CAR_Public/160414.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 14, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 75


                            Headlines


1031 TAX: Court Orderd Payment of Assigned Claims to ASM
A1 SERVICE: Violated CLC & IWC Wage Orders, "Rasem" Suit Claims
ALFA VISION: "Virden" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Arkansas
AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: Violated FLSA, "Guerra" Suit Claims
ARL CREDIT SERVICES: "Reynolds" Class Action Deal Okayed

ASSET RECOVERY: Court Grants Class Certification in "Datta" Suit
AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Trial Court Ruling in "Rogers" Affirmed
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Steward" Suit in W.D. Wash., Seattle
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Hill" Class Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC: Court Dismisses "Landis" Complaint

CAINE & WIENER: Violated TCPA & FDCPA, "Garcia" Suit Claims
CARDO WINDOWS: Court Decertifies "Adami" FLSA Collective Action
CHECK 'N GO: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "McDonald" Suit Claims
CHICAGO, IL: Firefighter Trainees Allege Harassment at Academy
CHRISTINE HERENDEEN: M.D. Fla. Dismisses CadleRock Appeal

CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Kester" Suit Over Wrongful Foreclosure Tossed
CONAIR CORP: Bid to Decertify Nationwide Class Granted in Part
COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Won't Decertify Class in "Parish" Suit
CRYPTSY: Placed Under Receivership Amid Class Action
CVS: Faces Class Action Over Advanced Eye Health Product

DATA CHECK: Faces " Bailey" Suit in E.D. Cal., Fresno
DENVER, CO: Trial Scheduled in Hiring Discrimination Class Action
DIGNITY HEALTH: "Brock" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Southern Dist. Ohio
DIRECTV LLC: Loses Arbitration Bid in "Renteria-Camacho" Suit

DNTW CHARTERED: S.D.N.Y. Court Tosses Securities Litigation
DR. PEPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
DRAFTKINGS: Mandated to Halt Paid Daily Fantasy Sports Contests
ELLIS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Watson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Physicians Healthsource May Conduct Discovery

FANDUEL INC: Violated CLRA UCL, & UBP, "Sobel" Suit Claims
FARMERS INSURANCE: July 2017 Trial Scheduled in Class Action
FELTEX: Appeal Court Hears Arguments in Investor Class Action
FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Terrell" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Missouri Law
FOWLER PACKING: Plaintiffs Must Answers Deposition Questions

FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Seeks More Information on Settlement
GARMIN INTERNATIONAL: "Meyers" Suit Dismissed
GARRISON PROPERTY: Court Drops Other Defendants in "Cielo"
GREENBAX ENTERPRISES: To Sell Properties Amid Class Action
GRUBHUB INC: Court Narrows "Tan" Driver Misclassification Suit

GUAM: Ordered to Pay $2.2MM in Attorneys' Fees in Tax Refund Case
GYMBOREE CORP: Violated UCL, FAL & CLRA, "Dennis" Suit Claims
HAIN CELESTIAL: Consumers to Get Checks in Organic Shampoo Suit
HG STAFFING: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Sargant"
HONEST COMPANY: Violated UFUBP, CLRA & FAL, "Gomez" Suit Claims

HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Permits Filing of Second Amended Complaint
IL GABBIANO: Faces "Sulaj" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
INTELLICORP RECORDS: Must Defend Against "Legrand" Suit
J.C. PENNEY: "Knatt" Suit Over Paid Time Off Sent to Arbitration
JEFFERSON COUNTY: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit v. BOE

JPMORGAN CHASE: "Farrell" Suit Seeks Redress of Plan Under ERISA
KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG TAN: Faces "Sekura" Class Suit in Ill. Ct.
LIHUA INT'L: Court Drops Individual Defendants in Securities Suit
LITTLE GASPARILLA: "Demeter" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under FLSA
MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Caputo" Class Action in N.J. Court

MICHIGAN: Detroit Public Schools' Board Files Class Action
MRI INTERNATIONAL: "Takiguchi" Suit Wins Class Certification
NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Customers May Receive $6.6MM Settlement Payouts
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Crisis to Prompt Early Retirement
NATIONAL SECURITIES: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Rutella" Suit Claims

NELSON WESTERBERG: Truth-in-Leasing Claims in "Mervyn" Dismissed
NEVADA: Settles Fernley Flood Class Action for $18.1 Million
NEW JERSEY SYMPHONY: Violated TCCWNA, "Fruchter" Suit Claims
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Sheriff Faces Criticism Over Jail Management
OVERTURE LLC: "Chun" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Wages Under FLSA

PACIFIC TOMATO: Faces "Wingard" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
PALOS VERDES, CA: Some Locals Defend Lunada Bay Boys Amid Suit
PATRICK M. CONNELLY PC: Faces "Allah-Mensah" Suit in Maryland
PENNSYLVANIA: Court Trims "Chimenti" Suit v. Dept of Corrections
PEPSICO INC: "Taylor" Class Action Moved to S.D. Fla.

PFIZER INC: Judge Grants Request to Toss Zoloft MDL
PLAINVILLE, CT: State Defendants to File Revised Privilege Log
POLLO OPERATIONS: Class Action Deal in "Daisy" Okayed
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
PREMIER TAMPA: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA, Fla. Law

QAUKER OATS CO: Violated IFDCA, "Gates" Suit Claims
RIDDELL INC: April 14 Status Conference Set in Helmet Suit
RNC INDUSTRIES: "Valerio" Suit Has Conditional Certification
RYAN TRANSPORTATION: "Bell" Suit Sent to Arbitration
SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Cal. Ct. App. Rules on Appeals v. SDCERS

SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Judgments Affirmed in "Abbe" Appeal
SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Philadelphia Court Rejects Paxil Case
SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces "Rosner" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
SPOTIFY: Settles Royalties Dispute with NMPA for $21 Million
SSM HEALTH: Violated ERISA, "Feather" Suit Claims

SUN-MAID GROWERS: "Talavera" Suit Has Conditional Certification
TAKATA CORP: Triple D Suit Moved from E.D. Tenn. to S.D. Fla.
TITLEMAX OF TEXAS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over FLSA Violation
TOKANA CAFE: Faces "Astudillo" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
TRI-VALLEY CORP: Court Dismisses K&L Gates From Investors' Suit

TURNER RESTAURANTS: Court Sends Waitstaff Suit to Arbitration
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Decertification Bid in "O'Connor" Denied
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Appeal Drivers Class Certification Ruling
UNITED STATES: Hospital Operators' Suit Over TRICARE Tossed
VANCOUVER, WA: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in Inmate Suit

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Over BlueTec Diesel Models
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Meets with Dealers Amid Emissions Class Actions
VW CREDIT: "Ballew" Suit Transferred from D. Mont. to N.D. Cal.
WEST COVINA CORPORATE: Faces "San Nicholas" Suit in Calif. Ct.
WORLD WRESTLING: Court Narrows Claims in Former Wrestlers' Suits

ZYNGA INC: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Securities Suit

* Fate of Class Actions Hang in Balance Post-Scalia
* Canada's SC Tackles Class Action Multi-Jurisdictional Issues


                            *********


1031 TAX: Court Orderd Payment of Assigned Claims to ASM
--------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joseph C. Spero issued an order providing instruction
regarding the distribution of funds to assignors or assignees of
bankruptcy claims in the case captioned ANITA HUNTER, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. CITIBANK, N.A., et al., Defendants, Case No. 09-cv-
02079-JCS (N.D. Cal.).

Claims were asserted on behalf of a class of approximately 400
individuals who lost money they deposited with certain Qualified
Intermediaries ("QIs") as the result of a Ponzi scheme
orchestrated by Edward H. Okun, who, with the help of others,
acquired several QIs, which were held under the name The 1031 Tax
Group, LLC.  Sandra Stroud and Sam L. Braswell were class members
who lost funds, with claim amounts of $54,363.69 and $51,959.97,
respectively.  The class plaintiffs eventually settled their
claims in a series of class settlements.

When Okun was convicted for various criminal offenses and a
Chapter 11 bankruptcy was initiated by the 1031 Tax Group, Stroud
and Braswell sold their bankruptcy claims by entering into
assignment agreements with ASM Capital.

Stroud and Braswell argued that the assignments are limited to
recovery from the estate in the bankruptcy case, and that the
decision in Okun's criminal case finding that restitution should
be paid to ASM under a similar assignment was incorrectly decided
by the Virginia court and should be rejected.

Judge Spero found that the Braswell and Stroud assignment
agreements are unambiguous as to the scope of the assignments,
assigning to ASM not only claims to be paid out of the estate in
the bankruptcy case but also Stroud and Braswell's claims in the
present action.  The judge also concluded that another claimant,
Steven Schoenfeld, does not contest ASM's assertion that his claim
has been assigned to ASM because of his failure to appear.

As such, Judge Spero directed the plaintiffs to make settlement
payments on the Braswell, Stroud and Schoenfeld claims in this
action directly to ASM, pursuant to the assignments between ASM
and those individuals.

A full-text copy of Judge Spero's March 25, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/Rk8Nqffrom Leagle.com.

Anita Hunter, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle --
tzelle@zelmcd.com -- Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P.
McDonough -- bmcdonough@zelmcd.com -- Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP,
Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert
A. Curtis -- rcurtis@foleybezek.com -- Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis
LLP, Thomas W. Evans -- tevans@zelmcd.com -- Zelle McDonough &
Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr. -- tfoley@foleybezek.com -- Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Johnna Bozza, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle,
Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough
& Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis
Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, Thomas W.
Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Celltex Site Services, LTD, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony
Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough,
Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace,
Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis
LLP, Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G.
Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Grande Investment LLC, a Colorado limited liability company,
Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough &
Cohen, LLP, Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP,
Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert
A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP,Thomas W. Evans, Zelle
McDonough & Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle &
Curtis, LLP.

Quirk Infiniti, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation, Plaintiff,
represented byAnthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP,
Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael P. Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert
A. Curtis, Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP,Thomas W. Evans, Zelle
McDonough & Cohen LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley
Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Whitton Michael, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
represented byAnthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP,
Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P.
Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis,
Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP, Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough &
Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Sadi Suhweil, as Trustee of the Suhweil Revocable Trust,
Plaintiff,
represented by Anthony Robert Zelle, Zelle McDonough & Cohen, LLP,
Brian P. McDonough, Zelle McDonough & Cohen LLP, Michael P.
Denver, Hollister & Brace, Robert Louis Brace, Robert A. Curtis,
Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis LLP,Thomas W. Evans, Zelle McDonough &
Cohen LLP & Thomas G. Foley, Jr., Foley Bezek Behle & Curtis, LLP.

Citibank, N.A., a Nevada corporation, Defendant, represented by
Carol Lynn Thompson -- cthompson@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,
John Kenneth Van De Weert, Jr. -- jvandeweert@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Kevin Michael Fee -- kfee@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Bruce Blocker --
mblocker@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas
Reynolds Heisler, II, Sidley Austin LLP, pro hac vice.

Countrywide Bank, FSB, a Virginia corporation, Defendant,
represented by Madeline Anne Zamoyski, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Allen W. Burton -- aburton@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers LLP, pro
hac vice, Bradley J. Butwin -- bbutwin@omm.com -- O'Melveny &
Myers LLP & Gary Svirsky -- gsvirsky@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Myers
LLP.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Madeline
Anne Zamoyski, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Allen W. Burton, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, pro hac vice, Bradley J. Butwin, O'Melveny & Myers LLP
& Gary Svirsky, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

United Western Bank, Defendant, represented by William J. Goines,
Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Cindy Hamilton, Greenberg Traurig, LLP &
Karen Rosenthal, Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Boulder Capital, LLC, a Massachusetts Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman
LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F.
Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice & Todd Barnett
Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice.

Boulder Columbus, LLC, a Massachusetts limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey,
Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman
LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice &
Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice.

Boulder West Oaks, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey,
Waring & Waisman LLP,Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman
LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice &
Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice.

Boulder Holdings, VI, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey,
Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman
LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice &
Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice.

Roy S MacDowell, Jr, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah
Labovitch, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Michael Drury,
McCloskey, Waring & Waisman LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law
Firm LLP, pro hac vice &Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm
LLP, pro hac vice.

Cordell Funding LLLP, a Florida limited liability limited
partnership, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert
Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner
LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R.
Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner
LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Cordell Consultants New York, LLC, a New York limited liability
company, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert
Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner
LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R.
Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner
LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Cordell Consultants Inc. Money Purchase Plan, a Qualified
Retirement Plan Trust, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell,
Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Douglas E. Spelfogel, Foley &
Lardner LLP, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner
LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC,Katherine R.
Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner
LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Robin Rodriguez, Defendant, represented by Bryan J. Yarnell,
Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen Regina Ridley, Foley &
Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA Yarnell PLLC, Katherine
R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP,Olya Petukhova, Foley & Lardner
LLP, pro hac vice & Patrick T. Wong, Foley & Lardner LLP.

Jorden Burt, LLP, a Connecticut limited liability partnership,
Defendant, represented by Jonathan Matthew Blute, Murphy Pearson
Bradley Feeney,Lawrence A Kellogg, Levine Kellogg Lehman Schneider
& Grossman LLP &Timothy J. Halloran, Murphy Pearson Bradley &
Feeney.

Kutak Rock, LLP, a Nebraska limited liability partnership,
Defendant, represented by Ethan D. Dettmer, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, F. Joseph Warin, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac
vice, Scott A. Fink, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Wayne Allen
Schrader, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Joseph O. Kavan, Defendant, represented by Ethan D. Dettmer,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, F. Joseph Warin, Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,Scott A. Fink, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP & Wayne Allen Schrader, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP.

Foley & Lardner, LLP, a Wisconsin limited liability partnership,
Defendant, represented by Allison Lane Cooper, Krieg Keller Sloan
Reilley & Roman LLP,James Carnegie Krieg, Krieg Keller Sloan
Reilley & Roman LLP & Jennifer Robin McGlone, Krieg, Keller,
Sloan, Reilley & Roman LLP.

Stephen I Burr, Defendant, represented by Allison Lane Cooper,
Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP, James Carnegie Krieg,
Krieg Keller Sloan Reilley & Roman LLP & Jennifer Robin McGlone,
Krieg, Keller, Sloan, Reilley & Roman LLP.

Silicon Valley Law Group, a California law corporation, Defendant,
represented by Jerome Nathan Lerch, Lerch Sturmer LLP, Brett Alan
Broge, Lerch Sturmer LLP, Christopher Ashworth, Silicon Valley Law
Group & Debra Steel Sturmer, Lerch Sturmer LLP.

Boulder Holdings X LLC, a Delaware limited liability company,
Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Noah Labovitch, McCloskey,
Waring & Waisman LLP,Michael Drury, McCloskey, Waring & Waisman
LLP, Stephen F. Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice &
Todd Barnett Gordon, The Gordon Law Firm LLP, pro hac vice.

Cordell Consultants Money Purchase Plan, Defendant, represented by
Bryan J. Yarnell, Gilbert Yarnelll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eileen
Regina Ridley, Foley & Lardner LLP, Irwin R Gilbert, Gilbert PA
Yarnell PLLC, Katherine R. Catanese, Foley & Lardner LLP, Olya
Petukhova, Foley & Lardner LLP, pro hac vice &Patrick T. Wong,
Foley & Lardner LLP.

Sam Braswell, Defendant, represented by Richard William Meaglia.

Sandra Stroud, Defendant, represented by Richard William Meaglia.

ASM Capital, L.P., Interested Party, represented by Michael
Delaney, Baker & Hostier LLP.

ASM Capital III, L.P., Interested Party, represented by Michael
Delaney, Baker & Hostier LLP.

                       About 1031 Tax Group

Headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, The 1031 Tax Group LLC --
http://www.ixg1031.com/-- was a privately held consolidated group
of qualified intermediaries created to service real property
exchanges under Section 1031 of the Internal Revenue Code.
131 Tax Group had total assets of $164.23 million and total
liabilities as of Sept. 30, 2007.

The Company and 15 of its affiliates filed for Chapter 11
protection (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. Case No. 07-11448) on May 14, 2007.
Gerard A. McHale, Jr., was appointed Chapter 11 trustee.  Jonathan
L. Flaxer, Esq., and David J. Eisenman, Esq., at Golenbock Eiseman
Assor Bell & Peskoe LLP, represent the Chapter 11 trustee.
Kurtzman Carson Consultants LLC acts as claims and notice agent.
Thomas J. Weber, Esq., Melanie L. Cyganowski, Esq., and Allen G.
Kadish, Esq., at Greenberg Traurig, LLP, represent the Official
Committee of Unsecured Creditors.

Former CEO Edward H. Okun is in federal prison at Northern Neck
Regional Jail in Warsaw, Virginia, after being convicted of mail
fraud and other charges.  Mr. Okun allegedly engaged in several
misappropriations of funds of 1031 Tax Group and other entities.


A1 SERVICE: Violated CLC & IWC Wage Orders, "Rasem" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ahmed Rasem, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. A-1 Service
Appliances, Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616315 (Cal Super. Ct. - Los
Angeles Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover all actual,
consequential and incidental losses and damages, statutory
penalties, and injunctive relief, pursuant to California Labor
Code (CLC) & Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Orders.

A1 Service Appliance specializes in heating, ventilation and air
conditioning (HVAC). The company's line of business includes
selection, display, knowledge, availability, delivery,
installation, and repairing services. It also provides parts and
accessories for home or business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Travis Hodgkins, Esq.
          CIVIL JUSTICE LAW, P.C.
          12100 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 800
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Facsimile: (310) 496 0533
          Telephone: (213) 529 0003
          E-mail: travis@civiljustice.com


ALFA VISION: "Virden" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Arkansas
---------------------------------------------------------------
Martha Virden, individually and on behalf of a class of similarly
situated persons, v. Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation, Case No.
15CV-16-00043, was removed from the Conway County Circuit Court,
to the US District Court for the Eastern District Court of
Arkansas. The District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00186-JM to
the proceeding.

Alfa Vision Insurance Corporation is a subsidiary of Alfa Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alex T. Gray, Esq.
          George Nathan Steel, Esq.
          Jeremy Y. Hutchinson, Esq.
          Scott E. Poynter, Esq.
          STEEL, WRIGHT & COLLIER, PLLC
          400 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2910
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 251 1587
          Facsimile: (204) 244 2614
          E-mail: alex@swcfirm.com
                  nate@swcfirm.com
                  jeremy@swcfirm.com
                  scott@swcfirm.com

               - and -

          Jessica Virden Mallett, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF PETER MILLER
          1601 South Broadway
          Little Rock, AR 72206
          Telephone: (501) 374 6300
          Facsimile: (501) 907 0661
          E-mail: jvirden@petermillerlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          David M. Donovan, Esq.
          WATTS, DONOVAN & TILLEY, P.A.
          200 River Market Avenue, Suite 200
          Little Rock, AR 72201-1769
          Telephone: (501) 372 1406
          E-mail: david.donovan@wdt-law.com


AL-FLEX EXTERMINATORS: Violated FLSA, "Guerra" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Luis Brian Hernandez Guerra, and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Al-Flex Exterminators, Inc., and Alexander E.
Napoles, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-21242-JEM (S.D. Fla.,
April 7, 2016), seeks to recover double damages and reasonable
attorney fees from Defendants, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

Al-Flex Exterminators provides disinfecting and pest control
services. The Company operates in the state of Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARL CREDIT SERVICES: "Reynolds" Class Action Deal Okayed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned KENNETH REYNOLDS, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated; Plaintiff, v. ARL CREDIT SERVICES,
INC., DONETTE JABLONSKI, AND RICHARD JABLONSKI, Defendants, No.
8:15CV25 (D. Neb.), Judge Laurie Smith Camp adopted the findings
and recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge F.A. Gossett
and granted the parties' joint motion for final approval of class
action settlement.

On January 15, 2015, Kenneth Reynolds filed a class action lawsuit
against the defendants, asserting class claims under the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) and the Nebraska Consumer
Protection Act (NCPA).  After extensive arms-length negotiations,
the parties eventually entered into a Class Action Settlement
Agreement, which was preliminarily approved by the court on
October 20, 2015.  A fairness hearing was held on January 26,
2016.

For reasons stated in Judge Gossett's Findings and
Recommendations, Judge Camp concluded that the settlement is fair,
reasonable, and adequate.  The settlement awards the Class
Representative $3,500 as statutory damages and for his services,
and awards the Class $15,120 as statutory damages to be divided
equally by letter among the class members who do not request
exclusion.

A full-text copy of Judge Camp's March 30, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/fpnbBsfrom Leagle.com.

Kenneth Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph Bragg,
HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM.

Kenneth Reynolds, Plaintiff, represented by Pamela A. Car, CAR,
REINBRECHT LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW
FIRM.

ARL Credit Services, Inc., Donette Jablonski, Richard Jablonski,
Defendant, represented by Christopher R. Morris --
cmorris@bassford.com -- BASSFORD, REMELE LAW FIRM.


ASSET RECOVERY: Court Grants Class Certification in "Datta" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's motion for
class certification in the case captioned, MEENA ARTHUR DATTA,
Plaintiff, v. ASSET RECOVERY SOLUTIONS, LLC, Defendant, Case No.
15-CV-00188-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff Meena Arthur Datta brings the instant action against
Defendant Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC. The putative class action
arises out of Defendant's attempt to collect upon consumer debts
from Plaintiff and others similarly situated. Plaintiff alleges
that, at some previous point in time, she incurred a consumer debt
issued by HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., for personal, family, or
household purposes. The debt was later consigned, placed, or
otherwise assigned to Defendant for collection.

On March 4, 2015, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
The FAC asserts two causes of action, based on violations of (1)
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), and (2) the
Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (RFDCPA).

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff filed the motion seeking class
certification of "(i) all persons with addresses in California,
(ii) to whom Defendant sent, or caused to be sent, a collection
letter in the form of Exhibit 1 in an envelope in the form of
Exhibit 2, (iii) in an attempt to collect an alleged debt
originally owed to HSBC Bank Nevada, N.A., (iv) which was incurred
primarily for personal, family, or household purposes, (v) which
were not returned as undeliverable by the U.S. Post Office, (vi)
during the period one year prior to the date of filing this action
through the date of class certification."

Defendant does not contest that Plaintiff has satisfied Rule
23(a)'s requirements for numerosity, commonality, and typicality.

In her Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/D6a7tU
from Leagle.com, Judge Koh found that the Plaintiff has
sufficiently established superiority for purposes of Rule 23(a)
and 23(b)(3) and certified the class.

The Court appointed Meena Arthur Datta as class representative and
Fred Schwinn and Raeon Roulston of the Consumer Law Center and
Randolph Bragg of Horwitz, Horwitz & Associates as class counsel
to represent the class.

Meena Arthur Datta is represented by:

     O. Randolph Bragg, Esq.
     HORWITZ, HORWITZ & ASSOCIATES
     25 E. Washington St., Suite 900
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Tel: (312)372-8822

          - and -

     Raeon Rodrigo Roulston, Esq.
     Fred W. Schwinn, Esq.
     CONSUMER LAW CENTER, INC.
     1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 510
     Washington, DC, 20036
     Tel: (202) 452-6252

Asset Recovery Solutions, LLC is represented by David Ian Dalby,
Esq. -- ddalby@hinshawlaw.com -- Justin Michael Penn, Esq. --
jpenn@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW AND CULBERTSON


AUTOMOBILE CLUB: Trial Court Ruling in "Rogers" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JILL ROGERS, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA et al., Defendants and
Respondents, No. B256085 (Cal. Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of
California, Second District, Division Seven, affirmed the trial
court's final judgment entered in favor of the Automobile Club of
Southern California and the Interinsurance Exchange of the
Automobile Club (collectively, the Auto Club).

Jill Rogers, who worked as an Auto Club sales agent who sold
automobile insurance on commission, sued the Auto Club, alleging
that the use of the "Persistency with Prior Carrier" factor as a
basis for the amount of commission constitutes an unlawful and
unfair business practice because it incentivizes sales agents to
discriminate against previously uninsured consumers in violation
of Proposition 103.  Rogers brought claims under the Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), and for breach of contract and declaratory
relief on behalf of other Auto Club sales agents who allegedly
engaged in discriminatory practices that harmed previously
uninsured consumers.  Rogers, however, never engaged in such
discriminatory practices and was paid fully under the negotiated
terms of her contract.

The trial court sustained the Auto Club's demurrer to Rogers'
first amended complaint, concluding that Rogers lacked standing to
bring the UCL claims, that she failed to allege a breach of
contract, and that she could not seek declaratory relief premised
on her flawed UCL and contract claims.

The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's
ruling.  The appellate court held that Rogers lacks standing to
prosecute a UCL claim because she has not been economically
harmed.  The court pointed out that Rogers was paid what she was
owed under her negotiated agreement with the Auto Club and
therefore received the benefit of the bargain.  The appellate
court also stated that Rogers' breach of contract claim fared no
better as Auto Club did not breach their agreement.  Consequently,
the appellate court also concluded that Rogers cannot state a
claim for declaratory relief because it is premised on her
nonviable UCL and breach of contract claims

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 30,
2016 order is available at http://is.gd/pWGIetfrom Leagle.com.

Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com --
Leslie E. Hurst -- lhurst@bholaw.com --  Consumer Watchdog, Harvey
Rosenfield, Pamela Pressley, and Laura Antonini for Plaintiff and
Appellant.

Sheppard Mullin Richter & Hampton, John T. Brooks --
jbrooks@sheppardmullin.com -- and Jessica L. Mackaness for
Defendants and Respondents.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Steward" Suit in W.D. Wash., Seattle
------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Bank of America, N.A. The case is
captioned Karen Steward, an unmarried woman, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bank of
America, N.A., a foreign corporation, MTC Financial Inc., doing
business as: Trustee Corps, and John Does 1-20, the Defendants,
Case No. #: 2:16-cv-00505-RSM (W.D. Wash., Seattle, April 7,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Ricardo S Martinez.

Bank of America operates as a full service bank. The Bank accepts
deposits, makes loans, and provides other financial and investment
services for the public. The bank serves individual and
institutional customers throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vicente Omar Barrazam, Esq.
          BARRAZA LAW PLLC
          14245-F AMBAUM BLVD SW
          BURIEN, WA 98166
          Telephone: (206) 933 7861
          Facsimile: (206) 933 7863
          E-mail: omar@barrazalaw.com


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Hill" Class Suit Over Sherman Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Hill, Angie Hill, Kevin, Bradberry, and Christy Bradberry,
the Plaintiffs, v. Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Alabama;
Premera Blue Cross, also Dba Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Alaska; Blue Cross Blue Shield of Arizona; Usable Mutual Insurance
Company, D/B/A Arkansas Blue Cross And Blue Shield; Anthem, Inc.,
F/K/A Wellpoint, Inc., D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Life and Health
Insurance Company, Blue Cross of California, Blue Cross of
Southern California, Blue Cross of Northern California, Rocky
Mountain Hospital and Medical Service Inc. D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Colorado and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Nevada, Anthem Health Plans, Inc., D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Connecticut, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia, Anthem
Insurance Companies, Inc., D/B/A Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Indiana, et. al., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-03016-RAL (S.
Dak., April 8, 2016), seeks to enjoin ongoing conspiracy between
and among BCBS-SD, the Individual Blue Plans and BCBSA to allocate
markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman Act.

Anthem Insurance Companies doing business as Anthem Blue Cross and
Blue Shield, provides health insurance plans and Medicare
solutions to individuals, families, and employers in the United
States. It offers wellness, dental, vision, life disability, small
business, and group health insurance coverage plans. The company
is based in Indianapolis, Indiana with additional offices and
locations in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Georgia, Indiana,
Kentucky, Maine, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, and New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Clint Sargent, Esq.
          MEIERHENRY SARGENT LLP
          315 South Phillips A venue
          Sioux Falls, SD 57104
          Telephone: (605) 336 3075
          Facsimile: (605) 336 2593
          E-mail: clint@meierhenrylaw.com

               - and -

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

               - and -

          Patrick W. Pendley, Esq.
          PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, LLP
          P. 0. Drawer 71
          Plaquemine, LA 70765-0071
          Telephone: (225) 687 6396
          Facsimile: (225) 687-6398
          E-mail: pwpendley@pbclawfirm.com

               - and -

          Benjamin L. Barnes, Esq.
          Centennial Plaza
          2575 Kelley Pointe Parkway, Suite 100
          Edmond, OK 73013
          Telephone: (405) 330 9860
          Facsimile: (405) 231 4701
          E-mail: bb@bbameslaw.com


BUNCOMBE COUNTY, NC: Court Dismisses "Landis" Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Martin Reidinger of the United States District
Court for the Western District of North Carolina accepted a
Memorandum and Recommendation, and overruled Plaintiff's
"Objection to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer" and
"Memorandum Objection to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer"
in the case captioned, LISA BAIN LANDIS, Plaintiff, v. BUNCOMBE
COUNTY NC GOVERNMENT, WANDA GREENE, KATHY HUGHES, BUNCOMBE COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS, DAVID GANTT, BILL STANLEY, MIKE FRUE, BUNCOMBE
COUNTY SHERIFF OFFICE, RON MOORE, CITY OF ASHEVILLE, JOHN/JANE
DOES1-5, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-146-MR-DSC (W.D.N.C.).

Plaintiff introduces herself as, "Lisa Gay Bain Landis, here in
known as: 'GLoLady' is a Natural born Female Mystic of the
White/Rainbow Prophesied Race, a Starseed, and Lightworker. A
certain Class of Traveler, with Riches in the Divine Creator's
Heaven and Earth. Graceful to Almighty God, the Sovereign Ruler of
Nations. Honoring a Divine Feminine Religion of the Universal
Mind. Harm None Do As Ye Will, Peace Ambassador in Consciousness,
With Divine Inspiration, as guided to stop Injustice and forced
servitude to tyrannical rule."

The Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed her Complaint June 9,
2014, together with motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for
the appointment of counsel.

On October 17, 2014, Asheville City Defendants and Buncombe County
Defendants filed motions to dismiss Plaintiff's Third Amended
Complaint. Recognizing the latitude afforded pro se litigants, the
Magistrate Judge signed an Order dated December 3, 2014, which
allowed Plaintiff 30 days to file a Fourth Amended Complaint in
compliance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thereby
denied as moot, and without prejudice, Defendants' various
dismissal motions.

