but no response was received.

According to court documents 21 plaintiffs remain and their claims
include: 15 emotional distress claims, four property claims and
two bodily injury claims.

"We claim that one of our clients drank highly contaminated water,
which caused her to get or get worse thyroid disease, which caused
her to have her thyroid removed," said Mr. Page. "She had surgery
and long-term -- 40 plus years -- symptoms like hair loss, itching
skin, dry skin, depression, sadness and cold chills.  Those are
still being negotiated for potential settlement.  I can't talk
about where we are on the settlements on that."

Court documents showed the 21 remaining plaintiffs are scheduled
for a jury trial in August pending filed motions and other court
matters.

"Halliburton Energy Services, Inc. (HESI) has requested that
discovery plaintiffs with emotional distress and bodily injury
claims update their discovery responses, and in particular, their
medical records," stated the documents.  "HESI and Plaintiffs have
agreed to a proposed pretrial schedule for any claims tried on the
August 2016 trial docket, but have  been unable to reach agreement
on other pretrial issues, including trial plaintiff selection."

The case is being heard as a class action lawsuit, which allows
others affected to join the suit.

"The (class action lawsuit) people are coming into our office and
signing up with us," said Mr. Page.  "We're on the middle of
negotiations with those.  There will probably be about 80 new
properties that will be added for negotiations for settlement.  We
are in discussions with Halliburton at this time.  There might be
new cases filed or there will be amendments to the class suit
filed."

Mr. Page said the added cases represent almost all of the people
affected by the contamination.

"All the small residential properties," he said. "There's no more
commercial big properties and no more personal injuries.
Residential and some small agricultural are all in that (new)
group.  We have tried our very best to identify and give people
who are affected, the opportunity to come in and be represented.
We tried very hard.  I can't guarantee, we've had the chance to
talk to everybody.  If (there's more people affected) they can
call and make and appointment with me and I'll be happy to sit
down and discuss if we can help them or not."

In 2011 water quality tests showed a positive result for ammonium
perchlorate -- a toxic salt mineral known to be used in fireworks
and explosives and as missile fuel.  The ammonium perchlorate was
found in the north section of Duncan where an old Halliburton
location was used as a place to conduct removal of spent missile
fuel since 1976.

The process released the ammonium perchlorate compound into the
groundwater and into private water wells.

According to the United State Environmental Protection Agency,
perchlorate is highly soluble and "high doses of perchlorate can
result in the decrease of body weight" and "cause hypertrophy of
the thyroid gland."

The EPA has also taken up monitoring perchlorate levels under the
Safe Drinking Water Act and "has initiated the process of
proposing a national primary drinking water regulation."


HARTFORD ACCIDENT: "O'Brien" Suit Stays in D. Montana
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Charles C. Lovell denied Diane O'Brien's motion to remand
the case captioned DIANE O'BRIEN, individually and on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HARTFORD
ACCIDENT & INDEMNITY COMPANY, HARTFORD CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY,
HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, HARTFORD INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE
MIDWEST, HARTFORD UNDERWRITERS INSURANCE COMPANY, PROPERTY &
CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD, SENTINEL INSURANCE
COMPANY, LTD., TRUMBULL INSURANCE COMPANY, TWIN CITY FIRE
INSURANCE COMPANY, and KNAPP INSURANCE AGENCY, INC., a Montana
Corporation, Defendants, No. CV 15-14-H-CCL (D. Mont.).

O'Brien brought the putative class action against both the
defendant insurance companies, which have a principal place of
business and a state of incorporation outside of Montana, and also
against the Knapp Insurance Agency, Inc., which is a Montana
corporation, arising from the insurance companies' practice of
requiring homeowners to purchase personal property coverage at a
value of 75% of their dwellings, whether or not their personal
property actually justifies that valuation.  O'Brien alleged that
to the extent that she is paying a premium for personal property
coverage in excess of her needs, the insurance policy is illusory
and violates Montana insurance laws and public policy.

The defendants removed the case to federal district court based on
the court's original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness
Act of 2005 (CAFA).  Although O'Brien agrees that the class action
has more than 100 putative class members, she denied that removal
is proper under CAFA, contending that minimal diversity is lacking
and less than $5 million is in controversy.

Judge Lovell, however, found that the defendants have demonstrated
by a preponderance that the value of the matter in controversy
exceeds $5 million and that the "home-state exception" to removal
jurisdiction does not apply to this case because it is the
insurance companies, not the Knapp Agency, that are clearly the
primary defendants in this case.

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

Diane O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by Alan J. Lerner, LERNER
LAW FIRM,John M. Morrison -- john@mswdlaw.com -- MORRISON,
SHERWOOD, WILSON & DEOLA, PLLP &Michael A. Viscomi, VISCOMI &
GERSH.

Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company, Hartford Casualty
Insurance Company, Hartford Fire Insurance Company, Hartford
Insurance Company of the Midwest, Hartford Underwriters Insurance
Company, Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford,
Sentinel Insurance Company, LTD, Trumbull Insurance Company, Twin
City Fire Insurance Co., Knapp Insurance Agency, Defendants,
represented by Peter F. Habein -- phabein@crowleyfleck.com --
CROWLEY FLECK PLLP.


IDAHO: Ordered to Safeguard People with Disabilities
----------------------------------------------------
Morgan Boydston, writing for KTVB, reports that a federal court
ruling mandates protections for some of Idaho's most vulnerable.
The ACLU of Idaho brought a class action lawsuit against the Idaho
Department of Health and Welfare about four years ago.

A critical part of that case has been won -- a significant
decision for Idahoans with developmental disabilities.  Close to
4,000 adults with disabilities may now see big changes in the way
they receive Medicaid benefits in Idaho.

"When it comes to children, the elderly and the disabled, we just
need to do it right," Dellrae Warner, mother of the main plaintiff
in the case, said.

With this ruling, the state is now required to create a plan that
will further safeguard people who are part of Idaho's
Developmental Disabilities Waiver Program, administered by IDHW.

"I truly believe that this was a victory for the whole state,"
Warner told KTVB.

Kyle Warner is one of thousands of adults with developmental
disabilities who live with family or on their own so they can have
a better quality of life than they would in a state institution.

"They said Kyle would never walk, talk, see or hear.  They pretty
much wrote him off as being a vegetable," Mr. Warner said.

But at 34 years old, Kyle can walk, see and hear; however, he does
suffer from chronic seizures and is completely non-verbal.

"He needs day and night care," Mr. Warner added.

The family has to pay for 24/7 in-home care for Kyle.  On the
$22,000 per year Medicaid budget they were receiving, it became
extremely difficult to do that.  Because of the endless stress and
pressure that came along with appealing their insufficient budget
each year, the Warners joined in the class-action lawsuit with the
ACLU of Idaho.

"For many this is a life and death situation," sai ACLU of Idaho
Executive Director Leo Morales.

The lawsuit argued that IDHW cut Medicaid participants' assistance
without adequate notification or protections.
Mr. Morales says the judge ruled the plaintiffs' due process
rights were violated and ordered remedies.  The Idaho Department
of Health and Welfare is mandated to set up a plan in the next 90
days to ensure that these individuals have someone that can
support them through the appeal process.

"It's a very vulnerable community.  If they don't have the right
assistance it makes it far more difficult for them to actually
appeal their case," Mr. Morales added.

The decision ordered that the Medicaid budget tool needs to be
more accurate to calculate how much money participants receive. In
addition, information that was denied to them needs to be more
accessible.

"With the decision there needs to be a lot more transparency and
more access to that information so that if an individual wants to
challenge the amount of dollars they're receiving, now they will
actually have access to that information," Mr. Morales said.

KTVB reached out IDHW for an interview, and they sent us this
written statement:

"We are still studying the case, but are very happy that the
ruling dismissed unwarranted claims that the state was
discriminating against our Medicaid participants.  We are
dedicated to helping participants with disabilities live
independently in our communities.  We look forward to working with
them and their advocates to resolve the remaining issues so we can
move forward with a system that supports participants and is fair
to Idaho taxpayers."

The ACLU of Idaho says the fight still is not over: there are
ongoing parts of this issue that still need to be taken care of.


IGT: Class Action Over DoubleDown Social Casino Site Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Katie Barlowe, writing for Casino.org, reports that IGT's
DoubleDown multiplatform social casino site has survived a class
action lawsuit attempt from a disgruntled Illinois customer who
claimed that the free gaming platform offers "nothing more than
camouflaged unlawful games of chance."

Plaintiff Margo Phillips blew $1,000 in real money on virtual,
value-less chips on the site before deciding she wanted to claw
back every play cent.  Ms. Phillips claimed that because
DoubleDown uses "gambling mechanics" in its games, it is
tantamount to actual gambling.

Well, except for real money being involved, but other than that.
In a class action lawsuit filed at the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, Ms. Phillips said she wanted the DoubleDown site
to be shut down and money refunded to customers in Illinois.  The
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all citizens of the state who had
lost over $50 playing at DoubleDown, under the antiquated Illinois
Loss Recovery Act (ILRA).

Claw-back Law Dragged Up

The 19th century law states that any Illinois gambler who loses
$50 or more has the right to sue the winner to get the money back.
It also states that should the losing gambler not sue the winner
within sixth months, then "any person" is permitted to sue on
behalf of all losers, for up to three times the amount.

The law was originally designed to protect destitute families
who'd had their last dollar stolen by relatives, which was
subsequently gambled away.

Ms. Phillips says she began playing on DoubleDown in January of
2013, and soon began purchasing virtual (and value-less) chips
with real money, once she had played through the original supply
of free chips.  Because she paid for the chips, she argues, they
had a monetary value, just like chips purchased in a casino, and
therefore the services offered by DoubleDown were tantamount to
illegal gambling.

According to Ms. Phillips, as well as ILRA, DoubleDown was in
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act, and was guilty of unjustly enriching itself through
the use of "gambling devices," another no-no under Illinois state
law.

The filing would have had to establish that online social casino
games can be defined as "gambling devices," and that IGT had
procured money from the plaintiff in an illegal manner.

Define "Gambling"

But the judge, unlike Ms. Phillips, wasn't buying any of it.
Judge Edmond Chang noted that ILRA requires a winner and a loser
from the outcome of a gambling proposition.  Because virtual chips
bought from DoubleDown cannot be cashed in for real money, the
social casino site cannot lose anything from the proposition, and
so Phillips was on shaky ground.

In fact, broadly speaking, Ms. Phillips was asking the court to
reconsider the very definition of gambling as it's construed in
pretty much every state in the US: namely, the proposition that
something of value is risked upon the outcome of an event or game
that is subject to chance in the hope of receiving something else
of equal or greater value.

While paying for virtual chips constitutes a financial stake, with
no financial reward involved, no form of gambling has occurred, by
any legal definition, at least.

In fact, one could say that Ms. Phillip's decision to sue
DoubleDown is a far better example of gambling than anything that
happens on the social casino site.  And in this case, it was a
losing bet.


IPS ENGINEERING: Glencoe Residents Win Fire Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Tim Ahrens, writing for Stillwater News Press, reports that some
residents of Glencoe got a little peace of mind on Feb. 24,
winning a class-action lawsuit in the August 2012 fire that
destroyed 53 Payne County homes.

More than a month ago, a jury decided that IPS Engineering L.L.C.
was responsible for 30 percent of the damage the wildfire caused,
and Global Pipeline Construction LLC was responsible for the other
70 percent.  IPS Engineering was instructed to pay $1 million in
punitive damages, and Global Pipeline Construction was fined
$100,000.

That was in addition to a combined $6.5 million the two companies
were ordered to pay to 72 plaintiffs after company employees
continued to weld despite a statewide burn ban had been issued the
day before.

"I think the town, a lot of people were pretty happy with the
outcome of it," Glencoe firefighter Jeremy Cooper said.  "The way
things transpired at first, stories got changed . . . there were a
lot of people really happy."

The fire burned more than 2,000 acres and caused the Glencoe
residents to evacuate their homes on Aug. 4, 2012.  An Oklahoma
Department of Emergency Management reported cited 63 Payne County
homes being damaged and 53 destroyed at the time.

"I was at work when the call came in," Mr. Cooper said. "I looked
outside and could only think, 'Oh no.' It looked very large.  So I
responded, and that's when we figured out real quick we wouldn't
be able to stop it on our own so we started calling in resources.

"I don't even remember, I would venture to say 15 to 20
(departments responded).  About 60 to 70 residents rurally were
affected by it -- not that actually burned, but had to get out of
their homes."

Although Glencoe residents were evacuated, they were lucky that
the fire didn't take more away from the community.  The Stillwater
Fire Marshal at the time of the fire, Trent Hawkins, told the
Stillwater News Press in a 2012 interview that heavy winds and
high temperatures were working against firefighters. The winds
exceeded 20 mph, and the 107-degree temperature marked the 20th
straight day of triple-digit temperatures.

Mr. Cooper said a shift in wind direction hit as the fire neared
city limits, directing the fire away from greater damage to
Glencoe.  Mr. Cooper said some parts of the burned acreage looks
untouched by flames, while other areas look as if the fire just
occurred. Regardless of landscaping, the fire left an everlasting
mark on residents.

"There was a big section of it that was cedar trees, all you see
now is the skeletons of those cedar trees," Mr. Cooper said.  "We
lost a couple of landmarks around the area, old barns that had
been there for years and years.  It's kinda hard to see (them) go.

"It opened a lot of rural people's eyes to fire, and we still get
a lot of people who are skittish to smoke.  We get a lot of calls
to fires that nobody has actually seen the fire, just smoke, and
it scares them."

Mr. Cooper recalled how personal the fire was at the time, as he
and other firefighters were dealing with people they knew in
greater danger than previous fires had posed.

"When you're directly dealing with people you know and family, it
makes it hard," Mr. Cooper said.  "Also on that same note, we knew
we saved several people's houses that we knew and that made the
difference."


JAMES CRAIG BAIR: Faces "Moreno" Suit in Col. Dist. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against James Craig Bair Ranch Co.  The
case is captioned Pines Vivas Moreno, Gerson Salvatierra
Hinostroza, and Jesus Salvatierra Hinostroza, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. James
Craig Bair Ranch Co., Bair Bros Sheep Co., LLC, High Canyon
Adventures, LLC, James Craig Bair I, Doris Bair, James Craig Bair
II, Jeff Bair, Jason Bair, and Western Range Association, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00752 (D. Col., March 31, 2016).

Bair Bros Sheep Co is a sheep raising farm located in Glenwood
Springs, Colorado.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Sarah J. Parady, Esq.
          Mary Jo Lowrey, Esq.
          Jenifer C. Rodriguez, Esq.
          COLORADO LEGAL SERVICES
          1725 High Street, Suite 1
          Denver, CO 80218
          Telephone: (303) 593 2595
          Facsimile: (303) 502 9119
          E-mail: sarah@lowrey-parady.com
                  jrodriguez@colegalserv.org


KRAFT HEINZ: Violated UCL & CLRA, "Mattley" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Mattley, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Kraft Heinz Foods Company,
the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01616 (N.D. Cal., March 18, 2016),
seeks to recover damages, equitable relief and/or disgorgement due
to Kraft's misleading and improper marketing of its Kraft-branded
Parmesan cheese under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), California
Business and Professions Code, and the Consumers Legal Remedies
Act (CLRA), and California Civil Code.

The Defendant allegedly markets and advertises the Products as
containing "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese," in oversize bold print
that covers practically the entire face of the Product's
container. However, as Kraft is well aware, the Products contain
cellulose, a filler.

Kraft Heinz Foods produces and markets food products in the United
States and internationally. It offers ketchups, sauces,
condiments, tomato products, and pasta sauces under Heinz, Lea &
Perrins, Quero, Classico, ABC, Master, and Pudliszki brand names;
and tomato and vegetable-based snacks, prepared meals, frozen
potatoes, frozen snacks and entrees, and other products under the
brand names of Heinz, Quero, ABC, Ore-Ida, Bagel Bites, T.G.I.
Friday's, Smart Ones, and Weight Watchers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Marc L. Godino, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: info@glancylaw.com


LIBERTY SILVER: Judge Dismisses Suit Against Bobby Genovese
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicki Gorny, writing for Ocala.com, reports that a South Florida
judge dismissed a complaint accusing Bobby Genovese, an
international businessman who resides part time in Marion County,
and others of swindling stock market investors through a "pump-
and-dump" scheme.

The premise of the complaint was that Mr. Genovese and his co-
defendants -- William Tafuri, Geoffrey Brown, BG Capital Group
Ltd., Look Back Investments Inc. and Liberty Silver Corp. --
planted misleading statements about Liberty Silver's stock in
order to artificially "pump" up prices and then "dump" their own
shares at a major profit.

Filing their complaint in federal court in 2013, the plaintiffs
argued that this scheme violated the Securities Exchange Act and
left them with major losses.

The dismissal of the claims came days after U.S. District Judge
Kenneth Ryskamp ruled that the case did not qualify for class
certification.  As a factor in this ruling, Mr. Ryskamp found
"there was no cause and effect relationship between the disclosure
of information and price movements of the Liberty Silver stock."

"I'm incredibly excited," Mr. Genovese said, "knowing from the
very beginning that there was no fraud, neither from the board of
directors of (Liberty Silver) or from myself personally."

"In the end, I was proven to be correct," he added later.

Mr. Ryskamp's ruling on class certification, denying class-action
status to the plaintiffs, largely relied on a report prepared by
Gregg Jarrell for the defendants.  While the plaintiffs had in
part argued that a fraudulent scheme would merit class-action
status, Mr. Jarrell's report challenged this argument by
suggesting there was no fraud on which they could base that claim.


LOS ANGELES, CA: Ex-Undersheriff Testifies in Jail Abuse Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
89.3 KPCC reports that former Los Angeles County Undersheriff Paul
Tanaka, now on trial in federal court in downtown L.A., took the
witness stand on April 1 to deny accusations that he obstructed an
FBI investigation into deputy misconduct in the jails.

Mr. Tanaka, the former second-in-command, is charged with
obstruction of justice and conspiracy in a sweeping federal
investigation into abuses and corruption in L.A.'s jail system.
Federal prosecutors have accused Mr. Tanaka of masterminding a
plot to thwart the FBI's investigation into the jails -- largely
by moving a jail information from jail to jail to keep him away
from investigators.

They've also accused Mr. Tanaka of creating a culture of violence
in jails and turning a blind eye to deputy misconduct.  Eight
former department employees have already been convicted for their
roles in the case.  Mr. Tanaka's ex-boss, former Sheriff Lee Baca,
pleaded guilty to lying to investigators and will be sentenced
next month.

Mr. Tanaka testified for nearly three hours in what was the main
event of the day, according to Celeste Fremon of Witness L.A.,
who's been following the trial.  The prosecution rested on April 1
after a week and a half of testimony on Tanaka's alleged crimes.

