CAR_Public/160427.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, April 27, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 84



                            Headlines


ACADEMY LTD: Recalls Outdoor Gourmet(R) Marinade Injectors
ALERE INC: Faces "Godinez" Securities Class Action in Mass.
AMERICAN FAMILY: "Krug" Suit Moved from S.D. to N.D. Illinois
AMERICAN PROTECTION: "Lapit" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
BANKRATE INC: BanxCorp Litigation Remains Pending

BANKRATE INC: "Johnson" TCPA Class Suit Dismissed
BANKRATE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit
BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit

BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends "Carag" Suit
BLUE CROSS: Sued in Washington Over ABA Therapy Coverage Denial
BRONCO'S SALOON: Court Vacates Denial of Class Certification
BROOKLYN ACADEMY: Faces "Riley" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Rechargeable Battery Packs

BURKE ENGINEERING: "General Casualty" Suit to Hold Coverage
BURLINGTON COAT: $1.8MM Deal in "Rodriguez" Has Final Court OK
BUYCHEAPSOFTWARE: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facilities
CADETE ENTERPRISES: Court Won't Consolidate "Marzuq" & "Pike"
CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces "Barkau" Suit in S.D.N.Y.

CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Must Provide Additional Testimony
CIENA CORPORATION: Defending Class Suit Over Cyan Merger
COATING PLACE: Faces "Hoffmaster" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
COCHRAN WHOLESALE: Faces "ARcare" Suit in Middle Dist. of Georgia
COLE HAAN: "Chin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.

COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls Lithium-Ion Flashlights Due to Fire Risk
CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern District New York
CRF FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products Due to Listeria
CVS PHARMACY: Settlement Deal in "Sharobiem" Has Final Okay
DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Case in Mediation

EUROPA ELECTRIC: Faces BDM Suit in New York Supreme Court
FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Cradle 'n Swings Due to Injury Risk
FIRST NIAGARA: MOU Reached in KeyCorp Merger Suit
FLOOD BROTHERS: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
FLYING J: Court Terminates "Duke" Suits

FLYING TIGER: Recalls Wooden Toy Blocks and Giraffes
FREIGHTQUOTE.COM: Collective Action Deal in "Koehler" Denied
FRESH MARKET: "Sherman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Delaney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
FU JIN: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages

GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
GRAND TAVERN: "Francois" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
HEALTHWAYS INC: "Simon" Suit Proceeds in California
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Rudel Suit in District of New Jersey
HILTON GRAND: Faces "Glasser" Suit in Middle District Florida

HOME DEPOT: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Automatic Telephone Dialing
I.C. SYSTEMS: Faces "Zeccardi" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
INNER CITY: "Schneider" Suit Seeks Reimbursement Under Labor Code
INTERNATIONAL METALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Carmona" Suit in District of New Jersey

KEY ENERGY: Defending Wage and Hour Suit Class Suits in Calif.
KEY ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Houston, Texas Class Action Pending
KEY ENERGY: Merit-Based Discovery to Begin in Corpus Christi Suit
KEY ENERGY: 15% of Eligible Members Join Houston Class Suit
MAALT SPECIALIZED: Violated FLSA, "Tenboer" Suit Claims

MARRIOTT HOTEL: "McCray" Suit Moved from Super. Ct to N.D. Cal.
MAZDA MOTOR: Sued in Cal. Over Defective 2010-15 Mazda 3 Vehicles
MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Suits by Fresno Bee Carriers Ongoing
MDL 1840: Costco Wholesale's Appeal Pending
MDL 2179: BP Plc Provides Updates of Macondo Oil Spill Cases

MDL 2185: July 5 Trial on Securities Fraud Claims
MDL 2280: Cert. Bids in Morgan Stanley Wage & Hour Suit Denied
METROPOLITAN OPERA: Faces "Riley" Suit in Southern Dist. New York
MICHAEL'S PLACE: "Ibarra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
MONRO MUFFLER: "Jarmon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Breached Repair Warranty, "Lynch" Suit Claims
MRS BPO: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in Eastern District New York
MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends "Vo" Class Suit
NAC MARKETING: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Certain Claims
NATURAL HEALTH: Says Securities Class Suits in Early Stage

NEW YORK: Democrats Sue State Board of Elections
NEW YORK CITY CENTER: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
NORMANDIN CHRYSLER: OneCommand Must Produce Documents
OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: To Defend EveryWare Global Investors' Suit
PACIFIC CAPITAL: MRI's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims Denied

