CAR_Public/160426.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, April 26, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 83



                            Headlines


99 CENTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Jose" Action Claims
A&S FOOD: Recalls Gorgeous Memory Daylily Due to Sulfites
ACELITY L.P.: LifeCell Faces 355 Suits Over AlloDerm
ACELITY L.P.: LifeCell Faces 235 Suits Over Repliform
ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Macon County Suit in Early Stage

ALCOBRA LTD: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
ALLSTATES INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Ruling Seals Class Action Loophole
ALSIDE INC: Class Suit Over Defective Windows Stays in Minn.
AMERICAN SPIRIT: Class Action Transferred to Albuquerque Court
AMTRAK: Plaintiffs Attorneys Named Temporary Liaison Counsel

ANGIE'S LIST: "Crabtree" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
ASHLEY MADISON: Fights Plaintiffs' Bid to Use Law Firm's E-mails
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Pending in Calif.
AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Facing Suit in San Mateo Super. Court
BACK TO NATURE: Recalls Classic Creme Cookies Due to Milk

BACK TO NATURE: Expands Recalls of Classic Creme Cookies
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in C.D. California
BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit by BCBS-VT Health Insurance Subscribers
CALIFORNIA: Modesto Farmers to Pay High Water Rates This Year
CANADA: Regional Hospital Opt Out of Windsor, Tecumseh Bingo Suit

CANADA: Brentwood Opts Out of Windsor & Tecumseh Bingo Suit
CASEY'S GENERAL: Attorneys' Fees Order Issued in Hot Fuel Suit
CASEY'S GENERAL: Settlement in FCRA Suit Awaits Final Court OK
CENSUS BUREAU: Settles Hiring Discrimination Class Action
CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal Pending in Retiree Medical Benefits Case
CHC GROUP: Expects Argument on Motion to Dismiss This Spring
CHRYSLER: Plaintiff Opposes Bid to Transfer Crash Case to N.Y.
COLSON ENTERPRISES: "Gaitan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Held April 11

COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dropped from Non-Tenn. Based Cyber Attack Suits
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nov. 21 Settlement Conference Set in "Mounce"
COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in HMA Suit Still Pending
CONTEXTLOGIC: "Gerboc" Class Suit Removed to N. District Ohio
COOK MEDICAL: Transferred "Hayes" Class Suit to S.D. Indiana

DADDYO'S MANAGEMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
DELBERT SERVS: 4th Cir. Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Agreement
DICK SMITH: Investors File Class Action Over Collapse
EBB INC: Recalls Cinnamon Rolls with Cream Cheese Due to Milk
ENERGY RECOVERY: Stockholders' Litigation in Calif. Still Pending

ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Kristensen" Class Suit
EXCEPTIONAL HEALTH: Recalls Daily Multi Capsule Due to Soy & Milk
FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Court Rejects Bid to Extend Time to Appeal
GARRISON PROPERTY: Judge Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit
HAWAII: Inmate Seeks to Practice Native Beliefs

HILL COUNTRY: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 50% Magnesium Sulfate Injections
HYUNDAI: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Class Action
INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: $14 Mil. Class Suit Deal Has Final OK
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Re-Depose Risperdal Expert Tossed

KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Baker Miller Suit in Pennsylvania
MAGZUMA NUTRITION: Recalls Life's Qik Fix (TM), Zuma Supreme (TM)
MARY'S HOME: Recalls Vegetable Soup Due to Clostridium botulinum
MEDTRONIC: Recalls Battery Packs in Covidien Oridion

MIDWEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hosdo Cake Products Due to Milk
MILKY WAY: Recalls Peach Slices and Mixed Fruits Due to Glass
NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Francois" Suit Claims
NRG YIELD: Faces Securities Class Action in California
NUVI GLOBAL: Recalls StemVitae Multivitamins Due to Milk and Soy

OIL STATES: Faces "Boyles" FLSA Class Suit in Texas
OLMA-XXI INC: Recalls NORVEN Herring in Oil Due to Listeria
OXY RECKITT: Class Action Mulled Over Humidifier Sterilizers
PACIFIC COAST: Settlement in Welch et al. Suit Pending
PANERA LLC: Sued Over Americans With Disabilities Act Violation

PHARMAKON PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Sterile Products
PONZIOS RD: Faces "Casco" Suit for Violating FLSA, NJ Wage Laws
POTBELLY SANDWICH: Sued in N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
RANGERS ENTERPRISE: "Millner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
REMINGTON ARMS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sandy Hook Shooting Suit

RENAISSANCE HOTEL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "King" Suit Says
RESER'S FINE: Recalls Refrigerated Salad Products Due to Listeria
REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Case Management Conference Held
SANTA FE: Faces "Brattain" Lawsuit Over Cigarette Mislabeling
SKULLCANDY INC: Faces "Davis" Suit in Utah Court

SMITHTOWN LANDING: Golfer Files Class Action Over Fees
SPOTIFY: Lowery's $150MM Royalties Class Action Ongoing
SPOTIFY: Lowery Lawyers Seek Access to Settlement Correspondence
ST AUGUSTINE: Faces ARCare Suit in Georgia Over Automated Calls
STRALCO INC: "Faust" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages

SUGARFINA LLC: Recalls Chocolate Malt Balls Due to Peanuts
SUNRUN: Directors, Underwriters Face Suit Over IPO
SUNSET PEDIATRICS: Faces "Chinosi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
SUPER HERBS: Recalls Light Green and Dark Green Capsules
TD BANK: Pulls Out Coin Counting Machines Amid Class Action

TEXTURA CORPORATION: Ill. Court Trims Securities Suit
THOMAS STAR: Recalls Buns Bread Due to Allergens
TITLETOWN MASONRY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Says
TOTAL GAS: C&C Trading Files Suit Over Gas Price Manipulation
TOYS R US: Faces Class Action Over E-Commerce Terms of Service

TRUMP UNIVERSITY: May 27 Hearing Set in Class Action
VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Recalls Guardian II Hemostasis Valves
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches Agreement with U.S. Gov't on Dieselgate
WESTERN PACIFIC: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
WESTJET: Responds to Flight Attendant's Harassment Class Action

WISCONSIN: PC Schools Get $70,000 Class Action Payout

* Cos. Use "No Concrete Injury" Tool for Data Breach Settlement


                            *********


99 CENTS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, "Jose" Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Genaro Fransisco Jose, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated v. John Doe Inc. d/b/a 99 Cents City, Mohammed
M. Shah, and Winnie Cosin, Case No. 1:16-cv-01926 (E.D.N.Y., April
19, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate a retail store located at 1756
Forest Avenue, Staten Island, New York 10303.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


A&S FOOD: Recalls Gorgeous Memory Daylily Due to Sulfites
---------------------------------------------------------
A&S Food Trading Inc. of Brooklyn, NY is recalling its 10.6 ounces
(300 grams) packages of Gorgeous Memory Daylily because they
contain undeclared sulfites. Consumers who have severe sensitivity
to sulfites run risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume this product.

The product comes in 10.6 ounces (300 grams) clear plastic bag.
Gorgeous memory Daylily in 10.6 ounces (300 grams) packages was
distributed in New York City area, and has reached consumers
through retail stores.

The recall was initiated after routine sampling by New York State
Department of Agriculture and Markets Food Inspector and
subsequent analysis by Food Laboratory personnel revealed the
presence of sulfites in the 10.6 ounces (300 grams) package of
Gorgeous memory Daylily, which were not declared on the label. The
consumption of 10 milligrams of sulfites per serving has been
reported to elicit severe reactions in some asthmatics.
Anaphylactic shock could occur in certain sulfite sensitive
individuals upon ingesting 10 milligrams or more of sulfites.
Analysis of Gorgeous memory Daylily revealed they contained 13.39
milligrams per serving.

No illnesses or allergic reaction involving this product have been
reported to date.

Consumers who have purchased 10.6 ounces (300 grams) packages of
Gorgeous memory Daylily are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 718-369-2648.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/kBSEmw


ACELITY L.P.: LifeCell Faces 355 Suits Over AlloDerm
----------------------------------------------------
Acelity L.P. Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that LifeCell Corporation is
a defendant in approximately 355 lawsuits filed by individuals
alleging personal injury and seeking monetary damages for failed
hernia repair procedures using LifeCell's AlloDerm products. These
cases have been consolidated for case management purposes in
Middlesex County, New Jersey. The trial court has issued a pre-
trial order incorporating the bellwether practice of trying the
claims of some plaintiffs to determine the likelihood of
settlement or to avoid relitigating common issues in every case.
Discovery was completed in four bellwether cases.

In August 2015, LifeCell was successful in obtaining a summary
judgment resulting in the dismissal of two of the four bellwether
cases, and the dismissal of the design defect claims in the
remaining two bellwether cases. The plaintiffs have appealed these
decisions. Trial of the first remaining bellwether case has been
postponed and has not yet been rescheduled.

"Although it is not possible to reliably predict the outcome of
the litigation, we believe that our defenses to these claims are
meritorious and we will defend against these suits vigorously.
Based on our existing insurance coverage and our defenses to these
cases, we do not expect them to have a material impact on our
results of operations or our financial position. Because discovery
of damages has been limited to the four bellwether cases, we do
not know the damages allegedly suffered by the remaining
plaintiffs. As such, it is impossible to predict or estimate
potential losses if our defenses to these cases are unsuccessful,"
Acelity said.

Acelity is a global medical technology company committed to the
development and commercialization of advanced wound care and
regenerative medicine solutions. Acelity was formed by uniting the
strengths of three organizations, KCI, Systagenix and LifeCell,
into the Company's two business segments: Advanced Wound
Therapeutics and Regenerative Medicine.


ACELITY L.P.: LifeCell Faces 235 Suits Over Repliform
-----------------------------------------------------
Acelity L.P. Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that LifeCell Corporation has
been named as a defendant in approximately 235 lawsuits in state
and U.S. federal courts alleging personal injury and seeking
monetary damages for failed gynecological procedures using a human
tissue product processed by LifeCell and sold by one of LifeCell's
distributors, Boston Scientific, under the name Repliform. There
are approximately 231 LifeCell cases filed in two consolidated
dockets in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. The cases are in the
initial phase and no discovery has occurred.

Two cases are pending in a multi-district U.S. federal case in
West Virginia that is proceeding very slowly. LifeCell has been
named, but not served, in 12 cases with multiple plaintiffs and
defendants in St. Louis, Missouri State court.

The St. Louis cases are aimed at the entire pelvic mesh industry
and it is unknown at this time if Repliform was actually implanted
in any of the plaintiffs. The two remaining cases are in Delaware
and Minnesota.

"Based on our existing insurance coverage and our defenses to
these cases, we do not expect them to have a material impact on
our results of operations or our financial position. As these
cases are in their early stages it is not possible to predict or
estimate potential losses if our defenses to these cases are
unsuccessful," the Company said.

Acelity is a global medical technology company committed to the
development and commercialization of advanced wound care and
regenerative medicine solutions. Acelity was formed by uniting the
strengths of three organizations, KCI, Systagenix and LifeCell,
into the Company's two business segments: Advanced Wound
Therapeutics and Regenerative Medicine.


ADVANCED DISPOSAL: Macon County Suit in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Advanced Disposal Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company continues to defend a class action lawsuit in Macon
County, Alabama.

In February 2009, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries were
named as defendants in a purported class action suit in the
Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama. Similar class action
complaints were brought against the Company and certain of its
subsidiaries in 2011 in Duval County, Florida and in 2013 in
Quitman County, Georgia and Barbour County, Alabama, and in 2014
in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The Georgia complaint was
dismissed in March 2014. The plaintiffs in those cases primarily
allege that the defendants charged improper fees (fuel,
administrative and environmental fees) that were in breach of the
plaintiffs' service agreements with the Company and seek damages
in an unspecified amount.

"The Company believes that it has meritorious defenses against
these purported class actions, which it will vigorously pursue,"
the Company said. "Given the inherent uncertainties of litigation,
including the early stage of these cases, the unknown size of any
potential class, and legal and factual issues in dispute, the
outcome of these cases cannot be predicted and a range of loss, if
any, cannot currently be estimated."


ALCOBRA LTD: Bid to Dismiss Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------
Alcobra Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
against the Company remains pending.

The Company said, "On December 16, 2014, a class action lawsuit
was filed against us and certain of our current and former
officers and directors in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York. The complaint, brought by a
putative class of investors, alleges, among other things, that our
officers and directors made false or misleading statements
relating to the results of our Phase 3 study for our MDX drug
candidate."

"On May 20, 2015, we moved to dismiss the complaint. The motion to
dismiss has been fully briefed, and oral argument occurred on
September 22, 2015, and the court's decision remains pending.

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


ALLSTATES INSURANCE: 9th Cir. Ruling Seals Class Action Loophole
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ross Todd, writing for The Recorder, reports that earlier this
year the U.S. Supreme Court handed a rare win to the plaintiffs
bar, ruling that defendants can't kill a class action simply by
offering to pay named plaintiffs in full.

But there was a possible loophole in Campbell-Ewald v. Gomez, and
it didn't take long for a defendant to try and walk through.

On April 12, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
deflected Allstate Insurance Co.'s attempt to short-circuit a
class action by going a step beyond a settlement offer and
actually depositing $20,000 in an escrow fund for the lead
plaintiff.

The company, backed by amici at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and
other business groups, claimed that the funded settlement offer
made the suit moot.

Writing for a unanimous panel in Chen v. Allstate Insurance, Judge
Raymond Fisher held that even a fully funded settlement offer for
an individual lead plaintiff won't automatically wipe out class
claims.

"In sum, a district court should decline to enter a judgment
affording complete relief on a named plaintiff's individual
claims, over the plaintiff's objection, before the plaintiff has
had a fair opportunity to move for class certification," Fisher
wrote in the first circuit court decision to address the issue
since the Supreme Court decision in Campbell-Ewald.

Abbas Kazerounian of the Kazerouni Law Group in Costa Mesa, who
represents the plaintiff in the case, said by email that he fully
expects Allstate to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.

"This legal theory, if you can call it that, is nothing short of a
delay tactic and contrary to basic common sense and decades if not
centuries of contracts jurisprudence," he wrote.

The Supreme Court ruled, 6-3, in Campbell-Ewald in January.  The
majority opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, however,
declined to say whether a case would be mooted if defendants
actually deposited the full amount of a plaintiff's individual
claim. Ginsberg said that it would better to decide that issue in
"a case in which it is not hypothetical."

Allstate and its lawyers at Ballard Spahr made that question the
centerpiece of their appeal to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that
U.S. District Judge Phyllis Hamilton of the Northern District of
California was obliged to dismiss the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act case once Allstate deposited $20,000 in an escrow
fund for the lead plaintiff.

The Ninth Circuit panel ruled just three weeks after hearing
argument in the case.

Ballard Spahr's Mark Levin, who represented Allstate, and Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher's Theodore Boutrous Jr. who was among the lawyers
representing the Chamber of Commerce, didn't respond to messages.


ALSIDE INC: Class Suit Over Defective Windows Stays in Minn.
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge refused to
dismiss or transfer a class action in Minneapolis accusing Alside
and Associated Materials of having made corrosion-prone two-pane
windows.

The case captioned, CHERYL LUCKEY, CHRISTINE COLE, ELIZABETH
WELNA, ERIC TOOP, ROBERT SQUATRITO, and WENDY MACKEY, individually
and on behalf of all those similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
ALSIDE, INC., ASSOCIATED MATERIALS, LLC, and ASSOCIATED MATERIALS
INCORPORATED, Defendants.,  Civil No. 15-2512 (JRT/JSM)(D. Minn.).


AMERICAN SPIRIT: Class Action Transferred to Albuquerque Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a class-action lawsuit targeting
a company behind a line of cigarettes touted as natural has moved
to U.S. District Court in Albuquerque.

Three men from California, New York and Florida are suing the
maker of American Spirit cigarettes, Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co.,
and its parent company, Reynolds American Inc.

The plaintiffs say the cigarette maker's marketing deliberately
tries to mislead smokers into believing their products are
healthier than other tobacco products.

According to documents, the lawsuit cites a Food and Drug
Administration warning that the use of words such as "natural" or
"additive free" in their advertising violates federal law.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Co. spokesman Seth Moskowitz said on
April 20 he could not comment on the lawsuit because of company
policy.


AMTRAK: Plaintiffs Attorneys Named Temporary Liaison Counsel
------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the plaintiffs attorneys handling the largest share of cases
against Amtrak in the Philadelphia-based multidistrict litigation
-- Thomas R. Kline and Robert Mongeluzzi -- have been tasked with
assisting in case management and coordinating communication
between attorneys and the court on a temporary basis.

In an order issued on April 12, U.S. District Judge Legrome Davis
of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania named the lawyers
temporary liaison counsel, as well as laid out the framework for a
future plaintiffs' management committee.

"Liaison counsel will be uncompensated, however counsel shall keep
track of expenses and hours spent undertaking" their activities,
Judge Davis said.

Mr. Mongeluzzi, speaking on behalf of himself and Mr. Kline, said,
"We're honored to help get the ball rolling on behalf of the
victims of this derailment."

Most recently, Judge Davis denied a motion for preliminary
settlement class certification to two plaintiffs injured in the
May 2015 derailment.

The plaintiffs, Mark and Nicola Tulk, argued that creating a
settlement class would reduce legal fees incurred by the MDL,
allowing plaintiffs $50 million to $70 million more in recovery of
the maximum $295 million damages allowed by law.  Judge Davis said
in his opinion that such a certification would be premature
because the extent of damages has not yet been determined.

"Amtrak has stated that they are in the process of disseminating
and completing damages questionnaires as a first step to assess
the injuries suffered by each plaintiff," Judge Davis wrote.
"This process is ongoing, and no reasonable estimate of the
damages is possible at this juncture.  Therefore, without any
basis to find that damages exceed the statutory limit, the court
will not resort to broad speculation."

He added that the certification of a settlement class at this
stage of the litigation would not enhance judicial efficiency.
"Of primary importance to this court is facilitating a swift and
efficient process that will work towards a fair and appropriate
result for the victims of this derailment.  Prior judicial
experience has shown that when the parties to an action work
cooperatively together, better results are achieved.  Only one
represented party is in favor of settlement class certification,
the Tulks," Judge Davis said. "Counsel for nearly all of the
plaintiffs in the MDL have expressed vehement opposition to their
motion.

Any current grant of class certification would likely ensure that
this litigation will drag on, raising legal costs and reducing the
funds available to the victims in this matter."

A major development affecting the cases against Amtrak was the
increase of the maximum combined compensation for -- injured Train
188 passengers from $200 million to $295 million.

In December, Congress agreed to raise the damages cap, which the
passengers' attorneys had feared would not be enough to adequately
compensate the injured parties.  Even with the $95 million
increase, Mr. Mongeluzzi previously said the combined damages
would likely surpass the new cap.


ANGIE'S LIST: "Crabtree" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brock Crabtree, Rick Myers, and Andrew Town v. Angie's List, Inc.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-00877-SEB-MJD (S.D. Ind., April 19, 2016), seeks
to recover overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Headquartered at 1030 East Washington Street, Indianapolis, IN
46202, Angie's List, Inc. is a paid subscription supported website
containing crowd-sourced reviews of local businesses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kathleen Ann DeLaney, Esq.
      DELANEY & DELANEY LLC
      3646 North Washington Blvd.
      Indianapolis, IN 46205
      Telephone: (317) 920-0400
      Facsimile: (317) 920-0404
      E-mail: kathleen@delaneylaw.net


ASHLEY MADISON: Fights Plaintiffs' Bid to Use Law Firm's E-mails
----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that AshleyMadison.com is fighting to block thousands of internal
documents exposed in last year's data breach from getting into
court, where plaintiffs attorneys want to use emails between the
company's executives and outside counsel to allege the
extramarital-affair website was engaged in widespread fraud on
consumers.

Plaintiffs lawyers claim that Ashley Madison, legally referred to
as Avid Dating Life Inc., and its parent company, Avid Life Media
Inc., created fake female profiles to lure men into paying for
access to the site.  Plaintiffs seek to bolster their consolidated
complaint due June 3 with emails between Avid and lawyers at
Barnes & Thornburg from January 2012 to September 2015.  Those
emails, say plaintiffs, show "how defendants worked together to
commit fraud," according to court documents filed by co-lead
plaintiffs attorney John Driscoll.

Most of the lawsuits are class actions that accuse Avid of
negligence in allowing its customers' personal information to be
hacked in violation of several state consumer-fraud and data-
breach statutes.  But some claim Avid fraudulently induced male
subscribers to enter into contracts by setting up "fembot," or
female robot accounts.

The latest fight centers on an unresolved area of the law: whether
litigants can use hacked data released to the public to fight
their battles.

"It raises a good question: Is leaked data in the public domain?"
said Richard Lutkus, a partner at San Francisco's Seyfarth Shaw
who focuses on data security and is not involved in the Ashley
Madison litigation.  "My sense is that the judge would say if the
public has access to it, why shouldn't the court?"

The emails at issue, argues Driscoll in a March 15 court filing,
have already been published by journalists.  An article appearing
on Gawker Media's gizmodo.com blog on Sept. 8, for instance,
included a 2013 email from former Avid CEO Noel Biderman to Barnes
& Thornburg corporate partner Leslie Weiss about how to describe
the fake female profiles in the company's terms of service.