Tanaka answered questions trying to dismantle the structure of the
prosecution's arguments Friday, Ms. Fremon said.  The judge began
to allow cross-examination, but when prosecutor Brandon Fox
started to ask about Mr. Tanaka's involvement with the deputy gang
known as the Vikings, the defense objected.  The judge ultimately
told everyone to come back with briefs on why that line of
questioning should be allowed.

While the Vikings aren't directly related to this case,
Mr. Tanaka has allegedly been a member for many years of the
deputy gang that made news in the 1990s and was part of a class-
action lawsuit, Ms. Fremon said.  The reason for the question, Ms.
Fremon said, was that it speaks to what the government is calling
the context of Tanaka's alleged style of supervision as
undersheriff.

Ms. Fremon said that if the line of questioning about the Vikings
is allowed into the trial, "[We'll] certainly have a more
theatrical trial, and it's been pretty theatrical as it is."

Many say that Mr. Tanaka functioned behind the scenes as a "shadow
sheriff," Ms. Fremon said, with the suggestion that he was in
control and willing to push deputies to be aggressive in
enforcement.  That includes both in the jails and on patrol, as
well as potentially even pushing deputies to step over the legal
line, Ms. Fremon said.  The defense appears to have opened up the
door for this line of questioning in the way that they defended
Tanaka's character, according to Ms. Fremon.

This isn't Mr. Tanaka's first time on the witness stand.  He
testified in the trial of a former deputy accused of interfering
with the FBI's investigation into deputy misconduct in the jails.
However, before he was running for sheriff before and had what
seemed to be a bright future, while now he faces up to 15 years in
prison, Ms. Fremon said.  He appeared bright and quick on his
feet, but you could see the stress in his face, according to
Ms. Fremon.

Mr. Tanaka said that he wasn't the one who came up with the idea
of hiding the witness and that the sheriff was the one obsessed
with the operation, but that it was also allegedly for the
witness's own safety according to the defense, Ms. Fremon said,
rather than keeping the witness from federal handlers.


LUXURY SUITES: Court Rules on Sinanyan's Discovery Bid
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALICE SINANYAN, an individual; et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. LUXURY SUITES INTERNATIONAL, LLC; et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-225-GMN-VCF (D. Nev.), Judge Cam
Ferenbach granted in part and denied in part Alice Sinanyan's
motion to compel JAB Affiliates, LLC to produce responsive
documents and provide adequate responses to her interrogatories
and requests for admission (RFA).

Sinanyan proposed to represent a class of condominium owners
against JAB and other defendants, alleging that the defendants
wrongfully withheld the plaintiffs' shares of rental income from
condominium units located in the Signature at the MGM Grand
development.  Sinanyan served discovery requests on JAB and
thereafter, filed the motion to compel.  The following matters
were at issue in Sinanyan's motion: (1) seven of Sinanyan's
requests for production (RFP), (2) two of Sinanyan's
interrogatories, and (3) three of Sinanyan's RFAs.

Granting in part and denying in part Sinanyan's motion to compel,
Judge Ferenbach ordered as follows:

          -- that JAB's vague and ambiguous objection to RFP 20
             is sustained, and JAB is not required to produce
             documents responsive to RFP 20.

          -- that all other objections to Sinanyan's RFPs are
             overruled, and JAB must produce on or before April
             15, 2016, documents responsive to RFPs 3, 5, 10, 11,
             12, and 21 or provide a declaration that explains
             its efforts to search for responsive documents, for
             instances where no responsive documents were located.

          -- that JAB's objections to Interrogatories 2 and 3 are
             overruled, and JAB must supplement its responses to
             Interrogatories 2 and 3 on or before April 15, 2016.

          -- that JAB's objections to RFAs 7, 9, and 11 are
             overruled, and JAB must serve supplemental answers
             to RFAs 7, 9, and 11 on or before April 15, 2016.

A full-text copy of Judge Ferenbach's March 23, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/6NQKWGfrom Leagle.com.

Alice Sinanyan, James Koury, Sehak Tuna, Plaintiff, represented by
Don Springmeyer -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin,
Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Justin C. Jones --
jjones@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin,
LLP & Royi Moas -- rmoas@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro,
Schulman & Rabkin, LLP.

Luxury Suites International, LLC, Defendant, represented by Amy R
Lancaster, Law Offices of Gary P. Sinkeldam APC, Erin L. Plunkett,
Law Office of Douglas R Johnson, Gary Sinkeldam, Law Office of
Gary P. Sinkeldam, John Scott Burris --
j.scott.burris@wilsonelser.com -- Wilson Elser Moskowitz Edelman &
Dicker & Reuben H Cawley -- reuben.cawley@wilsonelser.com --
Wilson, Elser, Moskowitz, Edelman & Dicker LLP.

Jab Affiliates, LLC dba Las Vegas Suites, Defendant, represented
by Kevin E Beck, Beck Pingel & Steven R Dunn, Dunn Firm, P.C..

JetLiving Hotels, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew M.
Legolvan -- alegolvan@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees & Craig J.
Mariam -- cmariam@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.


MARATHON PETROLEUM: Stipulation to Dismiss Merger Suit Okayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Marathon Petroleum Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware has approved a stipulation and
proposed order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the
named plaintiffs in a class action lawsuit related to the MarkWest
merger.

In July 2015, a purported class action lawsuit asserting claims
challenging the MarkWest Merger was filed in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware by a purported unitholder of MarkWest. In
August 2015, two similar putative class action lawsuits were filed
in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware by plaintiffs
who purport to be unitholders of MarkWest.

On September 9, 2015, these lawsuits were consolidated into one
action pending in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware,
now captioned In re MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P. Unitholder
Litigation. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated complaint against the individual members of the board
of directors of MarkWest Energy GP, L.L.C. (the "MarkWest GP
Board"), MPLX, MPLX GP LLC, the general partner of MPLX ("MPLX
GP") MPC and Sapphire Holdco LLC, a wholly-owned subsidiary of
MPLX, asserting in connection with the MarkWest Merger and related
disclosures that, among other things, (i) the MarkWest GP Board
breached its duties in approving the MarkWest Merger with MPLX and
(ii) MPC, MPLX, MPLX GP, and Sapphire Holdco LLC aided and abetted
such breaches.

On February 4, 2016, the Court approved a stipulation and proposed
order to dismiss all claims with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs, but for the Court to retain jurisdiction to adjudicate
an application for a mootness fee by the plaintiffs' counsel for
an award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of expenses.

"We intend to vigorously defend against any application for a
mootness fee and do not expect the resolution of such matter to
have a material adverse effect," the Company said.

Marathon Petroleum Corporation operates an independent petroleum
product refining, marketing, retail and transportation business in
the United States and the largest east of the Mississippi.  The
Company merged with MPLX LP ("MPLX"), the midstream master limited
partnership sponsored by MPC, and MarkWest Energy Partners, L.P.
("MarkWest") effective December 4, 2015 (the "MarkWest Merger").


MARIN GENERAL HOSPITAL: Settles Nurse Case Manager's OT Wage Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Halstead, writing for Marin Independent Journal, reports
that Marin General Hospital and Sutter Health Corp. have agreed as
part of a court settlement to pay $850,000 to an estimated 47
current and former nurse case managers to compensate them for
unpaid overtime and failing to pay all wages due at time of
termination.

Marin General will pay the bulk of the settlement, $750,000, while
Sutter Health will pay $100,000.  That is because the settlement
applies to nurse case managers who worked at Marin General from
March 14, 2010 through March 1, 2016.  Sutter Health turned over
management of the hospital to Marin General Hospital Corp. in July
2010.

"Marin General Hospital acts lawfully at all times and in this
case, we chose to forego the time and expense of further
litigation by settling these claims," Jamie Maites, a spokeswoman
for Marin General, said by email in response to an Independent
Journal inquiry.

Also responding by email, Bill Gleeson, a spokesman for Sutter
Health, said, "Rather than litigate for years, Sutter decided to
contribute $100,000 toward the voluntary resolution of the matter.
The court's order does not make any findings on the merits of the
case, and Sutter denies any wrongdoing or liability."

The plaintiff's co-counsel, Robert Jaret of San Rafael, said that
nearly all of the 30 nurse case managers that he and co-counsel
Arthur Siegel of San Francisco are representing in the class
action no longer work for Marin General.

Nurse case managers, who coordinate all aspects of a patient's
care including their discharge, have taken on an even more pivotal
role since passage of the Affordable Care Act.  Under health care
reform, hospitals are financially rewarded for eliminating
unnecessary tests and treatment, if they can do so while
maintaining good patient outcomes.

Two of the nurse case managers named as class representatives in
the settlement -- Sharon Reid and Ching Redmon -- filed a separate
suit in March 2014 that also included allegations of retaliation
by Marin General managers for complaints the nurses registered
regarding patient care and nurse safety.

According to the suit, the two nurse case managers complained
about staffing shortages and deficiencies in the hospital's
facilities that were causing worker injuries.  The suit alleged
that the nurses' concerns were ignored by their supervisors, and
that the nurses were admonished and labeled as troublemakers by
management.

The suit states that when Ms. Reid and Ms. Redmon notified the
hospital's human resources department regarding the retaliation
nothing was done to protect them. And the suit alleges that
eventually Ms. Reid and Ms. Redmon quit their jobs "because of the
intolerable working conditions."

Ms. Maites said, "Marin General Hospital always encourages our
employees to raise health and safety issues with us, and we do not
retaliate against any employee for doing so -- in fact, we
appreciate it."

In addition, she said, "Taking care of our employees is one of our
highest priorities. Since our Safe Patient Handling Program
launched, the average annual number of patient handling claims has
decreased by 38 percent."

Mr. Jaret said, "They (Reid and Redmon) settled their individual
claims separately, and it's a confidential settlement agreement;
but their wage and hours claims are being paid through the class
action."

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay "non-
exempt" employees one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay
when they work more than 40 hours a week.  According to the suit
filed by Mr. Jaret, the nurse case managers he is representing
sometimes worked more than 12 hours a day, and seven or more
consecutive days in a work week, without being paid overtime.

Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, employers must pay "non-
exempt" employees one-and-a-half times their regular rate of pay
when they work more than 40 hours a week.  But until Marin General
reclassified its nurse case managers in June 2013, they were
classified as "exempt" and therefore didn't qualify for overtime
pay.

Ms. Maites said, "For decades, we have treated our nurse case
managers as professional, salaried employees, and have chosen to
pay our nurses near the top percentile nationally.  Three years
ago we voluntarily granted those employees' request to be paid
daily and weekly overtime, following the example set by other area
hospitals that had also done so."

Mr. Jaret, however, said that the hospital reclassified the nurse
managers in 2013 indicates it knew it had a problem. He said the
nurse case managers don't perform the kind of administrative or
managerial functions that would allow the hospital to qualify them
as exempt.


MASTEC INC: Court Scheduled March 2017 Trial in "Wrigley" Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
MasTec, 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 in the case, Wrigley v.
MasTec, Inc., the District Court has scheduled a two-week trial
period beginning on March 20, 2017 pending its ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss.

On May 7, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit (the "Lawsuit"),
Wrigley v. MasTec, Inc., et. al. (Case No. 1:15-cv-21740) was
filed in the United States District Court, Southern District of
Florida, naming the Company, the Company's Chief Executive
Officer, Jose R. Mas, and the Company's Chief Financial Officer,
George L. Pita, as defendants. On August 5, 2015, co-lead
plaintiffs were appointed, and an amended complaint was filed on
October 13, 2015. The Lawsuit has been purportedly brought by a
shareholder, both individually and on behalf of a putative class
of shareholders, alleging violations of the federal securities
laws arising from alleged false or misleading statements contained
in, or alleged material omissions from, certain of the Company's
filings with the SEC and other statements, in each case with
respect to accounting matters that are the subject of the Audit
Committee's independent internal investigation. The amended
complaint seeks damages stemming from losses Plaintiffs claim to
have suffered as a result of purchasing Company securities at an
allegedly inflated market price.

On December 14, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
amended complaint. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiffs responded
to the Company's motion to dismiss. The District Court also
scheduled a two-week trial period beginning on March 20, 2017
pending its ruling on the Company's motion to dismiss.

The Company believes that the Lawsuit is without merit and intends
to vigorously defend against it; however, there can be no
assurance that the Company will be successful in its defense.

Mastec is an infrastructure construction company operating mainly
throughout North America across a range of industries.


MAXIMUM IDENTITY: Faces New Diamond Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Maximum Identity
Company.

The case is captioned New Diamond Cafe LLC and Ji Soo Choe v.
Maximum Identity Company, Case No. 651682/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.,
March 31, 2016).

Maximum Identity Company operates an insurance company duly formed
and existing under the laws of Delaware and regularly transacts
business in the State of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nathan M. First, Esq.
      450 Seventh Avenue, Suite 2701
      New York, NY 10123
      Telephone: (212) 683-8055


MERRILL LYNCH: Aug. 29 Final Approval Hearing in "Davis" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. granted the parties' joint motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement in the case
captioned BENJAMIN E. DAVIS and ROBERTO F. GARCIA, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
MERRILL LYNCH & CO., INC. and MERRILL LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER &
SMITH, INC., Defendants, No. 3:15-cv-175-RJC-DCK (W.D.N.C.).

The parties have filed an application for an order approving their
Stipulation of Settlement dated February 8, 2016, which set forth
the terms and conditions for a proposed settlement and for
dismissal of the case with prejudice.

Judge Conrad found that the proposed settlement falls within the
range of reasonableness and therefore meets the requirements for
preliminary approval.  The judge also conditionally certified the
proposed class, for settlement purposes only, under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 23(b)(2) and 23(b)(3).

Plaintiffs Benjamin E. Davis and Roberto F. Garcia were appointed
as class representatives.  Michael S. Taaffe, Jarrod J. Malone,
and Michael D. Bressan from the law firm of Shumaker, Loop &
Kendrick, LLP were appointed as class counsel.  Rust Consulting,
Inc. was appointed to supervise and administer the notice
procedure as well as the processing of claims.

A final approval hearing shall be held on August 29, 2016, at 9:30
a.m., at the United States District Court for the Western District
of North Carolina, 401 West Trade Street, Charlotte, North
Carolina 28202.

A full-text copy of Judge Conrad's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/YM1IWIfrom Leagle.com.

USA, Plaintiff, represented by C. Nicks Williams, U.S. Attorney's
Office.


MI BELLA: Violated FLSA & NYLL, "Miguel" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------
Barbara Mendez Miguel, individually and on behalf of all other
collective persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mi Bella
Puebla Corp., Antolin Teutle, and John Does 1-10, jointly and
severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01593-SJ-RER,
(S.D.N.Y., March 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
liquidated damages and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York
Labor Law (NYLL).

The Defendants operate a deli/grocery/restaurant business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Sang J. Sim, Esq.
          PARK & SIM LAW GROUP LLP
          39-01 Main Street, Suite 608
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: (718) 445 1300
          Facsimile: (718) 445 8616
          E-mail: petersimesq@yahoo.com


MIAMI BOOMERS: "Lopez" Suit Seeks Damages, OT Pay under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Yoagny Bernal Lopez and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Miami Boomers Corp. d/b/a Ciboney Restaurant and
Lounge, Orestes Perez, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21160-MGC
(S.D. Fla., March 31, 2016), seeks to recover overtime wages,
double damages, reasonable attorney fees, court costs, interest,
and any other relief from Defendants, jointly and severally,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendants operate restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          Attorney For Plaintiff
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, FL 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM


MIAMI JEWELRY: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Victor Rodriguez and other similarly situated individuals v. Miami
Jewelry Exchange Corporation d/b/a International
Jewelry Center, Mani Aminov, and Abram Aminov, Case No. 1:16-cv-
21118-DPG (S.D. Fla., March 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime wages and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants own and operate a jewelry shop in Miami-Dade
County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      R. Martin Saenz, Esq.
      SAENZ & ANDERSON, PLLC
      20900 NE 30th Avenue, Ste. 800
      Aventura, Florida 33180
      Telephone: (305) 503-5131
      Facsimile: (888) 270-5549
      E-mail: msaenz@saenzanderson.com


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Labin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
Rachel Labin, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management,
Midland Funding, LLC, and Encore Capital Group, Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01564 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, March 30,
2016).

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

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Moutauakil" Suit E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
Ahmed El Moutauakil, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Midland Funding, LLC, Encore Capital Group, Inc., and Asset
Acceptance, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01565 (E.D.N.Y.,
Brooklyn, March 30, 2016).

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

The 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


MIDLAND FUNDING: "Walkabout" Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------
Judge Vicki Miles-Lagrange granted the defendants' motion to
dismiss the amended complaint and dismissed the case captioned
LORI WALKABOUT, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND FUNDING LLC and MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. CIV-14-939-M (W.D. Okla.).

Lori Walkabout filed an action individually and on behalf of a
class of similarly situated consumers, alleging that Midland
Funding LLC and Midland Credit Management, Inc. violated the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and that the defendants'
repeated violations of the FDCPA entitles her to maintain a
negligent per se cause of action against them.  The defendants
moved to dismiss Walkabout's amended complaint for failure to
state a claim for relief.

Judge Miles-Lagrange found that the FDCPA's statute of limitations
does not bar Walkabout's FDCPA claim.  However, while Judge Miles-
Lagrange found that Walkabout has sufficiently pled facts that
would allow the court to infer that HSBC waived its right to
charge interest on her debt, Walkabout did not allege that in
waiving its right to charge interest, HSBC actually changed or set
the contractual rate of interest to zero.  Thus, Judge Miles-
Lagrange concluded that the defendants had a statutory right to
charge interest on Walkabout's debt once it acquired it from HSBC.
Acccordingly, Walkabout's amended complaint was dismissed for
failing to sufficiently allege facts that the defendants violated
the FDCPA when they charged the statutory rate of interest on
Walkabout's debt.

A full-text copy of Judge Miles-Lagrange's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/PPaF9rfrom Leagle.com.

Lori Walkabout, individually, Lori Walkabout, Plaintiffs,
represented by M Kathi Rawls, Rawls Law Office PLC, Daniel A
Edelman, Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC, Francis R Greene,
Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin LLC & Minal Gahlot, Rawls Law
Office PLC.

Midland Funding LLC, Midland Credit Management Inc, Defendants,
represented by Jon E Brightmire -- jbrightmire@dsda.com -- Doerner
Saunders Daniel & Anderson.


MILLER ENERGY: Faces Shareholder Class Action Amid Bankruptcy
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ed Marcum, writing for Knoxville News Sentinel, reports that the
bankruptcy case for former Knoxville-based company Miller Energy
Resources came to a close, with the company reorganized into
separate entities, its stock declared void and a plan in place to
issue new common stock.

Meanwhile, Miller Energy is facing a lawsuit by shareholders
seeking class-action status for all purchasers of certain Miller
preferred shares.

March 29 was the date for a reorganization plan approved by a U.S.
Bankruptcy Court in Anchorage, Alaska, for Miller Energy to take
effect.  Under the plan, the company will establish a new board of
directors empowered to adopt any agreements or documents, or take
any actions outlined in the plan. The company will continue but as
separate entities represented by its 11 subsidiaries.