PANERA LLC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
PAPA MURPHY'S: Still Defending "Lennartson" Class Suit in Wash.
PATRIARCH PARTNERS: "Eisenstadt" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
PINGTAN MARINE: Still Defends Against "Fila" Class Suit
PIZZA THE PIE: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

PLANT ENGINEERING: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls RZR 900 & 1000Off-Highway Vehicles
ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Talks to Settle Securities Suit
ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls Rollerblade Inline Skating Helmets
ROSICKI ROSICKI: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

S CARTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit Over "Life of Pablo"
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Cuebas" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Waldo" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695
SANTA FE NATURAL: "Okstad" Suit Consolidated in MDL  2695
SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Dattoma" Suit in N.D. Cal.

SEPHORA USA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Provencio" Suit Says
SIENTRA INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit
SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Want Suit Remanded to Superior Court
SOUVNEAR INC: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Hazard
SPARK ENERGY: Dismissal, Arbitration Bids in "Amaya" Case Denied

SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
STAPLES THE OFFICE: Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Jewett" Suit Says
TACO BELL: Court Awards $291,987 as Prejudgment Interest
TUFCO INC: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Home Improvement Deal Breach

TULANE UNIVERSITY: "England" Suit Seeks Benefits
UNITED GUARANTY: Faces "Rodan" Suit in Western Dist. Kentucky
VAM USA: "Guidry" Suit Seeks Compensation & OT Pay Under FLSA
VECO AUTO: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
VECTOR GROUP: $26.9MM Product Liability Legal Expenses in 2015

VECTOR GROUP: 171 Engle Progeny Cases Settled for $3.6-Mil.
VECTOR GROUP: 260 Claims Outstanding Amid Engle Progeny Deal
VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Faces Class Suit in E.D. Louisiana
VECTOR GROUP: Trial in W.Va. Tobacco Case Set for Jan. 2017
VITA-MIX CORPORATION: Faces "Candelario" Suit in D.N.J.

VIVUS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Jasin" Securities Suit Pending
VIZIO INC: "Tongarm" Suit Transferred from N.D. to C.D. Cal.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Suit Consolidated With MDL 2672
VS PHARMACY: Recalls Organic Spiced Herbal Tea Due to Salmonella
WEST MARINE: Calif. Court Approves Class Suit Settlement

WESTLEX CORP: 5th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Remand
WILBUR PRODUCTS: "Tatum" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ala.
WINDSOR WINDOW: "Clark" Suit Consolidated With MDL 2688
WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: "Forster" Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles


                            *********


ACADEMY LTD: Recalls Outdoor Gourmet(R) Marinade Injectors
----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Academy, Ltd. d/b/a Academy Sports + Outdoors, of Katy, Texas,
announced a voluntary recall of about 3,500 Outdoor Gourmet(R)
marinade injectors. Consumers should stop using this product
unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt
to resell a recalled consumer product.

The injectors can have small metal shavings left inside during the
manufacturing process. The metal shavings can be deposited into
the marinade during use and ingested by consumers.

This recall involves Outdoor Gourmet(R) marinade injectors. They
are stainless steel, measure about six inches in length and have
three metal rings at the top. "Outdoor Gourmet," "6 inch stainless
steel injector," style number BGOG0047, UPC 400216227091 and the
following date codes are printed on the product packaging.

Date Codes for Marinade Injectors
06/15-2549000
06/15-2549319
06/15-2549203

Academy Sports + Outdoors has received one report of small metal
shavings coming out of the product on first use. No injuries have
been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8dX3uN

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Academy Sports + Outdoors stores nationwide and online at
www.academy.com from September 2015 through December 2015 for
about $20.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled marinade
injectors and return them to any Academy Sports + Outdoors store
for a full refund or a free replacement marinade injector.


ALERE INC: Faces "Godinez" Securities Class Action in Mass.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judith Godinez, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alere Inc., Ron Zwanziger,
Namal Nawana, David Teitel, James F. Hinrichs, And Carla R.
Flakne, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-10766 (D. Mass., April
21, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 (Exchange Act).

