CAR_Public/160421.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 21, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 80



                            Headlines


ADLER WALLACH: "Bell" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Main" Suit Seeks Remedy Over ERISA Violation
ANTHEM INC: Bid to Access Plaintiffs' Computer Systems Denied
ARIZONA: Prisons Remain Unfit, Understaffed, Expert Reports Say
BARCLAYS PLC: Sterling LIBOR Suits Ongoing in S.D.N.Y.

BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal in USD LIBOR Suit in Calif. Remains Pending
BARCLAYS PLC: Discovery Underway in Yen LIBOR Suit in N.Y.
BARCLAYS PLC: Reached $50M Settlement in February in Forex Suit
BARCLAYS PLC: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Actions
BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Price Fixing Suits Still Pending

BARCLAYS PLC: Pension Fund Suit Over Interest Rate Swaps Pending
BARCLAYS PLC: Still Defends Actions Over Treasury Securities
BARCLAYS PLC: Updates on CDS Antitrust Action
BASF CATALYSTS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Williams" Amended Suit
BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Essure Birth Control System

BEST BUY: 8th Cir. Tosses Suit Over 2010 Earnings Report
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Mini Cooper Engine Issues Spark Class Suit
BOARDWALK VOLKSWAGEN: Faces "Archer" Class Action in Calif.
BRANCH BANKING: "Karali" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
BUCKS COUNTY: Judge Favors Ex-Convict Over Correctional Facility

CALIX INC: Enters Into Class Action Settlement
CAMALEON RECYCLING: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Wishart Awaits Ruling on Bruce Concussion Case
CAPITAL MESSENGERS: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES: Policy Discriminates Cubans, Suit Says

CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Court Denies Motion to Intervene
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gas Royalties Settlement Payment Delayed
CLICKSPARK LLC: Phase 1 Discovery in "Mills" Due Sept. 30
COLUMBUS FAMILY: Faces "Allton" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
CONAIR CORP: Court Narrows "Czuchaj" Suit Over Hair Dryer

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Set-Top Boxes
DELL WEB: 4th Cir. Sends "Carlson" Suit Back to Trial Court
EA RENFROE: "McTier" Suit Seeks Damages, Interest Under FLSA
ELECTROLUX HOME: "Grasso" Suit Moved from M.D. to S.D. Florida
EVENT PARKING: Faces "Anguelov" Suit to Recover Pay Under FLSA

FANDUEL INC: Web Bots Rake in Money, Class Suit Says
FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Female Lawyers' Class Action for $4MM
FCE BENEFIT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Excessive DUB Benefit Fees
FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH: CA Affirms Denial of Class Cert. Bid
FRANCE: Faces Class Action Over Tuition Program

GEORGIA: State Secretary Defies NVRA, Class Action Claims
GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Suit for $5BB
ILLINOIS: Withheld Health Insurance Payments, State Workers Say
INTUIT: Faces New Jersey Class Suit Over Turbo Tax
J.J. TAVERN: "Deliard" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA

JAN J. OTHO: "Haynes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
KANSAS CITY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Trash Rebate Program
KARL STORZ: "Beasley" Suit Seeks Damages Over Use of Morcellator
LINC ENERGY: Voluntary Administration Won't Impact Class Action
LOWE'S HOME: Appeals Court Interprets Statute on Sale of Heaters

LUDLOW MUSIC: Class Suit Filed Over "We Shall Overcome" Song
MCNABB LLC: "Douek" Sues Over False Advertising
MDL 2543: Status Conferences on April 20 and June 2
MDL 2591: Court Strikes Expanded Class Definitions
MDL 2672: 14 Emissions Cases Transferred to N.D. California

MDL 2672: Case Management Conference Set for April 21
MDL 2672: "Gotta" Suit vs. Porsche Cars Transferred to California
MDL 2677: "Khiran" Suit vs. Fanduel Transferred to Boston
MOORE CLEAN: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
NATIONAL LOAN: Maryland Court Revives Parts of "Jason" Suit

NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Long" Suit
NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants Class Certification in "Falco"
OAKLAND, CA: "Kahan" Sues Over Illegal Liens on Property
OSCO DRUG: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over ADHD Drug Swap
OUTLOOK AMUSEMENTS: "Crawford" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code

PAYNE & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Coble" FLSA Class Action Suit
PFIZER INC: Panel Transfers Viagra Suits to San Francisco
PILOT FLYING J: Owners Fights Order to Testify in Suit
RTG FURNITURE: Judge Limits Defendant's Production of Documents
SAGE HOSPITALITY: "Denny" PWD Suit Goes to Trial

SALDIVAR COASTAL: "Malaska" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
SANDFORD OIL: Faces "Arenas" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
SANTA CLARA, CA: Hearing on Summary Judgment Bids Reset to May 12
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Data Breach
SERVIS ONE: Faces Suit for Violation of FLSA, Md. Labor Laws

SIRIUS XM: 2nd Cir. Sends Suit Over Pre-1972 Songs to N.Y. App.
SOTHEBY'S: Artists' Bid to Collect Royalties Denied
THD AT-HOME: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
UBER TECH: San Francisco to Require Drivers to Pay $91 Fee
UBER TECH: Judge Narrows Claims in "Del Rio" Suit

UMG RECORDINGS: Court Approves $11.5 Million Ringtone Settlement
UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Appeals Court Upholds Summary Judgment
VANGUARD NATURAL: "Kaufmann" Files Suit Over Breach of Contract
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Deadline Looms for Emissions Plan
WAL-MART STORES: Court Rejects EEOC Bid to Enforce Subpoena

WELLS FARGO: "Layog" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code
WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Faces "Curtis" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Opening Brief Due June in "Banarji" Appeal
WRIGHT MEDICAL: Judge Reduces Verdict in Hip Implant Case
WW GRAINGER: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss, Summary Judgment

WWE: Former Stockholders' Class Action Dismissed
XIXON CORPORATION: "Del Valle" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wages


                            *********


ADLER WALLACH: "Bell" Sues Over Illegal Debt Collection Practices
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Bell on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, v. Adler Wallach & Associates, Inc., Travelers Casualty
and Surety Company of America and John and Jane Does Numbers 1
Through 25, Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00366 (W.D. Tex., April
13, 2016), sues over violations of Fair Debt Collection Act.

Adler Wallach & Associates, Inc. is a licensed and bonded third-
party collection agency located in 1045 West Katella Avenue Suite
230, Orange, CA 92867. Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of
America, Inc. is an insurance company based in Hartford,
Connecticut.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew T. Thomasson, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      150 Morris Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Springfield, NJ 07081-1329
      Tel: (973) 379-7500
      Fax: (973) 532-5868
      Email: andrew@sternthomasson.com


AMERICAN AIRLINES: "Main" Suit Seeks Remedy Over ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Whitney Main, Henry Schmidt, and Daniel Grentz, individually and
as representatives of a class of similarly situated persons, and
on behalf of the American Airlines, Inc., 401(k) Plan, the
Plaintiffs, v. American Airlines, Inc., Pension Asset
Administration Committee, Benefits Strategy Committee, Pension
Benefits Administration Committee, Employee Benefits Committee,
and John Does 1-90, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01033-C (N.D.
Tex., April 15, 2016), seeks remedy and other relief as a result
of Defendants' alleged unlawful conduct and mismanagement of the
401(k) Plan (formerly known as Super Saver, a 401(k) Capital
Accumulation Plan for Employees of Participating AMR Corporation
Subsidiaries), pursuant to the Employee Retirement Income Security
Act of 1974 (ERISA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants have breached their
fiduciary duties and engaged in unlawful self-dealing with respect
to the Plan, which resulted in detrimental damages to the Plan and
its participants and beneficiaries.

American Airlines is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Fort Worth, Texas. American is the
largest airline in the world, operating nearly 6,700 flights per
day to 339 locations in 54 countries.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Elton Joe Kendall, Esq.
          Jody Rudman, Esq.
          KENDALL LAW GROUP LLP
          3232 McKinney, Suite 700
          Dallas, TX 75204
          Telephone: (214) 744 3000
          Facsimile: (214) 744 3015
          E-mail: jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com
                  jrudman@kendalllawgroup.com

               - and -

          Kai H. Richter, Esq.
          Carl F. Engstrom, Esq.
          NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
          4600 IDS Center
          80 South Eighth Street
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 256 3200
          E-mail: krichter@nka.com
                  cengstrom@nka.com


ANTHEM INC: Bid to Access Plaintiffs' Computer Systems Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that in the
litigation targeting Anthem Inc. over its massive data breach, a
federal magistrate judge in San Jose has turned back the insurance
company's request for access to plaintiffs' devices that connect
to the Internet.

Anthem announced in February 2015 that hackers had broken into a
database containing as many as 80 million customer records which
included names, birthdays and Social Security numbers.  More than
100 lawsuits targeting the company with claims over the breach
have been consolidated in multidistrict litigation before U.S.
District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose.

Anthem's lawyers at Hogan Lovells had argued that the company
needed access to customers' computer systems or "forensically
sound" copies of them to determine whether their health
information had been compromised prior to the cyberattack on the
company.  Access to plaintiffs' computer systems, they wrote, was
"directly relevant to whether plaintiffs' alleged injuries were
caused by the Anthem cyberattack or by another source of
compromise."

But U.S. Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins, to whom Koh referred
Anthem's request, found that the burden of providing access to
each plaintiff's computer system outweighed any likely benefit.
"There is an Orwellian irony to the proposition," Judge Cousins
wrote, "that in order to get relief for a theft of one's personal
information, a person has to disclose even more personal
information, including an inspection of all his or her devices
that connect to the Internet."

Judge Cousins found that Anthem's request was not "proportional to
the needs of the case" as required under the discovery rules in
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which were revised late last
year.

Eve Cervantez of Altshuler Berzon, who represents the plaintiffs,
and Craig Hoover -- craig.hoover@hoganlovells.com -- of Hogan
Lovells didn't immediately respond to messages.


ARIZONA: Prisons Remain Unfit, Understaffed, Expert Reports Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hull, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
year after an agreement was supposed to improve health care in
Arizona prisons, doctors described an understaffed system in which
an inmate died with infected lesions swarmed by flies, a man who
ate his own feces was never seen by a psychiatrist, and a woman
swallowed razor blades while allegedly under constant watch.

The two physician experts on April 11, filed declarations
detailing the Arizona Department of Corrections' (ADC) alleged
lack of progress in implementing court-ordered reforms to its
health care system.  Also April 11, plaintiffs in the class action
alleging unconstitutional treatment in the state's prisons filed a
motion to enforce the stipulated agreement approved by a federal
judge in February 2015.

Inadequate health care in Arizona prisons still results in
needless deaths from treatable diseases and preventable suicides
by inmates who were not properly monitored, according to the
experts' reports.

The biggest problem is a chronic shortage of qualified doctors and
nurses, according to the statements from Dr. Pablo Stewart , a
clinical professor at the University of California, San
Francisco's School of Medicine, and Dr. Todd Wilcox , president of
the American College of Correctional Physicians.

Both doctors spent time in Arizona prisons in late 2015,
interviewing inmates and staff and reviewing patient records, in
their roles as paid experts under the settlement agreement in
Parsons v. Ryan.

"It is readily apparent that ADC has failed to comply with a
number of critically important mental health performance
measures," Stewart wrote. "This failure has already harmed a
number of ADC prisoners . . . and it creates a substantial risk of
serious future harm to others."

A "recurrent theme" in Stewart's his reviews of mental health care
in Arizona prisons since 2012 has been "that patients are not
being seen by a psychiatrist as required by their clinical
condition and by the performance measures."

"For example, in the ten full days I have spent inspecting mental
health care in seven ADC prisons, I do not believe I have ever
seen a psychiatrist," he wrote. "This is extraordinary and
completely unprecedented in my professional experience."

Medical and mental health staffing levels are below the national
standards, the experts found. The ADC provides seven psychiatrists
and 11 mental health nurse practitioners for 35,000 prisoners -- a
ratio of 1,800 to 1. A similar prison health system in Colorado
has a ratio of 531 to 1, according to Stewart.

Stewart found that since April 2015 no more than 52 percent of
psychologist positions and 49 percent of mental health nurse
practitioner positions have been filled in Arizona, and that the
position of psychiatric director has been vacant since the
settlement was approved.

"When you look at their own records, which show that for the last
year they have never had more than 60 percent of their
psychologist positions full; they've never had more than 50
percent of their mental health nurse practitioner positions full.

"When you see a problem going on for that long and not getting any
better, it suggests that perhaps someone isn't trying very hard,"
said David Fathi, director of the ACLU's National Prison Project,
in a telephone interview on April 12.

"This is a problem that all states face, and most of them have
managed to overcome it in various ways," Fathi said. "One obvious
way is that you pay people more money. If you are not getting
quality applicants for what you are paying, you raise the salary.
You make the position attractive in other ways, with flexible work
schedules. . . . This isn't rocket science, and I think if they
were properly motivated they would find ways to fill these
positions."

The shortage of mental health workers in Arizona prisons has led
to tragic and troubling incidents, Stewart said in his
declaration.

One 34-year-old prisoner, whose name was redacted, showed severe
mental health issues in July and August of 2015. Staff found him
naked in his cell, urinating and defecating on the floor and
eating his own feces.

"Throughout this period of nearly four weeks, when [he] was
displaying floridly psychotic behavior, there is no indication
that he was ever seen by a psychiatrist, evaluated for medication
changes, or considered for an inpatient level of care," Stewart
wrote. "This is shockingly deficient and far below any acceptable
standard of care."

Stewart also found that ADC did not prevent suicides even when an
inmate was supposed to be on "constant watch." One female prisoner
died after swallowing razor blades while reportedly being watched,
which "indicates a serious and lethal defect in watch procedures,"
Stewart wrote.

Dr. Wilcox found similar, dangerous problems in medical care due
to a chronic shortage of doctors and nurses.

The ADC, which has contracted with the for-profit company Corizon
to provide health care in 10 of its prisons since 2013, has 14
staff physician positions, 12.8 of which were filled in December
2015, Wilcox found. There is one physician for every 2,500 inmates
in Arizona. In a similar system in Alabama, the ratio is one
physician to every 1,700 inmates.

Again, such seemingly inadequate staffing has resulted in needless
death and suffering, Wilcox found.

A 59-year-old inmate died of liver disease in the Yuma prison,
with flies swarming around his untreated lesions, after "the
nursing staff repeatedly failed to respond to his desperate Health
Needs Requests (HNR)," Wilcox wrote.

The inmate's "condition deteriorated and his fluid retention
worsened to the point that his skin split open and became
infected. . . . [The] situation deteriorated to the point that he
was being swarmed by flies, which he reported in a HNR," Wilcox
wrote.

"The next day, 4/1/15, instead of investigating why this might be
the case in a patient with split skin that oozes serum, the nurse
instead decided that this problem did not need to be seen. The
flies were attracted to his massively infected wounds and proved
to be a harbinger of his death. He was ultimately transferred to
the hospital more than a week later, on 4/9/15, where he died."

Wilcox found three men at a prison in Tucson who had suffered
"unconscionable delays in screening and treatment for testicular
cancer."

Testicular cancer is usually curable, but in these cases delays in
care led to the death of a 42-year-old man, and the probable death
within a year of a 30-year-old man. Another inmate with testicular
cancer, 27, also received inadequate treatment and "may be the
next victim," Wilcox wrote.

Fathi said that these and other cases uncovered by the physician-
experts in Arizona are some of the most shocking he has seen in 25
years.

"I've seen a lot of prisons, and I've seen a lot of bad prison
health care, and this is among the very worst I've seen," he said.
"The bottom line is that they're still not getting adequate care
and they are getting sicker and some of them are dying as a
result."

ADC spokesman Andrew Wilder told Courthouse News that the
plaintiffs were "cherry-picking a handful of cases from an inmate
patient population in excess of 35,000, ignoring the overwhelming
majority of inmate patients who are receiving excellent health
care."

"Allegations are not evidence, and anecdotal incidents are not
evidence of substantial non-compliance," Wilder said in an email.
In the motion to enforce the settlement filed Monday, along with
the expert declarations, attorneys with ACLU Arizona and the
Arizona Center for Disability Law asked the Federal Court to order
the ADC to "develop and implement a plan to increase staffing to
levels that will assure compliance with the stipulation's
performance measures and thereby reduce the risk of serious harm
to the plaintiff class."

The plaintiffs want the ADC to "immediately submit a plan that
shows how they are going to reduce vacancies in all health care
positions to no more than 10 percent," Fathi said, and to complete
a comprehensive study of staffing needs.

If the ADC continues to fall short of the goals outlined in the
settlement agreement, the plaintiffs could ask the court to order
a federal takeover the state's prison system, Fathi said.

"I think that if ADC's intransigence continues, and if they
continue to be unable or unwilling to fix their broken health care
system, that that is a very possible outcome."

ADS spokesman Wilder called that an attempt to "sidestep the
Parsons stipulation."

"The Department of Corrections is strongly committed to providing
high-quality health care to its inmate population," Wilder wrote
in the email. "We firmly disagree with the plaintiffs' allegations
and attempt to sidestep the Parsons stipulation and re-litigate
the lawsuit. We are confident that the court will agree when these
issues are presented for judicial resolution."

The ADC budget for health care increased from $125 million in
fiscal year 2015 to $142 million in 2016. This includes
"$8,072,000 in FY 2016 for a $0.63 increase to the per diem to
change the scope of the health care contract to meet the
stipulation agreement for the Parsons v. Ryan lawsuit," according
to the ADC's Fiscal Year 2016 Appropriations Report.


BARCLAYS PLC: Sterling LIBOR Suits Ongoing in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
proceedings are ongoing in two class action lawsuits over Sterling
LIBOR.

In May 2015, a putative class action was commenced in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York against BBPLC
and other Sterling LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff involved in
exchange-traded and over-the-counter derivatives that were linked
to Sterling LIBOR. The complaint alleges, among other things, that
BBPLC and other panel banks manipulated the Sterling LIBOR rate
between 2005 and 2010 and, in so doing, committed CEA, antitrust,
and RICO violations. Proceedings are ongoing.

In January 2016, an additional putative class action concerning
Sterling LIBOR was commenced in the SDNY against BBPLC and BCI, as
well as other Sterling LIBOR panel banks. This additional class
action similarly alleges manipulation of the Sterling LIBOR rate
between 2005 and 2010, and asserts claims for violations of the
CEA, antitrust, and RICO statutes, as well as common law
violations. Proceedings are ongoing.

Meanwhile, the Company disclosed that an individual action was
commenced in February 2013 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against BBPLC and other panel bank
defendants. The plaintiff alleged that the panel bank defendants
conspired to increase USD LIBOR, which caused the value of bonds
pledged as collateral for a loan to decrease, ultimately resulting
in the sale of the bonds at a low point in the market. The panel
bank defendants moved to dismiss the action, and the motion was
granted in April 2015. In June 2015, the plaintiff sought leave to
file a further amended complaint; that motion is pending.


BARCLAYS PLC: Appeal in USD LIBOR Suit in Calif. Remains Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal
from a court decision in a class action complaint in the US
District Court for the Central District of California remains
pending.

In July 2012, a purported class action complaint in the US
District Court for the Central District of California was amended
to include allegations related to USD LIBOR and names BBPLC as a
defendant. The amended complaint was filed on behalf of a
purported class that includes holders of adjustable rate mortgages
linked to USD LIBOR.

In January 2015, the court granted BBPLC's motion for summary
judgment and dismissed all of the remaining claims against BBPLC.
The plaintiff has appealed the court's decision to the US Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

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


BARCLAYS PLC: Discovery Underway in Yen LIBOR Suit in N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that discovery
is continuing in a Japanese Yen LIBOR class action case in New
York.

A class action was commenced in April 2012 in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York against BBPLC and
other Japanese Yen LIBOR panel banks by a plaintiff involved in
exchange-traded derivatives. The complaint also names members of
the Japanese Bankers Association's Euroyen Tokyo Interbank Offered
Rate (Euroyen TIBOR) panel, of which BBPLC is not a member. The
complaint alleges, amongst other things, manipulation of the
Euroyen TIBOR and Yen LIBOR rates and breaches of the CEA and US
Sherman Antitrust Act between 2006 and 2010.

In March 2014, the court dismissed the plaintiff's antitrust
claims in full, but sustained the plaintiff's CEA claims. The
plaintiff moved for leave to file a third amended complaint adding
additional claims, including a RICO claim, which was denied in
March 2015.

The Plaintiff has sought an immediate appeal of that decision, and
that request is pending. Discovery is continuing.

In July 2015, a second class action concerning Yen LIBOR was filed
in the SDNY against BPLC, BBPLC and BCI. The complaint names
members of the Yen LIBOR panel, the Euroyen TIBOR panel, and
certain of their affiliates and brokers. The complaint alleges
breaches of the US Sherman Antitrust Act and RICO between 2006 and
2010 based on factual allegations that are substantially similar
to those in the April 2012 class action.

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


BARCLAYS PLC: Reached $50M Settlement in February in Forex Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that BBPLC and
BCI have reached settlements of $384 million in September 2015 and
$50 million in February 2016 in separate actions over alleged
manipulation of foreign exchange markets.

Civil Actions in respect of Foreign Exchange

Since November 2013, a number of civil actions have been filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs alleging manipulation of
Foreign Exchange markets under the US Sherman Antitrust Act and
New York state law and naming several international banks as
defendants, including BBPLC.

In February 2014, the SDNY combined all then-pending actions
alleging a class of US persons in a single consolidated action.
Settlements have been agreed with certain proposed classes of
plaintiffs in the consolidated class action subject to court
approval. The remaining proceedings are ongoing.

Since February 2015, several additional civil actions have been
filed in the SDNY on behalf of proposed classes of plaintiffs
alleging injuries related to Barclays' alleged manipulation of
Foreign Exchange rates and naming several international banks as
defendants, including BPLC, BBPLC and BCI. One of the newly filed
actions asserts claims under the US Employee Retirement Income
Security Act (ERISA) statute and includes allegations that are
duplicative of allegations in the other cases, as well as
additional allegations about Foreign Exchange sales practices and
ERISA plans. Another action was filed in the Northern District of
California on behalf of a putative class of individuals that
exchanged currencies on a retail basis at bank branches.

Recent Developments

In September 2015, BBPLC and BCI settled with certain proposed
classes of plaintiffs in the consolidated action for $384 million
subject to court approval.

In addition, in November 2015 and December 2015, two additional
civil actions were filed in the SDNY on behalf of proposed classes
of plantiffs alleging injuries based on Barclays' purported
improper rejection of customer trades through Barclays' Last Look
system.

In February 2016, BBPLC and BCI agreed a settlement with
plaintiffs in one of the actions on a class-wide basis subject to
court approval. The amount of the proposed settlement is $50
million.  In February 2016, the plaintiffs in the second action
voluntarily dismissed their claims.

Claimed Amounts/Financial Impact

Aside from the settlements, the financial impact of the actions
described on the Group or what effect that they might have upon
the Group's operating results, cash flows or financial position in
any particular period is currently uncertain.


BARCLAYS PLC: Still Defends ISDAFIX-Related Actions
---------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that BPLC and
BCI continue to defend class actions related to ISDAFIX.

Since September 2014, a number of ISDAFIX related civil actions
have been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York on behalf of a proposed class of plaintiffs,
alleging that BBPLC, a number of other banks and one broker,
violated the US Sherman Antitrust Act and several state laws by
engaging in a conspiracy to manipulate the USD ISDAFIX. A
consolidated amended complaint was filed in February 2015.

It is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the
financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what
effect that they might have upon the Group's operating results,
cash flows or financial position in any particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Gold Price Fixing Suits Still Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
proceedings are ongoing in civil actions in respect of the so-
called Gold Fix.

Since March 2014, a number of civil complaints have been filed in
US Federal Courts, each on behalf of a proposed class of
plaintiffs, alleging that BBPLC and other members of The London
Gold Market Fixing Ltd. manipulated the prices of gold and gold
derivative contracts in violation of the CEA, the US Sherman
Antitrust Act, and state antitrust and consumer protection laws.
All of the complaints have been transferred to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York and consolidated for
pre-trial purposes. In April 2015, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the claims. Proceedings are ongoing.

It is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the
financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what
effect that they might have upon the Group's operating results,
cash flows or financial position in any particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Pension Fund Suit Over Interest Rate Swaps Pending
----------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company is defending a class action by a retirement and pension
fund related to interest rate swaps.

In November 2015, an antitrust class action was filed against
BPLC, BBPLC, BCI and other financial institutions in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York by a US
retirement and pension fund. The complaint alleges that the
defendants that act as market makers for certain types of
derivatives and Tradeweb conspired to prevent the development of
exchanges for interest rate swaps (IRS) and demands unspecified
money damages, treble damages and legal fees. The plaintiff claims
to represent a class of buy-side investors that transacted in
fixed-for-floating IRS with defendants in the US from 1 January
2008 to the present, including other retirement funds, university
endowments, municipalities, corporations and insurance companies.

It is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the
financial impact of the action described on the Group or what
effect it has upon the Group's operating results, cash flows or
financial position in any particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Still Defends Actions Over Treasury Securities
------------------------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend class action complaints related to the
sale of Treasury securities.

Numerous putative class action complaints have been filed in US
Federal Courts against BCI and other financial institutions that
have served as primary dealers in US Treasury securities. The
complaints have been or are in the process of being consolidated
in the Federal Court in New York. The complaints generally allege
that defendants conspired to manipulate the US Treasury securities
market in violation of US federal antitrust laws, the CEA and
state common law. Some complaints also allege that defendants
engaged in illegal "spoofing" of the US Treasury market. The Group
is considering the allegations in the complaints and is keeping
all relevant agencies informed.