In March 29 filings with the Security and Exchange Commission, the
company reported that under the agreement with the court, all
shares of Miller Energy common stock and other equity and
securities are terminated.  In a form 8-K filing, the company said
that the reorganized company had secured up to $20 million in exit
financing with Apollo Investment Corp., plus an extra $20 million
in incremental term loan financing.

Also on March 29, the reorganized company issued 10 million shares
of new common stock, at $0.0001 per share to the secured lenders.
Apollo Investment Corp. and other investment funds managed by
Highbridge Principal Strategies hold 100 percent of the new notes
and new common stock, and therefore control the company, according
to the 8-K filing.  Don Dimitrievich and Jeffery Fitts, both of
Highbridge, were named directors of the new board.

Also on the March 29 date, Scott M. Boruff, Bob G. Gower, Gerald
Hannahs and A. Haag Sherman departed the company's board of
directors.

Court documents show some of Miller Energy's creditors objected to
the reorganization plan. Creditors John and Tami Belies of
Huntington Beach, Calif., asked Judge Gary Spraker to approve an
alternate plan that would provide recovery of their $60,000
investment.

"We had been officially advised that preferred stocks are very
secure," the couple wrote. "We put a very large portion of our
Roth IRA (Retirement account) and regular account into these two
stocks."

Shareholder Darren McCammon, of Reno, Nev., also objected to the
reorganization plan.

"In my opinion, there is substantially more value in Miller than
the board and the senior debt holder, Apollo Investment
Corporation, are trying to portray, and the board of Miller Energy
did not adequately represent shareholder interests in this
matter," he wrote the judge.

Judge Spraker wrote in his order that nothing in the plan or his
order would preclude shareholders from pursuing the shareholders
lawsuit filed against Miller Energy.


MOST WORSHIPFUL: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Amaro, writing for WTLV, reports that Walter Hammond, a
Mason since 1961, is fighting to restore his membership and to
change an 1893 law that allows racial discrimination.

It was a dark hidden secret in an already secretive fraternity,
until now.

"I felt like that is not right," says Mr. Hammond.

"It did surprise me," says Mr. Hammond.  "To me, it runs against
the principles of free masonry where we all are in the brotherhood
of man under the fatherhood of God."

Attorney Kevin Sanders represents Mr. Hammond.

"You're looking at about 13 million people that are
disenfranchised by Florida Statute," says Mr. Sanders, "under this
law that they cannot be a part."

Mr. Sanders discovered the 123-year-old Jim Crow law while
preparing his case to restore Hammond's membership.

"This statute has not been repealed, this statute has not been
overturned," he says.  "As far as I know, this is the first time
this statute has been challenged for its unconstitutionality."

He's asking the courts to make it null and void not just for
Mr. Hammond, but for everyone.

"I'm asking the courts to make it a class action,' said
Mr. Sanders.

He's confident they can win, but first they have to clear a hurdle
of motions to stop the suit from moving forward.

"Kevin thinks we're going to win the case, I hope we do," says Mr.
Hammond.

The law, Chapter 4281 of the Florida Statues, incorporates the
Most Worshipful Grand Lodge of Free and Accepted Masons of
Florida. And the language reads, "consisting of Masons exclusively
of the white race."

Grand Secretary Richard Lynn says they are aware of the Jim Crow
Law and, in 1993, one hundred years later, the Lodge approved a
Declaration of Principles to, as he said, negate the 1893 law.

It reads, in part:

"The Digest of Masonic Law of Florida does not authorize a member
of a particular lodge to object to the petition for membership to
receive the Three Degrees of masonry, or to visitation by an
otherwise qualified visiting Mason, if the objection is based upon
the grounds of race, creed, color . . .

. . . Such objections are illegal under the State and Federal law
and Masons are bound to abide by such laws."

Lynn says they would agree to have the language removed from the
1893 law, but they're against dissolving the corporation to
accomplish the change.

He says such a move would impact the organization financially.

The case has been filed in Federal Court and goes to trial in
November.


NARCONON OF NORTHERN CALIF: "Burgoon" Suit Moved to C.D. Cal.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nathan Burgoon, Caleb Landers, Connie L. Rana, and Jamie Kerzner,
on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, v.
Narconon of Northern California, doing business as: Narconon
Redwood Cliffs, Halcyon Horizons, a California corporation,
Narconon Fresh Start, a California corporation, Association for
Better Living and Education International, a California
corporation, Narconon Western United States, a California
corporation, Narconon International a California corporation, and
Halcyon Horizons, Inc., Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (S.D. Fla.,
February 18, 2016), Case No. 3:15-cv-01381, was transferred from
US District Court for the Northern District of California, to US
District Court for the Central District of California (Western
Division - Los Angeles). The Central District assigned Case No.
2:16-cv-02182-GW-RAO to the proceeding. The assigned Presiding
Judge is Hon. Judge George H. Wu.

Narconon of Northern California is a Drug Rehabilitation Center in
California. It is a full-service drug rehabilitation center and a
community resource for drug related problems.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Adrienne D McEntee, Esq.
          Mary B Reiten, Esq.
          Beth E Terrell, Esq.
          TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT AND WILLIE PLLC
          936 North 34th Street Suite 300
          Seattle, WA 89103-8869
          Telephone: (206) 816 6603
          Facsimile: (206) 350 3528
          E-mail: amcentee@terrellmarshall.com
                  mreiten@terrellmarshall.com
                  bterrell@terrellmarshall.com

               - and -

          David Evan Miller, Esq.
          Syed Ali Saeed, Esq.
          SAEED AND LITTLE LLP
          1433 North Meridian Street Suite 202
          Indianapolis, IN 46202
          Telephone: (317) 721 9214
          Facsimile: (888) 422 3151
          E-mail: david@sllawfirm.com
                  ali@sllawfirm.com

               - and -

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


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Stabler's Ex-Wife File Concussion Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Hal Habib, writing for Palm Beach Post, reports that Royal Palm
Beach's Rose Stabler, former wife of late Oakland Raiders Hall of
Fame quarterback Ken Stabler, filed a class-action lawsuit against
the NFL in Fort Lauderdale on April 1.

She is seeking unspecified damages related to his brain disease,
but the immediate result was sparking a spectacularly bitter
dispute with her ex-husband's successors.

As news of the suit became public, Kendra Stabler Moyes, Ken's
oldest daughter but not related to Rose Stabler, accused her of
trying to cash in even though Alabama court documents show she was
divorced from Ken in 2009.

"She's made-for-TV crazy," Kendra said.  "You can't make this
stuff up.  I'm just frustrated and irritated because I want my dad
to rest in peace and she needs to move on and stop riding on my
dad's name, which she has done since the day she met him."

Kim Ross Bush, who said in an e-mail to The Post that she was in a
"loving" relationship with Ken since 1999, called Rose Stabler "a
vicious, manipulative and unstable woman."

"Kenny plainly stated to me the only decision in his life he
regretted was marrying her," Ms. Bush said.  "It was a heavy
burden to carry."

That was in direct contrast to the account offered by
Rose Stabler, who dabbed tears as she recounted her marriage to
Ken, who died on July 8 at age 69 of colon cancer.  Rose, 57, a
former Miss Alabama, was elusive when asked to acknowledge they
were divorced at the time of his death.

"With all the crap we went through, I never, ever felt he did not
love me and he knew that, too," she said, sitting in the dining
room of a townhouse she bought in 2014, displaying on her table a
photograph of Ken when he played for the New Orleans Saints.  "I
was the love of his life and he was of mine."

She blamed CTE for forcing a wedge between them, saying she sensed
early stages of his brain disorder from the time they were married
in 1984. She said she remained concerned for his health after they
separated years ago.

"The past 31 years of my life have been serious, serious
depression," Rose said.  "I've been seeing psychiatrists steadily
since 1993."

It's unclear if the divorce would affect her claim toward damages.
The NFL reached a multimillion dollar settlement with thousands of
plaintiffs in a class-action suit over brain injury, but Stabler's
family didn't benefit because his CTE was discovered after April
22, 2015.  The suit alleges that without the cutoff date, the
Stabler family would have been entitled to nearly $1 million.

Kendra Stabler Moyes said she and her sisters have no plans to sue
the NFL.  She said her father joined the class-action suit simply
to support his peers "because his name carried weight."

Ken will be enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame in Canton,
Ohio, this summer.

Rose Stabler's complaint, filed in U.S. District Court, was
amended onto a recently filed suit that the NFL said was without
merit and would be dismissed.

"We will address this in court," an NFL spokesman said on
April 1.

An autopsy on Stabler revealed Stage 3 chronic traumatic
encephalopathy (CTE), which has been found on the brains of
numerous other deceased NFL players, including former Dolphins
Earl Morrall and Junior Seau and Pahokee's Andre Waters, who
played for the Philadelphia Eagles.

Recently, Jeff Miller, the NFL's vice president of health and
safety, told a congressional roundtable that "certainly" a link
exists between football and CTE.  But at the NFL's annual meetings
in Boca Raton, Commissioner Roger Goodell declined an opportunity
to repeat that admission.  Mr. Goodell said the league's position
has been "consistent" even though Miller's statement was the first
time the league acknowledged such a connection.

Such mixed signals frustrate families and former players who fear
they might have the condition, which can be detected only after
death.  Chris Nowinski, president and cofounder of the Concussion
Legacy Foundation, which works in conjunction with Boston
University to study CTE, told The Post Mr. Goodell's reticence was
"unethical."

"I thought possibly the NFL could have disclosed information
(about football's dangers) and possibly we could have sought help
for Kenny," Rose Stabler said.

Rose said both she and Ken recognized he would mentally enter a
"dark place" where she could not get through to him because of
CTE.

Kendra offered a different account of her father's final years,
although she said he suffered from ringing in his ears, bad
headaches and was forgetful.

"He wasn't sitting in some dark, closed-curtain room, wasn't
suicidal, he wasn't depressed," she said.  "He definitely had side
effects. But up until the day he died, he was very coherent, very
sweet, very loving."

Perhaps more than any player, Ken personified the Raiders' rogue
image.  Nicknamed "The Snake," he was a gunslinger on the field, a
hell-raiser off it.

South Floridians best remember him as the man most responsible for
the demise of the Miami Dolphins' dynasty of the early 1970s.

In the 1974 playoffs, Stabler threw a legendary 8-yard touchdown
pass to running back Clarence Davis in the final seconds of a 28-
26 victory over the Dolphins that ended their quest for three
consecutive Super Bowl championships, which would be a record even
today.

The play, known as the "Sea of Hands" because Davis was swarmed by
Dolphins Mike Kolen, Larry Ball and Tim Foley, is one of the most-
replayed highlights each postseason.

Living up to his devil-may-care persona, Stabler told The Post in
a 2001 story that the play shouldn't have happened.

"It was a dumb throw, one I probably never should have made," he
said.  "It's the one pass I get asked about the most, and the
worst pass I've ever thrown. It probably should have been
intercepted."

Rose Stabler also has a colorful past, one that includes telling
one media outlet Ken threw her out of a moving car but telling
another outlet on the same 1986 day that the couple was "doing
fine."  In July, an arrest warrant was issued after she failed to
appear for a hearing in Mobile, Ala.

In 2011, she rolled up her sleeves for a newspaper photographer to
show that her arms had no needle marks.  She was rebutting a woman
who said she saw her in a courthouse restroom with a needle in her
arm. The Press-Register of Mobile reported that security secured
the restroom and found Rose inside.  A sheriff's spokesman said
deputies thought she was under the influence of a substance but
did not find a syringe, theorizing she might have flushed it down
the toilet.

Although Rose Stabler continues to assert she and Ken had physical
confrontations, she said she could be the aggressor.  She
recounted a time, shortly after they were married, that they were
in a grocery store in Louisiana.

"He had two black eyes, which I gave him," she said.  "And this
Cajun man came up to me -- I love their accents -- and he said, 'I
know you did that because if someone else did it, he'd have killed
him or been in jail.' "

Ms. Bush said it was all Ken could do to distance himself from
her.

"In spite of restraining orders, (she) continued to harass him
with literally hundreds of insane voice messages over the years,"
Bush wrote to The Post.  "As a matter of fact, she continued to
text his phone the week after his death knowing that it was
sitting on my nightstand."


NATIONWIDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Charges
---------------------------------------------------------
Dan Gearino, writing for The Columbus Dispatch, reports that
Mark Whitt was signing papers to buy his condominium and the
person across the table pulled out an unexpected disclosure.

The document said that the Arena District condo complex got its
electricity and water billing from a company called Nationwide
Energy Partners, instead of the regulated utilities.  Nationwide
Energy is a "submeter" company, which acts as middlemen between
utility providers and end users.

Mr. Whitt signed the paper, but he felt in his gut that something
was wrong.

Two years later, he has emerged as the leader of a push against
so-called submeter companies such as Nationwide Energy, with a
class-action lawsuit in Franklin County Common Pleas Court and a
formal complaint before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.
He says he is doing this because tens of thousands of consumers
are hurting due to unfair charges, and elected officials and
regulators have allowed it to happen.

"Everyone has been told, 'There's nothing we can do,'" he said,
interviewed in his condo near a floor-to-ceiling window that looks
out on the headquarters of a regulated electricity utility,
American Electric Power.  He finds this answer unacceptable
because, based on his knowledge of utility law, there is plenty
that can be done.

Mr. Whitt, 47, is no ordinary consumer.  He is a lawyer who
specializes in utility regulatory issues and the managing partner
of his firm.  He has been successful enough to afford the condo in
question, a $526,000 unit at North Bank Park.

He thinks public officials have ignored the conduct of submeter
companies.  Part of this is because the issues are complicated,
and he thinks some officials do not understand what is happening.
Part of it is an imbalance of political power, as the advocates
for maintaining the system are developers, a group that has much
more influence than consumers.

Nationwide Energy, also called NEP, says it has done nothing
wrong.  The company is co-owned by Michael DeAscentis, who is the
top executive of a prominent Columbus developer, Lifestyle
Communities.

"Mark Whitt is a tenant in one of our buildings, or one of our
customers' buildings," said Gary Morsches, the CEO of Nationwide
Energy.  "He pays the same rate as everyone else in the building,
which is the same rate AEP would charge him."

Nationwide Energy has argued in legal filings that its customer is
the condo association, not Whitt.  The condo association was set
up by the North Bank Park's developer, Nationwide Realty
Investors, which is part of Nationwide, the Columbus-based
insurance company.

Despite the similar names, Nationwide Energy and Nationwide the
insurance company do not share common ownership, although they
frequently do business together.  Mr. Whitt says that Nationwide
Energy is an intentionally misleading name.

Joe Case, a Nationwide spokesman, had this comment: "We're
carefully monitoring to protect our interests, and to date have
not actively pursued trademark infringement."

Here are some of Mr. Whitt's arguments against Nationwide Energy:

   -- He lives in the service territory of AEP, and says this
means he is entitled by Ohio law to receive service from the
utility and all of the consumer protections that go along with
that service. He does not receive those protections, which include
standards for service reliability and rate oversight by state
regulators.

   -- Nationwide Energy buys electricity in bulk for less than the
regulated price for households, and then resells it at the
utility's regulated price, making a profit off of the difference.
Whitt says this model means that the company meets the legal
definition of a public utility, which should trigger a number of
state regulations.

   -- AEP customers have the option to shop for alternative
suppliers for electricity generation, and there are offers
available that are less expensive than AEP's regulated price.
Nationwide Energy customers do not have the option to shop, which
Whitt says is wrong on principle and is depriving him of savings.

   -- Nationwide Energy charges fees in addition to the base
price, which would not be allowed in an AEP bill. This includes
charges for utilities in a building's common areas, and late fees.

Nationwide Energy disagrees on each of these issues.  The company,
which has about 50 employees, describes itself as "an innovative
energy service solutions company" and not a public utility.

"I'm proud of what we do," Mr. Morsches said.  "I'm proud of the
service we provide to tenants and to developers."

Mr. Whitt made his case in a formal complaint filed last year
before the Public Utilities Commission of Ohio.  That case led the
panel to order a broader investigation of submetering, which is
now in progress.  The model used by Nationwide Energy is most
prevalent in central Ohio, and used by several companies, but it
is spreading to other parts of the state and a few other states.

He entered the complaint with few allies. Among them were consumer
advocacy groups, such as the Office of the Ohio Consumers'
Counsel, which filed briefs agreeing with his concerns.

But, as the case went on, the state's major utilities made it
clear that they oppose Nationwide Energy's business model.  AEP
said consumers are being harmed and called for changes to rules to
account for the models used by Nationwide Energy, American Power &
Light and certain other submeter firms.

In January, Mr. Whitt was one of a group of attorneys that sued
Nationwide Energy in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.  The
case, which plaintiffs hope to turn into a class action, remains
in its early stages, and is separate from the PUCO complaint.

He moved into the condo in November 2014, following a divorce.
Soon after, he got a notice from Nationwide Energy that he was
being charged a 10 percent late fee and his utilities would be
shut off without prompt payment.

This was when his relationship with Nationwide Energy went sour.
He did not dispute that the payment was late.  But he knew from
his legal work that there was a process for late payments and
shut-offs, and Nationwide appeared to have made up its own system.

In other words, the company had ticked off one of the few
individual consumers with the knowledge and resources to fight
back.

"NEP is going to have to make a decision about what it wants to
be," he said.  "Does it want to be a public utility and subject to
PUCO regulations so that it is exempt from the claims made in the
class-action lawsuit? Or does it not want to be a public utility,
and, as a consequence, have to defend itself in the civil courts."

How does he think his cases will be resolved?

"The ultimate decision is above my pay grade," he said.  "I would
hope, at a minimum, that there is an understanding of what NEP
does and its business model because I think that is sorely
lacking."


NAVISTAR INT'L: Agrees to Pay $7.5MM to Settle Investor Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that Navistar International Corp has agreed
to pay $7.5 million in penalties for allegedly misleading
investors.  The investors were reportedly made to believe of an
advanced technology truck engine that could be registered to meet
the U.S. emission standard.

Navistar committed to pay the penalties without admitting or
dismissing the charges, Fox Business reported.  Despite the
settlement, former Navistar CEO Daniel C. Ustian faces separate
charges for helping and abetting violations by the company.
According to the court filing, the SEC accused Mr. Ustian of
failing to admit the company's difficulty in acquiring an
Environmental Protection Agency certification of a truck engine.
The certification is part of the procedure to meet the Clean Air
Act Standards that started in 2010.

"When public companies and top executives discuss important
regulatory developments with investors, they must tell the whole
truth," said SEC director of enforcement Andrew J. Ceresney.
"Here, we allege that Navistar and its former CEO misled investors
about their dealings with the EPA and the likely approval of its
new emissions technology."