On February 1, 2016, Alere disclosed that it had entered into a
merger agreement with Abbot Laboratories. On this news, Alere's
stock price shot up $16.91, or more than 45%, to close at $54.11
per share on February 1, 2016. On March 15, 2015, the company
filed a current report on Form 8-K with the SEC. Therein, the
Company disclosed that the Company would be unable to file its
2015 Form 10-K within the extension period because it was
continuing to conduct an analysis of certain aspects of the timing
of revenue recognition, more specifically, revenue cutoff, in
Africa and China for the years ended December 31, 2013, 2014 and
2015. On this news, Alere's stock price fell $4.14 per share, or
9.2%, to close on March 15, 2016, at $49.32 per share, on
unusually heavy volume. On April 20, 2016, the CEO of Abbott
Laboratories did not affirm Abbott Laboratories' commitment to
merge with Alere. The Defendants' wrongful acts and omissions
resulted to the precipitous decline in the market value of the
Company's securities, says the complaint.

Alere is a global diagnostic device and service provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lesley F. Portnoy, Esq.
          Lionel Z. Glancy, Esq.
          Robert V. Prongay, Esq.
          Casey E. Sadler, Esq.
          Charles H. Linehan, Esq.
          GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP
          122 East 42nd Street, Suite 2920
          New York, NY 10168
          Telephone: (212) 682 5340
          Facsimile: (212) 884 0988
          E-mail: lportnoy@glancylaw.com

               - and -

          Jason Leviton, Esq.
          Steven P. Harte, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          Facsimile: (617) 507 6020
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com
                  steven@blockesq.com


AMERICAN FAMILY: "Krug" Suit Moved from S.D. to N.D. Illinois
-------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Krug, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. American Family Mutual
Insurance Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:15-cv-01354, was
transferred the US District Court for the Southern District of
Illinois, to the US District Court for Northern District of
Illinois (Chicago). The Northern District Court assigned Case No.
1:16-cv-04532 to the proceeding.

American Family, together with its subsidiaries, provides various
insurance products and services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James J Rosemergy, Esq.
          CAREY, DANIS AND LOWE
          8235 Forsyth Blvd., Suite 1100
          St. Louis, MO 63105
          Telephone: (314) 725 7700
          E-mail: jrosemergy@careydanis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Heather Hyun Harrison, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS - CHICAGO
          311 South Wacker Dr., Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606-6622
          Telephone: (312) 212 6512
          Facsimile: (312) 212 6501
          E-mail: heather.harrison@faegrebd.com

               - and -

          John A. Roberts, Esq.
          FAEGRE BAKER DANIELS, LLP
          311 S. Wacker Drive, Suite 4300
          Chicago, IL 60606-1229
          Telephone: (312) 356 5114
          E-mail: john.roberts@faegrebd.com


AMERICAN PROTECTION: "Lapit" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Lapit, individually, on behalf of others similarly situated,
and as a representative of other aggrieved employees,
Plaintiff, v. American Protection Security Services, American
Protection Security, Alpha Management & Maintenance, Inc., Syrus
Alemozaffar and Does 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC617067 (Cal. Super, April 14, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime
compensation, unpaid minimum wages, wages for missed meal and rest
periods, reimbursement for required business expenses, statutory
penalties, restitution, declaratory and injunctive relief,
attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and other relief
under California Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 5-2001,
California Labor Code and California Business and Professions Code
Sec. 17200 et seq.

Henry Lapit was hired and employed by Defendants as a security
guard. Defendants misclassified Plaintiff as an independent
contractor thus denied overtime pay, meal/rest breaks,
reimbursement of reasonable and necessary business expenses and
itemized wage statements.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Christian J. Petronelli, Esq.
      Dean S. Ho, Esq.
      PETRONELLI & HO LLP
      295 Redondo Avenue, Suite 201
      Long Beach, CA 90803
      Telephone: (888) 855-3670
      Facsimile: (888) 449-9675
      Email: dean@employees-lawyer.com
             christian@employees-lawyer.com


BANKRATE INC: BanxCorp Litigation Remains Pending
-------------------------------------------------
BanxCorp litigation remains pending, Bankrate, Inc. said in its
Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

In July 2007, BanxCorp, an online publisher of rate information
provided by financial institutions with respect to various
financial products, filed suit against the Company in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging
violations of Federal and New Jersey State antitrust laws,
including the Sherman Act and the Clayton Act. BanxCorp has
alleged that it has been injured as a result of monopolistic and
otherwise anticompetitive conduct on the part of the Company and
is seeking approximately $180 million in compensatory damages,
treble damages, and attorneys' fees and costs.