On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Fourth Amended Complaint,
naming as additional Defendants John/Jane Doe 1 through 5.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b) and the standing Orders of
Designation of the District Court, the Honorable Davis S. Cayer,
United States Magistrate Judge, was designated to consider the
Defendants' motions and to submit to the Court a recommendation
for their disposition. On March 27, 2015, the Magistrate Judge
filed a Memorandum and Recommendation (M&R) containing proposed
conclusions of law in support of a recommendation that the
Defendants' dismissal motions be granted and Plaintiff's action be
dismissed with prejudice.

On April 10, 2015, the Plaintiff filed her "Objection to
Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer" and "Memorandum Objection
to Recommendation and Order by Judge Cayer".

In his Memorandum of Decision and Order dated March 18, 2016
available at http://is.gd/HXT12Tfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reidinger
concluded that the Magistrate Judge's legal analysis is consistent
with applicable case law.

Defendants are represented by:

     Curtis William Euler, Esq.
     COUNTY OF BUNCOMBE
     200 College St., Ste 400
     Asheville, NC 28801-3040
     Tel: (828)250-4112


CAINE & WIENER: Violated TCPA & FDCPA, "Garcia" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jesse Garcia, Jr. on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Caine & Wiener Company, Inc. and
Nestle Waters North America, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-
cv-00850-DMS-DHB (S.D. Cal., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and any other available legal or
equitable remedies, as a result of Defendants' negligently, and/or
willfully, contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular telephone
without prior express consent, in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

The Plaintiff further alleges that he was wrongfully and illegally
contacted in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA).

Caine & Weiner, an accounts receivable management enterprise,
provides credit and collection services. It offers consumer and
commercial third party debt collection, first party debt
collection and outsourcing, and letter-writing services, as well
as credit, collection, and investigation services. The company
also provides missing debtors locating, file handling, ACH debit,
address screening, and courier services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kira M. Rubel, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KIRA M. RUBEL
          19689 7Th Ave. NE, Ste. 160
          Poulsbo, WA 98370
          Telephone: (800) 836 6531
          Facsimile: (206) 238 1694

               - and -

          David P. Schafer, Esq.
          Brian J. Trenz, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SCHAFER
          2139 N.W. Military HWY, Suite 200
          San Antonio, TX 78213
          Telephone: (210) 348 0500
          Facsimile: (210) 348 0520


CARDO WINDOWS: Court Decertifies "Adami" FLSA Collective Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Jerome B. Simandle decertified the plaintiff's collective
action in the case captioned FRED ADAMI, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CARDO WINDOWS, INC.
d/b/a "Castle, 'The Window People'" et al., Defendants, Civil No.
12-2804 (JBS/JS) (D.N.J.).

Fred Adami, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed a putative collective action and class action
against Cardo Windows, Inc. and other defendants arising from the
defendants' alleged mischaracterization of its window installers
as independent contractors.  Adami maintained claims for unpaid
overtime and all other relief due under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the New Jersey State Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), and
the New Jersey Construction Industry Independent Contractor Act
(CIIC), as well as a claim for unjust enrichment.

The court had granted the plaintiffs' motion for conditional
certification of an FLSA collective action.  Aside from the named
plaintiff, Adami, the conditionally-certified collective action
had two opt-in plaintiffs, namely: Kevin Kern and Tadelisz
Czubernat.

However, at the final certification step, after completion of all
certification discovery and considering all the relevant factors,
Judge Simandle found that opt-in plaintiffs Kern and Czubernat are
not similarly situated to Adami.  The judge found that although
the plaintiffs have adequately shown that all of Cardo's window
installers were subject to some common employer practices, they
have failed to present sufficient evidence that the circumstances
of the opt-in plaintffs' employment are similar to the named
plaintiff's, or that resolution of the three-member collective
action would likely be more efficient than separate actions.

A full-text copy of Judge Simandle's March 30, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/5Y5TJLfrom Leagle.com.

FRED ADAMI, Plaintiff, represented by RICHARD S. HANNYE, HANNYE
LLC.

CARDO WINDOWS, INC., CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, SR., CHRISTOPHER
CARDILLO, JR., NICHOLAS CARDILLO, EDWARD JONES, JOHN J. BELMONTE,
PAT TRICOCCI, Defendants, represented by ERIC ROBERT CLENDENING --
eric.clendening@flastergreenberg.com -- FLASTER/GREENBERG PC,
KENNETH S. GOODKIND -- ken.goodkind@flastergreenberg.com --
FLASTER/GREENBERG PC & MICHAEL D. HOMANS --
michael.homans@flastergreenberg.com -- FLASTER GREENBERG PC.

NICHOLAS BRUCATO, Defendant, EDWARD JONES, CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO,
JR., CARDO WINDOWS, INC., NICHOLAS CARDILLO, PAT TRICOCCI, JOHN J.
BELMONTE, CHRISTOPHER CARDILLO, SR., Counter Claimants,
represented by ERIC ROBERT CLENDENING, FLASTER/GREENBERG PC &
MICHAEL D. HOMANS, FLASTER GREENBERG PC.

TIMOTHY NAGLE, Defendant, represented by MICHAEL D. HOMANS,
FLASTER GREENBERG PC & RICHARD S. HANNYE, HANNYE LLC.

RODERICK J ARCE', Interested Party, represented by MICHAEL ALAN
KATZ, Paul & Katz, P.C..

FRED ADAMI, Counter Defendant, represented by RICHARD S. HANNYE,
HANNYE LLC.


CHECK 'N GO: Violated Cal. Labor Code, "McDonald" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Patricia McDonald, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated aggrieved employees, the Plaintiff, v.
Check 'n Go of California, Inc., and Does 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. RG16810746 (Cal. Super. Ct., Alameda Cty.,
April 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid civil penalties,
reasonable attorney fees and costs under the California Labor Code
Private Attorneys General Act of 2004.

Check 'n Go is a consumer financial company operating in Alabama,
California, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, and Idaho. The Company's
line of business includes cash advances and installment loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew Bainer, Esq.
          Nathan R. Yannone, Esq.
          SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC
          1970 Broadway, Ninth Floor
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 891 9800
          Facsimile: (510) 891 7030
          E-mail: mbainer@scalaw.com
                  nyannone@scalaw.com
                  www.scalaw.com


CHICAGO, IL: Firefighter Trainees Allege Harassment at Academy
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Patch's Amie Schaenzer, citing ABC 7 Chicago, reports that
the city's human resources department and fire department are
investigating claims from female firefighter candidates that feces
was left in the woman's changing room at a training academy as an
act of harassment, ABC 7 Chicago reports.  The women found feces
on a Chicago Fire Department sweatshirt and on a chair in the
changing area while at the training academy.

The 13 female African-American candidates were enrolled in the
program after first being rejected when applying more than 20
years ago.  Two class-action lawsuits alleging racial and gender
discrimination have since allowed the women to enroll at the
academy.

Marni Willenson, an attorney for the female firefighter
candidates, told ABC 7 Chicago the feces left behind in the
changing room sent a message that they were not wanted in the
training program.


CHRISTINE HERENDEEN: M.D. Fla. Dismisses CadleRock Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: OILEDKIN GONZALEZ, Debtor. CADLEROCK
JOINT VENTURE L.P., Appellant, v. CHRISTINE HERENDEEN Chapter 7
Trustee, THOMAS A. LASH, and LASH & WILCOX, PL, Appellees, Case
No. 8:15-cv-2129-T-33, Bankr. No. 8:12-bk-19213-KRM (M.D. Fla.),
Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington dismissed for lack of
jurisdiction, CadleRock Joint Venture, L.P.'s appeal of the denial
of its motion for the bankruptcy judge to recuse himself from the
Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding.

CadleRock filed a motion to reopen an adversary proceeding
previously filed against it so that it could filed a class action
lawsuit alleging that the Chrisine Herendeen, Chapter 7 Trustee
for the debtor Oiledkin Gonzalez, and her special counsel Thomas
A. Lash, and Lash & Wilcox, PL "violated federal and state laws by
engaging in a pattern of wrongful conduct through the filing of
frivolous lawsuits asserting Consumer Protection Laws claims
against CadleRock and other creditors."  The motion was denied by
the bankruptcy court, ultimately holding that "CadleRock is not
permitted to sue or seek damages from the trustee or her special
counsel."  The denial was affirmed on appeal.

CadleRock filed a second motion to reopen the case for the purpose
of filing a motion for sanctions against the Trustee and her
special counsel.  CadleRock also filed a motion to recuse
Bankruptcy Judge K. Rodney May based on concerns that he might not
be able to remain impartial and decide this matter solely on the
merits.  While Judge May granted the second motion to reopen the
case, he denied the motion to recuse.  CadleRock appelaed the
order denying the motion to recuse.

Judge Covington determined that the district court lacks
jurisdiction over the appeal of the denial of the motion to recuse
as a "final" judgment, order, or decree under 28 U.S.C. Section
158(a)(1).  The judge also determined that the dispute is not
appropriate for consideration on the basis of an interlocutory
appeal.

A full-text copy of Judge Covington's March 30, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/8tr7Xtfrom Leagle.com.

Cadlerock Joint Venture, L.P., Appellant, represented by Brendan
Anthony McQuaid, Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser, Baron &
Tirabassi, PA & David S. Maglich, Fergeson, Skipper, Shaw, Keyser,
Baron & Tirabassi, PA.

Christine Herendeen, Trustee, represented by W. Todd Boyd --
tboyd@boydlawgroup.com -- Boyd, Richards, Parker & Colonnelli, PL.

Thomas A. Lash, Interested Party, represented by Katherine Earle
Yanes -- kyanes@kmf-law.com -- Kynes, Markman & Felman, PA.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: "Kester" Suit Over Wrongful Foreclosure Tossed
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned David A. Kester, on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CitiMortgage, Inc.;
CR Title Services, Inc.; and Does 1 to 25, inclusive, Defendants,
No. CV-15-00365-PHX-NVW (D. Ariz.), Judge Neil V. Wake granted the
defendants' motion to dismiss David Kester's amended class action
complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted.

Kester filed a putative class action on behalf of foreclosed
homeowners for statutory damages under A.R.S. Section 33-420(A),
which penalizes persons claiming an interest or lien in real
property for recording a document "knowing or having reason to
know that the document is forged, groundless, contains a material
misstatement or false claim or is otherwise invalid . . ."

Kester alleged that three documents relating to the trustee's sale
of his house were recorded in violation of the statute because
they were acknowledged before a notary whose commission had been
revoked ten days earlier.  Kester also alleged that this defect in
acknowledgment affected hundreds or perhaps thousands of other
documents.

Judge Wake pointed out that A.R.S. Section 33-420(A) requires
materiality for a penalty.  However, the judge found that the
acknowledgment defect in the documents relating to the trustee's
sale of Kester's property was immaterial to Kester as it could not
have affected his choice of action as the owner/trustor.  Further,
Judge Wake also found that, even apart from the immateriality to
the plaintiff of the acknowledgment defect, the acknowledgments
were fully validated under the governing recording statutes and
the Deed of Trust Act after having been recorded for one year and
when the property passed to a purchaser for value and without
notice.

A full-text copy of Judge Wake's March 30, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/8NuWfGfrom Leagle.com.

David A Kester, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew S Friedman --
afriedman@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman & Balint PC,
David N Lake, Law Offices of David N Lake & Patricia Nicole
Syverson -- psyverson@bffb.com -- Bonnett Fairbourn Friedman &
Balint PC.

CitiMortgage Incorporated, CR Title Services Incorporated,
Defendant, represented by Christopher S Comstock --
ccomstock@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP, Lauren Elliott Stine,
Quarles & Brady LLP, Lucia Nale -- lnale@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP & Thomas V Panoff -- tpanoff@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer
Brown LLP.


CONAIR CORP: Bid to Decertify Nationwide Class Granted in Part
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Roger T. Benitez granted in part the defendant's motion to
decertify the nationwide class action in the case captioned
CYNTHIA L. CZUCHAJ, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, a
Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No. 13-cv-1901-BEN (RBB)
(S.D. Cal.).

The case arose from an alleged defect in Conair Corporation's
Model 259 and 279 hair dryers.  On November 12, 2015, a nationwide
class was certified under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)
and (b)(3) for implied warranty claims under common law and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

Conair, however, argued that the nationwide class must be
decertified because the predominance and superiority requirements
of Rule 23(b)(3) cannot be satisfied, particularly because
California law cannot be applied to the entire class, and common
questions do not predominate due to the material differences in
state laws.

Judge Benitez found that the Conair has met its burden of showing
the various laws throughout the states and how they materially
differ from each other.  The judge also found that each state has
a valid and important interest in applying its own law to this
case and, in determining which law to apply, that each state's law
would seem to be equally impaired if not applied.  As such, the
judge concluded that Conair has met its burden showing that the
requirements of Rule 23(b)(3) are not met.

However, Conair did not raise any arguments to decertify the
nationwide class under Rule 23(b)(2).  Thus, Judge Benitez denied
Conair's motion to the extent it seeks to decertify the nationwide
23(b)(2) class.

A full-text copy of Judge Benitez's March 30, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/zbfqgdfrom Leagle.com.

Cynthia L Czuchaj, Angelique Mundy, Barbara McConnell, Patricia
Carter, Plaintiff, represented by Isam C Khoury --
jkhoury@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jeff Geraci --
jgeraci@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jerusalem F.
Beligan, Bisnar & Chase, Katherine J Odenbreit, Odenbreit Law,
APC, Michael D Singer, Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Jennifer Lynn
Connor, Cohelan Khoury & Singer & Timothy D Cohelan --
tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- Cohelan Khoury & Singer.

Conair Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Donald Saba --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- Rosen Saba LLP & Momo Emily Takahashi --
mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- Rosen Saba LLP.


COOK COUNTY, IL: Court Won't Decertify Class in "Parish" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge John Z. Lee denied the motion filed by the defendants to
decertify the class in the case captioned MICHAEL PARISH, CURTIS
L. OATS, LEILA KHOURY, SEAN DRISCOLL, CARLA LOFTON, ROY CLEAVES,
LISA BROWN, DAN TAYLOR, DEAN MILLER, KEVIN SANDERS, STACEY CLARK
and CARLOTTE WILSON, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SHERIFF OF COOK COUNTY and COOK
COUNTY, Defendants, No. 07 C 4369 (N.D. Ill.).

In August 2007, a class action was brought against the Sheriff of
Cook County and Cook County alleging that Cook County Jail (CCJ)
has policies and practices of deliberate indifference to their
serious medical needs in violation of their due process rights
under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Judge Matthew F. Kennelly certified a class of "all persons
confined at the Cook County Jail on and after August 3, 2005 who
provided notice that he or she had been taking prescription
medication for a serious health need and who was not provided with
appropriate medication within 24 hours thereafter."  After the
parties conducted and completed fact and expert discovery, the
defendants moved to decertify the class arguing that Judge
Kennelly erred in certifying the class and that certain facts
revealed during discovery require decertification.

Judge Lee, to whom the case was reassigned after discovery,
concluded that there are no materially changed or clarified
circumstances or changes in the law requiring decertification.
The judge further stated that he does not have a strong and
reasonable conviction that Judge Kennelly's ruling was incorrect.

A full-text copy of Judge Lee's March 31, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at http://is.gd/Qc8deMfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Parish, Plaintiff, represented by Thomas Gerard Morrissey,
Thomas G. Morrissey, Joel A. Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C.,
Kenneth N Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman, P.C. & Patrick William
Morrissey, Thomas G. Morrissey, Ltd..

Curtis L. Oats, Leila Khoury, Sean Driscoll, Carla Lofton, Roy
Cleaves, Lisa Brown, Dan Taylor, Dean Miller, Stacey Clark, Kevin
Sanders, Carlotte Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Joel A.
Flaxman, Kenneth N. Flaxman P.C. & Kenneth N Flaxman, Kenneth N.
Flaxman, P.C..

Sheriff of Cook County, Cook County, Defendant, represented by
Daniel J. Fahlgren, State's Attorney of Cook County, Francis J.
Catania, Cook County State's Attorney &Andrew Joseph Creighton,
Anita Alvarez, State's Attorney of Cook County.


CRYPTSY: Placed Under Receivership Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
DCEBrief reports that Cryptsy has been placed into receivership by
a Florida Court, as the class action lawsuit against the collapsed
cryptocurrency exchange continues.  The court froze the exchange's
assets and appointed James Sallah to serve as its designated
monitor, with administrative control over all assets.

Mr. Sallah will also be responsible for management of Cryptsy's
operating company, Project Investors.  As part of its order, the
court suspended the powers of Cryptsy's officers, agents, and
employees except as may be later authorized by the designated
Receiver.

This action empowers Mr. Sallah to subpoena company information,
including more than three years worth of accounting data.  The
order directs that he report on the exchange's viability and offer
his recommendations within thirty days from taking receivership.


CVS: Faces Class Action Over Advanced Eye Health Product
--------------------------------------------------------
Colman M. Herman, writing for Boston Globe, reports that in the
supermarket, consumers often pick store-brand products as less
expensive alternatives to name brands.  When it comes to
prescription drugs, insurers require generics when available.  The
rationale: You can get essentially the same product for less.

But sometimes there are significant differences with potentially
adverse health consequences.

Consider what happened to G. Dana MacDonald.  The 91-year-old
Belmont resident has an eye disease called age-related macular
degeneration.  His ophthalmologist prescribed a product from
Bausch + Lomb called PreserVision AREDS2, a nutritional supplement
proven in government clinical trials to slow the progression of
his disease, which often leads to blindness.

In 2014, Mr. MacDonald switched to CVS's Advanced Eye Health
because it was half the price and claimed on its label to be
"comparable to ongoing study formula in AREDS2."  Just how
comparable it was is a matter of dispute -- and at least one
lawsuit.

Age-related macular degeneration, or AMD, blurs the sharp central
vision, which allows us to see objects that are straight ahead. It
accounts for more than 50 percent of all blindness in the United
States, according to the National Eye Institute.

At the beginning of the last decade, a clinical trial conducted by
the institute, called the Age-Related Eye Disease Study (AREDS),
determined that a high-dose combination of five nutrients
(vitamins C and E, beta-carotene, zinc, and copper) could reduce
the risk of severe vision loss by 25 percent for many people with
the disease.

In 2006, a follow-up study, AREDS2, began to examine a formula
that substituted lutein and zeaxanthin for the beta-carotene,
which is associated with a higher risk of lung cancer in smokers.
The new formula worked just as well, according to findings
released in 2013.

To capitalize on the success of an earlier version of
PreserVision, CVS introduced Advanced Eye Health in 2012, before
the second study was published.  The front of the package carried
the claim about being "comparable" to the formula being studied in
AREDS2 by the National Eye Institute.

But the CVS product, which the company placed on the shelf right
next to the PreserVision AREDS2 after it was introduced in 2013,
was much different.  It did not contain four of the six proven
nutrients being studied by AREDS2: vitamin C, vitamin E, zinc, and
copper.

The CVS product contained the lutein and the zeaxanthin, plus
omega-3 fatty acids, which the AREDS2 study ultimately found to be
ineffective in slowing the progression of macular degeneration.

"Clearly it was very misleading," said Dr. Jorge Arroyo, an
ophthalmologist who treats macular degeneration at the Beth Israel
Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.  "Patients who took the CVS
product could have a 25 percent higher risk of their macular
degeneration progressing and losing vision."

"The CVS version was not subject to rigorous clinical testing,"
said Dr. Ingrid Scott, a professor of ophthalmology at the
Pennsylvania State College of Medicine who has written about
formulations that do not adhere to the AREDS requirements.

Dr. Emily Chew, the physician at the National Eye Institute who
headed the AREDS2 study, would not comment directly on the CVS
product.  "I can't vouch for other formulations," she said.  "We
do know that the AREDS2 is what we worked on and that's what we
recommend."

Alleging unfair and deceptive marketing and labeling practices,
the Center for Science in the Public Interest in Washington, D.C.,
and Boston class-action lawyer John Roddy --
jroddy@baileyglasser.com -- of the firm Bailey & Glasser filed a
lawsuit last year in California against CVS.

CVS, based in Woonsocket, R.I., says there is nothing wrong with
the way it marketed its product.

"When our Advanced Eye Health product was launched in July 2012,
AREDS2 was ongoing," said Michael DeAngelis, director of
communications for CVS Health in a written statement.  "[It] was
formulated with the same nutrients that were the primary focus of
the study.  We did subsequently remove the comparison statement
from the product until the study finished and the results were
released."

Dr. Chew, the chief investigator in the AREDS2 study, said the
study tested only pills that combined the proven ingredients with
the new ones, and never tested just the three ingredients in the
CVS formula in isolation.

While CVS said it changed its packaging, the older box could still
be found on some store shelves at least until January 2015 -- 21
months after the AREDS2 study results were published online.

Mr. MacDonald, the Belmont senior with macular degeneration who
took the CVS product, was disturbed by what happened to him.  "I
was very upset when I realized that I wasn't taking the formula my
doctor prescribed, and I told CVS that," he said.

In a letter to CVS, MacDonald pointedly asked: "How can a company
that appears to project a quality reputation as you do decide to
sell such a contradictive product? It is not only dishonest, it
convinces regular customers like myself to never purchase CVS
store brands again."

In response, CVS gave Mr. MacDonald an explanation and a $20 CVS
gift card "as a token of our appreciation for bringing this matter
to our attention."

Since then CVS has changed the ingredients and the packaging a
number of times. According the label, it has 75 percent less zinc
than the brand name and it now says "Compare vs. PreserVision
AREDS2 Formula."

Mr. Roddy, the Boston attorney who is one of the lawyers
representing the plaintiffs in the California lawsuit against CVS,
said that he has had a number of conversations with CVS about
resolving the lawsuit.

"If we can't reach consensus soon, we will ask the court to
certify a class of all Advanced Eye Health purchasers," he said.


DATA CHECK: Faces " Bailey" Suit in E.D. Cal., Fresno
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Data Check of Nevada, LLC. The
case is captioned Toni Bailey and Veronica Mozi, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Data
Check of Nevada, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00510-LJO-SAB
(E.D. Cal., Fresno, April 8, 2015).  The assigned Judge is Hon.
Lawrence J. O'Neill.

The Data Check of Nevada is a Nevada Domestic limited liability
company.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Todd M Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M FRIEDMAN PC
          324 South Beverly Drive, Suite 725
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206 4741
          Facsimile: (866) 633 0228
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com


DENVER, CO: Trial Scheduled in Hiring Discrimination Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeff Todd, writing for CBS Denver, reports that a class action
lawsuit nearly a decade in the making against the City and County
of Denver was scheduled to go to trial on April 11.

The 912 plaintiffs say the city used a discriminatory test during
the hiring process around 2007 and 2008.

"What that test did was eliminate Hispanics and blacks almost
twice as many as it did whites and therefore it was racially
discriminatory," said Kenneth Padilla, who is representing the
plaintiffs in this case.

The AccuPlacer/WritePlacer test was created by The College Board
and is most commonly used to determine incoming freshman's English
level placement.

"This test was not validated. That means it didn't have anything
to do with job performance. If you passed the test it didn't mean
you would do better at the job," said Mr. Padilla.

The case says more than 40 percent of Hispanics and blacks
applying for jobs with Denver failed the test while only 25
percent of whites failed.  The test was administered for a variety
of jobs from animal control to office assistants.

"Once they failed they were out, could not be considered (for a
job).  They were told, 'You failed the test, pick up your things
and leave,'" Mr. Padilla said.

In 2008 the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
determined discrimination had taken place.

"I have considered all the evidence obtained during the
investigation and find that there is reasonable cause to believe
that there is a violation of Title VII in that respondent failed
to conduct a validity test on the AccuPlacer test used in its
employment process," said Nancy Sienko, the Field Office Director
for the EEOC.  "As a result, a statistical analysis revealed
responded discriminated against black applicants.  Furthermore,
the statistical analysis also revealed that the above-mentioned
test discriminated against Hispanic/Latino male applicants."

City Attorney Scott Martinez told CBS4, "Our policy is not to
comment on pending litigation where we are a party, especially on
the eve of trial, to respect the integrity of the judicial
process."

"Our expert has estimated the damages as $18.3 million,"
Mr. Padilla said.

In the most recent defendant's trial brief the litigators for the
city argued that the plaintiff's request for damages is grossly
overestimated.

"While in hindsight it may be easy to call a reading comprehension
test given to high school students racist, there was no evidence
that the city was aware that the test had not been validated for
employment purposes, and once it was discovered, the city
immediately discontinued its use," the brief said.

The city also argues that passing the test would not have
guaranteed employment or promotion for the plaintiffs.

"If they would have had a job, a good paying job when we were in
the throes of a recession and all those years they lost income,
they lost benefits," Mr. Padilla said.  "We are seeking justice
for these individuals."


DIGNITY HEALTH: "Brock" Suit Seeks OT Wages Under Labor Code
------------------------------------------------------------
Marcella Brock & Adenike Fajemisin, as individuals, andon behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Dignity
Health, a California corporation, Trustaff, an Ohio corporation,
Trustaff Management, LLC, an Ohio limited liability company,
Trustaff Healthcare Solutions, a California limited liability
company, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC616408 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles, April 7, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime wages and meal and break period pay, under the
Labor Code.

Dignity Health owns and operates healthcare facilities in
California, Arizona, and Nevada. The company provides inpatient,
outpatient, sub-acute, and home healthcare services, as well as
physician services through Dignity Health Medical Foundation and
other affiliated medical groups. It also offers occupational
health and urgent care services. The company was formerly known as
Catholic Healthcare West and changed its name to Dignity Health in
January 2012. Dignity Health was founded in 1986 and is
headquartered in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jason D. Ahdoot, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JASON D. AHDOOT
          16633 Ventura Blvd., Suite 555
          Encino, CA 91436
          Telephone: (310) 359 8340
          Facsimile: (310) 359 0290
          E-mail: jason@ahdootlaw.com


DIRECT ENERGY: Faces "Wilson" Suit in Southern Dist. Ohio
---------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Direct Energy Services, LLC.  The
case is captioned Patricia Wilson, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Direct Energy
Services, LLC, dba Direct Energy, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00454-WOB (S.D. Ohio, April 8, 2016). The assigned Judge is Hon.
William O. Bertelsman.

Direct Energy Service offers electricity supply services. The
company also provides home maintenance and repair services that
include plumbing, heating, cooling, appliance repair, and
electrical services. Additionally, it operates crude oil and
liquid pipeline systems and distributes natural gas to industrial,
commercial, and residential customers. The company was
incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Houston, Texas. As of
January 28, 2002, Direct Energy Service LLC operates as a
subsidiary of Centrica PLC.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michelle A. Cheek, Esq.
          SHEA, COFFEY & HARTMANN
          119 W. Central Pkwy
          300 Court Index Building
          Cincinnati, OH 45202
          Telephone: (513) 621 8333
          E-mail: mcheek@shea-associates.com


DIRECTV LLC: Loses Arbitration Bid in "Renteria-Camacho" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROLANDO RENTERIA-CAMACHO, Plaintiff, v.
DIRECTV, INC. and DIRECTV, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action. No. 14-
2529-CM (D. Kan.), Judge Carlos Murguia denied the defendants'
motion to compel the plaintiff's claims to arbitration.

Rolando Renteria-Camacho brought a suit against DirecTV, Inc. and
DirecTV, LLC, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), arising from his work as a techician from March 2009 to
July 2011.  DirecTV filed a motion to compel arbitration, but
Renteria-Camacho argued that DirecTV has waived its right to
enforce the arbitration agreement that he had previously signed as
a condition of his employment with DirecTV.

Judge Murguia held that DirecTV's failure to compel arbitration in
two prior lawsuits in which Renteria-Camacho was a party
plaintiff, and in which DirecTV knew or should have known that it
had an arbitration agreement with the plaintiff, leads the court
to a finding that DirecTV waived its right to enforce arbitration.
The judge found that DirecTV's actions were inconsistent with the
right to arbitrate and instead demonstrated an intent to litigate,
and the facts also supported a conclusion that the litigation
machinery has been substantially invoked.

A full-text copy of Judge Murguia's March 30, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/aeiZbqfrom Leagle.com.

Rolando Renteria-Camacho, Plaintiff, represented by Bradford B.
Lear -- lear@learwerts.com -- Lear Werts LLP, pro hac vice, George
A. Hanson -- hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP,
Ryan D. O'Dell, Stueve Siegel Hanson LLP & Todd C. Werts --
werts@learwerts.com -- Lear Werts LLP.

Directv, Inc., Directv, LLC, Defendant, represented by Patricia J.
Martin -- pmartin@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, pro hac
vice & Robert A. Sheffield -- rsheffield@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, PC.


DNTW CHARTERED: S.D.N.Y. Court Tosses Securities Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Paul G. Gardephe of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the amended complaint in the case captioned, In
re DNTW CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS SECURITIES LITIGATION, Case No. 13
Civ. 4632 (PGG) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs purchased shares of Subaye, Inc. and allege that the
Company's auditor -- Defendant DNTW Chartered Accountants, LLP --
"knowingly turned a blind eye and deliberately disregarded obvious
fraud at Subaye, and "issued materially false and misleading
'clean' audit reports for Subaye's fiscal year 2009 and 2010
financial statements.

In May 2013, the SEC brought an enforcement proceeding against
Subaye and Crane alleging securities fraud. The SEC concluded that
(1) Subaye had no verifiable assets; (2) the people Subaye claimed
as customers had no such relationship with it; (3) Subaye's
offices were empty; and (4) Subaye was "'an imaginary business."

Plaintiffs filed the action on July 3, 2013. On September 3, 2013,
Plaintiffs moved to consolidate a related action with the instant
action and for the appointment of lead plaintiff and lead counsel.
Defendants did not oppose consolidation; accordingly, the Court
ordered the two cases consolidated for all purposes, and permitted
Plaintiffs to file a Consolidated Class Action Complaint.

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have still not
sufficiently alleged scienter under Section 10(b), and that
because the Section 10(b) claim fails, the control person claim
under Section 20(a) must also be dismissed.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 21, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/94mkb0from Leagle.com, Judge Gardephe concluded
that the Amended Complaint contains no substantial new allegations
concerning Defendants' motive and opportunity to perpetrate fraud
and that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled a violation of the
securities laws.

Subaye Group is represented by Phillip C. Kim, Esq. --
pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM P.A.

Defendants are represented by Charles J. Nerko, Esq. --
cherko@vedderprice.com -- and John H. Eickemeyer, Esq. --
jeickermeyer@vedderprice.com -- VEDDER PRICE P.C.


DR. PEPPER: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Gibb, writing for Lawyers and Settlements, reports that an
overtime pay laws class action was recently launched in the state
of California alleging that a bottler of popular soft drinks
incorrectly classified its Quality Supervisors as exempt from
qualifying for overtime pay.  It is also alleged that meal and
rest periods, mandated under California labor law, were not
provided.