"Plaintiffs and their attorneys, who played no role in obtaining
or publishing the documents, are entitled to rely on this public
information in preparing their pleadings," Mr. Driscoll wrote.

Avid and its lawyers, lead attorney, Robert Atkins --
ratkins@paulweiss.com -- chairman of the legal ethics committee at
New York's Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, did not
respond to requests for comment.  A spokeswoman for Paul Weiss
returned a call declining comment on Avid's behalf.

Avid has filed a motion for a protective order that would prohibit
plaintiffs from using the hacked data, which included material it
says falls under attorney-client privilege.

"That plaintiffs or their counsel presumably did not conduct the
hack themselves is of no moment -- they are forbidden from
reviewing illegally or wrongfully obtained materials, and
certainly may not use any such information in their case," wrote
another Avid attorney, Richard Cassetta, a partner at Bryan Cave
in St. Louis, in the Feb. 29 motion.  In opposing the motion,
Driscoll wrote that the hacked data was "now fully memorialized in
the public domain."

U.S. District Judge John Ross in St. Louis has yet to rule on the
issue, but on April 13 he extended the deadline from April 19 to
file the consolidated complaint, which would combine claims from
19 lawsuits coordinated in multidistrict litigation.   "Depending
on how the judge rules will shape what we do next," said
Mr. Driscoll of The Driscoll Firm in St. Louis.

The matter has ensnared Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg,
which has served as Avid's outside counsel for a decade.  On
Jan. 25, Avid's lead counsel at Barnes & Thornburg, Los Angeles
partners David Nelson and Kevin Rising, withdrew from the
litigation with no explanation.  A team from Paul Weiss led by
Atkins now represents Avid.  Barnes & Thornburg and Weiss,
co-administrator of the firm's corporate department in Chicago,
also were named in one of the suits.

Barnes & Thornburg and Weiss, who did not respond to requests for
comment, are represented by Dale Doerhoff -- ddoerhoff@cvdl.net
-- of Cook Vetter Doerhoff & Landwehr in Jefferson City, Missouri.
Mr. Doerhoff declined to comment about the litigation and wrote in
an email that "it would be particularly inappropriate to speculate
about a consolidated complaint that has not been filed."

In his bid to use the hacked data, Mr. Driscoll has received some
pushback from a group of anonymous former AshleyMadison.com users
who filed an April 4 amicus brief insisting that a protective
order was needed to "protect the privacy of consumers."  The
breach compromised the personal information of 37 million
AshleyMadison.com users.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Securities Suit Pending in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. continues to defend securities
class action lawsuits in California, it said in a Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "In July 2015, three putative securities class
action lawsuits were filed against us and certain of our officers
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, each on behalf of a purported class of persons and
entities who purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded
securities between July 31, 2014 and June 15, 2015. The lawsuits
assert claims under the Exchange Act and Securities Act and allege
that the defendants made materially false and misleading
statements and omitted allegedly material information related to,
among other things, the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaints seek unspecified damages,
attorneys' fees and other costs."

                           *     *     *

Judge James Donato has consolidated the cases under the caption,
In Re Avalanche Biotechnologies Securities Litigation, Master File
No. 15-cv-03185-JD (N.D. Cal.).

In a Dec. 17, 2015 Order, Judge Donato appointed Arpan Bachhawat
as lead plaintiff in the consolidated securities class action; and
the law firm of Faruqi & Faruqi to represent the class as lead
counsel.

Arpan Bachhawat, Movant, represented by David Eldridge Bower,
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, Katherine M. Lenahan --
klenahan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Farqui, LLP, Megan M Sullivan
-- msullivan@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi and Faruqi LLP, Nadeem Faruqi
-- nfaruqi@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP & Richard W.
Gonnello -- rgonnello@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc., Defendant, represented by Adam
Isaac Kaplan -- Adam.Kaplan@mto.com -- Munger, Tolles and Olson
LLP.


AVALANCHE BIOTECHNOLOGIES: Facing Suit in San Mateo Super. Court
----------------------------------------------------------------
Avalanche Biotechnologies, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in December 2015, a
putative securities class action lawsuit was filed against the
Company, its board of directors, underwriters of its January 13,
2015, follow-on public stock offering, and two of its
institutional stockholders, in the Superior Court of the State of
California for the County of San Mateo.

"The complaint alleges that, in connection with our follow-on
stock offering, the defendants violated the Securities Act of
1933, as amended, by allegedly making materially false and
misleading statements and by allegedly omitting material
information related to the Phase 2a clinical trial for AVA-101 and
the prospects of AVA-101. The complaint seeks unspecified
compensatory and rescissory damages, attorneys' fees and other
costs," the Company said.

"We believe that the claims in the asserted actions are without
merit and intend to defend the lawsuits vigorously. We expect to
incur costs associated with defending the actions. While we have
various insurance policies related to the risks associated with
our business, including directors' and officers' liability
insurance policies, there is no assurance that we will be
successful in our defense of the actions, that our insurance
coverage, which contains a self-insured retention, will be
sufficient, or that our insurance carriers will cover all claims
or litigation costs. Due to the inherent uncertainties of
litigation, we cannot reasonably predict at this time the timing
or outcomes of these matters or estimate the amount of losses, or
range of losses, if any, or their effect, if any, on our financial
statements," the Company added.


BACK TO NATURE: Recalls Classic Creme Cookies Due to Milk
---------------------------------------------------------
Back to Nature Foods, LLC is voluntarily recalling two lots of its
Classic Creme cookies, 12 oz packages, because it may contain
undeclared milk, not listed as an ingredient on the label. Persons
who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of
a serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume
this product.

The affected product was distributed to retail stores nationwide.
Packages are marked with a unit UPC #19898-01103 and with best by
dates of 10 SEP 16 and 16 SEP 16 labeled on top of the package. No
other best by dates are affected.

Consumers who have purchased the Back to Nature Classic Creme
cookies with the UPC and dates noted, and have an allergy to milk,
should destroy the product they have or are urged to return to the
place of purchase for product replacement or refund.

Consumers with questions may call Back to Nature's Consumer
Relations Center at 844-275-5845. The center is open Monday
through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Consumers also
may contact the center via e-mail by visiting the Contact Us page
at http://www.backtonaturefoods.comfor a replacement coupon.

No other Back to Nature brand products are included in this
recall.

This voluntary recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

The company has also reported the recall to FARE (Food Allergy
Research & Education) and is placing a notification on the FAACT
website www.foodallergyawareness.org

                     About Back to Nature Foods

Headquartered in Naples, FL, Back to Nature Foods is a leading
producer of Cookies, Crackers, Granola, Cereal, Juice and Soups in
the United States.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lkNMxU


BACK TO NATURE: Expands Recalls of Classic Creme Cookies
--------------------------------------------------------
Back to Nature Foods, LLC disclaimer icon is expanding its
voluntary recall to include four additional lots of its Classic
Creme cookies, 12 oz packages, because they may contain undeclared
milk, not listed as an ingredient on the label. Persons who have
an allergy or severe sensitivity to milk run the risk of a serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The affected product was distributed to retail stores nationwide.
In addition to the previously announced affected packages that
were marked with a unit UPC# 19898-01103 and with best by dates of
10 SEP 16 and 16 SEP 16 labeled on top of the package, Classic
Creme cookies packages marked with a unit UPC# 19898-01103 and
with best by dates of 13 AUG 16 and 08 OCT 16 and 21 OCT 16 and 22
OCT 16 labeled on top of the package were also affected.

Consumers who have purchased the Back to Nature Classic Creme
cookies with the UPC and dates noted, and have an allergy to milk,
should destroy the product they have or are urged to return to the
place of purchase for product replacement or refund. No other best
by dates are affected.

Consumers with questions may call Back to Nature's Consumer
Relations Center at 844-275-5845. The center is open Monday
through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern. Consumers also
may contact the center via e-mail by visiting the Contact Us page
at http://www.backtonaturefoods.comdisclaimericon for a
replacement coupon.

No other Back to Nature brand products are included in this
recall.

This voluntary recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the
U.S. Food & Drug Administration.

The company has also reported the recall to FARE (Food Allergy
Research & Education) and is placing a notification on the FAACT
website, www.foodallergyawareness.orgdisclaimer icon.

                      About Back to Nature Foods

Headquartered in Naples, FL, Back to Nature Foods is a leading
producer of Cookies, Crackers, Granola, Cereal, Juice and Soups in
the United States.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lTUy2n


BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Berkshire
Hathaway Homestate Companies, Cypress Insurance Company, Zenith
Insurance Company, William Reynolds, Oliver Glover, HQSU Sign-Up
Services, Inc., and Does 1 to 10.

The case is captioned Adela Gonzalez, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated v. Berkshire Hathaway Homestate
Companies, Cypress Insurance Company, Zenith Insurance Company,
William Reynolds, Oliver Glover, HQSU Sign-Up Services, Inc., and
Does 1 to 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-02690 (C.D. Cal., April
19, 2016).

The Defendants own and operate an insurance company in New York.

Adela Gonzalez is a pro se plaintiff.


BLUE CROSS: Faces Suit by BCBS-VT Health Insurance Subscribers
--------------------------------------------------------------
BARR, STERNBERG, MOSS, LAWRENCE, SILVER & MUNSON, P.C., Plaintiff,
vs. Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alabama ("BCBS-AL"); Premera Blue
Cross ("BC-W A"), which also does business as Premera Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Alaska ("BCBS-AK"); Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Arizona ("BCBSAZ"); USAble Mutual Insurance Company, d/b/a
Arkansas Blue Cross and Blue Shield ("BCBSAR");
Anthem, Inc., flk/a WellPoint, Inc., d/b/a Anthem Blue Cross Life
and Health Insurance Company and Blue Cross of California as well
as Blue Cross of Southern California and Blue Cross of Northern
California (together, "BC-CA"), Rocky Mountain Hospital & Medical
Service Inc., doing business as Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Colorado ("BCBS-CO") and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Nevada
("BCBS-NV"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Connecticut ("BCBS-
CT"), Blue Cross Blue Shield of Georgia ("BCBS-GA"), Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of Indiana ("BCBS-IN"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Kentucky ("BCBS-KY"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Maine ("BCBS-ME"), Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield of Missouri as
well as RightCHOICE Managed Care, Inc. and HMO Missouri Inc.
("BCBS-MO"), Anthem Health Plans of New Hampshire as Anthem Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Hampshire ("BCBS-NH"), Empire
HealthChoice Assurance, Inc. as Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield
("Empire BCBS"), Community Insurance Company as Anthem Blue Cross
Blue Shield of Ohio ("BCBS-OH"), Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of Virginia ("BCBS-VA"), and Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield
ofWisconsin ("BCBS-WI"); California Physicians' Service, d/b/a
Blue Shield of California ("BS-CA"); Highmark, Inc. ("Highmark
BCBS"); Highmark West Virginia, Inc. ("BCBS-WV"); Highmark Blue
Cross Blue Shield Delaware, Inc. ("BCBSDE"); CareFirst, Inc.
(alk/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield); Group Hospitalization and
Medical Services, Inc., d/b/a CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield
("BCBS-DC"); CareFirst of Maryland, Inc., d/b/a Carefirst
BlueCross BlueShield ("BCBS-MD"); Blue Cross Blue and Shield of
Florida, Inc. ("BCBS-FL"); Hawai'i Medical Service Association
d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Hawai'i ("BCBS-HI"); Blue
Cross of Idaho Health Service, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross of Idaho
("BC-ID"); Cambia Health Solutions, Inc., f/d/b/a Regence
BlueShield of Idaho ("BSID"), Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of
Oregon ("BCBS-OR"), Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of Utah ("BCBS-
UT"), and Regence Blue Shield (in Washington) ("BS-W A"); Health
Care Service Corporation, d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Illinois ("BCBS-IL"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana,
(BCBS-MT"), Blue Cross and Blue Shield of New Mexico ("BCBS-NM"),
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Oklahoma as well as GHS Property and
Casualty Insurance Company and GHS Health Maintenance Organization
("BCBS-OK"), and Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Texas ("BCBS-TX");
Caring for Montanans, Inc.; Wellmark, Inc. d/b/a Wellmark Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa ("BCBS-IA"); Wellmark of South
Dakota, Inc., d/b/a Blue Cross and Blue Shield of South Dakota
("BCBS-SD"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas, Inc. ("BCBS-
KS"); Louisiana Health Service & Indemnity Company d/b/a Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Louisiana ("BCBS-LA"); Blue Cross and
Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. ("BCBS-MA"); Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Michigan ("BCBS-MI"); BCBSM, Inc., d/b/a Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota ("BCBS-MN"); Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Mississippi ("BCBS-MS"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of
Kansas City ("BCBS-KC"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Nebraska
("BCBS-NE"); Horizon Healthcare Services, Inc., d/b/a Horizon Blue
Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey ("BCBS-NJ"); HealthNow New York,
Inc., d/b/a BlueCross BlueShield of Western New York ("BCBS-
Western NY") and BlueShield of Northeastern New York ("BS-
Northeastern NY"); Excellus Health Plan, Inc., d/b/a Excellus
BlueCross BlueShield ("Excellus BCBS"); Blue Cross and Blue Shield
of North Carolina, Inc. ("BCBS-NC"); Noridian Mutual Insurance
Company d/b/a Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Dakota ("BCBS-ND");
Hospital Service Association of Northeastern Pennsylvania d/b/a
Blue Cross of Northeastern Pennsylvania ("BC-Northeastern PA");
Capital BlueCross ("Capital BC"); Independence
Hospital Indemnity Plan, Inc., f/k/a Independence Blue Cross
("Independence BC"); Triple SSalud, Inc. ("BCBS-Puerto Rico");
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island ("BCBS-RI"); Blue Cross
and Blue Shield of South Carolina ("BCBS-SC"); Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Tennessee, Inc. ("BCBS-TN''); Blue Cross and Blue Shield
ofVermont ("BCBS-VT"); and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Wyoming
("BCBS-WY") (collectively, the "Individual Blue Plans"); and the
Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association ("BCBSA"), Case 2:16-cv-
00096-cr (D. Vt., April 14, 2016), was filed on behalf of
subscribers of BCBS-VT health insurance to enjoin an alleged
ongoing conspiracy between and among BCBS-VT, the Individual Blue
Plans and BCBSA to allocate markets in violation of the
prohibitions of the Sherman Act.

Defendant BCBSA is a corporation organized under the state of
Illinois and headquartered in Chicago, Illinois. It is owned and
controlled by thirty-six (36) health insurance plans that operate
under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks and trade names.
BCBSA was created by these plans and operates as a licensor for
these plans.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Jonathan R. Voegele, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     26 South Main Street
     Hanover, NH 03755
     Phone: (603) 643-9090
     Fax: (603) 643-9010
     E-mail: jvoegele@bsfllp.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     David Boies, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     33 3 Main Street
     Armonk, NY 10504
     Phone: (914) 749-8200
     Fax: (914) 749-8200
     E-mail: dboies@bsfllp.com

        - and -

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

         - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Eric L. Cramer, Esq.
     BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
     1622 Locust Street
     Philadelphia, PA 191 03
     Phone: 1-800-424-6690
     Fax: (215) 875-4604
     E-mail: ecramer@bm.net

        - and -

     Bryan Clobes, Esq.
     Ellen Meriwether, Esq.
     CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
     1101 Market Street, Suite 2650
     Philadelphia, PA 191 07
     Phone: (215) 864-2800
     Fax: (215) 864-2810
     E-mail: bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
             emeriwether@caffertyclobes.com

        - and -

     Karen Dyer, Esq.
     Hamish P.M. Hume, Esq.
     BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP
     5301 Wisconsin Avenue NW
     Washington, DC 20015
     Phone: (202) 237-2727
     Fax: (202) 237-6131
     E-mail: tchutkan@bsfllp.com
             kdyer@bsfllp.com
             hhume@bsfllp.com
             kkiernan@bsfllp.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     David Guin, Esq.
     Tammy Stokes, Esq.
     GUIN, STOKES & EVANS, LLC
     The Financial Center
     505 20th Street North, Suite 1000
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Phone: (205) 226-2282
     Fax: (205) 226-2357
     E-mail: davidg@gseattomeys.com
             tammys@gseattomeys.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Edwin J. Kilpela, Jr., Esq.
     Benjamin Sweet, Esq.
     DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH S1ROYD LLC
     200 First Avenue, Suite 300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15222
     Phone: (412) 261-2393
     Fax: (412) 261-2110
     E-mail: ekilpela@dsclaw.com
             bsweet@dsclaw.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

     Arthur Bailey, Esq.
     HAUSFELD LLP
     44 Montgomery Street, Suite 3400
     San Francisco, CA 941 04
     Phone: (415) 744-1970
     Fax: (415) 358-4980
     E-mail: abailey@hausfeldllp.com

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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

        - and -

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


CALIFORNIA: Modesto Farmers to Pay High Water Rates This Year
-------------------------------------------------------------
Garth Stapley, writing for Modesto Bee, reports that Modesto-area
farmers will pay higher water rates this year, irrigation leaders
decided on April 19 after a hearing dominated by a dispute over
electricity customers being forced to subsidize farm water prices.

The issue leaped from the boardroom to the courtroom with a class-
action lawsuit asking a judge to reverse the 90-year-old subsidy.

Some in the audience spoke about the legal challenge and asked for
more aggressive action to eliminate the policy.  Power customers
will shoulder 82 percent, or more than $17 million, of the cost
for delivering water this year, even after the April 19 rate
increase.

"I object to this subsidy," said Lee Delano, a retired MID
assistant manager.

Steve Mohasci, a retired utility economist, said 115,000 MID
electricity customers, many of them poor, are overpaying to keep
water prices low for about 600 farms, with the average subsidy
about $157,000.

"That's not exactly equitable social policy," he said.

John Duarte, who owns a Hughson nursery, calculated that farmers
will pay $16.75 per acre-foot of water with the April 19 increase
and concluded, "I think the water's too cheap."  Farmers would
need to pay about $92 to cover MID's delivery costs, but charging
that much would lead to growers pumping more groundwater, lowering
water tables and perhaps resulting in "astronomical environmental
problems," he said.

"I encourage getting to a more realistic water rate," said Mr.
Duarte, figuring that about doubling the new price might strike a
balance.

Board member John Mensinger, who represents an urban district,
said, "I happen to agree (the April 19 increase) is not enough."
But a majority of the five-member MID board are themselves
farmers, and even if they wanted sharply higher prices, state law
governing rate hikes would prevent that without going through
another three-month approval process, Mr. Mensinger said.

Others came to farmers' defense.

"I want to compliment this board for staying fast and not
wavering," said dairyman Pete Verburg.

Attorney Stacy Henderson, who represents some growers, said MID's
irrigation division deserves, but doesn't get, "proper credit" for
some things that benefit its power division; farm advocates have
noted that MID canals accept power poles and carry rainwater away
from the city, for instance.  Ms. Henderson predicted that
"misrepresentations will be clarified," and "the result will be
that what MID is doing is fair, legal and proper."

The April 19 action will bring 20 percent more water revenue to
MID. A drought surcharge imposed in each of the past two years
will not be levied this year; MID expects to deliver 36 inches of
water, double last year's historic low 18-inch allocation.

Board members Nick Blom and Larry Byrd, both irrigation customers,
said small farms struggle to make ends meet and all farmers pay
electric bills like everyone else.  Mr. Byrd said agricultural
pumps brought MID $13.8 million in 2015.

"Three or four people have been beating the drum about the subsidy
-- I can hardly say the word, it makes me so sick to think about
it," Mr. Byrd said.  "Now the snowball has gotten bigger and
they're all tickled pink because they've gotten what they want
with all this media attention, but it's pitting the farmer against
the city.

"I'm not going to let anybody put pressure on me," Mr. Byrd
continued.  "Hell yes, I'm ready to take on the fight."

Mr. Duarte, a 2011 MID candidate who had not previously addressed
the issue, said he "didn't hear any disrespect" from the April 19
audience.  "We're just giving you ideas on how we see things and
what you might want to weigh," he said.

The class-action lawsuit mentions the farm subsidy while focusing
on the larger issue of MID simply charging more than it costs to
deliver electricity.  Bonding documents last summer suggested that
MID's net electricity profit came to $466 million from 2010 to
2014, or an average $93 million a year; the extra money pays down
debt and builds reserves.

In other action, MID showed no sign of backing down on a plan to
drastically lower subsidies for new solar customers despite strong
opposition from representatives of the solar industry.  The board
is scheduled to vote on that issue at meeting starting at 9 a.m.
on Tuesday, April 26, in the chamber at 1231 11th St., Modesto.


CANADA: Regional Hospital Opt Out of Windsor, Tecumseh Bingo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Pearson, writing for Windsor Star, reports that a who's who
of area charities -- 855 of them -- are named as plaintiffs in the
$80-million bingo class-action lawsuit against Windsor and
Tecumseh.

It's a list of every single group that ever took out a bingo
license over two decades.  Some -- like the group Friends of Chris
Lori, the former bobsled driver who hasn't competed since the late
1990s  --  don't even exist anymore.

But as the May 15 deadline approaches to opt out of the action,
groups are beginning to come forward to state they're not
interested in pursuing their share of the claim.

Windsor Regional Hospital -- seeking $200 million in city-county
funding for a proposed new mega-hospital -- was first to opt out
of the bingo lawsuit.  Windsor police have also opted out.

A number of other groups have followed, such as the Windsor Minor
Hockey Association.