In October 2012, BanxCorp filed a Seventh Amended Complaint,
alleging violations of Section 2 of the Sherman Act, Section 7 of
the Clayton Act and parallel provisions of New Jersey antitrust
laws, and dropping its claims under Section 1 of the Sherman Act.

Discovery closed on December 21, 2012 and both parties filed
motions in the first quarter of 2013 seeking summary judgment that
are pending before the court.

The Company will continue to vigorously defend this lawsuit. The
Company cannot presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that
would result from an adverse resolution of this matter.


BANKRATE INC: "Johnson" TCPA Class Suit Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
The "Johnson" class action lawsuit against Bankrate, Inc., has
been dismissed, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

In June 2015, a putative class action lawsuit styled Johnson v.
Bankrate, Inc. was filed against the Company in the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, alleging
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and
seeking statutory damages, injunctive relief and attorney's fees.
The plaintiffs alleged that the Company contacted her and members
of the class she seeks to represent on their cellular telephones
without their prior express written consent and seeks to certify a
nationwide class of individuals on that basis.

In October 2015, an amended complaint was filed adding a second
named plaintiff, making the same allegations as the original
complaint, and seeking certification of the same proposed class
and the same relief as the original complaint.

On January 26, 2016, the plaintiffs entered into a settlement
agreement with the Company on an individual basis for an
immaterial amount. On February 3, 2016, the court dismissed the
case with prejudice.


BANKRATE INC: Bid to Dismiss Securities Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Bankrate, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a motion to dismiss
filed by the Company and the remaining defendants in a securities
class action lawsuit is pending.

In October 2014, a putative class action lawsuit was brought in
federal court in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of Florida against the Company, certain of its current
and former officers and directors, and other defendants, which is
captioned The City of Los Angeles v. Bankrate, Inc., et al., No.
14-CV-81323-DMM.

On November 23, 2015, the District Court dismissed an amended
complaint in its entirety without prejudice for failing to
adequately plead material misrepresentations or omissions,
scienter, or loss causation and damages.

On December 8, 2015, Lead Plaintiff filed a Second Amended
Complaint alleging that the Company's 2012, 2013, and first half
of 2014 financial statements improperly recognized revenues and
expenses and therefore were materially false and misleading and
caused damages. Plaintiffs sought relief (including damages and
rescission or rescissionary damages) under the Securities Act of
1933 based on a March 2014 secondary offering and under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 on behalf of a proposed class
consisting of all persons, other than the defendants, who
purchased the Company's securities between August 1, 2012 and
October 9, 2014, inclusive.

On January 8, 2016, the Company and the remaining defendants moved
to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. That motion is pending.

"The action is in its preliminary stages and we are not able to
predict its outcome," the Company said.  "The Company cannot
presently estimate the amount of loss, if any, that would result
from an adverse resolution of this matter."

Two earlier lawsuits making similar allegations, captioned Tong v.
Evans, et al., No. 14-cv-81183-KLR (S.D. Fla), and Atiyeh v.
Evans, et al., No. 14 Civ. 8443 (JFK) (S.D.N.Y), were voluntarily
dismissed by their respective plaintiffs.


BARNES & NOBLE: Bid to Dismiss PIN Pad Litigation Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the Company's second
motion to dismiss an amended complaint in the PIN Pad Litigation
is pending.

As previously disclosed, the Company discovered that PIN pads in
certain of its stores had been tampered with to allow criminal
access to card data and PIN numbers on credit and debit cards
swiped through the terminals. Following public disclosure of this
matter on October 24, 2012, the Company was served with four
putative class action complaints (three in federal district court
in the Northern District of Illinois and one in the Northern
District of California), each of which alleged on behalf of
national and other classes of customers who swiped credit and
debit cards in Barnes & Noble Retail stores common law claims such
as negligence, breach of contract and invasion of privacy, as well
as statutory claims such as violations of the Fair Credit
Reporting Act, state data breach notification statutes, and state
unfair and deceptive practices statutes.

The actions sought various forms of relief including damages,
injunctive or equitable relief, multiple or punitive damages,
attorneys' fees, costs, and interest. All four cases were
transferred and/or assigned to a single judge in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, and a single
consolidated amended complaint was filed.

The Company filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated amended
complaint in its entirety, and in September 2013, the Court
granted the motion to dismiss without prejudice. The Plaintiffs
then filed an amended complaint, and the Company filed a second
motion to dismiss. That motion is pending.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Lina" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit
----------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Lina v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al., have executed a settlement agreement
memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be
filing a dismissal of the matter with the court.