Navistar spokeswoman Lyndi McMillan said a settlement is necessary
for the interest of Navistar and its stockholders, ABC News Go
reported.  Ms. McMillan added that the settlement would avoid
further costs and disagreement with the SEC.  She reiterated that
Navistar is focused on building and sustaining momentum on behalf
of their shareholders.  The Lisle, Illinois-based company also
said it is already time to put the issue behind them.  Meanwhile,
the former Navistar CEO hasn't settled yet the class action
lawsuit filed against him.

Auto News notes that Navistar misled the investors by making them
believe that an EPA certification is being processed.  The company
allegedly spent over $700 million to develop its technology called
exhaust gas circulation (EGR) in order to lessen nitrous oxide
emissions.  However, Navistar left the development of its EGR and
had been satisfied with the technology utilized by its competitor.
The SEC accuses Mr. Ustian of "progressively desperate and
fraudulent scheme" by launching conference calls and press
releases that only deceived the investors more.

It was too late for Navistar when it declared it's abandoning of
the EGR technology in 2012.  The former CEO resigned in August of
2012.  If Mr. Ustian would be proven guilty, he would have to pay
civil penalties, and be prohibited on serving as an officer or as
a director of public companies.


NESTLE INDIA: FSSAI Issues Contradicting Guidelines
---------------------------------------------------
Swati Mathur, writing for Times of India, reports that the Food
Safety and Standards Authority of India, the Central authority
mandated to look out for the interest of consumers and also to
ensure that "safe" and "wholesome" food is available to all, seems
to be batting for welfare of food businesses rather than
consumers.

Months after the Central government moved court against Nestle
India for alleged unfair trade practices, FSSAI has, on March 31,
issued orders contradicting its actions against the multinational.

In August 2015, Central government filed a class action suit
against Nestle India, the manufacturer of Maggi noodles, seeking
Rs 640 crore in damages from the company for alleged unfair trade
practices, false labelling and misleading advertisements.

The ministry's action followed Nestle India's decision to withdraw
Maggi noodles from the market over allegations of high lead
content and the presence of MSG (monosodium glutamate).
Despite the government's action in August 2015, FSSAI now seems to
have had a change of heart, a change that will not only benefit
Nestle India, but also all other noodle and pasta manufacturers.
In its March 31 order, which pertains to a "clarification on use
of Monosodium Glutamate (MSG) as flavor enhancer in seasoning for
Noodles and Pastas", FSSAI first says, "There is no analytical
method to determine whether MSG was added to the product during
its manufacture or was present already in the product."

Immediately after saying there is no analytical method to
determine presence of MSG during the manufacturing process of a
product, the FSSAI order adds: "To prevent both avoidable
harassment/ prosecution of food business operators as well as to
ensure that consumers are facilitated to exercise informed choices
in respect of what they eat, proceedings may be launched against
FBOs only when the labels state 'No MSG', or 'No Added MSG' and
MSG is actually found in the impugned foodstuff."

In its final words, FSSAI has also directed food safety
commissioners of all states to no launch enforcement or
prosecution against manufacturers of noddles and pastas.  The
order said, "Commissioners of food saftery are advised that
specific enforcement/prosecution may not be launched against the
manufacturers of noodles / pasta on account of presence of
MSG/Glutamic acid unless it is ascertained by the department that
MSG flavour enhancer was deliberately added during the course of
the manufacture without declaration on the label . . . ."

Interestingly, the March 31 office order comes close on the heels
of the Authority's office order directing the winding up of its
sub- regional office of FSSAI, in Lucknow, the same office that
was instrumental in seizing the contested samples of Maggi
noodles.  The Lucknow office of FSSAI, which was officially closed
down on March 31, is also in possession of what might be the only
remaining samples of Maggi for future lab testing and sampling.


NEW MEXICO: Immigrant Advocates Call for Release of Tax Refunds
---------------------------------------------------------------
Uriel J. Garcia, writing for The New Mexican, reports that civil
rights groups are asking a judge to stop the state Taxation and
Revenue Department from continuing a 2012 policy of withholding
tax refunds from immigrants who use a federally issued tax
identification number.

The motion is part of two lawsuits in state District Court that
were filed by Santa Fe-based Somos Un Pueblo Unido and the
national Mexican American Legal Defense Fund.  The lawsuits, filed
in 2015, claim that, under Republican Gov. Susana Martinez's
administration, immigrants have been denied tax refunds to which
they are entitled.

Only four plaintiffs are included in the lawsuits but the groups
say that hundreds of workers are affected by the state policy. The
groups want the state to pay the plaintiffs' refunds and to stop
the practice.

Gov. Martinez's Department of Taxation and Revenue says it has
held up refunds if it found immigrants improperly using someone
else's Social Security number.

At the center of the case are undocumented immigrants in
New Mexico who are obligated to file tax returns, though they may
not have permission to work in America.  The federal government
issues identification numbers to undocumented immigrants and
immigrants awaiting legal status who don't have a valid Social
Security number but must report taxable income to the state and
federal governments.

The lawsuits and request for an injunction highlight a common
misconception that people without proof of immigration status
don't pay state and federal income taxes.

Even when undocumented immigrants are caught providing a Social
Security number that doesn't belong to them, the federal
government issues them a tax ID number.  This is a route for them
to file state and federal tax returns.

The lawsuits claim the Martinez administration's policy wrongly
withholds refunds from immigrants who used a tax ID number.  In
contrast, the federal government has continued to issue refunds to
these same immigrants.

Lawyers for immigrants said in their motion, that the state's
policy should be stopped until the lawsuits are resolved in a
state District Court in Santa Fe.

"Withholding monies owed to hardworking immigrants is the act of
rogues and swindlers, not of legitimate government," said
Thomas Saenz, president and lawyer for the Mexican American Legal
Defense Fund.  "These monies should be circulating in the New
Mexico economy, not held by a government agency acting outside its
authority, while the court decides the issues in these important
cases."

In their motions, Saenz and Somos Un Pueblo Unido say New Mexico
has withheld hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax refunds to
immigrants.  Another round of income taxes is due April 18.
Ben Cloutier, a spokesman for the state Taxation and Revenue
Department, said the advocacy groups want the state to ignore the
law.

"They're asking us to turn a blind eye when illegal immigrants
seek tax refunds using tax returns with fraudulent Social Security
numbers," Mr. Cloutier said.  "That's absurd, and we're confident
the court will agree."

Arizona state tax officials in 2011 said that they would
scrutinize residents' tax filings if they used a federal
government tax identification number.  Gov. Martinez's
administration began a policy the next year modeled after
Arizona's.

Arizona officials told people who filed a tax return using a
federal tax ID number to make sure the Social Security number on
their W-2 form didn't belong to anyone else.  If an immigrant was
using a Social Security assigned to another person, the state may
withhold his or her refund, Sean Laux, a spokesman for the Arizona
Department of Revenue, said on April 1.

In New Mexico, the dispute is at a higher pitch.  The advocacy
groups claim Martinez's administration has been targeting
immigrants, even those authorized to work legally, by withholding
their tax returns.

In one lawsuit, two of the plaintiffs are Santa Fe residents
Gladys Cobos, an accountant, and L. Roberto Sanchez, a handyman.
Both say they are lawfully authorized to work in the United
States, and for years they paid their taxes in New Mexico without
any trouble until Martinez won election as governor.

Beginning in 2012, they say, Martinez's staff at the state
Taxation and Revenue Department began denying them tax refunds and
even assessing fees and penalties on filings.  In contrast, the
U.S. government accepted their returns, which Ms. Cobos and
Sanchez filed using their federal individual tax identification
numbers.

Two plaintiffs in the second suit, who are not authorized to work
in the United States, are from Farmington.  A married couple, they
identify themselves in the lawsuit as John and Jane Doe.  He is a
laborer in the oil and gas industry.

They also allege in their pleadings that they have a long work
history in New Mexico, and that they always paid their taxes on
time using the identification numbers provided by the U.S.
Internal Revenue Service.

The lawsuits are not seeking class-action status.  Instead, the
lawyers are seeking that the state pay what the four plaintiffs
are due and end the policy of withholding tax refunds.

"New Mexico's immigrant workers cannot afford to wait for a final
court decision," said Marisa Bono, a lawyer for the Mexican
American Legal Defense Fund.  "State officials should not be
allowed to continue targeting immigrant families while our clients
argue their full case before the court."


NEW RESIDENTIAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
New Residential Investment Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company's motion to dismiss a class action lawsuit remains
pending.

Three putative class action lawsuits have been filed against Home
Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., and certain of its current and
former officers and directors in the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York entitled: (i) Oliveira v.
Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-652
(S.D.N.Y.), filed on January 29, 2015; (ii) Berglan v. Home Loan
Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-947 (S.D.N.Y.), filed
on February 9, 2015; and (iii) W. Palm Beach Police Pension Fund
v. Home Loan Servicing Solutions, Ltd., et al., No. 15-CV-1063
(S.D.N.Y.), filed on February 13, 2015. On April 2, 2015, these
lawsuits were consolidated into a single action."

On April 28, 2015, lead plaintiffs, lead counsel and liaison
counsel were appointed in the Securities Action. On November 9,
2015, lead plaintiffs filed an amended class action complaint.

On January 27, 2016, the Securities Action was transferred to the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida
and given the Index No. 16-CV-60165 (S.D. Fla.).

The Securities Action names as defendants HLSS, former HLSS
Chairman William C. Erbey, HLSS Director, President, and Chief
Executive Officer John P. Van Vlack, and HLSS Chief Financial
Officer James E. Lauter. The Securities Action asserts causes of
action under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 based on certain public disclosures made by HLSS
relating to its relationship with Ocwen and HLSS's risk management
and internal controls.

More specifically, the consolidated class action complaint alleges
that a series of statements in HLSS's disclosures were materially
false and misleading, including statements about (i) Ocwen's
servicing capabilities; (ii) HLSS's contingencies and legal
proceedings; (iii) its risk management and internal controls and
(iv) certain related party transactions.  The consolidated class
action complaint also appears to allege that HLSS's financial
statements for the years ended 2012 and 2013, and the first
quarter ended March 30, 2014, were false and misleading based on
HLSS's August 18, 2014 restatement. Lead plaintiffs in the
Securities Action also allege that HLSS misled investors by
failing to disclose, among other things, information regarding
governmental investigations of Ocwen's business practices. Lead
plaintiffs seek money damages under the Securities Exchange Act in
an amount to be proven at trial and reasonable costs, expenses,
and fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the Securities Action and
consistent therewith on February 11, 2015, defendants filed
motions to dismiss the Securities Action in its entirety," the
Company said.

New Residential is a publicly traded real estate investment trust
("REIT") primarily focused on opportunistically investing in, and
actively managing, investments related to residential real estate.


NEW YORK: "Cisco" Suit v. Governor Cuomo Closed
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Glenn T. Suddaby dismissed the plaintiffs' claims and closed
the case captioned HENRY I. CISCO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ANDREW
CUOMO, et al., Defendants, No. 9:15-CV-0618 (GTS/CFH) (N.D.N.Y.).

Pro se plaintiffs commenced a civil rights action asserting claims
arising out of their confinement in the custody of the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS).
After the denial of their claims and request for class
certification on November 23, 2015, the plaintiffs submitted an
amended complaint, as well as motions for permanent injunction and
the appointment of counsel.

The plaintiffs' second attempt to have the matter class certified
was again denied by Judge Suddaby as it is well-settled that a
class action cannot be maintained by a pro se litigant since non-
attorneys may not represent anyone other than themselves.

Judge Suddaby found that the amended complaint does not contain
any facts pertaining to Salih Abdullah, Richard Dennis, Clifford
Merchant, Timothy Frazier and Glenn Vannorstrand and that these
plaintiffs did not sign the amended complaint.  Thus, the judge
dismissed any claims asserted on behalf these plaintiffs for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

Claims by the remaining plaintiffs Henry Cisco and Thaxton Hamlin
were also dismissed by Judge Suddaby for failure to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted and for the same reasons set
forth in the November order.  Consequently, the judge also denied
the plaintiffs' motions for appointment of counsel and for
permanent injunction.  Lastly, Judge Suddaby found that any
further amendment of the plaintiffs' complaint would be futile,
and so the claims were dismissed with prejudice.

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


OBESITY RESEARCH: Faces "Bozic" Suit Over Weight Loss Pill Ads
--------------------------------------------------------------
Regina Bozic, Plaintiff, on behalf of herself, all others
similarly situated and the general public v. Henny Den Uijl,
Sandra Den Uijl, Bryan Corlett, Obesity Research Institute,
Continuity Products, National Weight Loss Institute, Zodiac
Foundation, Conversion Systems, Innotrac Corporation, Defendants,
Case No. 16CV0733BTMRBB (S.D. Cal., March 29, 2016), seeks
declaratory judgment, equitable and injunctive relief, monetary
damages and consumer redress for false and misleading statement
over Lipozene weight loss pill.  Plaintiffs alleges that through a
uniform and comprehensive marketing scheme, Lipozene is advertised
online, in magazines, and in retail stores as being the
"CLINICALLY PROVEN" weight loss supplement that helps users "LOSE
WEIGHT WITHOUT DIET AND EXERCISE."

Obesity Research Institute is a research institution.

Continuity Products is engaged in marketing and advertising
business.

National Weight Loss Institute is a registered dietitian.

Zodiac Foundation is a society to give loan against security money
as donation.

Conversion Systems is a website designer.

Innotrac Corporation provides customized, technology-based support
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
   Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
   LAW OFFICE OF RONALD A. MARRON
   651 Arroyo Drive
   San Diego, CA 92101
   Tel: (619) 696-9006
   Fax: (619) 564-6665
   Email: ron@consumersadvocates.com
          mike@consumersadvocates.com


OKINAWA SUSHI: "Zhao" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Lei Zhao, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v.
Okinawa Sushi & Grill Corporation d/b/a Okinawa, Ri Jie Zheng,
"Selina" Doe, John Doe and Jane Doe #1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-01775-
SRC-CL (D.N.J., March 30, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime,
unpaid minimum wages, improperly diverted/ withheld tips,
liquidated damages and statutory penalties and attorney's fees and
costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant located at 400 Newark
St., Hoboken, NJ 07030.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keli Liu, Esq.
      Jian Hang, Esq.
      HANG AND ASSOCIATES, PLLC
      39th Ave. Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11355
      Telephone: (718) 353-8588
      Facsimile: (718) 353-6288
      E-mail: kliu@hanglaw.com
              jhang@hanglaw.com


OMEGA ENGINEERING: Sued in N.Y. Over Disability Discrimination
--------------------------------------------------------------
Shane Stults v. Omega Engineering, Inc., Barry Fox, and John Does
1-5 and 6-10, Case No. L-1205-16 (N.Y. Super. Ct., March 30,
2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged employment
discrimination based on disability.

The Defendants operate an instrumentation company headquartered in
Stamford, Connecticut, with its main factory in Bridgeport, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


OUTBACK STEAKHOUSE: Web Site Inaccessible to Blind, "Orden" Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Del-Orden, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02319 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016),
complains that the Defendant failed to make its Web site
accessible to blind persons.

Outback Steakhouse of Florida, LLC owns and operates restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   C.K. Lee, Esq.
   Anne Seelig, Esq.
   LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
   30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
   New York, NY 10016
   Tel: 212-465-1188
   Fax: 212-465-1181


OVASCIENCE INC: Securities Case Remanded to Mass. Superior Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ovascience, 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 district court has
granted plaintiffs' motion to remand their class action lawsuit to
the Superior Court in Massachusetts.

"On October 9, 2015, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in
the Suffolk County Superior Court in the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts against us, several of our officers and directors
and certain of the underwriters from our January 2015 follow-on
public offering of our common stock," the Company said.

"The plaintiffs purport to represent those persons who purchased
shares of our common stock pursuant or traceable to our January
2015 follow-on public offering. The plaintiffs allege, among other
things, that the defendants made false and misleading statements
and failed to disclose material information in the Company's
January 2015 Registration Statement and incorporated offering
materials. Plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 11, 12 and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and seek, among other
relief, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission, pre-and
post-judgment interest and fees, costs and disbursements.

"On December 7, 2015, the OvaScience defendants filed a notice of
removal with the Federal District Court for the District of
Massachusetts.  On December 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand the action to the Superior Court.

"Oral argument on the motion to remand was held on February 19,
2016. On February 23, 2016, the District Court granted plaintiffs'
motion to remand the action to the Superior Court.

"We believe that the complaint is without merit and intend to
defend against the litigation. There can be no assurance, however,
that we will be successful. A resolution of this lawsuit adverse
to the Company or the other defendants could have a material
effect on our consolidated financial position and results of
operations in the period in which the lawsuit is resolved. At
present, we are unable to estimate potential losses, if any,
related to the lawsuit."

OvaScience is a global fertility company focused on the discovery,
development, and commercialization of new fertility treatment
options for women.


P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Black" Suit in Illinois Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------
RYAN BLACK and DAYNIA McDONALD v. P.F. CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC.,
Case: 1:16-cv-03958 (N.D. Ill., April 1, 2016), seeks to recover
minimum wages, overtime compensation, and alleged misappropriated
tips, unlawful deductions under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

P.F. Chang's is one of the leading Asian-inspired full service
casual restaurant chains in the United States and presently owns
and operates approximately 218 locations in the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington Street, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: 312-419-1008

        - and -

     Brian S. Schaffer, Esq.
     Armando A. Ortiz, Esq.
     FITAPELLI & SCHAFFER, LLP
     28 Liberty Street, 25th Floor
     New York, NY 10005
     Phone: (212) 300-0375


P.F. CHANG'S: Faces "Del-Orden" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc.
The case is captioned Jose Del-Orden, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. P.F. Chang's China
Bistro, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02392 (S.D.N.Y.,
Foley Square, March 31, 2016).

P. F. Chang's is an Asian-themed US casual dining restaurant chain
owned and operated by Centerbridge Partners and headquartered in
Scottsdale, Arizona. As of October 2014, P. F. Chang's operated
204 restaurants in the United States and 56 in international
markets under licensee agreements. Countries include Canada,
Puerto Rico, Mexico, Argentina, Chile, Brazil, Colombia, Costa
Rica, Panama, Turkey, Lebanon, Philippines and the Middle East. It
is the largest full service, casual dining Chinese restaurant
chain in the United States with locations across the country.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PIZZA POINT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit in Fla. Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
EDWIN BASIL FERRUFINO SANCHEZ v. PIZZA POINT I, INC., and
ASHWANI KUMAR, Case 1:16-cv-21177-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 1, 2016),
alleges that the Plaintiff has not been paid overtime and minimum
wages for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly in violation
of under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.H. Zidell, Esq.
     J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
     300 71st Street, Suite 605
     Miami Beach, FL 33141
     Tel: (305) 865-6766
     Fax: (305) 865-7167
     E-mail: zabogado@aol.com


QUESTAR CORPORATION: Violated Exchange Act, "Ipson" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Ipson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated and derivatively on behalf of Questar Corporation, the
Plaintiff, v. Questar Corporation, Teresa Beck, Laurence M.
Downes, Christopher A. Helms, Ronald W. Jibson, James T. Mcmanus
II, Rebecca Ranich, Harris H. Simmons, Bruce A. Williamson,
Dominion Resources, Inc., and Diamond Beehive Corp., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00255-JN (D. Utah, Central Div.
March31, 2016), seeks to enjoin the Individual Defendants from
further violating federal securities laws and breaching duties in
connection with a proposed transaction.