Lead plaintiff in the case is Ronald Robinson, while the
defendants are Dr. Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. and The American Bottling
Company.

Allegations put forward in the unpaid overtime lawsuit include the
frequent undertaking of menial tasks that would be considered
beneath the station of a Quality Supervisor, a position as such
thought to be a management position and thus exempt from overtime
pay.  However, it is alleged the plaintiff has little opportunity
to perform tasks that would be considered appropriate activity for
an exempt, supervisory or management role.

To that end, the California overtime lawsuit alleges the plaintiff
undertook tasks that included, but may not have been limited to,
entering daily inventory transactions, reviewing inventory counts
on a daily basis, providing feedback of transaction errors to
Defendant's managers, tracking daily production schedules,
reporting material shortages, conducting physical inventory
counts, compiling requests for materials, and inspecting non-
conforming product and raw materials in accordance with the
employer's company-wide policies.

Thus, the lawsuit holds that individuals having attained the title
of Quality Supervisor should qualify for overtime pay under
overtime pay laws observed by the State of California, given that
in the plaintiff's view the employees were "managers in name only"
resulting from the frequency and degree of non-exempt tasks.

Many employers have made attempts to skirt around overtime
exemption laws by promoting employees to so-called management
positions, while the majority of tasks performed by the newly
appointed managers differ little from tasks routinely performed by
hourly workers.

It is also mandated under California law that employees are
provided with paid rest breaks and a meal period.  If the rest
breaks and meal period are not available to the employee and, as a
result, an employee is required to work through the legally
mandated breaks, then overtime pay should be provided for the
extra work performed beyond eight hours in a given workday or 40
hours in a given week.

The overtime laws class action is Ronald Robinson et al v. Dr.
Pepper/Seven Up, Inc. and The American Bottling Company Corp.,
Case No. CIVDS1602307, filed February 16 of this year in the
Superior Court for the State of California.


DRAFTKINGS: Mandated to Halt Paid Daily Fantasy Sports Contests
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lydia Hu, writing for WBRC, reports that less than five months
after Birmingham lawyers sued daily fantasy sports websites
seeking a court order that the sites constituted illegal gambling,
Attorney General Luther Strange issued cease and desist letters to
DraftKings and FanDuel mandating that the companies stop "offering
paid daily fantasy sports contests in Alabama" by May 1, 2016.

"We're happy to see Attorney General Strange has come along some 6
months later and agreed with us," said Lew Garrison, one of the
attorneys suing the websites.

"When the DraftKings and FanDuel were starting to get popular, and
I would see it on ESPN every Sunday, it would just make me sick
because it was just so much about gambling and just picking
fantasy leagues as opposed to watching the games on TV.  And then
we studied it a little bit more and then we realized, this is just
plain old gambling," Mr. Garrison said.

People responded on social media decrying Mr. Strange's decision.
One person wrote, "Stop legislating morality. If people want to
gamble let them. I'm [fine] with regulating everything
specifically daily fantasy sports."

Another seemed to believe it was no different than other prevalent
community activities.  "So no more church raffles or kids selling
chances to raise money for their school?  I mean I'd hate to
commit a crime by handing over MY money on a chance to win
something."

"The results of paid daily fantasy sports contests depend to a
large degree on chance," Strange explained in a statement.  "This
is the very definition of gambling under Alabama law."

Mr. Garrison's lawsuit has been moved to Boston and assigned to a
judge who will hear around two dozen other lawsuits from around
the country also suing the website companies.

If successful, the Alabama class action could recover all money
paid by every person in Alabama to play daily fantasy sports in
the state.

"There is a remedy for people who have unwittingly paid to play
this game and lost money as a result," said Mr. Garrison.  "And
that's what we said back in November in this lawsuit, and now the
attorney general has agreed."

DraftKings has no comment at this time about Mr. Strange's cease
and desist letter.  When contacted in November about the lawsuit,
a spokesperson explained the company cannot comment on litigation.

A spokesperson for FanDuel declined to comment in November on the
litigation and did not immediately respond to a request for
comment on Mr. Strange's cease and desist letter.


ELLIS TRANSPORTATION: Faces "Watson" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Ellis Transportation
Administration, LLC. The case is captioned Ellis Watson,
derivatively on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and Ellis Transportation Service, Inc., the
Plaintiff, v. Ellis Transportation Administration, LLC, Albert
Hoyte, Weslyn Perry, Dave Forbes, Suzette Tulloch Forbes, Veronica
C. Pancham, and Collette Stephens Louison, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01715-BMC (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, April 8, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Judge Brian M. Cogan.

Ellis Transportation is a bonded freight shipping and trucking
company running freight hauling business from Lawrenceburg,
Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth Jacob Falcon, Esq.
          JACOBSON & FALCON LLP
          31 East 32nd Street, Fourth Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 203 3255
          Facsimile: (212) 203 3215
          E-mail: ken@jfllp.com


EXPRESS SCRIPTS: Physicians Healthsource May Conduct Discovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned PHYSICIANS HEALTHSOURCE, INC., an Ohio
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly situated persons, Plaintiff, v. EXPRESS SCRIPTS SERVICES
CO., et al., Defendants, No. 4:15-CV-664 JAR (E.D. Mo.), Judge
John A. Ross denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the
complaint and stayed the defendants' alternative motion for
summary judgment.

Physicians Healthsource, Inc. sought statutory damages as well as
injunctive relief against Express Scripts Services Co., alleging
that Express Scripts faxed unsolicited facsimiles without the
required opt-out notice ot Physicians Healthsource and more than
40 other recipients, in violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Express Scripts argued that the plaintiff's claims should be
dismissed because the plaintiff did not allege enough facts to
adequately allege who sent the fax or that Express Scripts had any
connection with the fax.  Alternatively, Express Scripts sought
summary judgment in its favor based on the undisputed fact that it
had nothing to do with the fax, as neither TRICARE nor Health Net
is an Express Scripts entity.

Judge Ross denied Express Scripts' motion to dismiss, finding that
the facts alleged by Physicians Healthcare, when accepted as true,
plausibly state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the
TCPA.  The judge also found that Express Scripts prematurely filed
its motion for summary judgment before discovery was conducted.
Thus, Judge Ross stayed briefing on Express Scripts' motion to
allow Physicians Healthsource to conduct limited discovery.

A full-text copy of Judge Ross's March 30, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/yLFVOEfrom Leagle.com.

Physicians Healthsource Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Brian J.
Wanca -- bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA, Matthew
Elton Stubbs -- mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- MONTGOMERY AND RENNIE, pro
hac vice, Max G. Margulis, MARGULIS LAW GROUP & Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON AND WANCA.

Express Scripts Services Company, Express Scripts Pharmacy Inc.,
Express Scripts, Inc., Express Scripts Holding Company, Express
Scripts Pharmaceutical Procurement Company, Defendant, represented
by Christopher A. Smith -- chris.smith@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH
BLACKWELL, LLP, Jason Husgen -- jason.husgen@huschblackwell.com --
HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP & Matthew D. Knepper --
matt.knepper@huschblackwell.com -- HUSCH BLACKWELL, LLP.


FANDUEL INC: Violated CLRA UCL, & UBP, "Sobel" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Lee Sobel, as an individual and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. FanDuel Inc., a Delaware Corporation doing business
in California; and Does 1-20, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. BC616436 (Cal. Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8,
2016), seeks restitution and disgorgement of all money obtained
from Plaintiff as a result of Defendants' unfair business
practices; an injunction prohibiting Defendants from continuing
such practices; corrective advertising; and all other relief,
pursuant to the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), The Unfair
Competition Law (UCL), and the Unlawful Business Practices (UBP).

On October 15, 2015, Plaintiff joined FanDuel and deposited $200
with FanDuel as part of a much advertised FanDuel promotion.
Plaintiff reasonably relied upon FanDuel television
advertisements, when he decided to signup for FanDuel audio play
in the advertised FanDuel contests.

FanDuel operates an online fantasy sports platform that enables
users to play fantasy games and win cash prizes. The company is
based in New York, New York with an additional office in
Edinburgh, Scotland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Hamner, Esq.
          AmyT. Wootton, Esq.
          HAMNER LAW OFFICES, APC
          555 W. 5th Street, 31st Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90013
          Telephone: (213) 533 4160
          Facsimile: (213) 533 4167
          E-mail: chamner@hamnerlaw.com
                  awootton@hamnerlaw.com


FARMERS INSURANCE: July 2017 Trial Scheduled in Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Alison Noon, writing for The Associated Press, reports that four
weeks after the stricter California law took effect Jan. 1,
consumer and employment attorney Lori Andrus included it in a
major class-action lawsuit that could put the measure on trial for
the first time in July 2017.  Ms. Andrus represents more than 300
women nationwide who argue that they've been systematically
underpaid by their employer, Farmers Insurance.

"We just rack our brains and say 'Why is this gap still there? Why
is it so stubborn?'" Ms. Andrus said.  "In my view the answer is
that companies, what they've been doing, is not enough."

Just as California businesses begin to implement a law requiring
equal pay for workers regardless of their gender, already the
toughest of its kind in the nation, a state lawmaker is seeking to
expand it to protect employees from racial discrimination.

The proposal by Sen. Isadore Hall would build on California's
existing fair pay law by adding "race or ethnicity" to the
requirement that employers justify any pay discrepancies between
men and women who do "substantially similar" work.

The current law, passed last year, allows employees to openly
discuss their compensation and challenge pay gaps between men and
women.  Sen. Hall's proposal, scheduled to be heard in committee
for the first time on April 13, would permit workers to challenge
racially disparate pay, too.

The latest proposal takes the Democratically dominated state into
uncharted legal territory.  No state or federal employment law has
forced employers to prove they're not underpaying workers based on
any characteristic other than their sex.

"No one should be paid less than what they're worth and no one
should be discriminated against because of the hue of their skin
or their gender," said Sen. Hall, a Democrat.  "This is the most
robust racial equality bill in the nation."

Still, some leading voices on pay inequality are hesitant to push
too much too soon on businesses that embraced the 2015 update but
fought to exclude race and ethnicity from it.  Racial
discrimination was strategically left out of that law to ensure
its passage, leaving the fate of Hall's proposal uncertain.

"The goal is to get to a place where we're all paid fairly for our
work," said Sen. Hannah-Beth Jackson, author of last year's fair
pay legislation.  "I don't know if we can accomplish that all at
once."

While studies point to persistent pay discrimination based on
gender, data signifying a racial pay gap includes numerous
underlying variables that experts say may obscure the true
disparity.

"There is plenty of evidence to show women of color are facing
lower pay for many reasons and one of those reasons is the
combination of race and gender," said Jennifer Reisch, legal
director at Equal Rights Advocates, a civil rights nonprofit that
helped craft California's 2015 law.  "But a lot of it is explained
by other factors as well."

Women comprise about 60 percent of California workers earning
minimum wage or less, according to a review of federal labor
statistics by the National Women's Law Center.  The majority of
those women are not white.

Compared to their non-Hispanic, white male counterparts in
California, Latinas made 43 cents to every dollar, Native American
women made 50 cents, black women made 63 cents and Asian American
women made 72 cents in 2014, according to NWLC's study of U.S.
Census Bureau surveys.  Across the country, white women make about
77 percent of what white men make.

Donna Rutter, a California employment attorney, said there's no
reason not to include race and ethnicity in the pay law, but
warned it may lead to the addition of many other characteristics
like disability, age and religion.  That would make it
increasingly difficult for employers to monitor workers' traits.

After the 2015 law was passed, tech giants Apple, Intel and
Salesforce conducted internal audits to identify pay gaps between
men and women.  Salesforce said it found gender pay discrepancies
totaling nearly $3 million and raised pay for more than 1,000
employees.

"It's caused employers who want to engage in best practices to do
that analysis," Ms. Rutter said.


FELTEX: Appeal Court Hears Arguments in Investor Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Hamis Rutherford, writing for Stuff.co.nz, reports that Feltex's
2004 prospectus omitted key disclosures which could have acted as
a warning to prudent investors, a class action against the
company's former directors, owners and sale managers claims.

On April 11 the Court of Appeal heard the first arguments of
lawyers representing Eric Houghton, the lead plaintiff in class
action on behalf of around 3600 people who invested in the carpet
maker.

Little over two years after its 2004 initial public offering
(IPO), the company collapsed, wiping out the $250 million which
thousands of shareholders injected into the company.

In 2014 the High Court ruled that while there was "justification"
for criticisms of the content of the company's prospectus, these
did not meet the tests which would trigger liability under the
Securities Act.

But Colin Carruthers QC, appearing on behalf of Houghton and other
investors, argued that Justice Robert Dobson applied a test which
was too high and "undermined the nature of the obligation that the
case has recognized".

The test under the Securities Act, was that the contents of the
prospectus contained untruths which would influence "prudent, but
non-expert investors" Mr. Carruthers said.

According to the appellants, the prospectus represented "much more
of a marketing document" than an outline of the disclosures that
investors would have needed, Mr. Carruthers said.

The presentation could have given investors greater confidence
that the projections in the document would be met.

In the first day of what is expected to be at least four days of
arguments, Mr. Carruthers said the prospectus ignored adverse
trends which had been presented to the board of directors before
the flotation, showing the closing months of the 2003-04 financial
year were going to be "difficult".

Despite concerns about sales in April and May, the prospectus
projected an increase in sales equivalent to an extra 3.8 per cent
in revenue.

"It is not a reasonable assumption to project an increase in sales
volume when the trend is down," Mr. Carruthers said.

The prospectus also did not disclose that expensive machinery the
company had purchased to manufacture woollen carpet was not
working, or the extent to which its revenue in Australia was
derived from a government grant, Mr. Carruthers told the court.

The case was expected to continue until at least April 14.


FIRST STUDENT: Faces "Terrell" Lawsuit Under FLSA, Missouri Law
---------------------------------------------------------------
ESSIE TERRELL, et. al v. FIRST STUDENT MANAGEMENT LLC, and FIRST
STUDENT, INC., Case: 4:16-cv-00481 (E.D. Mo., April 7, 2016),
seeks recovery of "unpaid" compensation and overtime compensation
and related penalties and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standard Act and Missouri law.

Defendant First Student is a nationwide provider of student bus
transportation with operations in at least 42 different states.
Defendant First Student operates an enterprise engaged in
interstate commerce within the meaning of the FLSA.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Robert F. Flynn, Esq.
     THE FLYNN LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1150 Grand Blvd., Ste. 300
     Kansas City, MO 64106-2303
     Phone: (816) 283-3400
     Fax: (913) 782-1383
     E-mail: Robert@TheFlynnLawFirm.com

        - and -

     Patrick T. Cronin, Esq.
     Steven Berkowitz, Esq.
     CRONIN & BERKOWITZ
     10000 Lincoln Drive East, Ste. 202
     Marlton, NJ 08053
     Phone: (856) 350-6200
     Fax: (856) 751-1677
     E-mail: pcronin@croninmusto.LLB1.com
             sberkowitz@berkpc.com


FOWLER PACKING: Plaintiffs Must Answers Deposition Questions
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted Defendant's
motion to compel answers to deposition questions in the case
captioned, BEATRIZ ALDAPA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FOWLER PACKING
COMPANY INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-00420-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.).

The complaint was filed on March 17, 2015. Plaintiffs Beatriz
Aldapa and Elmer Avalos raise claims on behalf of a proposed class
of non-exempt agricultural employees of Defendants Fowler Packing
Company Inc., AG Force LLC, and Fowler Marketing International LLC
who performed uncompensated work in Defendants' fields in or near
Fresno County within the past four years, excluding irrigators,
tractor drivers, and swampers.

Plaintiffs raise nine causes of action: 1) for violation of the
Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act; 2) for
failure to provide rest periods; 3) for failure to pay all wages
owed under established employment contracts; 4) for failing to pay
overtime; 5) for failing to pay minimum wages; 6) for failing to
pay waiting time penalties; 7) for failing to provide tools
necessary to the performance of a job and failing to provide
reimbursement for tool expenses; 8) for violation of California
Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200; and 9) for failing to
keep accurate statements on hours worked and wages earned.

The Defendants filed a motion to compel further responses at
Plaintiffs' depositions. The hearing on the matter took place on
March 16, 2016. Mario Martinez and Erica Deutsch appeared on
behalf of Plaintiffs. Howard Sagaser and Ian Wieland appeared on
behalf of Defendants.

The discovery dispute concerns two main discovery issues: 1) the
refusal by Plaintiffs' counsel to allow Plaintiffs Elmer Avalos
and Beatriz Aldapa to answer questions during their depositions
regarding the identities of putative class members who attended
meetings with Plaintiffs' counsel; and 2) Defendants' request to
reopen Mr. Avalos's deposition because Mr. Avalos made changes to
his deposition transcript after review.

In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Pq8Khl
from Leagle.com, Judge Boone found that the attorney-client
privilege does not apply to the identities of the putative class
members who met with class counsel and Plaintiffs and that
Plaintiffs' preemption argument is inapposite because the dispute
involves discovery in a federal class action lawsuit for wage and
hour violations. The Court ordered that (a) Mr. Avalos's
deposition is to be reopened because of the changes made to the
deposition transcript; and (b) Ms. Aldapa and Mr. Avalos must
answer questions at their depositions regarding the identities of
people who met with Plaintiffs' counsel at meetings regarding the
lawsuit.

The Court directed the Defendants to file a motion for attorney's
fees within 14 days of the date of service of the order.

Plaintiffs are represented by Erica Deutsch, Esq. --
edeutsch@bushgottlieb.com -- and Ira L. Gottlieb, Esq. --
igottlieb@bushgottlieb.com -- BUSH GOTTLIEB & Mario Martinez, Esq.
-- mmartinez@farmworkerlaw.com -- MARTINEZ AGUILASOCHO & LYNCH
APLC

Fowler Packing Company, Inc. is represented by:

     Howard A. Sagaser, Esq.
     Ian Blade Wieland, Esq.
     SAGASER, WATKINS & WIELAND, PC
     7550 N Palm Ave., Suite 100
     Fresno, CA 93711
     Tel: (559) 421-7000



FREEDOM INDUSTRIES: Judge Seeks More Information on Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal judge said he wants
more information before he'll approve a class-action settlement
stemming from a 2014 chemical spill in West Virginia that
contaminated the region's Elk River drinking water supply.

The case involves Kanawha Valley residents and businesses and two
former top officials from Freedom Industries. U.S. District Judge
John Copenhaver told lawyers in the case on April 8 that he wants
more details about the finances of one of the former Freedom
officials -- longtime company co-owner Dennis Farrell, The
Charleston Gazette-Mail reported.

The judge also wants more details about whether Mr. Farrell and
former Freedom President Gary Southern remain targeted in any
other lawsuits that also could be settled.

The judge told the attorneys to get back to him about those
matters by May 13.

Under the proposed settlement, Mr. Southern would pay $350,000 and
Farrell $50,000 to the class of residents represented in the case.
The money would be paid into a court account, and then used only
"to benefit the class" after some later order from Judge
Copenhaver.

Exact plans for the money have not been made clear in court
documents, hearings or a public notice to the class members.

In arguing for approval of the deal, lawyers for the residents had
said one reason to do so was that Messrs. Southern and Farrell
"are unlikely to be able to pay the large compensatory damage
award" that could be assessed if the case went to trial.

Kevin Thompson, a lawyer for the residents and businesses, had
said in a court filing that Mr. Southern -- who would not share
his financial records with the plaintiffs -- is in a "relatively
secure financial position," but that his "day to day
responsibilities" for the operation of the Elk River facility
"appeared limited," compared to Farrell and "others who worked at
the site daily."

Mr. Thompson said Mr. Farrell's financial position "was utterly
decimated" by the spill and by his need to pay criminal defense
lawyers and respond to civil cases filed after the incident.

The settlements with Messrs. Southern and Farrell also involved
both men giving up their effort to have Freedom's insurance
company fund their legal costs in lawsuits and criminal cases, a
move that allowed more than $3 million to be obtained from AIG
Insurance for use in paying leak claims in Freedom's bankruptcy
and on the cleanup of the company's Etowah River Terminal on the
Elk, where the spill occurred.

Mr. Thompson said the settlement with Southern and Farrell was
needed to ensure a speedy and appropriate cleanup of the Freedom
site.

Judge Copenhaver said civil cases against Southern and Farrell are
likely strong, given that each man pleaded guilty to criminal
charges related to the spill.  Messrs. Southern and Farrell are
currently incarcerated, serving 30-day sentences ordered by U.S.
District Judge Thomas Johnston.

Judge Copenhaver, though, said he had seen "no evidence" to
support the claims about Farrell's finances being in such bad
shape.

Mike Carey, Mr. Farrell's lawyer, told the judge that Mr. Farrell
made about $3 million from the sale in December 2014 of Freedom's
operations to Chemstream, a Pennsylvania company that owned the
site of the spill the following month.  He said Mr. Farrell owed
about $1 million in tax debt, and while he had been making
$300,000 a year, he was unable to get other work after the spill.

Mr. Carey said legal work for Mr. Farrell has run through most of
"several hundred thousand dollars" in retainer.  He said
Mr. Farrell can't afford ongoing legal expenses for civil cases,
although he has some assets, such as cars and a home.

Judge Copenhaver said he wants more documentation and answers
about Mr. Farrell's finances.  Also, the judge told Mr. Carey and
Mr. Southern's lawyer, Bob Allen, to do more research to see what
other spill lawsuits the men had been named in and see if those
potentially could be settled.


GARMIN INTERNATIONAL: "Meyers" Suit Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
Judge Carlos Murguia granted the defendants' motion for summary
judgment in its entirety and dismissed the case captioned BRIAN
MEYERS, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. GARMIN INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 13-CV-2416-CM-GLR (D. Kan.).

Brian Meyers, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, brought an action against Garmin International, Inc. and
Garmin U.S.A., Inc. arising from his purchase of a Garmin NUVI
2460 LMT GPS device from J&R Music and Computer World, which is an
authorized dealer of defendants.

The defendants sought summary judgment on Meyer's claims for
deceptive practices (misrepresentations and omissions) and
unconscionability under the Kansas Consumer Protection Act (KCPA)
(Counts II and III); breach of implied and express warranties
(Counts IV and VI); and unjust enrichment (Count V).  Meyers
opposed summary judgment only on Count II -- his willful omission
claim under the KCPA -- alleging only that the defendants engaged
in deceptive practices by willfully omitting material information
about the NUVI 2460 before his purchase.  As there was no
opposition to the grant of summary judgment on the remaining
counts, Judge Murguia granted the defendants' motion as to Counts
III, IV, V, and VI.

Judge Murguia found that Meyers' purchase of the NUVI 2460 was not
a consumer transaction within the state of Kansas.  The judge
therefore granted summary judgment to the defendants on Meyers'
KCPA willful omission claim (Count II).

Meyers' motion for class certification was also denied as moot,
given that Meyers has abandoned his warranty claims and cannot
maintain his only remaining claim under the KCPA.

A full-text copy of Judge Murguia's March 30, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/gtXshCfrom Leagle.com.

Brian Meyers, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony F. Fata --
afata@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel
LLP, pro hac vice, Bryan L. Clobes -- bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
-- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel
O. Herrera -- dherrera@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes
Meriwether & Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice, Edward D. Robertson, III
-- krobertson@bflawfirm.com -- Bartimus, Frickleton, and
Robertson, James P. Frickleton -- jimf@bflawfirm.com -- Bartimus,
Frickleton, and Robertson & Jennifer W. Sprengel --
jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com -- Cafferty Clobes Meriwether &
Sprengel LLP, pro hac vice.

Garmin International, Inc., Garmin U.S.A., Inc., Defendant,
represented by Daniel B. Hodes -- danh@germanmay.com -- German May
PC, Kirk T. May -- kirkm@germanmay.com -- German May PC & William
D. Beil -- billb@germanmay.com -- German May PC.


GARRISON PROPERTY: Court Drops Other Defendants in "Cielo"
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Steven D. Merryday granted in part the defendants' motion to
dismiss the case captioned TODD J. CIELO, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
GARRISON PROPERTY & CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 8:15-cv-2324-T-23TBM (M.D. Fla.).

Todd J. Cielo and Cielo Sports & Family Chiropractic Centre, LLC
initiated a class action in state court arising from Garrison
Property & Casualty Insurance Company's breach of an insurance
agreement.  The plaintiffs, who are the assignees of an insured's
claim against Garrison, argued that Garrison can limit
reimbursement based on "Medicare fee schedules" for "personal
injury protection" but not for "medical payments."  The plaintiffs
sued four insurance companies -- Garrison, the United Services
Automobile Association, the USAA General Indemnity Company, and
the USAA Casualty Insurance Company -- on behalf of those who
received from any of the defendants only limited reimbursement for
"medical payments" based on "Medicare fee schedules."

Judge Merryday found that, while the complaint states a claim
against Garrison, the plaintiffs failed to establish standing to
sue any defendant other than Garrison.  The plaintiffs failed to
state any fact establishing an injury caused by the United States
Automobile Association, the USAA General Indemnity Company, or the
USAA Casualty Insurance Company.

Judge Merryday also found that a class action is inappropriate to
resolve the claim because the claims for damages will require a
significant number of individualized inquiries, particularly as to
the difference between the actual charges due under the Reasonable
Amount Method of reimbursement and the reimbursements actually
paid.  The judge also found that a class action is inappropriate
to resolve the plaintiff's claim for a declaratory jdugment and
for a permanent injunction.

A full-text copy of Judge Merryday's March 30, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/Bvcwsefrom Leagle.com.

Todd J. Cielo, Cielo Sports & Family Chiropractic Centre, LLC,
Plaintiff, represented by Christa L. Collins, Harmon Woods Parker
& Abrunzo, P.A., Lauren A. Meksraitis-Elliott, Michael J.
Meksraitis, Chartered & Kathryn Elizabeth Lee, Harmon Woods Parker
& Abrunzo, P.A..

Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company, USAA Casualty
Insurance Company, United Services Automobile Association, USAA
General Indemnity Company, Defendant, represented by Marcy Levine
Aldrich -- marcy.aldrich@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Margaret
Diane Mathews -- margaret.mathews@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP &
Ross Elliot Linzer -- ross.linzer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP.


GREENBAX ENTERPRISES: To Sell Properties Amid Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Post and Courier reports that that the parent of a fallen
Charleston supermarket chain is embarking on a big real estate
sale, as former employees are lining up in a class-action lawsuit
to recoup millions in lost retirement benefits.

Greenbax Enterprises, parent of Piggly Wiggly Carolina Co. Inc.,
was set to shed itself of 14 shopping centers in South Carolina
and Georgia by April 12 o a Virginia company under revised
financial terms, according to a filing with the Securities and
Exchange Commission.

Six Greenbax affiliates are selling the properties for $69
million, down from $71 million in cash offered in December.  In
addition to the cash payment, Greenbax will get 888,889
partnership common units in the Virginia Beach-based purchaser,
Wheeler Real Estate Investment.

Three local retail properties are changing hands in the deal:
Folly Road Crossing on James Island, Ladson Crossing in Ladson and
a Piggly Wiggly store in Moncks Corner.

Piggly Wiggly Carolina sold off or shuttered many of its
supermarkets in 2013 after its finances deteriorated.

In February, two former employees sued the company and its top
management in federal court to recoup millions of dollars in lost
retirement benefits.  They have alleged poor decisions and
inaction by executives led to the ruin of one of the Lowcountry's
most prominent retail businesses.

The company and other defendants had requested and were granted
more time to formally reply to the allegations based on the
enormous complexity of the case.

The two ex-workers, representing a group that could be larger than
1,000 people, said senior officials with the grocer and Greenbax
enriched themselves while the value of the employee-owned stock
plan plummeted by nearly 90 percent, from $88.7 million in 2008 to
$9 million last year.

The former workers who filed the case are seeking class-action
status.  More than 200 people have been added to the complaint as
plaintiffs, according to an attorney with the law firm of Wyche
PA.  More are expected to join.

Rapid rise

Businesses owned by women are springing up in South Carolina at
one of the fastest rates in the country, but the state lags in how
many people they employ and how much money they bring in.

That's the conclusion of a new report analyzing data from the
Census Bureau.  South Carolina is home to about 152,500 women-
owned businesses, an increase of 53 percent from 2007, the sixth-
fastest rate in the nation.

But their combined revenue only grew 11 percent, ranking No. 43
nationally, according to the report commissioned by American
Express OPEN.  Altogether, they accounted for $15.7 billion in
sales.

Nationwide, businesses owned by women have been a bright spot in
the economic recovery, said Julie Weeks, president of the
consulting firm Womenable and an adviser to American Express.
Start-up activity has been slow to pick up after the recession,
but women-owned businesses have opened at a faster clip, she said.

Product pitch

Wal-Mart is cracking open the door to entrepreneurs who want to
sell their "Made in the USA" products to the retail giant.  The
big "Open Call" takes place June 28 at the chain's Bentonville,
Ark., headquarters.

"We are opening our doors and making our buyers available to meet
with suppliers with one goal in mind: buy more American products,"
said Cindi Marsiglio, vice president of U.S. sourcing and
manufacturing.  "From food to toys to apparel, and companies large
and small from coast to coast, we want to make a deal with you for
your U.S. made products."

The company announced in 2013 a commitment to boost job creation
and U.S. manufacturing by buying an additional $250 billion in
products that support American jobs over 10 years.  The deadline
to register -- details are at walmart-jump.com -- is May 27.

Wal-Mart is now carrying products from at least two Charleston-
area companies under that effort.  The giant retailer picked up
seafood dips last year from Mount Pleasant-based Big T's Coastal
Provisions and placed them in 1,000 East Coast stores with the
goal eventually to place them in all 4,618 stores nationwide. Wal-
Mart also recently started carrying North Charleston's Charleston
Gourmet Burger sauces and marinades in stores in South Carolina
and Georgia.

Drought aid

Small businesses and non-profits hurt by South Carolina's heat and
drought have only about another month to apply for federal loans
aimed at getting them back on their feet.

The U.S. Small Business Administration is offering loans up to $2
million for businesses that need help keeping up to date on debt
payments, bills and payroll because of the drought formally
declared last May.  The deadline to apply is May 9.

Small businesses are charged 4 percent interest, and non-profits
pay 2.625 percent, with terms up to 30 years.  Businesses in every
county in the state are eligible, but the Small Business
Administration doesn't issue loans to farmers or ranchers.  To
apply, call 800-659-2955 or go to http://disasterloan.sba.gov/ela

Distillery deal remixed

It's round two for a Florida beverage company that's looking to
invest in a North Charleston-based liquor maker.