"We're partners with the city and if the suit does pass obviously
someone's going to have to pay for it," said WMHA president
Dean Lapierre.  "Maybe the city would have to raise ice or room
rental costs.

"So the last thing we would want is to go after the city for any
money that we were never expecting anyway."

At issue is whether the city and town charged more than what it
cost them to administer the charity bingo licenses -- in essence
creating an illegal tax.  They charged three per cent of the prize
boards at every bingo event that was held dating back to 1993.

The stakes are high.  The suit amounts to an estimated $70 million
for Windsor and $7 million for Tecumseh, plus interest for the
period the lawsuit covers, meaning it could amount to more than
$80 million.

Local taxes may go up to cover that amount, given $80 million is
20 per cent of Windsor's annual tax levy.

The Art Gallery of Windsor, which rents its space from the city
for a dollar a year, will opt out.

"The city is very supportive of the art gallery," said AGW board
president Jim Marsh. "So we're not going to harm them in any way."

Likewise the University of Windsor will not join the class-action
suit -- and will encourage clubs connected to the school to do the
same, though ultimately independent groups make their own
decision, said spokesman John Coleman.

The Windsor Symphony Orchestra will also decline to take part.

"The board made the decision and there were two factors at play,"
said WSO executive director Sheila Wisdom.  "First, some members
of the board did not like the fact that they were named parties to
the suit without being consulted.

"And second, the orchestra has had a long-standing relationship
with the City of Windsor.  We have benefitted from bingos. And we
continue to be a partner with the city so the board made the
decision to opt out."

Stephen Fields said the Windsor-Essex Catholic District School
Board has made a decision on opting out, but can't release details
ahead of its board meeting on April 19.

Scott Scantlebury, spokesman for the Greater Essex County District
School Board said the issue is being discussed but a decision
hasn't yet been made.  Another board representative had noted
earlier that it was difficult to know precisely which schools were
even part of the bingo lawsuit since until now the list wasn't
made public.

Brentwood decided at its April 19 to opt out.  Then there are
groups that don't make sense any more, such as the Capitol Theatre
-- now owned by the city and presumably not party to a lawsuit.

The London-based Lerners law firm which launched the suit against
the city eight years ago receives the opt-out requests from class-
action members, but the firm is not disclosing who has opted out.

Peter Kryworuk, the lawyer who helped launch the lawsuit, declined
comment other than to note even those who opt out are allowed to
opt back in according to a ruling by Superior Court Justice
Terrence Patterson.

"Justice Patterson on the Jan. 29 order ruled that all charities
who have opted out will have the opportunity to re-consider their
decision," Mr. Kryworuk said.

Justice Patterson also ruled that Windsor and Tecumseh had gone
"too far" and created "undue influence" with their multi-media
opt-out campaign.  He therefore banned the city and the town from
advertising on the issue any more than they already had.

Groups with little or no direct support from the city or town have
not been as quick to opt out, however, and none will publicly
comment.

"The city has intimidated everybody," said one long-time volunteer
whose charity participated in many bingos, but who did not want to
be identified.  "They're making us look like we're holding the
community hostage and we're going to take all this money that we
don't have any right to.

"But the charities reinvested that money back into the community.
If all those charities didn't run, the city would be destitute."


CANADA: Brentwood Opts Out of Windsor & Tecumseh Bingo Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
CBC News reports that one of the largest charities in Windsor is
opting out of the multi-million-dollar class-action bingo lawsuits
filed against the city.

Brentwood Recovery Home's board of directors has decided not to be
part of the suits.

Launched by the ALS Society of Essex County and Belle River
District Minor Hockey Association, the lawsuits allege Windsor and
Tecumseh charged excessive fees for bingo licenses.

The two suits combined are seeking $70 million.

Dan Soulliere, Brentwood's executive director, says if court were
to rule in favour of the complainants, it would hurt the
communities, financially.

"The community supported us.  They supported our bingos, and now
to turn around and join in a lawsuit that's basically going to be
taking money from the taxpayers of Windsor and Tecumseh, the very
people that supported us through those years, it would be a real
slap in the face to them," he said.

The lawsuits allege the City of Windsor and Town of Tecumseh
overcharged for bingo fees going back to 1993.

Every charitable organization that paid the fees is automatically
included in the lawsuit unless they specifically opt out.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Attorneys' Fees Order Issued in Hot Fuel Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for
the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2016, that an order awarding
attorneys' fees has been filed in court in the Motor Fuel
Temperature Sales Practices Litigation.

The Company was named as a defendant in four lawsuits ("hot fuel"
cases) brought in the federal courts in Kansas and Missouri
against a variety of fuel retailers, which were consolidated in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas in Kansas City,
Kansas as part of the multidistrict "Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation."

A hearing to consider whether the previously-reported settlement
involving the Company was fair, reasonable and adequate was
conducted on June 9, 2015, and on August 21, 2015, the Court
approved the same. The approved settlement includes, but is not
limited to, the commitment on the part of the Company to "sticker"
certain information on its gasoline pumps and to make a monetary
payment (which is not considered to be material in amount) to the
plaintiff class.

A hearing was held on November 19, 2015 with regard to the
attorneys' fee award for plaintiffs' counsel, and an order
awarding fees was filed by the Court on February 17, 2016.
However, the settlement will not be considered final until all
time for appeals have expired.

Casey's and its wholly-owned subsidiaries operate convenience
stores primarily under the name "Casey's General Store" in 14
Midwestern states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CASEY'S GENERAL: Settlement in FCRA Suit Awaits Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
Parties in a class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act remains subject to final court approval,
Casey's General Stores, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for
the fiscal quarter ended January 31, 2016.

The Company is named as a defendant in a purported class action
lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District
of Missouri on behalf of all individuals on whom the Company
obtained a consumer report for employment purposes during the last
2 years. Plaintiffs allege that the Company has violated the Fair
Credit Reporting Act ("FCRA") disclosure requirement. The FCRA
provides for statutory damages of $100 to $1,000 for each willful
violation, as well as punitive damages and attorneys' fees. The
Court denied the Company's Motion to Dismiss and Motion to
Dismiss/Substitute a Proper Party.

Casey's tentatively resolved the matter at a Court ordered
mediation on September 8, 2015, for an amount which is not
considered material. The parties filed the Motion for Preliminary
Settlement approval in October 2015. The Court granted preliminary
approval on December 2, 2015.

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

Casey's and its wholly-owned subsidiaries operate convenience
stores primarily under the name "Casey's General Store" in 14
Midwestern states, primarily Iowa, Missouri and Illinois.


CENSUS BUREAU: Settles Hiring Discrimination Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Tanzina Vega, writing for CNNMoney, reports that the Census Bureau
has reached a $15 million settlement in a class action lawsuit
that alleged it discriminated against black and Latino workers who
had criminal histories.

According to the complaint, which was filed in 2010, Census gave
applicants flagged for having criminal histories 30 days to
provide paperwork explaining their record.

Gathering that paperwork was "a literal impossibility" for
thousands of those applicants, according to Adam Klein, an
attorney at Outten & Golden, which, along with attorneys from
advocacy groups, represented the plaintiffs.

"This settlement will require the Census Bureau to replace its
arbitrary and racially discriminatory use of criminal records and
develop a rational job-related method" when employing Census
workers, Mr. Klein said on April 19 in a statement.  In an email
late on April 19, the Census confirmed the details of the
settlement.

The 30-day paperwork requirement had a disproportionate impact on
blacks and Latinos, who are more likely to have criminal histories
than applicants of other races, Mr. Klein said.

Approximately 4 million people applied for part-time 2010 Census
jobs, and 850,000 of them received a letter saying their
applications had been flagged for criminal histories.  Applicants
unable to provide the appropriate paperwork in time were rejected.

Thousands of other applicants dropped out of the process
altogether because they were unable to find the appropriate
documents, Mr. Klein said.

In addition, some of the information used by Census to determine
an applicant's criminal history may have been "incomplete" or
"under reported" and possibly inaccurate, Mr. Klein said.

"Some people may not have had criminal records to begin with, and
some people could not obtain the records within 30 days,"
Mr. Klein said.  About 450,000 people -- all black or Latino --
were in the group of affected applicants.

As a part of the settlement, Census will review and implement new
hiring practices in advance of the 2020 Census including how it
screens for applicants' criminal histories.

Members of the class will be offered the option to be notified in
advance of part-time job opportunities for the 2020 Census, or
will be able to participate in a "records assistance program" to
help them correct mistakes in their criminal histories, Mr. Klein
said.

The $15 million will be used to pay for attorney fees and costs
and to fund the records assistance program which will be
administered by Cornell University's College of Industrial and
Labor Relations.

The settlement will be reviewed by the courts and is expected to
be finalized by the fall, Mr. Klein said.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chana Levin, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Central Credit Services, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-02175-
MAS-DEA (D.N.J., April 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Central Credit Services, LLC operates a credit reporting agency in
New jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward B. Geller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF EDWARD B. GELLER, ESQ., P.C.
      15 Landing Way
      Bronx, NY 10464
      Telephone: (914) 473-6783
      E-mail: epbh@aol.com


CENTURY ALUMINUM: Appeal Pending in Retiree Medical Benefits Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Century Aluminum Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal remains
pending related to the Ravenswood Retiree Medical Benefits
changes.

In November 2009, CAWV filed a class action complaint for
declaratory judgment against the United Steel, Paper and Forestry,
Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service
Workers International Union (the "USW"), the USW's local and
certain CAWV retirees, individually and as class representatives,
seeking a declaration of CAWV's rights to modify/terminate retiree
medical benefits.  Later in November 2009, the USW and
representatives of a retiree class filed a separate suit against
CAWV, Century Aluminum Company, Century Aluminum Master Welfare
Benefit Plan, and various John Does with respect to the foregoing.
These actions, entitled Dewhurst, et al. v. Century Aluminum Co.,
et al., and Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. v. United
Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied
Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO/CLC,
et al., have been consolidated and venue has been set in the
District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia.

In September 2015, the trial court granted CAWV's motion for
summary judgment of these actions. The trial court decision is
currently being appealed by the USW to the Court of Appeals for
the 4th Circuit.

Century Aluminum Company is a global producer of primary aluminum
and operates aluminum reduction facilities, or "smelters," in the
United States and Iceland.


CHC GROUP: Expects Argument on Motion to Dismiss This Spring
------------------------------------------------------------
CHC Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company expects
argument on its motion to dismiss a consolidated securities class
action lawsuit in the Spring of 2016.

The two securities class action lawsuits that were previously
filed against the Company were consolidated into a single action,
Rudman et al. v. CHC Group et al., which is pending in federal
district court for the Southern District of New York.  A
consolidated amended complaint was filed on November 6, 2015.

"The amended complaint alleges that the Company and others failed
to disclose in our IPO materials that one of our major customers,
Petrobras, had suspended payments on certain contracts due to the
global stand-down of Airbus H225 aircraft.  The amended complaint
seeks class treatment and unspecified damages," the Company said.

CHC has filed a motion to dismiss, with argument on the motion
anticipated to be held in the spring of 2016.  The Company
maintains adequate insurance to respond to the lawsuit. Moreover,
the Company disputes the allegations in the complaints and will
vigorously defend against them.


CHRYSLER: Plaintiff Opposes Bid to Transfer Crash Case to N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
the plaintiff in a case against Chrysler involving the deaths of
two people who died when their vehicle was struck and burst into
flames has opposed the automaker's attempt to have the litigation
transferred from Pennsylvania to a New York federal court.

Chrysler, also referred to as FCA US, wants the case transferred
to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
as it was the venue for its 2009 bankruptcy, the provisions of
which are in dispute in the accident case.  Chrysler maintains
that the bankruptcy makes it immune to punitive damages from
events occurring prior to the bankruptcy.

The plaintiff, David Dearden, argued that the punitive damages
stem from conduct that occurred post-bankruptcy: Chrysler's
alleged reluctance to issue a recall for jeep vehicles, like the
one in which his parents, Edward and Theresa Dearden, were killed.
David Dearden alleged that the 1995 Jeep Grand Cherokee in which
his parents traveled was negligently designed because the fuel
tank was positioned too close to the rear of the vehicle,
increasing the chance that it would burst into flames when rear-
ended.

Chrysler said in its court papers that the dispute would be most
effectively resolved by the bankruptcy court in New York, as it
was most familiar with the terms of the bankruptcy sale.

"Specifically, plaintiff Dearden's pursuit of punitive damages
against FCA US is a violation of the rulings of the bankruptcy
court, and the bankruptcy court should be given the opportunity to
address the plaintiff's collateral attack on its prior orders,"
Chrysler argued.

The automaker also said that moving the case from the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania to New York would be better for judicial
economy, as the resolution of the case would most likely affect
similar pending or future lawsuits.

"The bankruptcy court is in the best position to consider this
threshold issue," Chrysler said, "after which any claims that
survive can be returned to Pennsylvania for a trial by jury."
Mr. Dearden, on the other had, wants the case remanded back to the
Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas where it originated.

The plaintiff argued that the provision in Chrysler's bankruptcy
prevented punitive damages against the company for defective
design claims made prior to the bankruptcy; Mr. Dearden sought
punitives for Chrysler's -- alleged failure to initiate a recall.

"The only basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction in this
case rests upon the defendant's faulty application of the 2009
sale order's punitive damages provision," Mr. Dearden's court
papers said.

He added, "In addition, the bankruptcy court for the Southern
District of New York has unequivocally held that it does not have
subject-matter jurisdiction over claims based on Chrysler's
conduct after the 2009 sale order."

Mr. Dearden's parents were killed in 2014 when they were rear-
ended while traveling on I-78.

According to Mr. Dearden's court papers, the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration began investigating numerous fires
in Jeep SUVs and found that 2.7 million Grand Cherokees and
Liberties were equipped with defective fuel systems.

Chrysler claimed that the vehicles were not defective and engaged
in advertising campaigns and lobbying to "delay or forestall a
product recall of Jeep Grand Cherokees.  All the while, the death
toll resulting from fires caused by rear-end collisions in these
vehicles continued to climb," Mr. Dearden alleged.


COLSON ENTERPRISES: "Gaitan" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar A. Gaitan and other similarly-situated individuals v.
Colson Enterprises LLC d/b/a Aviation Express, Case No. 1:16-cv-
21393-UU (S.D. Fla., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonable
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Colson Enterprises LLC operates a business that provides packing
and warehousing supplies for the air cargo, and logistic market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Hearing on Motion to Dismiss Held April 11
------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Amendment No. 4 to Form 10
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7,
2016, that a hearing was set for April 11, 2016, on Community
Health Systems, Inc.'s motion to dismiss a consolidated federal
securities class action lawsuit.

Three purported class action cases have been filed in the United
States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee;
namely, Norfolk County Retirement System v. Community Health
Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 9, 2011; De Zheng v. Community
Health Systems, Inc., et al., filed May 12, 2011; and Minneapolis
Firefighters Relief Association v. Community Health Systems, Inc.,
et al., filed June 21, 2011. All three seek class certification on
behalf of purchasers of CHS common stock between July 27, 2006 and
April 11, 2011 and allege that misleading statements resulted in
artificially inflated prices for CHS common stock.

In December 2011, the cases were consolidated for pretrial
purposes and NYC Funds and its counsel were selected as lead
plaintiffs/lead plaintiffs' counsel. In lieu of ruling on CHS'
motion to dismiss, the court permitted the plaintiffs to file a
first amended consolidated class action complaint which was filed
on October 5, 2015.

CHS' motion to dismiss was filed on November 4, 2015 and was
scheduled for oral argument on April 11, 2016. The court also
lifted the discovery stay and discovery is underway.

CHS believes this consolidated matter is without merit and will
vigorously defend this case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Dropped from Non-Tenn. Based Cyber Attack Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Amendment No. 4 to Form 10
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7,
2016, that Community Health Systems, Inc. has been dismissed from
all non-Tennessee based class action cases related to a 2014 cyber
attack.

CHS' computer network was the target of an external, criminal
cyber attack that CHS believes occurred between April and June,
2014. CHS and Mandiant (a FireEye company), the forensic expert
engaged by CHS in connection with this matter, believe the
attacker was a foreign "Advanced Persistent Threat" group who used
highly sophisticated malware and technology to attack our systems.
The attacker was able to bypass our security measures and
successfully copy and transfer outside CHS certain non-medical
patient identification data (such as patient names, addresses,
birthdates, telephone numbers and social security numbers), but
not including patient credit card, medical or clinical
information. CHS continues to work closely with federal law
enforcement authorities in connection with their investigation and
possible prosecution of those determined to be responsible for
this attack. Mandiant has conducted a thorough investigation of
this incident and continues to advise CHS regarding security and
monitoring efforts. CHS is providing appropriate notification to
affected patients and regulatory agencies as required by federal
and state law. CHS is offering identity theft protection services
to individuals affected by this attack.

CHS has incurred certain expenses to remediate and investigate
this matter, and CHS expects to continue to incur expenses of this
nature in the foreseeable future. In addition, multiple purported
class action lawsuits have been filed against CHS and certain
subsidiaries. These lawsuits allege that sensitive information was
unprotected and inadequately encrypted by CHS. The plaintiffs
claim breach of contract and other theories of recovery, and are
seeking damages, as well as restitution for any identity theft.

On February 4, 2015, the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation ordered the transfer of the purported
class actions pending outside of the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama to the District Court for the
Northern District of Alabama for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. A consolidated complaint was filed and CHS
filed a motion to dismiss on September 21, 2015, which was
partially argued on February 10, 2016.

In an oral ruling from the bench, the court greatly limited the
potential class by ruling only plaintiffs with specific injury
resulting from the breach had standing to sue. Further, on
jurisdictional grounds, the court dismissed Community Health
Systems, Inc. from all non-Tennessee based cases. Finally, the
court set April 15, 2016 for further argument on whether the
remaining plaintiffs have sufficiently stated a cause of action to
continue their cases.

At this time, CHS is unable to predict the outcome of this
litigation or determine the potential impact, if any, that could
result from this litigation, but CHS intends to vigorously defend
these lawsuits. This matter may subject CHS to additional
litigation, potential governmental inquiries, potential
reputational damage, and additional remediation, operating and
other expenses.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Nov. 21 Settlement Conference Set in "Mounce"
---------------------------------------------------------------
An amended complaint has been filed on Feb. 10, 2016, in the case,
Mounce v. Community Health Systems, Inc., Case No. 5:15-cv-05197,
pending before the Arkansas Western District Court.

In November 2015, the Arkansas Western District Court, Eighth
Circuit, set a Final Pretrial Conference for Feb. 8, 2017, before
Honorable Timothy L. Brooks; and jury trial for Feb. 21, 2017,
also before Judge Brooks.  In December 2015, the Court set a
Settlement Conference in the case for Nov. 21, 2016.

Quorum Health Corporation said in its Amendment No. 4 to Form 10
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7,
2016, that the case is a purported class action lawsuit served on
July 29, 2015, claiming CHS' affiliated Arkansas hospitals
violated payor contracts by allegedly improperly asserting
hospital liens against third-party tortfeasors and seeking class
certifications for any similarly situated plaintiffs at any
affiliated Arkansas hospital. CHS believes these claims are
without merit and will vigorously defend the case.


COMMUNITY HEALTH: Appeal in HMA Suit Still Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Quorum Health Corporation said in its Amendment No. 4 to Form 10
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 7,
2016, that Community Health Systems, Inc., continues to defend the
lawsuit captioned, Health Management Associates, et al.

On April 30, 2012, two class action lawsuits that were brought
against HMA and certain of its then executive officers, one of
whom was at that time also a director, were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida
under the caption In Re: Health Management Associates, Inc., et
al. and three pension fund plaintiffs were appointed as lead
plaintiffs.

On July 30, 2012, the lead plaintiffs filed an amended
consolidated complaint purportedly on behalf of stockholders who
purchased HMA's common stock during the period from July 27, 2009,
through January 9, 2012. The amended consolidated complaint (i)
alleges that HMA made false and misleading statements in certain
public disclosures regarding its business and financial results
and (ii) asserts claims for violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. Among other
things, the plaintiffs claim that HMA inflated its earnings by
engaging in fraudulent Medicare billing practices that entailed
admitting patients to observation status when they should not have
been admitted at all and to inpatient status when they should have
been admitted to observation status. The plaintiffs seek
unspecified monetary damages.

On October 22, 2012, the defendants moved to dismiss the
plaintiffs' amended consolidated complaint for failure to state a
claim or plead facts required by the Private Securities Litigation
Reform Act. The plaintiffs filed an unopposed stipulation and
proposed order to suspend briefing on the defendants' motion to
dismiss because they intended to seek leave of court to file a
proposed second amended consolidated complaint.

On December 15, 2012, the court entered an order approving the
stipulation and providing a schedule for briefing with respect to
the proposed amended pleadings. On February 25, 2013, the
plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint, which
asserted substantially the same claims as the amended consolidated
complaint.

As of August 15, 2013, the defendants' motion to dismiss the
second amended complaint for failure to state a claim and plead
facts required by the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act was
fully briefed and awaiting the Court's decision.

On May 22, 2014, the court granted the motion to dismiss and on
June 20, 2014 the plaintiffs appealed to the Eleventh Circuit,
where oral argument was heard on February 6, 2015.

On May 11, 2015, the Eleventh Circuit Court affirmed the granting
of the motion to dismiss. On June 11, 2015, plaintiffs filed an
application for an en banc review.