On February 1, 2016, Questar announced that it had entered into a
definitive agreement (the Merger Agreement) on January 31, 2016
with Dominion and Diamond Beehive Corp. Merger Sub) for Dominion
to acquire Questar, for $25 for each share of Questar, valued
at $47.00 per share (the Proposed Transaction). The implied equity
value of the transaction is approximately $4.4 billion. Both
companies' boards of directors approved the Proposed
Transaction. The Proposed Transaction contemplates an acquisition
of all three of Questar's subsidiaries: Questar Gas Company,
Questar Pipeline Company, and Wexpro Company.

Questar Corporation is a natural gas-focused energy company based
in Salt Lake City, Utah in the Rocky Mountains. Questar's three
major lines of business -- retail gas distribution, interstate gas
transportation and gas production -- are conducted through its
principal subsidiaries: Questar Gas, Questar Pipeline and Wexpro.
Wexpro is an oil and natural gas producer in the Rocky Mountains.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W. Scofield, Esq.
          PETERS SCOFIELD, A.P.C.
          7430 Creek Road, Suite 303
          Sandy, Utah 84093
          Telephone: 801-386-5058
          Facsimile: 801-912-0320

               - and -

          Gregory M. Nespole, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN
          ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016


RA ARIAS LANDSCAPING: "Fragoso" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richardo Fragoso, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. RA Arias Landscaping, Corp (d/b/a RA Arias
Landscaping) and Raymundo Arias, Defendants, Case No. 7:16-cv-
02292 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), is brought against the Defendant
for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Ra Arias Landscaping is a landscaping company, located at 164
Locust Ave., New Rochelle, NY 10805

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
   Fax: (212) 317-1620
   Email: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


SA PATHOLOGY: Faulty Cancer Testing Kits May Spur Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Wills, writing for The Advertiser, reports that Health
Minster Jack Snelling says faulty testing kits from a private
company are believed to be the cause of false prostate cancer
diagnoses, and more heads could roll over the scandal.

Mr. Snelling on April 3 gave an update over the SA Pathology
bungle, which is believed to have affected about 100 men, and said
he was fuming about having being left in the dark.

"I am beside myself with rage that this could happen and it not
occur to anyone in SA Pathology that this was something that
needed to be briefed up to the chief executive of SA Health and
ultimately to me," Mr. Snelling said.  "It would hard not to
describe it as a cover up.

"When mistakes are made, what I expect is for people to be
accountable for them and for people to be forthright so that we
can provide assurances . . . about the quality of our health
system.

"Potentially, if wFe find further cases of people not being
upfront with the people of SA and not providing me with the
information I need to do my job effectively, yes heads will roll."

Mr. Snelling said he did not have complete confidence in the
information he received since the matter was brought to his
attention by the Sunday Mail on Saturday afternoon, but "it
appears that this is because of things that were outside the
control of SA Pathology".

"There was a problem with the testing kits provided by the
external company to SA Pathology to conduct the tests,"
Mr. Snelling said . He did not name the company, but said it could
be liable.

Mr. Snelling said the recent performance of the health department,
which included patients receiving incorrect chemotherapy doses and
patient record hacking, had "left a lot to be desired".

Mr. Snelling rejected suggestions there should be a judicial
inquiry into the entire department, saying the failings had been
isolated to a relatively small number of people.

"There is nothing to indicate that anyone has received unnecessary
treatment because of any of these tests,"
Mr. Snelling said.  He said he believed all dodgy tests had been
rechecked.

The doctor who raised the alarm on a major bungle that led to
about 100 men with prostate cancer being wrongly diagnosed says
"it's possible" some of those men were treated unnecessarily on
the basis of that false diagnosis.

The Sunday Mail and Advertiser.com.au exclusively revealed claims
from leading urologist Dr Peter Sutherland that patients had
received false positive results since January, despite many having
had their prostate glands removed.

On April 3, he said it was possible some of those men went on to
receive unnecessary radiotherapy treatment.

"It's possible," Dr. Sutherland said on April 3.

"The thing we commonly do in this situation is if we're worried
about cancer growing in a man in this situation, we're worried the
cancer is growing from the area the cancer is removed from so
commonly we'd treat the prostate bed area."

Any patients who received treatment would have been risking
possible side-effects, as with any surgery or medical
intervention, he said.

SA Health moved to sack the executive director of Pathology SA,
Ken Barr, within hours of the bungle being revealed by the Sunday
Mail.

However, it can now be revealed Mr. Barr told staff in an internal
memo on February 16 that he had decided to leave SA anyway when
his contract expired on July 23.

A copy of the memo, sighted by The Advertiser, states the decision
came following a meeting with a senior staff member in charge of
Statewide Clinical Support Services.

"Following a meeting with Steve Morris as group executive director
of SCSS, I have confirmed to him that on completion of my contract
with SA Health on 23rd July I will be leaving my post as executive
director of SA Pathology and returning to my family in the UK," Mr
Barr wrote.

"I am conscious of the significant challenges ahead for both SA
Pathology, particularly around the EY project, EPLIS and the
transition to nRAH.  You can be assured of my ongoing commitment
to SA Pathology between now and the end of my contract.

"I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of you for all
your hard work and strong support for me since I arrived in
October 2012.  It has been an honor and privilege to work with
you.  I will be taking home some fantastic memories of my time
here."

He also tweeted about his intentions to work in the UK National
Health Service.

The decision came about the time doctors sounded the alarm on
dodgy testing within the department and after an SA Pathology
scandal over hidden cameras recording staff.

Today, an angry Jack Snelling said he'd "had a gutful" of being
given inadequate or incorrect information by senior health
bureaucrats as the fallout from the bungle continues.

While reluctant to pre-empt the findings of an investigation into
the errors, Mr. Snelling said there had been a breakdown in normal
protocols that were designed to ensure the Minister and senior
executives were made aware of problems in the system.

"We are only as good as the information that's provided up to us
and sometimes that information is inadequate or incorrect,"
Mr. Snelling said.

"And I've had a gutful of it and that's why the chief executive of
SA Health has taken the decision he took (in sacking Mr Barr)."

Mr. Snelling said an independent investigator would be brought in
from interstate "to get to the absolute bottom of this".

He declined to comment on whether it was likely the government
would face legal action over the bungle.

"Look, it would still be very, very early days yet and I wouldn't
be in a position to comment."

Opposition Health spokesman Stephen Wade said Mr. Snelling had
"lost control of his department" and should take responsibility
for a culture of secrecy.

"He and his party have presided over the health system for 14
years.  He is responsible for

the secretive and unaccountable organization that is SA Health,"
Mr. Wade said.

On February 17, in a tweet via an account that appears to belong
to Mr. Barr, he told followers he was leaving Pathology SA and
flagged a possible new role in the UK.

"Amazing time with SA Pathology but time to move to new
challenges.  "I can feel NHS #Pathology calling from 10,000 miles
away."

A specialist SA Health team is now scrambling to determine how
many people have been affected and the cause of the error, which
is believed to be a machine malfunction.

Mr. Barr has also been publicly savaged by Mr. Snelling for
overseeing a "cover-up" which has created distress among patients
who wrongly believed they had cancer.

The SA Health team is to identify all affected patients and
contact them.

Central Adelaide Health Network chief executive Julia Squire said
she had been unable to get "complete clarification on exactly what
has occurred" since the news broke.

She said the estimate of about 100 affected patients "feels about
right", but must be checked.

The Australian Commission on Safety and Quality will conduct an
independent review, on request of SA Health, to examine testing
standards and the care and attention given to patients.

Mr. Snelling was unaware of the scandal until approached for
comment the day before publication and accused SA Pathology of
misleading him and the public in a "cover-up".

A fortnight ago, SA Pathology released an obtuse media statement
on its website about "improved testing", stating that recent PSA
(prostate-specific antigen) results had been "highly accurate and
reliable in the core range" but it had "moved to improve values
below 0.15ug/L".

Mr. Snelling said he didn't "have an enormous amount of confidence
in what I've been told".

"I don't think anyone reading that release on the website would
think for a moment that it was reporting something on the scale of
what we've seen," Mr. Snelling said.

"It is just simply unacceptable for me to be finding information
about things on this sort of scale from journalists, rather than
through my department. "I'm very, very angry about it.

"It was incredibly distressing to some of our patients and should
have been briefed up to me.

"These sorts of cover-ups are unacceptable. When they do occur,
we'll take appropriate action."

Mr. Snelling said the Government must be "open and frank" about
its mistakes.

SA Pathology was the focus for another scandal last year, when
hidden cameras were used to spy on staff.  A review found they
were inappropriate, but no laws were breached.

At the time, Mr. Snelling said there had been poor judgment by SA
Pathology management.

The health department has also been under intense scrutiny in
recent months after it was revealed the private records of
patients, including accused murderer Cy Walsh, were hacked by
clinicians. That case was also only brought to public attention by
media reporting.

The Advertiser also first revealed in August that 10 patients at
the Royal Adelaide Hospital and Flinders Medical Centre had
received only half their required chemotherapy doses due to a
typo.

Mr. Swan said he was "very concerned that patients have been led
to believe they may have prostate cancer by false readings" and
"it is clear even at this stage that there have been a number of
issues that SA Pathology has not reported or managed effectively".

Anyone with any concerns should call SA Pathology Enquiries on
8222 3000.

Opposition health spokesman Stephen Wade said Mr. Snelling had
"clearly has lost control of his own department" and was regularly
"kept in the dark about problems in our health system".

"He and his Party have presided over the health system for 14
years.  He is responsible for the secretive and unaccountable
organization that is SA Health," Mr. Wade said.

Duncan Basheer Hannon partner Patrick Boylen said the affected
patients could have grounds for a class action against SA
Pathology to recover medical costs and compensate for suffering.

"There is potential negligence action there against SA Pathology,"
he said.  "There appears to be something like 100 (people
affected), and faulty machine or testing processes.

"In terms of damages, you've got unnecessary medical expenses,
perhaps time off work, pain and suffering associated with surgery
plus the stress of the wrong diagnosis."

One patient who received a false positive test said he went
through "hell" because of the error, and it took weeks before
being cleared.  "For 30 days I felt like I was on death row," he
said.

Dr. Sutherland said a positive result might mean a patient goes on
to have treatment including radiotherapy to the base of the spine,
which can produce extra side effects and problems.

Anyone with any concerns should call SA Pathology Enquiries on
8222 3000.


SAHARA EAST RESTAURANT: "Dacaj" Suit Seeks Wages & Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zef Dacaj, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated v. Sahara East Restaurant Corp. d/b/a Sahara
East Restaurant, Mahmoud Gomaa and Ahmed Gomaa, Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-02273 (S.D.N.Y., March 29, 2016), is brought against
the Defendant for failure to pay minimum and overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law.

Sahara East Restaurant is located at 184 1st Avenue, New York, NY
10009.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Louis Pechman, Esq.
   Vivianna Morales, Esq.
   Washcarina Martinez Alonzo, Esq.
   PECHMAN LAW GROUP PLLC
   488 Madison Avenue - 11th Floor
   New York, NY 10022
   Tel: (212) 583-9500
   Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com
          morales@pechmanlaw.com
          martinez@pechmanlaw.com


SAN DIEGO, CA: Court Dismisses "St. Jon" Suit
---------------------------------------------
Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel granted the defendants' motions to dismiss
the case captioned DJ ST. JON on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. TIMOTHY J. TATRO ET AL.,
Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-2552-GPC-JLB (S.D. Cal.).

The action follows a protacted litigation in California state
court over the fate of the De Anza Cove mobile home park.  DJ St.
Jon's alleged that the defendants violated his due process rights
by conspiring to reach a "settlement" regarding an award of
attorneys' fees without a preliminary approval or fairness hearing
as required by California Rule of Court 3.679.

Judge Curiel found that St. Jon lacks standing as she has not
alleged an "injury in fact."  Although St. Jon argued that she has
been injured in three ways: (1) deprivation of her "vested
property and liberty interest" in a fairness hearing in state
court regarding the attorneys' fees awarded to class counsel; (2)
her eviction from her mobile home on January 13, 2016; and (3) the
loss of her right to appeal the state court decision, Judge Curiel
concluded that none of these alleged injuries amount to an injury
in fact sufficient to support Article III standing.

Judge Curiel also found that the applicability of the Rooker-
Feldman doctrine constitutes an independent ground upon which the
court lacks jurisdiction to consider the plaintiff's due process
claim.  Consequently, since the plaintiff's sole federal claim has
been dismissed on the basis of lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, Judge Curiel also concluded that the court lacks
authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over St. Jon's
state law claims.

Judge Curiel also denied St. Jon's motion for leave to amend, and
dismissed the defendants' motions to strike as moot.

A full-text copy of Judge Curiel's March 23, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/kU8Oz9from Leagle.com.

DJ St. Jon, Plaintiff, represented by Eduardo Martorell, Bordin
Martorell LLP & Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Bordin Martorell, LLP.

Timothy J. Tatro, Peter A. Zamoyski, Tatro & Zamoyski, LLP,
Defendants, represented by Charles R Grebing, Wingert Grebing
Brubaker & Juskie LLP & Colin Howard Walshok, Wingert Grebing
Brubaker and Goodwin LLP.

Vincent J. Bartolotta, Jr., Karen Frostrom, Thornes Bartolotta &
McGuire, Defendants, represented by Douglas M Butz --
dmbutz@butzdunn.com -- Butz Dunn & Desantis.

M. D. Scully, William Rathbone, Timothy Branson, Gordon & Rees
LLP, Defendants, represented by Eric R Deitz --
edeitz@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP &Allison L. Jones --
ajones@gordonrees.com -- Gordon & Rees LLP.

City of San Diego, Jan I. Goldsmith, Donald R. Worley, John E.
Riley, Defendants, represented by Edward C. Walton --
ed.walton@procopio.com -- Procopio, Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch,
LLP & Zagros Bassirian -- zag.bassirian@procopio.com -- Procopio,
Cory, Hargreaves & Savitch LLP.


SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Meyer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., Case No. 3:16-cv-00083
(S.D. Tex., March 30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Schlumberger Technology Corp. is a supplier of technology,
integrated project management and information solutions to
customers working in the oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: Motion to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's
motion to dismiss a securities class action lawsuit remains
pending.

On September 9, 2014, a purported stockholder class action lawsuit
consisting of purchasers of the Company's common stock during the
periods between April 18, 2013 to August 13, 2014, captioned Baker
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-CV-02129-MMA
(KSC), was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California against the Company, the Chairman of the
Company's Board of Directors, certain of its executive officers
and Blackstone.

On February 27, 2015, Court-appointed Lead Plaintiffs,
Pensionskassen For Borne- Og Ungdomspaedagoger and Arkansas Public
Employees Retirement System, together with additional plaintiffs,
Oklahoma City Employee Retirement System and Pembroke Pines
Firefighters and Police Officers Pension Fund (collectively,
"Plaintiffs"), filed an amended complaint against the Company, the
Chairman of the Company's Board of Directors, certain of its
executive officers, Blackstone, and underwriters of the initial
public offering and secondary public offerings.  The amended
complaint alleges, among other things, that the prospectus and
registration statements filed contained materially false and
misleading information in violation of the federal securities laws
and seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.
Plaintiffs contend that defendants knew or were reckless in not
knowing that Blackfish was impacting SeaWorld's business at the
time of each public statement.

On May 29, 2015, the Company and the other defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The Plaintiffs filed an
opposition to the motion to dismiss on July 31, 2015.  The Company
and the other defendants filed a reply in further support of their
motion to dismiss on September 18, 2015.

The Company believes that the class action lawsuit is without
merit and intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously; however, there
can be no assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this
lawsuit.

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


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: To Seek Dismissal of "Hall" Action
----------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on February 26, 2016,
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
intends to file a motion to dismiss the Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint filed in the consumer class action lawsuit.

On March 25, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of
California against the Company, captioned Holly Hall v. SeaWorld
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-00600-CAB-RBB (the "Hall
Matter").  The complaint identifies three putative classes
consisting of all consumers nationwide who at any time during the
four-year period preceding the filing of the original complaint,
purchased an admission ticket, a membership or a SeaWorld
"experience" that includes an "orca experience" from the SeaWorld
amusement park in San Diego, California, Orlando, Florida or San
Antonio, Texas respectively.  The complaint alleges causes of
action under California Unfair Competition Law, California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California False
Advertising Law, California Deceit statute, Florida Unfair and
Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Texas Deceptive Trade Practices
Act, as well as claims for Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or
misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material
facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members.  The complaint
further alleges that the specific misrepresentations heard and
relied upon by Holly Hall in purchasing her SeaWorld tickets
concerned the circumstances surrounding the death of a SeaWorld
trainer.  The complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief,
attorney's fees and costs.  Plaintiffs claim that the amount in
controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability exposure is
speculative until the size of the class is determined (if
certification is granted at all).

In addition, four other purported class actions were filed against
the Company and its affiliates.  The first three actions were
filed on April 9, 2015, April 16, 2015 and April 17, 2015,
respectively, in the following federal courts: (i) the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Florida,
captioned Joyce Kuhl v. SeaWorld LLC et al., 6:15-cv-00574-ACC-GJK
(the "Kuhl Matter"), (ii) the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California, captioned Jessica Gaab, et. al.
v. SeaWorld Entertainment, Inc., Case No. 15:cv-842-CAB-RBB (the
"Gaab Matter"), and (iii) the United States District Court for the
Western District of Texas, captioned Elaine Salazar Browne v.
SeaWorld of Texas LLC et al., 5:15-cv-00301-XR (the "Browne
Matter").

On May 1, 2015, the Kuhl Matter and Browne Matter were voluntarily
dismissed without prejudice by the respective plaintiffs.

On May 7, 2015, plaintiffs Kuhl and Browne re-filed their claims,
along with a new plaintiff, Valerie Simo, in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California in an
action captioned Valerie Simo et al. v. SeaWorld Entertainment,
Inc., Case No. 15:cv-1022-CAB-RBB (the "Simo Matter").

All four of these cases, in essence, reiterate the claims made and
relief sought in the Hall Matter.

On August 7, 2015, the Gaab Matter and Simo Matter were
consolidated with the Hall Matter, and the plaintiffs filed a
First Consolidated Amended Complaint ("FAC") on August 21, 2015.
The FAC pursues the same seven causes of action as the original
Hall complaint, and adds a request for punitive damages pursuant
to the California CLRA.

The Company moved to dismiss the FAC in its entirety, and its
motion was granted on December 24, 2015.