South Beach Spirits Inc. said it has amended its previous letter
of intent to acquire a 50 percent equity interest in Striped Pig
Distillery LLC.  This time, it did not disclose the financial
terms of the proposed deal.

"The closing of the transaction is subject to the completion of
due diligence, execution of definitive transaction documents
between the parties and preparation of audited and unaudited
financial statements for Striped Pig," South Beach said in a
filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Striped Pig operating partners Jim Craig, Todd Weiss, Johnny
Pieper and Juliana Harless said in a statement that the investment
would allow the business "to accelerate the growth of its brand
and improve overall production efficiencies and capacities at the
distillery."

In late 2015, the Sunrise, Fla.-based company reported that it had
planned to issue 750,000 shares of its penny stock to acquire a
half of the local distillery, though a representative of Striped
Pig later said the details of that filing were inaccurate.  The
original deal also was to include $300,000 in cash for working
capital.

Striped Pig is an artisanal producer of rum products, gin, vodka
and other alcoholic products using local ingredients under its own
name.  The company also is a manufacturing contractor for other
brands.  The distillery began production in 2013 in a warehouse on
Old School Drive.

Shares of the Sunrise, Fla.-based South Beach Spirits trade on the
over-the-counter market.  They were priced at less than a penny on
April 8.

On approach

It's another return flight for a national aerospace manufacturing
summit that's been held in Charleston since 2013.

Aviation Week publisher Penton and its SpeedNews Conferences
division said the fourth annual event will be held in the Holy
City once again May 3-4.  The venue is Belmond Charleston Place.

The agenda includes a statewide update on aerospace trends in
South Carolina and a tour of the Boeing 787 Dreamliner final
assembly plant in North Charleston.

"The industry is watching the growth in this region of North
America, arguably the fastest-growing regional concentration of
aerospace and aviation companies in the world," said Steve Townes,
chairman of SC Aerospace and CEO of Greenville-based investment
firm Ranger Aerospace.

The SpeedNews gathering is aimed at executives from major
manufacturers and suppliers. Organizers said the sessions "are
very much operational in nature, featuring speakers and panelists
with tremendous hands-on manufacturing experience."

Participating businesses include several South Carolina aerospace
employers, including Boeing, GKN Aerospace, Lockheed Martin
Aeronautics and Toray Composites (America) Inc.


GRUBHUB INC: Court Narrows "Tan" Driver Misclassification Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California granted in
part Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ANDREW
TAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GRUBHUB, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-05128-JSC (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Andrew Tan and Raef Lawson sue Grub Hub Holdings Inc.
and GrubHub Inc., a service that provides food delivery to
customers via an on demand dispatch system. The gravamen of
Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint (FAC) is that the delivery
driver plaintiffs were misclassified as independent contractors
and denied the benefits of California wage-and-hour laws.

Defendants removed the case to federal court from the San
Francisco Superior Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness
Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d). Plaintiffs subsequently filed the
FAC, which alleges that Defendants mischaracterize delivery
drivers as independent contractors instead of employees in
violation of California law and, as a result of the
misclassification, have violated a number of California Labor Code
provisions. Lawson alone brings the first five counts under the
Labor Code, while both Lawson and Tan bring the PAGA claim alleged
in the sixth count.

In the motion, Defendants seek to dismiss the entire FAC for
failure to state a claim, and ask the Court to dismiss or,
alternatively, stay the PAGA claims under the Colorado River
abstention doctrine.

In her Order dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/lXNJHF
from Leagle.com, Judge Corley dismissed with leave to amend Counts
III, IV and VI. Count V is dismissed with leave to amend to the
extent it is predicated on the insufficiently pled Labor Code
violations alleged in Counts II, III, and IV. The Court declines
to dismiss or stay the PAGA claims pursuant to Colorado River. The
statute on PAGA claims is silent with respect to whether an
employee may bring a PAGA action when another private plaintiff
brings suit against the employer in a representative capacity.

Defendants may file any amended complaint within 21 days.

Plaintiffs are represented by Matthew David Carlson, Esq. -
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- CARLSON LEGAL SERVICES,
Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq. -- sliss@llrlaw.com -- and Thomas
Fowler, Esq. -- tfowler@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Grubhub, Inc. is represented by Justin Tyler Goodwin, Esq. --
jgoodwin@gibsondunn.com -- Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada,
Esq. -- dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- and Theodore J.
Boutrous, Jr., Esq. -- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- GIBSON DUNN &
CRUTCHER LLP


GUAM: Ordered to Pay $2.2MM in Attorneys' Fees in Tax Refund Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Shawn Raymundo and Kyle J. Daly, writing for Pacific Daily News,
report that the District Court of Guam on April 8 ordered the
Calvo administration to pay about $2.2 million in attorneys' fees,
which includes costs and anticipated interest, in a case that
could be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case stems from a 2011 class-action lawsuit related to the
government of Guam's inability to pay tax refunds in a timely
manner.

In 2013, the local federal court ordered the administration to pay
all error-free refunds within six months of a tax return filing.
Since then, the Calvo administration has been challenging the
mandate.

After losing an appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court, the
administration then appealed the nation's highest court.  The
local federal court's order to pay attorneys' fees in the case --
about $1.7 million, plus costs and anticipated interest -- comes
prior to the Supreme Court making a decision whether to hear the
case or not.

"We hoped the District Court would grant a stay on the payment of
attorneys' fees until the Supreme Court addressed the case," Oyaol
Ngirairikl, the governor's office communications director, stated
in a press release from Adelup issued on April 8.

"If the case does move forward with the Supreme Court and we win,
then the attorneys would have to repay this amount," the release
said.

The Supreme Court recently asked plaintiffs in the case to respond
to the Calvo administration's challenge to the injunction.  The
court initially requested a response from the plaintiffs that was
due on March 3, however, one of their attorneys, Ignacio Aguigui,
told Pacific Daily News in March that he had instead filed a
waiver of response in order to preserve resources.

"Because we've prevailed so far on so many levels, why go through
another one? That's the gist of it," he previously said.

Mr. Aguigui had said that just because the Supreme Court requests
a response doesn't mean they will hear the case.

"It just means they want to hear from us," he said.

The court again asked the plaintiffs to respond to the Calvo
administration's writ of certiorari, which is a petition asking
the Supreme Court to review a lower court's ruling -- in this
particular case, the 2011 class-action lawsuit that resulted in
the District Court of Guam's federal court order.

"The fact is now that the Supreme Court has gotten back to them
and said 'that's not good enough,'" said Arthur Clark, chief
policy adviser to Gov. Eddie Calvo.  "So they do want to hear from
them."

From his perspective, Mr. Clark said he believes the high court
has an interest in the case.

"The only way I can interpret that is they do have an interest,"
Clark said, while stressing that "it doesn't mean they're going to
grant cert or deny cert."

Adelup's press release issued on April 8 states the administration
believes the Supreme Court has an interest in the case because it
wants a response from the plaintiffs.

In a letter dated March 31, Daniel Girard of Girard Gibbs LLP,
which also represents the plaintiffs, asked the court for a 30-day
extension to file the response -- moving the due date from April
25 to May 25.  He wrote that the attorneys in the case are
currently in pretrial preparations for other cases.

"An extension in this matter will not prejudice petitioners,"
Girard wrote, adding: "The extension also will not prejudice class
members, who will continue to benefit from the District Court's
injunction and the Ninth Circuit's mandate."

The court granted the request.

On April 1, the justices of the Supreme Court were scheduled to
hold conference, which is when they consider the latest petitions
filed.

The Calvo administration's petition was listed for distribution to
the justices for conference.

It's unclear whether the case was discussed among the justices.

The administration has continued to challenge the injunction,
arguing it ties the government's hands financially.

"In this case, the Ninth Circuit tied Guam's hands by affirming an
onerous injunction that required Guam to repay all taxes with six
months of the filing of a refund claim," the petition states.

After losing on appeal to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court last year,
the administration had until Dec. 31 to file the petition with the
U.S. Supreme Court for possible consideration of the case.


In December, the governor's legal team, which includes the global
law firm Kirkland and Ellis, first filed an application, asking
the court to maintain the stay on the government's mandate to pay
the plaintiffs' attorney fees from the case.  They also filed a
request to extend the deadline to file their writ of certiorari.

The administration has argued that the government of Guam
shouldn't be liable for any attorney fees because Guam is to be
treated as a federal agency tasked with collecting and refunding
federal taxes pursuant to federal tax laws.

Justice Anthony Kennedy denied the application to stay the
mandate, but approved the deadline extension, which gave the
administration until Feb. 1 to file the writ.


GYMBOREE CORP: Violated UCL, FAL & CLRA, "Dennis" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courtney Dennis, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Gymboree Corp., a Delaware
corporation, Gymboree Retail Stores, Inc., a Delaware corporation,
and Does 1- 50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00835-
L-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 7, 2016), seeks restitution and other
equitable remedies, including injunction and damages, under
California's Unfair Competition Laws (UCL), California's False
Advertising Laws (FAL), and California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA).

The lawsuit arose due to alleged Defendant's false and misleading
advertisement of market prices, and corresponding phantom savings
on clothing and children's apparel and accessories sold in its
retail outlet stores, including Gymboree Outlet stores.

Gymboree operates as a retail store. It sells clothes for children
till the age of 12 years. The company is based in Calgary, Canada.
Gymboree, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of Gymboree Corp.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
          Edwin J. Kilpela, Esq.
          Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6994
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com
                  ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com
                  glynch@carlsonlynch.com


HAIN CELESTIAL: Consumers to Get Checks in Organic Shampoo Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Gibson, writing for CBS News, reports that when it comes to
product labels, a billing of "natural" is basically meaningless,
while something certified "organic" actually has some teeth.
That's unless the items involve personal care or household
cleaning, which have fallen through the cracks of government
oversight.

"It's innocent until proven guilty for chemicals in consumer
products," said Julia Brody, executive director of Silent Spring
Institute, a nonprofit group that researches the links between
exposure to chemicals in everyday products and breast cancer.
Brody is referring to a system where regulatory action typically
follows consumer complaints.  "A lot of consumers go to the store
with the assumption if it's on the shelf, that it's been tested
for safety," she said.

Much of what's on a product's label involves marketing, rather
than information for consumers, said Londa Vanderwal Nwadike, a
food safety specialist at Kansas State University/University of
Missouri.  "There is a regulation that says labeling terms should
not be misleading. How much that's enforced is another question."

Illustrating the climate in which purveyors of natural goods
operate are recent developments at Hain Celestial Group (HAIN),
one of the nation's biggest makers of natural shampoos and skin
cleansers.

Already under fire after The Wall Street Journal reported that
Hain's Celestial Earth's Best baby shampoo contained a chemical
cleansing agent despite claims to the contrary, Hains Celestial in
February separately settled for $7.5 million a class action by a
California resident and the nonprofit Center for Environmental
Health, or CEH, which sued over the organic labeling of its Avalon
Organics and Jason personal care product brands.

The Journal commissioned testing, which found sodium lauryl
sulfate, or SLS, in Hains Celestial Earth's Best baby shampoo, as
well as in laundry detergent made by upstart Honest Co. Hains
responded by saying it was already working on revamping its
ingredients, while Honest Co. disputed the newspaper's findings.

The Journal's findings and court case highlight a gap in oversight
of the term "organic," which unlike the word "natural" has a
specific meaning on a product label and is regulated by the U.S.
Department of Agricultural and overseen by independent certifiers.
That said, the USDA's organic oversight does not extend to
personal care products, unless its makers use the USDA organic
seal.

But California has a more stringent organic standard, which unlike
the federal rule, specifically covers cosmetics. "In California,
it has to contain at least 70 percent organic ingredients,
excluding water and salt.  We discovered a number of years ago the
law is widely ignored," said Howard Hirsch, an attorney and
outside counsel for the CEH.  The nonprofit sued about two dozen
personal-product companies in 2011 over their organic labeling
claims, reaching settlements with most of them later that year.

With Hain Celestial, a class action was filed on behalf of CEH and
consumers who paid more for its products because they believed
them to be organic.  The company is "one of the biggest actors
with the biggest sales and causing the biggest impact on the
market," Mr. Hirsch explained.  "With Hain you had a large
publicly traded company that prides itself on being a leader in
the organic natural marketplace."

In the next couple of weeks, checks will be mailed to around
22,000 consumers in California who purchased personal care
products that Hain Celestial billed as organic.  Of the $7.5
million it's paying, about $4 million will cover legal fees, and
the remainder will cover the cost of notifying and refunding
consumers.  Any unclaimed cash will go to organizations including
the California Consumer Protection Foundation, Mr.  Hirsch said.

Because of California's size, companies forced to adapt to its
rules will likely do so nationally, said Mr. Hirsch. Still, he
advises consumers to read the list of ingredients.  "From a
consumer standpoint, a lot of people are surprised that you can
call it organic if it's only 70 percent," said the lawyer.  "Even
if the front label says organic, it's worth flipping to the back.
Companies play fast and loose with the rules, so 30 percent could
be rat poison and you can call it organic."

On April 7, Hain Celestial said in a release that its Avalon
Organics line of personal care products had been repackaged and
some of it reformulated, steps the company said are in response to
consumer preferences and also part of an annual innovation review.


HG STAFFING: Courts Denies Class Certification in "Sargant"
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Larry R. Hicks of the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada denied Plaintiffs' motion for class
certification and granted Defendants' motions for partial summary
judgment, decertify FLSA Collective Action and for leave to file
excess pages in the case captioned, TIFFANY SARGANT, BAILEY
CRYDERMAN, SAMANTHA L. IGNACIO (formerly SCHNEIDER), VINCENT M.
IGNACIO, HUONG ("ROSIE") BOGGS, and JACQULYN WIEDERHOLT on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HG
STAFFING, LLC; MEI-GSR HOLDINGS, LLC d/b/a GRAND SIERRA RESORT;
and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 3:13-cv-
00453-LRH-WGC (D. Nev.).

On June 21, 2013, Plaintiffs Tiffany Sargant and Bailey Cryderman
filed their original collective and class action Complaint against
Defendants in the Second Judicial District Court for the State of
Nevada in and for the County of Washoe. On August 22, 2013,
Defendants filed a Petition for Removal.

On June 13, 2014, Plaintiffs filed the operative Second Amended
Complaint. The SAC alleged nine causes of action: (1) Failure to
Pay Wages for All Hours Worked in violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 201,
et. seq; (2) Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of 29 U.S.C.
Sec. 207; (3) Failure to Pay Overtime at the Correct Rate, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 207; (4) Failure to Compensate for All Hours Worked in
Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.016; (5) Failure to Pay Minimum
Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and NRS 608.250; (6)
Failure to Pay Overtime in Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.018;
(7) Failure to Timely Pay All Wages Due and Owing in Violation of
NRS 608.140 and 608.020-.050; (8) Unlawful Chargebacks in
Violation of NRS 608.140 and 608.100; and (9) Age Discrimination
Violation of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 621 and NRS 613.330.

On May 6, 2014, Plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) claims
(first, second, and third causes of action) were conditionally
certified.

On September 3, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class
Certification as to their fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth,
and ninth causes of action. On November 4, 2015, Defendants filed
their Response to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and a
Motion to Decertify FLSA Collective Action and for Partial Summary
Judgment on Plaintiffs' First Cause of Action. On November 30,
2015, Plaintiffs filed a Reply in support of their Motion for
Class Certification and their Response to Defendants' Motion for
Decertification and Partial Summary Judgment.

On January 12, 2016, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment was granted as to Plaintiff's fourth, sixth, seventh, and
eighth causes of action.

In his Order dated March 22, 2016 available at http://is.gd/UBghsk
from Leagle.com, Judge Hicks concluded that Plaintiffs' claims
failed to demonstrate commonality and typicality. Plaintiffs have
simply failed to address their fifth cause of action for Failure
to Pay Minimum Wages in Violation of the Nevada Constitution and
NRS 608.250 while seeking class certification.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Joshua D Buck, Esq.
     Leah Lin Jones, Esq.
     THIERMAN BUCK, LLP
     7287 Lakeside Drive
     Reno, NV 89511-76520
     Tel: (775)284-1500

HG Staffing, Inc. is represented by:

     H. Stan Johnson, Esq.
     Terry Kinnally, Esq.
     COHEN JOHNSON LLC
     255 E Warm Springs Rd #100
     Las Vegas, NV 89119
     Tel: (702) 823-3500


HONEST COMPANY: Violated UFUBP, CLRA & FAL, "Gomez" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Gomez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Honest Company, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02439 (C.D. Cal., Western Div., April
8, 2016), seeks restitution of all money obtained from Plaintiff
collected by Defendant as a result of its unlawful, unfair,
and/or fraudulent conduct, and seeks injunctive relief, and all
other relief the Court deems appropriate, pursuant to the Business
and Professions Code, the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act
(CLRA), the Unlawful, Fraudulent & Unfair Business Practices
(UFUBP), and California False Advertising Law (FAL).

Despite Defendant's marketing campaign that boasts its products to
be "Honestly free of" or "Honestly made without" sodium lauryl
sulfate (SLS), Defendant's products are allegedly laden with the
chemical. By stating its products contain sodium coco sulfate
(SCS) instead of SLS, Honest is deceiving its customers by
representing that they can avoid SLS by using Honest products, and
charging a premium for the purportedly "safer" products.

Honest Company designs and manufactures bundles, baby, bath and
body, cleaning, health and wellness, collective, and gift
products. It offers diapers and wipes bundle, essentials bundle,
health and wellness bundle, diapers, wipes, healing balm, diaper
rash cream, organic baby powder, soothing bottom wash, organic
breathe easy rub, training pants, organic shave oil, discovery
set, shampoo and body wash, conditioner, conditioning detangler,
sunscreen, sunscreen spray, sunscreen stick, bug spray, laundry
detergent, laundry packs, dryer cloths, multi-surface cleaner,
bathroom cleaner, glass and window cleaner, floor cleaner, and
stain remover.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Betsy C. Manifold, Esq.
          Rachele R. Rickert, Esq.
          Brittany N. Dejong, Esq.
          Janine L. Pollack, Esq.
          Gloria Kui Melwani, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
          FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          750 B Street, Suite 2770
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: 619/239-4599
          Facsimile: 619/234-459
          E-mail: manifold@whafh.com
                  rickert@whafh.com
                  dejong@whafh.com
                  pollack@whafh.com
                  melwani@whafh.com

               - and -

          LEE S. SHALOV
          260 Madison Avenue
          MCLAUGHLIN & STERN LLP
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (646) 278 4298
          Facsimile: (212) 448 0066
          E-mail: lshalov@mclaughlinstern.com


HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Permits Filing of Second Amended Complaint
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado granted in part plaintiff's
Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Class Action Complaint
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) and Supporting Memorandum of
Law in the case captioned, DEREK SCOTT, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
14-CV-00157-PAB-MJW (D. Colo.).

On January 21, 2014, plaintiff filed the class action suit against
defendant Honeywell International, Inc., alleging breach of
contract, breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty,
strict products liability, negligence, negligent
misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and violations of the
Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Colo. Rev. Stat. Sections 6-1-
105, et seq., and the Colorado Products Liability Act.

On April 7, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss all of
plaintiff's claims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 9(b).
Docket No. 23. On April 28, 2014, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1), Docket No. 29,
thereby mooting defendant's motion to dismiss. On May 12, 2014,
defendant filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice all claims in
plaintiff's amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)
and 9(b). Docket No. 32.

On March 30, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied
in part defendant's motion to dismiss. Specifically, the District
Court dismissed plaintiff's claims for breach of express warranty,
failure of essential purpose, breach of the implied warranties of
merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose, negligence,
strict products liability, unjust enrichment, and violation of the
Colorado Products Liability Act.  The Court did not state whether
the dismissed claims were dismissed with or without prejudice.

On May 1, 2015, plaintiff filed the motion for leave to file a
second amended class action complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
15(a)(2). Plaintiff's proposed second amended complaint withdraws
several claims asserted in the first amended complaint and
provides additional substantive allegations in support of several
claims asserted in the first amended complaint.

Defendant opposes plaintiff's motion for leave to amend insofar as
it attempts to resuscitate claims that the Court dismissed, which
defendant argues are presumed to have been dismissed with
prejudice. Defendant also argues that plaintiff's motion for leave
to amend should be denied as futile.

In his Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ZOJIC2
from Leagle.com, Judge Brimmer found that the proposed second
amended complaint stated a plausible failure of essential purpose
claim and that it failed to state a plausible claim for breach of
implied warranties and allowing plaintiff to amend the complaint
as to this claim would be futile.

Derek Scott is represented by William Harold Anderson, Esq. --
wanderson@cuneolaw.com -- Michael James Flannery, Esq. --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- and Bonnie Prober, Esq. --
bprober@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO GILBERT & LADUCA, LLP

The Plaintiff is also represented by:

     Jill Tan Lin, Esq.
     Jonas Palmer Mann, Esq.
     Michael Andrew McShane, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS LLP
     711 Van Ness Ave #500,
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Tel: (415)568-2555

Honeywell International, Inc. is represented by Jeannine Louise
Lee, Esq. -- jeannine.lee@stinson.com -- Todd Anders Noteboom,
Esq. -- lowell.noteboom@stinson.com -- and Perry L. Glantz, Esq.
-- perry.glantz@stinson.com -- STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP


IL GABBIANO: Faces "Sulaj" Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
--------------------------------------------------------------
VALDO SULAJ, on his own behalf and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. IL GABBIANO MIAMI, LLC, a Florida limited
liability company, and GINO MASCI, an individual, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-21239-UU (S.D. Fla., April 7, 2016), seeks recovery of
alleged unpaid minimum wage, unpaid overtime wage, liquidated
damages, and other relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

IL GABBIANO MIAMI, LLC d/b/a Il Gabbiano operates a restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
     17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
     Miami, FL 33131
     Phone: 305.358.6800
     Fax: 305.358.6808
     E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com
             legal@kuvinlaw.com


INTELLICORP RECORDS: Must Defend Against "Legrand" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donald C. Nugent of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Ohio denied Defendant's motion
to strike class allegations in Count II of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint and motion to dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint in the case captioned, SHERRI LEGRAND, Plaintiff, v.
INTELLICORP RECORDS, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:15 CV
2091 (N.D. Ohio).

The Plaintiff asserts three claims on behalf of three separate
purported nationwide classes. The first count alleges that the
CATO Corporation (CATO) violated the Fair Credit Reporting Act
(FCRA) by procuring consumer reports without providing the
disclosures required under 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(b)(2)(A)(I). The
second count asserts that IntelliCorp Records, Inc. (IntelliCorp)
violated the FCRA by failing to follow reasonable procedures to
assure maximum possible accuracy of the information in its
consumer reports as required by 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681e(b). The third
and final count claims that IntelliCorp violated the FCRA by
failing to maintain strict procedures to assure that public record
information being reported, which was likely to have an adverse
effect on the consumer, was complete and up to date as required by
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681(a).

These claims are brought on behalf of the named Plaintiff, Ms.
Legrand, and on behalf of three corresponding purported classes.
The Complaint alleges that the violations at issue were willful
violations of the FCRA. Further, although the FCRA allows a
consumer to recover actual damages, Plaintiff seeks only statutory
damages, for herself and the class.

Defendant IntelliCorp has filed a combined Motion to Strike the
Class Allegations in Count II of the Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint, and Motion to Dismiss Count III of Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint. IntelliCorp believes that the no class can be certified
for Count II under any circumstances, because the Court would
necessarily have to engage in individualized inquiries for every
putative class member in order to determine the class.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 22, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/e6ZuQtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Nugent concluded
that IntelliCorp's arguments, although they appear to be aimed, at
least in part, at the difficulties that might arise in determining
the class do not provide a legitimate challenge to
ascertainability as the Sixth Circuit has defined it. The class as
proposed by the Plaintiff is objectively defined and potentially
ascertainable.

Sherri Legrand is represented by E. Michelle Drake, Esq. --
emdrake@bm.net -- and John G. Albanese, Esq. -- jalbanese@bm.net
-- BERGER MONTAGUE & Matthew A. Dooley, Esq. --
mdooley@omdplaw.com -- O'TOOLE MCLAUGHLIN DOOLEY & PECORA

Intellicorp Records, Inc. is represented by Jennifer A. Riley,
Esq. -- jriley@seyfarth.com -- John W. Drury, Esq. --
jdury@seyfarth.com -- Kyle Anne Petersen, Esq. --
kpetersen@seyfarth.com -- and Pamela Q. Devata, Esq. -
pdevata@seyfarth.com -- SEYFARTH SHAW, Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr.,
Esq. -- mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- and David H. Wallace, Esq. --
dwallace@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER


J.C. PENNEY: "Knatt" Suit Over Paid Time Off Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DESIREE KNATT and SARAH LOWE, Plaintiffs, v.
J. C. PENNEY CORPORATION, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15cv2516
JM(KSC) (S.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey T. Miller granted the motion
filed by J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. (JCP) to compel
arbitration of the claims asserted by Desiree Knatt and Sarah
Lowe.

The plaintiffs commenced a diversity action by alleging that JCP's
My Time Off Vacation Policy (MTO Policy) violates Cal. Labor Code
section 227.3 and constitutes and unlawful business practice under
Cal. Bus. and Prof. Code section 17200 et seq.

JCP moved to compel arbitration of the plaintiffs' claims pursuant
to an arbitration provision executed by the plaintiffs when they
were employed by JCP.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion,
generally contending that the arbitration provision is
unconscionable and their claims are excluded from the scope of the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) by the National Labor Relations Act
(NLRA).

Judge Miller found that the arbitration provision is not
substantially unconscionable, neither procedurally nor
substantively.

Judge Miller also found that the plaintiffs' claims do not arise
under the NLRA, since JCP's MTO Policy is a non-ERISA welfare
benefit plan, not subject to the scope of the ERISA.

A full-text copy of Judge Miller's March 30, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/xzElbgfrom Leagle.com.

Desiree Knatt, Sarah Lowe, Plaintiff, represented by James C
Kostas, Huffman and Kostas & Sheldon A Ostroff, Law Offices of
Sheldon A Ostroff.

J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc., Defendant, represented by Catherine
A Conway -- cconway@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
& Karl Gustave Nelson -- knelson@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice.


JEFFERSON COUNTY: Class Cert. Bid Denied in Suit v. BOE
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge R. David Proctor of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Alabama denied Plaintiffs'
Renewed Motion for Conditional Class Certification in the case
captioned, DARRYL WALKER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY
BOARD OF EDUCATION, et al., Defendants, Case No. 2:13-CV-524-RDP
(N.D. Ala.).

Plaintiffs are a group of 10 so-called 240-day employees either
currently or formerly employed by the Jefferson County Board of
Education. For purposes of this motion, their claims can be
divided into two categories. First, they have sued the Board
alleging that the Board's previous practice of dividing their
annual salaries by 260 days to obtain their hourly and overtime
rates violated the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec.
201, et. seq. The court refers to this allegation as Plaintiffs'
Common Claim. Second, Plaintiffs have also alleged a garden
variety of other FLSA violations. The court refers to those
allegations as Plaintiffs' Individual Claims.

In their Complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant Jefferson
County Board of Education did not properly calculate the daily
rate of the plaintiffs for FLSA purposes. Twelve month employees
who worked as certified technicians and mechanics, support
specialists, utility workers, secretaries, electricians,
accountants, and custodians for Defendant daily rate of pay was
calculated by dividing their individual annual salary by 260 days
instead of 240 days. This resulted in an incorrect and lower
hourly rate of overtime rate.

In their Motion, Plaintiffs request that the court conditionally
certify a class of the Board's non-exempt, 240-day employees to
provide them an opportunity to opt-in and collectively assert the
Common Claim. Defendants argue that the "Common Claim" made by
Plaintiffs is also time barred because the Board remedied that
alleged FLSA violation more than two years before the filing of
the Complaint.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/SXqAirfrom Leagle.com, Judge Proctor found that
Plaintiffs have provided no evidence that, if the court grants
certification, additional plaintiffs are likely to surface in any
meaningful number.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jerome Tucker, Esq.
     John D Saxon, Esq.
     JOHN D SAXON PC
     2119 3rd Avenue North
     Birmingham, AL 35203-3314
     Tel: (205)324-0223

Jefferson County Board of Education is represented by:

     Whit Colvin, Esq.
     Carl E. Johnson, Jr., Esq.
     Claire Hyndman Puckett, Esq.
     BISHOP COLVIN JOHNSON & KENT LLP
     1910 1st Ave N
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)251-2881


JPMORGAN CHASE: "Farrell" Suit Seeks Redress of Plan Under ERISA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Brendan Farrell, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. JP Morgan Chase & CO., JP Morgan Chase
Bank, N.A. and Jane or John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No.
1:16-cv-02627 (S.D.N.Y., April 7, 2016), seeks redress for losses
to his Employee Benefit Plan; injunctive relief; and secure
disgorgement of unjust profits, pursuant to the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA).

JP Morgan Chase Bank provides global financial services and retail
banking. The Company offers investment banking, treasury and
securities services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          David S. Preminger, Esq.
          Derek W. Loeser, Esq.
          Gretchen S. Obrist, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1140 Avenue of the Americas, Ninth Floor
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (646) 380-6690
          Facsimile: (646) 380-6692
          E-mail: dpreminger@kellerrohrback.com
                  lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  dloeser@kellerrohrback.com
                  gobrist@kellerrohrback.com


KRISHNA SCHAUMBURG TAN: Faces "Sekura" Class Suit in Ill. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Klaudia Sekura, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Krishna Schaumburg Tan, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, Sona Aurora Tan Co., Inc., 753 Bolingbrook,
Inc., Sola Lawrence Tan, Inc., Sona 1300 Fullerton Tan, Inc.,
Crystal Lake Tan, Incfrankfort 19981, Inc., Sola Malibu Tan, Inc.,
Joliet La Tan Inc., Sona Lisle Tan, Inc., New Lenox Tan, Inc.,
Palm Beach Tan, Inc., Sona Northbrook Tan, Inc, Mira Orland Tan,
Inc., Sona Palatine Tan, Inc., 225 Shorewood, Inc., Mira Suprtan,
Inc., Sona Tinley Tan, Inc., Mongo Tree, Inc., 1760 Waukegan,
Inc., Hollywood Tan, Inc., Sola Joliet, Inc., And Metro Tan Salon,
Inc., All Illinois Corporations; Np Hanover, LLC, an Illinois
limited liability company, Hoffman Tan, LLC, an Illinois limited
liability company, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-04945 (Ill.
Cir. Ct., Cook Cty. - Chancery Div., April 7, 2016), seeks an
order declaring that Defendants' conduct violates the Biometric
Information Privacy Act (BIPA), requiring Defendants' to cease
unlawful activities, and awarding statutory damages to Plaintiff.