It is not currently practicable to provide an estimate of the
financial impact of the actions described on the Group or what
effect that they might have upon the Group's operating results,
cash flows or financial position in any particular period.


BARCLAYS PLC: Updates on CDS Antitrust Action
---------------------------------------------
Barclays PLC and Barclays Bank PLC said in their Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 1,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
European Commission and the U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust
Division commenced investigations into the Credit Default Swap
(CDS) market, in 2011 and 2009, respectively. In December 2015 the
Commission announced its decision to close its investigations in
respect of BBPLC and 12 other banks.

The Commission continues to pursue its case in respect of Markit
Ltd. and ISDA, which could indirectly expose BBPLC to financial
loss. The case relates to concerns about actions to delay and
prevent the emergence of exchange traded credit derivative
products.

The DOJ-AD's investigation is a civil investigation and relates to
similar issues.

In September 2015, BBPLC settled a proposed, consolidated class
action that had been filed in the US alleging similar issues for
$178 million subject to court approval.

Aside from the settlement, it is not currently practicable to
provide an estimate of the financial impact of the actions
described on the Group or what effect that they might have upon
the Group's operating results, cash flows or financial position in
any particular period.


BASF CATALYSTS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss "Williams" Amended Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jose L. Linares of the United States District Court
for the District of New Jersey denied Defendants' motions to
dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint in the case
captioned, KIMBERLEE WILLIAMS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. BASF
CATALYSTS LLC, et al., Defendant, Case No. 11-1754 (JLL) (JAD)
(D.N.J.).

The putative class action was commenced on March 28, 2011 with the
filing of a Class Action Complaint. Plaintiffs filed a First
Amended Class Action Complaint (FAC) on August 4, 2011, alleging
violation of the New Jersey Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (NJ RICO), fraud, fraudulent concealment, civil
conspiracy, fraud upon the court, unjust enrichment, and violation
of New York Judiciary Law Sec. 487. Defendants moved to dismiss,
and on December 12, 2012, United States District Court Judge
Stanley R. Chesler granted the motions and dismissed the FAC in
its entirety.

Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of three claims: fraud,
fraudulent concealment, and violation of NJ RICO. The Third
Circuit found that New Jersey law applied and that the parties
waived their right to argue otherwise. Substantively, the Third
Circuit affirmed the District Court's dismissal of the NJ RICO
count, but reversed with respect to the fraud and fraudulent
concealment claims, concluding that the FAC properly alleged the
requisite elements -- namely that BASF and Cahill lied about and
destroyed the asbestos evidence to plaintiffs' detriment.

On June 25, 2015, United States Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson
held a status conference and permitted Plaintiffs to amend their
complaint in accordance with the Third Circuit opinion and
mandate. On July 16, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended Class
Action Complaint (SAC) alleging three counts -- fraudulent
concealment, fraud, and civil conspiracy -- and seeking equitable
and compensatory relief.

Cahill, Halket, and Dornbusch move to dismiss the fraudulent
concealment claim. Cahill and Halket primarily argue the first
element is not satisfied, and claim that in 1984, when the alleged
spoliation occurred, Defendants did not have a duty to preserve
evidence as it pertains to Plaintiffs in the action.
Alternatively, the individual Defendants put forth the following
arguments in support of dismissal: the SAC does not allege that
Mr. Dembrow worked on talc matters when spoliation occurred; the
claim against Mr. Halket rests on naked speculation and conclusory
allegations; and the SAC fails to allege that Mr. Dornbusch
withheld, altered, or destroyed any evidence, intentionally or
otherwise.

In his Opinion dated April 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/CBTzjEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Linares found as
already decided by the Third Circuit, Plaintiffs have sufficiently
stated a claim under Rosenblit for fraudulent concealment and that
Plaintiffs have adequately states a claim against the individual
Defendants.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey M. Pollock, Esq. --
jmpollock@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP

They are also represented by:

     Michael Coren, Esq.
     Christopher Michael Placitella, Esq.
     Jared Michael Placitella, Esq.
     COHEN PLACITELLA & ROTH
     127 Maple Ave.
     Red Bank, NJ 07701

BASF Catalysts LLC is represented by Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. --
Orlofsky@blankRome.com -- and David C. Kistler, Esq. --
Kistler@BlankRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP


BAYER INC: Faces Class Action Over Essure Birth Control System
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zoe McKnight, writing for thestar.com, reports that a form of
permanent birth control for women, tiny metal coils implanted in
the Fallopian tubes, is the subject of thousands of complaints to
North American health regulators.

The device, known as the Essure Permanent Birth Control System is
sold in countries around the world, including Canada, as a less
invasive alternative to having a woman's tubes tied.  Approved in
Canada in 2001, Essure is far less common here but is at the
centre of a potential class-action lawsuit involving more than 100
women, many of whom say they had hysterectomies to remove the
coils.

A Health Canada safety review, ordered in November 2015, follows
one conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.  The FDA
announced in March it would require a new, mandatory clinical
study; a new patient checklist to ensure women are aware of
potential risks; and a new so-called "black box" warning label
making those risks clear.

The FDA has recommended the Essure packaging indicate some
patients have reported "adverse events, including perforation of
the uterus and/or Fallopian tubes, intra-abdominal or pelvic
device migration, persistent pain, and allergy or hypersensitivity
reactions," and note that some "reported events resulted in device
removal that required abdominal surgery."
A final report from Health Canada is expected in May.

A class-action lawsuit was filed in October 2015 at the Court of
Queen's Bench for Saskatchewan against global pharmaceutical giant
Bayer, which manufactures the device.  More than 110 Canadian
women have contacted Merchant Law Group about the lawsuit.

The statement of claim alleges that Bayer Inc., Bayer Corp. and
Bayer Health Care LLC were collectively negligent by: failing to
adequately test the device in a way that would "fully disclose the
magnitude of the risks associated with use," and that failing to
properly develop and test Essure increased the risk of side
effects including "infections, perforated organs, implant
migration, pelvic pain and autoimmune disorders."

The statement of claim also alleges Bayer failed to provide
adequate safety data to Health Canada with respect to Essure and
argues the company continues to market Essure "in spite of
overwhelming evidence that the products are not reasonably fit for
use."

The claim states Bayer failed to provide adequate warnings of
potential side effects to patients or physicians, and that Bayer
attempted to conceal the adverse effects of Essure from regulatory
authorities, the medical community and the public.  The claim
alleges Bayer failed to adequately train implanting doctors on how
to insert Essure and provided implanting doctors with no training
on how to remove the coils if they were to migrate.

The statement of claim describes the side effects of two
representative plaintiffs as sharp or severe pelvic pain, hair
loss, bloating, cramping and heavy menstrual bleeding.  Both
representative plaintiffs underwent hysterectomies to remove
Essure; the claim states their symptoms improved within weeks of
having it removed.

The claims have not been proven in court.  Bayer Inc., the
Canadian division of Bayer HealthCare AG, headquartered in
Germany, declined an interview request but provided a statement to
the Star on April 14 that read: "Essure is a highly effective
permanent contraception option with a positive safety profile for
women who want a non-surgical method of permanent contraception.
"Patient safety is Bayer's top priority.  Bayer continuously
collects, analyzes and reports all adverse event data it receives
and works closely with health authorities worldwide, including the
FDA and Health Canada, in monitoring the safety profile of Essure.

"As a matter of policy, Bayer does not comment on active
litigation."

Regina-based lawyer Tony Merchant, whose firm is leading the
lawsuit, expects the class action to be certified by a judge later
this year.

THE PROMISE OF ESSURE

The method for implanting Essure is less invasive than tubal
ligation, the more common surgery where Fallopian tubes are
surgically sealed or snipped.

That requires a general anesthetic and an incision through the
abdomen and renders women sterile about 99 per cent of the time,
according to the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of
Canada (SOGC), a professional society of 3,500 members
representing reproductive health practitioners.  Essure, on the
other hand, is inserted in both Fallopian tubes through the cervix
using a disposable catheter, guided by a tiny medical camera
called a hysteroscope.

The outpatient procedure requires nothing more than a trip to a
doctor's office, a mild sedative and 10 minutes.

"Essure is over 99 per cent effective at permanently preventing
pregnancy," a Bayer website says.

California-based Conceptus, Inc. ran the clinical trials and
manufactured Essure until 2013, when that company was bought by
Bayer. The clinical trials submitted to Health Canada as part of
the approval process included the possible side effects at rates
of less than four per cent: coil expulsion and organ perforation -
- when an organ wall is penetrated; abdominal pain; cramping and
pain during sex; severe pelvic or abdominal pain; severe cramps;
bloating and heavy bleeding.

How Conceptus conducted the trials has also been called into
question.

Some of the original participants have become vocal critics of
Essure, testifying at an FDA panel hearing in September their
experiences were not recorded properly or even altered to produce
more positive feedback.

The FDA also investigated allegations that Conceptus had altered
reporting forms used during the trials in order to edit out
negative or painful reactions.  The claims were made by a Florida-
based law firm in a "citizen petition," an application allowing
Americans to ask the FDA to pull a device from the market.

The FDA found that while 268 modifications had been made to the
trial records, that represented less than 1 per cent of the trial
data and determined no pattern of changing the reports in a way
that favored the device.

Bayer says about 750,000 women, mostly in the U.S., have Essure.
Since the device was approved in the U.S. in 2002, the FDA has
received almost 10,000 complaints through its self-reporting
database for symptoms including pain and bleeding.

Under U.S. law, manufacturers are shielded from liability for
personal injury if their device came to market through the FDA's
stringent pre-market approval process, called the agency's gold
standard because it requires companies to prove a device's safety
and efficacy before it can be sold in the States.  In Canada,
where Essure has been approved for sale since 2001, companies have
no such immunity.

Marlee Scott, a 27-year-old mother of four in Barrie and one of
the potential members of the Canadian class-action lawsuit, was 26
years old when she had a hysterectomy to remove the Essure coils
put in place by a gynecologist three months earlier. She was
relieved.

Ms. Scott has four sons: the eldest is 7 and the youngest a one-
year-old. Scott delivered all four of her children without an
epidural.  After she had Essure inserted last June on the advice
of a doctor, she experienced pain so severe that her family doctor
prescribed painkillers.

"I was in tears because of the pain that I was in," Ms. Scott
says.

She told the Star her other symptoms included her hair falling out
in chunks, aching joints, so much bloating a neighbor asked if she
was pregnant again, and "non-stop" menstrual bleeding. She had the
Essure coils removed in August 2015.

"I didn't want to get a hysterectomy at 26 or at all in my entire
life," Scott says.  "I told my doctor, 'I've been on pain meds for
the past three months. I want it out.'"

"I look at it like it's over with and I'm not suffering any
more."

The lawyer Merchant says "the vast majority" of the women in the
lawsuit have had hysterectomies to remove the device.

"We think there may be a great many people with this problem," Mr.
Merchant says.  "We only get a sense of the danger of these
products over time as the numbers add up."

Because it's permanent, no removal protocol exists, says Dr. John
Thiel, who sits on a medical advisory board for Bayer, which is
now working on a training video to show surgeons their method for
removing the device.  Dr. Thiel was a consultant for Conceptus,
though not involved in the original clinical trials.  He says he
receives no money and his participation on the board is voluntary.

Health regulators keep track of devices once they are on the
market, monitor scientific literature as well as national and
international adverse event reporting, Health Canada spokeswoman
Maryse Durette told the Star in an email.  A February 2015 review
of Essure acknowledged adverse events had been reported but
"confirmed the overall benefits of the product."

Health Canada has received 24 reports of symptoms and side effects
suspected to be related to Essure.  Under medical device
regulations, manufacturers are required to report to Health Canada
when a device is believed to have failed or contributed to the
serious deterioration of a patient's health.  Like the FDA, Health
Canada does not verify the adverse event reports.

"The most commonly reported side effects included those already
indicated on the label, such as: pain, cramping, bleeding,
bloating, nausea, fatigue and vomiting.  There were no deaths
associated with any of these 24 reports," Health Canada said in a
statement.

Between 2002 and 2015, the FDA received 9,900 adverse event
reports through its Manufacturer and User Facility Device
Experience (MAUDE) database, which is also part of the monitoring
process.

Seven out of 10 of those reports involved pain, according to an
FDA overview of the reported problems; other symptoms include
bleeding, weight gain, nickel sensitivity and device migration.
The FDA received 631 reports of pregnancies, around half of which
allegedly ended in miscarriage.

The MAUDE website notes the reports, submitted by women, their
doctors or by Bayer, are unverified by the FDA and some may be
incomplete or duplicated.  Regulators are alerted to possible
trends and potential device-related safety issues.

A sharp increase in recent years of complaints through the MAUDE
database and on social media -- a Facebook page dedicated to
Essure problems now has nearly 29,000 members -- led the FDA to
call the panel hearing.  A report released in March called for the
black box label and new studies.

The American controversy is what in part prompted the review at
Health Canada.

"Given new information that was brought to our attention and FDA
activity, Health Canada is currently carrying out a followup
safety review of the Essure system, before reaching a final
conclusion on the potential risk and the need for further risk
management measures," Health Canada spokesman Eric Morrissette
said in a statement to the Star late last year.

ESSURE IN CANADA

SOGC president Dr. Margaret Burnett is aware of recent questions
regarding the safety of Essure and says her organization is
monitoring the process.

"The currently available evidence suggests that complications are
rare," Dr. Burnett says.

Only a handful of hospitals in Ontario provide the procedure,
including Women's College Hospital in Toronto, McMaster University
in Hamilton and Barrie's Royal Victoria Hospital and one in
Ottawa.

Dr. Thiel, the head of obstetrics, gynecology and reproductive
sciences at the University of Saskatchewan, was one of the first
doctors to introduce Essure to Canadians.  He says while the
procedure is available across Canada, the uptake has been slow
everywhere but Saskatchewan where it is the "procedure of choice."
He estimates he has done around 1,500 procedures there.
While many women have been vocal in their concerns, Dr. Thiel says
thousands of others are happy with Essure.

"Not all (doctors) have done a good job in talking to, and
addressing the concerns of the dissatisfied patients, and that has
led to many of the complaints," Dr. Thiel says.

"The answer is not to remove a product that is safer, less risk
and has a significantly lower failure rate than other
(contraceptive) methods, the answer is to address patient concerns
with empathy and understanding," he says.

Marci Marner, 39, of Regina, approached Merchant in 2014 about a
lawsuit and is now a member of the class action.  The mother of 14
children through a blended family had Essure inserted in 2004. She
says she went to the emergency room the next night for pelvic pain
and was sent home with antibiotics.

In the decade that followed, she alleges she developed shingles,
autoimmune disorders, heavy and irregular periods, a rare vascular
disease and pelvic collapse.  Before Essure, she had no allergies,
endometriosis or other conditions, Ms. Marner says.

Her left Fallopian tube was removed in 2005 after imaging
allegedly showed the coil was misplaced. But she claims the coil
itself was not removed, remaining lodged in her bowel, which she
says was discovered in 2014 when she underwent surgery to remove
the right coil.

Ms. Marner says she was referred to specialists for her various
conditions but none would link her symptoms to Essure. Frustrated,
she sought a lawyer.

"No one believed Essure was doing this to any of us," Ms. Marner
says.  "We were treated like we were hysterical women."
A judge will now determine whether the lawsuit meets the criteria
for a class action in Canada.

In the GTA, only three physicians offer the procedure, which take
place at Women's College Hospital, says Dr. Lisa Allen, the
hospital's site chief of gynecology.  She says Women's College
plans to continue offering Essure in accordance with SOGC
guidelines and FDA recommendations.

"We still believe in providing this as a safe and effective less-
invasive option as long as it's approved for use in Canada,"
particularly for women who aren't good candidates for tubal
ligation surgery, says Dr. Allen.

Since 2013, 42 patients have had Essure insertions.  None have had
their coils removed at Women's College Hospital, says Dr. Allen.
She declined to comment on whether any of those patients had
experienced negative side effects, citing patient confidentiality.

Physicians are now having a "much more fulsome discussion with
patients about the risk-benefit profile," of Essure, says
Dr. Ally Murji, an assistant professor of minimally invasive
gynecologic surgery at the University of Toronto who is trained in
the procedure. Tubal ligation surgery still carries a greater
potential risk, he added.

"We were always getting proper informed consent, but since this
whole controversy we are being far more vigilant in documenting
and going through all of those risks," Dr. Murji says.


BEST BUY: 8th Cir. Tosses Suit Over 2010 Earnings Report
--------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Best Buy shareholders cannot sue the electronics retailer for
claims that it misled investors by saying its earnings were "on
track" for 2011, a divided Eighth Circuit ruled.

A class of consumers led by the IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund sued
the consumer electronics giant in 2011, claiming Best Buy
executives lied about the state of the company in 2010 and
inflated stock prices before a 14 percent decline three months
later.

In a September 2010 press release and conference call, Best Buy
executives said that the company was "on track" to deliver
earnings of $3.55-$3.70 per share for 2011.

But Best Buy's quarterly earnings released in December did not
paint such a rosy picture. After "lower than expected" third
quarter sales, Best Buy reduced its earnings guidance to $3.20-
$3.40, court records show. The company's market cap allegedly fell
$6.3 billion on high trading volume.

A federal judge ruled that the statements made in the company's
press release were not actionable because they were forward-
looking and accompanied by cautionary language, but granted class
certification on the executives' statements in the follow-up call.

However, the Eighth Circuit reversed the class certification
ruling Tuesday in a victory for Best Buy.

The consumers' own expert presented strong evidence that the
statements did not impact Best Buy's share price, Judge James
Loken said, writing for the panel's 2-1 majority.

"[Bjorn] Steinholt opined that the 'economic substance' of the
non-fraudulent press release statements and the alleged
misrepresentations in the immediately following conference call
was 'virtually the same,' and that the two 'would have been
expected to be interpreted similarly by investors,'" Loken wrote.
"His event study showed that the forward-looking [earnings per
share, or EPS] guidance in the press release had an immediate
impact on [Best Buy's] market price, whereas the confirming
statements in the conference call two hours later had no
additional price impact."

Loken said that this reading is "consistent with common sense."

Simply put, "The allegedly 'inflated price' was established by the
non-fraudulent press release," not by executives' statements, the
judge wrote.

Judge Diana Murphy dissented, saying, "The majority's claim that
the company's statements during the call and in the press release
were nearly identical is factually incorrect."

The conference call also contained statements reflecting on its
performance so far in the fiscal year, whereas the press release
focused on its increase in EPS guidance, Murphy wrote.

The case is captioned, IBEW Local 98 Pension Fund, et al.
Plaintiffs - Appellees v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al  Defendants -
Appellants, No. 14-3178 (8th Cir.)


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Mini Cooper Engine Issues Spark Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
David A. Wood, writing for CarComplaints.com, reports that alleged
MINI Cooper engine problems have caused a proposed
class-action lawsuit that names the 2009-2014 MINI Cooper as the
problematic cars that contain a defect concerning the lubrication
of the engines.

The MINI Cooper engine lawsuit alleges the cars are defective
because their seals are made of a material that is prone to
cracking.  When the seals crack, fluids intended to lubricate the
engine leak out of the system, which then causes overheating and
engine damage.

The MINI Cooper engine lubrication system is comprised of the oil
filter housing unit, gaskets, valve covers, oil filter, oil pumps,
oil feed lines, oil pan, valves and seals.

The plaintiff claims the cars suffer from design or manufacturing
defect(s) that cause the engine lubrication system's components,
including the oil filter housing unit, oil pump, and vacuum pump
assemblies, to abnormally wear at the seals and leak engine oil.

The plaintiff alleges BMW knew, or should have known about the
defects since 2011 but failed to disclose the defect and actively
concealed it.

According to the complaint, a serious safety hazard exists because
the car can suddenly lose oil pressure during operation and
require immediate shut-off or cause the engine to overheat.

The lawsuit references numerous technical service bulletins (TSB)
that were sent to MINI dealers concerning the alleged defects in
the engine lubrication system.

For example, on or about June 1, 2012, BMW issued TSB 11-03-12
covering 2005-2013 Mini Cooper vehicles, informing its dealers the
"engine oil pan gasket replacement should no longer be used due to
[sic] sealing flange becoming deformed."

On or about January 1, 2014, BMW issued TSB 11-01-12, covering
2005-2013 Mini Cooper cars, informing its dealers that "an oil
leakage may occur, due to the compromised oil pump volume control
solenoid valve."

On April 14, 2014, BMW issued TSB 11-01-14, covering 2014 Mini
Cooper and Mini Cooper S vehicles, informing dealers that "the oil
filter housing assembly must be replaced."  The TSB further stated
"there is a possibility that coolant leak may occur in the oil
filter housing" and "this can cause overheating, loss of power,
and an illuminated engine warning light."

On April 1, 2015, BMW issued TSB 11-03-15, covering 2011-2015 Mini
Cooper cars and informing its dealers that "some vehicles are
consuming engine oil and run poorly."  Additionally, the vehicles
are leaking oil "from cylinder head cover gasket area" in the
engine and also indicating an "engine malfunction."

Then on June 1, 2015, BMW issued TSB 11-05-15, covering 2014 Mini
Cooper cars and informing its dealer that vehicles "will
experience a loss of power, warning light for engine on,
overheating, due to a coolant leakage occurring in oil filter
housing."  Around the same time, BMW issued a second TSB 11-05-15,
covering the same vehicles, informing its dealers the "oil filter
housing may leak coolant which will cause overheating, activating
the engine warning light, and loss of power."

The MINI Cooper engine oil sealing lawsuit claims repairs are
needed to several components within the system, including the oil
filter housing unit, oil filter gaskets, oil filter cover, oil
pump, oil feed lines, oil pan, valves, and seals.

As a result of the alleged defect, consumers will be required to
pay hundreds, if not thousands of dollars to repair or replace the
oil filter housing unit, oil filter gaskets, oil filter cover, oil
pumps, oil feed lines, oil pan, valves, and seals.

The MINI Cooper engine lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California -- Joshua Borkman v.
BMW of North America, LLC.

The plaintiff is represented by Capstone Law APC.


BOARDWALK VOLKSWAGEN: Faces "Archer" Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Julie Archer, an individual and on behalf all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Boardwalk Auto Center Inc., d/b/a
Boardwalk Volkswagen; VW Credit Leasing Ltd and Does 1 through
500, inclusive, Defendant, Case No. CIV538139 (Cal. Super., April
12, 2016), seeks (i) rescinding of her lease for violation of the
California Vehicle Leasing Act, (ii) reasonable attorney's fees,
(iii) costs and expenses, and such other and further relief.

Boardwalk Auto Center Inc., a California Corporation, d/b/a
Boardwalk Volkswagen is engaged in the business of buying,
repairing and re-selling used vehicles to the general public,
taking vehicles in trade. It failed to properly disclose the terms
of the drive off to the Plaintiff, says the complaint.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, PLC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Tel: (650) 341-0300
      Fax: (650) 403-1783


BRANCH BANKING: "Karali" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Karali and Gregory Shelley, on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Branch Banking
and Trust Company, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-02093-FLW-TJB (D.N.J., April 15, 2016), seeks damages
in the amount of all unpaid overtime compensation owed to
themselves, liquidated damages as provided by the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA), interest, and such other legal and equitable
relief as the Court deems just and proper.

According to the complaint, the Defendants have steadfastly
refused to pay their in-house appraisers any overtime compensation
in willful violation of the FLSA and state wage and hour
protections.

Branch Banking, through its subsidiaries, provides personal and
business banking products and services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Patricia Barasch, Esq.
          SCHALL & BARASCH
          Moorestown Office Center
          110 Marter Avenue, Suite 302
          Moorestown, NJ 08057
          Telephone: (856) 914 9200
          Facsimile: (856) 914 9420
          E-mail: pbarasch@SchallandBarasch.com

               - and -

          Bryan J. Schwartz, Esq.
          Eduard R. Meleshinsky, Esq.
          BRYAN SCHWARTZ LAW
          1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
          Oakland, CA 94612
          Telephone: (510) 444 9300
          Facsimile: (510) 444 9301
          E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartzlaw.com
                  eduard@bryanschwartzlaw.com


BUCKS COUNTY: Judge Favors Ex-Convict Over Correctional Facility
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Wendy Bettlestone of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania ruled on the parties' motion for summary judgment in
the case DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff, v. BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA,
BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, and UNPUBLISH LLC, Defendants.
UNPUBLISH LLC, Cross Defendant BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, Cross Claimant
v. BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY RECORDS/ RECORDS CUSTODIAN
EMPLOYEES JANE AND/OR JOHN DOE #1-6, BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA,
TERRANCE P. MOORE, FRANK NOONAN and WILLIAM F. PLANTIER Cross
Defendants, Civil Action No. 12-6867 (E.D. Pa.)

On September 29, 1998, plaintiff Daryoush Taha was arrested by
members of the Bensalem Police Department and transported to the
Bucks County Correctional Facility. Personnel at the Bucks County
Correctional Facility took Taha's photograph and he was
subsequently charged with harassment, disorderly conduct, and
resisting arrest, but he was released one day later.

On January 5, 1999, Taha entered the Accelerated Rehabilitative
Disposition program. On January 31, 2000, Judge R. Barry McAndrews
of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County issued an order
directing the Clerk of Courts of Bucks County, the Bucks County
District Attorney, the district court, and the arresting agency to
expunge Taha's arrest and other criminal records, and directed
Bensalem Township to retrieve all arrest records from federal and
state agencies that had been issued the information.