The United States District Court for the Southern District of
California granted dismissal with prejudice as to the California
CLRA claim, the portion of California Unfair Competition Law claim
premised on the CLRA claim, all claims for injunctive relief, and
on all California claims premised solely on alleged omissions by
the Company.  The United States District Court for the Southern
District of California granted leave to amend as to the remainder
of the complaint.

On January 25, 2016, plaintiffs filed their Second Consolidated
Amended Complaint ("SAC").  The SAC pursues the same causes of
action as the FAC, except for the California CLRA, which, as noted
above, was dismissed with prejudice.  The Company intends to file
a motion to dismiss the SAC.


SEAWORLD ENTERTAINMENT: "Anderson" Plaintiffs Appeal Remand Order
-----------------------------------------------------------------
SeaWorld Entertainment, 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 plaintiffs
in the class action lawsuit by Marc Anderson, et. al., have filed
a petition for permission to appeal the January 12, 2016 order to
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

On April 13, 2015, a purported class action was filed in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the City and County
of San Francisco against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc.,
captioned Marc Anderson, et. al., v. SeaWorld Parks &
Entertainment, Inc., Case No. CGC-15-545292 (the "Anderson
Matter").  The putative class consists of all consumers within
California who, within the past four years, purchased tickets to
SeaWorld San Diego.

On May 11, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint (the "Amended Complaint").  The Amended Complaint
alleges causes of action under the California False Advertising
Law, California Unfair Competition Law and California CLRA.
Plaintiffs' claims are based on their allegations that the Company
misrepresented the physical living conditions and care and
treatment of its killer whales, resulting in confusion or
misunderstanding among ticket purchasers, and omitted material
facts regarding its killer whales with intent to deceive and
mislead the plaintiff and purported class members.  The Amended
Complaint seeks actual damages, equitable relief, attorneys' fees
and costs.  Based on plaintiffs' definition of the class, the
amount in controversy exceeds $5.0 million, but the liability
exposure is speculative until the size of the class is determined
(if certification is granted at all).

On May 14, 2015, the Company removed the case to the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, Case No.
15:cv-2172-SC.  On May 19, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
remand.  On September 18, 2015, the Company filed a motion to
dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety.  The motion is
fully briefed.

On September 24, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California denied plaintiffs' motion to
remand.  On October 5, 2015, plaintiffs filed a motion for leave
to file a motion for reconsideration of this order, and
contemporaneously filed a petition for permission to appeal to the
Ninth Circuit, which the Company opposed.

On October 14, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted plaintiffs' motion for
leave.  Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was fully briefed.

On January 12, 2016, the United States District Court for the
Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part
the motion for reconsideration, and refused to remand the case.
In that order, the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California noted that it will defer ruling on the
Company's motion to dismiss until the Ninth Circuit rules on
plaintiffs' petition for permission to appeal.

On January 22, 2016, plaintiffs filed a petition for permission to
appeal the January 12, 2016 order to the Ninth Circuit, which the
Company intends to oppose.  Both of plaintiffs' petitions for
permission to appeal remain pending.


SENTINEL OFFENDER: Needs Court Order for Probationers' Drug Test
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Hodson, writing for The Augusta Chronicle, reports that
Sentinel Offender Services has agreed to stop making probationers
submit and pay for drug tests unless the company has a written
court order for testing.

In a federal lawsuit filed in north Georgia, a consent order was
signed March 31, a day before a judge was to hear arguments about
issuing a temporary injunction.  The Southern Center for Human
Rights filed a civil rights lawsuit against Sentinel on behalf of
two Cleveland, Ga., women.

Rita Sanders Luse and Marianne Ligocki were charged in unrelated
cases with the misdemeanor offense of driving on a suspended
license.  The two pleaded guilty to the charges in White County
Probate Court.  They were placed on 12 months of probation because
they couldn't pay fines in full on their court dates.

According to the lawsuit, which seeks class-action status,
Sentinel employee Stacy McDowell-Black told Ms. Luse and
Ms. Ligocki that they had to take drug tests or she would have
them jailed for violating probation.

However, according to court documents, drug testing was not a
condition of probation set by the judge for either woman.
The lawsuit, filed in February, accuses Sentinel of forcing people
to undergo drug tests to earn higher fees that the company is not
entitled to collect. Sentinel denies forcing any probationer to
submit to a drug test not ordered by a court.

In the March 31 consent order, neither side of the dispute
concedes its position.  However, Sentinel agreed to not require
anyone sentenced to probation out of the White County Probate
Court to submit to a drug test unless the test is specifically
authorized in a written court order.

The lawsuit is one of 15 federal lawsuits filed against Sentinel
in Georgia, Florida and California.  In addition, more than a
dozen civil rights lawsuits have been filed against the private
probation company in the Superior Courts of Richmond and Columbia
counties since 2012.

In the first trial of the local lawsuits, a jury found in favor of
Kathleen Hucks in February and awarded her $50,000 in damages and
$125,000 in legal fees.


SHAMROCKFOODS COMPANY: Sued Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Zubia, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Shamrockfoods
Company and Does 1400, Case No. BC615331 (Cal. Super. Ct., March
30, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Shamrockfoods Company specializes in the manufacturing and
distribution of quality food and food-related products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William Turley, Esq.
      David Mara, Esq.
      Jill Veccbi, Esq.
      THE TURLEY LAW FIRM, APLC
      7428 Trade Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 234-2833
      Facsimile: (619)234-4048


SIRIUS XM: Continues to Face TCPA Class Suits
---------------------------------------------
Liberty Media 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 SIRIUS XM remains a
defendant in Telephone Consumer Protection Act class action suits.

SIRIUS XM is a defendant in several purported class action suits
that allege that SIRIUS XM, or call center vendors acting on their
behalf, made numerous calls which violate provisions of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (the "TCPA"). The
plaintiffs in these actions allege, among other things, that
SIRIUS XM called mobile phones using an automatic telephone
dialing system without the consumer's prior consent or,
alternatively, after the consumer revoked their prior consent.

In one of the actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM
violated the TCPA's call time restrictions, and in one of the
other actions, the plaintiff also alleges that SIRIUS XM violated
the TCPA's do not call restrictions. SIRIUS XM's vendors make
millions of calls each month to consumers, including its
subscribers, as part of its customer service and marketing
efforts.  The plaintiffs in these suits are seeking various forms
of relief, including statutory damages of five-hundred dollars for
each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages
of up to fifteen-hundred dollars for each knowing and willful
violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys'
fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting
violations of the TCPA in the future. SIRIUS XM believes it has
substantial defenses to the claims asserted in these actions and
intends to defend them vigorously.

These purported class action cases are titled Erik Knutson v.
Sirius XM Radio Inc., No. 12-cv-0418-AJB-NLS (S.D. Cal.), Francis
W. Hooker v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc., No. 4:13-cv-3 (E.D. Va.),
Yefim Elikman v. Sirius XM Radio, Inc. and Career Horizons, Inc.,
No. 1:15-cv-02093 (N.D. Ill.), and Anthony Parker v. Sirius XM
Radio, Inc., No. 8:15-cv-01710-JSM-EAJ (M.D. Fla).  These actions
were commenced in February 2012, January 2013, April 2015 and July
2015, respectively,  in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia, Newport News Division, the United
States District Court for the Southern District of California, the
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
and United States District Court for the Middle District of
Florida, respectively.  Information concerning each of these
actions is publicly available in court filings under their docket
numbers.

SIRIUS XM has notified certain of its call center vendors of these
actions and requested that they defend and indemnify SIRIUS XM
against these claims pursuant to the provisions of their existing
or former agreements with SIRIUS XM. SIRIUS XM believes it has
valid contractual claims against certain call center vendors in
connection with these claims and intends to preserve and pursue
its rights to recover from these entities; however, no assurance
can be made as to SIRIUS XM's ability to fully recover all claims
it may have against these entities.

Liberty Media Corporation owns interests in subsidiaries and other
companies which are engaged in the media and entertainment
industries. Its principal businesses and assets include
consolidated subsidiaries SIRIUS XM and the Braves Holdings, LLC,
and its equity affiliate Live Nation Entertainment, Inc.


SOLVAY SOLEXIS: Settles Class Action Over Contaminated Water
------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Polhamus, writing for NJ.com, reports that a plastics company
has settled a class action lawsuit by agreeing to front blood
testing costs for borough residents who drank contaminated tap
water.

Solvay Solexis and Arkema, the companies sued after an
environmental watchdog group discovered perfluorononanoic acid
(PFNA) in state data on the town's main water supply, have not
admitted any wrongdoing by agreeing to the settlement, court
documents say.

In January 2014, the state government warned people living in
Paulsboro that they should use "an abundance of caution" regarding
their water supply, and that parents should avoid giving the water
to children under the age of 1.  Solvay provided bottled water to
residents for much of that year.

PFCs and PFNA are bioaccumulating chemicals that were used by
Solvay -- located in the neighboring township of West Deptford --
from the 1980s until 2010. Effects of the chemicals are still
being studied, though the Environmental Protection Agency says
they can be toxic to laboratory animals and wildlife.

At the time of the lawsuit's filing in early 2014, testing had
found PFNA levels of more than 100 parts per trillion in the
water, but there was no standard in place for acceptable levels of
the chemical.  Last year, the NJDEP set a standard of 10 parts per
trillion.

Lewis Adler, the lead attorney representing the lawsuit class, was
not available for comment when reached by phone on April 1.
The proposed settlement, however, says that the manufacturers have
agreed to put up a total of $1.84 million -- $420,000 as a
monetary reward and a $1.42 million fund for resident blood tests.

The class includes residents who lived in town for at least a year
between Aug. 19, 2009, and April 10, 2014, as well as those who
owned property in Paulsboro from Aug. 5, 2013 to April 10, 2014.

A judge will have to review the settlement at a June 2 hearing
before it is approved.


SOUTHERN HEALTH: Mother Mulls Class Action Over Care Failings
-------------------------------------------------------------
Simon Hattenstone, writing for The Guardian, reports that three
years ago, aged 18, Connor Sparrowhawk drowned in a bath at Slade
House, a residential unit run by Southern Health, an NHS
foundation trust.  His parents had brought him there a few months
before, after he became aggressive and violent, and they found
themselves unable to cope.  "It felt as if we were buying a bit of
time for everyone, including Connor," Richard Huggins (Connor's
stepfather, says.  "These guys were professionals, Connor would
get some support.  We thought it was a terrible thing to have to
do, but it was fair. Within a few days we thought the place wasn't
very good.  But we never, ever thought he wouldn't come out."

In October last year, a jury delivered a damning verdict, that
serious failings and neglect had contributed to Connor's death.
Two months later, an astonishing report by audit firm Mazars,
commissioned by NHS England in 2014 at the request of Connor's
family, found that Southern Health had failed to properly
investigate the deaths of more than 700 people with learning
disabilities or mental health problems, over a four-year period,
from 2011 to 2015.

In a statement to the Commons on 10 December last year, health
secretary Jeremy Hunt said that the Mazars report had raised
serious concerns about Southern Health, which cares for about
45,000 people in Hampshire, Dorset, Wiltshire, Oxfordshire and
Buckinghamshire.  "Our hearts go out to the families of those
affected," he said.  "More than anything, they want to know that
the NHS learns from tragedies such as what happened to Connor
Sparrowhawk, and that is something we patently fail to do on too
many occasions . . . There is an urgent need to improve the
investigation of, and learning from, the estimated 200 avoidable
deaths we have every week across the system."

But 100 days on from the Mazars report, she is beginning to think
she was naive.  "We thought the report would become a national
priority for action.  And nothing has happened."  She is looking
at the possibility of bringing a class action, with other
families, against Southern Health, one of the largest mental
health and learning disability trusts in England.

Two weeks after Connor's death, Sara discovered that Southern
Health had recorded his passing in the minutes of a board meeting
published online: "A Serious Incident Requiring Investigation
(SIRI) occurred in one of the Trust Learning Disability in-patient
facilities, leading to the unexpected death of a service user.
The postmortem indicates the user died of natural causes and early
investigations indicate all appropriate systems and processes were
in place and being followed leading up to the incident."  At the
time, Sara did not think she could have been more angry, but she
was wrong.

In September 2013, six weeks after Connor died, the Care Quality
Commission visited Slade House, and failed it on all 10 counts it
inspected: there was no battery in the defibrillator, no oxygen in
the oxygen tank, no therapeutic interactions, there were traces of
faeces in the furniture, medicines were out of date -- and on it
went.  Three months later, in December 2013, the Statt unit was
closed down.  In May 2014, it was reported that the CQC had
returned to Slade House and that its services had improved; baths,
however, were now banned in favour of showers. The reason was
never revealed to Connor's family. (The CQC's current rating for
Southern Health is "requires improvement".)

Look beyond the stark headline numbers of 2015's Mazars report and
the detail is just as shocking.  Of 10,306 deaths of service users
between April 2011 and March 2015, 722 were categorized as
unexpected; of these only 30% were investigated. Sixty-four per
cent of investigations did not involve the family.  Most shocking
of all, less than 1% of deaths in learning disability services
were investigated (compared with 60% of unexpected deaths in adult
mental health services).  Southern Health came in for severe
criticism: "The failure to bring about a sustained improvement in
the identification of unexpected death and in the quality and
timeliness of reports into those deaths is a failure of leadership
and government."

In December, Sara called for the chief executive of Southern
Health, Katrina Percy, to resign.  The trust acknowledged the
failings documented in the Mazars report: "We fully accept that
our processes for reporting and investigating deaths of people
with learning disabilities and mental health needs were not always
as good as they should have been."  But it also defended its
record, stating that, "National data on mortality rates confirms
that the Trust is not an outlier" and its "rate of investigations
is in line with that of other NHS organizations".


STERLING BACKCHECK: Faces "Halem" Suit in E.D. Virginia
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sterling Backcheck, Inc.  The
case is captioned Amin Halem, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sterling Backcheck,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-00151-HCM-LRL (E.D. Va.,
Norfolk, March, 2016). The assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. Henry
C. Morgan, Jr.

Sterling Backcheck provides background check and substance abuse
screening services. Its services include county criminal record
search, federal criminal court record search, national criminal
record database, statewide criminal record search, sex offender
registry, and civil record search; and employment and education
verifications, professional license and military service record
verifications, financial sanctions searches, reference interview,
and DOT verifications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
          Andrew J. Guzzo, Esq.
          KELL y & CRANDALL, PLC
          4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 424 7576
          Facsimile: (703) 591 9285
          E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
                  aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

               - and -

          Scott A. Surovell, Esq.
          SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY PLC
          4010 University Dr., Suite 200
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 277 9750
          Facsimile: (703) 591 9285
          E-mail: ssurovell@smillaw.com

               - and -

          Erin Elizabeth Witte, Esq.
          SUROVELL ISAACS PETERSEN & LEVY PLC
          4010 University Dr., Suite 200
          Fairfax, VA 22030
          Telephone: (703) 277 9770
          Facsimile: (703) 591 9285
          E-mail: ewitte@siplfirm.com


SUNTRUST MORTGAGE: Faces "Felix" Suit in N.D. Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Suntrust Mortgage, Inc. The case
is captioned Sarah Felix, formerly known as: Sarah M. Ellis,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, The Plaintiff, v. Suntrust Mortgage, Inc., the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01052-WSD (N.D. Ga, Atlanta, March 31, 2016). The
assigned Presiding Judge is Hon. William S. Duffey, Jr.

SunTrust Mortgage provides mortgage solutions for first-time
homebuyers and homeowners in the United States. It offers fixed-
rate mortgages, adjustable-rate mortgages, agency plus financing
loans, federal housing administration loans, department of
veterans affairs loans, construction-to-permanent loans,
guaranteed rural housing loans, and doctor loan programs; and
mortgage refinancing services that include cash-out refinancing.
The company also provides mortgage assistance programs, such as
home affordable refinance program and home affordable modification
program. The company is based in Richmond, Virginia.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam L. Hoipkemier, Esq.
          Matthew Q. Wetherington, Esq.
          THE WERNER LAW FIRM, P.C.
          2142 Vista Dale Court
          Atlanta, GA 30084
          Telephone: (770) 866 0898
          Facsimile: (855) 873 2090
          E-mail: adam@wernerlaw.com
                  matt@wernerlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey W. DeLoach, Esq.
          Kevin Edward Epps, Esq.
          FORTSON BENTLEY & GRIFFIN, P.A.
          Building 200, Suite 3A
          2500 Daniell's Bridge Road
          Athens, GA 30606
          Telephone: (706) 548 1151
          E-mail: jwd@fbglaw.com
                  kee@fbglaw.com

               - and -

          Naveen Ramachandrappa, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE, LLP
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Telephone: (404) 881 4151
          E-mail: ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com

               - and -

          Steven Rosenwasser, Esq.
          BONDURANT MIXSON & ELMORE
          1201 West Peachtree Street, N.W.
          3900 One Atlantic Center
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3417
          Telephone: (404) 881 4100
          E-mail: rosenwasser@bmelaw.com


TD AMERITRADE: Judge's F&R Adopted as to SLUSA Preclusion Issue
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JAY ZOLA, AND JEREMIAH JOSEPH LOWNEY,
Plaintiffs, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., AND TD AMERITRADE CLEARING,
INC., Defendants. TYLER VERDIECK, A California Citizen,
Individually And On Behalf Of All Others Similarly Situated;
Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., a New York Corporation;
Defendant. BRUCE LERNER, on Behalf of Himself and All Others
Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE, INC., Defendant.
MICHAEL SARBACKER, Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated; Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE HOLDING
CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE CLEARING, INC., FREDERIC J. TOMCZYK,
AND PAUL JIGANTI, Defendants. GERALD J. KLEIN, on behalf of
himself and all similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD AMERITRADE
HOLDING CORPORATION, TD AMERITRADE INC., AND FREDRIC TOMCZYK,
Defendants, Nos. 8:14CV288, 8:14CV289, 8:14CV325, 8:14CV341,
8:14CV396  (D. Neb.), Judge Joseph F. Bataillon adopted the
findings and recommendations of the United States Magistrate
Judge, but with respect only to the issue of preclusion under the
Securities Litigation Uniforma Standards Act of 1998 (SLUSA).

In their complaints, the plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on
behalf of others similarly situated, alleged wrongdoing by the TD
Ameritrade defendants in connection with the execution of stock
trades, and sought recovery under various state and federal
theories.  Essentially, all of the plaintiffs challenged TD
America's alleged practice of routing virtually all of its
customers' orders and trades in contravention of its purported
duties and/or contractual obligations to "best execute" the trade.

The magistrate judge recommended granting TD Ameritrade's motions
to dismiss all of the plaintiffs' state-law claims as preempted
under SLUSA, denying the motions to dismiss the state law claims
by reason of regulatory preemption, and granting the motions to
dismiss all of the respective plaintiffs' claims for failure to
state a claim.  With respect to SLUSA preemption, the magistrate
judge recommended dismissal of state law fraud, breach of
fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and statutory claims.  The
plaintiffs objected to the magistrate judge's recommendations of
dismissal.