On August 5, 2011, a purported class action complaint was filed
against Barnes & Noble, Inc. and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc.
in the Superior Court for the State of California making the
following allegations with respect to salaried Store Managers at
Barnes & Noble stores located in California from August 5, 2007 to
present: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to pay
for missed meals and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time penalties;
(4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to reimburse for
business expenses; and (6) failure to provide itemized wage
statements. The claims are generally derivative of the allegation
that these salaried managers were improperly classified as exempt
from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint contains no
allegations concerning the number of any such alleged violations
or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the purported class.

The Company was served with the complaint on August 11, 2011.

On July 1, 2014 the court denied plaintiff's motion for class
certification. The court ruled that plaintiff failed to satisfy
his burden to demonstrate common issues predominated over
individual issues, that plaintiff was a sufficient class
representative, or that a class action was a superior method to
adjudicate plaintiff's claims.

Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal on August 29, 2014. On November
18, 2014, the trial court stayed all proceedings pending appeal.

The parties have subsequently executed a settlement agreement
memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be
filing a dismissal of the matter with the court.


BARNES & NOBLE: "Jones" Parties Agree to Dismiss Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the parties in the
case, Jones et al v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., and Barnes & Noble
Booksellers, Inc. et al., have executed a settlement agreement
memorializing a non-material resolution of the matter and will be
filing a dismissal of the matter with the court.

On April 23, 2013, Kenneth Jones (Jones) filed a purported Private
Attorney General Act action complaint against Barnes & Noble, Inc.
and Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. in the Superior Court for the
State of California making the following allegations with respect
to salaried Store Managers at Barnes & Noble stores located in
California: (1) failure to pay wages and overtime; (2) failure to
pay for missed meal and/or rest breaks; (3) waiting time
penalties; (4) failure to pay minimum wage; (5) failure to provide
reimbursement for business expenses; and (6) failure to provide
itemized wage statements.

The claims are generally derivative of the allegation that Jones
and other "aggrieved employees" were improperly classified as
exempt from California's wage and hour laws. The complaint
contains no allegations concerning the number of any such alleged
violations or the amount of recovery sought on behalf of the
plaintiff or the purported aggrieved employees.

On May 7, 2013, Judge Michael Johnson (before whom the Lina action
is pending) ordered the Jones action related to the Lina action
and assigned the Jones action to himself. The Company was served
with the complaint on May 16, 2013 and answered on June 10, 2013.

On November 18, 2014, the court stayed all proceedings pending
appeal in the related Lina action. The parties have subsequently
executed a settlement agreement memorializing a non-material
resolution of the matter and will be filing a dismissal of the
matter with the court.


BARNES & NOBLE: Still Defends "Carag" Suit
------------------------------------------
Barnes & Noble, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 30, 2016, that the case, Cassandra
Carag, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated v.
Barnes & Noble, Inc., Barnes & Noble Booksellers, Inc. and DOES 1
through 100 inclusive, remains pending.

On November 27, 2013, former Associate Store Manager Cassandra
Carag (Carag) brought suit in Sacramento County Superior Court,
asserting claims on behalf of herself and all other hourly (non-
exempt) Barnes & Noble employees in California in the preceding
four years for unpaid regular and overtime wages based on alleged
off-the-clock work, penalties and pay based on missed meal and
rest breaks, and for improper wage statements, payroll records,
and untimely pay at separation as a result of the alleged pay
errors during employment. Via the complaint, Carag seeks to
recover unpaid wages and statutory penalties for all hourly Barnes
& Noble employees within California from November 27, 2009 to
present.

On February 13, 2014, the Company filed an Answer in the state
court and concurrently requested removal of the action to federal
court. On May 30, 2014, the federal court granted Plaintiff's
motion to remand the case to state court and denied Plaintiff's
motion to strike portions of the Answer to the Complaint
(referring the latter motion to the lower court for future
consideration).

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


BLUE CROSS: Sued in Washington Over ABA Therapy Coverage Denial
---------------------------------------------------------------
J.T.L., by and through his parents and guardians J.L. and J.L.,
individually and on behalf of the Eaton Vance Management Health
Benefit Plan, and on behalf of similarly situated individuals v.
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc., Case No. 2:16-
cv-00573 (W.D. Wa., April 20, 2016), alleges that the Defendants
denied coverage to J.T.L. for Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA)
therapy provided in school, based on an exclusion in the terms of
its plans.