In January of 2011, the Bucks County and the Bucks County
Correctional Facility created an electronic search tool or the
Inmate Lookup Tool that would retrieve data contained in the
Offender Management System (OMS) and makes it available to the
public.

In September or October of 2011, Taha discovered that his 1998
incarceration information was publicly available through the
Inmate Lookup Tool. Taha brought a putative class action suit
against, Bucks County and the Bucks County Correctional Facility,
alleging that defendants published his expunged arrest record on a
publicly available electronic search tool in violation of
Pennsylvania's Criminal History Record Information Act (CHRIA).

The parties filed motions for summary judgment. The County
defendants assert that they did not disseminate criminal history
record information as defined by CHRIA, that plaintiff is not
entitled to damages, and that plaintiff's requests for injunctive
and declaratory relief are moot. Plaintiff opposes and moves for
partial summary judgment only on the issue of liability.

Judge Bettlestone granted plaintiff's partial summary judgment and
denied defendants' motion for summary judgment.

A copy of Judge Bettlestone's memorandum opinion dated March28,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/iNSkAafrom Leagle.com.

DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff, represented by:

     ALAN E. DENENBERG, Esq.
     ABRAMSON & DENENBERG
     1315 Walnut Street, Floor 12
     Philadelphia, PA 19107
     Telephone: 215-531-5011
     Facsimile: 215-546-5355

DARYOUSH TAHA, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN SHUB --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- at KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC;SCOTT A. GEORGE --
sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- at SEEGER WEISS

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, Defendant, represented by FRANK A.
CHERNAK -- chernakf@ballardspahr.com -- BURT M. RUBLIN --
rublin@ballardspahr.com -- ERIN K. CLARKE --
clarkee@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
LLP

BUCKS COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, Defendant, represented by
FRANK A. CHERNAK -- chernakf@ballardspahr.com -- BURT M. RUBLIN --
rublin@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL

BENSALEM TOWNSHIP, Cross Claimant, represented by KATHRYN A. DUX
-- duxk@ggmfirm.com -- at GERMAN GALLAGHER & MURTAGH

BUCKS COUNTY PENNSYLVANIA, WILLIAM F. PLAINTIER and TERRANCE P.
MOORE, Cross Defendants, represented by ERIN K. CLARKE --
clarkee@ballardspahr.com -- at BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
LLP

FRANK NOONAN, Cross Defendant, represented by BARRY N. KRAMER, PA
OFFICE OF ATTY GENERAL


CALIX INC: Enters Into Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------
Calix, Inc. disclosed that on April 14, 2016, the parties in the
class action litigation captioned Chen v. Howard-Anderson, et al.
(C.A. No. 5878-VCL) entered into a memorandum of understanding of
a settlement in principle ("Settlement") to resolve the claims
pending before the Delaware Court of Chancery and related claims.
This litigation, relating to Calix, Inc.'s acquisition of Occam
Networks, Inc., is described in further detail in Calix's annual
report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (the "10-
K").

If the Settlement becomes final, the total settlement
consideration paid for the benefit of the settlement class would
be $35 million.  Under the Settlement terms, Calix would not be
responsible for contributing any portion of the settlement
consideration.  Calix did not previously accrue any estimated loss
in connection with this action and, as a result of the Settlement,
will not recognize any loss related to this action. Further, as
previously disclosed in Calix's 10-K, Calix incurred certain
defense costs for which its insurance carriers denied coverage.
These costs were recorded as operating expense on Calix's income
statement in the periods incurred. In connection with the
Settlement, Calix will receive approximately $4.5 million in
partial recovery of such costs.

The Settlement is subject to approval by the court of notice to
the class and settlement hearing before the court.

Calix and the defendants have denied and continue to deny each and
all of the claims alleged in the litigation, and the Settlement
does not assign or reflect any admission of fault, wrongdoing or
liability as to any defendant.


CAMALEON RECYCLING: "Alvarez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Alvarez and Yariel Tellez, individually, and other similarly
situated individuals, the Plaintiff(s), v. Camaleon Recycling
Scrap Metal Inc., a Florida Profit Corporation;
Henry J. Palacios, individually; Floriselva Fernandez,
individually, the Defendant(s), Case No. 2016-009579-CA-01 (Fla.
Cir. Ct., April 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages exceeding
$15,000 excluding attorneys' fees or costs for unpaid wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA) and the Florida Minimum Wage
Act (FMWA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were not paid at the
proper overtime rate for hours worked in excess of 40 each week,
as required by the laws of the United States and the State of
Florida.

Camaleon Recycling is a licensed and bonded freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from Miami,
Florida.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CANADIAN FOOTBALL: Wishart Awaits Ruling on Bruce Concussion Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Beamish, writing for The Province, reports that
Robyn Wishart loved the game.  As a young girl growing up in
Winnipeg, she sat in the end-zone seats at Blue Bomber games with
her parents, soaking up the the synergy between the city and its
football team.

"Swatting the bugs, cheering on Chris Walby, Chicken Delight (a
Winnipeg value lunch institution)," Ms. Wishart says.  "That's how
I grew up. I've loved the CFL my whole life."

At the University of Winnipeg, where she played intercollegiate
volleyball as Robyn Palmer, she studied sports psychology under
Cal Botterill, a renowned consultant with Canadian Olympians and
National Hockey League players.

"Sports taught me how to not let hurdles stop you from achieving
your goals," says Ms. Wishart, now a 44-year-old Vancouver lawyer
with a focus on brain and spine cases.  "It taught me the mental
strength to take on something difficult and see it through.
Commitment."

When she graduated from law school at the University of Victoria
("I wanted to be a lawyer since I was four years old"),
Ms. Wishart never imagined herself becoming the focus of a one-
woman crusade that goes beyond the usual type of cases she deals
with at the plaintiffs' bar -- car accidents, throws from a horse,
injuries from unsafe work conditions.

That changed when veteran CFL receiver Arland Bruce III --
suffering from a checklist of lingering concussion symptoms
sustained in a 2012 game while playing for the B.C. Lions --
walked into her office two years ago, "still feeling as if I'd
been in a car accident."

Unable to find work, pathologically given to daily rearranging the
furniture in his Surrey home for no apparent reason --
Mr. Bruce didn't suspect he was on the verge of initiating a
landmark case: The first claim brought against the Canadian
Football League for brain damage.

"He had nobody else to turn to," Ms. Wishart says.  "He was
alone."

In March this year, Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson of B.C.
Supreme Court finally issued a ruling in the case: Mr. Bruce, then
a member of the CFL Players' Association, should have gone through
a grievance procedure set out in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement, an option both the player and the lawyer considered "a
dead end."

Game 1 to the CFL. But not set and match.

"I got my ass kicked," Ms. Wishart admits.  "It was my fault. I
was going down the wrong (legal) path.  But, as in football, if
you're being shut down you don't come back in the second half with
the same plays.  You've got to have that athletic mentality as a
lawyer."

Now, Ms. Wishart and Mr. Bruce await a judgment from the B.C.
Court of Appeal, which is combing through the legal aspects of
Judge Hinkson's ruling.  Even if that decision goes against the
plaintiff a second time, Ms. Wishart says she's prepared to take
the case to the Supreme Court of Canada.  An Ottawa lawyer has
volunteered to take the ball if it comes to that.

"We're going all the way with this," she says.

With the Mr. Bruce case as a lightning rod, more former CFL
players are coming forward in a separate class-action lawsuit W
Ms. Wishart is spearheading in Ontario.  "Right now that's being
held up by what's happening in B.C.," she says.


CAPITAL MESSENGERS: "Johnson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Johnson, 6016 Barstow Road, Baltimore, Maryland 21206,
Resident of Baltimore County, and other similarly situated
employees their wages owed, the Plaintiff, v. Capital Messengers,
Inc., 4700 Varnum Street, Bladensburg, Maryland 20710, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01136-RDB (D. Md., April 15, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, interest,
reasonable attorneys' fees, treble damages and costs under the
Federal Fair Labor Standards (FLSA), the Maryland Wage and Hour
Law (MWHL), and the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection Law
(MWPCL).

According to the complaint, Plaintiff regularly worked in excess
of 40 hours per week. However, Defendant paid Plaintiff a daily
"flat rate" and failed to pay Plaintiff time and a half for
overtime hours worked and other compensation owed under the law.

Capital Messenger is a mail delivery service company, located in
Gaithersburg, Maryland. It transports a variety of products
including auto parts to its clients, in the Washington-Baltimore
metropolitan areas and beyond.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          George E. Swegman, Esq.
          Benjamin L. Davis, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
          36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
          Baltimore, MD 21201
          Telephone: (410) 244 7005
          Facsimile: (410) 244 8454
          E-mail: gswegman@nicholllaw.com
                  bdavis@nicholllaw.com


CARNIVAL CRUISE LINES: Policy Discriminates Cubans, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Pais, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that  a
class action claims Carnival Cruise Lines is unfairly preventing
Cubans living in Florida from traveling to their homeland to
appease the Castro government.

Carnival's Fathom small ship line is the first cruise ship company
to be granted federal approval for round-trip travel between the
United States and multiple destinations in Cuba. The first ship
sails from Miami to Cuba on May 1, 2016.

But in a lawsuit filed in Miami Federal court, plaintiffs Amparo
Sanchez and Francisco Marty say cruise line is discriminating
against them by kowtowing to Cold War-era Cuban law that prohibits
Cuban-born individuals from traveling to the island nation by sea.

"Cuban law currently prohibits Cuban nationals from traveling to
or from Cuba by ship, including cruise lines and ferries," the
April 12 complaint says.

Sanchez and Marty say that they contacted Fathom Travel earlier
this month to make reservations for its new cruise to Cuba, but
the representatives told them that they could not have a
reservation because they were Cuban nationals.

Sanchez and Marty claim that the Fathom representatives explained
to them that the cruise line had been "working on the issue for
months" with the Cuban government, and that they did not want to
lose them as customers.

Fathom Travel is a subsidiary of Carnival, which bills itself as
"The World's Most Popular Cruise Line." The parent company
operates 24 ships worldwide and welcomes 11 million passengers
aboard its vessels every year, the complaint says.

Sanchez and Marty claim that Carnival and Fathom Travel are
denying them the enjoyment of a place of public accommodation, and
that they are being discriminated due to their Cuban national
origin.

"We have requested a change in the regulation and we are actively
working the issue. This is not a decision by our Fathom brand, but
rather a Cuba decision," said Roger Frizzell, the Chief
Communications Officer from Carnival Corp.

Frizzell claims that having an active dialogue with the Cuban
government brings a better opportunity of changing the policy
rather than keeping some of the policies from previous years,
which have not brought any change.

"It is our hope and intention that everyone can travel and we will
continue to pursue a change in the regulation that puts cruising
on the same footing as aircraft travel is today in Cuba," Frizzell
said.

On April 14, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry weighed in on the
controversy during an interview with CNN en Espa¤ol and the Miami
Herald.

"Carnival needs to not discriminate," Kerry said.

"American citizens, Cuban Americans have a right to travel, and we
should not be in a situation where the Cuban government is forcing
its discrimination policy on us," he said.

Sanchez and Marty are seeking for injunctive relief on claims of
violations of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  They are
represented by Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti -- tr@kttlaw.com -- from
Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton LLP in Coral Gables, Fla.


CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA: Court Denies Motion to Intervene
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Malachy E. Mannion of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied an emergency
motion to intervene filed on behalf of Edward M. Ostroski and
Kathleen M. Ostroski and a motion for hearing on the motion to
intervene in the case captioned, DEMCHAK PARTNERS LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP; JAMES P. BURGER, JR. and BARBARA H. BURGER; WILLIAM
A. BURKE, III; EDWARD J. BURKE; DONALD G. FULLER and KAREN M.
FULLER; RANDY K. HEMERLY; LAMAR R. KING; LINDA J. SCHLICK; and
JANET C. YOUNG, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs and RUSSELL E. BURKETT and GAYLE BURKETT,
Plaintiff-Intervenors, v. CHESAPEAKE APPALACHIA, LLC, Defendant,
Case No. 3:13-2289 (M.D. Pa.).

On August 30, 2013, the Demchaks and other plaintiffs filed a
proposed class action complaint, in which they seek monetary
damages and declaratory and injunctive relief based on alleged
underpayment of royalties under common oil and gas leases entered
into by the named plaintiffs and others similarly situated in the
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The parties filed a motion for
preliminary approval of class action settlement and the court
entered an order preliminarily approving the amended class action
settlement and scheduled a final fairness hearing on October 2,
2015.

On September 12, 2013, the Burketts filed a motion to intervene in
the action, which was initially denied by memorandum and order
dated September 30, 2014. In the meantime, the Demchak plaintiffs,
the Burketts and Chesapeake engaged in a number of mediations with
various mediators, which resulted in the filing of an amended
class action settlement, and an unopposed motion by the Burketts
to intervene for settlement purposes only on December 18, 2014.

Pending before the court is an emergency motion to intervene in
the above-captioned matter filed on behalf of the Ostroskis, and a
motion for hearing on the motion to intervene.

In the Memorandum dated April 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/9WW0Chfrom Leagle.com, Judge Mannion hold that any
attempt to intervene in the matter would only act to unnecessarily
delay the proceedings which have already been delayed too long for
various other reasons. Moreover, if the court were to allow the
Ostroskis to intervene at the juncture of the proceedings, the
existing parties who have worked over the past three years to get
the matter resolved would certainly be prejudiced by the delay
caused by the Ostroskis' intervention.

Plaintiffs are represented by Alexandra C. Warren, Esq. --
Alexandra@cuneolaw.com -- Charles J. LaDuca, Esq. --
charles@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO, GILBERT & LADUCA, Charles E.
Schaffer, Esq. -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- LEVIN, FISHBEIN, SEDRAN
& BERMAN, Daniel E. Seltz, Esq. -- dseltz@lchb.com -- LIEFF
CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN LLP & Don W. Barrett, Esq. --
dbarrett@barrettlawgroup.com -- BARRETT LAW GROUP, P.A.

Chesapeake Appalachia, LLC is represented by Daniel T. Brier, Esq.
-- dbrier@mbklaw.com -- MYERS BRIER & KELLY, LLP, Daniel T.
Donovan, Esq. -- daniel.donovan@kirkland.com -- & Ragan Naresh,
Esq. -- ragan.naresh@kirkland.com -- KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Gas Royalties Settlement Payment Delayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Conti, writing for TribLive, reports that the decision by
Pennsylvania Attorney General Kathleen Kane's office to wade into
a wide-ranging legal battle over the royalties some natural gas
producers pay to leaseholders has delayed the payment of an $11
million settlement to thousands of people.

The delay prompted by Kane's lawsuit in Bradford County and a
filing in an ongoing federal case has frustrated some -- but not
all -- people with pending claims.

"The folks I hear from are not unhappy that the . . . settlement
has not gone forward," said Jackie Root, president of the
Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Royalty
Owners.

Some lawyers and landowners think the federal class-action
settlement reached among Chesapeake Energy, related companies and
lead plaintiff Demchak Partners will not make them whole, or will
hurt them financially down the road, because it allows for
continued deductions of fees from royalties.  On the other hand,
leaseholders who are still part of the class action have been
waiting for years to be paid.

"We do hear from a lot of landowners who would like to see this
move forward," said Michelle O'Brien, lead attorney for the
Demchak plaintiffs who first reached a proposed settlement in
2013.  "They deserve to get the money due to them."

As lawsuits over royalty payments pile up against shale gas
producers, disagreements are surfacing over how best to remedy the
complaints.  Most of the legal cases contain a common complaint
that the producer is improperly deducting fees from royalty
payments on gas from wells, or deducting excessive fees.

But cases differ with the types of leases people signed.  The
state court lawsuit filed by Kane's office in December and her
filing in opposition to the federal Demchak settlement raise
questions over who can benefit from which case, and how.

"There is some confusion over how a settlement or resolution of
the (attorney general's) complaint would impact the Demchak
settlement as well as some individual lawsuits," said
Robert Burnett, an attorney with Downtown firm Houston Harbaugh
who is representing leaseholders who opted out of the Demchak case
and are negotiating individual claim settlements with Chesapeake.

He noted that the law bars someone from recovering damages from
two cases involving the same claims.  "That does create some
ambiguity as to potential overlap," Mr. Burnett said.

LAWSUITS

Companies need agreements with people who own the rights to gas
below ground.  Leases with those owners specify how much they will
be paid in royalties for the gas extracted from the ground as a
percentage of what the company makes.  State law says that rate
can't be less than 12.5 percent, but it allows for deductions of
certain costs that can take the royalty to zero or less.
Individual leases might outline those deductions and costs.

Concerns over lease terms and deductions bubbled to the surface in
Pennsylvania in 2012, as the initial rush into the Marcellus shale
hit a drop in prices and royalties fell.  Oklahoma City-based
Chesapeake, the biggest shale gas producer in Pennsylvania, faced
the loudest complaints that its deductions were excessive or
improper, a claim the company has consistently denied.

In 2013, it reached the first settlement for $7.5 million with
leaseholders led by the Demchaks in their class action filed in
Scranton.  A subsequent settlement increased the pool of money to
$11 million.  It applied only to those who had specific language
in their lease called a "market enhancement clause" that
plaintiffs said prohibited certain deductions.  Ms. O'Brien said
there are thousands of people with such a lease.

Chesapeake also faces pending lawsuits from individuals, a group
of 50 people who sued in federal court in Scranton in 2015, and
multistate cases scheduled for trial in federal court in Dallas.

In the Demchak case, the judge approved the settlement and set
Dec. 17 as the deadline for leaseholders with the market
enhancement clause to opt out if they did not want to be governed
by the settlement's terms.

"Right about the time notices were going out, the AG filed,"
O'Brien said.

OVERLAP

Kane's office sued Chesapeake claiming the company's deduction
practices violated the Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer
Protection Law. Chesapeake's response to Kane's lawsuit calls the
claims "factually false, unsupported and legally deficient."

The office also filed a brief in the Demchak case opposing the
settlement.  Questions over whether that filing amounted to a
request to become a party to the case, combined with the fact that
a number of people had opted out of the settlement, prompted
further mediation between lawyers for the Demchak plaintiffs and
Chesapeake.

They are waiting for a judge to decide whether Kane's office
should participate.

"We do not believe we should be a party to the mediation in part
because we have only filed an amicus curiae brief and are not part
of the lawsuit," said office spokesman Jeff Johnson.

The office opposes the settlement because it worries it will
preclude the attorney general from seeking certain damages from
Chesapeake.

"There is some question about where that overlap is.  The AG
believes the plaintiffs in our case are affected by her case,"
said Ms. O'Brien.  That leaves the Demchak case on hold.

Kane's office widened its state court case to include Texas-based
Anadarko Petroleum and has said it would look at others.

Chesapeake is "the poster boy, but they're not alone,"
Mr. Burnett said about companies facing complaints about improper
fee deduction.

The Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County accuses Consol
Energy and Noble Energy of improper deductions in a case moved to
federal court in Pittsburgh in March.  XTO Energy faces claims
from leaseholders in Butler and Westmoreland counties.

"The royalty owners shouldn't have to fight for every nickel due
to them," said Ms. Root.  Her group is pushing for legislation to
set a more clear minimum royalty rate.  A bill is pending in the
state House.


CLICKSPARK LLC: Phase 1 Discovery in "Mills" Due Sept. 30
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Troy N. Nunley of the Eastern District of
California issued a pretrial order in the case ETTA MILLS, on
Behalf of Herself and all Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
CLICKSPARK, LLC., Defendant, No. 2:16-CV-00162-TLN-KJN (E.D. Cal.)

The judge bifurcates the discovery process. All discovery in Phase
I shall be limited to facts that are relevant to whether the
action should be certified as a class action and shall be
completed by September 30, 2016.  All motions to compel discovery
must be noticed on the magistrate judge's calendar in accordance
with the local rules of the court.

All counsel are to designate in writing, file with the court, and
serve upon all other parties the name, address, and area of
expertise of each expert that they propose to tender at class
certification not later than October 28, 2016. The designation
shall be accompanied by a written report prepared and signed by
the witness. The report shall comply with Fed. R. Civ. P.
26(a)(2)(B).

Within 20 days after the designation of expert witnesses, any
party may designate a supplemental list of expert witnesses who
will express an opinion on a subject covered by an expert
designated by an adverse party. The right to designate a
supplemental expert for rebuttal purposes only shall apply to a
party who has not previously disclosed an expert witness on the
date set for expert witness disclosure by this Pretrial Scheduling
Order. Each party shall identify whether a disclosed expert is
percipient, retained, or both.

The motion for class certification shall be filed by January 5,
2017. The parties are responsible for ensuring that all motions
are filed to allow for proper notice of the hearing under the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and/or Local Rules. Local Rule
230 governs the calendaring and procedures of civil motions with
the addition that when the last day for filing an opposition brief
falls on a legal holiday, the opposition brief shall be filed on
the last court day immediately preceding the legal holiday.
Failure to comply with Local Rule 230(c), may be deemed consent to
the motion and the court may dispose of the motion summarily.

All other necessary dates and deadlines, including dates for the
final pretrial conference and trial, along with all deadlines
associated therewith, will be set by a supplemental pretrial
scheduling order to be issued following the class certification
hearing.

The pretrial scheduling order will become final without further
order of the court unless objections are filed within 14 days of
service of the order.

A copy of Judge Nunley's pretrial scheduling order dated March 29,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/BVY4lNfrom Leagle.com.

Etta Mills, Plaintiff, represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- at Bursor and Fisher, PA

ClickSpark, LLC, Defendant, represented by Jay T. Ramsey --
jramsey@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin


COLUMBUS FAMILY: Faces "Allton" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
DEBORAH ALLTON, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. COLUMBUS FAMILY HEALTH CARE, LLC, DARNELL
HINES, SR. and LISA HINES, Defendants, Case: 2:16-cv-00326-GCS-TPK
(S.D. Ohio, April 12, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Columbus Family Health Care, LLC was founded on February 24, 2010,
and has its registered office in Westerville, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Andrew Biller, Esq.
     MARKOVITS, STOCK & DEMARCO
     119 East Court Street, Suite 530
     Cincinnati, OH 45202
     Phone: (513) 651-3700
     E-mail: abiller@msdlegal.com

        - and -

     Philip Bohrer, Esq.
     Scott E. Brady, Esq.
     BOHRER BRADY, L.L.C.
     8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
     Baton Rouge, LA 70809
     Phone: (225) 925-5297


CONAIR CORP: Court Narrows "Czuchaj" Suit Over Hair Dryer
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roger T. Benitez of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of California granted in part
Defendant's summary judgment 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.).

Plaintiff Patricia Carter purchased her Model 259 hair dryer in
New York some time in November 2012. While using her hair dryer,
the Model 259 malfunctioned and began emitting blue flames and hot
coils which burned Ms. Carter's hair and scalp. From February 2010
to November 2012, Defendant received six consumer complaints
describing some type of harm from the Model 259 caused by coils.
Plaintiffs initiated this action on August 15, 2013.

On November 12, 2015, the Court certified a nationwide class 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. The Court also certified two state subclasses under Rule
23(b)(3): a California subclass for claims under California's
Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA), Unfair Competition Law (UCL),
and Song-Beverly Warranty Act (Song-Beverly); and a New York
subclass for a claim under New York General Business Law Sec. 349.

On January 22, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a motion for approval of
class notice. On January 25, 2016, Defendant filed the instant
motion for summary judgment along with a motion for class
decertification. On March 30, 2016, the Court decertified the
nationwide 23(b)(3) class, concluding that the predominance and
superiority requirements were not met because each state's law
must be applied to the consumers' claims who purchased hair dryers
in that state. The Court also denied as moot Plaintiffs' motion
for approval of class notice with leave to re-file.

In the motion, Defendant argues that it is entitled to judgment as
a matter of law on Ms. Czuchaj's California UCL and CLRA claims
because no evidence shows that: (1) a cord defect exists; (2)
Defendant knew of the defect before Plaintiff purchased the Model
259; or (3) Plaintiff relied on Defendant's representations when
purchasing the Model 259.

Plaintiff contends that: (1) there is a factual dispute over
whether a defect exists and whether Defendant knew of the defect;
and (2) reliance is presumed because the omission -- failure to
disclose the cord defect -- was material. Defendant also contends
it is entitled to summary judgment on Ms. Czuchaj's implied
warranty of merchantability claim under Song-Beverly because there
is no vertical privity between Ms. Czuchaj and Defendant. Ms.
Czuchaj argues that vertical privity is not required

In his Order dated April 4, 2016 available at http://is.gd/oNF7Qu
from Leagle.com, Judge Benitez granted as to the first and second
causes of action because the parties did not raise any genuine
issues of fact relating to the reliance analysis and that the
evidence shows that Ms. Czuchaj cannot satisfy the reliance
elements of the CLRA or UCL and denied as to the third and seventh
causes of action because the Court is not persuaded by the cases
Defendant relies on to argue that vertical privity is a required
element of an implied warranty claim under Song-Beverly. The
eleventh cause of action is denies as moot because Plaintiffs lack
vertical privity with Defendant.