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

CHS intends to vigorously defend against the allegations in this
lawsuit. CHS is unable to predict the outcome or determine the
potential impact, if any, that could result from its final
resolution.


CONTEXTLOGIC: "Gerboc" Class Suit Removed to N. District Ohio
-------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Max Gerboc, on his own behalf
and for all others similarly situated v. Contextlogic, Inc., Case
No. 16CV000516, was removed from the Lake County Court of Common
Pleas to the U.S. District Court Northern District of Ohio
(Cleveland). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
00928 to the proceeding.

Contextlogic, Inc. provides online services that include media
sharing and communication tools, personalized and other content,
and e-commerce.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Frank A. Bartela, Esq.
      Nicole T. Fiorelli, Esq.
      Patrick J. Perotti, Esq.
      DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN-PAINESVILLE
      60 South Park Place
      Painesville, OH 44077
      Telephone: (440) 352-3391
      Facsimile: (440) 352-3469
      E-mail: fbartela@dworkenlaw.com
              nfiorelli@dworkenlaw.com
              pperotti@dworkenlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      David H. Wallace, Esq.
      Michael J. Zbiegien Jr., Esq.
      TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER
      3500 BP Tower
      200 Public Square
      Cleveland, OH 44114
      Telephone: (216) 241-2838
      Facsimile: (216) 241-3707
      E-mail: dwallace@taftlaw.com
              mzbiegien@taftlaw.com


COOK MEDICAL: Transferred "Hayes" Class Suit to S.D. Indiana
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Deandre Hayes and Shaynna Hayes v.
Cook Medical Incorporated a/k/a Cook Medical, Inc., Cook
Incorporated, Cookgroup,Inc. and  William Cook Europe APS, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00197, was transferred from the District of Louisiana
Middle to the U.S. District Court Southern District of Indiana
(Indianapolis). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-06032-RLY-TAB to the proceeding.

This is an action for damages relating to Defendants' development,
testing, assembling, manufacturing, packaging, labeling,
preparing, distribution, marketing, supplying, and selling the
defective product sold under the name "inferior vena cava filter".

The Defendants operate a business that develops, manufactures,
sells and distributes medical devices for use in various medical
applications including endovascular cardiology, and surgical
products throughout the United States and around the world.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeremy J. Pichon, Esq.
      Caleb H. Didriksen III, Esq.
      Erin Bruce Saucier, Esq.
      Carl A. Woods III, Esq.
      DIDRIKSEN, SAUCIER, WOODS & PICHON, APLC
      3114 Canal Street
      New Orleans, LA 70119
      Telephone (504) 586-1600
      E-mail: jeremy@dswplaw.com
              caleb@didriksenlaw.com
              erin@didriksenlaw.com
              trey@didriksenlaw.com


DADDYO'S MANAGEMENT: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
German Gonzalez-Diaz, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated v. Daddyo's Management Group Inc. d/b/a
Daddyo's BBQ To Go, and Gregory Fosdal, Case No. 1:16-cv-01907-
ENV-RM (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, and the costs and reasonably
attorney's fees under the provisions of Fair Labor Standards Act.

Daddyo's Management Group Inc. operates a limited-service
restaurant doing business as Daddyo's BBQ To Go, located at 2461
Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
      Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
      Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
      277 Broadway, Suite 408
      New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
      Telephone: (212) 229-2249
      Facsimile: (212) 229-2246
      E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
              bsherr@zellerlegal.com
              jazeller@zellerlegal.com


DELBERT SERVS: 4th Cir. Refuses to Enforce Arbitration Agreement
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenie Rogers, Esq., of Baker & McKenzie, in an article for
Lexology, report that in Hayes v. Delbert Servs. Corp., No. 15-
1170 (4th Cir. Feb. 2, 2016), the Fourth Circuit refused to
enforce an arbitration agreement that forbid pursuit of federal
statutory rights by mandating application of tribal law.

Western Sky was an online lender owned by a member of the Cheyenne
River Sioux Tribe (the "Tribe") and located on reservation land.
From the reservation, Western Sky issued payday loans with
staggering interest rates to consumers across the country.  The
loan issued by Western Sky to named Plaintiff-Appellant James
Hayes ("Hayes") was transferred to other servicing and collection
firms and finally transferred to Defendant-Appellee Delbert
Services Corporation ("Delbert") as loan servicing agent. Delbert
had no tribal affiliation.

By their terms, Western Sky's payday loans evidently violated many
state and federal lending laws, but Western Sky's loan agreement
provided that it was subject to the laws and jurisdiction only of
the Tribe and that no other state or federal law or regulation
applied.  The agreement provided that any disputes must be
resolved by binding arbitration conducted by a representative
appointed by the Tribe.  The arbitration clause purported to cover
all potential claims, whether based on tribal, federal, or state
law.  Another provision stated that the arbitrator must not apply
any law other than the law of the Tribe.  The Western Sky
agreements signed by Plaintiffs provided that the borrower had a
right to select the AAA, JAMS, or another organization to
administer the arbitration.  Although disputed, evidence suggested
that Western Sky added this provision because the tribal
arbitration mechanism proved in practice to be illusory.

On behalf of several other individuals whose Western Sky payday
loans were also serviced by Delbert, Hayes filed a putative class
action against Delbert for unlawful collection practices that
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Telephone
Consumer Protection Act -- both, federal laws.  Hayes also sought
declaratory judgment that the forum selection and arbitration
clauses of the loan agreement were unenforceable.  Delbert moved
to dismiss the action arguing that (1) the forum selection clause
and the doctrine of tribal exhaustion barred Plaintiffs from
pursuing their claims in federal court; and (2) the dispute must
be referred to arbitration under the loan agreement's arbitration
provision.

Although the district court decided that Delbert could not enforce
the forum selection clause and the doctrine of tribal exhaustion
did not apply, the court concluded that the arbitration provision
was enforceable.  The district court acknowledged that other
courts in Western Sky-related litigation had rejected the
arbitration provision in those loan agreements, but concluded that
the arbitration provision in this case gave the borrowers recourse
to well-recognized arbitration organizations including AAA and
JAMS, and therefore, the arbitration provision was enforceable.
The district court issued an order compelling arbitration, from
which Plaintiffs appealed. Delbert conditionally cross-appealed
the district court's orders rejecting the other grounds asserted
for dismissal.

The Fourth Circuit concluded that the arbitration agreements here
failed because they purported "to renounce wholesale the
application of any federal law to [P]laintiffs' federal claims."
Although Western Sky was a tribal entity, Delbert was not.  The
Fourth Circuit reasoned that "a party may not underhandedly
convert a choice of law clause into a choice of no law clause --
it may not flatly and categorically renounce the authority of the
federal statutes to which it is and must remain subject."

Arbitration agreements can include procedural restrictions such as
waiver of class action relief or waiver of a jury trial, but they
cannot substantively waive federally protected rights.  The
Western Sky arbitration agreements in this case purported to waive
Plaintiffs' federal statutory rights through the guise of a choice
of law clause and, therefore, were held unenforceable.


DICK SMITH: Investors File Class Action Over Collapse
-----------------------------------------------------
Sue Mitchell, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Hundreds of investors who lost money in the collapse of retailer
Dick Smith have registered interest in joining a class action suit
led by Sydney law firm Bannister Law.

Bannister Law is gauging the level of interest in a class action
claim against former directors and auditors of Dick Smith, which
collapsed in January owing around $400 million to creditors.

"Investors are angry and some people have lost a lot of money,"
Bannister Law chief executive Charles Bannister told Fairfax
Media.

"If we see merit in the action its possible that findings could be
made against officers and related external parties that usually
have insurance," Mr. Bannister said.

The firm is investigating whether there was sufficient information
to investors in the prospectus for Dick Smith's initial public
offer in 2013 and looking at disclosures and declarations by
directors and auditors in Dick Smith's 2015 annual report.

Dick Smith reported a 3 per cent increase in net profit to $43.3
million in 2015 and its auditors gave the company a clean bill of
health.

By November 2015 Dick Smith had cut its 2016 profit guidance and
slashed the value of inventories by 20 per cent or $60 million. By
the time the company collapsed in January it was losing $100
million a month.

The collapse is now being investigated by the Australian
Securities and Investments Commission and is the target of a
Senate inquiry, while a report by Dick Smith's administrators,
McGrath Nicols, is due in June.

"We're monitoring the outcome of the ASIC investigation and
administrators report -- that will assist in our decision making
process," Mr. Bannister said.

"We have clients who want to be lead plaintiffs in the case but we
have to be satisfied ourselves that the matter has reasonable
prospects of success," he said.

"Hundreds of shareholders have registered since we gave notice (in
January) that it was under investigation by our firm," he said.

Bannister is looking at a number of key events and periods,
particularly the sale of certain assets and non-disclosure of sub-
holding accounts "which may have affected investors' ability to
make an informed decision."

Anchorage Capital Partners bought Dick Smith from Woolworths for
$115 million in 2012 and floated it for $520 million 14 months
later.  The private equity firm has maintained that Dick Smith was
in a "strong financial position" when it cut ties with the group
in 2015.

Mr. Bannister has called on Dick Smith shareholders to contact him
with a view to mounting a class claim in the Federal Court and is
in discussions with "numerous" parties about funding a class
action.

Dick Smith is not the only retailer facing class or group actions
from investors.

Last year Melbourne City Investments Pty Ltd (MCI), an investment
company set up by former Minter Ellison partner Mark Elliott,
launched legal proceedings against Myer, alleging it suffered loss
and damage as the result of statements at the time of Myer's 2014
profit results and a profit downgrade in 2015.

In 2014 Slater & Gordon launched a class action against Billabong
International seeking compensation for at least 400 shareholders
who lost money when Billabong shares plunged after a profit
warning in 2011.

Bannister Law is also pursuing a class action against Volkswagen
Group Australia is currently pursuing class action suits against
Volkswagon and Reckitt Benckiser, the makers of Nurofen.


EBB INC: Recalls Cinnamon Rolls with Cream Cheese Due to Milk
-------------------------------------------------------------
EBB (U.S.) Inc. of Columbus, Ohio is voluntarily recalling 97
cases of PICs by Price Chopper Cinnamon Rolls with Cream Cheese
Icing (UPC 041735073389) because, although milk was listed in the
ingredients list, it was mentioned in the wrong allergen caution.
This voluntary recall has been issued by EBB (U.S.) Inc. out of an
abundance of caution to protect consumers who might be at a risk
from exposure to milk.

PICs by Price Chopper Cinnamon Rolls with Cream Cheese Icing were
packaged in 12.4 oz. canisters. The product was sold exclusively
at Price Chopper stores in New York, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Pennsylvania, Vermont, and New Hampshire. All PICs by Price
Chopper Cinnamon Rolls with Cream Cheese Icing shipped from March
7, 2016 to March 28, 2016 are impacted.

To date, there have been no reports of illness in connection with
use of this product. The recall was initiated after it was
discovered that the product label on the dairy-containing product
listed milk as an ingredient but used the wrong allergen
cautionary language. Consumers affected by this recall should
immediately discard the product. Consumers with any questions
should contact the company at 1-800-253-6844 Monday through
Friday, 9-4:30 Pacific Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/jRmXHx



ENERGY RECOVERY: Stockholders' Litigation in Calif. Still Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
face a consolidated securities class action in California.

In January 2015, two stockholder class action complaints were
filed against the Company in the Northern District of California,
on behalf of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions,
Joseph Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al. and Thomas C.
Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al. The complaints have now been
consolidated under the caption In Re Energy Recovery Inc.
Securities Litigation. The complaint alleges violations of Section
10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and seeks the recovery of unspecified monetary
damages.

"We are not able to estimate the possible loss, if any, due to the
early state of this matter," the Company said.

Energy Recovery, Inc. is an energy solutions provider to
industrial fluid flow markets worldwide.


ENOVA INTERNATIONAL: Still Faces "Kristensen" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
Enova International, Inc. continues to defend against the lawsuit
filed by Flemming Kristensen, the Company said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
7, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

The Company said, "On March 8, 2013, Flemming Kristensen, on
behalf of himself and others similarly situated, filed a purported
class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court of Nevada against
us and other unaffiliated lenders and lead providers. The lawsuit
alleges that the lead provider defendants sent unauthorized text
messages to consumers on behalf of us and the other lender
defendants in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.
The complaint seeks class certification, statutory damages, an
injunction against "wireless spam activities," and attorneys' fees
and costs."

"We filed an answer to the complaint denying all liability. On
March 26, 2014, the Court granted class certification. On July 20,
2015, the court granted our motion for summary judgment, denied
Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
favor of us.

"Plaintiff filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied,
and could appeal the judgment. Neither the likelihood of an
unfavorable appellate decision nor the ultimate liability, if any,
with respect to this matter can be determined at this time, and we
are currently unable to estimate a range of reasonably possible
losses for this litigation. We believe that the plaintiff's claims
in the complaint are without merit and intend to vigorously defend
this lawsuit."

Enova is a technology and analytics company focused on providing
online financial services.


EXCEPTIONAL HEALTH: Recalls Daily Multi Capsule Due to Soy & Milk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Exceptional Health Products of Tulsa Oklahoma is recalling Angel
Wings(TM) - Daily Multi 120 Capsules because this product contains
undeclared SOY and MILK allergens. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to Soy or Milk allergens run the risk of
serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume this
product.

The following product was distributed nationwide to consumers
through mailorder.

Product Name: Angel Wings(TM) - Daily Multi 120 Capsules

Lot Numbers: 14656, 14657, 15109, 15489, 15488, 15616, and 16007

This voluntary recall has been initiated because this product
contains undeclared SOY and MILK allergens. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to Soy or Milk allergens run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

No illnesses have been reported to date. This was brought to our
attention by the Food and Drug Administration that found
inconsistencies with our supplier's allergen statement on the
Amino Acid ingredients used in this formulation.

The recalled lot numbers began shipping nationwide on December 23,
2014. If you find the recalled lot numbers on the bottom of any
bottle you have inventory you may return it to the address at the
bottom for a full refund or replacement. If you have further
distributed this product, please identify the recipients or your
customers and notify them at once of this product recall.

If you have any questions, call 888-548-0477 Monday thru Friday
8:00 AM to 5:00 PM CST. We are sorry for this inconvience and
appreciate your assistance.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/5VJANX


FREIGHTCAR AMERICA: Court Rejects Bid to Extend Time to Appeal
--------------------------------------------------------------
Freightcar America, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a Pennsylvania court has
denied the request of certain class members for a 30-day extension
to file an appeal from the approval of the settlement of a class
action lawsuit.

On July 8, 2013, the Company filed a Complaint for Declaratory
Judgment (the "Complaint") in the United States District Court for
the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division (the "Illinois
Court"). The case named as defendants the United Steel, Paper &
Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial &
Services Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (the "USW"), as
well as approximately 650 individual Retiree Defendants (as
defined in the Complaint).

On July 9, 2013, the USW and certain Retiree Defendants
(collectively, the "Pennsylvania Plaintiffs") filed a putative
class action in the United States District Court for the Western
District of Pennsylvania (the "Pennsylvania Court"), captioned as
Zanghi, et al. v. FreightCar America, Inc., et al., Case No. 3:13-
cv-146.

Both of the complaints related to the Company's decision to
terminate welfare benefits previously provided to the Retiree
Defendants.

On August 20, 2015, the Company reached a settlement agreement
with the USW and the other plaintiffs. Pursuant to the settlement
agreement, the parties agreed that (1) USW will create a voluntary
employee's beneficiary association trust fund (the "VEBA") that
will administer the payment of health and welfare benefits to
class members and will be administered independently of the
Company, (2) the Company will make a one-time contribution to the
VEBA of $31.5 million, (3) the Company will pay an award for
plaintiffs' attorneys' fees in the amount of $1.3 million, (4) if
the Company fails to make the required payments to the VEBA prior
to February 16, 2016, interest on the unpaid amounts will accrue
at a rate of 5% per annum, subject to a cap of $250,000, and (5)
class members will fully and finally release all claims against
the Company in accordance with the terms of the settlement
agreement. The Pennsylvania Court granted final approval of the
settlement on January 19, 2016.

The plaintiffs had until February 18, 2016 to file an appeal of
the court order granting final approval of the settlement. On
February 17, 2016 certain class members requested a 30-day
extension to file an appeal, which the Pennsylvania Court denied
on February 22, 2016. The Company was expected to make the cash
settlement payment on or after March 23, 2016.

Freightcar America is a diversified manufacturer of railcars and
railcar components.


GARRISON PROPERTY: Judge Grants in Part Motion to Dismiss Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
defendants in a class action lawsuit, brought by a Florida
chiropractor against a group of insurers for allegedly breaching a
patient's insurance agreement, recently decided to withdraw their
request to separate discovery into two phases.

On April 1, Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company, USAA
Casualty Insurance Company, USAA General Indemnity Company and
United Services Automobile Association filed a notice of
withdrawal of their motion to bifurcate.

In their motion, filed in February, the defendants asked a Florida
federal court for an order separating discovery into two phases --
one to determine if there was a class to certify and one on the
merits of the allegations.

"Limiting discovery to class certification issues until a
determination regarding certification is made is necessary to
avoid imposing an extraordinary burden and cost on Defendants that
will be unnecessary if the Court ultimately denies class
certification," they argued in their Feb. 19 motion.

However, the insurers have decided to withdraw the motion in light
of the court's order in March on their motion to dismiss.

"There is no current need for the Motion given the dismissal of
the class allegations," the defendants wrote in their notice.

After an automobile accident, Allison Consiglio applied for
reimbursement of her medical expenses from Garrison, her
automobile insurance company.

Citing "Medicare fee schedules," Garrison, which maintains a large
claims handling center in Tampa, reimbursed only a portion of Ms.
Consiglio's medical expenses.

Ms. Consiglio assigned her claim against Garrison to Todd J.
Cielo, a Florida chiropractor, and to his practice, Cielo Sports &
Family Chiropractic Centre LLC, both of whom initiated a class
action in Florida state court for breach of Ms. Consiglio's
insurance agreement.

The plaintiffs argue Garrison can limit reimbursement based on
Medicare fee schedules for "personal injury protection" but not
for "medical payments."

The plaintiffs sued the four insurers -- Garrison, USAA, USAA
General Indemnity Company and USAA Casualty Insurance Company --
on behalf of those who received from any of the defendants only
limited reimbursement for "medical payments" based on "Medicare
fee schedules."

In October, the insurers removed the lawsuit to the U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division, under
the Class Action Fairness Act and subsequently moved to dismiss.

At the heart of the case is the plaintiffs' challenge to
Garrison's use of Florida's personal injury protection, or PIP,
fee schedules to make reimbursement under the MedPay coverage
portion of its policies.

The plaintiffs argue Garrison used an undisclosed MedPay
reimbursement technology, thus limiting or reducing MedPay
reimbursements.

"Plaintiffs allege that the limitation of MedPay reimbursements
based on the PIP Medicare Fee Schedule Method violates the terms
of Garrison's insurance policies because the contracts have not
clearly and unambiguously adopted the PIP Medicare Fee Schedule
Method," Mr. Cielo wrote in a second amended complaint, filed
April 13.

"In fact, the policies at issue continue to utilize the same
MedPay coverage part language upon which reimbursement had long
been made under a previously established methodology including
objective data, algorithms and computer calculation methods and
was part of a uniform course of dealing between Garrison, USAA
Property and Casualty Insurance Group, and Plaintiffs.

"Despite the clear language of its policies, Plaintiffs believe
that Garrison has routinely and systematically, since sometime
after 2008, utilized the PIP Medicare Fee Schedule Method without
clearly and unambiguously adopting the method in its policies."

The plaintiffs had to amend their original complaint -- filed in
Florida's Thirteenth Judicial Circuit Court in Hillsborough County
in August -- for the first time, in December, because counsel used
"and" instead of "&" when identifying their plaintiff.  In
addition, they described Cielo as a "her."

The federal court, in its March 30 order, instructed the
plaintiffs to amend their complaint once again to either remove
all the defendants other than Garrison or add a claim against any
defendant other than Garrison, and to either remove the class
action allegations or remove the claim for damages.

Judge Steven Merryday, in the 10-page order, also granted, in
part, the insurers' motion to dismiss.

"The defendants correctly argue that the plaintiffs fail to
establish standing to sue any defendant other than Garrison," the
judge wrote.  "Standing requires a showing of an 'injury-in-fact,'
'a causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained
of,' and a 'likelihood' 'that the injury will be redressed by a
favorable decision.'

"Although the plaintiffs sue for breach of Consiglio and
Garrison's insurance agreement, the plaintiffs sue -- in addition
to Garrison -- the United Services Automobile Association, the
USAA General Indemnity Company, and the USAA Casualty Insurance
Company.  The plaintiffs fail to state any fact establishing an
injury suffered by Consiglio and caused by the United Services
Automobile Association, the USAA General Indemnity Company, or the
USAA Casualty Insurance Company."

The judge also noted that because the plaintiffs' claim for
damages will require a "significant" number of individualized
inquiries, a class action is inappropriate to resolve the claim.

According to an April 8 case management and scheduling order,
discovery is due Dec. 12 with a jury trial set for April 2017
before Merryday.

Tampa law firm Harmon Woods Parker & Abrunzo PA is representing
the plaintiffs; Akerman LLP, also in Tampa, is representing the
defendants.