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, Inc. operates an
insurance corporation engaged in the business of insurance in
Massachusetts and throughout the United States, including in
Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Toby J. Marshall, Esq.
      Blythe H. Chandler, Esq.
      TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC
      936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
      Seattle, WA 98103-8869
      Telephone: (206) 816-6603
      Facsimile: (206) 319-5450
      E-mail:  tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com
               bchandler@terrellmarshall.com


BRONCO'S SALOON: Court Vacates Denial of Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sean F. Cox of the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Michigan vacated judgment and granted
certification of class action in the case captioned, APB
Associates, Inc., Plaintiff, v. Bronco's Saloon, Inc., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 09-14959 (E.D. Mich.).

Three separate, but very similar, putative class actions were
assigned to the Court at or around the same date.  These cases are
(1) Machesney v. Lar-Bev of Howell, Inc., et al. (Case No. 10-
10085) (Machesney); (2) APB Associates, Inc. v. Bronco's Saloon,
Inc., et al. (Case No. 09-14959) (APB Associates); and
(3)Compressors Engineering Corp. v. Manufacturers Financial Corp.
et al. (Case No. 09-14444) (Compressors Engineering). All three
cases were filed by the same plaintiff's counsel and assert claims
under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227
(the TCPA).

Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification states that Defendants
either owned or oversaw Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) franchises.
Plaintiff claims that Defendants hired Caroline Abraham (aka
Business to Business Solutions) to send faxes out on their behalf.
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification states that Defendants'
advertisements are form documents that were sent to 9,497 unique
fax numbers. Plaintiff asks the Court to certify a class of "All
persons who were sent one or more faxes on November 28, 2005,
November 30, 2005, February 14, 2006, or February 15, 2006,
offering KFC Catering Prices, including 200 HOT WINGS for $79.99
and a variety of KFC's FAMOUS SIDE DISHES, and identifying and
[sic] a Complaint Hotline number of (718) 645-2021 Ext. 232 or
(718) 360-1330 ext. 232."

In April of 2013, the Court denied Motions for Class
Certifications in all three cases and issued essentially the same
opinion in each case. The main reason for the denial of class
certification was the Court's conclusion that there was not an
ascertainable class because only persons or entities who owned the
fax machine had statutory standing to bring a claim. The Court
concluded that the claims are inherently individualized because of
the statutory defense that only "unsolicited" faxes give rise to a
claim.

The Supreme Court, however, issued a decision in Campbell-Ewald v.
Gomez on January 20, 2016, ruling that an unaccepted offer of
judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case.

In the motion, Plaintiff asks Court to vacate the judgment issued
in the case and then reconsider class certification, based upon
Sixth Circuit TCPA cases that were issued after this Court had
denied class certification.

In his Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/jqZpgwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Cox found that that the
Gomez ruling provides a compelling basis for the Court to reverse
the judgments that it issued in these three cases and for the
purpose of Rule 59(e) is to allow the district court to correct
its own errors, sparing the parties and appellate courts the
burden of unnecessary appellate proceedings.

The Court certified a class of "All persons or entities who were
sent faxes on February 27, 2006, that listed Bronco Saloon, Pony
Express Saloon, Mustang Inn, Chix on Dix, and a Complaint Hotline
number of (718) 360-1330, ext 232." Jason J. Thompson of Sommers
Schwartz, P.C. and Phillip Bock of Bock & Hatch, LLC are appointed
as class counsel.

APB Associates, Inc. is represented by Brian J. Wanca, Esq. --
BWanca@andersonwanca.com -- and Ryan M. Kelly, Esq. --
RKelly@andersonwanca.com -- ANDERSON & WANCA, Jason J. Thompson,
Esq. -- jthompson@sommerspc.com -- SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C., Phillip
A. Bock, Esq. -- phil@bockhatchllc.com -- and Tod A. Lewis, Esq.
-- tod@bockhatchllc.com -- BOCK & HATCH LLC

Bronco's Saloon, Inc. is represented by Jason R. Mathers, Esq. --
bpeplinski@kallashenk.com -- and John R. Prew, Esq. -- HARVEY
KRUSE

T & R Enterprises, Inc, is represented by Bobby R. Peplinski, Esq.
-- bpeplinski@kallashenk.com -- and Wayne A. Geik, Esq. --
jprew@harveykruse.com -- wgeik@kallashenk.com -- KALLAS & HENK


BROOKLYN ACADEMY: Faces "Riley" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against The Brooklyn Academy of Music,
Inc. The case is captioned Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Brooklyn
Academy of Music, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01942
(E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016).