Plaintiffs are represented by Isam C. Khoury, Esq. --
ikhoury@ckslaw.com -- Jeff Geraci, Esq. -- jgeraci@ckslaw.com --
Michael D. Singer, Esq. -- msinger@ckslaw.com -- Jennifer Lynn
Connor, Esq. --- jconnor@ckslaw.com -- & Timothy D. Cohelan, Esq.
-- tcohelan@ckslaw.com -- COHELAN KHOURY & SINGER & Katherine J.
Odenbreit, Esq. -- kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- ODENBREIT LAW,
APC

Conair Corporation is represented by Ryan Donald Saba, Esq. --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- Momo Emily Takahashi, Esq. --
mtakahashi@rosensaba.com -- ROSEN SABA LLP


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Faces Antitrust Suit Over Set-Top Boxes
-----------------------------------------------------------
Sean P. Feeney & Louis W. Grande, Plaintiffs, v. Cox
Communications, Inc., Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00171-M-LDA (D.R.I.,
April 11, 2016), alleges that Cox tied the distribution of set-top
boxes to the provision of Premium Cable and thereby unreasonably
restrained trade in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Cox Communications, Inc. provides multi-channel video programming
distribution ("MVPD") through a cable network and also leases set-
top boxes to the vast majority of the subscribers to its MVPD
services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Sonja L. Deyoe, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF SONJA L. DEYOE
     395 Smith Street
     Providence, RI 02908
     Phone: (401) 864-5877
     E-mail: sld@the-straight-shooter.com

        - and -

     Todd M. Schneider, Esq.
     Jason Kim, Esq.
     SCHNEIDER WALLACE COTTRELL KONECKY WOTKYNS, LLP
     2000 Powell Street, Suite 1400
     Emeryville, CA 94608
     Phone: (415) 421-7100
     Fax: (415) 421-7105
     E-mail: TSchneider@schneiderwallace.com
             jkim@schneiderwallace.com

        - and -

     Allan Kanner, Esq.
     Cynthia St. Amant, Esq.
     KANNER & WHITELEY, LLC
     701 Camp Street
     Arizona, LA 70130
     Phone: (504) 524-5777
     Fax: (504) 524-5763
     E-mail: a.kanner@kanner-law.com
             c.stamant@kanner-law.com

        - and -

     Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Esq.
     WHATLEY DRAKE & KALLAS, LLC
     380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor
     New York, NY 10017
     Phone: (212) 447-7070
     Fax: (212) 447-7077
     E-mail: jwhatley@wdklaw.com


DELL WEB: 4th Cir. Sends "Carlson" Suit Back to Trial Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Albert Diaz of the United States Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit, reversed, vacated and remanded the appealed case
entitled DELL WEBB COMMUNITIES, INC.; PULTEGROUP, INC.,
Petitioners-Appellants, v. ROGER F. CARLSON; MARY JO CARLSON,
Respondents-Appellees, No. 15-1385 (4th Cir.)

Roger and Mary Jo Carlson signed a sales agreement with
PulteGroup, Inc. and its subsidiary Del Webb Communities, Inc.
(Pulte), for the purchase of a lot and construction of a home in
Hilton Head, South Carolina. The agreement contained an
arbitration clause. In September 2008, the Carlsons filed suit in
South Carolina state court against Pulte and two other parties.
The complaint raised several claims, all regarding alleged
construction defects. The Carlsons later moved to amend their
complaint to add class-action allegations because their lawsuit
was one of approximately 140 like cases pending against Pulte,
which the state state court granted the motion.

Pulte moved to dismiss the amended complaint, or in the
alternative, to compel bilateral arbitration of the Carlsons'
claims, which the state court denied, but the South Carolina Court
of Appeals reversed, finding the Carlsons' claims subject to
arbitration under the sales agreement with Pulte.

The Carlsons subsequently filed a demand for arbitration with the
American Arbitration Association (AAA). Their demand sought class
arbitration and class certification, and set the claim amount at
$75,000 "until such time as the Class is certified. On May 6,
2014, the AAA manager held a conference call with the Carlsons and
Pulte. During the call, the manager notified the parties that the
arbitrator would decide whether the sales agreement permits class
arbitration.

Three days later, Pulte filed in federal court a petition and
complaint to compel bilateral arbitration under Section 4 of the
Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9 U.S.C. Section 1 et seq.  Pulte
argued that whether the sales agreement authorizes class
arbitration is a question of arbitrability for the court to
determine, not a procedural question for the arbitrator. Pulte
sought a declaratory judgment that the parties did not agree to
class arbitration.

The arbitrator ruled that the sales agreement authorized class
arbitration, but he stayed the matter for the resolution of the
federal litigation. Subsequent motions in the district court and
this court resulted in a stay of the arbitration proceedings
pending this appeal.

The district court denied Pulte's partial summary judgment motion
and dismissed the petition. Relying on the Supreme Court's
plurality decision in Greentree Financial Corp. v. Bazzle and the
Fourth Circuit's unpublished decision in Davis v. ECPI College of
Technology, L.C., 227 F. App'x 250 (4th Cir. 2007), the court
reasoned that whether the arbitration clause permits class
arbitration is a simple contract interpretation issue, and because
the question concerns the procedural arbitration mechanisms
available to the Carlsons, the threshold inquiry is a question for
the arbitrator rather than for the court. Appeal followed.

Circuit Judge Diaz reversed the district court's order denying
Pulte's motion for partial summary judgment, vacated the judgment
dismissing Pulte's petition, and remand the case for the district
court to determine whether the arbitration clause permits class
arbitration.

A copy of Circuit Judge Diaz's opinion dated March 28, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/8cojoWfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Leon Widener -- rwidener@mcnair.net -- A. Victor Rawl, Jr.
-- vrawl@mcnair.net -- Henry W. Frampton, IV --
hframpton@mcnair.net --  at McNAIR LAW FIRM, P.A., for Appellants
Michael S. Seekings -- mseekings@leathbouchlaw.com -- at LEATH
BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP, for Appellees

William Jefferson Leath, Jr. -- at LEATH BOUCH & SEEKINGS, LLP;
Phillip W. Segui, Jr. -- psegui@seguilawfirm.com -- Amanda Morgan
Blundy -- ablundy@seguilawfirm.com -- at SEGUI LAW FIRM, PC

The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit panel consists
of Chief Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. and Circuit Judges Albert
Diaz and Roger L. Gregory


EA RENFROE: "McTier" Suit Seeks Damages, Interest Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Yulander McTier, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons, Plaintiff, v. E.A. RENFROE & COMPANY, INC.,
Defendant., Case No. 3:16-cv-00999-D (N.D. Tex., April 12, 2016),
seeks declaratory and/or injunctive relief, compensatory damages,
service awards, attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, pre-
judgment, moratory interest, liquidated damages and/or statutory
penalties and such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards.

Defendant is an insurance company in Austin, Texas where Plaintiff
worked as an automobile claims representative and processor. She
seeks unpaid wages as well as unpaid overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles L. Scalise, Esq.
      Daniel B. Ross, Esq.
      ROSS LAW GROUP
      1104 San Antonio Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Telephone: (512) 474-7677
      Facsimile: (512) 474-5306
      Email: Charles@RossLawGroup.com

           - and -

      Steven R. Samples, Esq.
      1512 Crescent Drive, Suite 119
      Carrollton, TX 75006
      Phone: (214) 308-6505
      Fax: (855) 605-1505


ELECTROLUX HOME: "Grasso" Suit Moved from M.D. to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Grasso and Nicholas Grasso, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Electrolux Home
Products, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:15-cv-20774, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Middle District
of Florida, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of Florida. The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-
00911-CEH-TGW to the proceeding.

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs allege that they purchased a
Frigidaire front-load washer for approximately $570 in January
2010. About two years later, they began to notice odors in their
clothing after it had been washed and that about three months
later after that, they discovered black streaks on garments and
towels from that machine. Plaintiffs seek actual and/or
compensatory damages including replacement and/or recall of the
defective washing machine.

Electrolux Home manufactures and markets home appliances in North
America.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Amy E. Keller, Esq.
          Edward A. Wallace, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE, LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Suite 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346 2222
          E-mail: aek@wexlerwallace.com
                  eaw@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
          GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
          First Tennessee Plaza
          800 S Gay Street, Suite 1100
          Knoxville, TN 37929
          Telephone: (865) 247 0080
          E-mail: www.gregcolemanlaw.com

               - and -

          John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

               - and -

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jessica D. Miller, Esq.
          John H. Beisner, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SATE, MCAGHER & FLOM, LLP
          1440 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 371 7850
          E-mail: jessica.miller@skadden.com
                  john.beisner@skadden.com

               - and -

          Joshua Clark Webb, Esq.
          Robert Craig Mayfield
          HILL, WARD & HENDERSON, P.A.
          101 E. Kennedy Blvd., Suite 3700
          Tampa, FL 33602
          Telephone: (813) 222 3165
          E-mail: joshua.webb@hwhlaw.com
                  cmayfield@hwhlaw.com


EVENT PARKING: Faces "Anguelov" Suit to Recover Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Kaloyan Anguelov, for himself and on behalf of those similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. Event Parking, Inc., a Florida profit
corporation, Kenneth Benson, Individually, Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-00273-UA-CM (M.D. Fla., April 12, 2016), seeks (i) to obtain
declaratory relief, (ii) a judgment against Defendants as to
liability, (iii) recover unpaid back wages, (iv) an additional
equal amount as liquidated damages, and (v) reasonable attorneys'
fees and costs under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Event Parking, Inc. specializes in parking and traffic management
for the event industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Angeli Murthy, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     600 North Pine Island Road, Suite 400
     Plantation, FL 33324
     Phone: 954-318-0268
     Fax: 954-327-3016
     E-mail: Amurthy@forthepeople.com


FANDUEL INC: Web Bots Rake in Money, Class Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------
Jonny Bonner, writing for Courthouse News Service reported that
already under fire as unregulated gambling, fantasy sports site
FanDuel faces a new class action in Los Angeles claiming that
professional gamblers wielding bots and algorithms take over the
"million dollar" games and rake in most of the winnings.

Lead plaintiff Lee Sobel says he ponied up $200 to join FanDuel in
October last year, lured by its misleading advertising. He sued
the company on April 8 in Superior Court.

FanDuel, a Web-based fantasy sport game launched in 2009, allows
players to build virtual teams from varying athletic leagues.
Players earn points based on athletes' real-world statistics.

Sobel cites several ads in the lawsuit, including one from a man
who claimed to have won $700,000 on FanDuel, another man who
allegedly "turned $50 bucks into $31 grand in 2 weeks on FanDuel,"
and that "Even a novice can come in and spend 1 or 2 dollars and
win 10, 20 thousand dollars."

All those ads ran on ESPN channels, Sobel says, though the network
is not a party to the lawsuit. Sobel calls the ads misleading.

"FanDuel's television and Internet ads are misleading and
misrepresent or omit important information to potential FanDuel
members," the complaint states. "The advertisements misrepresented
and omit the true facts regarding FanDuel being an unlicensed
gambling site in violation of California law, where players
encounter unreasonable risk, and in the case of large 'million
dollar' fantasy games, and in many head-to-head games, where
professional players using algorithms and 'bots' enter hundreds of
entries in one game (at considerable risk and cost) to gain an
unreasonable and, at times, overwhelming and unfair advantage over
the individual player, like plaintiff, who does not employ these
strategies and advantages."

He adds: "In its advertisements, FanDuel does not inform potential
members of the unreasonably long odds they face playing fantasy
football against professional players, using algorithms and
'bots,' who win a vast majority of the money available on
FanDuel."

New York, Nevada and Illinois ruled in 2015 that fantasy sports
should be considered gambling.

Indiana, Virginia and Massachusetts this year passed regulations
declaring fantasy sports legal.

"We fully support sensible regulations to protect consumers and
ensure sports fans nationwide can continue playing the games they
love," FanDuel said in March after Massachusetts Attorney General
Maura Healey announced tighter rules on fantasy sports in the
state.

The NCAA last year banned FanDuel and its nonparty competitor
DraftKings from advertising at any NCAA championship event.

Both companies agreed this month to suspend college fantasy
contests nationwide.

FanDuel holds partnerships with the National Football League and
National Basketball Association.

The company, which has offices in New York, Los Angeles, Orlando,
and Edinburgh and Glasgow, Scotland, reported that it paid out
$560 million in 2014.

During peak NFL season, the company says, it receives 15 million
entries weekly.

"Whether you play against your friends in a private league or in a
public league, you can win cash, once-in-a-lifetime experiences or
bragging rights, every night," the company says on its website.

FanDuel did not respond to a request for comment April 13.

Sobel seeks class certification and punitive damages for unfair
competition, false advertising, negligent misrepresentation and
violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act. He is
represented by Christopher Hamner, who could not be reached
immediately for comment


FARMERS INSURANCE: Settles Female Lawyers' Class Action for $4MM
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kathryn Higgins, writing for The Global Legal Post, reports that
following a class action lawsuit brought by 300 of its female
lawyers, Farmers Insurance has agreed to re-address its
recruitment, promotion and remuneration policies in order to
strive for a more equitable legal team.

In the settlement, the company has also committed to paying out a
sum $4m to be divided amongst the approximately 300 women who have
taken part in the class action, all of whom have worked as
attorneys for farmers in the last four-to-five years.  Counsel for
the plaintiffs -- Lori Andrus of Andrus Anderson and
Lori Costanzo of Costanzo Law Firm -- have also proposed in the
settlement to receive an additional $1.8m in fees from Farmers,
which is to be paid on top of the $4m figure.

The class action lawsuit alleged systemic gender bias against
female attorneys in areas of pay and advancement.  The suit's lead
plaintiff, Lynne Coates, worked as an attorney at the San Jose
branch of Farmers Insurance and reported that while her own salary
was capped at $100,000, a male colleague was paid between $150,000
and $200,000 for carrying out broadly similar tasks.

When Ms. Coates complained about the pay gap, she reported that
she was essentially demoted from her attorney position and asked
to handle more menial tasks.

As part of the settlement's nonmonetary commitments, Farmers must
hire an independent consultant to help review its employment
policies regarding attorney compensation, salary grade placement,
performance evaluations and promotions.  The company will also set
benchmark targets for more female attorneys into higher pay
brackets.

The suit involves both federal and California state equal pay laws
and is one of the first major cases to test the bounds of the
California Fair Pay Act since it came into law earlier this year.
Farmers' settlement will be reviewed by a judge on
June 23.


FCE BENEFIT: Faces Suit Over Alleged Excessive DUB Benefit Fees
---------------------------------------------------------------
Berthe Benyam Abraha et. al, as individuals and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Colonial Parking, Inc.,
1050 Thomas Jefferson St., Suite 100, Washington, D.C. 20007, and
FCE Benefit Administrators, Inc., 887 Mitten Rd., Burlingame,
California 94010, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00680 (D. Col., April
12, 2016), was filed over alleged excessive and unjustified fees
that FCE extracts from the "The Forge Company (Colonial Parking)
Death, Dismissal, Wage/Unemployment Benefit "Reserve" Employee
Account," and sometimes as the "FCE Welfare Fund/D.U.B. Benefit,"
in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

FCE does business in the District of Columbia, specializing in
government contractors. It was the third party administrator of
the DUB Plan and a fiduciary with respect to the DUB Plan.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Edward Scallet, Esq.
     EASCOLAW PLLC
     2756 Stephenson Lane NW
     Washington, DC 20015-1054
     Phone: (202) 329-6399
     E-mail: ted@eascolaw.com


FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH: CA Affirms Denial of Class Cert. Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Judges Timothy D. Osterhaus and Ross L. Bilbrey of the Florida
District Court of Appeals affirmed trial court's order denying
class certification in the case captioned, GABRIELLE GOODWIN,
Appellant, v. FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION, ET
AL, Appellee, Case No. 1D15-2142 (Fla. Dist. App.).

Pending before the court is Gabrielle Goodwin's appeals a trial
court's order denying class certification. The case is travelling
with Ms. Goodwin's appeal of an administrative order of the
Florida Department of Children and Families that rejected her
individual claim on the merits.

In the Per Curiam dated April 4, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/os5CDgfrom Leagle.com, Judges Osterhaus and Bilbrey
affirmed a trial court's order denying class certification
concluding that Ms. Goodwin does not possess standing to represent
the class in the case.

Gabrielle Goodwin is represented by Christine Davis Graves, Esq.
-- cgraves@carltonfileds.com -- Robert W. Pass, Esq. --
rpass@carltonfields.com -- Martha Harrell Chumbler, Esq. --
mchumbler@carltonfields.com -- CARLTON FIELDS JORDEN BURT, P.A. &
Cyril V. Smith, Esq. -- csmith@zuckerman.com -- & William K.
Meyer, Esq. -- wmeyer@zuckerman.com -- ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER LLP

Florida Department of Children and Families is represented by:

     Cynthia L. Hain, Esq.
     Ashley E. Davis, Esq.
     FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
     200 Opa-locka Blvd
     Opa-locka, FL 33054
     Tel: (866)762-2237


FRANCE: Faces Class Action Over Tuition Program
-----------------------------------------------
Kathianne Boniello, writing for New York Post, reports that a
New Jersey mom is suing France, saying the country left her
holding the bag on her daughter's pricey private-school tuition.

France promised to foot the bill for expatriate kids living abroad
who attended certain schools that "promote the French educational
system," says Martine Carroll, a retired French professor who
lives in Union County with engineer husband Roger and daughter
Belle.

Ms. Carroll, 62, took advantage of France's program, and it helped
pay the hefty $25,820 annual tuition at the French-American School
in Mamaroneck.

The family even relocated to Westchester County to make the
commute more convenient when Belle, who is being raised bilingual,
enrolled in 2010.

Pushed by former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the program at
one point extended grants to 8,000 students a year.

But the country abruptly pulled the plug, leaving the Carrolls
with few options just two months before the start of the 2012
school year, the mother claims in a Manhattan federal court
lawsuit she filed against the Republic of France.

Belle finished school and is now a freshman at Rice University.
She is seeking class-action status for her legal complaint, which
accuses France of breaching its contract with citizens like her,
who are living abroad and took advantage of the tuition program.

France decided in 2012 to shift its financial-aid programs to
income-based criteria, said Helene Ringot, head of social services
at the French consulate.

The case is MARTINE VIOLET CARROLL, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. THE REPUBLIC OF FRANCE,
THE FRENCH MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS, and THE AGENCE POUR
L'ENSEIGNEMENT FRANCAIS A L'ETRANGER, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
02683 (S.D.N.Y., April 11, 2016).

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeffrey I. Carton, Esq.
     Robert J. Berg, Esq.
     DENLEA & CARTON LLP
     2 Westchester Park Drive, Suite 410
     White Plains, NY 10604
     Phone: (914) 331-0100
     E-mail: jcarton@denleacarton.com
             rberg@denleacarton.com


GEORGIA: State Secretary Defies NVRA, Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Atlanta Progressive News reports that a class action lawsuit filed
on Wednesday, February 10, 2016 in U.S. District Court alleges
that Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp has continuously defied
the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) by continuing to
enforce sections within the Georgia Election Code when they have
been condemned by the U.S. Department of Justice (USDOJ).

Common Cause Georgia (CCGA) and the Georgia State Conference of
the NAACP are the plaintiffs in the case.

At issue is Sec.. Kemp's "willful" enforcement of Section 234 of
the Georgia Election Code, which targets registered Georgia voters
and eventually purges them from the voting roles if they have not
voted in the two most recent federal elections.

"Common Cause Georgia and the NAACP have a lot in common.  We both
believe the United States has an obligation to make real all the
promises of our democracy through engaged voters," Francys
Johnson, President of the Georgia NAACP, told Atlanta Progressive
News.

"Brian Kemp is not the Secretary of State, he is the Secretary of
Suppression," Mr. Johnson said.

"He has used his position to malign voting rights of advocates,
and he has suppressed voting rights of colored people, the
elderly, and young people; and he always seems to pass the blame
to others," Mr. Johnson said.

"This is just another round in a long saga with Secretary Kemp,"
Mr. Johnson said.

Mr. Johnson referred to the alleged voter fraud case in Brooks
County, Georgia, involving the "Quitman 10 + 2".  Atlanta
Progressive News was first in Metro Atlanta to report on the
controversial case, where recently-elected Black school board
members were removed due to later-unsubstantiated voter fraud
claims.

"What gave us a clue that there was something wrong was the large
number of Georgia voters on the State's inactive list,"
Brinkley Serkedakis, Executive Director, CCGA, told APN.

In June 2015, there were 800,000 Georgia voters on the State's
inactive voter list.

Once placed on the inactive list, if these voters do not
participate in the next two federal elections, they are purged
from the voting rolls.

"This section of the Georgia Election Code is not in compliance
with the NVRA, and Common Cause Georgia believes in fighting for
fair, and accessible elections for everybody.  Everybody must be
counted," Ms. Serkedakis said.

"After discussing all options with our team and partners, like the
NAACP, we decided that litigation would be the most effective
strategy to see real change on this issue," Ms. Serkedakis said.

But the State of Georgia contends they have done nothing wrong.

"As we have stated all along, the lawsuit is completely without
merit and frivolous.  The Georgia Department of Law has clearly
explained to plaintiff's counsel multiple times that Georgia law
is consistent with the NVRA," Candice Broce, Press Secretary for
Sec. Kemp, said in a statement sent to APN.

By enforcing section 234 in conjunction with section 235, id. Sec
21-2-235, Kemp has removed hundreds of thousands of registered,
qualified voters from Georgia's voter rolls based on their
exercise of their right not to vote, in violation of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution," the Plaintiff's
original complaint reads.

The State of Georgia and Kemp have filed a Motion to Dismiss,
obtained by APN through the federal PACER database.

In the State's Motion, the State claims that section 234 of the
Georgia Election Code was amended in 1997, completely eliminating
section 234.

"Contrary to the Plaintiff's assertion, in 1997, the Georgia
Legislature amended the Georgia Election Code, striking O.C.G.A
Secs. 21-2-234 and 21-2-235 in their entirety and replacing them
with new statutory language," the State's Motion says.

The State also writes that this section of the Election Code was
"pre-cleared" by the USDOJ.

Plaintiffs have responded to the State's Motion explaining that
section 234, while modified by the Legislature as noted by the
State, was done so in a way that did not alter its original
meaning.

The "Department of Justice warned Georgia that its voter-removal
program violates the NVRA. Kemp argues that the DOJ's objection to
Georgia's program has been remedied.  It has not.  Georgia's
program has not been materially amended.  Nor has the DOJ changed
its view," the Plaintiffs wrote.

"The DOJ's preclearance of Section 234 under the Voting Rights Act
says nothing about its compliance with the NVRA -- a point the DOJ
has made explicitly," Plaintiffs wrote.

Atlanta Progressive News has reviewed the plain language of the
original and amended statutes, and believes that the Plaintiffs'
contentions about the lack of modification to the section at
issue, have factual merit.

"We will not, under any circumstance, back down or capitulate to
Sec. Kemp.  We will not sit around and wait for all the rights we
gained during the Civil Rights movement, in the 1960s, to be
washed away," Johnson said.

"This is the same type of political trickery that we witnessed
after Federal troops were removed from the south in 1877," Johnson
said.


GOLDMAN SACHS: Settles Mortgage-Backed Securities Suit for $5BB
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sue Reisinger, writing for Law.com, reports that federal
prosecutors on April 11 announced a $5 billion deal with the
Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to resolve claims over Goldman Sachs'
misconduct in packaging and selling mortgage-backed securities
from 2005 to 2007.

Such misconduct was widespread among financial institutions at the
time and led to the economic collapse of 2008.  The deal, which
includes $1.8 billion for consumer relief, was one of 10 mentioned
in a Corporate Counsel series.

The settlement also includes nearly $2.39 billion in federal civil
penalties and $875 million to settle other federal and state
claims.  A Goldman Sachs representative said, "We are pleased to
put these legacy matters behind us.  Since the financial crisis,
we have taken significant steps to strengthen our culture,
reinforce our commitment to our clients, and ensure our governance
processes are robust."

A statement of facts alleges that Goldman Sachs made false and
misleading representations to prospective investors about the
characteristics of the loans, including that they met certain
underwriting standards, when in fact many didn't.

"This resolution holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious
misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold
were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full
of mortgages that were likely to fail," said acting Associate
Attorney General Stuart F. Delery in a statement.

In consumer relief, the DOJ said Goldman Sachs will provide loan
modifications, including loan forgiveness and forbearance, to
distressed homeowners across the country, as well as financing for
affordable rental and for-sale housing throughout the country.
"This agreement represents the largest commitment in any [recent
government] agreement to provide financing for affordable housing
-- a crucial need following the turmoil of the financial crisis,"
the DOJ statement added.

Federal prosecutors on April 11 announced a $5 billion deal with
the Goldman Sachs Group Inc. to resolve claims over Goldman Sachs'
misconduct in packaging and selling mortgage-backed securities
from 2005 to 2007.

Such misconduct was widespread among financial institutions at the
time and led to the economic collapse of 2008.  The deal, which
includes $1.8 billion for consumer relief, was one of 10 mentioned
in a Corporate Counsel series.

The settlement also includes nearly $2.39 billion in federal civil
penalties and $875 million to settle other federal and state
claims.  A Goldman Sachs representative said, "We are pleased to
put these legacy matters behind us.  Since the financial crisis,
we have taken significant steps to strengthen our culture,
reinforce our commitment to our clients, and ensure our governance
processes are robust."

A statement of facts alleges that Goldman Sachs made false and
misleading representations to prospective investors about the
characteristics of the loans, including that they met certain
underwriting standards, when in fact many didn't.

"This resolution holds Goldman Sachs accountable for its serious
misconduct in falsely assuring investors that securities it sold
were backed by sound mortgages, when it knew that they were full
of mortgages that were likely to fail," said acting Associate
Attorney General Stuart F. Delery in a statement.

In consumer relief, the DOJ said Goldman Sachs will provide loan
modifications, including loan forgiveness and forbearance, to
distressed homeowners across the country, as well as financing for
affordable rental and for-sale housing throughout the country.
"This agreement represents the largest commitment in any [recent
government] agreement to provide financing for affordable housing
-- a crucial need following the turmoil of the financial crisis,"
the DOJ statement added.