HAWAII: Inmate Seeks to Practice Native Beliefs
-----------------------------------------------
Nicholas Fillmore, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a Hawaii prison inmate says his jailers violated a decade-old
agreement to let inmates practice their Native Hawaiian religious
beliefs.

Robert Holbron, an inmate of the Halawa Correctional Facility in
Honolulu, filed a class action in Honolulu against the Hawaii
Department of Public Safety, its director Nolan Espinda and Halawa
warden Francis Sequeira on April 14 in state court, claiming the
department "bar[s] Native Hawaiian practitioners from meeting with
each other on a daily basis for group worship."

Holbron says that the defendants violate inmates' constitutional
rights and a 2005 settlement in which the prison system agreed to
recognize the Native Hawaiian religion in exchange for dismissal
of a civil rights action -- to which Holbron was also party.

In response to the settlement, the department issued "PSD Makahiki
Guidelines" to help wardens accommodate inmate requests.

Makahiki marks the Hawaiian winter, when the ancients turned their
attention from matters associated with Ku, god of war, to harvest
activities and games associated with Lono, god of rain and
fecundity.

Integral to the celebration are a sacred outdoor space and a
number of implements including native garments, "apu" coconut
shell bowl, "ipu" gourd drum, conch shell, yellow ginger, sea
salt, ti leaves and lauhala mats used in dancing, chanting and
feasting.

Although the guidelines were approved by the former deputy
director for corrections and the director of public safety,
Holbron says the state of Hawaii lacks any method for reviewing
requests. At issue are written communications made by Holbron to
Halawa staff, attempts at informal resolution through the prison
chaplain and ultimately a formal grievance process -- none of
which has availed Holbron of his desire to celebrate Makahiki, his
complaint says.

In fact, Holbron says prison officials acknowledged receipt of
Holbron's requests and his grievances -- even assigning the later
control numbers -- but never answered them beyond that.

Holbron's complaint also notes Native Hawaiians' disproportionate
representation in the Aloha State's prison system. According to a
2010 study done by the Office of Hawaiian Affairs, Native
Hawaiians make up 39 percent of the prison population but just 24
percent of the general population.

And yet the Native Hawaiians are not afforded the right to
practice their beliefs like other inmates are, Holbron says.
He is suing for violating the Hawaii Constitution relating to the
free exercise of religion and equal protection. He seeks class
certification, a declaration that the prison system violates his
constitutional rights and an order allowing him and other Native
Hawaiian inmates to practice their religion by using traditional
objects and in a sacred space.

Holbron also asks the court to appoint a special master to monitor
the prison system's compliance with the orders.  He is represented
by Sharla Manley of the Native Hawaiian Legal Corp. in Honolulu.


HILL COUNTRY: Faces "Flores" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sotero Neri Flores and Cornelio Guerrero, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated v. Hill Country Chicken NY,
LLC (d/b/a Hill Country Chicken), and Marc Glosserman, Case No.
1:16-cv-02916 (S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own, operate, or control a Chicken restaurant
located at 1123 Broadway, New York, New York 10010 under the name
Hill Country Chicken.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Faillace, Esq.
      MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, PC
      60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
      New York, NY 10165
      Telephone: (212) 317-1200
      E-mail: Michael@Faillacelaw.com


HOSPIRA INC: Recalls 50% Magnesium Sulfate Injections
-----------------------------------------------------
Hospira, Inc., a Pfizer company, is voluntarily recalling one lot
of 50% Magnesium Sulfate Injection, USP, 10 g/20 mL (0.5 g/ml), 20
mL Single-dose vials, Lot 50-343-DK, Expiration 01FEB2017, NDC
0409-2168-02, to the hospital level due to a confirmed customer
complaint for the presence of particulate matter, within one
single-dose fliptop vial. A recall was previously executed for
this lot on March 23, 2016 due to a confirmed high out of
specification (OOS) result for pH.

If the particulate is detected prior to dispensing or
administration to a patient, patient harm is unlikely. If the
delay of therapy is prolonged, there is the potential for serious
medical consequences for mother and fetus requiring medical
intervention. If the particulate is not observed prior to
administration, it may result in localized swelling, redness, pain
at the site of administration or veins, allergic reactions to the
foreign particle, microembolic effects as well as possible fetal
harm. The likelihood of serious patient harm is considered low due
to high-detectability of this non-conformance.

To date, Hospira has not received reports of any adverse events
associated with this issue for this lot. Hospira places the utmost
emphasis on patient safety and product quality at every step in
the manufacturing and supply chain process.

The product is packaged 1 box of 25 units (1x25)/case pack 4 boxes
of 25 units (4x25). The lot was distributed from March 2015
through June 2015 in the United States.

Magnesium Sulfate Injection, USP is suitable for replacement
therapy in magnesium deficiency, especially in acute
hypomagnesemia accompanied by signs of tetany similar to those
observed in hypocalcemia. In such cases, the serum magnesium
(Mg++) level is usually below the lower limit of normal (1.5 to
2.5 or 3.0 mEq/liter) and the serum calcium (Ca++) level is normal
(4.3 to 5.3 mEq/liter) or elevated.

In total parenteral nutrition, magnesium sulfate may be added to
the nutrient admixture to correct or prevent hypomagnesemia which
can arise during the course of therapy.

Magnesium Sulfate injection is also indicated for the prevention
and control of seizure in pre-eclampsia and eclampsia.

Anyone with an existing inventory of the recalled lot should stop
use and distribution and quarantine the product immediately.
Inform health care professionals in your organization of this
recall. If you have further distributed the recalled product,
please notify any accounts or additional locations which may have
received the recalled product from you. Further, please instruct
entities that may have received the recalled product from you that
if they redistributed the product, they should notify their
accounts, locations or facilities of the recall to the hospital
level. Hospira will be notifying its direct customers via a recall
letter and is arranging for impacted product to be returned to
Stericycle in the United States.

This recall is being executed with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/MTMhsB


HYUNDAI: Seeks Dismissal of Sunroof Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTES.com, reports that Hyundai has
asked the U.S. District Court of California to dismiss a class
action lawsuit brought by vehicles owners who say the automaker's
panoramic sunroofs "spontaneously shatter."

Alabama resident Billy Glenn filed the class action lawsuit
against Hyundai and three others are listed as plaintiffs.  The
case covers New Hampshire, Texas and Washington, as well as
Alabama.

Mr. Glenn purchased a new 2014 Hyundai Santa Fe Sport in September
2014 with a panoramic sunroof.  In February 2015, when the vehicle
had about 10,000 miles, Mr. Glenn was driving with his wife and
daughter when the panoramic sunroof shattered, showering everyone
inside the vehicle with glass, according to the court documents.
Neither the dealership nor Hyundai would cover the costs of
repair.  Mr. Glenn filed a claim with his insurance company.

Mr. Glenn alleges that less than one month after this incident, on
March 4, 2015, the newly replaced panoramic sunroof also
spontaneously shattered.  Mr. Glenn filed another insurance claim,
and had to pay another $100 deductible for the repair and
replacement of his vehicle's sunroof, according to the court
documents.

He has asked the judge to certify the class action to cover owners
and lessees of these vehicles:

   -- 2013-2016 model year Hyundai Santa Fe Sport;
   -- 2013-2016 model year Hyundai Santa Fe;
   -- 2013-2016 model year Hyundai Elantra GT;
   -- 2011-2016 model year Hyundai Sonata;
   -- 2011-2016 model year Hyundai Tucson; and
   -- 2011-2016 model year Hyundai Veloster.

Hyundai's attorneys argue the case should be dismissed.

The automaker also asks the court to dismiss or strike plaintiffs'
request for an injunction forcing a recall of the class vehicles

"[S]uch relief should be subject to the primary jurisdiction of
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's (NHTSA)
investigation regarding panoramic sunroofs and is preempted by
NHTSA's authority to order and administer recalls under the Safety
Act," according to the court document.

The judge has not yet issued a decision in the case.


INTRALINKS HOLDINGS: $14 Mil. Class Suit Deal Has Final OK
----------------------------------------------------------
A $14 million settlement of a consolidated securities class action
in New York against Intralinks Holdings, Inc. has obtained final
court approval.

The Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that on December 5, 2011, the Company
became aware of a purported class action lawsuit filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY"
or the "Court") against the Company and certain of its current and
former executive officers. The initial complaint (the "Wallace
Complaint") alleges that the defendants made false and misleading
statements or omissions about the Company's business prospects,
financial condition and performance in violation of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. The plaintiff seeks unspecified
compensatory damages for the purported class of purchasers of the
Company's common stock during the period from February 17, 2011
through November 10, 2011 (the "Allegation Period").

On December 27, 2011, a second purported class action complaint,
which makes substantially the same claims as, and is related to,
the Wallace Complaint, was filed in the SDNY against the Company
and certain of its current and former executive officers seeking
similar unspecified compensatory damages for the Allegation
Period.

On April 3, 2012, the Court consolidated the actions and appointed
Plumbers and Pipefitters National Pension Fund as lead plaintiff,
and also appointed lead counsel in the consolidated action
("Consolidated Class Action").

On June 15, 2012, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint
("Consolidated Class Action Complaint") that, in addition to the
original allegations made in the Wallace Complaint, alleges that
the Company, certain of its current and former officers and
directors, and the underwriters in Intralinks' April 6, 2011 stock
offering issued a registration statement and prospectus in
connection with the offering that contained untrue statements of
material fact or omitted material information required to be
stated therein in violation of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the action on
July 31, 2012.

On May 8, 2013, the Court issued an opinion dismissing claims
based on certain allegations in the complaint, but otherwise
denied defendants' motions to dismiss. On June 28, 2013,
defendants filed their answers to the Consolidated Class Action
Complaint.

On February 18, 2014, lead plaintiff filed its motion for class
certification. On September 30, 2014, the Court issued an opinion
certifying a class of all persons who purchased the Company's
stock between February 17, 2011 and November 11, 2011 and a
subclass of persons who purchased the Company's stock pursuant or
traceable to the Company's April 6, 2011 offering.

On October 14, 2014, the defendants filed a petition in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for permission to appeal
the September 30, 2014 opinion granting plaintiff's motion for
class certification. On December 30, 2014, the Second Circuit
denied defendants' petition.

On March 12, 2015, the Court suspended the remaining deadlines in
the current scheduling order pending mediation. On July 30, 2015,
the Company and the other defendants entered into a stipulation
and agreement of settlement ("Settlement"), which was filed with
the Court on July 31, 2015.

The Settlement provides for the resolution of all of the pending
claims in the Consolidated Class Action, without any admission or
concession of wrongdoing or liability by the Company or the other
defendants. The Company and the other defendants continue to
maintain that they have meritorious defenses to all claims alleged
in the Consolidated Class Action. The Company and the other
defendants agreed to the Settlement to avoid further expense,
inconvenience, and the distraction and inherent risks of
burdensome and protracted litigation.

Pursuant to the Settlement, the defendants agreed to pay $14.0
million (the "Settlement Amount") for a full and complete release
of all claims that were or could have been asserted against the
Company or the other defendants in the Consolidated Class Action.
The full Settlement Amount was paid for and covered by the
Company's insurers pursuant to the applicable insurance policies.
On July 31, 2015, the Court issued an order preliminarily
approving the Settlement.

At a November 12, 2015 hearing, the Court gave final approval of
the Settlement and entered an order dismissing the Consolidated
Class Action with prejudice. The deadline to appeal entry of the
dismissal order expired on December 14, 2015.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Bid to Re-Depose Risperdal Expert Tossed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Max Mitchell, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
as the next wave of Risperdal-related cases come up for trial, a
Philadelphia judge has ruled that Janssen Pharmaceuticals will not
be able to re-depose a key witness in the mass tort regarding a
hotly contested reanalysis of data purportedly linking the drug to
the development of excess breast tissue in males.

Late last month, Janssen, the defendant in Moffat v. Janssen
Pharmaceuticals, filed a motion seeking to supplement prior
depositions of former U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Commissioner David Kessler -- a central witness in the Risperdal
mass tort litigation.

The motion sought permission to question Kessler about the
reanalysis of a 2003 medical report Janssen has pointed to as
confirmation that there is no significant relationship between
Risperdal and gynecomastia -- a condition causing excess breast
tissue growth in young males.

The plaintiffs in the mass tort litigation have argued that
results linking the condition to Risperdal were omitted from the
2003 study to conceal the risks and manipulate the market.

Judge Arnold New, who is supervising the mass tort litigation,
issued a one-page order denying Janssen's motion seeking Kessler's
additional deposition.

Plaintiff Robert Moffat had contended that Janssen's request came
too late, and the reanalysis is irrelevant to Mr. Kessler's
testimony.

A spokeswoman for Janssen said, "While we are disappointed that
the court did not allow a new deposition of this witness, we are
prepared to continue to vigorously defend ourselves against these
claims."

Thomas R. Kline of Kline & Specter, who has headed the Risperdal
mass tort litigation, said he saw no reason for Kessler to be
deposed again.

"The Stange case is proof positive that the deposition wasn't
requested and wasn't needed, and the evidence was sufficient on
both sides for a jury to reach a decision," Mr. Kline said,
referring to Stange v. Janssen, which was tried to a $500,000
verdict last year.  "The deposition was not warranted, and it
demonstrated their continued fighting about items which are not
going to solve their litigation woes."

Although the reanalysis was published in February in the Journal
of Clinical Psychiatry, the reanalysis first became a central
issue in the Stange case.

Prior to the publication of the reanalysis, plaintiffs in the mass
tort argued that the 2003 analysis failed to include a table
containing data that suggested a link between Risperdal and
gynecomastia.

According to the reanalysis, the omitted table did not contain any
statistically significant data.  However, after documents about
the reanalysis were introduced in the Stange case, the plaintiff
argued that Janssen was involved in the reanalysis.
According to court filings, between 2013 and May 2015,
Mr. Kessler was deposed by both sides, testified live in a case,
and recorded a videotaped de bene esse deposition for use in
additional Risperdal-related cases.

In its filing, Janssen noted that Mr. Kessler's testimony has been
used by plaintiffs in the four Risperdal cases that have gone to
trial in Philadelphia, and plaintiffs have planned to use the
videotaped testimony in upcoming trials.


KINDRED HEALTHCARE: Faces "Collins" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
David Collins, Dorian Howard, Daniel Kezios, Wanda D. Templeton,
Avery Tesla, individually and on behalf of all others persons
similarly situated v. Kindred Healthcare, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
00227-DJH (W.D. Ken., April 19, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. operates hospitals, nursing centers, and
contract rehabilitation services with its principal place of
business located at 680 South Fourth Street, Louisville, Jefferson
County, Kentucky.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles W. Miller, Esq.
      Erica L. Wood, Esq.
      Rheanne D. Falkner, Esq.
      MILLER & FALKNER
      325 W. Main Street, Suite 2104
      Louisville, KY 40202
      Telephone: (502) 583-2300
      Facsimile: (502) 583-2323
      E-mail: cmillaw@bellsouth.net
              ewood@millerfalknerlaw.com
              rheannefalkner@aol.com


LIVANOVA PLC: Faces Baker Miller Suit in Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
LivaNova PLC said in its Form 10-K/T Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
transition period from April 25, 2015 to December 31, 2015, that
LivaNova was alerted on February 12, 2016, that a class action
complaint had been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle
District of Pennsylvania with respect to the Company's 3T Heater
Cooler devices, naming as evidence, in part, the Warning Letter
issued by the FDA in December 2015.

The named plaintiffs to the complaint are two individuals who
underwent open heart surgeries at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn
State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center in 2015, and the complaint
alleges that: (i) patients were exposed to a harmful form of
bacteria, known as nontubercuous mycobacterium ("NTM"), from
LivaNova's 3T Heater Cooler devices; and (ii) LivaNova knew or
should have known that design or manufacturing defects in 3T
Heater Cooler devices can lead to NTM bacterial colonization,
regardless of the cleaning and disinfection procedures used (and
recommended by the Company). Named plaintiffs seek to certify a
class of plaintiffs consisting of all Pennsylvania residents who
underwent open heart surgery at WellSpan York Hospital and Penn
State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center between 2011 and 2015 and
who are currently asymptomatic for NTM infection (approximately
3,600 patients).

The putative class action, which has not been certified, seeks:
(i) declaratory relief finding the 3T Heater Cooler devices are
defective and unsafe for intended uses; (ii) medical monitoring;
(iii) general damages; and (iv) attorneys' fees.

"At LivaNova, patient safety is of the utmost importance, and
significant resources are dedicated to the delivery of safe, high-
quality products," the Company said. "Should the lawsuit proceed,
we intend to vigorously defend against these claims. Given the
early stage of this matter, we cannot, however, give any
assurances that additional legal proceedings making the same or
similar allegations will not be filed against LivaNova PLC or one
of its subsidiaries, nor that the resolution of the complaint and
any related litigation in connection therewith will not have a
material adverse effect on the Company's business, results of
operations, financial condition and/or liquidity."


MAGZUMA NUTRITION: Recalls Life's Qik Fix (TM), Zuma Supreme (TM)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
MagZuma Nutrition of Tulsa Oklahoma is recalling effected lots of
it's Life's Qik Fix(TM) and Zuma Supreme(TM) products because they
contain undeclared SOY and MILK allergens. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to Soy or Milk allergens run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product. No illnesses have been reported to date and
there are no other product concerns except for people that have
Soy or Milk allergies.

These following recalled product lot numbers were distributed
nationwide to consumers through mailorder.

Product Name: Life's Qik Fix(TM) - Daily Multi 180 Capsules

Lot Numbers: 16023

Product Name: Zuma Supreme - Daily Multi 120 Capsules

Lot Numbers: 14656, 14657, 15109, 15489, 15488, 15616, and 16007

This voluntary recall has been initiated by Magzuma Nutrition
because the Food and Drug Administration brought to our attention
inconsistencies they found with our supplier's allergen statement
on the Amino Acid ingredients used in this formulation.

The Zuma Supreme lot numbers began shipping nationwide on December
23, 2014 and the Life's Qik Fix on February 8, 2016. If you find
the recalled lot numbers on the bottom of any bottle you have in
inventory you may return it to the address at the bottom for a
full refund or replacement. If you have further distributed this
product, please identify the recipients or your customers and
notify them at once of this product recall.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/NyJvt5


MARY'S HOME: Recalls Vegetable Soup Due to Clostridium botulinum
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary's Home Canning of Lancaster, PA is recalling 516 jars of
Mary's Homemade Vegetable Soup (Net Wt. 16 OZ) and 1,128 jars of
Mary's Homemade Vegetable Soup (Net Wt. 32 OZ), because it has the
potential to be contaminated with Clostridium botulinum, a
bacterium which can cause life-threatening illness or death.
Consumers are warned not to use the product even if it does not
look or smell spoiled.
Botulism, a potentially fatal form of food poisoning, can cause
the following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, double-vision
and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty in breathing,
weakness of other muscles, abdominal distension and constipation
may also be common symptoms. People experiencing these problems
should seek immediate medical attention.

Mary's Homemade Vegetable Soup (Net Wt. 16 OZ) and (Net Wt. 32 OZ)
was distributed in PA, MD and DE in retail stores and farmer's
markets.

These products were packaged in clear glass jars with white screw
top lids in pint-size and quart-size varieties. The label of the
jar reads in part: "Mary's Home Made Vegetable Soup . . . Heat and
Serve . . . 829-A Strasburg Road, Paradise, PA 17562." No codes or
expiration dates are present on these products.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The potential for contamination was noted after FDA testing found
that the pH of the product was high and it did not receive an
adequate process time or temperature.

Anyone with a product fitting the above description should return
the product to where it was purchased, if possible, or call Mary's
Home Canning at 717-442-8349 for return instructions. Phone calls
should be made during Eastern Standard Time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/51OARC


MEDTRONIC: Recalls Battery Packs in Covidien Oridion
----------------------------------------------------
Medtronic is notifying customers worldwide of a voluntary recall
for the battery pack used in its Covidien Oridion labeled
Capnostream(TM)20 and Capnostream(TM)20p Patient Monitors. This
voluntary recall is being conducted due to a battery manufacturing
defect that may increase the risk of thermal damage in the battery
pack. The scope of this recall includes battery pack model numbers
016400 and 010520. These packs were manufactured by a contract
manufacturer between April 2014 and February 2016.

Capnostream monitors are external (non-implantable) medical
devices used to assess patients' respiratory status and identify
changes in breathing. The prescription device is operated by
trained healthcare professionals in a clinical setting and in the
home.

Medtronic has received seven reports of thermal damage out of
9,817 battery packs impacted by this field action. Of these seven
reports, one involved a fire resulting in smoke inhalation and
minor burns.

On April 15, 2016, Medtronic sent a letter to customers who have
Capnostream battery packs affected by this voluntary recall. The
Company also supplied a rework kit with full instructions for
removal and proper disposal or recycling of the battery pack
according to local policy. The eight cell, 14.3 volt, Lithium Ion
battery pack is custom manufactured by third party contract
manufacturers.

The company recommends that customers use the Capnostream monitors
on AC power (with the battery pack removed) until a replacement
battery pack is available.

The company has identified a manufacturing change conducted by the
third party contract manufacturer as the probable root cause and
is manufacturing new batteries that meet original specifications
with a new contract manufacturer. The company will supply new
batteries to affected customers when available. No other Medtronic
products are affected by this supplier of battery packs.