Krishna Tan operates a tanning salon located in Schaumburg,
Illinois under the brand and trade name L.A. Tan. Krishna Tan is a
franchisee of L.A. Tan Enterprises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jay Edelson, Esq.
          Todd Logan, Esq.
          David I. Mindell, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
          Chicago, IL 60654
          Telephone: (312) 589 6370
          Facsimile: (312) 589 6378
          E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
                  tlogan@edelson.com
                  dmindell@edelson.com


LIHUA INT'L: Court Drops Individual Defendants in Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE LIHUA INTERNATIONAL, INC. SECURITIES
LITIGATION, No. 14-CV-5037 (RA) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Ronnie Abrams
granted a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' Corrected Second
Amended Class Action Complaint (the "CSAC") as to the defendants
Daphne Yan Huang, Robert C. Bruce, Jonathan P. Serbin, and Kelvin
Lau, but denied the motion as to Lihua International, Inc.

On April 30, 2014, Lihua issued a press release acknowledging that
its directors were "aware of a decline in the Company's stock
price and published allegations that Mr. Zhu Jianhua, the
Company's CEO and Chairman of the Company's Board, may have
diverted or attempted to divert Company assets and as a result may
have been the subject of action by local law enforcement."  The
press release also acknowledged that, "if the allegations prove
true, the Company's financial statements may contain material
misstatements.

A day later,  plaintiffs James Holtz, Peter Hoang and Beverly
Burks, who have allegedly purchased Lihua stock "at artificially
inflated prices" between August 9, 2012 and April 30, 2014, sued
Lihua and its executives and/or directors, bringing two claims
under the Securities Exchange Act.  The plaintiffs alleged that
Zhu, Huang, and Lihua violated section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5
because they made false or misleading statements about Lihua's
debt, production, and corporate governance.  The plaintiffs also
alleged that Zhu, Wang, Huang, Bruce, Serbin, and Lau are jointly
and severally liable pursuant to section 20(a) because they
controlled the section 10(b) violators.

The defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs CSAC for failure to
plead with particularity that some of the statements cited in the
CSAC were false and for failure to allege scienter as to any
defendant other than Zhu and his wife, Yaying Wang, who was
Lihua's Chief Operating Officer and a member of the Company's
board.

Judge Abrams concluded that the plaintiffs have adequately alleged
that Lihua's SEC filings contain material misstatements or
omissions.  The judge also found that the CSAC adequately pleads
Lihua's scienter.

Judge Abrams, however, found that the plaintiffs failed to allege
scienter as to Huang, and that the plaintiffs failed to plead
culpable participation in order to state a claim under section
20(a) against Huang, Bruce, Serbin, and Lao.

A full-text copy of Judge Abrams' March 31, 2016 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/zsYuALfrom Leagle.com.

James Holtz, Lead Plaintiff, Ashish Anand, Plaintiff, represented
by Laurence M Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm
PA, Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm
P.A. & Jonathan Stern -- jstern@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A..

Peter Hoang, Beverly Burks, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan
Stern, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Jeffrey Grodko, Plaintiff, represented by Michael M Goldberg,
Glancy Binkow and Goldberg LLP, Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Robert Vincent Prongay --
rprongay@glancylaw.com -- Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Jeffrey Grodko, Consolidated Plaintiff, Robert B. Dreisin, Movant,
represented by Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP.

Shawn Hart, Movant, represented by Brian O. O'Mara --
bomara@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Lihua International Inc., Defendant, represented by Claire Loebs
Davis -- davisc@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Douglas W.
Greene -- greened@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell, Jay Shapiro --
shapiroj@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams, LLP, Kristin
Beneski -- beneskik@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC, Peter
Douglas Hawkes -- hawkesp@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC &
Sharon Ben-Shahar -- sbs@birdmarella.com -- Bird Marella Boxer
Wolpert Nessim Drooks and Lincenberg.

Philip Cafaro, Bankruptcy Movant, represented by Betsy C.
Manifold, Symphony Tower & Matthew Moylan Guiney --
guiney@whafh.com -- Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.


LITTLE GASPARILLA: "Demeter" Suit Seeks Lost Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Demeter and Paul Coblentz, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Little
Gasparilla Island Fire and Rescue, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00264-SPC-CM (S.D. Fla., Fort Myers Div., April 7, 2016),
seeks to recover lost wages, benefits and remuneration, and
liquidates damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

The Defendants offers fire and rescue services in Little
Gasparilla Island.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com


MERCEDES-BENZ USA: Faces "Caputo" Class Action in N.J. Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Caputo, Catherine Roberts, Keith Hall, Flavio Moy, A. Eric
Ngwashi, Bobby Hamilton, Maryana Melnyk, Paul Herrmann,
Lynn Doherty Munoe, Brenda O'Neal, Charles Wolford, Thomas
Weiss, John Laurino, Andrew Deutsch, Michael Medler, Dr. Gregory
Chan, And Lars Dannberg on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, a
Delaware Limited Liability Company, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-01934-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., April 7, 2016), seeks to recover
damages, injunctive relief, and equitable relief for alleged
Mercedes' misconduct related to the design, manufacture,
marketing, sale, and lease of Affected Vehicles with unlawfully
high emissions.

Mercedes recently admitted that a shut-off device in the engine
management of certain BlueTEC diesel cars stops nitrogen monoxide
cleaning when ambient temperatures drop below 50 degrees
Fahrenheit and under other, unspecified circumstances. And testing
at highway speeds, at low temperatures, and at variable speeds,
indicate a systemic failure to meet emissions standards. Low
temperature testing at highway speeds, for example, produced
emissions that were 8.1 to 19.7 times the highway emissions
standard. Testing at low temperatures at variable speeds produced
emissions as high as 30.8 times the standard.

Mercedes-Benz USA is a Delaware limited liability corporation
whose principal place of business is at Atlanta, Georgia.
Mercedes, through its various entities, designs, manufactures,
markets, distributes and sell Mercedes automobiles in Illinois and
multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

               - and -

          Steve W. Berman, Esq.
          Sean R. Matt, Esq.
          HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
          455 N. Cityfront Plaza Drive, Suite 2410
          Chicago, IL 60611
          Telephone: (708) 628 4949
          Facsimile: (708) 628 4950
          E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
                  sean@hbsslaw.com

               - and -

          David Freydin, Esq.
          Timothy A. Scott, Esq.
          FREYDIN LAW OFFICES
          8707 Skokie Blvd. No. 305
          Skokie, IL 60077
          Telephone: (866) 308 0051
          E-mail: david.freydin@freydinlaw.com
                  Timothy.scott@freydinlaw.com

               - and -

          Jeffrey S. Goldenberg, Esq.
          GOLDENBERG SCHNEIDER, L.P.A.
          One West Fourth Street, 18th Floor
          Cincinnati, OH 45202-3604
          Telephone: (513) 345 4291
          E-mail: jgoldenberg@gs-legal.com


MICHIGAN: Detroit Public Schools' Board Files Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Joe Giuliani, writing for Examiner.com, reports that the board of
education for Detroit Public Schools sued the state of Michigan in
federal court, alleging the state's long time management of the
city's schools is a violation of those students' civil rights.

The lawsuit is seeking class-action status, and it names as
defendants, Gov. Rick Snyder, two lawmakers, several former
emergency managers, and those individuals recently charged with
running a bribery and extortion scheme, among other defendants.

The board is represented in its lawsuit by attorney
Thomas Bleakly, who is handling the case for free.  At a news
conference, Mr. Bleakly echoed members of the school board who
have stated that academic achievement at Detroit schools has
gotten worse since the state took over the system.

DPS was taken over by the state in 1999 in hopes of turning around
a school system that state lawmakers said was failing to properly
educate students and could not handle its own finances. Since
then, it has been run by a number of different state-appointed
emergency managers, none of whom has been able to cure the
problems at DPS.

The problems at Detroit schools came to a head in the media this
year when city teachers began staying home from work to call
attention to dilapidated and in some cases unsafe building
conditions. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan went to schools to survey
situation, and news camera crews showed footage of school
buildings in various states of disrepair.  Only recently a number
of school administrators and a vendor were indicted on charges of
running a bribery scheme that bilked $1 million from Detroit
schools by billing DPS for services never delivered.


MRI INTERNATIONAL: "Takiguchi" Suit Wins Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Howard D. McKibben of the United States District
Court for the District of Nevada granted plaintiffs' motion for
class certification in the case captioned, SHIGE TAKIGUCHI, FUMI
NONAKA, MITSUAKI TAKITA, TATSURO SAKAI, SHIZUKO ISHIMORI, YUKO
NAKAMURA, MASAAKI MORIYA, HATSUNE HATANO, and HIDENAO TAKAMA,
Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiffs, v. MRI INTERNATIONAL, INC., EDWIN J FUJINAGA, JUNZO
SUZUKI, PAUL MUSASHI SUZUKI, LVT, INC., dba STERLING ESCROW, and
DOES 1-500, Defendants, Case No. 2:13-cv-01183-HDM-VCF (D. Nev.).

Plaintiffs are nine Japanese investors who bring this suit on
behalf of a putative class of 8,700 individuals who invested with
defendant MRI International, Inc. (MRI) between July 5, 2008, and
May 1, 2013. MRI is a Nevada corporation headquartered in Las
Vegas with a branch in Tokyo, Japan.  They allege that since 1998,
MRI purported to run a business that dealt in the purchase and
collection of "Medical Accounts Receivable" (MARS). The gravamen
of plaintiffs' complaint is that none of the representations
defendants made about the safety of investing in MRI were true,
and that instead of using investors' money to purchase MARS,
defendants used the money to pay off earlier investors, fund their
lavish lifestyles, and finance other undisclosed ventures.

The suit contends that the findings by the Financial Services
Agency (FSA) precipitated the collapse of the MRI scheme. Since
that time, multiple lawsuits have been filed in connection with
MRI's collapse. In addition to the putative class action, several
individual lawsuits were filed in Japan, the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission (SEC) filed suit against MRI and Fujinaga and
a criminal indictment has been returned against Fujinaga, Junzo
Suzuki and Paul Musashi Suzuki, also in the district.

In his Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/k1SMai
from Leagle.com, Judge McKibben concluded that the propose class
satisfies the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23 and certified a
class of "The MRI Investor Class consisting of: all persons who
purchased MRI securities during the period July 5, 2008, through
May 1, 2013, and were injured as a result of the defendants'
conduct. Excluded from the class are the defendants, their
employees, their family members and their affiliates, and the
following 26 individuals who are plaintiffs in the pending
litigation against the defendants in Japan: (1) Tomoyasu Kojima;
(2) Keiko Amaya; (3) Masakazu Sekihara; (4) Chiri Satou; (5) Meiko
Murakami; (6) Masayoshi Tsutsumi; (7) Yumiko Ishiguro; (8) Reiko
Suzuki; (9) Hiroji Sumita; (10) Eiko Uchiyama; (11) Hideyo
Uchiyama; (12) Youzou Shiki; (13) Naoki Nagasawa; (14) Noboru
Yokoyama; (15) Masami Segawa; (16) Fumiko Takagi; (17) Kumiko
Kaita; (18) Fumi Kobayashi; (19) Ikuko Miyazaki; (20) Hina Nagase;
(21) Akio Iwama; (22) Kouji Kishida; (23) Eri Kishida; (24) Nomai
Nii; (25) Youko Miyahara; and (26) Tsukiko Kurano."

The Court directed Plaintiffs to file with the court a proposed
form of notice in accordance with Rule 23(c)(2)(B) on or before
April 5, 2016.

Plaintiffs are represented by James Edwin Gibbons, Esq. --
jeg@manningllp.com -- and Steven Jeff Renick, Esq. -
sjr@manningllp.com -- MANNING & KASS, ELLROD, RAMIREZ, TRESTER LLP

They are also represented by:

     James R. Olson, Esq.
     OLSON, CANNON, GORMLEY, ANGULO & STOBERSKI
     9950 W Cheyenne Ave
     Las Vegas, NV 89129
     Tel: (702)384-4012

          - and -

     Mariko Taenaka, Esq.
     Robert W. Cohen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF ROBERT W. COHEN, APC
     1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1900
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310)282-7586

MRI International, Inc. is represented by:

     Daniel L. Hitzke, Esq.
     HITZKE & ASSOCIATES
     100 Ocenagate, Suite 1100
     Long Beach, CA 90802
     Tel: (562)595-9983


NAT'L AUSTRALIA: Customers May Receive $6.6MM Settlement Payouts
----------------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for Financial Review, reports that
National Australia Bank customers could end up receiving about a
third of a total $6.6 million settlement that was to safeguard
compensation for the alleged wrongful levy of penalty fees by the
bank.

The Federal Court approved a confidential settlement between class
action members led by Maurice Blackburn on April 6 which resulted
in $6.6 million in compensation being apportioned to NAB customers
for late payment fees the bank levied on credit cards.

But of that amount, $600,000 will go to Maurice Blackburn for
legal fees and disbursements, and $4.1 million will go to the
litigation funder for the case, IMF Bentham, leaving NAB customers
with about $2.5 million.

NAB abolished fees charged for dishonoring accounts and slashed
its credit card late payment fees in 2009.

The consumer class action is one of nine launched by Maurice
Blackburn against major banks including NAB, Westpac Banking Corp
and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia over fees.  The outcome of
all the matters is linked to the outcome of a High Court appeal in
the lead test case against Australia and New Zealand Banking
Group.

The appeal, heard by the High Court heard an appeal on February 4
and 5, was brought by consumers against a ruling of the full bench
of the Federal Court last year that found ANZ's credit card late
payment fees were legitimate.

LACK OF TRANSPARENCY

"One of the difficulties with this settlement is a lack of
transparency to determine whether it was good for customers,
including how much a fee to the litigation funder would be,"
Consumer Action Law Centre chief executive Gerard Brody said.

"We think the class actions regime and the role of funders should
be scrutinized more closely."

Mr. Brody said the number of class action members was unknown and
likely to be fewer than those aggrieved.  This included vulnerable
consumers who were excluded from the settlement including sick,
disabled and aged people who lacked a capacity to opt in to the
class action process.

He said the Consumer Action Law Centre had written to the NAB
chief executive Andrew Thorburn requesting that vulnerable
customers "unfairly" excluded from its bank fees class action deal
be compensated.

"The most disadvantaged in the community are more likely not to
take action in response to legal problems," Mr. Brody said.  "In
our casework we also found they were more likely to be charged
multiple penalty fees by banks."

IMF Bentham executive director Hugh McLernon said the funder's fee
was 25 per cent, making up $1.65 million of the total $6.6
million.  The remainder of the $4.1 million was NAB clients' share
of the common costs of the test case against ANZ.

This was something all IMF clients in the various bank fees class
actions undertook to pay, he said.

FUNDER PERCENTAGE COULD BE LOWER

Mr. McLernon said the percentage received by the litigation funder
could be lower depending on the outcome of a High Court appeal in
the ANZ case.

"The majority of the $4.1 million payable to IMF is the NAB client
group share of those common fees for the test case against ANZ,"
Mr. McLernon said.

"If the ANZ appeal is lost then the NAB clients will receive the
$2.5 million instead of nothing.  If the ANZ appeal is successful
then the NAB clients will receive the $2.5 million, will not have
to pay the common fees, and will receive a further top-up to the
settlement sum."

An NAB spokeswoman said NAB was pleased to have reached agreement
and provide certainty for its customers and shareholders.

A Maurice Blackburn spokesman said the judgment ensured NAB
customers were the only banking customers in the country assured
of recovering some of their unfair fees from this long-running
litigation, with that amount set to rise in the event of success
in the High Court.

"In determining whether to approve the settlement agreed between
the class members and NAB, the court was required to consider
whether the settlement is fair and reasonable and in the interests
of the class members," she said.

Mr. Brody said many banks still charged high penalty fees,
including for late payment on credit cards and for overdrawing or
dishonoring accounts.  NAB increased its late payment fee on
credit card accounts by 80 per cent from $5 to $9 on March 1, he
said.


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Concussion Crisis to Prompt Early Retirement
------------------------------------------------------------
Jenn Loro, writing for News Everday, reports that early NFL
retirements are starting to become a raging trend among
professional footballers these days.  The league's so-called
'concussion crisis' is starting to escalate in what many observers
call as the 'retirement crisis'.

When news of D'Brickashaw Ferguson's farewell got leaked early on
April 8, the former New York Jets left tackle had just joined a
string of other NFL veterans who hanged up their cleats after a
little over 10 years or so in professional football.

"Yes . . . there's been a culture shift fueled by variables that
include concussions, CTE concerns, protocols, a huge class-action
lawsuit and common sense," sports writer Jarret Bell wrote in his
USA Today piece.

He further noted, "Players, in many cases, are not so much waking
up to the ultimate reality check of having their broken-down
bodies kicked to the curb in a salary-cap slashing as they are to
opting out on their own terms."

As the general view on the long-term downside of professional
football continues to shift, the trend would probably see more and
more stream of young retirees in the years to come. Before, NFL
players would hang on as much as they can to score a lucrative
contract.

However, a series of class action lawsuits filed by football
veterans against the league brought to public light the dangers of
CTE (chronic traumatic encephalopathy) -- a brain condition
resulting from repeated concussions which may lead to Alzheimer's
and other forms of dementia.

It can be remembered that Ferguson expressed a sense of betrayal
by the NFL after watching Will Smith film 'Concussion' which
revolved around the dire consequences of head trauma.

"I fear the unavoidable truth is that playing football has placed
me in harm's way, and I am not yet sure of the full extent of what
it might cost me," remarked Mr. Ferguson as quoted by the
Huffington Post.

Furthermore, Ferguson appeared to have also been affected by the
premature retirement of two 49ers players, namely, Anthony Davis
and Chris Borland due to head injuries. Even players much younger
than Ferguson are hanging up their cleats too.

23-year-old Bills linebacker AJ Tarpley also made a fateful
decision to retire very soon after suffering his third and fourth
concussions in the 2015 season.

"I am walking away from the game I love to preserve my future
health," Mr. Tarpley said as reported by New York Daily News.
"This decision is the hardest I've made yet but after much
research and contemplation I believe it's what is best for me
going forward."


NATIONAL SECURITIES: Violated NYLL & NYCRR, "Rutella" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nico Rutella, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated who were employed by National Securities
Corporation, National Holdings Corporation and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by National Securities
Corporation and/or National Holdings Corporation, the Plaintiffs,
v. National Securities Corporation, National Holdings Corporation
and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
National Securities Corporation and/or National Holdings
Corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 601067/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct,
Nassau Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages
and OT compensation, pursuant to the New York Labor Law (NYLL) and
New York Codes, Rules, and Regulations (NYCRR).

National Securities Corporation provides investment banking and
financial advisory services to retail and institutional clients.
The company offers mergers and acquisition advisory,
recapitalizations, private placements, preferred stock offerings,
and debt offerings assistance services. Additionally, it provides
evaluation and execution of initial public offerings, due
diligence, institutional trading, and strategic consulting
services. The company was founded in 1947 and is based in New
York, New York with additional offices at Seattle, Washington; and
Boca Raton, Florida. National Securities Corporation operates as a
subsidiary of National Holdings Corporation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          E-mail: lambinder@vandallp.com


NELSON WESTERBERG: Truth-in-Leasing Claims in "Mervyn" Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Gary Feinerman granted the summary judgment motion filed by
the defendants, and denied the plaintiff's class certification
motion without prejudice in the case captioned THOMAS MERVYN,
Plaintiff, v. NELSON WESTERBERG, INC., NEWESCO, INC., NELSON
WESTERBERG INTERNATIONAL, and ATLAS VAN LINES, INC., Defendants,
No. 11 C 6594 (N.D. Ill.).

Thomas Mervyn, an independent truck driver who owns a truck and
hires out the truck together with his driving services, performed
several jobs for Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Nelson Westerberg
International, and Newesco, Inc. (collectively, "Newesco"), and
Atlas Van Lines, Inc. between February and December of 2010 as
governed by a single lease.  On September 2011, Mervyn brought a
putative class action against Newesco and Atlas, alleging that
they violated the federal Truth-in-Leasing regulations
implementing the Motor Carrier Act of 1980, and unjustly enriched
themselves in violation of state law, by underpaying their
drivers.

Mervyn moved to certify a class of drivers to pursue the Truth-in-
Leasing claims, while the defendants moved for summary judgment
against Mervyn on those claims.  The defendants argued that Mervyn
failed to contest the accuracy of any payment documents within the
180-day period prescribed by Section 11(f) of their lease and
therefore that their payments to Mervyn must be presumed to comply
with the lease.

Judge Feinerman found that for eight of the nine ways alleged by
Mervyn that Atlas and Newesco violated the lease, Mervyn has
adduced no evidence that could lead to a conclusion that he lodged
a timely complaint under Section 11(f) that would have allowed him
to contest his pay later.  Consequently, Judge Feinerman held that
Mervyn is precluded under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 23(a)(4) from being
an adequate class representative for the eight claims.

The judge also found that although Mervyn did lodge a timely
complaint for the ninth claim, the military shipments claim,
Mervyn forfeited that claim, and in any event the claim fails on
its merits.

The denial of the motion for class certification was without
prejudice to the class counsel naming a substitute proposed class
representative who arguably complied with Section 11(f) as to the
eight claims whose merits remain unresolved.

A full-text copy of Judge Feinerman's March 31, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/LdXEPkfrom
Leagle.com.

Thomas Mervyn, Plaintiff, represented by Marvin Alan Miller --
mmiller@millerlaw.com -- Miller Law LLC, Andrew Szot --
aszot@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC, Edward Dennis McNamara,
Jr. -- mcnamara.evans@gmail.com -- McNamara & Evans, Lori Ann
Fanning -- lfanning@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC & Matthew E
Van Tine -- mvantine@millerlawllc.com -- Miller Law LLC.

Nelson Westerberg, Inc., Nelson Westerberg International,
Defendants, represented by David H. Levitt --
dlevitt@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson & Steven M. Puiszis
-- spuiszis@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson.

Newesco, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Levitt, Hinshaw
& Culbertson, Justin B. Weiner -- jweiner@mololamken.com -- Molo
Lamken LLP, Michael G. Pattillo, Jr. -- mpattillo@mololamken.com
-- Mololamken Llp & Thomas Joseph Wiegand --
twiegand@mololamken.com -- MoloLamken LLP.

Atlas Van Lines, Inc., Defendant, represented by David H. Levitt,
Hinshaw & Culbertson, Justin B. Weiner, Molo Lamken LLP, Michael
G. Pattillo, Jr., Mololamken Llp, Nabil G. Foster --
nfoster@hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP, Steven M.
Puiszis, Hinshaw & Culbertson & Thomas Joseph Wiegand, MoloLamken
LLP.

Ace World Wide Moving & Storage Co., Inc., Movant, represented by
Steven M. Puiszis, Hinshaw & Culbertson.


NEVADA: Settles Fernley Flood Class Action for $18.1 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Sonner, writing for The Associated Press, reports that eight
years, dozens of lawyers and hundreds of thousands of documents
later, more than 200 northern Nevada flood victims are finally
going to be paid for damages suffered when a century-old
irrigation canal burst and sent a wall of water into their homes
in 2008.

No one was killed or seriously injured but 590 homes in Fernley
were flooded when water burst through a 50-foot breach in the
canal's earthen embankment Jan. 5, 2008.

A 2-foot-tall wave swamped the neighborhood and water collected 8
feet deep in some parts of the rural town 30 miles east of Reno.
More than a dozen residents were rescued from rooftops by
helicopter, while others were taken to safety by boats.

Judy Kroshus, lead plaintiff in the class-action lawsuit the local
irrigation district recently agreed to settle for $18.1 million,
and her 2-year-old grandchild were stranded by water "up to our
windshield" before her son waded several blocks to rescue them.

"We were lucky to get out," she said.

The aging, 31-mile canal is a key component of the nation's first
federal reclamation project, started in 1903.  It's owned by the
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation but managed by the Truckee-Carson
Irrigation District (TCID). The bureau concluded within two months
of the breach that burrowing rodents had weakened the canal,
causing it to fail.

In July 2012, a federal jury returned a verdict during the
liability phase of the trial finding the district's history of
negligence in maintaining the canal was primarily to blame.  Soon
after, the district agreed to a $10 million settlement, but then
backed out.

The damages phase of the trial was scheduled to resume two months
ago, but the district agreed to the new settlement terms after its
members voted in February to raise money to finance the damage
award by selling off some water rights to the Truckee Meadows
Water Authority.  Judge Lloyd George approved the deal March 31.

"The settlement finally brings closure to those who were harmed
through no fault of their own," said Patrick Leverty, lead co-
counsel for the plaintiffs.

Ms. Kroshus, who's the director of a tribal health service
resource center in Fernley, said she had to short-sell her flood-
damaged home and bought a new one just a year ago.  "It's not in
the flood area," she said.

A similar rupture in the same vicinity flooded 60 homes in
December 1996.

The $18.1 million settlement includes about $7.8 million in
attorney fees and expenses.

Mr. Laverty said no one in the class objected to that part of the
deal.


NEW JERSEY SYMPHONY: Violated TCCWNA, "Fruchter" Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Shani J. Fruchter, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. New Jersey Symphony
Orchestra, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01942-WJM-MF (D.N.J.,
April 7, 2016), seeks penalties for violation of the Truth-in-
Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA).

The Defendant is a seller of orchestra tickets.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Fred M. Zemel Esq.
          THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
          70 Clinton Ave.
          Newark, NJ 07114
          Telephone: 973-622 5297
          Facsimile: 973-824 2446
          E-mail: Thezemellawfirm@icloud.com


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Sheriff Faces Criticism Over Jail Management
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mustian, writing for The Advocate, reports that Orleans Parish
Sheriff Marlin Gusman's face was expressionless as he strode out
of the federal courthouse on April 7, dodging reporters and
digesting the latest criticism of his office.

He had heard much of it before from the experts keeping tabs on
the city's jail, including their warning that deputies have lost
control of the recently opened Orleans Justice Center.  The
situation grew so dire that the experts, known as monitors,
recommended parts of the facility be closed until the sheriff
retrains his staff and reins in the violence at the lockup.

But in a whirlwind week in which his chief deputy resigned and a
legislative audit accused the Sheriff's Office of several
financial improprieties, Sheriff Gusman also received a stinging
rebuke from the bench.

At the end of the April 7 hearing, U.S. District Judge Lance
Africk raised a question that has taken on new urgency in recent
weeks: After years of treading water, is the Sheriff's Office
incapable of reforming conditions at the jail?

Judge Africk stopped short of answering that query, but he said
it's one that "must be vetted" amid the turmoil engulfing Sheriff
Gusman and a recent report that described the jail as a
degenerating "crisis environment."

But Judge Africk also invoked the possibility that an outside
party, known as a receiver, could take over day-to-day management
of the jail -- a once-rejected proposal that has re-emerged amid a
series of setbacks at the Sheriff's Office.  The sheriff's
leadership increasingly has been called into question by the
monitors, who only a few months ago seemed willing to afford
Sheriff Gusman the benefit of the doubt.

"At this stage of the litigation," Judge Africk said, referring to
the class-action lawsuit filed in 2012 by inmates seeking better
conditions at the jail, "we've arrived at a point where the issue
of whether the sheriff is capable of achieving compliance with the
consent decree . . . should be addressed."

Without offering specifics, Laura Coon, a Justice Department
attorney, told the judge that she anticipates "seeking
intervention from the court in the coming weeks." The Sheriff's
Office, she added, is not "on the same page" with the federal
government.

Judge Africk has limited options when it comes to hastening the
pace of change.  He seems unlikely to levy financial sanctions
against the Sheriff's Office, which receives its jail-related
funding from City Hall.

But the judge could consider removing Sheriff Gusman from control
of the jail and appoint a receiver to try to turn it around -- a
move that would strip the sheriff of his primary responsibilities,
though he would keep his title.  In such a scenario, the receiver
essentially would be handed the keys to the jail and tasked with
bringing its conditions in line with the Constitution.

Such an action "doesn't happen very often," said Donald Specter,
director of the Prison Law Office, a nonprofit watchdog in
Berkeley, California.

However, three years of failure to bring the jail up to mandated
standards "is long enough in my view for a receivership to be
considered," said Mr. Specter, whose organization filed a lawsuit
that landed California's prison health care system in receivership
about a decade ago.

"The constitutional or statutory violations have to be very
serious, and you have to show the jail administrators are
ineffective," he added.  "There has to be very little hope that
the (local) government can comply with the consent decree on its
own."

Mayor Mitch Landrieu pushed for the now-shuttered Orleans Parish
Prison to be placed in receivership in 2013, when city attorneys
contended it was "highly unlikely, if not a certitude, that
anything will improve" on Sheriff Gusman's watch.

The mayor's proposal followed the release of shocking videos, shot
in mid-2009, that showed inmates using drugs in jail and walking
the streets when they were supposed to be behind bars -- footage
that drew widespread attention to the jail's dysfunctional
conditions.

"Given the long and tortured history involving OPP, no consent
decree, even as appropriately modified and tailored, will be
effective unless the leadership changes," Harry Rosenberg, an
attorney for the city, wrote in an April 2013 court filing.  "If
the current situation does not justify the appointment of a
receiver, nothing does."

Judge Africk never decided the merits of receivership, instead
approving the consent decree as a settlement of the class-action
lawsuit.  That plan spelled out 173 provisions for reforming the
jail, including a rewrite of Sheriff's Office policies.

But the judge also left the door open for city leaders to "re-
urge" their push for receivership should the reforms prove
ineffectual.

Today, the vast majority of the consent decree's provisions remain
unfulfilled, as the Sheriff's Office has been plagued by soaring
staff turnover rates and what Sheriff Gusman insists is a lack of
adequate funding from the city.  City Hall, for its part,
attributes the jail's woes to managerial incompetence.

The monitors warned recently that the Sheriff's Office has taken
several steps back over the past six months, despite the opening
of a new $150 million facility that Sheriff Gusman for years had
promised would be a game-changer for inmates and deputies alike.

In 2013, the Sheriff's Office vehemently opposed the appointment
of a receiver, arguing in court filings that placing "the blame
for the present situation on Sheriff Gusman, much less to suggest
he should be stripped of virtually all powers and responsibilities
. . . is patently wrong."