ILLINOIS: Withheld Health Insurance Payments, State Workers Say
---------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Illinois state workers, complaining about their withheld health
insurance payments due to the state's budgetary disaster, sued the
governor and the state's management agency in Chicago class-action
lawsuit.

The complaint stems from a decision by Illinois last September to
suspend claims payments to insurers for nearly 150,000 state
workers and their families due to the state's budget crisis. As a
result, state workers are now stuck footing the bill for medical
expenses because doctors and hospitals have not received insurance
payments, the workers claim.

The suspension "violated plaintiff's Illinois constitutional
rights" and threatens the health care of state employees who may
be financially strapped, according to the April 13 lawsuit, filed
in Cook County Chancery Court by Carrie Weeks-Kinowski.

"[T]here is a substantial possibility that state employees will
forego needed medical care, either because they will not be able
to afford to pay for the care up front at the time of service, or
because they fear that self-insured insurance companies will
demand such payments up front," the 20-page complaint states. "It
is virtually certain that some individuals who forego health care
will become ill as a result of doing so."

The lawsuit names as defendants Illinois Gov. Bruce Rauner,
Treasurer Michael Frerichs, Comptroller Leslie Geissler Munger,
and Michael Hoffman, the director of Illinois's Department of
Central Management Services, the agency that handles state
employee benefits.

Illinois's 2016 budget was due last July, when the state's fiscal
year begins. However, a standoff between Rauner, a Republican, and
a Democratic-controlled Legislature has delayed approval for
nearly 10 months. The Illinois budget crisis now seems to have no
end in sight.

Illinois remains the only state without a budget for the 2016
fiscal year.

One of the casualties of the budgetary delays has been the state's
health insurance reserve fund, which pays for employee insurance
plans.

Illinois had contracted with insurers Quality Care, Coventry
Health Care Open Access Plan, and Health Link OAP to handle claims
for the state's self-insured insurance plan. Under those plans,
the insurers submit claims to the state and are paid with money
deducted from state employee paychecks.

On Sept. 11, 2015, however, the Illinois Department of Central
Management Services posted a notice on its website saying that it
would soon halt those payments until the state's 2016 budget was
approved.

The snowball effect then began. Participating health plans stopped
paying doctors and hospitals in most cases, which then billed
patients directly for medical services, according to April 13
class-action lawsuit.

The budgetary stalemate has caused the state to miss payments on
more than $7 billion in bills. Some estimates peg the amount
Illinois owes in state employee health are coverage at nearly $3
billion. Hospitals and doctors have been quoted in recent months
saying they are owed payments from almost two years ago in some
cases.

In her lawsuit, Weeks-Kinowski, who works as a civil service
employee at Northern Illinois University and uses the Health Link
plan, seeks not only immediate payment of health claims by
Illinois, but also payments to employees of 5 percent interest on
the cash they have shelled out up front for medical services.

"While the state has procedures in place to pay interest to
insurance providers who are paid in an untimely manner, it has no
procedures in place to pay state employee participants interest if
they must pay cash for medical services and await reimbursement
from medical providers," the lawsuit states.

A spokesperson for the state did not immediately respond to an
email seeking comment on the class action.


INTUIT: Faces New Jersey Class Suit Over Turbo Tax
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Trenton, N.J., claims Intuit's online terms and conditions for
Turbo Tax unfairly absolves it of errors.


J.J. TAVERN: "Deliard" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jean Robert Deliard, individually, and on behalf of all other
similarly situated employees, the Plaintiffs, v. J.J. Tavern
Enterprises, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Legends North
Inc. d/b/a Legends Tavern & Grille, a Florida Corporation, and Jon
Simonelli, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60842-
BB (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
wages and other relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly failed to pay
overtime wages to the Plaintiff for the overtime hours rendered.
The Plaintiff worked as a prep cook at the Defendants' restaurants
located in Sunrise, Florida and Deerfield Beach, Florida from June
29, 2015 to January 2016.

JJ Tavern operates a restaurant under the trade name Legends
Tavern & Grille at 10079 West Oakland Park Boulevard, Sunrise,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Catalina M. Avalos, Esq.
          Stephanie C. Mazzola, Esq.
          TRIPP SCOTT, P.A.
          110 Southeast 6th Street, 15th Floor
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301
          Telephone: (954) 525-7500
          Facsimile: (954) 761-8475
          E-mail: cma@TrippScott.com
                  scm@TrippScott.com


JAN J. OTHO: "Haynes" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Tinnye Danette Haynes and Kathy Sue Porter, individually, and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Jan J.
Otho doing business as Kind Keepers, the Defendant, Case No. 7:16-
cv-00096 (W.D. Tex., April 15, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages owed to them resulting from the Defendant's violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), by failing to pay its Home Care
Workers for all hours worked and for overtime.

Plaintiffs worked as Home Care Workers providing services of a
household nature in or about the private homes of Defendant's
clients, and are primarily responsible for performing non-exempt
job duties such as assisting the elderly, convalescents, or
persons with disabilities with daily living activities and tasks
that enable the clients to live independently at home.

Jan J. Otho is engaged in home care business.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jennifer J. Spencer, Esq.
          Mary L. Scott, Esq.
          James E. Hunnicutt, Esq.
          SPENCER SCOTT PLLC
          Two Lincoln Centre
          5420 LBJ Freeway, Suite 300
          Dallas, TX 75240-6271
          Telephone: (972) 458 5319
          Facsimile: (972) 770 2156
          E-mail: jspencer@spencerscottlaw.com
          mscott@spencerscottlaw.com
          jhunnicutt@spencerscottlaw.com


KANSAS CITY, MO: Faces Class Action Over Trash Rebate Program
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Horsley, writing for The Kansas City Star, reports that free
trash pickup has been one of the big selling points with Kansas
City's 1 percent earnings tax, from the 1970s to just this month,
when voters overwhelmingly approved the tax renewal.

It has been a major convenience for city residents of single-
family homes.

But for owners of multi-family buildings, a different approach to
trash has applied, and that's at the heart of a brewing legal
fight.  Hundreds of apartment building and condominium owners,
along with thousands of renters, have a stake in the outcome.

It all stems from a court order in the 1970s requiring the city to
make payments to multi-family buildings to cover their trash
services, and the city's decision in 2010 to halt those payments
for some property owners, but not all.

Owners who still pay the earnings tax but no longer get the
rebates are fighting back in court.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs in a class-action lawsuit filed a
motion on April 13 asking a Platte County Circuit Court judge to
hold the city in contempt for violating a 1976 judgment on trash
rebates.

"This case is about treating everyone equally in Kansas City with
regard to trash," said Greg Leyh, an attorney for the Sophian
Plaza Association, Townsend Place Condominium Association and
other members of the suit.

Mr. Leyh said Kansas City municipal government was ordered in 1976
to provide trash collection payments to owners of buildings with
seven or more units.  The city did just that until early 2010,
when it stopped for budget reasons.  At the time, those payments
cost about $1.4 million annually.

The Heartland Apartment Association, a group of 117 major
apartment complex owners, threatened to sue, and the city settled
with them later in 2010.  It agreed to pay them annual rebates,
costing about $750,000 in recent years, so they could hire trash
contractors.

But Mr. Leyh said it's not fair that other property owners with
more than seven units -- his clients -- don't get those rebates
and have to pay all trash collection costs on their own.

The city responded that none of the current plaintiffs was part of
that 1970s case, nor do the Heartland settlement terms apply to
them.

Plus, the city says, its solid waste policies have changed
dramatically since the 1970s.

"As most apartment buildings cannot or do not comply with those
policies, the Council made the decision in 2010 to cut the
apartment rebate program," said Assistant City Attorney
Tara Kelly, lead attorney in the city's defense.

While free trash pickup for single-family homes continues,
Ms. Kelly said overall trash services have changed considerably.

Residents of single-family homes can put out two free bags of
trash most weeks but must buy tags for extra bags.  She said
apartments generally have dumpsters, and it's not possible to
monitor whether their residents comply with the two-bag limit.

Meanwhile, single-family households get unlimited recycling, but
that's not practiced in most apartment buildings, she said.

"Most apartment buildings do not do recycle, so that means they
are sending a larger amount of waste to the landfills," she said.

Mr. Leyh says trash policy changes over time are irrelevant, and
what matters is that the city is still under the 1976 court order.

The judge at the time said Kansas City had improperly created two
classes of earnings-tax-paying residents by providing free trash
pickup for individual homes but not for large apartment buildings.

He ordered Kansas City to provide free trash pickup for everyone
or provide a cash equivalent for apartment owners.  The city
agreed to make payments.

But in 2010, during the recession and when the city's budget was
facing massive cuts, the City Council and then-Mayor Mark
Funkhouser voted to eliminate the apartment trash rebate program.

Shortly after, the city settled with the Heartland Apartment
Association.

In February 2015, Mr. Leyh and other lawyers filed their lawsuit
in Platte County Circuit Court, arguing their clients deserve the
same benefit as Heartland.  Judge James Van Amburg has since
certified the case as a class-action, and Mr. Leyh estimated the
class has 500 to 700 building owners and managers.

One of the class representatives is Dennis Walker, who with his
wife, Rita, bought the 112-unit Stadium View Apartments near the
Truman Sports Complex in 1993.

For years after that, Mr. Walker recalled, the city sent a trash
rebate every month based on occupied units, amounting to about
$7,000 per year.

"It certainly helped," Mr. Walker said, to cover the cost of
contracting with Deffenbaugh.

Then the payments stopped. Walker now pays the total cost for
Deffenbaugh to clear six dumpsters three times per week.

Mr. Walker later discovered Heartland Apartments members had
worked out a deal with the city to continue the rebates, and that
made him mad.

"It kind of puts the screws to us because that's our competition,"
he said.

Mr. Walker said he didn't raise rents just to cover the trash
costs, but as his expenses increased over time, including trash,
he had to increase rents. He learned a lawsuit was in the works
and decided to join in.

"The city currently provides trash rebate program benefits to
wealthy and politically powerful members of Kansas City's real
estate community, and refuses to provide equal benefits to less
wealthy and less politically prominent owners of trailer parks and
buildings with seven or more dwelling units," the motion filed
argued.

Mr. Leyh said that regardless of budget constraints, the city
can't just ignore a court order.

A trial is scheduled for Dec. 19, but there could be a hearing
before then on the plaintiffs' motion to hold the city in
contempt.  The motion seeks an order requiring Kansas City to
comply immediately with the 1976 judgment.

The city's answer is due soon.

The motion cites a March 18 deposition in which City Manager Troy
Schulte said the city wanted to eliminate the trash rebate program
in 2010 because of its serious financial constraints. Schulte said
in his deposition that he recommended the city "go to court"
before formally eliminating the rebate program, to request relief
from the 1976 court order.

But the city never went back to court.

Ms. Kelly said on April 13 that Schulte is not an attorney, and
the city attorney's office had determined at the time that the
court's 1976 decision applied only to the 14 plaintiffs, was not
certified as a class and did not involve this new group of
plaintiffs.

"All of the 14 original plaintiffs so far as we could find for the
successors of interest, all belonged to Heartland," Ms. Kelly
said.

The city, she said, had a financial responsibility to the
taxpayers to get the best deal it could in 2010, and that involved
settling with Heartland.


KARL STORZ: "Beasley" Suit Seeks Damages Over Use of Morcellator
--------------------------------------------------------------
Linda Beasley, an individual, by and through her representative,
Benjamin Beasley, Christine Senko, an individual, by and through
her representative, Elaine Senko, the Plaintiffs, v. Karl Storz
Endoscopy - America, Inc., a California Corporation; Karl Storz
Endovision, Inc., a Massachusetts Corporation; Karl Storz GMBH &
Co. KG, a business entity, form unknown, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC617176 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages that were proximately
caused by the Defendants' failure to warn when the Storz
Morcellator was used as designed and intended in their individual
surgeries.

According to the complaint, had the Storz Morcellator not
disseminated and seeded cancer cells throughout Plaintiffs'
abdomens during their surgical procedures, they would have been
timely and properly diagnosed based on the pathological analysis
of tissue removed by more conservative surgical methods and would
not have suffered primary serous cystadenocarcinoma. The Storz
Morcellator allegedly caused the widespread dissemination, seeding
and metastasis of the specific cancerous condition, causing grave
injury to Plaintiffs.

A Morcellator is a surgical instrument used for division and
removal of large masses of tissues during laparoscopic surgery.

KS Endoscopy and KS Endovision design, manufacture, market, test,
promote, sell and/or distribute Storz Morcellator. Karl Storz is
the parent company of KS Endoscopy and KS Endovision.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Aimee H. Wagstaff, Esq.
          Sean O. McCrary, Esq.
          ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, P.C.
          7171 W. AlaskaDr.
          Lakewood, CO 80226
          Telephone: (720) 208 9403
          Facsimile: (303) 276 6361
          E-mail: Aimee.Wagstaff@AndrusWagstaff.com
                  Sean.McCrary@AndrusWagstaff.com

               - and -

          Willard J. Moody, Esq.
          Jonathan A. Hogins, Esq.
          THE MOODY LAW FIRM
          500 Crawford Street, Ste. 200
          Portsmouth, VA 23704
          Telephone: (757) 393 6020
          Facsimile: (757) 399 3019


LINC ENERGY: Voluntary Administration Won't Impact Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kate Dodd, writing for Chinchilla News, reports that lawyers
representing Hopeland landowners in a proposed class action
against Linc Energy have assured those involved that the news of
the company going into voluntary administration will not affect
the litigation.

Solicitor Tom Marland, who will be working with barristers Grant
Allan and Charles Wilson, met with landowners in Chinchilla on
April 17 to update the group on the progress of their class
action.

The meeting reviewed Magistrate Kay Ryan's recent decision that
Linc Energy stand trial on five counts of wilfully and unlawfully
causing serious environmental harm on the Hopeland site between
July 2007 and December 2013 and the progress of litigation funding
for the group action.

"We were told it would not make a shred of difference to the
litigation," a concerned citizen, who attended the meeting, said.

In a statement to the ASX, the Linc Energy board said it was in
the best interests of the company to make the move into voluntary
administration and the decision was made based on legal and
financial advice.

The state's environmental department has accused the company of
wilfully causing serious harm at its trial site near Chinchilla on
the Darling Downs.

Linc Energy has argued the case was a circumstantial one and that
it is innocent.

Lock the Gate's Drew Hutton claims the company could face up to
$56 million in fines, but it may avoiding those because of the
move to go into voluntary administration.


LOWE'S HOME: Appeals Court Interprets Statute on Sale of Heaters
----------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Justice Kathleen O'Leary of the Court of Appeals of
California, Fourth District, Division Three, affirmed in part and
reversed in part the judgment of the trial court in the case
MATTHEW BURGER, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOWE'S HOME CENTERS,
LLC, Defendant and Respondent, No. G049771 (Cal. Ct. App.)

In 2010, Matthew Burger purchased a portable Tough Buddy propane
gas powered heater from Lowe's Home Centers, LLC (LHC) located in
Tustin, California. Neither he nor anyone else was injured in any
way by the portable heater.  Six months later, Burger filed a
class action complaint against LHC and, Mr. Heater and Enerco
Group. He filed a first amended complaint in August 2010, and a
second amended complaint (SAC), alleging that LHC and the
manufacturers were liable for violating California's unfair
competition law (UCL) (Bus. & Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.),
because it was illegal to sell the unvented heater. Burger also
alleged LHC was liable for statutory false advertising (Bus. &
Prof. Code, Section 17500), and for violating the Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA) (Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.), based on
LHC's false representation the heater was approved for indoor
dwelling use in California.

LHC and the manufacturer jointly filed a demurrer to the SAC, were
the trial court sustained without leave to amend LHC's demurrer to
Burger's false advertising and CLRA claims. The trial court agreed
with LHC's argument a retailer cannot be held liable for the
statements of others by merely placing the product on its shelves
for resale. The court concluded Burger's CLRA claims against LHC
were based solely on its alleged participation in the product
packaging, and therefore the demurrer regarding this claim must
also be sustained without leave to amend.

The following year, Burger filed a motion for summary judgment or
summary adjudication against LHC and the manufacturers on the
remaining causes of action. He argued there was no defense to the
causes of action and the undisputed evidence supported liability.
At the same time, LHC filed a summary judgment motion, arguing the
remaining UCL cause of action failed as a matter of law because
the portable heater was not covered by section 19881, subdivision
(a). To support their motions, both parties submitted declarations
and copies of section 19881's legislative history. The court took
judicial notice of the legislative history documents but at the
end the court denied Burger's motion and granted LHC's motion for
summary judgment.  Burger appealed.

Presiding Justice O'Leary reversed in part and affirmed in part
the trial court's judgment. The summary judgment ruling is
affirmed on the UCL claims, but the ruling sustaining the demurrer
without leave to amend is reversed. On remand, the trial court is
directed to enter an order sustaining the demurrer with leave to
amend. Burger will have the opportunity to amend his complaint
regarding only the false advertising and CLRA causes of action.

A copy of Presiding Justice O'Leary's opinion dated March 28,
2016, is available at http://goo.gl/4xnrD2from Leagle.com.

Sharon J. Arkin -- sarkin@arkinlawfirm.com -- at The Arkin Law
Firm; Jason M. Caruso -- jasonmcaruso@gmail.com -- at Hodes,
Milman & Liebeck, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Wayne R. Gross -- wgross@ggtriallaw.com -- Evan C. Borges --
eborges@ggtriallaw.com -- Leanna Costantini -- at Greenberg Gross,
for Defendant and Respondent


LUDLOW MUSIC: Class Suit Filed Over "We Shall Overcome" Song
------------------------------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the civil rights anthem "We Shall Overcome" may soon be in the
public domain by virtue of a class action filed over fair use of
the song.

In a lawsuit filed in Manhattan Federal Court on April 13, the
non-profit group We Shall Overcome Foundation claims that music
publishers Richmond Organization and Ludlow Music Inc. have
improperly enforced their 1960 and 1963 registered copyrights on
the song, which should be at best limited to "the extremely narrow
right to reproduced and distribute specific arrangements for the
song."

To litigate their case, the foundation hired Wolf Haldenstein
Alder Freeeman & Herz -- the same law firm who won the case
declaring "Happy Birthday" in the public domain last year.

Besides damages, the class-action seeks a court determination on
whether the 1960 and 1963 copyrights are valid. If they are not,
the song-except specific arrangements with additional verses owned
by the defendants-could become public domain.

The legal fracas began when the foundation, which is dedicated to
helping poor and marginalized people worldwide, wanted to use "We
Shall Overcome" in a forthcoming documentary and were denied by
Richmond.  Richmond has "silenced those wishing to perform 'We
Shall Overcome' by refusing to grant them a license or have
unlawfully demanded and extracted licensing fees from those
unwilling or unable to challenge their false ownership claims,"
the lawsuit says.

The song, which is thought to be an adaptation of African-American
spiritual, became known as the unofficial anthem of the Civil
Rights movement in the 1950s, and was cited by President Lyndon
Johnson as he promoted and later signed landmark civil rights
legislation a decade later.  The foundation tried to obtain the
license to the song in February 2015. The following month
representatives at the company responded saying the song was
"difficult to clear," noting that it would depend on the version
of the song and its quality.

After reviewing the foundation's version, the first verse of which
was performed by Nephertiri Lewis, representatives from Richmond
allegedly refused to grant licensure of the song.

If used without permission, the foundation would be forced to pay
as much as a $150,000 penalty.

However, according to the foundation, the song is an adaptation of
an earlier spiritual with the same melody and almost identical
lyrics for the first verse.  The song's first printed reference is
in a 1909 edition of the United Mine Workers Journal, which
references the song being sung after prayer during strike
meetings, according to the lawsuit.

The suit also casts a shadow on the legitimacy of the 1960s-era
copyrights of the song, noting that a version of "We Shall
Overcome" was included in the folk song periodical "People's
Songs" in 1946.  It also referenced a 1959 phonograph narrated by
Charlton Heston on the biblical Exodus, in which a chorale version
of the song is heard.

According to the lawsuit, because the copyright on the "People's
Songs" periodical lapsed in 1976, the song is now public domain.

Further, folk singer Pete Seeger, who published the periodical,
has claimed not to have written the song.

Richmond Organization did not immediately respond to an email
seeking comment.


MCNABB LLC: "Douek" Sues Over False Advertising
-----------------------------------------------
Vivian Douek individually on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. McNabb, LLC d/b/a Sunology
Natural Sun Protection, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01763
(E.D.N.Y., April 12, 2016), sues for fraud under U.S. Code
28:1332.

Plainiff accuses Sunology Natural Sun Protection of claiming that
its Sunology Natural Sunscreen SPF 50 for Body, Sunology Natural
Sunscreen SPF 50 for Face, and Sunology Natural Sunscreen SPF for
Kids as natural despite containing various artificial and
synthetic ingredients.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason P. Sultzer, Esq.
      THE SULTZER LAW GROUP
      PO Box 581
      Hopewell Junction, NY 12533
      Tel: (845) 705-9460
      Fax: (888) 749-7747
      Email: sultzerj@thesultzerlawgroup.com


MDL 2543: Status Conferences on April 20 and June 2
---------------------------------------------------
Upcoming status conferences in the GM Ignition Switch Litigation
(MDL No. 2543):

     April 20, 2016 9:30 a.m.
     June 2, 2016 9:30 a.m.

Information about the case is available a
thttp://gmignitionmdl.com

MDL Transferee Judge:

     Hon. Jesse M. Furman
     United States District Judge
     Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse
     40 Foley Square
     New York, NY 10007
     Courtroom: 1105
     Chambers Phone: (212) 805-0282
     Deputy Phone: (212) 805-0282


MDL 2591: Court Strikes Expanded Class Definitions
--------------------------------------------------
In the case, IN RE SYNGENTA AG MIR 162 CORN LITIGATION, Case No.
14-md-2591-JWL (D. Kan.), District Judge John W. Lungstrum granted
defendants' motion to strike producer plaintiffs' expanded class
allegations.  The Court strikes the expanded class definitions in
the producer plaintiffs' second amended class action master
complaint.

On May 29, 2015, producer plaintiffs filed their amended class
action master complaint.  Plaintiffs brought claims under the
federal Lanham Act on behalf of a nationwide class of plaintiffs
defined as:

     "The Nationwide Corn Producers Class consists of all corn
producers in the United States who priced their corn for sale
after November 18, 2013. Excluded from the Nationwide Corn
Producers Class are . . . corn producers who purchased or planted
the Viptera(R) or Duracade(TM) corn, or any corn sold with the
MIR162 and/or Event 5307 genetically engineered corn traits."

Plaintiffs also asserted state-law claims on behalf of classes
consisting of residents of 22 different states, with each state
class defined as:

     "Each State Class consists of all corn producers in each
respective state who priced their corn for sale after November 18,
2013. Excluded from each of these State Classes are . . . corn
producers who purchased or planted the Viptera(R) or Duracade(TM)
corn, or any corn sold with the MIR162 and/or Event 5307
genetically engineered corn traits."

Thus, the original classes did not include -- and specifically
excluded -- producers who purchased or used Syngenta's products at
issue in the case.

On January 11, 2016, producer plaintiffs, with leave of Court,
filed their second amended class action master complaint.
Plaintiffs again asserted claims under the Lanham Act on behalf of
a nationwide class consisting of "all corn producers in the United
States who priced their corn for sale after November 18, 2013,"
but the class definition no longer contained the exclusion for
purchasers or users of Syngenta's products. The definition of the
state-law classes was modified expressly to exclude only "corn
producers who both (1) purchased the Viptera(R) or Duracade(TM)
corn directly from Defendants or from one of Defendants' licensed
seed dealers and (2) signed a Stewardship Agreement with
Defendants covering Viptera(R) or Duracade(TM) seed." Thus, in the
second amended complaint the class definitions were expanded to
include all purchasers or users of Syngenta's products (in the
case of the nationwide class) or purchasers and users who did not
buy directly from Syngenta or a licensed dealer or did not sign a
stewardship agreement (in the case of the statewide classes).

Syngenta moves the Court for an order striking any allegations
asserted on behalf of the new putative class members as defined in
the second amended complaint. Syngenta argues that plaintiffs
cannot assert class allegations on behalf of purchasers and users
of the products because no named class representative was a
purchaser or user. Syngenta also argues that certain new class
claims by purchasers or users should be struck for the following
substantive reasons: (1) purchasers' and users' state-law
negligence claims are barred by the various states' application of
the economic loss doctrine; (2) purchasers' and users' Lanham Act
claims are barred because those plaintiffs are consumers; and (3)
the new claims by residents of eight states are barred by the
applicable statutes of limitations.

A copy of the Court's April 7 Memorandum and Order is available at
http://is.gd/acalxzfrom Leagle.com.


MDL 2672: 14 Emissions Cases Transferred to N.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
The United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
declined the request of Plaintiffs in 14 lawsuits against
Volkswagen to vacate the Panel's order conditionally transferring
their respective actions to In Re: Volkswagen "Clean Diesel"
Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability Litigation, MDL
No. 2672.

The JPML ruled that the actions are transferred to the Northern
District of California and, with the consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Charles R. Breyer for inclusion in the
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

The Volkswagen defendants oppose all Plaintiffs' motions. Certain
financial institution defendants responded in opposition to the
motion to vacate the conditional transfer order in the District of
Montana Gebauer action. Plaintiffs in two cases previously
transferred to MDL No. 2672 (Beard and Bond) oppose the motion to
vacate the CTO in the District of Montana Ballew action.