Medtronic has contacted the FDA and other regulatory bodies to
share information related to this issue. The company will continue
working directly with government authorities and customers on this
voluntary recall.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program online, by regular mail, or by fax.

Online: Complete and submit the report to
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call +1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to +1-800-FDA00178 or
Email Medtronic Minimally Invasive Therapies Group Post Market
Vigilance at: HQTSWEB@COVIDIEN.COM
Call Medtronic Post Market Vigilance at: +1-800-635-5267 option 1,
option 1, and again option 1.

Medtronic plc (www.medtronic.comdisclaimer icon), headquartered in
Dublin, Ireland, is among the world's largest medical technology,
services and solutions companies -- alleviating pain, restoring
health and extending life for millions of people around the world.
Medtronic employs more than 85,000 people worldwide, serving
physicians, hospitals and patients in approximately 160 countries.
The company is focused on collaborating with stakeholders around
the world to take healthcare Further, Together.

Any forward-looking statements are subject to risks and
uncertainties such as those described in Medtronic's periodic
reports on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Actual results may differ materially from anticipated results.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/tDOSGL


MIDWEST INTERNATIONAL: Recalls Hosdo Cake Products Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
MIDWEST INTERNATIONAL CORP., 47-57 BRIDGEWATER STREET, BROOKLYN NY
11222 is recalling HOSDO CAKE because it contains undeclared milk.
Consumers who have allergies to milk run the risk of serious or
life-threatening allergic reactions if they consume this product.
In addition, this product was found to contain an unallowed,
unidentified green/yellow fluorescent dye.
The recalled HOSDO CAKE comes in a blue and white plastic wrapped,
7 ounce (200gram) package. All manufacturer and expiration date
codes are affected. It was sold in New York City. It is a product
of South Korea. The UPC code is 6922486392216.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered through routine
sampling by New York State Department of Agriculture and Markets
Food Inspectors and subsequent analysis of the product by Food
Laboratory personnel revealed the presence of milk in packages of
HOSDO CAKE which did not declare milk as an ingredient on the
label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
product.

Consumers who have purchased HOSDO CAKE should not consume it, but
should return it to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 646-388-3032.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/vOlMQ9


MILKY WAY: Recalls Peach Slices and Mixed Fruits Due to Glass
-------------------------------------------------------------
Milky Way International Trading Corp. is initiating a voluntary
recall of Nice! Peach Slices and Nice! Mixed Fruit in 8-ounce
glass jars out of an abundance of caution due to potential glass
in the product. The affected products were distributed to
Walgreens stores nationwide and display the lots below. Consumers
could potentially be cut or injured if ingested. To date there has
been one complaint on the peaches and no complaints on the mixed
fruits.

The product has been removed from shelves in Walgreens stores.

The voluntary recall is limited to specific production codes as
follows. The lot codes are located at the neck of the glass jars.

Products:

Item # 80894 Nice! Brand Peach Slices in Light Syrup 8oz

  Lot number     Bottle Label UPC   Case UPC
  ----------     ----------------   --------
  3700/01069     0-49022-80894-2    100-49022-80894-9
  12/15/2017

Item # 80896 Nice! Brand Mixed Fruit in Light Syrup 8oz

  Lot number     Bottle Label UPC   Case UPC
  ----------     ----------------   --------
  3700/01069     0-49022-80896-6    100-49022-80896-3
  12/08/2017

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of and in
cooperation with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
If you have any of the affected product(s) on hand, please do not
consume and return/refund to place of purchase. For any questions,
please contact Milky Way International immediately at
1.888.496.9187 Monday to Friday between 8am to 5pm PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/BMHMYU


NORTHLAND GROUP: Illegally Collects Debt, "Francois" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Vangee Maxime Francois, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. Northland Group, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01910 (E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Northland Group, Inc. operates a debt collection firm located at
7831 Glenroy Rd #250, Minneapolis, MN 55439.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alan J. Sasson, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ALAN J. SASSON, P.C.
      2687 Coney Island Avenue, 2nd Floor
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 339-0856
      Facsimile: (347) 244-7178
      E-mail: alan@sassonlaw.com


NRG YIELD: Faces Securities Class Action in California
------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Levi & Korsinsky, LLP:

To: All persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
NRG Yield, Inc. ("NRG Yield" or the "Company") (NYSE:NYLD) Class C
common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's Class C
stock offering completed on June 29, 2015.

You are hereby notified that a securities class action has been
commenced in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Kern.  If you purchased or otherwise acquired NRG Yield Class C
common stock pursuant to the June 29, 2015 stock offering, your
rights may be affected by this action.  To get more information go
to: http://zlk.9nl.com/nrg-yield-nyld

The Complaint alleges that defendants made materially false and
misleading statements, and omitted materially adverse facts in
documents related to the Class C stock offering.  In particular,
the complaint alleges that the Registration Statement failed to
disclose material facts and trends concerning "historically low
wind speeds" during the second quarter of 2015, including that the
resulting poor wind production would have a significant adverse
impact on NYLD's performance and results for the second quarter of
2015."

If you suffered a loss in NRG Yield and would like additional
information, contact Joseph E. Levi, Esq. either via email at
jlevi@zlk.com or by telephone at (212) 363-7500, toll-free: (877)
363-5972, or visit http://zlk.9nl.com/nrg-yield-nyld

Levi & Korsinsky -- http://www.zlk.com -- is a national firm with
offices in New York, New Jersey, California, Connecticut, and
Washington D.C.  The firm's attorneys have extensive expertise and
experience representing investors in securities litigation
involving financial fraud, and have recovered hundreds of millions
of dollars for aggrieved shareholders.


NUVI GLOBAL: Recalls StemVitae Multivitamins Due to Milk and Soy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Nuvi Global Corporation of Rancho Cucamonga California is
recalling StemVitae 30oz liquid multivitamin because it contains
undeclared milk and soy lecithin. People who have an allergy or
severe sensitivity to milk or soy run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume this product.
The product is in a tall white plastic bottle with white lid. The
brand is Nuvi Global with a white and orange label that has the
name StemVitae. The label contains an image of various fruits and
vegetables. The lot number is 15556 and can be found printed in
black ink underneath the bottle.

StemVitae was distributed in the following states:

Arizona Idaho Nebraska Oklahoma
Arkansas Illinois Nevada South Carolina
California Indiana New Jersey Texas
Colorado Iowa New Mexico Utah
Connecticut Maryland New York Washington
Florida Massachusetts North Carolina Missouri

No illnesses have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after it was discovered by the FDA that
the ingredient whey protein was not declared on the label. The
whey protein ingredient contains the allergens of milk and soy
lecithin.

Consumers who have purchased StemVitae liquid multivitamin are
urged to return it to the company. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 844-740-6838 between the hours of 7:00am
and 6:50pm PST Monday-Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/aw8WjB


OIL STATES: Faces "Boyles" FLSA Class Suit in Texas
---------------------------------------------------
JERRY BOYLES, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. OIL STATES ENERGY SERVICES, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case 4:16-cv-01016 (S.D. Tex., April 14, 2016), was
filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Oil States Energy Services L.L.C. manufactures wellhead isolation
tools for oil and gas industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Galvin B. Kennedy, Esq.
     KENNEDYHODGES, LLP
     711 W. Alabama Street
     Houston, TX 77006
     Phone: (713) 523-0001
     Fax: (713) 523-1116
     E-mail: Gkennedy@kennedyhodges.com


OLMA-XXI INC: Recalls NORVEN Herring in Oil Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
OLMA-XXI, Inc. of Brooklyn, NY, is recalling NORVEN herring in
oil, Lot 530611, because it has the potential to be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious
and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

NORVEN herring in oil was distributed to distributors and retail
stores in NY, NJ, CT, IL, PA, MA, MD, VA, FL, and CA.

The affected NORVEN herring in oil is packaged in plastic
containers (tubs):

  --- Net Wt. 17.6 oz. (500g), UPC barcode 856687004196; Lot #
      530611, Best before: 10/27/16 (stamped on bottom label);
  --- Net Wt. 10.6 oz. (300g), UPC barcode 856687004189; Lot #
      530611, Best before: 10/27/16 (stamped on bottom label).

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall is the result of sampling and testing by the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA) which revealed the presence of
Listeria monocytogenes in the 17.6 oz. (500g) packages of NORVEN
Herring in oil, Lot # 530611. The distribution of the product has
been suspended while FDA and the company continue to investigate
the source of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased plastic containers of Norven herring
in oil, Lot 530611, are urged not to consume this product and to
return it to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers
with questions may contact the company at 1-718-675-0706, Monday -
Friday, 8 am - 6 pm, EDT.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/R7wIWW


OXY RECKITT: Class Action Mulled Over Humidifier Sterilizers
------------------------------------------------------------
Yonhap reports that a group of people victimized by toxic
humidifier sterilizers plan to bring a class-action lawsuit
against the products' manufacturers and distributors to seek
unspecified damages, an environment civic group said on April 21.

The Seoul-based Asian Citizen's Center for Environment and Health
said it will convene a meeting of the victims and their families
on April 17 to discuss the planned lawsuit and form a group of
litigants for the lawsuit.

The lawsuit will be filed by the victims who have yet to sue
individually to seek compensation.  The companies targeted are
British firm Oxy Reckitt Benckiser, Lotte Mart and other domestic
and overseas companies involved in the manufacturing and
distribution of the products in question.

"We will discuss the amount of the damages with them if (the
class-action lawsuit) is formalized at the meeting," said Lim
Heung-kyu, an official at the center.  "We will try to make the
group of litigants as large as we can."

The humidifiers disinfectant case, one of the worst scandals
involving consumer products using chemicals, came to light after
four pregnant women died of lung problems for unknown reasons in a
row in 2011.

The authorities have said there is a connection between the deaths
of more than a hundred people who died from lung failure and the
germicides they used in sterilizing household humidifiers.

The prosecution alleged that the two chemicals used in the
products -- PHMG Phosphate or PGH, were responsible for severe
illnesses and deaths.  Two other chemicals used were PHMG
hydrochloride and MIT/CMIT, which the prosecution found not as
harmful as the other two.

A tally compiled by the civic group said the number of victims,
including 228 dead people, from the humidifier sterilizers has
stood at 1,528.

Seoul hotel on April 18, 2016, that Lotte Mart, a major retail
giant in South Korea, held to apologize to its customers.  The
retailer promised compensation for any damage that its humidifier
sterilizer might have caused.

On April 18, Lotte Mart and Homeplus, major retail giants in South
Korea, apologized to their customers, promising compensation for
any damage that their humidifier sterilizer might have caused.

Civic and customer rights groups, however, doubted the sincerity
in the apologies and compensation promises, claiming that the
timing is suspicions in that they came too late and also just
before the prosecution's imminent move to summon their officials.


PACIFIC COAST: Settlement in Welch et al. Suit Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Coast Oil Trust said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a settlement reached in
a putative class action lawsuit remains pending.

On July 1, 2014, Thomas Welch, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, filed a putative class action complaint
in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles,
against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast Energy
Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC and
others.  The complaint asserts federal securities law claims
against the Trust and other defendants and states that the claims
are made on behalf of a class of investors who purchased or
otherwise acquired Trust securities pursuant or traceable to the
registration statement that became effective on May 2, 2012 and
the prospectuses issued thereto and the registration statement
that became effective purportedly on September 19, 2013 and the
prospectuses issued thereto. The complaint states that the
plaintiff is pursuing negligence and strict liability claims under
the Securities Act of 1933 and alleges that both such registration
statements contained numerous untrue statements of material facts
and omitted material facts. The plaintiff seeks class
certification, unspecified compensatory damages, rescission on
certain of plaintiff's claims, pre-judgment and post-judgment
interest, attorneys' fees and costs and any other relief the Court
may deem just and proper.

On October 16, 2014, Ralph Berliner, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, filed a second putative class
action complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of
Los Angeles, against the Trust, PCEC, PCEC (GP) LLC, Pacific Coast
Energy Holdings LLC, certain executive officers of PCEC (GP) LLC
and others. The Berliner complaint asserts the same claims and
makes the same allegations, against the same defendants, as are
made in the Welch complaint.

In November 2014, the Welch and Berliner actions were consolidated
into a single action.

On December 8, 2015, the parties agreed in principle to settle the
consolidated action. The Trust expects the settlement agreement to
be finalized during the first quarter of 2016. The Trust believes
that it is fully indemnified by PCEC against any liability or
expense it might incur in connection with the consolidated action.


PANERA LLC: Sued Over Americans With Disabilities Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Panera, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02914 (S.D.N.Y., April
19, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for violation of the
Americans With Disabilities Act.

Panera, LLC operates a chain of bakery-cafe fast casual
restaurants in New York.

Cristhian Diaz is a pro se plaintiff.


PHARMAKON PHARMACEUTICALS: Recalls Sterile Products
---------------------------------------------------
Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is voluntarily recalling all lots
of sterile products aseptically compounded and packaged by
Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. that remain within expiry due to
the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) concern over a lack of
sterility assurance and other quality issues. Administration of a
sterile drug product intended to be sterile that is compromised
may result in serious and potentially life-threatening infections
or death. To date, Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has not
received any reports of adverse effects or injuries.

These compounded sterile products are used for a variety of
indications and are packaged in bags, syringes and cad cassettes.
All recalled products have a label that includes the Pharmakon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. name, address and expiration date. The
sterile products were distributed nationwide to hospitals between
March 4, 2016 and April 15, 2016.

As Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. takes the utmost care to ensure
patient safety and out of an abundance of caution, then, Pharmakon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is notifying its customers that received
sterile compounded products via email and is arranging for return
of all recalled products. All hospitals that received sterile
compounded products from Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. between
March 4, 2016 and April 15, 2106 and that remain within expiry, to
take the following actions:

Discontinue use of the products

Quarantine any unused product

Contact Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. at 888-660-6715 x251 from
the hours of 8:30am 5:00pm Eastern Standard Time Monday-Friday to
discuss the return of any unused sterile compounded products
Customers with questions can contact Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. by phone 888-660-6715 Monday-Friday, 8:00am to 5:00pm Eastern
Standard Time, or email at contactmfg@pharmakonrx.net
Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
these products may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online, by regular mail or by fax.

Complete and submit the report Online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
Voluntary Product Recall List: https://pharmakonmfg.net/pr/
This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of and at the
request of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Again, Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc.'s primary concern is your
safety and Pharmakon Pharmaceuticals, Inc. is taking this action
out of an abundance of caution. Thank you for your support.


PONZIOS RD: Faces "Casco" Suit for Violating FLSA, NJ Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
OSCAR CASCO, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s) v. PONZIOS RD, INC. d/b/a METRO DINER; and
Doe Defendants 1-10, Defendant(s), Case 1:16-cv-02084-RBK-JS
(D.N.J., April 14, 2016), alleges that Defendant systematically
and willfully violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New Jersey
State Wage and Hour Law by failing to satisfy the notice
requirements of the tip credit provisions of the FLSA and NJ State
Law and failing to pay Tipped Employees for all hours worked,
including hours in excess of forty in a week.

Defendant is listed as the "Owner(s), Partnership or Corporation"
of the entity operating under the "Trade Name" "Metro Diner,"
which according to Defendant's website, is a family dining
Establishment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Gerald D. Wells, III, Esq.
     Stephen E. Connolly, Esq.
     CONNOLLY WELLS & GRAY, LLP
     2200 Renaissance Blvd., Suite 308
     King of Prussia, PA 19406
     Phone: (610) 822-3700
     Fax: (610) 822-3800
     E-mail: gwells@cwg-law.com
             sconnolly@cwg-law.com

        - and -

     Lawrence Kalikhman, Esq.
     Demetri A. Braynin, Esq.
     KALIKHMAN & RAYZ, LLC
     1051 County Line Road, Suite "A"
     Huntingdon Valley, PA 19006
     Phone: (215) 364-5030
     Fax: (215) 364-5029
     E-mail: lkalikhman@kalraylaw.com
             dbraynin@kalraylaw.com


POTBELLY SANDWICH: Sued in N.Y. Over Blind-Inaccessible Website
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cristhian Diaz, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02915
(S.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice
of denying blind individuals throughout the United States equal
access to the goods and services Potbelly provides to their non-
disabled customers through http://www.potbelly.com,which contains
access barriers that make it difficult, if not impossible, for
blind customers to use the website.

Potbelly Sandwich Works, LLC owns and operates a chain of food
restaurants with a registered agent at 111 Eighth Avenue, New
York, New York 10011.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Melissa Seelig, Esq.
      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      Lynn Hsieh, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1124
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: anne@leelitigation.com
              cklee@leelitigation.com
              lynn@leelitigation.com


RANGERS ENTERPRISE: "Millner" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cole Millner, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. Rangers Enterprise Satellite, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-00077-MPM-
SAA (N.D. Miss., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, and other
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Rangers Enterprise Satellite, LLC provides satellite installation
and repair services to satellite providers in Mississippi and
other states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christopher William Espy, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PLLC
      P.O. Box 13722
      Jackson, MS 39236-3772
      Telephone: (601) 812-5300
      Facsimile: (601) 718-2102
      E-mail: chris.espy@espylawpllc.com


REMINGTON ARMS: Loses Bid to Dismiss Sandy Hook Shooting Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Nolan, writing for The Connecticut Law Tribune, reports
that A Connecticut Superior Court judge has denied a motion by a
gun maker to dismiss the lawsuit filed by families of victims in
the Sandy Hook school shooting.  Lawyers for the victims' families
are calling the ruling a "huge victory" in their effort to hold
Remington Arms, the maker of the Bushmaster AR-15 rifle used by
Adam Lanza, responsible for the Sandy Hook massacre.

"We are thrilled that the gun companies' motion to dismiss was
denied," said one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, Josh Koskoff of
Koskoff, Koskoff & Bieder in Bridgeport.  "The families look
forward to continuing their fight in court."

Remington Arms was among the defendant companies that sought
dismissal of the lawsuit.  Other defendants include firearm
distributor Camfour, based in Westfield, Massachusetts; and
Riverview Gun Sales, the now-closed East Windsor store where
Mr. Lanza's mother legally purchased the Bushmaster rifle in 2010.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit, filed in December 2014, include
nine families of those who died in the shooting and survivor
Natalie Hammond.  They say the three defendants acted and continue
to act negligently in their production, marketing and sale of the
A$-15 rifle.

Remington's lawyer, James Vogts -- jvogts@smbtrials.com -- of
Chicago's Swanson, Martin & Bell, argued in support of the motion
to dismiss at a February hearing.  Mr. Vogts could not immediately
be reached for comment after the ruling by Judge Barbara Bellis.

Mr. Vogts argued at the earlier hearing that the federal
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act largely shields firearms
makers from civil liability for criminal acts committed with their
products.  "Congress has expressed clear intention that lawsuits
against gun manufacturers shall not be brought and shall not
proceed," said Mr. Vogts.

But Mr. Koskoff has argued the AR-15 serves no other purpose than
to cause lethal harm, unlike other guns, which are primarily used
for hunting or home defense.  The plaintiffs argued that the 2005
federal law offers six exceptions, outlining circumstances when
firearms makers and sellers can face liability.  One exception
involves the doctrine of "negligent entrustment."  A party can be
held liable for entrusting -- or granting access -- to a product
to someone who is likely to use that product to harm a third
party.

In the Newtown case, Mr. Koskoff told the judge, negligent
entrustment occurred when the defendants allowed people without
military or police training access to the semi-automatic AR-15. He
said that military personnel undergo 100 hours of training before
being entrusted with the rifle.

The other exemption cited by the plaintiffs is commonly called the
"predicate exception."  It states that a civil lawsuit can be
brought when "a manufacturer or seller of a qualified [firearm]
knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the
sale or marketing of the product, and the violation was a
proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought."

In previous lawsuits against gun makers and sellers in other
jurisdictions, plaintiffs have cited state nuisance statutes in
claiming the predicate exception.  In the Connecticut case,
Mr. Koskoff argued that the defendants violated the Connecticut
Unfair Trade Practices Act.  The lawsuit said the CUTPA violation
occurred when the defendants sold assault rifled "in the civilian
market" when they should have known that the firearms "had a
continuing inherent or natural tendency to create danger and
inflict injury, was offensive to public policy, and posed a
serious risk to public health."

Judge Bellis, in a highly technical 18-page ruling issued
April 14, was not persuaded that the federal law -- which she
referred to by the acronym PLCAA -- provided sufficient grounds to
dismiss the suit.

"The court concludes that any immunity that PLCAA may provide does
not implicate this court's subject matter jurisdiction," opined
Judge Bellis.  "The court further concludes that the plaintiff's
failure, if any, to bring this action within an exception to PLCAA
goes to the legal sufficiency of the complaint rather than the
court's jurisdiction.  Accordingly, the defendants' motions to
dismiss, in which they claim that the court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, cannot be granted on the basis of PLCAA."

A status conference on the case between the judge and the lawyers
was scheduled for April 19.


RENAISSANCE HOTEL: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, "King" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Guadalupe King, Elvia Candelas, and Kevin Degroot, as individuals,
and on behalf of themselves, all others similarly situated v.
Renaissance Hotel Operating Company, d/b/a
Renaissance Long Beach Hotel, Marriott International, Inc., and
Does 1-100, Case No. BC617531 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 19, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime and
minimum wages and the provision of meal and rest periods.