Judge Bataillon found that the magistrate judge's recommendations
should be adopted in part and denied in part.  Judge Bataillon
agreed with the magistrate judge's recommendation to grant the
motions to dismiss all of the respective plaintiffs' state-law
claims as barred under SLUSA, making it unnecessary to address the
defendant's regulatory preemption or failure-to-state-a-claim
arguments as to the state-law claims.  Judge Bataillon disagreed,
however, with the magistrate judge's recommendation that Gerald J.
Klein's federal securities fraud claim should be dismissed for
failure to state a claims.  Judge Bataillon found that, under the
heightened pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act (PSLRA), Klein states a claim for securities fraud
under section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Bataillon's March 23, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at http://is.gd/WU6XVTfrom Leagle.com.

Gerald J. Klein, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher J. Kupka --
ckupka@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Eduard
Korsinsky -- ek@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Gregory C. Scaglione -- greg.scaglione@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY,
JESSEN LAW FIRM,Joseph J. DePalma -- jdepalma@litedepalma.com --
LITE, DEPALMA LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Kulesa --
nkulesa@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Patrice
D. Ott -- patrice.ott@koleyjessen.com -- KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM &
Sebastiano Tornatore -- stornatore@zlk.com -- LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice.

TD Ameritrade Holding Corporation, TD Ameritrade, Inc., Fredric
Tomczyk, Defendants, represented by A. Robert Pietrzak --
rpietrzak@sidley.com -- SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM, pro hac vice,
Alex J. Kaplan -- ajkaplan@sidley.com -- SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW FIRM,
pro hac vice, Jackie A. Lu -- jlu@sidley.com -- SIDLEY, AUSTIN LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice, Thomas H. Dahlk -- tom.dahlk@kutakrock.com --
KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM & Victoria H. Buter --
vicki.buter@kutakrock.com -- KUTAK, ROCK LAW FIRM.

Kwok L. Shum, Roderick Ford, Movants, represented by Christopher
J. Kupka, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Eduard
Korsinsky, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Gregory C.
Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM, Joseph J. DePalma, LITE,
DEPALMA LAW FIRM, pro hac vice, Nancy A. Kulesa, LEVI, KORSINSKY
LAW FIRM, pro hac vice & Sebastiano Tornatore, LEVI, KORSINSKY LAW
FIRM, pro hac vice.

PSLRA Class, Interested Party, represented by Gregory C.
Scaglione, KOLEY, JESSEN LAW FIRM.


TAKATA CORP: Cunningham Brothers Sues Over Defective Air Bags
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cunningham Brothers Auto Parts, LLC, Plaintiff, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Takata Corporation,
TK Holdings, Inc., Honda Motor Co., LTD., American Honda Motor
Co., Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW Of North America, LLC,
BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc., And Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor
Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co., LTD.,
Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, LDT., Subaru of
America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 6:16-cv-00013-NKM (W.D. VA,
March 29, 2016), alleges that vehicles contain defective airbags
that, instead of protecting vehicle occupants from bodily injury
during accidents, violently explode and expel vehicle occupants.

Takata Corporation and TK Holdings, Inc. supply automotive safety
systems that design, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and
sells airbags.

The Vehicle Manufacturer Defendants are Honda Motor Co., LTD.,
American Honda Motor Co., Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW
Of North America, LLC, BMW Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor
Company, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A.,
Inc., And Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America,
Inc., Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc.,
Nissan Motor Co., LTD., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy
Industries, LDT., Subaru of America, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

   Lauren E. Davis, Esq.
   FRITH & ELLERMAN LAW FIRM, P.C.
   P.O. Box 8248
   Roanoke, VA 24014
   Tel: 540/985-0098
   Fax: 540/985-9198
   Email: ldavis@frithlawfirm.law

          - and -

   R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
   Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
   Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
   MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
   12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
   P.O. Box 505
   Charleston, SC 29451
   Tel: (205) 239-5388
   Fax: (904) 239-5388
   Email: bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
          smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com
          fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com


TILE SHOP: Consolidated Class Action Now in Discovery Stage
-----------------------------------------------------------
Tile Shop Holdings, 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 consolidated
class action lawsuit is now in discovery stage.

The Company, two of its former executive officers, five of its
outside directors, and certain companies affiliated with the
directors, are defendants in a consolidated class action brought
under the federal securities laws and now pending in the United
States District Court for the District of Minnesota under the
caption Beaver County Employees' Retirement Fund, et al. v. Tile
Shop Holdings, Inc., et al.

Several related actions were filed in 2013, and then consolidated.
The plaintiffs are three investors who seek to represent a class
or classes consisting of (1) all purchasers of Tile Shop common
stock between August 22, 2012 and January 28, 2014 (the "alleged
class period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) all purchasers of Tile Shop common
stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's December 2012
registration statements, seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933. Six firms who were underwriters in the
December 2012 secondary public offering are also named as
defendants.

In their consolidated amended complaint (the "complaint"), the
plaintiffs allege that during the alleged class period, certain
defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact in
press releases and SEC filings about the Company's relationships
with its vendors, its gross margins, and its supply chain and
producer relationships, and that defendants failed to disclose
certain related party transactions. The complaint asserts claims
under Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933,
and under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934.

In addition to attorney's fees and costs, the plaintiffs seek to
recover damages on behalf of the members of the purported classes.
The defendants are vigorously defending the matter. The matter is
now in discovery.

The Tile Shop offers a wide selection of manufactured and natural
stone tiles, setting and maintenance materials, and related
accessories in retail locations across much of the United States.


UFC: Counsel Inadvertently Produced Privileged Documents
--------------------------------------------------------
Paul Gift, writing for Bloody Elbow, reports that new filings in
the class-action antitrust lawsuit reveal a battle over whether
the plaintiff fighters will be able to use the contents of
accidentally-produced documents or whether they'll have to be
completely ignored.

According to a letter written by UFC attorney Marcy Norwood Lynch,
when documents were produced in the Federal Trade Commission's
(FTC's) 2011 investigation of the Strikeforce merger, the UFC's
outside counsel at the time, Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP,
"inadvertently produced some privileged documents that were later
clawed back with the cooperation of the FTC."

According to Lynch, the documents were sequestered by the FTC but
"the privilege log and the production media were not necessarily
updated to reflect such claw backs.  The result is that the
privilege log and the production data from the 2011 investigation
that were provided to [current UFC outside counsel Boies, Schiller
& Flexner LLP] contained several inadvertent omissions that we
were unable to identify prior to producing these documents to
Plaintiffs in this case."

In other words, it appears that the UFC's former attorneys
accidentally gave privileged documents to the FTC and, since the
privilege log wasn't updated, the UFC's current attorneys turned
around and handed the exact same documents to the fighters in the
antitrust lawsuit.

A court filing lays out exactly what happened during the discovery
process.

On January 27, 2016, Plaintiffs notified Zuffa that Zuffa had
produced a number of documents with an electronic "slipsheet" that
states "This document has been withheld as privilege" [sic].
Despite the presence of the slipsheet, Zuffa had failed to remove
the document itself from the production and produced an electronic
file that contained the text of the document.

It appears that five documents the UFC believes to be privileged
were turned over to the fighters. The privilege status of four
documents is not being challenged, but included among them is an
e-mail from Strikeforce's VP of Legal Affairs to CEO Scott Coker
with "legal advice regarding fighter contracts" and an analysis of
four sets of agreements between a television network and its cable
and satellite carriers "in contemplation of Zuffa's possible
purchase of the television network."

The document in which attorney-client privilege is being
challenged is a Jan. 31, 2007 e-mail from C. Thomas Paschall, a
corporate and transactional attorney at Milbank, Tweed, Hadley &
McCloy LLP, to Zuffa's CEO, COO, CFO, two Zuffa managers, and two
other Milbank lawyers "containing confidential legal analysis and
advice relating to the acquisition of PRIDE FC."

That would seem to make it a privileged document but the fighters
have a different story.  They argue that even though the e-mail is
from a UFC attorney, there is only one sentence which meets the
standard for attorney-client privilege. Other than that, the e-
mail "simply rehashes the respective positions of parties to an
arms-length business transaction."

The fighters believe that communications regarding the business
purposes of an acquisition "are ordinary, common business
decisions" and should not be privileged.  Their position is that
the e-mail gives a status report on PRIDE negotiations and shares
the UFC's business strategy in the acquisition. One particular
paragraph in the e-mail "reiterates Zuffa's business purpose in
the Pride FC acquisition and recounts Pride FC's response to
Zuffa's offer."

The fighters spend two paragraphs restating claims from their
complaint that the UFC's acquisition of PRIDE is a "Material
Allegation," and was part of an anticompetitive scheme to
eliminate rivals.  They requote Dana White's famous line, "Pride
is dead dummy! I killed em!!!" and cite Brent Brookhouse's 2012
Bloody Elbow piece in which White denies killing PRIDE, "We didn't
kill Pride. I've said this many times, Pride is the only other
organization that I've ever respected."

Given what we know so far, it seems likely that the paragraph in
question would fall into one of two categories.  It might be used
in a direct attempt to contradict the UFC's denial that it
purchase PRIDE in an anticompetitive scheme to eliminate rivals.

It could also be used more along the lines of a "hot doc" where an
insider makes a statement that reveals a true intention or simply
looks bad.  This would be the case if the e-mail contains some
sort of statement about how dominant the UFC will be after the
purchase, how it will have X% of the market, or won't have to
compete as hard for fighters.

Then again, maybe it's more of a "lukewarm doc."  We just don't
know.  The e-mail in question has been filed under seal with the
following placeholder.

Whatever the exact text of the e-mail, it's highly unlikely to
make or break the case, but there's clearly something the fighters
want to be able to use and the UFC doesn't want an expert witness
or jury to see.

Somewhere out there, Sakakibara is probably smiling.

The fighters have asked the judge to hear arguments on their
motion to challenge the UFC's privilege designation at the next
status conference on Apr. 25.


UNITED AIRLINES: Class Certified in "Ward" Suit Over Pilot Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup granted the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned CHARLES E. WARD, individually,
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, No. C 15-02309 WHA (N.D. Cal.).

Charles E. Ward sued United Airlines, Inc., seeking to represent a
putative class of 2,660 pilots that worked for United in
California from April 3, 2014 and asserting claims based on
inaccuracies in the wage statements that United issued to its
pilots.  United argued that, except for numerosity, Ward failed to
establish the prerequisites for certification required under Fed.
R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b).

Judge Alsup disagreed with United and the judge certified a class
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) as follows:

"All persons who are or were employed by United Airlines, Inc., as
pilots for whom United applied California income tax laws pursuant
to 49 U.S.C. 40116(f)(2) at any time from April 3, 2014, up to
April 3, 2015."

Ward was appointed as class representative and his counsel,
Jackson Hanson LLP, was appointed as class counsel, with Attorney
Kirk D. Hanson to serve as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Alsup's March 23, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/9x5JqJfrom Leagle.com.

Charles E. Ward, Plaintiff, represented by Kirk David Hanson,
Jackson Hanson LLP & Jeffrey C. Jackson, Jackson Hanson LLP.

United Airlines, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Alan
Siegel -- rsiegel@omm.com -- O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Susannah
Kelly Howard -- showard@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro hac
vice & Adam P. KohSweeney -- akohsweeney@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.


UNITY RECOVERY: Violated FLSA & WARN Act, "Hartel" Suit Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Hartel and Steve Kolb, and similarly situated persons, the
Plaintiffs, the Plaintiff, v. Unity Recovery Center, Inc., a
Florida Corporation, and Jason Ackner, an individual, Defendant,
Case No. 9:16-cv-80471-JIC (S.D. Fla., March 25, 2016), seeks to
recover compensation for lost wages, insurance, severance pay, and
any other benefits owed, with prejudgment interest; compensatory
damages for Plaintiffs' pain and suffering; reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs pursuant to the Whistleblower's Act, the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), the Federal Worker Adjustment and Retraining
Notification Act (WARN), the Comprehensive Omnibus Reconciliation
Act (COBRA), and the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA).

Unity Recovery Center is a holistic drug rehab and alcohol
treatment center.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brant C. Hadaway, Esq.
          DIAZ REUS & TARG, LLP
          100 Southeast Second Street
          3400 Miami Tower
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 375 9220
          Facsimile: (305) 375 8050
          E-mail: bhadaway@diazreus.com

               - and -

          Harry N. Turk, Esq.
          HARRY N. TURK, P.A.
          1 S.E. 3d Avenue, Suite 2900
          Miami, FL 33131
          E-mail: hturk@turklaw.org


UNUM LIFE INSURANCE: Court Dismisses Class Claim in "Davis"
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARY DAVIS and NITA SCOGGINS, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. UNUM
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Defendant, Case No. 4:14-cv-
00640-KGB (E.D. Ark.), Judge Kristine G. Baker granted the request
of Unum Life Insurance Company of America to dismiss the
plaintiffs' "exercise of discretion" claim.  The judge also
granted Mary Davis' motion to dismiss her claim with prejudice
after Davis represented to the court that her individual claim has
been settled.

Nita Scoggins brought an individual breach of contract claim
alleging that Unum wrongly denied her claim for long term
disability (LTD) benefits under an employer-provided disability
insurance benefit plan underwritten and administered by Unum.
Scoggins also brought a class action claim against Unum, alleging
that by denying LTD benefits, Unum "exercised discretion in the
interpretation of said policies in a manner that violates the
law."  Unum moved to dismiss Scoggins' class claim, arguing that
her allegation "that Unum 'exercised discretion' does not state
any claim for relief."  Scoggins responded and moved to amend her
complaint.

Judge Baker agreed with Unum that Count II of Scoggins' amended
complaint fails to state a claim.  The judge explained that even
assuming that the disability policy included a discretionary
clause in violation of Arkansas law at the time that Unum denied
Scoggins' claim, this "exercise of discretion" is not actionable
conduct because a plan administrator's authority to grant or deny
benefit claims is not derived from discretionary clauses.

Judge Baker also denied Scoggins' proposed second amended
complaint, finding that it does not correct the defects included
in the amended complaint and would therefore be futile.

Scoggins' individual claim for breach of contract remains pending.

A full-text copy of Judge Baker's March 22, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/b1rxVhfrom Leagle.com.

Mary Davis, Nita Scoggins, Plaintiff, represented by Luther Oneal
Sutter, Sutter & Gillham, PLLC & Paul Gerard Pfeifer, Pfeifer Law
Firm, P.A..

Unum Life Insurance Company of America, Defendant, represented by
David M. Donovan -- david.donovan@wdt-law.com -- Watts, Donovan &
Tilley, P.A..


UPTOWN WEST: Faces "Taveras" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Uptown West Inc.  The case is
captioned Arturo Velasquez Julian, and Daniel Taveras Alvarado,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Uptown West Inc., doing business as: 107 West,
Hillview Specialty Foods Inc., doing business as: 107 West,
Merlion Specialty Foods Inc., doing business as: Next Door, Thomas
Hui, Stephen Blumenthal, Soom Hui, also known as: Simon Hui,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square,
March30, 2016).

Uptown West is engaged in apartment rental business.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Morris" Suit Moved to S.D. West Virginia
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ira A. Morris, the Plaintiff, v. James F. Neale, Esq., Megan
Cloud, Esq., Mcguirewoods LLP, and Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 16-C-31, was removed from Boone
County Circuit Court, to the US District Court for the Southern
District for West Virginia. The Southern District Court assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-02847 to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserted against the Defendants allegations
concerning the widely publicized Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Notice of Violation dated September 18, 2015 concerning the
alleged installation of emissions testing "defeat devices" in
certain Volkswagen and Audi 2.0 liter diesel vehicles.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard Neely, Esq.
          NEELY & CALLAGHAN
          159 Summers Street
          Charleston, WV 25301
          E-mail: rneely@neelycallaghan.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bryant J. Spann, Esq.
          David B. Thomas, Esq.
          THOMAS COMBS & SPANN, PLLC
          300 Summers Street, Suite 1380
          P.O. Box 3824
          Charleston, WV 25338-3824
          Telephone: (304) 414 1800
          Facsimile: (304) 414 1801


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Committee Formed for Dealer Settlement Talks
--------------------------------------------------------------
Auto News reports that Volkswagen retailers tapped a five-member
committee to open settlement talks with the automaker aimed at
recovering financial damages sustained by VW's 652 U.S.
dealerships in the wake of the company's emissions crisis.

The decision came at a nearly two-hour dealer-only meeting on the
sidelines of the National Automobile Dealers Association
convention in Las Vegas, and ahead of a make meeting where VW
brand Chairman Herbert Diess and North America chief Hinrich
Woebcken are expected to speak to dealers.

Jason Kuhn, chairman of Kuhn Automotive Group in Tampa and one of
the five negotiators named to the committee, said the quintet hope
to begin settlement talks with VW leadership as soon as possible.
Mr. Kuhn said it was too early to discuss what forms of
compensation an acceptable settlement should include.

"The task is to meet with the Germans to negotiate a settlement
for the dealers and to bring a settlement package back that we
feel is acceptable to get past this," Mr. Kuhn told Automotive
News after the private meeting on April 1.  "At the end of the
day, we both need to get past this, and doing it in a courtroom is
not acceptable."

Mr. Kuhn said the other members of the committee are:

   -- Mike Sullivan, who owns two VW stores as part of his
LAcarGuy network of dealerships in Southern California

   -- Jimmy Ellis, president of the Jim Ellis Automotive Group,
which has two Atlanta-area VW dealerships

   -- Richard Fisher, owner of the Autobarn Evanston Dealer Group,
which has one VW dealership in Evanston, Ill.

   -- Jack Bertolet Jr., president of J. Bertolet Volkswagen in
Orwigsburg, Pa.

Talk of dealer lawsuits against the factory have gained momentum
in recent weeks following the abrupt departure of VW of America
CEO Michael Horn on March 9.

Leonard Bellavia, a prominent dealer attorney based in Mineola,
N.Y., told Automotive News that he had already drafted a dealer
lawsuit seeking class action status, but that his clients were
awaiting the conclusion of Saturday's make meeting before deciding
how to proceed.

By forming the committee, VW dealers aim to reduce the risk that
restive dealers will sue the automaker in large numbers.

'Almost unanimous consensus'

Mr. Kuhn said the "almost unanimous consensus" of VW dealers who
attended today's meeting, which he estimated represented at least
half of VW's U.S. dealerships, was to avoid litigation "and start
selling cars again."

"These are our business partners and we're going to be in business
with them for a long time," he said, "and we do not want to be on
the other side of the aisle from them in a courtroom."

Some individual dealers may still sue, he acknowledged, but
forming the negotiating committee would help to unify most dealers
behind an out-of-court compensation process.