Three years later, however, the sheriff might decide to embrace
the idea as a means of finally receiving sufficient funding for
the jail, said Rafael Goyeneche, president of the Metropolitan
Crime Commission, who has sometimes defended the sheriff from his
critics.

Among the many unanswered questions is how the appointment of a
receiver would affect the funding standoff between Sheriff Gusman
and Landrieu.

Mr. Goyeneche predicted that receivership ultimately would cost
the city more money, because the receiver likely would petition
Judge Africk directly for money needed to carry out the reforms.
So far, the judge has declined to micromanage the budgetary
disputes, saying he prefers to allow the political system to play
out, but he could in effect order the city to pay millions of
dollars more.

"What has happened is that managerial mistakes (in the Sheriff's
Office) have essentially convinced city leaders that giving the
sheriff the resources he's requested would not produce the desired
results," Mr. Goyeneche said.  "Essentially, what the receiver is
going to be charged with doing is accelerating and moving the jail
into compliance with the consent decree. Finances will not be an
impediment."

Many of the problems at the Orleans Justice Center stem from poor
inmate supervision, which appears, for example, to have played a
role in the suicide in March of a 63-year-old inmate who hanged
himself in the shower.

A mental health expert testified that he had been astonished to
discover the new jail was built with shower doors that inmates can
lock from the inside.  The expert, Dr. Raymond Patterson, told
Judeg Africk months ago that the locks should be removed, but no
one at the jail seemed to grasp the risk that they posed.

Guards often are not available to intervene when problems arise,
even when inmates are assaulting one another, said
Ceris Wainright, a local woman who earlier this year spent 18 days
behind bars on an allegation of domestic abuse battery.
Ms. Wainright, 59, said she endured "subhuman conditions" behind
bars and became gravely ill because the facility did not have the
medications she needed.

"Dante's Inferno has nothing on this place," Ms. Wainright said in
an interview.  "The inmates were running the asylum."


OVERTURE LLC: "Chun" Suit Seeks Damages & OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ann Chun, individually and for all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Overture, LLC, and Heather Sanderson, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-04118 (N.D. Ill., April 7, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, interest, and attorney's fees and costs under
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Overture develops promotional products and advertising
specialties. Its products include apparel, bags, drinkware, gifts,
journals, coffee mugs, giveaways, calendars, and toys and
novelties. The company offers imprinting services such as pad
printing, screen printing, hot stamping, embroidery, and
digitizing and banner production. In addition, it provides print
collateral, graphic designing, employee recognition program,
service award program, web-store, overseas importing, licensed
merchandise, dealer network, retail program, and brand activation
services. Overture, LLC was founded in 2001 and is based in Vernon
Hills, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 N Michigan Ave, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233 1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233 1560
          E-mail: jzouras@stephanzouras.com
                  rstephan@stephanzouras.com


PACIFIC TOMATO: Faces "Wingard" Suit for Alleged FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Clarence Wingard, on behalf of himself and all others similarly-
situated, Plaintiff(s) vs. Pacific Tomato Growers, Ltd., a Florida
Limited Liability Partnership; PTG Management Company, a Florida
Profit Corporation; Defendants, Case 8:16-cv-00834-RAL-MAP (M.D.
Fla., April 7, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants are in the business of growing and selling tomatoes
and other produce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Christina J. Thomas, Esq.
     Bernard R. Mazaheri, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., Suite 1400
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3487
     E-mail: cthomas@forthepeople.com
             bmazaheri@forthepeople.com


PALOS VERDES, CA: Some Locals Defend Lunada Bay Boys Amid Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cynthia Washicko, writing for Daily Breeze News, reports that
outside the sleepy, affluent enclave of Palos Verdes Estates, not
much affection exists for the territorial surfers loosely known as
the Bay Boys.

But in town, there is support for the aging surfers who defiantly
built an elaborate hangout at the base of the Lunada Bay cliffs
and have been known to verbally harass outsiders, throw rocks at
them and vandalize their cars.

Localism, it seems, is a concept well understood in bucolic Palos
Verdes Estates.

Larry Allen, the former owner of a hardware store in the
community, defends the Bay Boys, casting doubt on the veracity of
some of the claims made in a recently filed class-action lawsuit
seeking a gang inunction against named Bay Boys.

"I think this is a fictitious thing. (The plaintiffs are) just
trying to make some money and they've seen a way of doing it," Mr.
Allen said.  "Just forget about it, go away.  Leave (the Bay Boys)
alone.  They keep the area clean, they don't hurt anybody, they're
not robbing people."

Online, others echo similar sentiments.  Lee W. Ryder, in a
Facebook comment on an article titled "Surfer named in Lunada Bay
Boys lawsuit denies allegations," said fault for any negative
interactions lies with the people coming to Lunada Bay and causing
trouble with the locals.

One Palos Verdes Peninsula surfer said the Bay Boys have, in the
long run, prevented injury among inexperienced surfers.  The man,
who declined to give his name to protect his relationship with the
local surfers, said the large waves and sharp rocks and reefs
could easily hurt less-experienced boarders.

He added that Diana Milena Reed, one of the plaintiffs in the
class-action suit, was partially to blame for aggravating the
surfer who she alleges harassed her.

"If you walk down there and everything, it's cool.  But that girl
walked in there and she put herself right in the middle of all
these guys, and that's what probably got them aggravated," he
said.

The actions of one man who allegedly exposed himself in front of
Reed and poured beer on her were uncalled for, he said.  But any
group is liable to have bad apples, he said.

Others, however, find fault wholly with the group of surfers named
in the lawsuit.

"These guys were punks back in the '60s, and haven't changed.
Slashing tires and vandalizing cars.  It's about time their reign
of terror ended," Tom Turner said in a Facebook comment on an
article titled "Attorneys say class-action lawsuit could take down
the Lunada Bay Boys for good."

Mark Montenegro, in a Facebook comment on an article titled
"Federal lawsuit claims Palos Verdes Estates surfers are a
criminal street gang," said the Bay Boys deserve to be classified
as a gang.

"I have been out hiking out to the Dominator crash site and (the
Bay Boys) threw rocks at me and my 5-year-old nephew from the
cliffs.  They could have killed one of us, so they deserve to be
classified as such," Mr. Montenegro said.

Dave Knight, in a Facebook comment on an article titled "More
surfers harassed by Bay Boys want to join lawsuit, attorney says,"
laid blame at the feet of the city.

"This criminal gang could not have terrorized the public had the
PVEPD not turned a blind eye to their gang activity.  The city
should be sued for millions," Mr. Knight said.

A Peninsula resident who refused to give his name to protect his
business said the city of Palos Verdes Estates should be held at
fault just as much as the Bay Boys themselves.

"If anything, I think the city should take responsibility because
they're the ones that should be governing this and they haven't,"
he said.  "I think ultimately this could have been stopped a long
time ago."


PATRICK M. CONNELLY PC: Faces "Allah-Mensah" Suit in Maryland
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Law Office of Patrick M.
Connelly, P.C. The case is captioned Allah-Mensah, on behalf of
himself and all those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Law
Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-
cv-01053-PWG (D. Md., Greenbelt, April 8, 2016). The assigned
Judge is Hon. Paul W. Grimm.

Law Office of Patrick M. Connelly, P.C. is law firm serving legal
needs of individuals and businesses in and around Rockville,
Maryland.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edward Matthew Poretz, Esq.
          918 S Curley Street
          Baltimore, MD 21224
          Telephone: (706) 296 8099
          E-mail: edporetz@gmail.com


PENNSYLVANIA: Court Trims "Chimenti" Suit v. Dept of Corrections
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John R. Padova of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted in part pending
motions in the case captioned, SALVATORE CHIMENTI, ET AL. v.
PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL, Case No. 15-3333
(E.D. Pa.).

Plaintiffs have brought the class action lawsuit against the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the DOC), two companies
that have contracted to provide medical services for the DOC, and
officials and employees of both the DOC and the two companies,
asserting claims arising from the medical care provided to DOC
inmates who have been diagnosed with Hepatitis C.

Plaintiffs Salvatore Chimenti, Daniel Leyva, and David Maldonado
are all incarcerated in the DOC and all suffer from Hepatitis C
viral infections. Defendant Correct Care Solutions began providing
health care services for DOC facilities on September 1, 2014 and
is the current health care provider for all DOC facilities.

Plaintiffs seek to represent a class of all persons currently
incarcerated in a DOC facility who have at least twelve weeks
remaining in their sentences and are currently diagnosed with
Hepatitis C. They assert four claims for relief. Count One asserts
a claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 against the DOC
Defendants, Correct Care Solutions, and employees of Correct Care
Solutions for deliberate indifference to the serious medical needs
of prisoners infected with Hepatitis C in violation of the Eighth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. Count Two asserts a
claim against the DOC Defendants, Correct Care Solutions, and
employees of Correct Care Solutions for deliberate indifference to
the serious medical needs of prisoners infected with Hepatitis C
in violation of Article I, Section 13 of the Pennsylvania
Constitution. Count III asserts a claim against all Defendants for
medical malpractice under Pennsylvania law. Count IV asserts a
claim against Wexford Health and Correct Care Solutions for
medical malpractice and vicarious liability under Pennsylvania
law.

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss brought by the DOC and
officials and employees thereof, and a Motion to Dismiss or Sever
brought by the medical care providers and their officials and
employees.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 21, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/gag298from Leagle.com, Judge Padova granted as to
DOC Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count I of the Complaint
and the Sec. 1983 claim asserted in that Count, and DOC
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count III of the Complaint is
granted as to Wetzel and denied as to the DOC, Noel, Oppman, and
Dreibelbis. The Medical Defendants' Motion to Dismiss as to Count
I of the Complaint is granted as to Dancha, Hochberg, Scharff,
Lehman and Correct Care Solutions and is denied as to Kephart,
Weiner, and Wexford Health Source, Inc. The Medical Defendants'
Motion to Dismiss and Sever is denied in all other respects.

Plaintiffs are represented by David Rudovsky, Esq. --
drudovsky@krlawphila.com -- KAIRYS RUDOVSKY MESSING & FEINBERG
LLP, Stephen D. Brown, Esq. -- stephen.brown@dechert.com --
Christine C. Levin, Esq. - Christine.levin@dechert.com -- and
Ethan Solove, Esq. -- ethan.solove@dechart.com -- DECHERT LLP

Plaintiffs are also represented by:

     Angus R. Love, Esq.
     Su Ming Yeh, Esq.
     PA INSTITUTIONAL LAW PROJECT
     718 Arch St # 304S
     Philadelphia, PA 19106
     Tel: (215)925-2966

Defendants are represented by:

     Vincent R. Mazeski, Esq.
     CHIEF COUNSEL'S OFFICE
     41 S Main St
     Middleburg, PA 17842
     Tel: (570)837-1771


PEPSICO INC: "Taylor" Class Action Moved to S.D. Fla.
-----------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Taylor, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, v. PepsiCo, Inc., Case No. 2016-30235-CICI,
was removed from the Volusia County Court, to the US District for
the Southern District of Florida. The Southern District Court
assigned Case No. 0:15-cv-62634-PAS to the proceeding. The
assigned Judge is Hon. Roy B. Dalton, Jr.

PepsiCo operates worldwide beverage, snack and food businesses.
The Company manufactures or uses contract manufacturers, markets
and sells a variety of grain-based snacks, carbonated and non-
carbonated beverages and foods in countries throughout the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew R. Frisch, Esq.
          Marc R. Edelman, Esq.
          MORGAN & MORGAN, P. FL
          600 N. Pine Island Road, Suite 400
          Plantation, FL 33324
          Telephone: (954) 318 0268
          Facsimile: (954) 333 3515
          E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com
                  MEdelman@forthepeople.com

               - and -

          Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
          Luis A. Cabassa, Esq.
          WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, PA
          1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
          Tampa, FL 33602-3343
          Telephone: (813) 224 0431
          Facsimile: (813) 229 8712
          E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
                  lcabassa@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer Monrose Moore, Esq.
          William Edward Grob, Esq.
          OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
          100 N Tampa St Ste 3600
          Tampa, FL 33602-5867
          Telephone: (813) 221 7262
          E-mail: jennifer.moore@ogletreedeakins.com
                  william.grob@ogletreedeakins.com


PFIZER INC: Judge Grants Request to Toss Zoloft MDL
---------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the federal judge presiding over the Zoloft multidistrict
litigation has granted Pfizer's request to toss the MDL on the
grounds that the plaintiffs couldn't muster an expert to
illustrate a link between the drug and birth defects.

On April 5, U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania effectively ended the MDL -- pending any
appeals to the Third Circuit -- which has been going on for over
three years.  According to Judge Rufe's order, the clerk was
instructed to close all but 23 of the more than 300 remaining
cases, which were against defendants other than Pfizer and co-
defendant Wolters Kluwer Health.

Lead plaintiffs' counsel Dianne Nast of NastLaw and Pfizer did not
respond to requests for comment by press time.

Judge Rufe wrote in her opinion that while it hasn't been proven
that Zoloft doesn't cause birth defects, the attempts in court to
prove that it does have failed.

"Dismissal without prejudice under the circumstances of this MDL
and in the face of this essential defect of proof would work
against the fair administration of justice," Judge Rufe said.
"The court recognizes that the final scientific verdict as to
whether Zoloft can cause birth defects may not be delivered for
many years.  Nevertheless, plaintiffs chose when to file their
cases, and the court concludes that for the plaintiffs who have
continued to pursue their claims, the litigation gates must be
closed."

She added, "At the end of the day, plaintiffs have failed to raise
a jury question on the necessary predicate to success in any case:
that Zoloft was capable of causing their injuries."

The plaintiffs have had difficulty in offering causation experts,
with Judge Rufe shooting down one after the other.

In December, Judge Rufe barred the testimony of the plaintiffs'
general causation expert, Dr. Nicholas Jewell, a professor of
biostatistics at the University of California, Berkeley.
Judge Rufe's ruling came after the dismissal of hundreds of
noncardiac birth-defect cases in the litigation over the summer--
halving the litigation in size.  Dr. Jewell was put forth as the
expert for the remaining, cardiac-related cases.  At its peak, the
MDL numbered around 600 cases.

As a statistics expert, Judge Rufe said Dr. Jewell would have to
explain why he believes that the positive associations between
mothers' use of Zoloft and cardiac birth defects, reported in some
studies, are accurate and not the result of statistical flaws or
biases and reconcile those studies that claimed there was no
increased risk of cardiac birth defects with his opinion.

According to Judge Rufe's prior opinion, Dr. Jewell "has deviated
from or downplayed certain well-established principles of his
field, and has inconsistently applied methods and standards to the
data so as to support his a priori opinion.  It is improper for an
expert to take a results-driven approach to a question, molding
his methodology and selectively relying upon data so as to confirm
his preconceived opinion."

Earlier in the litigation, Judge Rufe had barred testimony from
the plaintiffs' noncardiac birth injury expert, Dr. Anick Berard.


PLAINVILLE, CT: State Defendants to File Revised Privilege Log
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DONALD WANZER, et al., v. TOWN OF
PLAINVILLE, et al., Civ. No. 315CV00016 (AWT) (D. Conn.), Judge
Sarah A. L. Merriam granted in part the plaintiffs' motion to
compel the production of certain documents and ordered the State
defendants to file, on or before April 20, 2016, a revised
privilege log of the documents claimed to be privileged.

Donald Wanzer, Jennifer Wanzer and Robin Mittasch, Trustee of The
Companion Animal Trust for the Benefit of Luca, Individually and
Ex Rel "Luca," a dog, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, commenced a putative class action seeking declaratory
and injunctive relief and damages, alleging violations of the
plaintiffs' rights and due process and guarantee against
unreasonable search and seizure, and challenging the
constitutionality of the Connecticut Administrative Procedures
Act.

The plaintiffs issued two subpoenas to Commissioner Reviczky
seeking documents related to 33 statutory administrative appeals
and hearings of 'disposal orders' that were subject to Conn. Gen.
Stat. Section 22-358.  The Commissioner contended that, in regards
to Subpoena 2, a number of the records sought were privileged, and
supplied a privilege log.  The plaintiffs challenge the assertions
of attorney-client privilege and the deliberative process
privilege, and sought an order compelling the State defendants to
either produce the documents at issue, or submit the records for
an in camera review.

Judge Merriam found that the State defendants' privilege log does
not provide sufficient information for the court to determine
whether the emails and attachments claimed to be protected under
the attorney-client privilege are indeed communications between
client and counsel, for the purpose of soliciting or rendering
legal advice, intended to be and in fact kept confidential.

Judge Merriam also found that the State defendants' privilege log
is deficient as it pertains to claims of deliberative process
privilege.

Accordingly, Judge Merriam ordered the State defendants to file,
on or before April 20, 2016, a revised privilege log with details
sufficient to provide a meaningful review of the claimed attorney-
client and deliberative process privileges.  The State defendants
were also ordered to provide a sampling of the records claimed to
be privileged in the log for in camera review.

A full-text copy of Judge Merriam's March 30, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/pzZdQefrom Leagle.com.

Donald Wanzer, Jennifer Wanzer, Robin Mittasch, Plaintiff,
represented by Richard Bruce Rosenthal, Richard Bruce Rosenthal,
Esq. & Thompson G. Page, Law Offices of Thompson Gould Page, LLC.

Town of Plainville, Matthew Catania, Donna Weinhoffer, Robert Lee,
Defendant, represented by Emily E Holland -- eholland@hl-law.com
-- Howd & Ludorf, LLC, Ondi A. Smith -- osmith@hl-law.com -- Howd
& Ludorf, LLC & Thomas R. Gerarde -- tgerarde@hl-law.com -- Howd &
Ludorf.

Jonathan D. Chomick, Michael W. Mastrianni, Defendant, represented
by Jonathan D. Chomick -- jchomick@mastseglaw.com -- Mastrianni &
Seguljic.

State of Connecticut, Defendant, represented by Matthew I. Levine,
Attorney General's Office.

Connecticut Department of Agriculture, Steven K. Reviczky, Steven
K. Reviczky, Defendant, represented by Gail Suzanne Shane,
Attorney General's Office & Matthew I. Levine, Attorney General's
Office.


POLLO OPERATIONS: Class Action Deal in "Daisy" Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------
After a hearing held on March 28, 2016, Judge Sheri Polster
Chappell granted final approval of the parties' settlement
agreement in the case captioned DAISY, INC., a Florida
corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. POLLO OPERATIONS, INC.,
EDWARD PRIORE and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants, No. 2:14-CV-00564-
SPC-CM (M.D. Fla.).

The settlement agreement was preliminarily approved on December 3,
2015 and the court certified a class defined as "All persons who
were successfully sent a facsimile image of a Pollo Tropical
coupon between December 23, 2010 and January 5, 2011 by or on
behalf of Pollo Operations, Inc."

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the defendant created a
settlement fund totaling $2,150,000 and made it available to pay
class member claims, to pay an incentive award of $15,000 to
Daisy, Inc. for serving as the class representative, and to pay
the class counsel's attorneys' fees in the amount of $537,500 plus
reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred up to $43,000.  The
settlement agreement provides for the payment of $500 to each
member of the class who submits a timely and valid claim form
regardless of the number of fax advertisements received, subject
only to a pro rata reduction in the event that the claims and
other approved payments would exceed the total settlement fund.

A full-text copy of Judge Chappell's March 30, 2016 final approval
order and judgment is available at http://is.gd/LmTXKMfrom
Leagle.com.

Daisy, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Ross M. Good --
rgood@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, Roy W. Foxall, Law
Office of Roy W. Foxall, PA, Brian J. Wanca --
bwanca@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice, David
Max Oppenheim, Anderson & Wanca, pro hac vice & Ryan M. Kelly --
rkelly@andersonwanca.com -- Anderson & Wanca.

Pollo Operations, Inc., Defendant, represented by Sandra Jessica
Millor -- sandra.millor@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, Catherine A.
Miller -- catherine.miller@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP, pro hac
vice, Jason L. Margolin -- jason.margolin@akerman.com -- Akerman
LLP, Jeffrey J. Mayer -- jeffrey.mayer@akerman.com -- Akerman LLP,
pro hac vice & Marc H. Kallish -- mkallish@ralaw.com -- Roetzel &
Andress, LPA, pro hac vice.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Court Rules on Summary Judgment Bids
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Danny C. Reeves of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Kentucky denied Plaintiff's motion to
strike and motion for summary judgment, and granted PRA's motion
for summary judgment in the case captioned, DEDE STRATTON,
Plaintiff, v. PORTFOLIO RECOVERY ASSOCIATES, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 5:13-147-DCR (E.D. Ky.).

On June 20, 2012, PRA filed a collection action in Kentucky's
Scott County District Court to collect on the account. The state
court complaint alleged that Stratton owed PRA $2,630.95, with
interest "at the rate of 8% per annum from December 19, 2008,
until the date of judgment with 12% per annum thereafter until
paid, plus court costs." Consequently, Stratton filed this against
PRA, asserting that the company violated certain provisions of the
FDCPA by attempting to collect on interest between the date GE
charged-off her debt and the date that PRA bought it.

When PRA filed a motion to dismiss the Class Action Complaint,
Stratton filed an Amended Complaint to address issues outlined in
the motion to dismiss. Originally, the Court dismissed Stratton's
claims. However, on appeal, the Sixth Circuit reversed and
remanded the matter, holding that Stratton "plausibly alleged that
PRA violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Pending before the Court are the parties' cross-motions for
summary judgment, in addition to the plaintiff's motion to strike
an exhibit relied upon by the defendant.

PRA argues that it is entitled to summary judgment because: (i)
the applicable Credit Card Agreement is governed by Utah law; (ii)
Stratton cannot demonstrate that PRA's assignor waived its
contractual or statutory rights to collect prejudgment interest on
the underlying debt prior to PRA's purchase of the debt; (iii)
certain sections of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
("FDCPA") do not apply to the present circumstances; and (iv) PRA
is protected by the bona fide error defense.

Stratton contends that the Court cannot rely on the Credit Card
Agreement in determining whether to grant PRA's motion for summary
judgment because the document does not fall within any exception
to the rule against hearsay. As a result, she contends that PRA
has failed to produce evidence of its entitlement to contractual
prejudgment interest for the time period prior to purchasing
Stratton's debt.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 21, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/Z1ptekfrom Leagle.com, Judge Reeves found that
because PRA does not present any evidence contradicting the
assertions that Stratton is a consumer, PRA is a debt collector,
and Stratton's debt arose out of an appropriate transaction, these
facts are sufficiently established for the purposes of summary
judgment. However, because Stratton has failed to demonstrate that
PRA violated the FDCPA, the Court will deny her motion for summary
judgment.

Dede Stratton is represented by:

     James Hays Lawson, Esq.
     LAWSON AT LAW, PLLC
     115 S Sherrin Ave #4
     Louisville, KY 40207
     Tel: (502)473-6525

          - and -

     Kenneth J. Henry, Esq.
     HENRY & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
     800 Stone Creek Pkwy #1
     Louisville, KY 40223
     Tel: (502)245-9100

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC is represented by Elizabeth M.
Shaffer, Esq. -- elizabeth.shaffer@dinsmore.com -- and Joseph N.
Tucker, Esq. -- joseph.tucker@dinsmore.com -- and R. Brooks
Herrick, Esq. -- brooks.herrick@dinsmore.com -- DINSMORE & SHOHL,
LLP


PREMIER TAMPA: Faces Suit for Alleged Violation of FLSA, Fla. Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Zeitouni, James Martin, DJems Antoine, Marcio Paz and
Jonathan Menedez on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Premier Tampa Air, LLC,
Defendant, Case 8:16-cv-00837-SDM-AEP (M.D. Fla., April 7, 2016),
seeks damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act for the alleged
failure of the Defendant to pay overtime wages and minimum wages
and unpaid wages under Florida common law.

The Defendant operates a parking service.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brandon J. Hill, Esq.
     WENZEL FENTON CABASSA, P.A.
     1110 North Florida Avenue, Suite 300
     Tampa, FL 33602
     Tel: 813-224-0431
     Fax: 813-229-8712
     E-mail: bhill@wfclaw.com
             jriley@wfclaw.com


QAUKER OATS CO: Violated IFDCA, "Gates" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------
Barbara Gates, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Quaker Oats Company, Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01944-NLH-JS (D.N.J., April 7, 2016), asserts
violation of the Illinois Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (IFDCA).

Quaker Oats produces and sells oat-based food products. The
company offers hot cereals; cold cereals; snack bars; cookies;
rice snacks; and other products, including tortilla mixes, barley
products, corn meals, biscuits, oatmeal raisins, real medleys,
grits, oatmeal, and cut oats. It provides products through a
network of chain grocery stores and pharmacies, and online
retailers. The Quaker Oats Company, Inc. was formerly known as
German Mills American Cereal Company and changed its name to The
Quaker Oats Company, Inc. in 1901. The company was founded in 1850
and is based in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen P. Denittis, Esq.
          DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
          5 Greentree Centre
          525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
          MARLTON, NJ 08053
          Telephone: (856) 797-9951
          Facsimile: (856) 797 9978
          E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com


RIDDELL INC: April 14 Status Conference Set in Helmet Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Kris B. Mamula, writing for Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, reports that
the ImPACT concussion test is a "reliable and valuable tool,"
which has been used in 280 peer-reviewed studies and 145
independent studies, according to the Oakland-based company's
website.

But a 2013 lawsuit seeking class-action status and more than $5
million against football helmet maker Riddell Inc. alleges that
one of those studies was biased and therefore the results were
questionable.  The case being heard in U.S. District Court in
New Jersey was filed by parents, youth sports associations and
others against Riddell over marketing claims made for a line of
its helmets.

Neither UPMC nor ImPACT are defendants in the case.

The lawsuit said Riddell claimed the design of the helmets reduced
the likelihood of a concussion.  The plaintiffs say that wasn't
true.  The helmets with the "concussion reducing technology" cost
consumers an extra $50 and the company's claims were based on
research done at Pittsburgh health system UPMC.

The lawsuit claims Riddell awarded a grant to UPMC for the three-
year study of high school football players, funds that paid the
salaries of lead authors Mark Lovell and Michael "Micky" Collins.
A third researcher, Thad Ide, was then-vice president, research
and product development at Rosemont, Ill.-based Riddell.

Mr. Lovell and Mr. Collins helped develop the ImPACT test at UPMC
in the late 1990s with Joseph Maroon, a UPMC neurosurgeon and the
fifth of five researchers in the study.

Academic officials say it's not unusual for industry to cover
salary expenses in such research projects, which is acceptable as
long as the arrangement and other potential conflicts of interest
are disclosed. All of the potential conflicts among the
researchers were disclosed when the study was published in the
medical journal Neurosurgery in 2006.

But there were other problems with the study, according to the
lawsuit.  The helmets used were not randomly assigned to players,
and the collected data did not distinguish between the position of
the player -- quarterback versus lineman, for example -- which
could affect the likelihood of a concussion.  And the standard-
design helmets used were reconditioned, not new like the premium
helmets tested.

The result was the study reached a "pre-determined conclusion"
about safety, according to the lawsuit.

Riddell has denied the claims, according to court documents, and
UPMC disputes how Riddell used its research in marketing the
premium helmets, but defended its study.

"We stand behind the research, which was the first of its kind,"
UPMC spokeswoman Susan Manko said.  "We applaud anyone doing
research in this area."

"Nowhere in the state can a patient find more certified athletic
trainers and board-certified, licensed physical therapists, more
research into injuries that apply to clinical use" than at UPMC,
she wrote in an email.

Mr. Lovell is now chief scientific officer at ImPACT and Mr.
Collins is executive director of the UPMC Sports Medicine
Concussion Program, which treated more than 17,000 concussions
last year.

The typical patient seen at the clinic is an adolescent girl who
got hit in the head with a softball, Mr. Collins said.

Meanwhile, the Riddell lawsuit continues to wend its way through
court, with a status conference scheduled April 14 by U.S.
Magistrate Judge Joel Schneider, who recently granted Riddell
extra time to produce more than 85,000 pages of documents
requested by plaintiffs.


RNC INDUSTRIES: "Valerio" Suit Has Conditional Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
plaintiff's motion for conditional certification in the case
captioned, JOSE VALERIO, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. RNC INDUSTRIES, LLC and RICHARD
TONYES, in his individual and professional capacities, Defendants,
Case No. CV 14-3761 (LDW) (AKT) (E.D.NY.).

Jose Valerio worked for Defendants from on or about April 2011
through May 2014. During Plaintiff's employment, his principal
responsibilities entailed manual labor, including working as a
welder, mechanic, and driver. Plaintiff generally worked five to
six days per week at a rate of $18 to $21 per hour.

He brings the wage and hour action, individually and on behalf of
other persons similarly situated, against Defendants RNC
Industries, LLC (RNC) and Richard Tonyes in both his individual
and professional capacities pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq., the New York Labor Law
(NYLL) Sections 160, 195, 652(1) and 12 New York Codes, Rules and
Regulations (NYCRR) Sec.142. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants
implemented a policy in which they refused to pay their employees
both the required minimum wage rate for all hours worked as well
as the required overtime rate for all hours worked in excess of 40
hours per week.

Plaintiff moves for (1) conditional certification as a collective
action of "All other current and former similarly situated non-
managerial employees, employed since June 16, 2011;" and (2) Court
approval of Plaintiff's proposed Notice of Pendency to potential
collective action members, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). See
Plaintiff's Motion for Conditional Certification and Notice
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b). Defendants oppose the motion
asserting, among other things, that Plaintiff has not identified a
specific common policy or practice which violates the law.

In her Memorandum and Order dated March 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/AHLm0lfrom Leagle.com, Judge Tomlinson found that
Plaintiff has met his burden to show that the proposed class
members satisfy the requirements of Section 216(b).

The Court directs Defendants to produce a list of the names,
addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, work locations and
dates of employment for all non-managerial employees who worked at
RNC Industries, LLC dating back to June 16, 2011 within 14 days
and the parties to submit an agreed upon Notice to the Court by
April 13, 2016.

Jose Valerio is represented by Alexander T. Coleman, Esq. --
atc@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Michael J. Borrelli, Esq. --
mjb@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Anthony Patrick Malecki, Esq.
-- apm@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- Dong Phuong Van Nguyen, Esq.
-- dvn@employmentlawyernewyork.com -- BORRELLI & ASSOCIATES PLLC

RNC Industries, Inc. is represented by:

     Christopher A. Smith, Esq.
     Jonathan Michael Bardavid, Esq.
     TRIVELLA & FORTE, LLP
     311 Mamaroneck Ave # 170,
     White Plains, NY 10605
     Tel: (914)949-9075


RYAN TRANSPORTATION: "Bell" Suit Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jeff Bell, Plaintiff, v. Ryan Transportation
Service, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 15-9857-JWL (D. Kan.), Judge
John W. Lungstrum granted the motion filed by Ryan Transportation
Service, Inc. to compel arbitration and stayed the judicial
proceedings pending completion of the arbitration process.