The Defendants operate a hotel in Long Beach, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael S. Morrison, Esq.
      ALEXANDER KRAKOW + GLICK LLP
      401 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 1000
      Santa Monica, CA 90401
      Telephone: (310) 394-0888
      Facsimile: (310) 394-0811
      E-mail: mmorrison@akgllp.com


RESER'S FINE: Recalls Refrigerated Salad Products Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Reser's Fine Foods, Inc. of Beaverton, Oregon is recalling
nineteen refrigerated salad items due to notification from one of
our ingredient suppliers that Listeria monocytogenes may be
present in one lot of onions that was used in the manufacture of
these salads. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism which can
cause serious and sometime fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people and individuals with weakened immune
systems. Healthy people may suffer only short term symptoms such
as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain
and diarrhea. Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled refrigerated salads were distributed to retailers and
distribution centers in the following states: AL, AR, AZ, CA, CO,
HI, ID, IL, IN, KS, KY, MI, MN, MO, MT, NC, NE, NM, NV, OH, OK,
OR, PA, SD, TN, TX, UT, WA, WY, and British Columbia.

The retail product is sold in plastic containers and is marked
with a Use By Date and the #10 at the end of the line of printing.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was the result of a notification from one of our onion
suppliers that the bacteria may be present in one lot of onions
used in the manufacture of these refrigerated salads. No other
items were manufactured using this lot of onions.

Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who
purchased these products may take them back to the store for a
refund or discard them.

For more information, please contact Reser's Fine Foods Consumer
Hotline 1-888-257-7913 (Call Center Hours: M-F 8am-9pm EST,
Saturday 9am-7pm EST, Sunday 11am-7pm EST), or visit
www.resers.com (products not available online) or the FDA website:
www.fda.gov.

Reser's and Private Label products affected by this recall were
distributed between March 22, 2016 and April 10, 2016. Products
are listed below:

RETAIL PRODUCTS

  UPC            Description              Size     Use By Date
  ---            -----------              ----     -----------
  71117.00480    Reser's Deviled Egg      3lb      Apr-29-16
                 Potato Salad
  71117.17000    Reser's Potato Salad     3.5oz    May-10-16
  71117.17100    Reser's Potato Salad     5.5oz    May-10-16
  71117.18223    Reser's Potato Salad     8oz      May-9-16
  71117.19000    Reser's Potato Salad     16oz     May-10-16
  71117.19300    Reser's Potato Salad     3lb      May-9-16
  71117.18224    Reser's Macaroni Salad   8oz      May-10-16
  71117.19007    Reser's Macaroni Salad   16oz     May-9-16
  71117.19305    Reser's Macaroni Salad   3lb      May-9-16 and
                                                   May-10-16
  71117.61576    Stonemill Kitchens       5lb      Apr-27-16
                 Classic Potato Salad
  21130.06688    Safeway Deviled Egg      16oz     Apr-28-16
                 Potato Salad
  21130.06716    Safeway Classic          5.5oz    May-10-16
                 Potato Salad
  21130.06742    Safeway Tuna Salad       15 oz    Apr-27-16
  81131.91693    Walmart Redskin Potato   4lb      May-1-16
                 Salad

FOODSERVICE PRODUCTS (FOR COMMERCIAL USE)

  UPC            Description              Size     Use By Date
  ---            -----------              ----     -----------
  71117.00225    Reser's Deviled Egg      8lb      Apr-28-16
                 Potato Salad
  71117.00443    Savemart Potato Salad    8lb      May-10-16
  71117.67702    Sysco Elbow Macaroni     8lb      May-7-16
                 Salad
  71117.06036    Safeway Tuna Salad       8lb      Apr-27-16
  41493.41720    FSA Postato Salad        8lb      May-10-16

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/uvSBsg


REVANCE THERAPEUTICS: Case Management Conference Held
-----------------------------------------------------
A case management conference was held March 4, 2016, in the case,
City of Warren Police and Fire Retirement System v. Revance
Therapeutics Inc., et al., 115cv287794, pending before the
Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara.

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "On May 1, 2015, a
securities class action complaint, captioned City of Warren Police
and Fire Retirement System v. Revance Therapeutics Inc., et al.,
CIV 533635, was filed on behalf of City of Warren Police and Fire
Retirement System in the Superior Court for San Mateo County,
California against us and certain of our directors and executive
officers at the time of our June 2014 follow-on public offering,
and the investment banking firms that acted as the underwriters in
such follow-on public offering."

"In general, the complaint alleges that the defendants
misrepresented the then-present status of our RT001 topical
clinical program and made false and misleading statements
regarding the formulation, manufacturing and efficacy of RT001
topical, for the treatment of lateral canthal lines at the time of
our follow-on public offering. The complaint has been brought as a
purported class action on behalf of those who purchased our common
stock in such follow-on public offering and seeks unspecified
monetary damages and other relief.

"On October 5, 2015, we made a motion for transfer of the action
to the Superior Court for the County of Santa Clara on the basis
that venue was improper in San Mateo County. Plaintiff's counsel
did not oppose the transfer motion, and the action was received by
Santa Clara Superior Court on November 6, 2015 and assigned the
following case number, 15-CV-287794.

"We believe that the class action is without merit and intend to
vigorously defend the action. Nevertheless, this litigation, as
any other litigation, is subject to uncertainty and there can be
no assurance that this litigation will not have a material adverse
effect on our business, results of operations, financial position
or cash flows.

Revance Therapeutics, Inc. is a clinical-stage biotechnology
company focused on the development, manufacturing, and
commercialization of novel botulinum toxin products for multiple
aesthetic and therapeutic indications.


SANTA FE: Faces "Brattain" Lawsuit Over Cigarette Mislabeling
-------------------------------------------------------------
RUSSELL BRATTAIN, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO
COMPANY, INC., REYNOLDS AMERICAN, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-00300-JB-LF (N.D. Cal., October 9, 2015),
was filed over alleged misrepresentations and/or material
omissions of Defendants on the sale of its "Natural" American
Spirit Cigarettes.

SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY, INC., a subsidiary of Reynolds
American, Inc., manufactures, markets, sells, and distributes
Natural American Spirit Cigarettes throughout California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Benjamin M. Lopatin, Esq.
     Jill T. Lin, Esq.
     EGGNATZ, LOPATIN & PASCUCCI, LLP
     2201 Market Street, Suite H
     San Francisco, CA 94114
     Phone: (415) 324-8620
     Fax: (415) 520-2262
     E-mail: blopatin@elplawyers.com
             jlin@elplawyers.com


SKULLCANDY INC: Faces "Davis" Suit in Utah Court
------------------------------------------------
Skullcandy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an alleged shareholder
filed on February 12, 2016, a putative securities class action
complaint against the Company and certain of its officers and
directors in the United States District Court for the District of
Utah, captioned Davis v. Skullcandy, Inc., et al., No. 2:16-cv-
00121-RJS.

"The complaint purports to be brought on behalf of shareholders
who purchased our common stock between August 7, 2015 and January
11, 2016. It asserts that we and certain of our officers and
directors violated sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by making allegedly false or misleading
statements concerning our positioning and expectations for future
growth. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount and
equitable relief against the defendants. We believe the lawsuit is
without merit and we intend to vigorously defend ourselves in this
action," the Company said.

Skullcandy, Inc. creates world-class audio experiences through its
Skullcandy(R) and Astro Gaming(R) brands.


SMITHTOWN LANDING: Golfer Files Class Action Over Fees
------------------------------------------------------
Sophia Chang, writing for Newsday, reports that a golfer has filed
a class-action lawsuit against golf pro Michael Hebron and the
town of Smithtown over allegations that Hebron overcharged fees
for players to use the town golf course and to rent carts.

Robert Dwyer of Smithtown filed the lawsuit on April 14 on behalf
of "at minimum hundreds" of unnamed golfers who have used the town
facilities at Smithtown Landing Golf and Country Club.


SPOTIFY: Lowery's $150MM Royalties Class Action Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
Charlotte Hassan, writing for Digital Music News, reports that
back in December of last year, Spotify faced a lawsuit brought
forward by musician David Lowery, frontman of bands Camper Van
Beethoven and Cracker.  Mr. Lowery, who carries a long history of
advocating for fair pay for artists, claimed that Spotify has been
distributing copyrighted content while skipping key royalty
payments.

Mr. Lowery subsequently initiated a class action lawsuit, with
estimated damages in the $150 million range.

Since that point, the case has been ongoing, though an agreement
involving publishing organization NMPA and Spotify could seriously
deflate the action.  But what's in that agreement, and is it fair?
On Monday, April 18, Mr. Lowery told U.S. District Judge Beverly
Reid O'Connell that Spotify is "using misleading information to
push putative class members into a lowball royalty settlement with
the National Music Publishers Association," while pushing for
access to the deal points.

Accordingly, Mr. Lowery has requested access to review all
communications Spotify USA issues to putative class members
related to its $30 million settlement with the NMPA, part of a
potentially broader subpoena.

Mr. Lowery not only claims that Spotify is using the NMPA
settlement to cut class members out of his lawsuit, but he also
claims that the NMPA has distributed "slanted" press releases that
serve to discredit his lawsuit and draw would-be litigants into
their settlement.  Mr. Lowery is now asking the presiding judge to
allow him to send corrective notices to putative class members,
and prohibit Spotify and any related parties from issuing any
misleading communications moving forward.

Mr. Lowery also claims that the streaming platform is infringing
upon his and other musicians' mechanical rights by failing to
secure proper licenses.

Separately, Spotify seeks termination of the lawsuit based on
technical problems with class action certification.

Specifically, Spotify's lawyers have argued that each writer and
publisher situation is different, which would require individual
litigation instead of an across-the-board class action suit.

But, this hasn't stopped Mr. Lowery filing a motion to consolidate
his $150 million lawsuit with Mellissa Ferrick's similar $200
million lawsuit, filed shortly after Mr. Lowery's.   On Monday,
April 18, Mr. Lowery also asked a US District Judge to consolidate
these lawsuits and appoint his counsel Michelman & Robinson LLP as
lead.  The request is in opposition to a similar motion filed by
Melissa Ferrick's counsel Gradstein & Marzano PC.


SPOTIFY: Lowery Lawyers Seek Access to Settlement Correspondence
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Cooke, writing for CMU, reports that more developments in
the big battle battle for sign-ups here: between the NMPA's
Spotify mechanicals settlement and David Lowery's Spotify
mechanicals class action emerge.

As previously reported, Spotify in March announced a settlement
with the US National Music Publishers Association over the
streaming service's failure to pay mechanical royalties to
songwriters and publishers according to the terms of the
compulsory license that covers such things Stateside.

Under the deal song rights owners will get any unpaid royalties
they are due, a share of a multi-million 'soz fund' and a
commitment that the streaming service will sort out all of the
data issues that have made the payment of US mechanical royalties
a right mess across the streaming music sector to date.

The deal followed the filing of two class actions by American
songwriters who claim they are owed mechanical royalties by
Spotify, the first being led by David Lowery, a musician who has
been vocal about artist rights in recent years.

The lawsuits allege that, by failing to comply with the
formalities of the aforementioned compulsory license, the
streaming service is liable for copyright infringement, and
therefore could be due to pay damages of up to $150,000 per song
streamed without license, which is significantly more than self-
published songwriters could expect to see from the damages being
paid under the NMPA settlement.

With the lawsuits hoping for class action status, any songwriter
whose songs have been streamed without licence by Spotify could
benefit from the litigation.  However, a condition of signing up
to the NMPA negotiated deal is that you don't then join legal
action over this issue, meaning for songwriters it's either the
settlement or the class action. There is a three month deadline
for signing up to the former, meaning affected songwriters need to
decide pretty damn quickly which route they would rather go.

In a new legal filing, Mr. Lowery's lawyers seem to be claiming
that Spotify isn't playing fair in the race to sign up
songwriters.  To that end, Team Lowery want to see all the
correspondence that has been sent out by the streaming service to
potential class members, while asking the court to order that any
misleading communications that may or may not have occurred be
formally clarified or corrected.

The lawyers go on to say that, in their minds, the core of the
Spotify/NMPA settlement is the payment of outstanding mechanicals,
which are due to songwriters anyway, even if they don't give up
their right to sue down the line.  To that end, the Lowery lawyers
reckon, Spotify should have to give their class action a little
plug when getting in touch with possibly affected songwriters.

Or, in the words of the legal papers: "Neither Spotify, nor any
person acting in concert with Spotify, should be encouraging
prospective class members to waive their copyright infringement
claims and remedies without providing appropriate information
about the pending class lawsuit as well, so that the putative
class members may make an informed decision".

The lawyers also have a good moan about the three-month opt-in
period set by the Spotify/NMPA settlement which, as noted, means
songwriters need to decide which way to go pretty quickly and --
crucially -- before the courts have even decided whether or not to
actually grant Lowery's lawsuit class action status.

That fact arguably makes choosing the class action option more
risky, as it's not known if that's actually an option on the table
yet.  Which makes the deadline for opting in clever -- or sneaky -
- on Spotify's part, depending on which side of the table you're
sitting on.

Spotify is yet to respond to the latest legal filing.  In its
initial response to Mr. Lowery's lawsuit, the streaming firm put
most of its efforts into arguing why class action status should be
denied.


ST AUGUSTINE: Faces ARCare Suit in Georgia Over Automated Calls
---------------------------------------------------------------
ARCare d/b/a Parkin Drug Store, Bald Knob Medical Clinic, on
behalf of itself and all others similarly situated v. St.
Augustine Educational Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01273-LMM
(N.D. Ga., April 20, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendant's
practice of placing calls to consumers' telephone using an
automatic dialing system.

St. Augustine Educational Services, Inc. owns and operates a
school in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Ira Fistel Jr., Esq.
      JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
      40 Powder Springs Street
      Marietta, GA 30064
      Telephone: (770) 200-3104
      Facsimile: (770) 200-3101
      E-mail: michaelf@johnsonandweaver.com

         - and -

      Randall K. Pulliam, Esq.
      CAULEY GELLER BOWMAN & COATES
      11001 Executive Center Drive, Suite 200
      Little Rock, AR 72211
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500

STRALCO INC: "Faust" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sarah Faust and Ashley Hughes, individually and behalf of all
persons similarly situated v. Stralco, Inc. d/b/a Dairy Queen
Grill and Chill Restaurant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00092-KRG (W.D.
Penn., April 19, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and
damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Stralco, Inc. operates a Dairy Queen Grill and Chill Franchise
restaurant, located at 1774 Lyter Road, Johnstown, Pennsylvania,
15905.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
      HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
      The Frick Building
      437 Grant Street, Suite 620
      Pittsburgh, PA 15219
      Telephone: (412) 315-7195
      Facsimile: (412) 315-7386
      E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net


SUGARFINA LLC: Recalls Chocolate Malt Balls Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Sugarfina LLC is voluntarily recalling 742 units of its Sugarfina
Milk Chocolate Malt Balls (UPC Code 840278113565, SKU K1159)
because it may contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an
allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious
or life-threatening allergic reaction if they consume these
products.

The Sugarfina Milk Chocolate Malt Balls were distributed
nationwide through internet and retail sales. The product was sold
in AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL, IN, LA, MA, MD, MO, MT,
NJ, NY, OH, SC, TX, VA, VT, WA, and WI between 2/18/16 and 4/9/16.

The Sugarfina Milk Chocolate Malt Balls are packaged in 2" acrylic
cubes. The product is pictured below.

The UPC Code 840278113565 and SKU K1159 appears on the back panel
of the label.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that some
Sugarfina Peanut Butter Malt Balls had been mixed in with a batch
of Sugarfina Milk Chocolate Malt Balls.

Consumers who have purchased Sugarfina Milk Chocolate Malt Balls
are urged to discard the product or return it to the place of
purchase.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 855-784-2734
from 8AM to 5PM, PST, Monday-Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/rCTw1M


SUNRUN: Directors, Underwriters Face Suit Over IPO
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Directors and underwriters
raised $251 million in solar power company Sunrun's IPO with false
and misleading statements, and the share price fell from $14 to $7
when the truth emerged, shareholders claim in a class action in
Redwood City, Calif. San Mateo County Court.


SUNSET PEDIATRICS: Faces "Chinosi" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Amarylis Chinosi v. Sunset Pediatrics, LLC, and Philip Floyd, Case
No. 1:16-cv-21394-JE (S.D. Fla., April 19, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a pediatric medical office in Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUPER HERBS: Recalls Light Green and Dark Green Capsules
--------------------------------------------------------
Super Herbs is voluntarily recalling all bottles of SUPER HERBS,
light green and dark green capsules to the consumer level after
FDA laboratory testing found SUPER HERBS to contain sibutramine,
desmethylsibutramine, and/or phenolphthalein.
Sibutramine is an appetite suppressant that was withdrawn from the
U.S. market in October 2010. Desmethylsibutramine is an active
metabolite of sibutramine. Sibutramine and its active metabolites
substantially increase blood pressure and/or pulse rate in some
patients and may present a significant risk for patients with a
history of coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure,
arrhythmias or stroke. Phenolpthalein was previously used in over-
the-counter laxatives, but because of concerns of carcinogenicity,
it is no longer marketed in the U.S. These undeclared ingredients
make this product an unapproved new drug for which safety and
efficacy have not been established. Super Herbs has not received
any reports if adverse events related to this recall.

The product is used as a weight loss dietary supplement and is
packaged in clear bottle with light green and dark green capsules.
The affected Super Herbs product includes all bottles which have
been distributed nationwide to consumers via internet
www.mysuperherbs.comdisclaimer icon.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/Nsl7OH


TD BANK: Pulls Out Coin Counting Machines Amid Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Saltzman, writing for WPVI, reports that an Action News
Special Investigation a few weeks ago is getting action and
protecting your dollars and cents.

In February, Action News Investigation first uncovered problems
with coin counting kiosks that are supposed to turn loose change
into cash.

Both TD Bank and PNC have pulled those machines out of service, on
the heels of our report.

Now a class action lawsuit is calling their accuracy into
question.

Action News Investigation spanned across the Delaware Valley
testing the coin counting kiosks at 17 different TD Bank Penny
Arcades, PNC Change Depots, and Coinstar machines.  Out of 17
tests we ran, only one machine was accurate.

Matt Ventrella of Royersford, Pa. contacted Action News after he
says he was shorted $44 at a local TD Bank.  It was money his
family was saving for their first vacation to Disney World.

"It was a pretty significant difference," Mr. Ventrella said.

So we took $100 in rolled coins to various stores and banks.

One TD Bank location actually paid us three cents extra, but a
kiosk in Warrington was $2.33 short, and another Penny Arcade was
21 cents off.

The PNC Bank on City Avenue returned nine cents extra.

On April 20, we found the machines removed or shut down.

PNC Bank released a statement saying: "PNC made the decision,
effective last April 13, to take all of our remaining in-branch
coin counting machines out of service.  PNC began the process of
phasing out in-branch coin counters last year for a variety of
reasons, including low customer use.  In addition, we have taken
recent media reports, calling into question the accuracy of coin
counters in the industry, very seriously."

TD Bank also released a statement saying in part: "All of our coin
counting machines are in the process of being taken out of
service, and will be evaluated and retested.  Our machines will be
brought back into service when we are satisfied they meet our
performance requirements."

But TD Bank would not respond to the class action lawsuit filed on
April 19 in New York City, saying it is ongoing litigation.

Resident Jeffrey Feinman says he was shorted 56 cents one time,
and 95 cents the other.

The complainant says there could be hundreds of thousands of
others who did not get back the proper amount of money back.

The Ventrellas say they do not plan to join that lawsuit because
following our report, TD Bank did refund them their $44.


TEXTURA CORPORATION: Ill. Court Trims Securities Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Textura Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the only claim that
remains in a class action lawsuit is the plaintiffs' assertion
that the Company should have provided more information about the
business background of its then-Chairman and CEO in its SEC
filings.

On October 7, 2014, a putative class action lawsuit alleging
violations of federal securities laws was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, naming as
defendants the Company and two of its executive officers. An
amended complaint was filed on February 17, 2015.

The amended complaint alleges violations of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 by the Company and two of its executive
officers for making allegedly materially false and misleading
statements and by failing to disclose allegedly material facts
regarding its business and operations between June 7, 2013 and
September 29, 2014. The plaintiffs seek unspecified monetary
damages and other relief.

"We believe the lawsuit is without merit and intend to defend the
case vigorously," the Company said. "We filed a motion to dismiss
on May 4, 2015, which was granted in part and denied in part on
March 3, 2016. The only claim that remains is the plaintiffs'
assertion that the Company should have provided more information
about the business background of its then-Chairman and CEO in its
SEC filings. The plaintiffs have until March 24, 2016 to file an
amended complaint."


THOMAS STAR: Recalls Buns Bread Due to Allergens
------------------------------------------------
Thomas Star Bakery of Ohio LLC, is voluntarily recalling Buns
Bread, package code (018493109803), which contains undeclared
allergens. The bread product contains milk and eggs, known
allergens which are not declared on the label.
The product was available at the following retail locations:

Toledo International Market, Toledo, OH
Asafo Market, Cincinnati, OH
Accra International Market, Columbus, OH
Berekum African Market, Columbus,
OH Afrique Food Warehouse, Columbus, OH
A-Life African Market, Columbus, OH
Adom Universal African Market, Columbus, OH
Troung Enterprise Inc, Chicago, IL (distribution warehouse)
Kauro African Market, Indianapolis, IN
Grace African Market, Indianapolis, IN
Saraga International Market, Indianapolis, IN

The Buns Bread product was available for purchase between the
dates of August 2015 and April 13, 2016. No other Thomas Star
Bakery of Ohio products are involved in this recall.
People who are allergic to eggs or milk may run the risk of an
allergic reaction if they consume this product. Ohio Department of
Agriculture and the company have received no reports of adverse
reaction due to consumption of this product. Anyone concerned
about an injury or illness should contact a healthcare provider.