"The dealer network, I believe, has been splintered up until now,
and I believe that we are now more unified than before, at least
since this crisis began," Mr. Kuhn said.  "This is a tremendous
success that came out the meeting."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: "Lambert" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2672
---------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lambert, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02036, was transferred from the US
District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana, to the US
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
01566-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Lambert case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation On December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold by Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California 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. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leonard A Davis, Esq.
          Patrick Ryan Busby, Esq.
          Soren Erik Gisleson, Esq.
          Stephen J. Herman, Esq.
          HERMAN MIDDLETON CASEY & KITCHENS LLP
          820 O'Keefe Avenue
          New Orleans, LA 70113
          Telephone: (504) 581 4892
          E-mail: pbusby@hhklawfirm.com
                  sgisleson@hhkc.com


WASHINGTON: Faces Class Action Over Ferry Ticket Expiration Dates
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kiro 7 News reports that for people who regularly ride Washington
State Ferries, buying tickets in bulk ahead of time is often the
best bet because they're discounted about 20 percent.

But prepaid Wave2Go tickets expire after 90 days.

"You pay this large quantity of money and you expect to use all
the rides but sometimes you don't.  But you will, especially
living on the island," said Lila Jones, who grew up on Bainbridge
Island

She knows passengers don't get a refund on rides they don't use.

"I've known family friends to make copies of their pass and divide
it up between three plus (or) more families just because people
can't get through the pass in the amount of time they're allowing
before it expires," Ms. Jones said.

Attorney Jason Dennett -- jdennett@tousley.com -- of Tousley Brain
Stephens is suing the state on behalf of a Vashon Island resident,
KIRO 7 reports.

He hopes to make it a class-action lawsuit by claiming a violation
of the state law against expiring gift cards.

"It's called the gift certificate act, but it really applies to
every stored value card," said Mr. Dennett, who says that includes
ferry tickets.

The state says ferry tickets have had expiration dates since the
1980s.

"As far as I know, this is the first time this has been brought
against the ferry system," Mr. Dennett said.

But state officials pointed KIRO 7 to a similar 2010 lawsuit that
was later dismissed.

They say Washington law explicitly differentiates between gift
cards and fare cards like Wave2Go.

Washington State Ferries says the multi-ride fares are meant to
benefit regular riders.

If there were no expiration dates, officials say, everyone would
buy them at the discount, and there wouldn't be enough money to
keep the system going.


WELLS FARGO: Engaged in Improper Collection, "Miller" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Anna Miller, and Samantha Phillips, individually and on behalf of
a class of similarly situated persons, the Plaintiffs, v. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21145-JAL (S.D.
Fla., Miami Div. March 31, 2016), seeks to recover damages for
Wells Fargo's improper collection of post-payment interest.

The Defendant 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. As a result, Wells Fargo has collected hundreds of millions
of dollars in post-payment interest in an unlawful manner, and
through this breach of contract class action, Plaintiffs seek to
recover damages for those class members already injured and
declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent future violations by
Wells Fargo.

Wells Fargo Bank provides personal, small business, and commercial
banking services. The bank is headquartered in Sioux Falls, South
Dakota.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett M. Amron, Esq.
          BAST AMRON LLP
          One Southeast Third Ave Ste 1400
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (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, Ste 3900
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 881 4151
          E-mail: rosenwasser@bmelaw.com
                  ramachandrappa@bmelaw.com

               - and -

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


WINDSOR WINDOW: Faces "Clark" Suit in S.D. Indiana
--------------------------------------------------
Walter Clark and Stephanie Clark, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Windsor Window
Company, doing business as: Windsor Windows and Doors, and
Woodgrain Millwork, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00721-
SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., Indianapolis, March 31, 2016). The case is
referred to Magistrate Judge Hon. Mark J. Dinsmore.

Windsor Window Company manufactures and distributes windows and
doors for contractors, architects, and homeowners.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Glenn David Bowman, Esq.
          SMITH AMUNDSEN, LLC
          201 North Illinois Street, Suite 1400
          Capital Center, South Tower
          Indianapolis, IN 46204
          Telephone: (317) 639 5454
          Facsimile: (317) 632 1319
          E-mail: gbowman@katzkorin.com


WORLD WIDE VACATIONS: Faces "Makaron" Suit in C.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against World Wide Vacations, LLC.  The
case is captioned Edward Makaron, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. World Wide
Vacations, LLC, RCI LLC, and Interval International Inc., the
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02168 (C.D. Cal., Western Division -
Los Angeles, March 30, 2016).

Worldwide Vacation provides condo resort reservation services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


* Employers Face Risk of Background Check, Credit Report Suits
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christina A. Pate, Esq., of Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP, in an
article for The National Law Review, reports that if you haven't
done so recently, now is a good time to review your company's use
of background checks and credit reports.  The increasing number of
class actions and high-dollar settlements highlight the risks
employers face when obtaining background checks or credit reports
on current and potential employees.  Failure to comply with the
federal Fair Credit Reporting Act's (FCRA) strict technical
requirements pertaining to the use of "consumer reports," which
includes background checks and credit reports, has cost employers
hundreds of thousands -- even millions -- of dollars in class
action litigation and settlement agreements.

For example, Whole Foods, in a settlement that is small in
comparison to other recent FCRA class action settlements, paid
over $800,000 to settle a class action involving 20,000 class
members.  Chuck E. Cheese paid $1.75 million, the parent company
for the grocery store Food Lion paid almost $3 million, Home Depot
paid $3 million, Dollar General paid approximately $4 million, and
Publix Super Markets paid $6.8 million.

Companies may be inclined to settle when facing statutory damages
ranging from $100 to $1,000 per violation and class members of
20,000 or more, because there is no cap on the recovery of
statutory damages under the FCRA.  Plaintiffs also can recover
attorneys' fees and costs plus punitive damages.  For example,
although Whole Foods paid $800,000 to settle, it could have faced
between $2 million to $20 million in damages.

These settlements represent only a fraction of the recently-filed
FCRA class actions. In 2015, class actions were filed against
companies such as Chipotle, Michael's, Dollar Tree, Big Lots,
Avis, Amazon, Pizza Hut, and Universal Studios.

These class action suits allege very technical violations of the
FCRA's requirements.  Examples of violations that have led to
lawsuits include:

Failure to provide a standalone disclosure. The FCRA requires that
applicants or employees receive a "clear and conspicuous" written
disclosure informing them that a consumer report may be obtained
for employment purposes and they must provide written consent
before the employer may obtain a consumer report.  The disclosure
must be in a "standalone" document -- that is, the document
consists solely of the disclosure.  The disclosure cannot include
other information, such as a liability release, and cannot be
buried in the middle of an employment application or other pre-
employment documents.

Failure to provide required information to applicants or employees
before taking an adverse action based on a consumer report.
Employers must provide a copy of the report and a written "summary
of rights" to an individual before taking an adverse action, such
as refusal to hire, termination, or other similar negative
employment action.  Employers also must provide the individual a
reasonable time to respond or to dispute the report before taking
an adverse action.

Failure to provide additional detailed information to an applicant
or employee after taking an adverse action. This includes notice
of the adverse action based on the consumer report, specific
information related to the consumer reporting agency that provided
the report, and notice of the consumer's rights to obtain a copy
of the report within 60 days and to dispute the information in the
report.

To minimize risk, ensure that your company's background check and
credit report process, including all relevant forms, complies with
the FCRA's requirements, including those outlined. In addition,
ensure that background checks and credit reports are used only
when permissible under applicable state and local law.  Finally,
ensure that your application complies with applicable state and
local "ban the box" laws -- laws that prohibit employers from
asking job applicants questions about criminal history on a job
application.


* Firefighting Foam Likely Cause of Delaware C8 Contamination
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Mordock, writing for The News Journal, reports that Delaware
has some of the nation's highest concentrations of the toxic
chemical C8 in its water supplies, in some cases exceeding levels
found near Parkersburg, West Virginia.

But DuPont isn't the likely culprit here.

Environmental studies and experts, including Delaware's Division
of Waste and Hazardous Substances, Artesian Water and New Castle
County officials, almost unanimously say the cause of the
contamination is fire firefighting materials used at two air
bases.

"We've tied it back to the firefighting foam," said Tim Ratsep, of
Delaware's Division of Waste and Hazardous Substances. "Everything
we have found so far does not indicate a release from any DuPont
operations."

Since signs point to causes other than DuPont for the C8
contamination, a company spokesman did not feel it was appropriate
to comment.

Perfluorooctanoic acid, commonly referred to as PFOA, and its
sister compound, perfluorooctane sulfoante, or PFOS, were
discovered two years ago in the groundwater at Dover Air Force
Base and near New Castle County Airport.  The levels of the
perfluorinated chemicals, better known as C8, found in wells near
those locations rise far above the threshold recommended by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for short-term human exposure
to the contaminants.

Contamination was detected in five wells near New Castle County
Airport exposing more than 4,700 area residents over a two-year
period to the chemical.

High levels of the toxic chemicals have been linked to several
illnesses including testicular and kidney cancers.  However, since
Delaware's PFOA and PFOS contamination was only discovered in
2014, it will not be clear for some time how the contamination is
impacting residents' health.

"People don't cancer get at a rapid rate," said Alan Ducatman,
chair of the community medicine department at West Virginia
University's medical school.  "You have to start following a lot
of people over time."

EPA testing conducted in July 2014 found three wells in the City
of New Castle had PFOA levels of 0.13 ppb, 0.094 ppb and 0.44 ppb
and PFOS levels of 0.91 ppb, 0.82 ppb and 2.3 ppb.  In Dover,
tests revealed that a localized area of the Air Force Base had
PFOS levels of 270 ppb and PFOA levels of 20 ppb.

The EPA Provisional Health Advisory for the chemicals said the
maximum levels humans can safely be exposed to in drinking water
is 0.2 ppb for PFOS and 0.4 ppb for PFOA.

Along the Ohio River near Parkersburg is some of the world's worst
PFOA contamination.  The levels of PFOA discovered in that
region's water districts is lower than levels reported at the Air
Force Base.  Little Hocking, Ohio, for example had a PFOA level of
3.30 ppb, according to a 2005 EPA report.  Another water system in
Lubeck, Ohio, had PFOA levels of 3.20 ppb.

C8 has been linked to thyroid disease, high cholesterol, liver
damage, testicular and kidney cancers and pregnancy-induced
hypertension and pre-eclampsia.

The most recent data from the Delaware Department of Health and
Human Services shows kidney cancer rates in Kent and New Castle
counties, home to the two airfields, exceed the national average
of 15.5 cases per 100,000 residents.  Kent County has the state's
highest incident of kidney cancer at 20.3 cases per 100,000 and
New Castle County's kidney cancer rate is 16.4 cases per 100,000
residents.  Sussex County where no PFOAs or PFOSs have been
discovered, had a cancer rate of 14.7 cases per 100,000.

"PFOA attaches itself to the liver, followed by the blood,
followed by the kidney," said Mr. Ducatman.  "It hits what we call
our nuclear receptors."

Among all forms of cancer, Delaware's mortality rate between 2007
and 2011 was 184.2 cases 100,000, 6 percent higher than the
national average of 173.8 cases per 100,000.

"Within DHSS we pay attention to health studies and what results
we have in our database that might be relevant," said Ed Hallock,
head of DHSS' Office of Drinking Water.  No studies have yet
linked Delaware's cancer rates to C8 contamination.  "Hopefully,
we can't tie it back to the water."

Scientists say that just about everyone one Earth has traces of C8
in their bloodstream.

Delaware isn't the only state battling PFOA issues.  Three
governors -- New York's Andrew Cuomo, Vermont's Peter Shumlin and
New Hampshire's Maggie Hassan -- jointly authored a letter to EPA
Administer Gina McCarthy.  All three are dealing with PFOA-related
compounds in public drinking water supplies.

"It is clear that PFOA contamination is not a state or regional
problem -- it's a national problem that requires federal
guidelines and a consistent, science-based approach," the letter
stated.

Just across the Delaware River in Salem, New Jersey, sits Chambers
Works, a former DuPont facility where Teflon was invented in 1938
and produced for many years.  Chambers Works was transferred to
Chemours as part of that company's spin off from DuPont last July
and stopped Teflon production there.

A group of Salem County residents filed a 2009 class-action
lawsuit against DuPont claiming PFOA use at the plant tainted
local drinking water.  DuPont settled the case in 2011 for $8.3
million and admitted no wrongdoing.  The company said at the time
that settlement funds would be used to give members of the class-
action suit the option of receiving a water filtration system or
receiving the cash equivalent.

In 2007, a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
report found PFOA levels in one Salem County well as high as 0.19
ppb.  Of the 28 Salem County wells tested for the report, four
came back with no traces of PFOA and nine were detected to have
levels too low to quantify.

DuPont has taken steps to eliminate the contamination around the
Chambers Works plant, phasing out its use of PFOA at the site and
around the world in 2013.  The Environmental Working Group, which
tracks PFOA contamination by state and county, said no PFOAs have
been detected in Salem County as of 2015.

Chemours spokeswoman Janet Smith said the company routinely
monitors the groundwater near Chambers Works to ensure "protection
and regulatory compliance."  She said the company works closely
with the EPA and state regulatory agencies to ensure it is
following environmental guidelines.  Chemours has never made or
used PFOA since its launch last year.

If PFOAs from Chambers Works leaked into the Delaware River it
would not impact the state's drinking water because there is no
water system in Delaware that takes water directly from the river,
Mr. Hallock said.

The culprit in Delaware, according to EPA studies, appears to be
firefighting foam. Aqueous Film-Forming Foam, or AFFF, became
popular with the military and some civilian fire departments for
its ability to smother fires from combustible liquids such as jet
fuel and petroleum.

AFFF contains PFOS and another formulation of the foam purchased
by the Department of Defense contains compounds that can break
down into PFOA.

3M manufactured PFOS-based AFFFs, but began to phase out using the
toxic substance in its foam in 2002.  Today, most firefighting
foams contain neither PFOS nor PFOA in their original form, but
can still break down into PFOA.

An EPA fact sheet on C8, released in December 2015, directly links
the chemicals to the firefighting foam at Dover Air Force Base.  A
July 2014 fact sheet regarding the PFOA and PFOS levels around New
Castle County Airport, however, does not provide a cause. State
and local officials said they understand the New Castle PFOA and
PFOS levels are related to foam used at the airport.

"We have heard it is firefighting foam, but the investigation
hasn't been concluded by the EPA," said Pamela A. Patone, general
manager for the Municipal Services Commission for the city of New
Castle.  "I can't comment on what the EPA will do."

The Delaware Air National Guard stationed at New Castle County
Airport still has AFFF on base, but has not used it since 2009,
according to National Guard spokesman, Lt. Col. Len Gratteri.

Mr. MGratteri said the Air Guard is assisting with groundwater
analysis and collaborating with the EPA and DNREC to determine
possible sources of contamination.

In New Castle, city officials installed a carbon granulated  water
filtration system near the Airport in November to serve its 2,200
customers.  The system is similar to the ones installed at the six
water districts near Parkersburg that were impacted by PFOA
contamination.

Ms. Patone said the contaminated wells were shut down after the
toxic chemicals were discovered, but have reopened since the
filters were put in place.  While the wells were shut down, the
city bought water from Artesian Water Supply. The filter and water
purchases have cost the city of New Castle $1.2 million.

The city regularly samples water from those wells.

"The only way to truly gauge the effectiveness of the treatment
system is to test our water before it goes through the carbon
filtration system and test if after it has been treated," said Jay
Guyer, water supervisor for the city's Municipal Services
Commission.

Mr. Guyer said the system removes PFOA and PFOS after treatment,
but prior to filtration chemical levels remain higher than the
EPA's recommended guidelines.

"It hasn't gone down," Ms. Patone said of the water's PFOA and
PFOS levels prior to filtration.

Questions about how much longer PFOA and PFOS will remain in the
wells linger.  The chemicals do not degrade in water.  According
to data from the EPA, the half-life of POFA and PFOS in water is
92 years and 41 years, respectively.

"Is the contamination slowing going away?" Ms. Patone asked.
"These are questions we've asked as part of the thought process to
be prepared in the future, but we don't have the answers to that."

Artesian Water Co. shut two commercial wells in New Castle in June
2014 after PFOS was detected. Combined, the two wells serve 2,500
customers.

One of the wells, located in the Jefferson Farms neighborhood,
returned online several months ago after the utility company spent
roughly $1 million to install a carbon filtration system. The
latest testing of untreated water at Jefferson Farms revealed PFOS
levels ranging from .10 ppb to .59 ppb.

The subdivision, Wilmington Manor, has not been sampled since
January of 2014 when it went offline.  Joseph A. DiNunnzio,
Artesian's senior vice president, said the last reading showed
PFOS levels ranging from .93 to 1.8.

A second well in Wilmington Manor remains out of service.
Mr. DiNunnzio said the well will go back online once a filter is
installed. He expects the filtration system to be installed within
the next year or so.

"Because it is not a large water supply, there is not a sense of
urgency," he said.

The carbon filter's cost has been passed on to Artesian's
customers, an amount Mr. DiNunnzio estimates to be a couple of
pennies a month for each customer. Once the responsible party is
conclusively identified, he said, Artesian will pursue efforts to
be reimbursed for expenses related to the filter.

"We are really interested in the EPA finishing the work to
identify the responsible party or parties so they can pay to treat
or remove the substance they placed into our supply," he said.
"It is a cost that should not be borne by our customers."

Mr. DiNunnzio said he agreed with those in the state pointing at
the National Guard's use of firefighting foam.

"I consider the National Guard the prime suspect, but it is
important that the EPA conducts the proper analysis and review,"
he said.  "You don't want to call someone guilty until you have
the evidence to prove it."

The Department of Defense this month announced it will test 665
military installations nationwide where fire or crash training
using AFFF occurred, including Dover Air Force Base.  Established
in 1941, the base is home to the 436th Airlift Wing and the 512th
Airlift Wing and the busiest air freight terminal in the
Department of Defense.  A force of about 11,100 is stationed
there.

Dover City Manager Scott Koenig said the EPA tested the city's
public water systems in December 2014 and, again, in July 2015. He
said the testing did not discover any PFOA or PFOS in the drinking
supply.

The Air Force Base uses its own water systems and does not feed
into or take water from the city's public water utilities.

Dover Air Force Base transitioned to an AFFF product that does not
contain PFOS prior to 2012, according to base spokesman, Master
Sargent Jeremy Larlee.  He said all firefighting foams used at the
base are in compliance with EPA guidelines for these products.

Mr. Larlee said the Air Force is currently working with EPA and
state regulators to investigate contamination at Dover Air Force
Base.  In addition, the Air Force is investigating installations
where PFOS and PFOA may have been released to assess the potential
for human exposure and, if necessary, take action to protect human
health, according to Mr. Larlee.

Mr. Ratsep said PFOA and PFOS exposure is limited to the areas
surrounding the two airports.

"There has not been any other areas in the state that we've found
as a potential source," he said.



                            *********

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  * * *