The cases are:

District of Colorado
ARMSTRONG v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, C.A. No. 1:16-00071

Middle District of Florida
DETTLOFF v. LOKEY OLDSMOBILE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15-02885

Western District of Kentucky
BYNUM v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 3:15-00810

Southern District of Mississippi
F. GERALD MAPLES, P.A. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A.
No. 3:16-00001
MARTIN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 3:16-00002

Eastern District of Missouri
BUNTIN, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No.
4:15-01892

District of Montana
BALLEW v. VW CREDIT, C.A. No. 9:15-00133
GEBAUER, ET AL. v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL., C.A. No.
9:15-00152

District of New Mexico
LEVY v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:15-
01179

Eastern District of Pennsylvania
KOGAN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:15-06681
PARKS v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16-00202
RHILE, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A.
No. 2:16-00203

District of Vermont
ISRAEL, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16-00012

Western District of Washington
BURR v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:16-00073

A copy of the JPML's April 7 Order is available at
http://is.gd/EVsczCfrom Leagle.com.

The JPML consists of Judes Marjorie O. Rendell, Ellen Segal
Huvelle, Catherine D. Perry, Lewis A. Kaplan, R. David Proctor.
Judge Charles R. Breyer did not participate in the decision of
this matter.


MDL 2672: Case Management Conference Set for April 21
-----------------------------------------------------
Between March 4 and April, Judge Charles R. Breyer entered pre-
trial orders No. 14, 15, 16 and 17 in the case, In Re: Volkswagen
"Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, And Products Liability
Litigation, MDL No. 2672.

     Pretrial Order No. 14 relates to protected counsel
     communications.
     See http://is.gd/OUgrK5

     Pretrial Order No. 15 relates to preservation of documents
     and electronically stored information
     See http://is.gd/YL0nVJ

     Pretrial Order No. 16 governs preservation and non-waiver
     of privileges and work product protection, and establishes
     procedures for the production of privilege logs
     See http://is.gd/u5UPaQre

     Pretrial Order No. 17 governs the filing of motions to
     remand
     See http://is.gd/Xo2j5N

Pretrial Order No. 17 provides that beginning 90 days after April
4, 2016, any plaintiff whose action has been transferred to, or
removed to, this Court, and who desires to do so, may file a
motion to remand.  Defendants' deadlines for responding to any
filed motions to remand shall be agreed to by the parties or,
absent agreement, as ordered by the Court.  During this interim
three-month period, the parties shall continue to meet and confer
concerning the scope of any discovery that may be appropriate
under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure concerning the motions
to remand and to engage in any such discovery. In the event of any
discovery disputes, the parties shall follow the procedures set
forth in Section 7 of Pretrial Order No. 9.  Any previously filed
motions to remand remain stayed pending further Order of the
Court.

A Case Management Conference was held on March 24, 2016 and a
further Case Management Conference was set for today, April 21,
2016.

In a stipulation and order dated April 7, a copy of which is
available at http://is.gd/fuu2B9from Leagle.com, Judge Breyer
directed the Volkswagen Group and Porsche Defendants to serve Rule
26 initial disclosures on the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee, and
the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee to serve their Rule 26 initial
disclosures, by April 15, 2016.  The Volkswagen Group Defendants
were directed to serve Rule 26 initial disclosures on the FTC, and
the FTC to serve their Rule 26 initial disclosures, by April 8,
2016.  The Volkswagen Group and Porsche Defendants have an
additional nine days to serve their written responses and
objections to the Plaintiffs' Steering Committee's pending
document requests.


MDL 2672: "Gotta" Suit vs. Porsche Cars Transferred to California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory M. Gotta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Porsche Cars North America,
Inc., Audi of America LLC, Audi of America Inc., Audi AG, and Does
1 through 100 inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10242 (D.
Mass., February 2, 2016), has been transferred from the district
of Massachusetts to San Francisco under Case No. 3:16-cv-01069-CRB
(N.D. Cal., March 3, 2016), as part of In re: Volkswagen "Clean
Diesel" MDL 15-MD-2672-CRB (JSC).

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Shannon L Hopkins, Esq.
     LEVI KORSINSKY LLP
     733 Summer Street, Suite 304
     Stamford, CT 06901
     Tel: (203) 992-4523
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     Email: shopkins@zlk.com


MDL 2677: "Khiran" Suit vs. Fanduel Transferred to Boston
---------------------------------------------------------
Aissa Khirani, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FanDuel, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:15-
cv-08119 (S.D.N.Y., October 15, 2015), has been transferred from
Southern District of New York to the district court in Boston and
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-10437-GAO (D. Mass., March 2, 2016).

The case is consolidated under In Re: Daily Fantasy Sports
Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation, MDL 2677, before Judge
George A. OToole, Jr.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Brittany Sloane Weiner, Esq.
     IMBESI CHRISTENSEN AND MICHAEL
     450 7th Avenue
     New York, NY 10123
     Tel: (212) 736-0007
     Fax: (646) 514-3888
     Email: brittany@lawicm.com

          - and -

     Jeanne Lahiff, Esq.
     WEISBERG & MYERS
     80 Broad Street
     New York, NY 10004
     Email: rsvp2jeanne@gmail.com

          - and -

     Annie Erin Causey, Esq.
     Napoli Shkolnik PLLC
     1301 Avenue of The Americas
     New York, NY 00000
     Tel: (212) 397-1000
     Fax: (646) 843-7603
     Email: acausey@napolilaw.com

          - and -

     Hunter Jay Shkolnik, Esq.
     NAPOLI BERN RIPKA & ASSOCIATES
     350 Fifth Avenue
     New York, NY 10118
     Tel: (212) 513-3700
     Fax: (212) 513-7320
     Email: hunter@napolilaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

     Michael Bruce Miller, Esq.
     MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP (NYC)
     250 West 55th Street
     New York, NY 10019
     Tel: (212) 468-8009
     Fax: (212) 468-7900
     Email: mbmiller@mofo.com


MOORE CLEAN: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------
Renee Mendoza, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs v. Moore Clean, LLC, Jose Moore, individually
and Gabriel Lopez, individually, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00467-LY (W.D. Tex., April 12, 2016), seeks actual damages for the
full amount of unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
reasonable attorney's fees, costs and expenses of this action,
including expert witness costs, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest and such other and further relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Defendants provide pressure washing and maintenance services in
Austin, Texas where Plaintiff worked as a washer. Mendoza seeks
unpaid overtime for hours worked in excess of 40.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas B. Welmaker, Esq.
      DUNHAM & JONES, P.C.
      1800 Guadalupe Street
      Austin, TX 78701
      Tel: (512) 777-7777
      Fax: (512) 340-4051
      E-Mail: doug@dunhamlaw.com


NATIONAL LOAN: Maryland Court Revives Parts of "Jason" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Timothy E. Meredith of the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
affirmed, in part, and reversed, in part, the order granting the
motion to dismiss and remanded the case in the case captioned,
RASHAD AHMAD JASON, v. NATIONAL LOAN RECOVERIES, LLC, Case No.
284, September Term, 2014 (Md. Spec. App.).

In late 2008, National Loan, a debt buyer, purchased Jason's
credit card debt, as to which Jason was then in default. On
January 29, 2009, National Loan filed a lawsuit against Jason in
the District Court of Maryland for Baltimore City to collect that
debt. On March 31, 2009, the District Court entered a judgment in
favor of National Loan in the amount of $1,323.39 plus $60.00 in
costs and $1,051.65 for pre-judgment interest, based upon an
affidavit filed by National Loan. Notice of the judgment was
mailed to Jason on March 31, 2009.

On April 16, 2009, the District Court issued a writ of garnishment
that was served upon Jason's bank. Jason moved to dismiss the
garnishment on April 30, 2009, but assets sufficient to satisfy
the judgment were paid through garnishment on a date that does not
appear in the record. On December 13, 2011, the District Court
clerk made a docket entry confirming that the judgment against
Jason had been satisfied.

On July 30, 2013, Jason filed a complaint in the Circuit Court for
Baltimore City, seeking relief for actions taken by National Loan
in Maryland prior to the date it became licensed as a debt
collection agency on September 10, 2010. The complaint included
five counts. In Count I, the complaint asserted that National Loan
is not entitled to any interest from the Plaintiff Class Members
on the purported debts since it was acting unlawfully as an
unlicensed collection agency. Count II was similar to Count I, but
sought relief relative to any costs and attorney's fees National
Loan had obtained as a result of judgments entered against
Plaintiff Class Members during the time National Loan had acted as
a collection agency without a Maryland license. Count III sought a
declaration that National Loan did not have legal standing to
obtain any judgment in Maryland Courts against Jason and Plaintiff
Class Members, as well as a declaration that the judgments it did
obtain prior to being licensed were void and unenforceable. Count
IV alleged that National Loan had been unjustly enriched by the
acceptance and retention of any sums it had received as a result
of its actions to enforce void judgments. This count included a
claim for a money judgment and attorney's fees. Count V asserted
that the actions National Loan had taken to collect debts in
Maryland before being licensed to do so constituted violations of
Maryland Code.

National Loan moved to dismiss the suit for failure to state a
claim, arguing that Jason's complaint was filed after the three-
year statute of limitations had expired. Suit was filed on July
30, 2013, and National Loan argued that all of the events that
Jason complained of occurred more than three years before his
complaint was filed. National Loan urged the court to find that
Jason's claims were therefore barred by the statute of limitations
generally applicable to civil actions in Maryland. The circuit
court concluded that Jason's claims all arose from conduct that
occurred more than three years prior to the time he filed suit,
and the court granted National Loan's motion to dismiss based upon
the statute of limitations.

On appeal, in Counts I, II, and III, Jason asserted that the
judgment entered against him on March 31, 2009, was void because
National Loan was not licensed as a debt collector in Maryland as
of the date of the judgment and that the circuit court erred in
holding that his claims in Count V for relief under the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act were time barred. He also asserts
that his claim for damages for National Loan's unjust enrichment
(Count IV) should not have been subject to a three-year statute of
limitations, but should have been subject to either no statute of
limitations or, at a minimum, the twelve-year period that is
applicable to actions on a judgment.

In his Opinion dated April 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/PGnP8Hfrom Leagle.com, Judge Meredith reverses as to
Counts I, II, III holding that, although it is possible that the
passage of time could limit the remedies available to the judgment
debtor who is the subject of a void judgment, there appears to be
no time limit for asserting that a judgment is void and Count IV
because the Court cannot determine whether the unjust enrichment
claim was timely filed since the record does not disclose that
date. The Court affirmed as to Count V because the claims asserted
were barred by limitations since Jason waited more than three
years to file his complaint seeking relief under the Maryland
Consumer Debt Collection Act and the Maryland Consumer Protection
Act.


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: Judge Narrows Claims in "Long" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas E. Johnston of the Southern District of West
Virginia, Charleston Division, ruled on the parties' motions in
the case ANTHONY D. LONG, Plaintiff, v. NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE LLC,
Defendant, Civil Action No. 2:15-CV-01202 (S.D.W. Va.)

Plaintiff Anthony D. Long purchased his home in December 2007. He
financed the purchase through a purchase money loan from Flagstar
Bank with a principal balance of $67,000 and a yearly interest
rate of eight percent. Flagstar Bank transferred the servicing of
the loan to defendant Nationstar Mortgage LLC in approximately
October 2009. Upon the transfer, Nationstar notified plaintiff
that his current loan balance was $66,382.99. Plaintiff contacted
Nationstar in December 2009 with a request to reduce his monthly
payments. In response, Nationstar offered to reduce plaintiff's
interest rate to two percent for five years, with a slow increase
thereafter to a maximum rate of 5.125 percent for all loan periods
after February 2018. Plaintiff entered into the loan modification
on January 15, 2010.

Plaintiff routinely struggled to make regular mortgage payments.
His home appears to have been scheduled for foreclosure on at
least four separate occasions between 2011 and 2014. Each time
Nationstar threatened foreclosure, plaintiff submitted a large
lump sum payment in the amount of his arrearage only to have the
payment rejected, sometimes multiple times, by Nationstar.
Nationstar allegedly rejected the payments because they did not
include legal fees it had incurred in the foreclosure process for
which Nationstar also demanded reimbursement. These legal fees
were not collectible under the parties' contract and, as plaintiff
alleges, cannot be charged to borrowers under West Virginia law.
Plaintiff's home was most recently scheduled for foreclosure sale
on October 7, 2014. On that date, and after Nationstar thrice
rejected plaintiff's attempts to pay the arrears, plaintiff rushed
to the place of the scheduled sale and begged the foreclosure
trustee to accept his payment. The trustee cancelled the sale, but
Nationstar continues to demand payment for over $500.00 in legal
fees.

Plaintiff filed suit against Nationstar in the Circuit Court of
Nicholas County, West Virginia on December 10, 2014. His complaint
alleged a number of illegal debt collection abuses and violations
of law through the servicing of his mortgage. Nationstar was
served on December 29, 2014, and timely removed to the present
court on grounds of diversity jurisdiction on January 28, 2015.
Plaintiff moved to amend the complaint on March 27, 2015, seeking
to convert one of his claims into a class claim, which the court
granted.

The amended complaint alleges three class claims and seven
individual claims for relief. The class claims are premised on the
allegation that Nationstar routinely assesses and collects illegal
fees from West Virginia borrowers in violation of the West
Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (WVCCPA). The seven
individual claims for relief allege violations of the WVCCPA
(claims I, II and III); breach of contract (claim IV); a violation
of West Virginia Code Section 38-1-15 (claim V); fraudulent
inducement (claim VI); and inducement by unconscionable conduct in
violation of the WVCCPA (claim VII).

Nationstar filed a motion for partial dismissal of the amended
complaint on May 28, 2015 and argues that each of plaintiff's
claims are barred, at least in part, by the res judicata effect of
a release of claims issued in a prior class action of which
plaintiff was a member of the Triplett settlement. Nationstar has
also moved to consolidate the case with Lanham v. Nationstar
Mortgage, LLC, a case previously pending before the court.

Plaintiff answered Nationstar's motion to dismiss initially with a
motion to strike and, later, with a response in opposition. His
motion to strike is premised on similar arguments. He further
maintains that the court cannot consider the Triplett settlement
at this juncture because the underlying facts are neither
referenced in nor incorporated into his pleading.

Judge Johnston granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss. Specifically, the motion is granted on
plaintiff's fifth claim for relief, which is dismissed in its
entirety, and granted in part on plaintiff's sixth and seventh
claims for relief, which are dismissed in part to the extent they
are premised on the alleged illegality of Nationstar's
capitalization of past-due interest as part of plaintiff's loan
modification. The court further denies plaintiff's motion to
strike and denies as moot Nationstar's motion to consolidate as
the court the court remanded Lanham to the Circuit Court of
Kanawha County, West Virginia.

A copy of Judge Johnston's memorandum opinion and order dated
March 28, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/P9QKgEfrom
Leagle.com.

Anthony D. Long, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Gary M. Smith, Esq.
     Sarah K. Brown, Esq.
     MOUNTAIN STATE JUSTICE, INC.
     1031 Quarrier St #200
     Charleston, WV 25301
     Telephone: 304-344-3144
     Facsimile: 304-344-3145

Nationstar Mortgage LLC, Defendant, represented by Dennis Kyle
Deak -- kyle.deak@troutmansanders.com -- Jason E. Manning --
jason.manning@troutmansanders.com -- John C. Lynch --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Jonathan M. Kenney --
jon.kenney@troutmansanders.com -- at TROUTMAN SANDERS


NISSAN NORTH AMERICA: Court Grants Class Certification in "Falco"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted Plaintiffs'
Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned, KOBE FALCO,
individually, and on behalf of a class similarly situated
individuals, Plaintiff, v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA INC., NISSAN MOTOR
CO. LTD, a Japanese Company, Defendants, Case No. CV 13-00686 DDP
(MANx) (C.D. Cal.).

Named Plaintiffs Falco, Seguin, Padilla, and Galvan are
purchasers, respectively, of a 2005 Nissan Pathfinder, a 2007
Nissan Quest, a 2006 Nissan Pathfinder, and a 2005 Pathfinder.
Plaintiffs allege that their vehicles had a defectively designed
Timing Chain Tensioning System (TCTS). They bring the instant
putative class action on behalf of themselves and other purchasers
or lessees of the vehicles noted above and other vehicle lines
that they allege share the defect. They allege that repair of the
faulty TCTSs has caused them and other class members significant
monetary damages.

Plaintiffs asserted six causes of action against Defendants: (1)
violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA); (2)
violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3)
violation of Washington Consumer Protection Act (CPA); (4) breach
of implied warranty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty
Act; (5) Fraud; and (6) Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiffs have brought a motion to certify three classes under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3): (1) the "California
Statutory Class," consisting of all California residents who
purchased or leased a class vehicle in California and who have
incurred actual expenses in connection with either the diagnosis
or repair of the defective timing chain system; (2) the
"California Fraud and Breach of Warranty Class," consisting of all
California residents who currently own or lease a class vehicle in
California and who have not yet had the defective timing chain
system fully repaired; and (3) the "Washington Class," consisting
of all Washington residents who purchased or leased a class
vehicle in Washington and who have incurred actual expenses in
connection with either the diagnosis or repair of the defective
timing chain system.

Defendants oppose certification of all three classes. Defendants
argue that Plaintiffs are lumping together two separate issues
with two different components in two different timing chain
systems.

In his Order dated April 5, 2016 available at http://is.gd/N9F8dK
from Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson found that all four prerequisites
listed in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(a) are satisfied.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mark P. Pifko, Esq. --
mpifko@baronbudd.com -- Natasha Mehta, Esq. --
nmehta@baronbudd.com -- Michael I. Miller, Esq. --
mmiller@baronbudd.com -- & Roland K. Tellis, Esq. --
trellis@baronbudd.com -- BARON AND BUDD PC, Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
-- Cody.Padgett@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Jordan L. Lurie, Esq. -
- Jordan.Lurie@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC

Plaintiffs are also represented by:

     Karen Emily Nakon, Esq.
     Larry Chae, Esq.
     Michael G. Devlin, Esq.
     Payam Shahian, Esq.
     Ramtin Shahian, Esq.
     STRATEGIC LEGAL PRACTICES APC
     1840 Century Park E #430,
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310)277-1040

Nissan North America Inc. is represented by:

     Dennis Francis Murphy, Esq.
     E. Paul Cauley, Jr., Esq.
     James L. Nelson, Esq.
     Nora E. Wetzel, Esq.
     Paul J. Riehle, Esq.
     Sherman V. Wittie, Esq.
     SEDGWICK LLP
     One Biscayne Tower, Suite 1500
     Two South Biscayne Boulevard
     Miami, FL 33131-1822
     Tel: (305)670-4777


OAKLAND, CA: "Kahan" Sues Over Illegal Liens on Property
--------------------------------------------------------
Tobias Kahan, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. City Of Oakland and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. RG16811213 (Cal. Super, April 12,
2016), seeks general and specific damages, injunctive and
declaratory relief, attorneys' fees, expert fees, and costs, pre
and post-judgment interest and all such other and further relief
for violation of Municipal Code Sec. 8.28.010.

Kahan bought property located at 10550 Topanga Dr., Oakland, CA
94603 at a foreclosure sale. Plaintiff accuse the City of
improperly and illegally recording and maintaining improper liens
on previously-encumbered private property as a means to collect
unpaid solid waste collection service charges.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gretchen M. Nelson, Esq.
      NELSON & FRAENKEL LLP
      707 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 3600
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Tel: 213-622-6469
      Fax: 213-622-6019
      Email: gnelson@nflawfinn.com

           - and -

      Gregg A. Rapoport, Esq.
      GREGG A. RAPOPORT, APLC
      444 South Flower Street, Suite 1700
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-2901
      Tel: 213-438-5285
      Fax: 213-486-2853
      Email: gar@garlaw.us


OSCO DRUG: Judge Dismisses Class Action Over ADHD Drug Swap
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Dye, writing for Reuters, reports that a federal judge in
Illinois has dismissed a proposed class action brought against a
pharmacy chain by a man who said they improperly filled a
prescription for a brand-name drug for attention-
deficit/hyperactivity disorder with a generic that was not
therapeutically equivalent.

U.S. District Judge Samuel Der-Yeghiayan in Chicago on April 17
ruled that plaintiff Alex Turetsky failed to show that either he
or his son suffered any actual injury -- financial or physical --
that would give him constitutional standing to bring the lawsuit
against the defendants, which are several companies that operated
Osco Drug pharmacies.


OUTLOOK AMUSEMENTS: "Crawford" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nicole Crawford, an individual, on behalf of herself and on behalf
of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Outlook
Amusements, Inc., a California Corporation; and Does 1- 50,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC617160 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 15, 2016), seeks to recover damages and overtime pay as a
result of Defendants' violations to the Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code,
and Cal. Lab. Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants allegedly miscalculated
the wage statements issued to Plaintiff, failing to show, among
other things, the correct overtime rates, all applicable hourly
rates in effect during the relevant pay periods and the
corresponding number of hours worked at each hourly rate by the
employee and the accurate amount of gross wages earned.

Outlook Amusements is a rapid growth technology and marketing
company that specializes in advice-based technology, products and
services. The company was established in 2002 and owns and
operates CaliforniaPsychics.com.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jean-Claude Lapuyade, Esq.
          JCL LAW FIRM
          10731Treena Street, Suite 101
          San Diego, CA 92131
          Telephone: (619) 599 8292
          Facsimile: (619) 599 8291
          E-mail: JLAPUYADE@JCL-LAWFIRM.COM


PAYNE & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Coble" FLSA Class Action Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
RHONDA COBLE, individually and on behalf of a class of similar
employees, Plaintiff, v. PAYNE & ASSOCIATES, INC. D/B/A
FOCUS HEALTHCARE SOLUTIONS, Case 5:16-cv-06044-JTM (W.D. Mo.,
April 11, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant Payne & Associates, Inc. D/B/A Focus Healthcare
Solutions provides home health services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Morgan L. Roach, Esq.
     Nicholas S. Ruble, Esq.
     McCAULEY & ROACH, LLC
     527 W. 39th Street, Suite 200
     Kansas City, MO 64111
     Phone: (816) 523-1700
     Fax: (816) 523-1708
     E-mail: morgan@mccauleyroach.com
             nicholas@mccauleyroach.com


PFIZER INC: Panel Transfers Viagra Suits to San Francisco
---------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that lawsuits filed against Pfizer Inc. claiming that Viagra
caused men to get skin cancer have been transferred to a judge in
San Francisco by a federal judicial panel.

The April 7 order by the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict
Litigation coordinated the cases, now totaling more than 100, for
pretrial purposes to U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg.  The
suits, most of which were filed in the Northern District of
California, have been brought by men diagnosed with melanoma or by
the estates of those who died from the deadly form of cancer.

They cite studies finding that the enzyme used in Viagra, which
the U.S. Food and Drug Administration approved in 1998 for the
treatment of erectile dysfunction, causes a cell mutation that
could develop into melanoma.  In particular, a 2014 study in the
Journal of the American Medical Association Internal Medicine
found that men who took sildenafil, the active ingredient in
Viagra, had an increased risk of developing melanoma by up to 84
percent.

According to the suits, Viagra has been prescribed to more than 35
million men.

Judge Seeborg, the only judge recommended by plaintiffs attorneys
before the MDL panel, already was overseeing most of the Viagra
suits.  Ernest Cory, co-founder of Cory Watson in Birmingham, who
has filed many of the lawsuits, moved on Dec. 11 to coordinate the
cases.  Many of the suits have been filed by other firms including
Minneapolis-based Robins Kaplan and Motley Rice of Mount Pleasant,
South Carolina.

In an emailed statement, Pfizer spokeswoman Neha Wadhwa wrote:
"Viagra's safety and efficacy have been studied in 136 clinical
trials, and there is no reliable scientific evidence that the
medicine causes melanoma.  Pfizer stands behind this important
medicine and intends to vigorously defend these lawsuits."
Pfizer attorney John Joiner -- jjoiner@wc.com -- a partner at
Washington's Williams & Connolly, had supported transfer of the
cases to Judge Seeborg but denied the allegations, claiming the
2014 study had "significant limitations."


PILOT FLYING J: Owners Fights Order to Testify in Suit
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Cleveland Browns owner
Jimmy Haslam is fighting a court order for him to testify in a
civil lawsuit against the Pilot Flying J truck-stop chain owned by
Haslam and his brother, Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam.

An attorney for Jimmy Haslam filed a motion after an Alabama judge
ordered his deposition in the lawsuit by Wright Transportation,
The Tennessean reported.

The brief filed by attorney Joseph McCorkle Jr. said the
deposition petition is "riddled with factual and procedural
errors" and is a "thinly-disguised effort to obtain discovery from
(Haslam) to be used in the litigation against him, wherever it
ends up."

According to the judge's order, Jimmy Haslam is expected to be
subpoenaed to appear for deposition May 11 in Knoxville.

Mobile, Ala.-based Wright Transportation is one of several
companies suing Knoxville-based Pilot Flying J in connection with
a scheme to cheat customers out of promised discounts and rebates.

Ten former Pilot employees have pleaded guilty in the scheme, and
the company's former president and several others await trial next
year in federal court.

The scheme came to light after federal agents raided the company's
headquarters in April 2013.  The company previously paid a $92
million penalty to the government and $85 million to settle claims
with 5,500 trucking companies in a class-action lawsuit.

Jimmy Haslam has denied previous knowledge of the alleged fraud or
any personal wrongdoing.

Pilot Flying J is the nation's largest diesel retailer with annual
revenues of about $30 billion.