The missing allergen information was discovered by the Ohio
Department of Agriculture during an inspection of the recalling
firm.

Product involved in this recall can be brought to the place of
purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions on the recall may
contact Thomas Star Bakery of Ohio at (419) 214-0711.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/usYoyX


TITLETOWN MASONRY: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, Action Says
---------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Fowler Sr., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Titletown Masonry LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-00481-WCG
(E.D. Wis., April 19, 2016), seeks redress for Titletown's failure
to pay employees' overtime pay, failing to pay them travel pay,
and failing to transmit all authorized wage deductions to the
designated payee.

Titletown Masonry LLC performs masonry, and laborers work, on both
prevailing wage and non-prevailing wage projects, throughout
Northeastern Wisconsin.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Yingtao Ho, Esq.
      THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM S.C.
      1555 North River Center Drive, Suite 202
      P. O. Box 12993
      Milwaukee, WI 53212
      Telephone: (414) 271-4500
      Facsimile: (414) 271-6308
      E-mail: yh@previant.com


TOTAL GAS: C&C Trading Files Suit Over Gas Price Manipulation
-------------------------------------------------------------
C&C TRADING LLC, on behalf of itself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, vs. TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH AMERICA, INC. and
JOHN DOES 1-50, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02799 (S.D.N.Y., April
14, 2016), arises from the alleged unlawful and intentional
manipulation of natural gas prices and false reporting by
Defendant.

TOTAL GAS & POWER NORTH AMERICA, INC. is an indirect, wholly-owned
subsidiary of Total S.A. TGPNA. Its predecessors have been engaged
in natural gas physical and financial trading and marketing
activities in the U.S. since 1990.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John D. Radice, Esq.
     Kenneth B. Pickle, Esq.
     RADICE LAW FIRM, PC
     34 Sunset Blvd.
     Long Beach, NJ 08008
     Phone: (646) 245-8502
     Fax: (609) 385-0745
     E-mail: jradice@radicelawfirm.com
             kpickle@radicelawfirm.com

        - and -

     Lori G. Feldman, Esq.
     Andrea Clisura, Esq.
     LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
     30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
     New York, NY 10004
     Phone: (212) 363-7500
     Fax: (212) 363-7171
     E-mail: ekorsinsky@zlk.com
             lfeldman@zlk.com
             aclisura@zlk.com


TOYS R US: Faces Class Action Over E-Commerce Terms of Service
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Toutant, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
companies engaged in e-commerce in New Jersey are being hit with
class action suits claiming their terms of service violate a state
consumer protection law enacted when Ronald Reagan was president -
- and the litigation is causing concern in the business community.

Toys R Us, Victoria's Secret and J. Crew are among the retailers
that have found themselves the targets of suits in the District of
New Jersey claiming violations of the Truth in Consumer Contract,
Warranty and Notice Act, N.J.S.A. 56:12-14.  The suits claim that
the terms and conditions that apply to online transactions on the
defendants' websites violate the statute, which was enacted in
1981 to protect consumers from one-sided consumer contract terms.

The TCCWNA bars sellers, lessors and creditors from offering
consumers a contract that "violates any clearly established legal
right of a consumer or responsibility of a seller . . . . as
established by state or federal law at the time the offer is made
or the consumer contract is signed or the warranty, notice or sign
is given or displayed.  The statute also bars contract provisions
by which a consumer waives his rights under the act."
Other well-known companies named as defendants in TCCWNA suits in
New Jersey include Samsung Electronics; Bed, Bath & Beyond;
Burlington Stores; the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra and the
company that operates the Prudential Center in Newark.

The suits have drawn the ire of the business community because
they do not claim that the plaintiffs or class members have
suffered any actual losses when using the defendants' websites. In
addition, counsel for the plaintiffs have interpreted the TCCWNA
as allowing for the statutory damages of $100 per violation to be
invoked each time someone visits a defendant's website, which
could quickly add up to millions in damages.

Meanwhile, many companies have received demand letters seeking to
settle alleged violations of the TCCWNA stemming from the language
in their web disclaimers, lawyers said.

The vague wording and broad scope of the TCCWNA makes it a concern
to businesses that have disclaimers and warranty limitations in
their websites' terms and conditions, according to Edward Fanning
of McCarter & English in Newark, who said he has been active
fielding inquiries from clients about the law.

Plaintiffs lawyers assert that, unlike claims brought under the
New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, a claim under the TCCWNA doesn't
require a showing of ascertainable loss by the claimant, Fanning
said.

Marcus Rayner, president of the tort-reform group New Jersey Civil
Justice Institute, called TCCWNA suits an example of "the class
action system at its worst."

"These are suits where the individual consumers are not harmed in
any way," he said.  "Businesses work very hard to comply with the
law, and it's only the bad actors that these statutes are intended
to address.  The problem is, when these statutes are poorly
drafted, you get a lot of honest businesses caught up on the net."

According to a tally of New Jersey court decisions involving the
TCCWNA, kept by the institute, 12 decisions involving the statute
were issued in 2010 but that number jumped to 27 in 2015.

Mr. Rayner said the courts are seeing a sudden surge in TCCWNA
suits because "lawyers go where the money is. I think a smart
plaintiffs attorney found this statute on the books and filed a
suit, and a lot of his or her colleagues are following suit."
He added that, "if the courts are unable to provide clarity, I
think you're going to see the business community look to the
Legislature."

But the lawyers filing the suits on behalf of plaintiffs make no
apologies for the litigation.

"The Legislature, in their divine wisdom, felt this was the
appropriate way to compensate consumers and protect them.  I
wouldn't have brought these cases if I didn't think they had
merit," said Jeffrey Gottlieb -- jeff@illinoisestateplan.com -- of
Gottlieb & Associates in New York, who has filed four TCCWNA
suits.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: May 27 Hearing Set in Class Action
----------------------------------------------------
Maggie Severns, writing for Politico, reports that The Washington
Post's bid to unseal documents filed in a class-action case
against Trump University will get a hearing in May.

Earlier this month the newspaper asked a San Diego District Court
to unseal hundreds of pages of documents in the case against GOP
presidential front-runner Donald Trump.  The Post argued the
lawsuit filed by former Trump University students has become a
campaign issue and the documents should thus be available to the
public.

Former students allege Trump University pitched them expensive
real estate coursework, sometimes amounting to tens of thousands
of dollars, for real estate seminars where students learned
little. Trump has denied the claims and said students
overwhelmingly approved of the school.

"This case focuses on allegedly deceptive commercial practices by
a leading presidential candidate whose claim to be qualified for
the presidency hinges on his business record," the Washington Post
argued in a filing.  "Plaintiff's allegations in this case, and
the lawsuit itself, have become prominent campaign issues," which
makes the need for transparency in the case paramount. The hearing
on the Post's request is scheduled for May 27.

In a separate filing on April 20, federal District Court Judge
Gonzalo Curiel took the expected step of dismissing former student
Tarla Makaeff from her role as lead plaintiff in the case.  Ms.
Makaeff said she wanted to leave the role, in part, because she
never anticipated the case would be a high-profile focal point in
a presidential campaign -- or that she would become a public
target for Trump.  Another plaintiff, Sonny Low, will take on that
role.

Both actions concern the California-based class action suit filed
against Trump.  But a separate case brought by the New York
Attorney General Eric Schneiderman was also due for a hearing on
April 26.


VASCULAR SOLUTIONS: Recalls Guardian II Hemostasis Valves
---------------------------------------------------------
Vascular Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq: VASC), initiated a nationwide
recall of Guardian II hemostasis valves used in catheterization
procedures. Specific lots of the products have been recalled
because they pose an increased risk of air leakage that may lead
to an air embolism, which could result in serious injury or death.
This recall only affects the Guardian II hemostasis valves and
does not include the Guardian II NC hemostasis valves. No injuries
have been reported in association with this issue to date.

Healthcare facilities that have the affected Guardian II
hemostasis valves should remove the products from their inventory
and return them to Vascular Solutions.

The recalled products were manufactured from March 2015 to
February 2016 and distributed from April 2015 to February 2016.

The recalled products are specific lots of Model Numbers 8210 and
8211. A listing of the recalled lots is available from Vascular
Solutions and has been provided to each facility that purchased
the affected products. A total of 26,550 devices have been
manufactured, with 5,283 distributed in the United States. The
condition that led to the recall may affect approximately 2.4% of
recalled devices.

Vascular Solutions Inc. voluntarily initiated the recall on March
3, 2016 through an Urgent Medical Device Recall notification
distributed to purchasers of the affected products. The
notification identified the specific lots subject to the recall
and included instructions on how to return the affected products.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) classified this as a
Class I recall. FDA defines Class I recalls as "a situation in
which there is a reasonable probability that the use of, or
exposure to, a violative product will cause serious adverse health
consequences or death."

Consumers with questions may contact the company by phone at 1-
888-240-6001 Monday through Friday, between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
and 5:00 p.m. Central Time or by email at
customerservice@vasc.com. Adverse reactions or quality problems
experienced with the use of this product may be reported to the
FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event Reporting program:

Online at http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm(form available
to fax (1-800-FDA-0178) or mail), or
Call FDA 1-800-FDA-1088 to request a reporting form

                       About Vascular Solutions

Vascular Solutions, Inc. is an innovative medical device company
that focuses on developing unique clinical solutions for coronary
and peripheral vascular procedures. The company's product line
consists of more than 90 products and services that are sold to
interventional cardiologists, interventional radiologists,
electrophysiologists, and vein specialists through its direct U.S.
sales force and international independent distributor network.

For further information, connect to www.vasc.com


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches Agreement with U.S. Gov't on Dieselgate
--------------------------------------------------------------
David Kiley, writing for Forbes, reports that Volkswagen AG has
reportedly reached an agreement with U.S. authorities that will
establish a framework to compensate owners of Volkswagen diesel
vehicles caught up in the German automaker's admission that it
cheated on its diesel emissions tests.  The agreement, first
reported by Germany's Die Welt, calls for each affected VW owner
in the U.S. to receive $5,000, plus have their vehicles modified
to comply with emissions regulations free of charge.

According to Reuters, the deal to be presented to the court
April 21 will still not include a detailed resolution to how some
600,000 affected vehicles will be modified to put them into
compliance with emissions standards.  But it will provide,
reported Reuters, how Volkswagen will offer to buy back some
500,000 vehicles with 2.0 liter TDI diesel engines at the market
value before the scandal emerged.

Last September, Volkswagen was found to be guilty of installing
so-called "defeat devices" -- software that made the vehicles
perform one way in an emissions test and another way when the cars
are rising on public roads.  The automaker has been under attack
and probed by the U.S. Justice Dept., the Environmental Protection
Agency, The Federal Trade Commission and the State of California,
not to mention foreign regulators. And plaintiff attorneys have
been gearing up for class-action suits.

The $5,000 in compensation to owners of Volkswagen's TDI diesel
vehicles is meant offset falling resale values of the cars.
According to Kelly Blue Book, the average auction values of
Volkswagen TDIs have dropped 27% since June of last year, compared
with a 10% decline for VW's gasoline vehicles. Kelly Blue Book
estimates that the compensation agreement will cost VW $7.3
billion, not including the costs associating with modifying the
vehicles.

The cars that will be offered to be bought back will include
versions of the Jetta sedan, the Golf compact and the Audi A3. The
offer, reported Reuters, will not apply to the bigger 3.0-liter
diesel vehicles sold by Audi and Porsche.

Because there are so many different jurisdictions and regulatory
agencies that come into play, putting a total dollar figure on
Volkswagen's debacle has been difficult.  Arndt Ellinghorst,
analyst at market research firm Evercore ISI, writes that he
expects VW's total costs from "dieselgate" could reach about 30
billion euros.  But that estimate could be off by billions. Still,
Mr. Ellinghorst has a "buy" rating on VW because of how far and
fast the value of VW's shares dropped since September, and the
likelihood of settlements.

The Volkswagen scandal is the biggest corporate scandal in terms
of total dollar value to ever hit Europe. And every move of
Volkswagen's current management is being scrutinized, while
details of regulators' investigations trickle out week after week.
Currently, VW management is being heavily criticized by union
representatives, employees and shareholders for voting themselves
year-end bonuses, while at the same time preparing rank and file
for job cuts resulting from the billions being
set-aside to pay fines and compensation to VW owners.


WESTERN PACIFIC: "Morales" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mario Morales, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Western Pacific Pulp and Paper and Does 1 through 100
inclusive, Case No. BC617544 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 19, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid wages earned and penalties due from
illegal meal and rest period practices and policies, failure to
provide accurate itemized wage statements and maintain required
records, failure to pay all wages upon termination of employment,
unfair business practices, interest, attorneys' fees, costs, and
expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Western Pacific Pulp and Paper owns and operates a recycling
company in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
      RASTEGAR LAW GROUP, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Blvd., Suite 200
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 961-9600
      Facsimile: (310) 961-9094
      E-mail: farzad@rastegarlawgroup.com


WESTJET: Responds to Flight Attendant's Harassment Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Geordon Omand, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
WestJet is rejecting allegations made by a former flight attendant
that it fails to provide a harassment-free workplace for its
female employees, saying it would not put its reputation at stake
by inadequately dealing with complaints.

The Calgary-based airline's response to a civil claim, filed in
British Columbia Supreme Court, argues against granting class-
action status to a lawsuit launched earlier this month by
Mandalena Lewis.

"WestJet denies allowing harassment to exist in its workplace,"
the court document says.  "There are clear financial and
reputational incentives for WestJet to provide a harassment-free
workplace to all employees."

This is the second lawsuit Ms. Lewis has filed against WestJet.
Earlier this year she filed a civil claim alleging WestJet failed
to take proper action after she reported being sexually assaulted
by a pilot while on a stopover in Hawaii.

She has said she began the proposed class action when multiple
women approached her with similar complaints after she filed her
initial lawsuit.

Behaviors mentioned in the latest notice of claim include sexist
jokes, obscene comments, unwelcome physical contact and "midnight
knocking," which Lewis defines as a request or demand for late-
night sexual favors by pilots while on a stopover.

The claim accused the company of protecting "harassers," often
pilots, who are considered more economically valuable employees.
Lewis has said she is unsure how many people could be involved if
the lawsuit receives class-action certification.  Flight
attendants make up about a quarter of the more than 11,000 workers
WestJet employs.

None of the allegations have been proven in court.

In its response to the latest legal action, the airline argues
against class-action approval because it says the circumstances
for any given potential plaintiff aren't universal enough to
consider them as a group.

WestJet denies allegations that the way it investigates reports of
harassment discourages victims from coming forward with complaints
and attempts to silence them when they do.

"In fact, the opposite is true," the airline says, rejecting the
claim that its approach leads to the under-reporting of
harassment.

"WestJet's (confidential) investigation process encourages
WestJetters to report inappropriate behavior by allowing them to
do so in confidence."

The airline says privacy laws prevent it from disclosing the
particulars of an investigation.

WestJet also took aim at Lewis's eight-year work record,
highlighting the circumstances that led to her firing in January.
"From the beginning of her employment, Ms. Lewis had consistently
poor attendance," it says, describing the eight instances she was
formally disciplined.

The company says it ended Ms. Lewis's contract after she sent a
manager an email containing a profanity demanding her employment
file, which the company was late in providing.

"Lewis's grossly insubordinate and insolent email, combined with
Lewis's extensive disciplinary record, warranted the termination
of Ms. Lewis's employment for just cause."

Ms. Lewis said in an interview on April 20 that WestJet's comments
on her employment record are meant to distract from the core issue
of flight-attendant safety.

"I'm not a perfect person," Ms. Lewis said.

"They can again try and attack my integrity as a flight attendant
or my character as a person or my motivations, but I was an
excellent flight attendant and I am an excellent person."


WISCONSIN: PC Schools Get $70,000 Class Action Payout
-----------------------------------------------------
Sarah Young, writing for Pierce County Herald, reports that Plum
City is one of 141 school districts in Wisconsin who will split
$4.9 million after a class-action lawsuit against the Wisconsin
Education Association Insurance Trust was settled in Dane County
Circuit Court, announced April 12.

Plum City School District will receive $71,224, which for a small
district, is a lot of money said Superintendent Mary Baier.
Financial manager Kay Gilles said the check has already been
received.

The settlement is the result of a 2012 class-action lawsuit filed
after the creation of the Affordable Care Act.  The lawsuit
alleged insurance rebates that were supposed to go back to the
schools were not reimbursed.

"WEA Trust had obtained several million dollars in the disputed
funds by using health care claims data for early retirees of the
class member school districts and then refused to pay the funds to
school districts that moved their insurance business to WEA
Trust's competitors," the Madison-based law firm Foley & Lardner
said in a statement on April 19.

Under the terms of the settlement, the schools received between 60
and 65 percent of the disputed funds.

The largest payout went to the Oshkosh School District, which will
receive $367,766. Twelve districts received at least $100,000,
including Hudson at $130,291.  A total of 31 districts received a
small payout of $658.

Ms. Baier said she's unsure of how the district is permitted to
spend the money.

"We must talk to our auditor," Ms. Baier said.  "I'm sure the
board will have many different ideas on how to spend it."

Other western Wisconsin school districts that received a portion
of the settlement include:

   -- Alma, $658
   -- Baldwin-Woodville, $21,182
   -- Bloomer, $135,498
   -- Boyceville, $49,933
   -- Chetek-Weyerhaeuser, $34,355
   -- Cumberland, $105,637
   -- Durand, $44,603
   -- Eleva-Strum, $7,222
   -- Glenwood City, $658
   -- Hudson, $130,291
   -- Independence, $658
   -- Mondovi, $36,504
   -- Plum City, $71,224
   -- River Falls, $23,225
   -- St. Croix Central, $12,418
   -- St. Croix Falls, $10,252


* Cos. Use "No Concrete Injury" Tool for Data Breach Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
R. Locke Beatty, Esq., of McGuireWoods LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that frequently, a class action complaint will
set forth an elaborate theory of why the defendant's actions were
negligent or wrongful, but fall short when trying to identify how
that conduct has harmed the class members.  This kind of complaint
invites a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the plaintiff has
failed to demonstrate constitutional standing by identifying a
"concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent" injury
traceable to the defendant's actions.

When these motions are successful, it's a great day for the
defense, but court dockets are littered with denied (or simply
undecided) Rule 12(b)(6) motions challenging a plaintiff's
constitutional standing.  In those cases, negotiating a settlement
may become the most prudent course of action.  And at that point,
that motion to dismiss brief that you stayed up late drafting last
spring can become an obstacle to structuring a lasting settlement
in autumn -- particularly when there's a shortage of claimants who
can sufficiently document damages to obtain relief from a
compensatory settlement fund.

So how do parties structure a settlement that will avoid the
objectors' wrath after the defendant is already on record arguing
that the class members haven't suffered any real injury?  The
traditional method has been to establish a cy pres award that will
distribute residual funds to a charity related to the subject
matter of the action or a legal services organization. Of course,
these awards have met their share of criticism in recent years.

Notably, another tool settling parties have embraced is
structuring settlements in a manner that provides alternative
benefits directly to class members in addition to the traditional
compensatory fund.

This has recently popped up in the data breach class action
context, where consumers allege their personal information was
stolen after making a credit card purchase from the defendant-
retailer.  These claims frequently prompt a "no concrete injury"
argument, particularly when the putative class representative's
financial institution has already reimbursed any fraudulent
charges made on the card.

Thus, when one of these cases settles, the parties may opt to
establish additional remedies for class members above and beyond
the traditional fund to reimburse any documented out-of-pocket
losses.  This was the case in both In re: The Home Depot, Inc.,
Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-02583-TWT
(N.D. Ga.) and In re: Target Corporation Customer Data Security
Breach Litigation, No. 1:14-md-2522-PAM (D. Minn).

By way of example, the settlement in the Home Depot class action
established a fund dedicated to providing several months of
identity protection services to anyone whose data was compromised
by the security breach.  Accordingly, any class member who did not
suffer out-of-pocket losses, or could not sufficiently document
them, was still eligible to receive a tangible benefit.

These types of settlements may also include other forward-looking
commitments by the defendant such as establishing information
security officers at the executive level, maintaining a written
information security program, performing routine data risk
assessments, providing security training to employees, and
upgrading card-payment technology.

The upshot of these multi-faceted settlements is that even if
class members have difficulty demonstrating out-of-pocket losses
to make a claim on the fund, they still receive benefits in the
form of identity protection and credit monitoring services, which
may serve to head off potential objectors.  While objections to
the measures of relief afforded by settlements will undoubtedly
continue to surface, parties have emphasized these extra benefits
when responding to objectors in successful motions for final
approval of settlement.

This settlement tool, increasingly common in data breach class
actions, merits consideration in settling other types of class
actions in which the defendant has previously argued that the
plaintiffs have failed to show a concrete, particularized, and
actual or imminent injury.



                            *********

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  * * *