Jeff Bell filed a wage and hour suit individually and on behalf of
all other similarly situated employees alleging violations of the
overtime provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

Ryan Transportation moved to dismiss or stay the case and to
compel arbitration on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint was
filed in contravention of the terms of a valid and enforceable
arbitration agreement executed by the parties that covers the
claims asserted by the plaintiff.

Bell contended that the court lacks jurisdiction to compel
arbitration because the Federal Arbitration Act exempts
transportation workers from its provisions.  In the alternative,
Bell also contended that the court should strike as unenforceable
certain discovery, attorney fee and confidentiality provisions in
the agreement because those provisions prevent him from
effectively vindicating his rights under the FLSA.

Judge Lungstrum found that Bell's job duties, as a freight broker
employed by a logistics company specializing in transportation
management services, are not sufficiently necessary and related to
interstate commerce as to classify him as a transportation worker
for purposes of the exemption.  The judge also rejected Bell's
challenges to certain discovery, attorney fee and confidentiality
provisions in the agreement.

A full-text copy of Judge Lungstrum's March 31, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at http://is.gd/0gQD2Jfrom Leagle.com.

Jeff Bell, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Edward Osman, Osman &
Smay, LLP.

Ryan Transportation Service, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian
N. Woolley -- bwoolley@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage, LLP &
Tammy M. Somogye -- tsomogye@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage,
LLP.


SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Cal. Ct. App. Rules on Appeals v. SDCERS
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal was brought before the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One for three consolidated lawsuits
against the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS),
to wit: Baidya v. San Diego City Retirement System, No. 37-2011-
00096237-CU-PO-CTL (Baidya), Lancaster v. San Diego City
Retirement System, No. 37-2011-00096238-CU-PO-CTL (Lancaster) and
Lenhart v. San Diego City Retirement System, No. 37-2011-00096587-
CU-BC-CTL (Lenhart).

The lawsuits were filed by the employees impacted by the actions
taken by SDCERS concerning the funding of the shortfall for
pension service credits purchased by employees of the City of San
Diego and of the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority.
After the 2010 ruling in City of San Diego v. San Diego City
Employees' Retirement System (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 69,  which
concluded that SDCERS acted unlawfully in deciding to charge the
City for a shortfall in funding of pension service credits, SDCERS
had required the employees who purchased those pension service
credits to make up the funding shortfall.  The SDCERS also took
certain actions concerning the funding of the shortfall for
pension service credits purchased by employees of the Airport
Authority.

The plaintiffs contended that the trial court erred:

          (1) in sustaining without leave to amend the demurrer
              in the Lenhart action to the breach of contract
              cause of action and the cause of action for
              mandamus relief;

          (2) by sustaining the demurrer in the Lancaster action
              to the fourth cause of action for breach of
              fiduciary duty;

          (3) by sustaining a demurrer to one of the breach of
              fiduciary causes of action common to all three
              actions; and

          (4) in granting summary judgment on the two remaining
              breach of fiduciary causes of action common to all
              three actions.

The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's
judgments except only for the judgment in the Lenhart action with
respect to the breach of contract cause of action.  The appellate
court concluded that the trial court erred in sustaining the
demurrer to the breach of contract cause of action because the
facts pled in the Lenhart complaint, if subsequently proven, would
establish that SDCERS breached the service credit purchase
agreements with safety member employees who are subject to
reformation and rescission of their agreements under SDCERS' Board
Rule 4.90.

The appealed case is captioned ANANTA BAIDYA et al., Plaintiffs
and Appellants, v. SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM,
Defendant and Respondent, No. D066678 (Cal. Ct. App.).

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 30,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/l8RZucfrom Leagle.com.

Law Office of Michael A. Conger and Michael A. Conger for
Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Kirby, Noonan, Lance & Hoge, David J. Noonan -- dnoonan@knlh.com
-- Steven W. Sanchez -- ssanchez@knlh.com -- and Micaela P. Banach
-- mbanach@knlh.com -- for Defendant and Respondent.


SAN DIEGO RETIREMENT: Judgments Affirmed in "Abbe" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------
An appeal was brought before the Court of Appeals of California,
Fourth District, Division One for two lawsuits against the San
Diego City Employees' Retirement System (SDCERS), to wit: Abitria
v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System, No. 37-2011-
00096899-CU-PO-CTL (Abitria) and Abbe v. San Diego City Employees'
Retirement System, No. 37-2011-00102161-CU-NP-CTL (Abbe).

The lawsuits were filed by the employees impacted by SDCERS'
adoption of "Board Rule 4.90", under which employees who purchased
service credits in the pension service credits (PSC) program
during the window period beginning August 15, 2003, but who had
not retired from City service as of November 19, 2007 would bear
the entire cost of funding the service credits.  Rule 4.90 was
adopted by SDCERS in response to the 2010 ruling in City of San
Diego v. San Diego City Employees' Retirement System (2010) 186
Cal.App.4th 69,  which concluded that SDCERS acted unlawfully in
deciding to charge the City for a shortfall in funding of pension
service credits.

The employees contended that the trial court erred:

          (1) in sustaining the demurrers filed by SDCERS and the
              City to the employees' cause of action seeking
              equitable relief, on the basis of extrinsic fraud,
              from the judgment in the City of San Diego opinion;
              and

          (2) in ruling that summary judgment was warranted in
              favor of SDCERS, on the basis of statutory
              immunity, on two causes of action alleging that
              SDCERS breached its fiduciary duties to employees.

The Court of Appeals of California affirmed the trial court's
judgment, concluding that the employees' arguments lack merit.

The appellate court held that the facts alleged by the employees
do not constitute a basis for equitable relief from judgment based
on extrinsic fraud, and the trial court accordingly properly
sustained SDCERS' and the City's demurrers to that cause of action
in both actions.

The appellate court also found that SDCERS established that the
breach of fiduciary duty causes of action were barred by
Government Claims Act immunity, even though they are based on a
constitutional provision.

The appealed case is captioned THOMAS ABBE et al., Plaintiffs and
Appellants, v. SAN DIEGO CITY EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM et al.,
Defendants and Respondents, No. D066632 (Cal. Ct. App.).

A full-text copy of the Court of Appeals of California's March 30,
2016 opinion is available at http://is.gd/ziLr1ifrom Leagle.com.

Smith, Steiner, Vanderpool & Wax, Ann M. Smith --
asmith@ssvwlaw.com --  and Kathryn A. Schultz --
kschultz@ssvwlaw.com -- for Plaintiffs and Appellants.

Jan I. Goldsmith, City Attorney, and Walter C. Chung, Deputy City
Attorney, for Defendant and Respondent City of San Diego.

Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge, David J. Noonan -- dnoonan@knlh.com --
Steven W. Sanchez -- ssanchez@knlh.com -- and Micaela P. Banach --
mbanach@knlh.com -- for Defendant and Respondent The Board of
Administration of the San Diego City Employees' Retirement System.


SMITHKLINE BEECHAM: Philadelphia Court Rejects Paxil Case
---------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the first of several Paxil birth-defect cases expected to hit
trial may have ended abruptly, but court watchers do not expect
the litigation to be coming to an end so soon.

On April 4, Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Kenneth
Powell Jr. dismissed the case Rader v. Smithkline Beecham, after
finding that the plaintiff did not present enough evidence to send
the case to the jury.  The decision came after about five years of
pretrial venue issues and two weeks of trial.

The ruling specifically hinged on the judge's determination that
the plaintiffs did not present sufficient evidence to show the
prescribing physician would have made a different prescribing
decision based on additional information the plaintiffs have
argued should have been included on the drug's label.

According to court watchers, because the ruling hinged on a very
fact-specific issue, it is unlikely the dismissal will have a
broad effect on the eight related Paxil birth-defect cases that
remain in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas.

"You can't extrapolate from this particular case to say others
will end up the same way," said Duane Morris attorney Alan Klein -
- AKlein@duanemorris.com -- who represents both plaintiffs and
defendants in pharmaceutical products liability cases.  "A lot
will depend on the testimony of the treating and prescribing
physicians and what went into his or her decision.  It's a very
fact-specific inquiry."

Jamie Sheller -- jlsheller@sheller.com -- of Sheller P.C., who
handled prior Paxil birth-defect cases and has served as liaison
counsel to the state's mass tort litigation, but was not involved
in the Rader case, said many of the doctors in the cases she
handled, including a suit that came to a $2.5 million verdict in
2009, had been "upset and concerned" when confronted with
additional prescribing information about the drug.

"That's true in a lot of pharma cases," Ms. Sheller said.
Adam Peavy of Bailey Peavy Bailey Cowan Heckaman in Houston, who
represented plaintiff Braden Rader, said he plans to appeal Judge
Powell's order, which, he contended, was in error under state case
law.

According to Mr. Peavy, Judge Powell had previously ruled to
exclude any mention of the defendant's subsequent remedial
measures, which are typically not allowed as evidence in
establishing liability.  That ruling, Mr. Peavy said, required the
court to exclude portions of the prescribing doctor's videotaped
testimony in which Mr. Peavy asked the doctor about whether the
doctor would have changed his prescribing decision based on a
subsequent label change.

Mr. Peavy said that while generally subsequent remedial measures,
such as label changes, are not allowed into evidence for liability
purposes, there is an exception when establishing a
prescribing doctor's decisions.

"It's a pretty simple appeal," Mr. Peavy said.

He added that he is seeking guidance from Judge Arnold New, who is
supervising the mass tort program, about whether the evidentiary
ruling will apply to other cases, which could necessitate a stay
in the litigation.  According to Mr. Peavy, the ruling could cause
further liability issues if applied to all cases, the next of
which is expected to begin in May.

Although GSK did not specifically comment on how the recent
dismissal may affect the eight additional cases gearing up for
trial in Philadelphia, the company said in a statement that it has
a strong defense against the heart defect claims.


SPECTRUM BRANDS: Faces "Rosner" Class Action in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Spectrum Brands, Inc. The case is
captioned Yisroel Rosner, individually on behalf of himself and
all others similarly situated and John Does (1-100), the
Plaintiff, v. Spectrum Brands, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01693 (E.D.N.Y., Brooklyn, April 7, 2016).

Spectrum Brands manufactures and sells small appliances, consumer
batteries, lawn and garden, electric shaving and grooming,
residential locksets, pet supplies, and household insect control.
The company was incorporated in 2007 and is based in Madison,
Wisconsin. Spectrum Brands, Inc. operates as a subsidiary of
Spectrum Brands Holdings, Inc.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


SPOTIFY: Settles Royalties Dispute with NMPA for $21 Million
------------------------------------------------------------
Susan Thurston, writing for Business and Administration
Information, reports that music publishers will get royalties for
songs streamed on Spotify under an agreement reached with the
National Music Publisher's Association (NMPA).

The deal calls for Spotify to pay about $21 million to publishers
and songwriters -- $16 million for royalty payments and $5 million
for a bonus fund for those who opt in to the arrangement. The deal
covers all content on Spotify from its inception in the United
States until June 30, 2017.

Artists can opt in during a 90-day period beginning in early
April.  Under the agreement, they will receive a portion of the
bonus fund, be able to use an online portal for claiming royalties
and get some royalties for songs that remain unclaimed, based on
how many times Spotify played them.

The streaming service also agreed to improve the accuracy and
efficiency of its royalty payment system and will allow publishers
to enter into agreements with Spotify, a move likely to avoid
future lawsuits.

"We have always been committed to paying songwriters and
publishers every penny," Spotify spokesman Jonathan Prince said in
a statement.

The agreement follows the filing of several class-action lawsuits
against Spotify over unpaid royalties.  Those lawsuits seek
hundreds of millions of dollars in damages, and the latest deal
could impact their outcome.  The NMPA settlement will likely
require participants to waive their right to recover any money
from legal proceedings against Spotify.

Late last year, musician David Lowery filed a $150 million class
action lawsuit against Spotify claiming the company knowingly
distributes copyrighted content.  Mr. Lowery, who has become one
of the most vocal critics of the music industry, says the
streaming service has illegally hosted songs by his band Cracker.
As part of the class action suit, he will represent a group of
more than 100 members similarly angered by the service.

While the NMPA settlement could ward off future litigation, some
industry experts question whether it will benefit artists because
the deal was struck without court oversight. Lawyers involved with
MrLowery's lawsuit advise anyone considering joining the
settlement to consult their own attorney first.

By agreeing to the deal, parties likely will be prohibited from
suing Spotify in the future.


SSM HEALTH: Violated ERISA, "Feather" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------
Lisa Feather, on behalf of herself, individually, and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, and on behalf of the SSM Plan, the
Plaintiff, v. SSM Health, a Missouri Non-profit Corporation, the
Pension Committee for the Retirement Plan For SSB Employees,
John and Jane Does 1-20, members of the pension committee for the
retirement plan for SSM employees, each an individual, and John
And Jane Does 21-40, each an individual, the Defendants, Case No.
3:16-cv-00393 (S.D. Ill., Benton Div., April 8, 2016), seeks to
recover an order requiring SSM Health to comply with Employee
Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and afford protections of
ERISA with respect to SSM Health's defined benefit pension plans,
as well as an order finding that the Church Plan exemption, as
claimed by SSM Health, is unconstitutional because it violates the
Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

SSM Health and its subsidiaries, by and through its subsidiaries
and/or affiliates, operates a healthcare conglomerate in Illinois,
Missouri, Wisconsin and Oklahoma and provides healthcare services
in the communities it serves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
          ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC
          8816 Manchester Road
          St. Louis, MO 63144
          Telephone: (314) 258 0212
          E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Michelle C. Yau, Esq.
          Mary J. Bortscheller, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, D.C. 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  mbortscheller@cohenmilstein.com

               - and -

          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Erin M. Riley, Esq.
          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          E-mail: lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                  eriley@kellerrohrback.com
                  rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com


SUN-MAID GROWERS: "Talavera" Suit Has Conditional Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dale A. Drozd of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's motion
for conditional certification in the case captioned, JONATHON
TALAVERA, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all other
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. SUN-MAID GROWERS OF
CALIFORNIA, a California Corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00842-DAD-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

On June 3, 2015, Jonathon Talavera filed a complaint against Sun-
Maid Growers of California alleging violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b), various California
labor code and wage orders, and the California Unfair Business
Practices Act, codified at Business and Professions Code Sections
17200.

Plaintiff is a temporary worker who was employed by defendant at
its Kingsburg plant for a total of 18 days in August and September
of 2014. In his complaint, plaintiff alleges that defendant
required him to perform certain tasks -- specifically, donning
safety and sanitary gear, and washing hands -- for which he was
not properly compensated. Plaintiff claims that these practices
constitute a violation of the FLSA because they resulted in him
and other similarly situated employees working more than eight
hours in a single day without receiving overtime compensation.

Plaintiff is currently seeking conditional certification of a
class of similarly situated employees pursuant to Sec. 216(b) of
the FLSA. Plaintiff defines the FLSA class of "All individuals who
are currently employed, or have formerly been employed, as
nonexempt hourly employees at defendants' food processing
facilities in California, at any time within three years prior to
the filing of the original complaint until resolution of the
actions."

In the Order dated March 18, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Y6Bz8n
from Leagle.com, Judge Drozd found that although the evidence
presented by plaintiff is certainly minimal, he has satisfied the
low burden imposed on him at the notice stage for conditional
certification.

Jonathan Talavera is represented by:

     Cory Lee, Esq.
     THE DOWNEY LAW FIRM, LLC
     P.O Box 1021
     Unionville, PA 19375
     Tel: (610)324-2848

Sun Maid Growers of California is represented by Molly L. Kaban,
Esq. -- mkaban@hansonbridgett.com -- and Sandra Lynn Rappaport,
Esq.
-- srappaport@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP


TAKATA CORP: Triple D Suit Moved from E.D. Tenn. to S.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Triple D Corporation, doing business as: Knox Auto Parts,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
Takata Corporation, TK Holdings Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd.,
American Honda Motor Company 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.,
Toyota Motor Engineering and Manufacturing North America, Inc.,
Mazda Motor Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Nissan
Motor Co. Ltd., Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries,
Ltd., and Subaru of America, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00135, has
been transferred from US District Court for the Eastern District
of Tennessee, to US District Court for the Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The Florida Southern District Ct. assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-21229-FAM to the proceeding.

Takata Corp. is an automotive parts company based in Japan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Benjamin C. Fields, Esq.
          Christopher Stucky, Esq.
          STUCKY & FIELDS, LLC
          214 West 18th Street, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 66108
          Telephone: (816) 659 9970
          Facsimile: (816) 659 9969
          E-mail: ben@stuckyfields.com
                  chris@stuckyfields.com

               - and -

          Frank B. Ulmer, Esq.
          R. Bryant McCulley, Esq.
          Stuart H. McCluer, Esq.
          MCCULLEY MCCLUER PLLC
          12022 Carolina Boulevard, Suite 300
          P.O. Box 505
          Charleston, SC 29451
          Telephone: (205) 238 6757
          E-mail: fulmer@mcculleymccluer.com
                  bmcculley@mcculleymccluer.com
                  smccluer@mcculleymccluer.com


TITLEMAX OF TEXAS: Faces "Torres" Suit Over FLSA Violation
---------------------------------------------------------
LYDIA TORRES, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated
persons, Plaintiff, v. TITLEMAX OF TEXAS, INC. and,
TRACY YOUNG, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00443-SS (W.D. Tex., April
7, 2016), seeks damages for unpaid overtime, liquidated damages,
injunctive relief, declaratory relief, and reasonable attorney's
fee and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

TITLEMAX OF TEXAS, INC. operates a company primarily engaged in
the business of providing personal loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
     Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
     ROSS LAW GROUP
     1104 San Antonio Street
     Austin, TX 78701
     Phone: (512) 474-7677
     Fax: (512) 474-5306
     E-mail: Charles@rosslawpc.com


TOKANA CAFE: Faces "Astudillo" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Tokana Cafe Bar Restorant Inc.
The case is captioned Carmelo Astudillo Barrera, individually, and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Tokana
Cafe Bar Restorant Inc., doing business as: Little Rascal, Halil
Gundogdu, Murat Atilgan, and Fuat F. Feyzioglu, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02649 (S.D.N.Y., Foley Square, April 8, 2016).

Tokana Cafe is as drinking establishment bar located in New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TRI-VALLEY CORP: Court Dismisses K&L Gates From Investors' Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Philip A. Brimmer of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California granted K&L Gates'
motion to dismiss and motion to strike claim 8 in the case
captioned, STEVEN SIEGAL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. G. THOMAS GAMBLE,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03570-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs Steven Siegal, David Groblebe, Christian Wipf, and
James Rybicki were among the investors who purchased securities in
the Tri-Valley Corporation Opus I Drilling Program, L.P. (Opus).
They assert a host of claims grounded in fraud on behalf of a
putative class arising from the sale of Opus securities and the
ensuing bankruptcy proceedings initiated by Opus and its general
managing partner, Tri-Valley Corporation (TVC). Plaintiffs also
accuse two unlicensed and unregistered securities broker-dealers,
Dr. Alfred Lopez and Behrooz Sarafraz, of various securities
violations. Specifically, they claim Lopez and Sarafraz operated
as Opus "aggregators" -- separate business entities that pooled
small investments to buy Opus units.

In the same complaint, plaintiffs assert a claim for aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty against K&L Gates, LLP (KLG),
which represented both Opus and TVC throughout their respective
bankruptcies.

On June 27, 2013, the named plaintiffs filed this complaint as a
putative class action against 15 defendants, including ten former
officers and directors of TVC; two allegedly unlicensed and
unregistered broker-dealers; and KLG. The bulk of plaintiffs'
complaint focuses on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation,
breach of fiduciary duty, and violations of California and federal
securities laws allegedly committed by the O & D defendants and
the securities broker-dealer defendants.

Lopez, Sarafraz, and KLG moved successfully to dismiss the
plaintiffs' First Amended Class Action Complaint (FACC).
Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend all claims against Lopez
and Sarafraz, but only as to one claim against KLG: aiding and
abetting breach of fiduciary duty.

Along with its motion to dismiss the FACC, KLG filed a special
motion to strike plaintiffs' claims pursuant to California's anti-
SLAPP statute, which was denied. Plaintiffs elected to file a SACC
-- the subject of the three motions at issue now.

In the motion, Plaintiffs contend that Lopez and Sarafraz omitted
material information and made materially false statements about
Opus's business operations and financial health when they promoted
Opus securities.

In his Order dated March 21, 2016 available at http://is.gd/hEolU7
from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that KLG has satisfied both
criteria to warrant specially striking plaintiffs' eighth claim
for relief. Plaintiffs' claim against KLG must also be dismissed
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) because the
agent's immunity rule and litigation privilege prevent plaintiffs'
claims against KLG for its affirmative conduct.

Plaintiffs are represented by Edward Scott Zusman, Esq. --
ezusman@mzclaw.com -- John R. Fabry, Esq. -- efabry@mzclaw.com --
and Kevin K. Eng, Esq. -- keng@mzclaw.com -- MARKUN ZUSMAN
FRENIERE & COMPTON LLP

Certain of the Defendants are represented by Simona Gurevich
Strauss, Esq. -- gstrauss@stblaw.com -- and Stephen Patrick Blake,
Esq. -- sblake@stblaw.com -- SIMPSON THACHER BARTLETT LLP

K&L Gates LLP is represented by Joseph Patrick McMonigle --
JMcMonigle@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP, --
JSullivan@longlevit.com -- Long & Levit LLP and Kate G Kimberlin
-- KKimberlin@longlevit.com -- Long and Levit LLP.


TURNER RESTAURANTS: Court Sends Waitstaff Suit to Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lee H. Rosenthal of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas granted Mexican
Restaurants Inc. (MRI)'s motion to compel arbitration and denied
the motion for conditional certification of a class of current and
former employees of MRI-owned Casa Oles within the three years
before the action was filed in the case captioned, BRIAN WHITE and
ROSLYN SCHOFFSTALL, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CORKEY TURNER, TURNER
RESTAURANTS, d/b/a CASA OLE MEXICAN RESTAURANTS, and MEXICAN
RESTAURANTS, INC., Defendants, Case No. H-15-1485 (S.D. Tex.).

Brian White and Roslyn Schoffstall worked as waitstaff at a
Houston-area Casa Ole restaurant which is owned and operated by
Corkey Turner and Turner Restaurants under a franchise agreement
with Mexican Restaurants Inc. (MRI). White and Schoffstall allege
that the same illegal compensation practices they were subject to
are applied at all 32 of the Casa Ole restaurants, both those
owned and operated by MRI and those franchised and owned and
operated by Turner Restaurants.

These representative plaintiffs moved for conditional collective-
action certification and issuance of notice to those who work or
worked at any of these Casa Ole restaurants over the past three
years.

On February 2, 2015, Plaintiff filed her Fourth Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff named as additional Defendants John/Jane Doe 1 through
5. After the motion for conditional certification was filed, but
before it was granted, MRI moved to compel McInnis and other MRI-
owned Casa Ole restaurant members who are members of the putative
collective action to arbitrate their FLSA claims against MRI. In
support, MRI asserted and presented evidence that it required all
employees during the relevant period to sign written agreements
requiring arbitration of all employment-related disputes with MRI,
including FLSA claims. Turner Restaurants did require signed
arbitration agreements as a condition of employment.

White and Schoffstall argue in response that the court should deny
the motion to compel because: 1) MRI has not and cannot produce a
written arbitration agreement for McInnis or for every putative
class member, as the best evidence rule requires; 2) some putative
class members may be minors and therefore lack the capacity to
enter into an enforceable arbitration agreement; and 3) some
putative class members may not speak or read English, making any
agreement unenforceable.

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 21, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/NMMohwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Rosenthal concluded
that the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the FLSA
action against MRI. MRI has produced evidence of the agreement's
contents and the good-faith reasons explaining the inability to
produce it in this litigation. White, Schoffstall, and McInnis
have not put the existence of the agreement in issue. They have
not unequivocally denied that McInnis signed an arbitration
agreement or the contents of that agreement, much less produce
evidence supporting that denial.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jeff Meyerson, Esq.
     Todd Mitchell Fine, Esq.
     Chance Dean Weldon, Esq.
     THE MEYERSON LAW FIRM PC
     2224 Walsh Tarlton Ln #120
     Austin, TX 78746
     Tel: (512)330-9001

Defendants are represented by Daniel N. Ramirez, Esq. --
dramirez@montyramirezlaw.com -- and Phillip Adam Baggett, Esq. -
pbaggett@montyramirezlaw.com -- MONTY AND RAMIREZ LLP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Decertification Bid in "O'Connor" Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Edward M. Chen denied the defendants' motion for partial
summary judgment or decertification in the case captioned DOUGLAS
O'CONNOR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-03826-EMC (N.D. Cal.).

Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Matthew Manahan, and Elie
Gurfinkel brought a class action against Uber Technologies, Inc.,
alleging that Uber misclassifies drivers as independent
contractors rather than employees.

The court certified the class action to bring two claims: (1) a
tips claim, in which the plaintiffs allege that Uber represented
that tips are included in the fare but do not give the total
amount of the tip to the drivers, and (2) an expense reimbursement
claim.

Uber moved for summary judgment on the plaintiffs' tips claim,
contending that this claim is fundamentally based on "Uber's
alleged misrepresentations to riders that a 'tip is included' in
the fare."  Uber also argued that decertification is appropriate
because there is no ascertainability, commonality, predominance,
or superiority.

Judge Chen held that the elements of a misrepresentation claim are
not at issue because the plaintiffs' theory is not that Uber
misrepresented or committed fraud by advertising that tip is
included in the fare.  The judge instead found that the
plaintiffs' argument is that Uber was being truthful when it made
such representations, and that because Uber charges a tip it is
required to distribute the tip in its entirety to the drivers.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's March 30, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/It26K4from Leagle.com.

Douglas O'Connor, Thomas Colopy, Plaintiff, represented by
Adelaide Pagano -- apagano@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and Liss-Riordan,
P.C., pro hac vice, Ben Weber -- bweber@llrlaw.com -- Lichten and
Liss-Riordan, P.C.,Matthew David Carlson --
mcarlson@carlsonlegalservices.com -- Carlson Legal Services, Sara
Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Plaintiff, represented by Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss-
Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice, Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal
Services,Sara Smolik, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Shannon
Liss-Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Matthew Manahan, Elie Gurfinkel, Plaintiff, represented by
Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss-Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice,
Matthew David Carlson, Carlson Legal Services & Shannon Liss-
Riordan, Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Ronald Gillette, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C., Adelaide Pagano, Lichten and Liss-
Riordan, P.C., pro hac vice & Andrew Paul Lee --
alee@gbdhlegal.com -- Goldstein, Borgen, Dardarian & Ho.

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C.,
Marcellus Antonio McRae -- mmcrae@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn &
Crutcher LLP, Theane D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com --
Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- Attorney at Law, Brandon J. Stoker --
bstoker@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher LLP, Debra Wong
Yang -- dwongyang@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn Crutcher LLP,
Dhananjay Saikrishna Manthripragada --
dmanthripragada@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn and Crutcher, John
C. Fish, Jr. -- jfish@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, PC, Joshua
Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn and
Crutcher LLP, Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell --
kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Stephen
A. Swedlow -- stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com -- Quinn Emanuel
Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Luther Taeusch --
staeusch@valdezlawgroup.com -- Valdez Law Group LLP.

7x7 Executive Transportation LLC, Defendant, represented by James
Parton, III, Parton & Sell PC.

Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise
-- aspurchise@littler.com -- Littler Mendelson, P.C..

Caren Ehret, Movant, represented by Myron Milton Cherry --
mcherry@cherry-law.com -- Myron M. Cherry & Associates LLC.

Ricardo Del Rio, Greg Fisher, Movant, represented by Christopher
James Hamner -- chamner@hamnerlaw.com -- Hamner Law Offices, APC.

Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Christopher John
Morosoff, Law Office of Christopher J. Morosoff.

City of Cleveland, Ohio, Interested Party, represented by Carl E
Meyer, City of Cleveland.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Can Appeal Drivers Class Certification Ruling
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that Uber Technologies
Inc. has a chance to slam the brakes on a major labor class action
that challenges the company's classification of drivers as
independent contractors.

On April 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said
it would allow the ride-hailing company to appeal U.S. District
Judge Edward Chen's December order certifying a class of
approximately 240,000 Uber drivers in California.

The decision is a victory for Uber in a case where little has gone
its way.  In a petition to appeal the class-certification order,
the company's legal team at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher accused Judge
Chen of setting the stage for a "runaway class action" with
radical rulings that crippled its arbitration clause.

"[D]istrict courts are not supposed to embark on seek-and-destroy
missions in which they resort to inventing creative means of
obliterating arbitration agreements," wrote lawyers led by
Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr.

The development presumably hits pause on a trial that had been
scheduled for June in the Northern District of California and
means that Uber will get a chance to argue that drivers claims
should be heard in individual, private arbitration, pursuant to
the terms of its driver agreement.

"We are pleased that the Ninth Circuit has granted this petition
to review the lower court's order," the company said in an emailed
statement.

The decision to take up the appeal was made by Ninth Circuit
Judges William Canby, Edward Leavy and Sandra Ikuta.  Their one-
page order cited the court's 2005 ruling in Chamberlan v. Ford
Motor.  That held class-certification orders should be reviewed
only when they sound a "death knell" for the losing party, raise
an unsettled issue of law or are "manifestly erroneous."

Also on April 5, the Ninth Circuit set oral arguments for June 16
in a series of cases challenging Chen's decisions that the
arbitration clauses in Uber's driver agreements are not
enforceable.

Shannon Liss-Riordan of Lichten & Liss-Riordan, who is
representing the plaintiffs in the main driver suit, O'Connor v.
Uber, could not immediately be reached for comment.

In a petition opposing the appeal, Liss-Riordan called Uber's
objections to Judge Chen's order "histrionic protests" and said
the case did not present an unsettled or fundamental issue of
class action law.