RTG FURNITURE: Judge Limits Defendant's Production of Documents
---------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer of the Southern District of
Florida granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs' motion to
compel production of documents in the case BENJAMIN HANKINSON,
JAMES GUERRA, JEANETTE GANDOLFO, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. R.T.G. FURNITURE CORP.,
d/b/a ROOMS TO GO, Defendant, Case No. 15-81139-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
(S.D. Fla.)

Plaintiffs Benjamin Hankinson, James Guerra and Jeanette Gandolfo
allege that defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp. (RTG) made material
misrepresentations or omissions when selling upholstery protection
plans (FFPP) to customers and, in some cases, failed to apply the
upholstery protection product that consumers purchased.

Plaintiffs filed a class action against defendant, alleging
violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,
Fla. Stat. Section 501.201-.213, and unjust enrichment.

Plaintiffs seek discovery related to defendant's affiliates that
do business online and in other states, which defendant argues are
not related to the claims brought against it. Plaintiffs also seek
discovery of the names and contact information of RTG's customers
who purchased FFPP, which RTG argues are not relevant to the case
at the stage of pre-class certification. Finally, plaintiffs seek
information regarding sales quotas and incentives offered to RTG's
sales force for selling FFPP, which information RTG contends is
not relevant to whether misrepresentations were made, or whether
RTG failed to apply the FFPP product when purchased.

Judge Seltzer granted in part and denied in part plaintiffs'
motion to compel.  Among other things, the Court said RTG may not
produce customer identities at this stage of the litigation as
well as sales information, counseling, and tracking of individual
sales people.  Plaintiffs' request for production of documents
related to "slamming," which is defined as adding the FFPP
upholstery protection plans to customer's purchases without their
knowledge, is also denied.

A copy of Magistrate Judge Seltzer's order dated March 28, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/jFUl0zfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Diana Leigh Martin --
dmartin@cohenmilstein.com -- Douglas J. McNamara --
dmcnamara@cohenmilstein.com -- Eric Kafka --
ekafka@cohenmilstein.com -- Leslie Mitchell Kroeger --
lkroeger@cohenmilstein.com -- Theodore Jon Leopold --
tleopold@cohenmilstein.com -- at Cohen, Milstein, Sellers & Toll,
PLLC

R.T.G. Furniture Corp, Defendant, represented by Frank Lowrey --
lowrey@bmelaw.com -- Joshua F. Thorpe -- thorpe@bmelaw.com --
Randi Engel Schnell -- schnell@bmelaw.com -- at Bondurant Mixson &
Elmore; Jamie Zysk Isani -- jisani@hunton.com -- Douglas C Dreier
-- ddreier@hunton.com -- at Hunton & Williams LLP


SAGE HOSPITALITY: "Denny" PWD Suit Goes to Trial
------------------------------------------------
THE CIVIL RIGHTS EDUCATION AND ENFORCEMENT CENTER, on behalf of
its members, and MARGARET DENNY, on behalf of herself and a
proposed class of similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v. SAGE
HOSPITALITY RESOURCES LLC, SAGE OXFORD, INC., WALTER ISENBERG, and
JOHN DOES 1-5, Defendants, Civil Action No. 15-cv-00236-REB-MEH
(D. Colo.), will proceed to trial after District Judge Robert T.
Blackburn of the District of Colorado adopted a magistrate judge's
report and recommendation denying Sage's motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs commenced an action on February 4, 2015, alleging,
that defendants Sage Hospitality Resources LLC (SHR), Walter
Isenberg, and Sage Oxford, Inc. violated Title III of the
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by failing to provide
wheelchair-accessible transportation services that are equivalent
to the transportation services provided to non-disabled guests at
the hotels of the defendants. After some preliminary discovery to
determine the proper defendants, the plaintiffs filed their
amended complaint.

Defendant SHR filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint, were both Sage Oxford and Mr. Isenberg joined in the
motion to dismiss.

The magistrate judge filed a recommendation on February 26, 2016,
where the magistrate judge converted a part of both motions to
dismiss to motions for summary judgment. In his recommendation,
the magistrate judge provides a detailed and thorough analysis of
the standing issues raised by SHR and Mr. Isenberg, the facts
evidenced in the record, and the applicable law. The magistrate
judge concludes that the evidence reflects genuine issues of fact
as to whether SHR controls two local hotels, the Oxford Hotel in
Denver and TownePlace Suites in Broomfield, to the extent that SHR
could cause these hotels to bring the vehicles they use for
customer transportation into compliance with Title III. With
evidence that SHR does exercise such control, the plaintiffs have
standing to assert their claim against SHR. The magistrate judge
recommends that the motion to dismiss of SHR, which has been
converted to a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
standing and subject matter jurisdiction, be denied.

However, the magistrate judge concludes that the plaintiffs do not
have standing to assert their claim against Mr. Isenberg and the
magistrate judge recommends that the motion to dismiss of Mr.
Isenberg, converted to a motion for summary judgment on the issue
of standing and subject matter jurisdiction, be granted.

Defendants Sage Hospitality Resources LLC and Sage Oxford, Inc.
filed objections to the recommendation, and the plaintiffs filed a
response to the objections.

Judge Blackburn approves the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and is adopted as an order the court.

Defendant Sage Hospitality Resources' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' first amended complaint and memorandum of law,
converted to a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
standing and subject matter jurisdiction, is denied. Defendant
Walter Isenberg's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' first amended
complaint and memorandum of law, converted to a motion for summary
judgment on the issue of standing and subject matter jurisdiction,
is granted.

Defendant Walter Isenberg's complaint is dismissed and Isenberg
shall be dropped as named defendant and the caption shall be
amended. Defendant Sage Hospitality Resources' motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' first amended complaint and memorandum of law,
converted to a motion for summary judgment on the issue of
standing and subject matter jurisdiction, is denied.

A copy of Judge Blackburn's order dated March 28, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/zdBBHzfrom Leagle.com.

The 4Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, on behalf of
its members, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Patrick Fox, Civil
Rights Education and Enforcement Center

The Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Plaintiff,
represented by Bill Lann Lee, Civil Rights Education and
Enforcement Center, Julia Campins, Campins Benham-Baker, LLP,
Julie Hayden Wilensky, Civil Rights Education and Enforcement
Center, Kevin William Williams, Colorado Cross-Disability
Coalition Legal Program & Lauren Louise Fontana, Civil Rights
Education and Enforcement Center

Margaret Denny, Plaintiff, represented by Timothy Patrick Fox,
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Bill Lann Lee,
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center, Julia Campins,
Campins Benham-Baker, LLP, Julie Hayden Wilensky, Civil Rights
Education and Enforcement Center, Kevin William Williams, Colorado
Cross-Disability Coalition Legal Program & Lauren Louise Fontana,
Civil Rights Education and Enforcement Center

Sage Hospitality Resources LLC and Sage Oxford Inc., represented
by Steve Allen Miller -- smiller@laborlawyers.com -- Kevin S.
Simon -- ksimon@laborlawyers.com -- and Scott C. Fanning --
sfanning@laborlawyers.com -- at Fisher & Phillips, LLP


SALDIVAR COASTAL: "Malaska" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
---------------------------------------------------
Laura A. Malaska, on behalf of herself and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Saldivar Coastal Services, Inc.
D/B/A Saldivar Primary Home Care and Saldivar Home Health, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00117 (S.D. Tex., April 12, 2016),
seeks overtime compensation, liquidated damages, reasonable and
necessary attorneys' fees, costs pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Malaska worked as a domestic care nurse for the Defendants.
Saldivar provides home care services to its customers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert R. Debes, Jr.
      SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
      11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
      Houston, TX 77046
      Telephone: (713) 621-2277
      Facsimile: (713) 621-0993
      Email: bdebes@eeoc.net


SANDFORD OIL: Faces "Arenas" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
ASHLAND ARENAS, JASON VILLAREAL, CEDRIC CAMP and JOE ROJAS on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, vs. SANDFORD OIL COMPANY, INC., SANDFORD OIL SOUTH
TEXAS, INC., WESTERN TRANSPORTATION, INC. COASTLINE
TRANSPORTATION, INC. and R BLAKE SANDFORD, Defendants, Case 2:16-
cv-00119 (S.D. Tex., April 12, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime wages
and related penalties for Helpers, Drivers, Crew Leaders,
Fuelers/Fuel Hands and sand coordinators under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Sandford Oil is one of the largest distillate fuel distributors in
the Southern United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     James M. Loren, Esq.
     George Z. Goldberg
     Rachael Rustmann
     GOLDBERG & LOREN, PA
     3102 Maple Ave, Suite 450
     Dallas, TX 75201
     Phone: 469-412-4222
     Fax: (954) 585-4886
     E-mail: Jloren@goldbergloren.com
             rrustmann@goldbergloren.com
             ggoldberg@goldbergdohan.com


SANTA CLARA, CA: Hearing on Summary Judgment Bids Reset to May 12
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Lucy H. Koh of the United States District Court for
the Northern District of California reset the hearing for the
parties' cross-motions for summary judgment in the case captioned,
THANH HUYNH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. KATHERINE HARASZ, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-02367-LHK (N.D. Cal.).

Defendants in the case are Housing Authority of the County of
Santa Clara and Katherine Harasz.

On April 1, 2016, the parties filed a stipulation which included a
proposed Notice and Opt Out Form. On April 4, 2016, Plaintiffs
filed a response to Defendants' administrative motion. Plaintiffs
contended that although notice must be sent to the Plaintiff class
before the summary judgment hearing, the class is not required to
respond to the notice before the summary judgment motions are
heard or decided.

The Court suggests changing the opt-out deadline on the proposed
Notice from April 14, 2016 to May 5, 2016. In addition, in order
to streamline the opt-out process, the Court proposes that
potential Class Members opt out by mailing the opt out form to the
Court, rather than to Class Counsel and Defendants' Counsel.
Finally, the Court has corrected errors and made other suggested
edits. All of these changes have been incorporated into the
attachments accompanying the present Order.

On April 1, 2016, Defendants filed an administrative motion to
continue the hearing on the parties' cross-motions for summary
judgment, currently set for April 14, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

In her Order dated April 5, 2016 available at http://is.gd/0st0uS
from Leagle.com, Judge Koh continued the hearing of the parties'
cross-motions for summary judgment to May 12, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.
The parties are directed to file their joint case management
statement by May 5, 2016. The final pretrial conference, currently
set for June 16, 2016, at 1:30 p.m., remains as set. A seven-day
jury trial, currently set to begin on June 27, 2016, at 9:00 a.m.,
also remains as set.

Plaintiffs are represented by Holly Kathleen Victorson, Esq. --
victorson@fr.com -- & Katherine Kelly Lutton, Esq. -- vidal@fr.com
-- FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.

They are also represented by:

     Kara Elizabeth Brodfuehrer, Esq.
     Kyra Ann Kazantzis, Esq.
     Thomas Philip Zito, Esq.
     LAW FOUNDATION OF SILICON VALLEY
     152 N 3rd St #3
     San Jose, CA 95112
     Tel: (408)293-4790

The Defendants are represented by:

     Karen K. McCay, Esq.
     Servando R. Sandoval, Esq.
     Helene Anastasia Simvoulakis, Esq.
     PAHL AND MCCAY
     225 West Santa Clara St.
     Ste 1500
     San Jose, CA 95113
     Tel: (408)286-5100


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces Suit in Calif. Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claims Seagate Technology exposed 10,000 employees
and ex-employees to identity theft in March by disclosing their W-
2 forms in a phishing scam.


SERVIS ONE: Faces Suit for Violation of FLSA, Md. Labor Laws
------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony Dolphus and Christopher Smith, and Paul Dickson and
Reginald Smith v. Servis One, Inc. d/b/a BSI Financial Services,
Case 1:16-cv-01075-GLR (D. Md., April 11, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages, among others, under the Federal Fair Labor Standards
Act, Maryland Wage and Hour Law, Maryland Code Annotated, Labor
and Employment Article, the Maryland Wage Payment and Collection
Law, Maryland Code Annotated, and Labor and Employment Article.

Servis One, Inc., doing business as BSI Financial Services,
provides cloud-based loan services to individuals.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Joseph Spicer, Esq.
     THE LAW OFFICES OF PETER T. NICHOLL
     36 South Charles Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21201
     Phone: (410) 244-7005
     Fax: (410) 244-8454
     E-mail: jspicer@nicholllaw.com


SIRIUS XM: 2nd Cir. Sends Suit Over Pre-1972 Songs to N.Y. App.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit passed a
copyright lawsuit from Flo and Eddie of the Turtles to a New York
appeals court to decide if owners of sound recordings have a right
of public performance.

"The case very much remains up in the air," said Mitch Stoltz,
lawyer from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed an
amicus brief in the case.

"If this case were to go the way Flo and Eddie want, it would
create a right that never existed" and would be "disruptive for
innovation," Stoltz said in a phone interview April 13.

The Southern New York Federal Court ruled in 2014 that New York
State "does afford a common-law right of public performance to
copyright holders" and, consequently, Sirius XM's internal
reproductions of Flo & Eddie Inc.'s recordings "were
correspondingly not fair use."

Sirius XM petitioned the Second Circuit to allow an interlocutory
appeal, which it did.

On April 13, the Second Circuit asked the New York Court of
Appeals to take on the dispute and answer the question: "Is there
a right of public performance for creators of sound recordings
under New York law and, if so, what is the nature and scope of
that right?"

The New York City-based federal appeals court also invited the
state's highest court "to reformulate or expand this question as
appropriate."

Flo & Eddie Inc. is a company set up by Mark Volman and Howard
Kaylan, two founding members of the 1960's American pop group the
Turtles. Volman and Kaylan currently perform as the comedic
musical duo Flo and Eddie. They were also members of Frank Zappa's
rotating cast of the Mothers of Invention.

Flo and Eddie filed a class-action lawsuit in Manhattan against
Sirius XM Radio in 2013 in New York on behalf of a class of owners
of pre-1972 recordings. They also filed parallel class actions
against Sirius XM in California and Florida the same year,
alleging copyright claims based on each state's laws.

Similar lawsuits were filed against the streaming service Pandora
for streaming pre-1972 songs without paying royalties.

Flo and Eddie disputed record label settlements, filing a motion
in 2015 to stop a $210 million settlement with RIAA. A federal
judge denied that motion.  Sound recordings made after Feb. 15,
1972, are subject to protection under the U.S. Copyright Act.

Congress created an exclusive performance right in post-1972 sound
recordings performed by digital audio transmission. Federal
protection of pre-1972 recordings does not apply to AM/FM radio
broadcasts, according to the Second Circuit ruling.

Sirius XM argued in a May 2014 motion for summary judgment that a
state-law public performance right, "if recognized, would be
barred by the dormant Commerce Clause."

The Second Circuit responded in its April 13 ruling that, "if we
held that the dormant Commerce Clause banned all such rights, [Flo
and Eddie] would lose regardless of New York law."

Sirius XM is the only satellite radio company in the United
States, according to Forbes, and currently has more than 30
million subscribers.

Volman and Kaylan adopted their Flo and Eddie aliases in response
to contractual obligations with the Turtles' recording label,
White Whale, which eventually transferred the copyrights of
Turtles songs to Flo and Eddie.

Flo and Eddie's songs from the 60s and 70s have been sampled by
rap artists including De La Soul, Slick Rick and Gucci Mane. Their
hits include "Happy Together," "Eleanor," and "She Would Rather Be
With Me."

The case captioned, FLO & EDDIE, INC., a California Corporation,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SIRIUS XM RADIO, INC., a Delaware
Corporation, Defendant-Appellant, DOES, 1 THROUGH 10, Defendants,
Docket No. 15-1164-cv (2nd Cir.).


SOTHEBY'S: Artists' Bid to Collect Royalties Denied
---------------------------------------------------
Don DeBenedictis, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge derailed painters' and sculptors' long-
running crusade to collect royalties from auction houses that
resell their works, ruling that copyright law trumps a unique
California statute.

The California Royalty Resale Act requires resellers of fine art
to pay a 5 percent royalty to the creator.  But U.S. District
Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald found that the 1976 state law
"frustrates the purpose . . . and disrupts the equilibrium of the
[federal] Copyright Act." The artists' attorney said he would
appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

California law is preempted by the "first sale doctrine," which
allows someone who owns a copyrighted work, such as a painting or
a copy of a book, to sell it without the permission of the
copyright owner.

Purchasers can dispose of copyrighted works as they wish,
Fitzgerald wrote in his ruling, "for whatever price the buyer
deems appropriate, without regard to the wishes of the copyright
holder."

California enacted its royalty act to encourage creativity by
allowing artists to receive some benefit when the value of their
paintings, drawing and sculptures rise, sometimes dramatically. It
was prompted in part by the 1973 sale of a work by Robert
Rauschenberg for $85,000 that the artist had sold for just $900,
according to an amicus brief from California Lawyers for the Arts.

The brief notes that authors, musicians and playwrights generally
receive royalties whenever their works are published or performed.
But visual artists who make one-of-a-kind works, such as painters
and sculptors, do not.

Throughout the rest of the world, some 30 countries require resale
royalties under a principle called droit de suite, or right to
follow.

"But Congress never adopted droit de suite," Fitzgerald wrote in
his 36-page ruling. "In fact, just the opposite: by enacting [the
first sale doctrine], Congress intended to keep downstream sales
of copyrighted works . . . free from restrictions imposed by
copyright holders."

The litigation began in 2011 as a trio of class actions targeting
Christie's, Sotheby's, and eBay. The named plaintiffs are heirs of
prominent California sculptor Robert Graham, painter and
photographer Chuck Close, artist Laddie John Dill and the
foundation established by painter and printmaker Sam Francis.

They initially sought royalties on their works resold anywhere in
the United States. But a federal judge found the California law
violated the Constitution's Commerce Clause and struck it down.
The Ninth Circuit partially reversed on appeal, holding that the
statute could be applied to sales within California.

Neither the first judge nor the appellate court considered whether
the Copyright Act preempts the California Royalty Resale Act.

Fitzgerald held that it does for two reasons. First, the
California statute conflicts with the federal copyright law. By
granting artists some say in later sales of their works, the CRRA
"disrupts Congress's efforts to balance the interests of copyright
holders and downstream consumers [and] it must be preempted,"
Fitzgerald ruled.

The law also runs afoul of an express preemption clause in the
Copyright Act.

Rejecting an argument by the plaintiffs, Fitzgerald held that a
Ninth Circuit ruling in 1980 that upheld the California law had
been "eroded" by later decisions from the circuit and the U.S.
Supreme Court.

He dismissed eBay from the litigation, calling it an online
marketplace, not a seller: "It is virtually common knowledge that
defendant eBay is not a seller of goods."

Neither the artists' attorney Michael Bowse -- mbowse@bgrfirm.com
-- with Browne George Ross, nor Christie's attorney Jason Russell
-- jason.russell@skadden.com -- of with Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom responded to requests for comment.

Bowse said, however, in a statement, that the artists will appeal.

"We have always anticipated that this important artists' rights
matter would need to be resolved by the Ninth Circuit," Bowse said
in the statement.

The case is captioned, Estate of Robert Graham, et al. -v-
Sotheby's, Inc., Case Nos. CV-11-08604-MWF-FFM, CV-11-08605-MWF-
FFM, and CV-11-08622-MWF-PLA (C.D. Cal.).


THD AT-HOME: Court Grants Final Approval of Class Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of California granted
Plaintiff's Motion for Final Approval of Class Action Settlement
and granted in part Plaintiff's Motion for Attorneys' Fees, Costs,
and Enhancement Award in the case captioned, JAMES RICHARDSON, as
an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. THD AT-HOME SERVICES, INC., a Delaware corporation;
HOME DEPOT U.S.A., INC., a Delaware corporation; MEASURECOMP, LLC,
a Michigan limited liability company, and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendant, Case No. 1:14-CV-0273-BAM (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff is a former measure tech who worked for MeasureComp, LLC
in California from November 2011 to May 2012. MeasureComp was
acquired by THD At-Home Services, Inc. (AHS) in May 2012.
Richardson became an employee of AHS starting in May 2012, and
continued to work as a measure tech for THD until February 2015.

On January 23, 2014, Plaintiff filed his Complaint in Fresno
County Superior Court against Defendants for alleged violations of
the California Labor Code on behalf of all persons employed by AHS
and/or MeasureComp as measure techs in California between January
23, 2010 and the present. On February 27, 2014, Defendants removed
the case to this Court. Richardson alleges that Defendants
violated California wage and hour law by failing to (i) compensate
employees for all regular and overtime hours worked, (ii) provide
meal periods and rest breaks, (iii) provide accurate wage
statements, (iv) reimburse all necessary business expenses, and
(v) pay all wages owed upon termination. Second Amended Complaint
(Complaint. Based upon these allegations, Plaintiff asserts claims
under sections 226.7, 1194, 2802, 203, and 226 of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code section
17200, et seq., and the Private Attorneys General Act of 2004
(PAGA).

The parties reached a settlement before Plaintiff moved for class
certification. On September 18, 2015, the Court preliminarily
approved the class action settlement and conditionally certified
the settlement class, preliminarily approved the settlement
agreement, approved the distribution of the class notice,
confirmed the selection of CPT Group, Inc. as the claims
administrator, and scheduled the final approval and fairness
hearing for March 4, 2016.

In the motion, Plaintiff seeks final approval of a class
settlement reached with Defendants and an award of Attorney Fees,
Costs and approval of the class representative enhancement
payment.

In her Order dated April 5, 2016 available at http://is.gd/HhWlRo
from Leagle.com, Judge McAuliffe found that the terms of the
proposed Settlement Agreement are found to be fair, adequate and
reasonable and comply with Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.

The Court appointed Kenneth H. Yoon and Stephanie E. Yasuda of Law
Offices of Kenneth H. Yoon as class counsel for the settlement
class. Plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees, costs and expenses,
and class representative incentive awards is granted in part and
denied in part as follows: (a.) Reasonable attorneys' fees in the
amount of $345,000.00 and costs in the amount of $25,000 is
awarded to Plaintiff's counsel, the Law Offices of Kenneth H.
Yoon; and (b.) An incentive awards of $15,000 to James Richardson
consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement.

James Richardson is represented by:

     Kenneth Yoon, Esq.
     Stephanie E. Yasuda, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH YOON
     624 S Grand Ave
     Los Angeles, CA 90017
     Tel: (213)612-0988

Home Depot USA and THD At-Home Services are represented by Liz
Kathryn Bertko, Esq. -- lbertko@akingump.com -- & Donna M. Mezias,
Esq. -- dmezias@akingump.com -- AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP


UBER TECH: San Francisco to Require Drivers to Pay $91 Fee
----------------------------------------------------------
T.C. Sottek, writing for The Verge, reports that a class action
lawsuit that will determine whether Uber drivers are independent
contractors or employees starts June 20th, but San Francisco isn't
waiting to reap fees from the fleet in the meantime.  SFGate
reports that the city is now requiring Uber and Lyft drivers to
pay a $91 annual business registration fee if they earn $100,000
or less, and to retroactively pay the fee in years they worked but
did not register.

SFGate reports that San Francisco treasurer Jose Cisneros has
begun sending letters to more than 37,000 drivers in the city
informing them of the new fee and requiring payment and
registration within 30 days.  Uber didn't flinch upon news of the
requirement, telling SFGate that its drivers "are responsible for
following appropriate local requirements."  Several state
governments across the US are considering bills, or have already
passed bills, classifying ride-hail drivers as contractors; Uber
has praised those bills, and is aggressively lobbying for similar
legislation elsewhere.

Lyft took a different stance on San Francisco's new requirement.
Lyft spokesperson Chelsea Wilson told SFGate that the company has
"serious concerns with the city's plan to collect and display Lyft
drivers' personal information in a publicly available database.
People in San Francisco, who are choosing to drive with Lyft to
help ends meet, shouldn't have to compromise their privacy in
order to share a ride."

The $91 fee is yet another cost that ride-hail drivers are being
asked to bear as contractors; so far, both Uber and Lyft have
saved a substantial amount of money (an estimated $126 million in
Lyft's case) by not having to provide their drivers with health
insurance, overtime pay, and other expenses.  Earlier this month a
federal judge rejected a $12.25 million settlement offer from Lyft
that would have compensated some drivers for costs, but would have
spared it from having to classify them as employees.


UBER TECH: Judge Narrows Claims in "Del Rio" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edward M. Chen of the Northern District of
California ruled on the parties' motions in the case RICARDO DEL
RIO, Plaintiff, v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-03667-EMC (N.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Ricardo Del Rio, Jose Valdivia, and Jose Pereira filed
a suit against Defendant Uber Technologies, Inc., alleging that
Uber misclassified drivers as independent contractors. Plaintiffs
brought a number of employment claims, including: (1) failure to
pay overtime wages, (2) failure to pay minimum wage, (3) penalties
under California Labor Code section 2699 (Private Attorney General
Act) (PAGA), (4) failure to provide itemized statements, (5)
failure to reimburse expenses, (6) failure to provide rest meal
periods, (7) failure to provide rest periods, (8) waiting time
penalties under California Labor Code section 203, (9) unfair
business practice under the Unfair Competition Law (UCL), (10)
injunctive relief, and (11) violation of the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA). Plaintiffs filed a motion to conditionally certify a
collective action

Uber moves to dismiss or stay plaintiffs' first through tenth
causes of action (state law claims) pursuant to the Colorado River
abstention doctrine, or in the alternative to dismiss plaintiffs'
first, second, fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh causes
of actions for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Judge Chen granted defendant's motion to stay plaintiffs' state
law claims and motion to dismiss plaintiffs' FLSA claims for
failure to pay overtime and minimum wage. The court gave
plaintiffs 30 days to file an amended complaint. The court denies
without prejudice plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a
collective action. Plaintiffs may re-file a motion for conditional
certification once the pleadings have been settled.