UNITED STATES: Hospital Operators' Suit Over TRICARE Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Marian Blank Horn of the Court of Federal Claims granted
motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint in the case
captioned, INGHAM REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED STATES, Defendant, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSC,
Consolidated with Case No. 12-CV-4048-JSC, No. 12-CV-4059-JSC.,
12-CV-4064-JSC, 12-CV-4066-JSC, 12-CV-4133-JSC, 12-CV-4250-JSC
(Fed. Cl.).

Plaintiffs Ingham Regional Medical Center (Ingham), Bay Regional
Medical Center (BRMC), McLaren Northern Michigan (McLaren),
Gifford Medical Center, Inc. (Gifford), and Lakewood Health System
(Lakewood) operate hospitals that participated in the TRICARE
program, a federal program providing health care to uniformed
service members, retirees, and certain others. Plaintiffs allege
that from at least August 1, 2003 to May 1, 2009 (the Relevant
Period), the defendant, United States of America, acting through
the Secretary of the United States Department of Defense (DoD) in
his official capacity as operator of TRICARE, underpaid them for
certain services they provided as part of the TRICARE program,
which plaintiffs allege resulted in the breach of two contracts
and violations of applicable statutory and regulatory provisions.

They seek to bring a class action on behalf of every hospital in
the United States that (1) provided outpatient services to
individuals enrolled in the TRICARE program during the Relevant
Period, and (2) participated in the defendant's Discretionary
Payment Process, described below, announced April 25, 2011.
Plaintiffs estimate their proposed class size to be approximately
5,200 hospitals.

Defendant has moved to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended complaint
for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) (2012) of
the Rules of the United States Court of Federal Claims (RCFC).

In her Opinion dated March 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/AFOP57from Leagle.com, Judge Horn concluded that
plaintiffs have failed to adequately plead any facts showing that
the reimbursement rates instituted by the Interim Final and Final
Rules represented an unreasonable interpretation of 10 U.S.C. Sec.
1079(j)(2), and that plaintiffs' claims based on 10 U.S.C.
Sections 1079 and 1086 and 32 C.F.R Sections 199.4 and 199.7 fail.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Alexander John Pires, Jr., Esq.
     PIRES COOLEY
     4401Q Street NW
     Washington, DC 20007

USA is represented by:

     Phyllis Jo Baunach, Esq.
     U. S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202)353-1555


VANCOUVER, WA: Court Denies Appointment of Counsel in Inmate Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge J. Richard Creatura of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington denied Plaintiff's
motion for appointment of counsel in the case captioned, RICHARD
BURGESS, Plaintiff, v. CHUCK ATKINS et al., Defendants, Case No.
3:15-CV-05895-RJB-JRC (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiff Richard Burgess, who was previously incarcerated at
Clark County Jail,  proceeded pro se and in forma pauperis, filed
in the civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. Plaintiff
alleges that the Clark County Jail is overcrowded, resulting in
unsanitary conditions, and that his right to access to the courts
has been violated. Plaintiff alleges that while housed at Clark
County Jail, he has been subjected to conditions of confinement
that violate his constitutional rights.  Plaintiff maintains that
the Clark County Jail was overcrowded, which has caused plaintiff
stress.

Included in his amended complaint is also a request for
appointment of counsel. Plaintiff alleges that he is requesting
that the Court appoint counsel to represent plaintiff and other
inmates in his suit, which he alleges is a class action lawsuit.
Plaintiff also moves to change defendants' names to defendants
Atkins, Bishop, Clark County and the City of Vancouver. Plaintiff
also seeks a motion to stay not dismiss because the Clark County
Jail has refused to let plaintiff use the original law library.

In his Second Order dated March 18, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/dfntgtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Creatura declined to
serve plaintiff's amended complaint because plaintiff has failed
to allege any facts supporting personal participation against the
named defendants including allegations that deal with any claim of
deliberate indifference or denial of access to the courts.
Furthermore, plaintiff has failed to allege that his lack of
access to the courts caused him any actual injury.

The Court gave the plaintiff leave to file an amended pleading by
April 15, 2016, to cure the deficiencies in his complaint.

The City of Vancouver, Defendant, is represented by:

     Daniel G Lloyd, Esq.
     VANCOUVER CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
     415 W 6th St
     Vancouver, WA 98660
     Tel: (360)487-8600


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Faces Class Action Over BlueTec Diesel Models
------------------------------------------------------------
BenzInsider reports that in February, Mercedes-Benz was dragged
into a class action suit filed in the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey.  In the suit filed by Texas law
firm Hagens Berman, it was alleged that the three-pointed star
brand used a cheat device to manipulate the emission figures of
its BlueTec diesel models.

The emission issue pointed out by the lawsuit was similar to the
controversy that Volkswagen got itself into last year, which led
to the resignation of its former CEO Martin Winterkorn.

According to Autoblog, Hagens Berman claimed that they tested the
BlueTec vehicles of Mercedes at highway speeds.  Then they found
out that it consistently failed to meet emission standards.
The law firm cited instances also during low temperature testings
wherein the outputs they derived from the BlueTec models of
Mercedes were 8.1 to 19.7 times higher than the highway emission
standard.  Thus, they strongly opposed the advertising of the
company as having "the world's cleanest and most advanced diesel."

As a result of the class suit, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) asked Mercedes for more information
regarding the matter.  The source said EPA is yet to launch an
official probe about the issue.

Late last year, Mercedes already commented about the emission
controversy it was facing, which coincided with the same issues
encountered by Volkswagen.  The luxury car maker straight out
denied the allegations, and stated that they have been faithfully
complying to all the environmental requirements mandated by law.
Mercedes maintained its position when news of the lawsuit from
Hagens Berman broke out.  However, it declined to comment further
on the ongoing proceedings.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Meets with Dealers Amid Emissions Class Actions
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Beene, writing for Automotive News, reports that it was
supposed to be the week's best show in Vegas.

A fireworks display.  The long-awaited confrontation between
beleaguered U.S. Volkswagen dealers and besieged factory
representatives at the brand's make meeting during the NADA
convention.

Volkswagen rolled out its big gun.  Global VW brand chief
Herbert Diess was in town, and when was the last time such a high-
ranking visitor from Wolfsburg showed up for an NADA make meeting?

Outside Ballrooms A and B at the Westgate Las Vegas Resort &
Casino, a large knot of reporters and others waited anxiously for
news from behind those big stateroom doors.

But alas, no fireworks.

After 90 minutes, VW dealers calmly filed out of their April 2
make meeting with promises of more cars to jump-start sales.  But
they had little new information about how VW planned to rectify
the damage its emissions scandal has done to the brand and its
retailers.

Attendees said Mr. Diess and other executives offered no details
about technical fixes for the diesel crisis or compensation for
consumers, citing a government gag order.  Neither did the
executives discuss the prospect of settlement talks with dealers,
who a day earlier formed a committee to lead negotiations with VW
on compensation for losses incurred by retailers since the scandal
erupted in September.

"I would title the meeting "We're working on it,'" said
Steve Kalafer, owner of the 17-franchise Flemington Car & Truck
Country, which includes a VW store in Flemington, N.J.

"There were no promises other than broad statements that "We're
working on it' and "We're doing our best,'" Mr. Kalafer said.
"This is nothing more than more of the same."

VW executives did say they would send more products this year in
an attempt to help dealers through what is shaping up as a very
tough 2016.  VW brand sales fell 12.5 percent in the first
quarter.

Dealers will get an extra 20,000 Tiguan compact crossovers and
20,000 additional Beetle Classic compact cars this year compared
with what was planned, said Matthew Welch, general manager of
Auburn Volkswagen near Seattle.  Next year, VW will send 75,000
Golf SportWagen Alltracks to the U.S. after shipping 15,000 here
for its fourth quarter launch, Welch said.

Dealers said that the 2017 Alltrack commitment was double what VW
had planned.

Longer term, VW dealers need annual U.S. sales of around 500,000
by 2017 or 2018 to be the brand's new "baseline," Alan Brown,
chairman of the brand's U.S. dealer council, told reporters after
the make meeting.

VW brand sales last year were just less than 350,000.

"That's where [Volkswagen] AG is going to start to see wins;
that's where the dealer network will really start to see a return
on sales," said Brown, general manager of Lewisville Volkswagen
near Dallas.

Volume targets weren't discussed in the meeting, but Mr. Diess
said in a statement to reporters that VW wanted to "grow the
volume consistently above past levels" in the U.S.

"We're looking forward to really managing through the crisis and
then really relaunching the brand and looking at a much more
positive future," Diess told reporters.

What he meant by "relaunching" is unclear. Michael DiFeo, dealer
principal at Linden Volkswagen in Roselle, N.J., said any branding
shifts should reinforce a message of "price-competitive German
engineering."

Meanwhile, the six dealers tapped to negotiate a settlement with
VW hope to begin talks as "soon as possible," said Jason Kuhn,
head of the Dealer Investment Committee, an offshoot of the dealer
council, and chairman of Kuhn Automotive Group in Tampa, Fla.

The group was formed to seek compensation for losses incurred by
dealers and reduce the risk that breakaway dealers will sue VW.

On Wednesday, April 6, Napleton Automotive Group broke rank with
dealer council leaders and sued VW on behalf of its three VW
dealerships.   The suit, which seeks class action status, alleges
VW defrauded dealers by rigging diesel vehicles and also claims VW
violated various state and federal laws designed to protect
dealers.


VW CREDIT: "Ballew" Suit Transferred from D. Mont. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Will Ballew, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. VW Credit, Case No. 9:15-cv-00133, was transferred
from U.S. District Court for the District of Montana, to U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
01829-CRB to the proceeding.

VW Credit provides financial products and services to automobile
dealers and customers in the United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John C. Heenan, Esq.
          BISHOP AND HEENAN
          1631 Zimmerman Trail, Ste 1
          Billings, MT 59102
          Telephone: (406) 839 9091
          Facsimile: (406) 839 9092
          E-mail: john@bishopandheenan.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Bechtold, Esq.
          Bechtold Law Firm
          PO Box 7051
          Missoula, MT 59807
          E-mail: tim@bechtoldlaw.net

The Defendant is represented by:

          Marc A. Lackner, Esq.
          REED SMITH LLP
          101 Second Street, Suite 1800
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 543 8700
          Facsimile: (415) 391 8269
          E-mail: mlackner@reedsmith.com

               - and -

          Mark D. Etchart
          BROWNING KALECZYC BERRY & HOVEN
          PO Box 1697
          Helena, MT 59624-1697
          Telephone: (406) 443 6820
          Facsimile: (406) 443 6883
          E-mail: mark@bkbh.com


WEST COVINA CORPORATE: Faces "San Nicholas" Suit in Calif. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles San Nicolas, an individual, on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
West Covina Corporate Fitness, Inc., a California Corporation, and
Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. BC616304 (Cal.
Super. Ct., Los Angeles Cty., April 8, 2016), seeks to recover all
overtimes pay, wages and compensation pursuant to California Labor
Code.

The Defendant owns and operates co-ed fitness centers in
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aparajit Bhowmik, Esq.
          Kyle R Nordrehaug, Esq.
          Norman B Blumenthal, Esq.
          BLUMENTHAL NORDREHAUG AND BHOWMIK
          2255 Calle Clara
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 551 1223
          Facsimile: (858) 551 1232
          E-mail: aj@bamlawlj.com
                  Kyle@bamlawlj.com
                  norm@bamlawlj.com

               - and -

          Mauro Fiore, Jr., Esq.
          Sergio J. Puche, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF MAUROC FIORE, JR., APC
          136 E. Lemon Ave.
          Monrovia, CA 91016
          Telephone: (626) 856 5856
          Facsimile: (626) 386 5520


WORLD WRESTLING: Court Narrows Claims in Former Wrestlers' Suits
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant of the United States District
Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part World
Wrestling Entertainment, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, RUSS McCULLOUGH, a/k/a "Big Russ McCullough", RYAN
SAKODA, and MATTHEW R. WEISE, a/k/a "Luther Reigns," individually
and on behalf of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant. EVAN SINGLETON and
VITO LOGRASSO Plaintiffs, v. WORLD WRESTLING ENTERTAINMENT, INC.,
Defendant. WILLIAM ALBERT HAYNES III, Individually and on behalf
of all Others similarly situated, Plaintiffs. v. WORLD WRESTLING
ENTERTAINMENT, INC., Defendant, Case No. Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-
001074 (VLB), Lead Case, No. 3:15-cv-00425 (VLB) Consolidated
Case, 3:15-cv-01156 (VLB) Consolidated Case (D. Conn.).

Plaintiffs in the consolidated action are former wrestlers for
World Wrestling Entertainment Inc. (WWE), a Connecticut
entertainment company which produces televised wrestling
programming. Plaintiffs allege that they are either suffering from
symptoms of permanent degenerative neurological conditions
resulting from traumatic brain injuries sustained during their
employment as wrestlers for WWE or are at increased risk of
developing such conditions. Plaintiffs claim that they were
injured as a result of WWE's negligence in scripting violent
conduct and failing to properly educate, prevent, diagnose and
treat them for concussions.

Plaintiffs claim that WWE had knowledge of evidence suggesting a
link between repeated head trauma that could be sustained during
WWE events and permanent degenerative neurological conditions such
as CTE and either concealed such evidence, fraudulent or
negligently denied that it existed, or failed to disclose it in
the face of a duty to disclose. Plaintiffs allege that they relied
on such fraudulent statements or omissions to their detriment in
making decisions regarding their health. In total, plaintiffs have
asserted six claims against WWE in their Complaints, including
"Fraudulent Concealment"; (Count II) "Fraud by Omission"; (Count
III) Negligent Misrepresentation; (Count IV) Fraudulent Deceit;
(Count V) Negligence; and (Count VI) Medical Monitoring.

Currently before the Court are WWE's Motions to Dismiss the Second
Amended Complaint brought by plaintiffs Singleton and LoGrasso, in
its entirety, for failure to state a claim, as well as WWE's
similar Motions to Dismiss the Amended Complaints brought by
Plaintiff William Albert Haynes III and Plaintiffs Russ
McCullough, Ryan Sakoda and Matthew Wiese, both of which are
purported class actions.

In her Memorandum dated March 21, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/8jpwK8from Leagle.com, Judge Bryant found that, to
the extent that the harm alleged is an increased risk for
permanent degenerative neurological conditions, it is not evident
from the face of the Complaints that any plaintiff discovered the
actionable harm more than two years prior to the filing of the
instant suits. The Court also finds the statute of limitations and
repose may be tolled only as to the fraudulent omission claim and
only to the extent that the Complaint raises questions of fact as
to whether WWE owed a continuing duty to disclose, or fraudulently
concealed, information pertaining to a link between WWE wrestling
activity and permanent degenerative neurological conditions.

Plaintiffs are represented by R. Christopher Gilreath, Esq. --
chrisgil@sidgilreath.com -- GILREATH & ASSOCIATES, PLLC

They are also represented by:

     Jonas P. Mann, Esq.
     Michael A. McShane, Esq.
     AUDET & PARTNERS, LLP
     711 Van Ness Ave #500,
     San Francisco, CA 94102
     Tel: (415)568-2555

          - and -

     William M. Bloss, Esq.
     KOSKOFF, KOSKOFF & BIEDER, P.C.
     350 Fairfield Avenue
     Bridgeport, CT 06604
     Tel: (203)583-8634

          - and -

     Konstantine Kyros, Esq.
     KYROS LAW OFFICES
     1100 6th Ave., South, Suite 229B
     Naples, FL 34102
     Tel: (239)227-0804

World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. is represented by B. John
Casey, Esq. -- john.casey@klgates.com -- Christopher M. Verdini,
Esq. -- Christopher.verdini@klgates.com -- K&L Gates, LLP, Eugene
J. Podesta, Jr., Esq. -- gpodesta@bakerdonelson.com -- BAKER,
DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOVITZ, PC, Jeffrey Mueller, Esq.
-- jmueller@daypitney.com -- Jonathan B. Tropp, Esq. --
jtropp@daypitney.com -- and Thomas D. Goldberg, Esq. --
tgoldberg@daypitney.com -- DAY PITNEY LLP


ZYNGA INC: Court Enters Order of Dismissal in Securities Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California has entered
a final judgment and order of dismissal, with prejudice, in the
case captioned, IN RE ZYNGA INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION. This
Document Relates To: All Actions, Lead Case No. 3:12-cv-04007-JSC,
Consolidated with Case No. 12-CV-4048-JSC, No. 12-CV-4059-JSC.,
12-CV-4064-JSC, 12-CV-4066-JSC, 12-CV-4133-JSC, 12-CV-4250-JSC
(N.D. Cal.).

Information about the settlement is available at:

     https://www.zyngasecuritieslitigation.com/

On February 11, 2016, the Court filed an Order granting final
approval to the Settlement at the Final Approval Hearing.

The Settlement will provide $23,000,000, less fees and expenses,
to pay claims.  The Settlement Class shall mean all Persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired Zynga common stock December 15,
2011 to July 25, 2012, inclusive. Excluded from the Settlement
Class are Defendants, the Officer Defendants, the Director
Defendants, the Underwriter Defendants, the officers and directors
of Zynga during the Settlement Class Period, members of their
immediate families and their legal representatives, heirs,
successors or assigns, and any entity in which Defendants have or
had a controlling interest.

In her Final Judgment and Order dated March 18, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/KMYaOEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Corley found that the
Settlement is, in all respects, fair, just, reasonable and
adequate to the Settlement Class. Certification of the Settlement
Class for settlement purposes only is appropriate because it
satisfies the requirement of Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

Plaintiffs are represented by Nicole Catherine Lavallee, Esq. --
nlavallee@bermandevalerio.com -- BERMAN DEVALERIO, Roy Shimon,
Esq. -- Rshimon@bermandevalerio.com -- and Jeffrey M. Norton, Esq.
-- JNorton@nfllp.com -- NEWMAN FERRARA LLP

Zynga, Inc. is represented by Anna Erickson White, Esq. -
awhite@mofo.com -- Jordan Eth, Esq. - jeth@mofo.com -- Mark R.S.
Foster, Esq. -- mfoster@mofo.com -- Samuel S. Song, Esq. --
ssong@mofo.com -- MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP


* Fate of Class Actions Hang in Balance Post-Scalia
---------------------------------------------------
Arthur H. Bryant, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that the single biggest development affecting class actions -- and
many other areas of the law -- in the past three months was the
death of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.  Rarely has
the ability of so many people to obtain justice been affected so
greatly by the passing of one person.

Justice Scalia stated his views so starkly that it may be
difficult, at least in the short run, to separate the impact of
his jurisprudence from the impact of his performance.  He did not
do meek.  He powerfully advocated some substantive rights, like
the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment.  He vehemently
opposed other substantive rights, like the rights protected by the
Voting Rights Act, which he called a "perpetuation of racial
entitlement." He took strong positions on procedural issues, too -
- especially class actions.

From 2011 to 2015, Justice Scalia authored decisions in four
cases: AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes,
Comcast v. Behrend and American Express v. Italian Colors
Restaurant, which dramatically limited and, in many circumstances,
wholly eliminated the ability of injured consumers, workers and
small businesses to use class actions to hold corporate wrongdoers
accountable.  The fact that these companies could break the law
and walk away with the money -- or, as Scalia put it, the victims'
claims could "slip through the legal system" -- did not matter.
Class actions could not be used.

When this year started, three more cases seeking to limit class
actions were pending before the court.  The oral arguments in
those cases made clear, however, that because the defendants'
arguments sought to block class actions by rewriting wide swaths
of law, the court might not be willing to rule in the defendants'
favor.

In the first, Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, decided shortly before
Scalia died, the court held, 6-3, that an unaccepted settlement
offer does not make a case moot and prevent the plaintiff from
pursuing it, individually or as a class action.  The court did not
decide "whether the result would be different if a defendant
deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an
account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters
judgment for the plaintiff."  But it said "a would-be class
representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a
fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted." Scalia
dissented.

EVIDENTIARY RULES

The second, Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, was decided after Justice
Scalia passed and his vote would not have made a difference.  The
court, 6-2, said the defendant's argument for "a broad rule"
prohibiting the use of "statistical . . .  or representative
evidence" in class actions made "little sense."  It refused to
create different evidentiary rules for class actions, stating, "In
a case where . . . evidence is relevant in proving a plaintiff's
individual claim, that evidence cannot be deemed improper merely
because the claim is brought on behalf of a class."  It held the
class was properly certified, rejecting Justice Clarence Thomas's
position, in dissent, that Justice Scalia's Comcast and Wal-Mart
opinions precluded certification.
The third, Spokeo v. Robins, has yet to be decided and may be a
case in which Scalia was writing. He was particularly interested
in standing issues and strongly supported the defendants' position
at oral argument.

But his vote might not have mattered here, either.  Spokeo is
trying to bar class (and individual) actions for statutory damages
on the ground that Congress cannot "confer Article III standing
upon a plaintiff who suffers no concrete harm."  But, as several
justices emphasized at oral argument, Spokeo Inc. did harm Thomas
Robins by publishing all sorts of false information about him.
Moreover, Spokeo framed its argument to challenge not just the
class in this case, but the constitutionality of provisions in 18
different federal laws.

Whether or not Justice Scalia's death changes the result in
Spokeo, it will undoubtedly affect the actions of litigants and
the court going forward.  For the moment, defendants will stop
pushing so hard to have the court hear and further limit class
actions, and especially stop overreaching.  Campbell-Ewald and
Tyson Foods show that was a mistake, regardless of Justice Scalia.
Class action plaintiffs will be less wary of the court
-- and far less worried that the court aims to eliminate their
rights and class actions entirely.  Meanwhile, the remaining
justices will likely postpone consideration of or decline to hear
hotly disputed class action issues, seeking to avoid equally split
decisions on key issues.

Oral argument in Microsoft v. Baker, on whether plaintiffs can
appeal orders denying class certification after they voluntarily
dismiss their individual claims with prejudice, was just postponed
until next term.  And the court declined to hear Direct Digital v.
Mullins, addressing the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit's new "heightened" ascertainability requirement for class
actions.  Because a 4-4 decision affirms the result below but
makes no nationally binding law, both plaintiffs and defendants
will probably focus their activities in the jurisdictions where
they view the state high courts or federal appeals courts as
favorable.  They'll figure that, absent extraordinary
circumstances, those courts' decisions won't be reviewed until
Justice Scalia's position is filled.

When it is, the future of class actions should be much clearer.
More on that later.


* Canada's SC Tackles Class Action Multi-Jurisdictional Issues
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cristin Schmitz, writing for The Lawyers Weekly, reports that
class action and military justice appeals raise issues of
particular note to lawyers on the Supreme Court of Canada's spring
docket.

At press time, the top court's spring session was not fully
booked, with just 14 cases slated for argument beginning April 21
and none scheduled for June.

Questions on the court's menu include whether a three-year wait
for trial violates the Charter's s. 11(b) prohibition against
unreasonable trial delay, and whether judges can rectify corporate
records to reflect that a commercial transaction was intended to
occur on a tax-free basis.

Among the scheduled appeals that break new ground are twin
hepatitis C class action settlement cases out of British Columbia
and Ontario, to be heard together May 19: Endean et al. v. British
Columbia and Parsons et al. v. Ontario.

The novel issue: In order to enhance fairness, efficiency and
consistency, can superior court judges from different
jurisdictions sit together outside their provinces in order to
jointly administer multi-jurisdictional or national class action
settlements?

The judges supervising the national hepatitis C settlement in
Ontario, Quebec and B.C. agreed they had inherent jurisdiction to
do so, but those provinces' attorneys general disagreed, with
Ontario threatening to go to court to block the supervising
Ontario judge from sitting outside the province, if need be.

The Supreme Court's pronouncement on the legality of
extraprovincial hearings is expected to affect a number of class
actions.

"Class actions have introduced multi-jurisdictional issues in a
different way in Canada than we have seen before, and they call
for new solutions," explained Endean class counsel Sharon Matthews
-- smatthews@cfmlawyers.ca -- of Vancouver's Camp Fiorante
Matthews Mogerman.  "There are many cases in class actions. . .
where more than one court is involved in making important rulings,
and a high-level of co-operation -- both a spirit of co-operation
and a practical co-operation -- among the courts is necessary for
the effective and efficient adjudication of multi-jurisdictional
class actions."

The dispute arose because the provinces have failed for nearly two
decades to enact laws governing how to iron out the procedural
wrinkles of the growing number of pan-Canadian settlements.

"Although the courts have invited legislation to deal with
appropriate processes to facilitate multi-jurisdictional and
national class actions, this has not happened and it is therefore
left to the courts to fashion these processes," said Matthews' co-
counsel J.J. Camp.  "We contend that the three chief justices who
were case-managing this multi-jurisdictional class action got it
right, and that the Court of Appeal of British Columbia and the
Ontario Court of Appeal got it wrong," he said by e-mail.

In 2012, the three then-chief justices of Ontario, British
Columbia and Quebec, who were jointly supervising the
administration of the $1.1 billion national hepatitis C
settlement, were scheduled to meet in Edmonton to attend a
Canadian Judicial Council meeting.  They decided to take advantage
of that occasion by sitting together to hear concurrent motions
from class counsel from Quebec, Ontario and B.C.  Class counsel
were seeking to extend the deadline to file claims under the 1999
agreement which compensated thousands of people infected, via the
Canadian blood supply, with hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990.
(The judges were to hear arguments together, but each was to
decide separately the motion over which he had jurisdiction).

However, Ontario Attorney General John Gerretsen balked at the
joint hearing, objecting that superior court judges are barred
from sitting outside their provinces by statute, the common law,
the Constitution and the open court principle.  The late-claims
motions were therefore adjourned and argued later at separate
court hearings that culminated in conflicting decisions and the
suspension of the late-claims process.

In deciding class counsel's motions for directions from each
supervisory judge, in 2013 Ontario Chief Justice Warren Winkler,
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Robert Bauman and Quebec Superior Court
Chief Justice Fran‡ois Rolland ruled that their inherent
jurisdiction to control the court processes for hearing matters
over which their courts had personal and subject-matter
jurisdiction entitled them to sit together, outside their home
provinces, when the interests of justice required it.  The three
supervising judges rejected the assorted opposing submissions of
the attorneys general of Ontario, Quebec and B.C. -- which included
an argument that because the English common law dating back
hundreds of years prohibited judges in England from sitting
outside English borders, that law, as received in B.C. in 1858,
prohibits Canadian provincial superior court judges from sitting
outside their provinces.

Justice Matthews said "we take issue with the . . . point that
there is a common law prohibition. But if there is one, it's from
very ancient practices in the United Kingdom which are not
suitable to modern-day Canada, and . . . the Supreme Court of
Canada has said that when old rules?-- particularly old
jurisdictional rules?-- are not suitable to modern-day Canada the
courts can, and should, change them."

The attorneys general of Ontario and B.C. appealed their first-
level defeat, while Quebec did not.  The Ontario Court of Appeal
concluded that the Superior Court's inherent jurisdiction does
allow a judge to sit outside the province, but that that hearing
must be video-linked to an Ontario courtroom (which can be devoid
of counsel or the judge) to satisfy the open court principle.  For
its part, the B.C. Court of Appeal held that the common law bars a
judge from sitting extra-provincially.  However the appeal court
went on to create a legal fiction to facilitate joint extra-
provincial hearings.  Thus a hearing would be deemed to "take
place" in B.C.?-- even when the judge, the lawyers, and witnesses,
are physically located outside B.C. -- so long as the extra-
provincial elements of the hearing are electronically linked to an
open and staffed (but otherwise empty) courtroom in B.C.

Justice Matthews argues a video link "can be a means to have
greater participation across the country" but "it's not a lawful
jurisdictional foundation. It's an artifice.  And artifices
shouldn't be the basis on which you are doing it, because they are
very vulnerable.  And then if someone calls you on it, you have
had hearings that were jurisdictionally unsound.  So we want a
correct ruling . . . [that] this can be done and, if so, it should
be done, we say, in very rare circumstances, and we set out . . .
a threshold test, and then if that threshold is passed, a series
of balancing considerations as to whether it should be done."

Another pair of appeals of first impression, to be heard by the
top court April 25, has the potential to shake up the military
justice system, by striking down, as contrary to the s. 7 Charter
principles of fundamental justice, separate provisions in the
National Defence Act which empower the minister of National
Defence to appeal acquittals, stays and sentences to the Court
Martial Appeal Court (CMAC) and to appeal CMAC decisions to the
Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Cawthorne and R. v. Gagnon.

The cases are about "the recognition of prosecutorial independence
as a principle of fundamental justice," said
Lt.-Col. Jean-Bruno Cloutier, deputy director of Defence Counsel
Services.  "Is a minister of the Crown, who is not the attorney
general . . . sufficiently independent to prosecute a crime in
Canada?" explained Lt.-Cmdr. Mark Letourneau, co-counsel with
Lt.-Col. Cloutier for the three respondent military members
prosecuted for sexual offences under the Code of Service
Discipline.

If the top court agrees with the defense and the CMAC that the
minister of Defence is not independent, it "will remove the last
quasi-judicial power of the minister,. . . and that's consistent I
think, to my knowledge, with the role of all ministers of the
Crown who have an executive role, not a quasi-judicial role," said
Letourneau.

Last December in Gagnon, [2015] CMAC 2, the CMAC struck down the
Defence minister's power to launch criminal appeals to the CMAC on
the basis that reposing that quasi-judicial power in a politician,
and a member of the executive bound by Cabinet solidarity,
violates the Charter's s. 7 prohibition against depriving people
of their liberty, except in accordance with the principles of
fundamental justice -- which include prosecutorial independence.

"The minister has simply no objective institutional independence
required for the independent exercise of a function that can lead
to imprisonment of one of his employees or [the employee's]
dismissal," the CMAC reasoned, although it suspended its
declaration of invalidity for six months.

The court recognized that it is crucial "to make sure that the
discretion of the prosecution is protected from political
interference and judicial supervision," Lt.-Col. Cloutier said.

However, the prosecution contends that the court struck down the
minister's right of appeal by extending the principle of
prosecutorial independence beyond anything previously recognized
in case law, academic writing or international norms.

"Properly understood, the principle of prosecutorial independence
requires that prosecutorial decisions be made free from partisan
political considerations, as well as any other improper motives,"
Col. Bruce MacGregor, the Canadian Armed Forces' director of
military prosecutions, acknowledges in the appellant's factum. But
that principle is protected "by a number of regimes, including
applications for abuse of process and the tort of malicious
prosecution. Both the principle, and the regimes which guard the
principle, apply equally to the minister of National Defence in
the exercise of his powers under ss. 230. 1 and 245(2) of the NDA,
as they do to all public officials who exercise a prosecutorial
function."




                            *********

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  * * *