A copy of Judge Chen's order dated March 28, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/8U4wKFfrom Leagle.com.

Ricardo Del Rio, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Tai Wootton --
awootton@hamnerlaw.com -- Evelina Maria Serafini --
eserafini@hamnerlaw.com -- Christopher James Hamner --
chamner@hamnerlaw.com - at Hamner Law Offices

Uber Technologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael
Spurchise -- aspurchise@littler.com -- John C. Fish, Jr. --
jfish@littler.com -- Robert G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com --
Emily Erin O'Connor -- eoconnor@littler.com -- Sophia Behnia --
sbehnia@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson, P.C.; Joshua Seth
Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Theane D. Evangelis --
tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin Joseph Ring-Dowell --
kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. --
tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- at at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Rasier-CA, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew Michael Spurchise
-- aspurchise@littler.com -- John C. Fish, Jr. --
jfish@littler.com -- Robert G. Hulteng -- rhulteng@littler.com --
Sophia Behnia -- sbehnia@littler.com -- at Littler Mendelson,
P.C.; Joshua Seth Lipshutz -- jlipshutz@gibsondunn.com -- Theane
D. Evangelis -- tevangelis@gibsondunn.com -- Kevin Joseph Ring-
Dowell -- kringdowell@gibsondunn.com -- Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr.
-- tboutrous@gibsondunn.com -- at Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP


UMG RECORDINGS: Court Approves $11.5 Million Ringtone Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Francisco gave final approval to an
$11.5 million class action settlement from the Estate of Rick
James, Public Enemy's Chuck D and other musicians over royalties
from digital music downloads.

U.S. District Judge Susan Illston also approved $2.9 million in
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, to be taken from the $11.5 million
settlement.

The musicians claimed in their 2011 lawsuit that Universal Music
Group stiffed them on royalties by calling digital downloads
"sales" instead of "licensing agreements" when people bought
permanent downloads and ringtones for cellphones. Sales royalties
are less than those for licensing.

On April 15, 2015, shortly after the settlement was announced, Len
Simon, one the plaintiffs' attorneys, told the Hollywood Reporter
he was pleased with the deal.

"This settlement is a fair resolution of this controversy over how
to compensate artists for their valuable work in a new medium
which we believe was not contemplated by their contracts, many
drafted in the 1970s and 1980s," Simon said. "And it compensates
these artists now, rather than after additional years of
litigation and uncertainty."

Judge Illston wrote in her order approving the settlement that she
will oversee the distribution of the settlement fund to the
claimants.

The case captioned, RICK JAMES, by and through THE JAMES
AMBROSE JOHNSON, JR., 1999 TRUST, his successor in interest, et
al., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UMG RECORDINGS, INC., et al., Defendant, Case No.
11-cv-01613-SI. (N.D. Cal.)


UNIVERSAL PROTECTION: Appeals Court Upholds Summary Judgment
------------------------------------------------------------
Presiding Judge Tricia A. Bigelow of the California Court of
Appeals affirmed a trial court's judgment granting Universal
Protection Service's motion for summary judgment in the case
captioned, ARLENE KING, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNIVERSAL
PROTECTION SERVICE, LP, Defendant and Respondent, Case No. B264643
(Cal. App.).

On November 8, 2010, Universal hired Arlene King as a security
guard. She began work on February 7, 2011. On November 16, 2010,
King attended a new employee orientation. King signed Universal's
standard-form promissory note authorizing the company to deduct
$30 from her paychecks to satisfy the $300 uniform security
deposit. On June 16, 2012, King notified her watch commander that
she was quitting her job. On June 18, 2012, King signed a
resignation notice and picked up her final paycheck. King returned
her uniformed items and signed a Uniform Report form. On July 12,
2012, a representative from Universal also signed the Uniform
Report form indicating that King's uniforms had been received.

On July 13, 2012, Universal delivered a check (no. 5196) to King
for $304.62, representing all of her $300 deposit, plus interest.
The check was issued from the FBO account noted above. King cashed
her security deposit refund check on July 16, 2012.

In January 2015, King filed her operative first amended complaint
(FAC). The FAC alleged the following PAGA causes of action
respectively: (1) violations of the statutes governing employee
security deposits (Sec.Sec. sections 400-410); (2) untimely
payment of wages (Sec. 204); (3) illegal wage deductions (Sec.
section 221); (4) secret payment of lower wages (Sec. 223); (5)
illegal deductions from wages (Sec. 224); and (6) failure to
provide accurate wage statements (Sec. 226). King expressly
alleged that all of her claims were brought as representative
claims under the PAGA.

Universal filed a motion for summary judgment or, in the
alterative, motion for summary adjudication of each of King's
causes of action.  On March 19, 2015, the trial court granted
Universal's MSJ, finding as follows: King's claims in her first
cause of action based on section 403 failed as a matter of law
because (1) Universal and its employees entered a written
agreement (namely, the promissory note) setting forth the
conditions under which uniform security deposits were given, (2)
the uniform security deposits were deposited into an account at a
bank authorized to do business in California, and (3) the uniform
security deposits were withdrawn from the account only upon the
joint signatures of the employer and the employee.

On appeal, King contends summary judgment in favor of Universal
must be reversed because the trial court erred insofar as she
alleged -- as a representative for the interests of our state
labor law enforcement agencies -- that the company violated
section 403 in the manner in which it collected and banked the
employees' security deposits for their uniforms.

In her Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/KaP9Yw
from Leagle.com, Judge Garfinkel found no error in the trial
court's decision to grant Universal's MSJ because the undisputed
evidence established that both King and Universal signed the
Uniform Report at about the time she returned her uniform items,
and that this was the same practice as to all employees.

Arlene King is represented by:

     Kirk D. Hanson, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KIRK D. HANSON
     2790 Truxtun Rd # 140,
     San Diego, CA 92106
     Tel: (619)523-1992

Universal Protection Service, LP is represented by Richard J.
Simmons, Esq. -- rsimmons@sheppardmullin.com -- Jason W.
Kearnaghan, Esq. -- jkearnaghan@sheppardmullin.com -- & Cassidy M.
English, Esq. -- cenglish@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN
RICHTER & HAMPTON


VANGUARD NATURAL: "Kaufmann" Files Suit Over Breach of Contract
---------------------------------------------------------------
Richard I. Kaufmann and Laura Kaufmann, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Vanguard Natural
Resources, LLC, VNR Finance Corp., Vanguard Natural Gas, LLC, VNR
Holdings, LLC, Vanguard Permian, LLC, Encore Energy Partners
Operating LLC, and Encore Clear Fork Pipeline LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02743-LGS (S.D.N.Y., April 12, 2016), seeks
declaratory relief, damages, equitable/injunctive or other relief
and attorneys' fees and costs resulting from breach of contract,
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing,
unjust enrichment and in violation of the Trust Indenture Act.

Richard I. and Laura Kaufmann acquired 2020 notes, senior
unsecured obligations of Vanguard and VFC, which carry an equal
right of payment with all of Vanguard's existing and future senior
indebtedness, and which are unconditionally guaranteed by all of
Vanguard's subsidiaries (other than VFC). However, declining oil
and natural gas prices have strained Vanguard's ability to fulfill
it obligations. In an attempt to relieve Vanguard's debt load, on
January 8, 2016, the Defendants announced a proposed private debt
exchange whereby they would exchange certain 2020 Notes for newly-
issued 7.0% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2023. Plaintiffs
felt shortchanged by this development.

Vanguard is an independent energy company focused on the
acquisition and development of mature, long-lived oil and natural
gas properties in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
      Yitzchak Eliezer Soloveichik, Esq.
      BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
      New York, NY 10165
      Tel: (212) 697-6484
      Email: peretz@bgandg.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Deadline Looms for Emissions Plan
------------------------------------------------
Jess McHugh, writing for International Business Times, reports
that German automaker Volkswagen must tell a U.S. judge how it
intends to fix more than 500,000 diesel cars fitted with faulty
software to rig emissions tests.  A group of research scientists
revealed in September that Volkswagen had fitted some of its
diesel engines with a so-called defeat device that allowed the
cars to pass emissions tests despite emitting as much as 40 times
the legal limit, and the company later admitted 11 million
vehicles worldwide were affected by the cheating software.  The
deadline is now looming for the manufacturer to report its
software fix.

While the European carmaker faces fines and demands for expensive
fixes worldwide, it is under fire particularly in the U.S. where
the rigged software was first discovered and where Environmental
Protection Agency regulations are especially rigid.  A West
Virginia University lab discovered the cheating software after
conducting multiple road tests with one of the Volkswagen diesel
engines, and U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer had originally
given VW until March 24 to find a fix that would be acceptable to
the EPA.  He extended that deadline to this coming Thursday, April
21, and said he would consider holding a trial this summer if the
April deadline is not met.

"[VW] are under the gun themselves, and not just from Judge
Breyer," Stephen Reitman, analyst at Societe Generale, told
Financial Times, adding, "They need to quantify the liability in
order to make provisions."

Any fix for the faulty vehicles will be expensive, according to
experts, and some scientists are skeptical a solution even exists,
saying a buyback is the only option.  The European manufacturer
set aside 6.7 billion euros, or approximately $7.6 billion to
repair the vehicles affected worldwide, according to a statement
from the CEO in Janaury.  In addition to the money for the fix
itself, the company is already facing dozens of class-action
lawsuits worldwide that will likely cost several billion dollars
more.


WAL-MART STORES: Court Rejects EEOC Bid to Enforce Subpoena
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) on October 4,
2010, received a charge of discrimination alleging, in relevant
part, that Wal-Mart Stores East, LP's (Walmart) pre-employment
physical abilities test has a disparate impact on women as a
class. In the course of investigating the claim, the EEOC
requested data relating to Walmart's administration of the PAT at
all 40 of Walmart's Grocery Distribution Centers.

Walmart produced the requested data for its Clarksville, Arkansas,
and London, Kentucky, Distribution Centers, but declined to
include personally identifiable information and objected to the
scope of the requests on relevance and undue burden grounds.

On October 24, 2014, a subpoena was issued to compel production of
the remaining data. The parties dispute whether Walmart received
the Subpoena on October 27, 2014, the date the attached green card
was signed by Walmart's employee or on October 28, 2014, the date
Walmart's postal records indicate and the date they aver it was
actually received.

EEOC thereafter filed a petition for an order to show cause why
subpoena should not be enforced.

Chief District Judge Karen K. Caldwell of the Eastern District of
Kentucky, Southern Division, London, denied EEOC's petition.

A copy of Chief Judge District Judge Caldwell's memorandum opinion
and order dated March 29, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/Gc9OjWfrom Leagle.com.

The case is, EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION, Petitioner,
v. WAL-MART STORES EAST, LP, Respondent, Civil Action No. 6:14-cv-
228-KKC (E.D. Ky.)

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Plaintiff, represented
by:

     Nancy Dean Edmonds, Esq.
     Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
     600 Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Place, Suite 268
     Louisvilee, KY 40202
     Telephone: 800-669-4000
     Facsimile: 502-582-5895

Wal-Mart Stores East, LP, Defendant, represented by Kathryn A.
Quesenberry -- kathy.quesenberry@dinsmore.com -- Patrick Drake
Schach -- patrick.schach@dinsmore.com -- Sadhna G. True --
sadhna.true@dinsmore.com -- at Dinsmore & Shohl LLP


WELLS FARGO: "Layog" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chrystiane Layog, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo, an
unknown business entity; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-02011 (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2016),
seeks to recover payment of overtime wages as required by law and
the restitution of unlawfully withheld wages under the Labor Code
and Unfair Business Trade Act.

According to the complaint, Defendants allegedly adjusted,
rounded, altered and/or changed time and/or pay schedules to
reflect that Plaintiff had not worked all straight time or
overtime hours; and required non-exempt, hourly tellers to work
more than five hours per week without a 30-minute meal period, and
then adjusted, altered and/or changed schedules and/or time clocks
to reflect that they had received a 30-minute meal period.

Wells Fargo provides commercial banking services such as deposits
accounts and loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Roger Markham, Esq.
          Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
          THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
          750 B Street, Suite 1950
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 399 3995
          Facsimile: (619) 615 2067
          E-mail: dmarkham@markham-law.com
                  mrealin@markham-law.com

               - and -

          Richard Edward Quintilone II, Esq.
          QUINTILONE AND ASSOCIATES
          22974 El Toro Road, Suite 100
          Lake Forest, CA 92630-4961
          Telephone: (949) 458 9675
          Facsimile: (949) 458 9679
          E-mail: req@quintlaw.com


WHEATON FRANCISCAN: Faces "Curtis" Suit Alleging ERISA Violation
----------------------------------------------------------------
DIANN M. CURTIS, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. Wheaton Franciscan
Services, Inc. d.b.a. Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare, Wheaton
Franciscan System Retirement Plan Committee, and John Does 1-20,
Defendants, Case: 1:16-cv-04232 (N.D. Ill., April 11, 2016), was
filed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.

Wheaton Franciscan Services, Inc. (WFSI) is the not-for-profit
parent company of more than 100 health care, housing, and social
service organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert L. Dawidiuk, Esq.
     THE COLLINS LAW FIRM, P.C.
     1770 North Park Street, Suite 200
     Naperville, IL 60563
     Phone: (630) 527-1595
     Fax: (630) 527-1193

        - and -

     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     Edward W. Ciolko, Esq.
     Mark K. Gyandoh, Esq.
     Julie Siebert-Johnson, Esq.
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Phone: (610) 667-7706
     Fax: (610) 667-7056
     E-mail: eciolko@ktmc.com
             mgyandoh@ktmc.com
             jsjohnson@ktmc.com


WILSHIRE COMMERCIAL: Opening Brief Due June in "Banarji" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Alu Banarji, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wilshire Commercial Capital, LLC, dba
Wilshire Consumer Credit, Defendant, Case No. 16-55330 (9th Cir.,
March 3, 2016), is an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit from a class action ruling.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter, District Judge Roger T.
Benitez of the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California denied Defendant's motion to strike and
granted its motion to deny class certification in the case
captioned, ALU BANARJI, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. WILSHIRE CONSUMER CAPITAL, LLC
d/b/a WILSHIRE CONSUMER CREDIT, Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-2967-BEN
(KSC) (S.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff's opening brief is due on June 13, 2016. Defendant's
answering brief is due on July 13, 2016. Plaintiff's optional
reply brief is due 14 days after service of the answering brief.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
     Law Offices of Todd M. Friedman
     324 S. Beverly Drive
     Beverly Hills, CA 90212
     Tel: (877) 206-4741

The Defendants are represented by:

     Anthony Angelo Molino, Esq.
     Molino & Berardino, APLC
     4751 Wilshire Blvd.
     Los Angeles, CA 90010
     Tel: 323-692-4010


WRIGHT MEDICAL: Judge Reduces Verdict in Hip Implant Case
---------------------------------------------------------
R. Robin McDonald, writing for Daily Report, reports that a
federal judge in Atlanta has reduced a verdict in a bellwether hip
implant product liability case from $11 million to $2.1 million,
lopping off nearly $9 million in punitive damages.

But U.S. District Court Judge William Duffey Jr. rejected a motion
by defendant Wright Medical Technology Inc. to set the verdict
aside and either order a new trial or find in Wright's favor as a
matter of law.  In a 100-page ruling issued April 5, Judge Duffey
defended decisions he made during the trial in November -- sending
an "inconsistent" original verdict back to the jury for additional
deliberation, and later removing a juror whom other jurors had
complained was refusing to deliberate.

Judge Duffey reduced the punitive damages award from $10 million
to $1.1 million. He let stand the jury's $1 million award for
compensatory damages.

The case had been filed on behalf of 73-year-old Salt Lake City
ski instructor Robyn Christiansen.  It was the first of a series
of trials centered on whether the Wright hip implant device, which
is no longer on the market, was defective.  As many as 2,000 suits
against the company are pending in consolidated litigation in
Georgia and in a California state court in Los Angeles.

Ms. Christiansen's case had been selected as a bellwether trial --
a case identified by lawyers for the parties in mass litigation as
a way of testing the strength of each side's arguments.

After three weeks of testimony in November, the jury in the
Christiansen trial reached its first verdict.  Asked to decide if
there was a preponderance of evidence that Wright's hip implant
device was defectively designed, the jury had answered "no."

The jury form had instructed jurors that if they answered "no" to
that question, they should end their deliberations, sign the
verdict form and return it to the judge.
Instead, the jury went on to find that the company had made
negligent misrepresentations about the hip implant device and
awarded Christiansen $3.1 million in damages, including $2.5
million in punitives.

In his order, Judge Duffey said the jury's findings were not
consistent with its initial "no defect" finding and that the
jurors were confused about their findings, or the verdict form, or
both.  He had instructed the jury to carefully reread the verdict
form to evaluate whether they had completed it properly. But the
jury soon notified Judge Duffey it still did not understand the
original verdict form.  After a discussion with attorneys, Judge
Duffey provided jurors with an amended verdict form and additional
instructions.

After two more days of deliberations -- culminating in Duffey's
removal of one juror after two other jurors complained -- the jury
awarded Ms. Christiansen $1 million in compensatory damages and
$10 million in punitive damages.  The jury made the award based on
findings that the Wright hip replacement device was defectively
designed and "unreasonably dangerous," and the company had made
"negligent misrepresentations" about the device.

In his April 5 order, Duffey defended his decision to send the
jury back to redeliberate the case because the original verdict
form included answers that were "irreconcilably inconsistent" and
"likely caused by the jury's confusion with the instructions."

Judge Duffey also rejected defense claims that he had dismissed
the juror from deliberations without good cause.  Citing
interviews he conducted with the juror in question as well as the
jury foreman, Judge Duffey said he dismissed the juror because he
was unwilling to follow the judge's instructions on the law, not
because of his views of the evidence in the case.

Judge Duffey said he reduced the punitive damages award because
under Utah law, punitive damage awards exceeding a 3-1 ratio over
compensatory damages either must be reduced by the court or
justified by specific factual findings.  Judge Duffey said that
Wright Technology's conduct, "while warranting punitive damages,
was not intended to harm [Christiansen] or was done with actual
malice."  Because of that, he said the jury's original punitive
damages award "is simply not justified."

Mike McGlamry -- mmcglamry@pmkm.com -- who represented
Christiansen and whose firm, Pope McGlamry Kilpatrick Morrison &
Norwood, is co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs in the Georgia and
California cases -- said that his team "is frustrated" by Judge
Duffey's decision to lower the punitive damages award.  But he
said that under Utah law, which governed the Christiansen
litigation, Judge Duffey had "limited discretion" concerning
punitive damages.  But, he added, "We thought the order was
outstanding relating to the process, the verdict, and the jury as
to what the jury meant, what they intended and what they
ultimately found."

A spokesman for Wright Technology's defense team at Duane Morris
in Philadelphia said Wright lawyers would not comment on the
ruling.


WW GRAINGER: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss, Summary Judgment
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman of the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied W.W.
Grainger's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for summary judgment on the basis that its offer
of full relief estops Davies from continuing with the action in
the case captioned, David Davies, Plaintiff, v. W.W. Grainger,
Inc. and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-3546 (N.D.
Ill.).

Plaintiff David Davies (Davies) filed a putative class action
against W.W. Grainger (Grainger) alleging Grainger violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and illegally converted
property by sending unsolicited fax advertisements. On or about
December 2, 2009, Grainger sent a fax advertisement to Davies.
Davies alleged in his complaint that the fax was sent without his
express invitation or permission.

Following the denial of class certification, Grainger sent Davies
a letter offering to settle the case and enclosed a check for an
amount representing the maximum statutory damages recoverable for
one TCPA violation. Davies' responded with a request for an
additional check that would cover attorney's fees, nontaxable
litigation expenses, and conversion damages, and stated that the
money would be held in a trust account while the parties litigate
the remaining issues. Grainger tendered to Davies an additional
check for an amount inclusive of expenses and damages, but
exclusive of attorney's fees, and stated it would agree to a court
ordered injunction. Grainger does not believe Davies is entitled
to attorney's fees because the complaint did not seek payment of
attorney's fees and the individual claims for conversion and under
the TCPA do not provide for them. Davies never returned either
check tendered by Grainger.

In the motion, Grainger argues that Davies has no standing because
he cannot show he has suffered any injury and asks the court to
find that Davies is estopped from pressing his case because he has
unclean hands.

In her Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 4, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/OwLh8Ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Coleman declined to
apply an estoppel or unclean hands affirmative defense because
Davies' now-individual claims were originally brought as part of a
putative class action.

David Davies is represented by Christopher Phillip Taylor Tourek,
Esq. -- Christopher@bockhatchllc.com -- James Michael Smith, Esq.
-- jim@bockhatchllc.com -- Kimberly M. Watt, Esq. --
kimberly@bockhatchllc.com -- Phillip A. Bock, Esq. --
phil@bockhatchllc.com -- and Tod Allen Lewis, Esq. --
tod@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH, LLC

W.W. Grainger is represented by Kimball Richard Anderson, Esq. --
kanderso@winston.com -- & Grace Anne Fox, Esq. -- gfox@winston.com
-- WINSTON & STRAWN LLP


WWE: Former Stockholders' Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Keith Harris, writing for SB Nation, reports that the class action
lawsuit by former WWE stockholders over alleged violations of the
Exchange Act has been dismissed, whilst the class action complaint
by Rene Dupree over WWE Network royalties has already been
voluntarily withdrawn by his lawyers.

The past month has been a highly successful one for WWE's busy
lawyers.

Firstly, on March 21st, Judge Vanessa Bryant dismissed two of the
concussion lawsuits filed against WWE (Haynes and McCullough et
al.) and her initial ruling suggests that the remaining cases, two
wrongful death lawsuits filed by the families of the late Matt
Osborne and Nelson Frazier Jr., and one claim that wasn't
dismissed in the lawsuit by Vito LoGrasso and Evan Singleton, are
unlikely to be successful.

This was followed on March 31st by Judge Alvin W. Thompson
dismissing the WWE stockholders lawsuit we covered last July,
which alleged that the company had made materially false and
misleading statements to investors regarding the potential value
of the new domestic TV rights deal they were negotiating in early
2014 and the potential success of the WWE Network that was
launched concurrently.

Basically, most of the statements the plaintiffs deemed false or
misleading, Thompson felt they hadn't provided enough concrete
evidence to suggest that was actually the case:

"The court concludes that the plaintiffs have failed to allege
facts sufficient to suggest that the defendants' statements about
the size of WWE's fan base, statements about the cannibalistic
effect of launching the WWE network, statements about the status
of negotiations with NBCU, and statements regarding the potential
to double or triple OIBDA were materially false or misleading.
However, the court concludes that the plaintiffs have alleged
facts sufficient to suggest that the defendants' repeated
comparison between WWE and live sports, without referencing the
discrepancy in advertising revenue between WWE and those sports,
was materially misleading."

Despite Judge Thompson agreeing with the plaintiffs that comparing
WWE's TV rights to NASCAR and other live sports was possibly
misleading, he still dismissed the lawsuit because they hadn't
alleged that any of the defendants (i.e., Vince McMahon, George
Barrios, Michelle Wilson and Stephanie McMahon Levesque) had
benefitted in any concrete and personal way from the alleged
fraud, because only Ms. Levesque sold any stock during the period
in question and there was no evidence that acting alone she had
the opportunity to manipulate WWE's stock price to her own
advantage.

Indeed, Ms. Levesque clearly did not benefit from the company's
short term stock price hike as she sold 441,671 shares at an
average price of $13.98, which was long before WWE's stock price
peaked at $30.94 on the week of March 10th, 2014, so the evidence
that she had committed fraud was patently flimsy and clearly
Thompson was correct to dismiss this lawsuit outright.

Finally, the lawsuit filed by Rene Dupree (real name: Rene Goguen)
on April 6th over WWE Network royalties has already been withdrawn
by his lawyers, according to Dave Meltzer in the Wrestling
Observer Newsletter:

"It was withdrawn by his lawyers, Brenden P. Leydon of Tooher Wocl
& Leydon of Stamford, and Clinton Krislov and Matthew Peterson of
Krislov and Associates of Chicago on 4/11.

The belief is the suit was dropped based on the lawyers finding
out from WWE attorney Jerry McDevitt that Mr. Goguen . . . signed
a 2011 contract which very specifically stated things regarding
royalty rights that would have specified talent was not entitled
to rights from network broadcasts of their performances, as well
as his 2006 contract which also pretty much did the same thing."

That doesn't mean WWE are out of the woods just yet. It's possible
that these lawyers could refile their class action complaint with
another plaintiff.  As Mr. Meltzer noted in his article about the
lawsuit, they have already contacted a number of other wrestlers
about a similar lawsuit, who may not have the same baggage that
Dupree had. Those parties will have to weigh up the potential
benefits and the clear risks suing WWE involves.


XIXON CORPORATION: "Del Valle" Suit Seeks OT Pay, Minimum Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
CATHERINE DEL VALLE, on her own behalf and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. XIXON CORPORATION, a Florida
for-profit corporation, XIXON CAFE, LLC, a Florida for profit
corporation, and BEGONIA TUYA, an individual, Defendants, Case
1:16-cv-21305-UU (S.D. Fla., April 12, 2016), seeks to recover for
unpaid minimum wage compensation, unpaid overtime wage
compensation, liquidated damages, and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

XIXON CAFE, LLC is a Florida for-profit company that owns and
operates Xixon restaurant located in Miami, Miami-Dade County,
Florida.

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



                            *********

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  * * *