The Brooklyn Academy is a multi-arts center located in Brooklyn,
New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: info@leelitigation.com


BRUNTON OUTDOOR: Recalls Rechargeable Battery Packs
---------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Brunton Outdoor Inc., of Louisville, Colo., announced a voluntary
recall of about 1,050 Rechargeable battery packs in the U.S. (in
addition, about 40 were sold in Canada). Consumers should stop
using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to
resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The power packs' lithium ion polymer batteries can overheat and
catch on fire during charging, posing a fire hazard.

This recall involves Brunton's Impel and Impel 2 rechargeable,
portable battery packs that are used to charge cell phones,
tablets, laptops and other devices. The Impel battery came in a
rubberized shell in dark gray with orange or blue and the Impel 2
in light gray with black trim. The battery packs can be plugged
into an A/C wall outlet, a 12 volt car charger or an attachable
solar panel for recharging. They measure about 7.5 inches long by
7 inches wide by 1 inch thick. The lithium ion polymer battery
packs have 16, and 19 volt outputs and a USB port. The Impel model
also has a 12 volt output. Brunton is embossed on the top of the
battery pack, along with the power button and five LED lights.

The firm has received two reports of battery packs overheating and
catching on fire; with one incident resulting in about $25,000 of
property damage and another one in a garage burning down with
property and smoke damage to the adjacent residence. No injuries
have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Adorama, Austin Canoe & Kayak, Moontrail, REI, The Clymb and other
outdoor equipment retailers nationwide and online at
www.amazon.com, www.backcountry.com, www.bhphotovideo.com,
www.forestry-suppliers.com, and www.opticsplanet.com from February
2011 through May 2015 for about $300.


BURKE ENGINEERING: "General Casualty" Suit to Hold Coverage
-----------------------------------------------------------
General Casualty Company of Wisconsin and General Casualty
Insurance Company, Plaintiffs, v. Burke Engineering Corporation
and Village of Crestwood Residents/Claimants, Case No. 2016CH05263
(Ill. Cir., April 14, 2016), seeks (i) a declaration that the
General Casualty's policies do not provide coverage for a
settlement with claimants and that the Plaintiffs have no duty to
indemnify Burke or otherwise provide coverage or to pay any
settlement entered under the said policies, (ii) attorney's fees
and (iii) such other and further relief under the policies.

Burke Engineering was an engineering firm hired by Crestwood on
civil engineering and civic planning matters. Claimants sued Burke
for supplying contaminated tap water and claims insurance coverage
from the Plaintiff. General Casualty alleged that Burke entered
into a settlement with certain claimants to resolve its liability
with respect to certain lawsuits and, as part of that settlement,
purported to assign the right to pursue insurance coverage to
certain claimants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Eileen King Bower, Esq.
      William P. Pipal
      TROUTMAN SANDERS LLP
      55 West Monroe Street, Suite 3000
      Chicago, Illinois 60603
      Tel: (312) 759-1920
      Fax: (312) 759-1939


BURLINGTON COAT: $1.8MM Deal in "Rodriguez" Has Final Court OK
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Dean D. Pregerson of the United States District
Court for the Central District of California granted final
approval of the parties' settlement agreement in the case
captioned, ARMIDA RODRIGUEZ, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY WAREHOUSE CORPORATION, a
New Jersey Corporation; BURLINGTON COAT FACTORY OF CALIFORNIA LLC,
a California Limited Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. CV 13-02426 DDP (RZx) (C.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff, Armida Rodriguez and on behalf of the Settlement Class,
and Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation and Burlington
Coat Factory of California LLC filed a proposed Joint Stipulation
for Class Action Settlement. The Court has previously granted
preliminary approval of the class settlement that provided for
conditional class certification; has been informed by declarations
that notice of the settlement has been provided to the Class; has
held a fairness hearing at which all parties appeared by their
Counsel and at which the Class Members were afforded the
opportunity to object to the proposed settlement; has received and
reviewed briefing and evidence as to why the proposed settlement
is fair, adequate and in the best interests of the represented
class; and has considered all other arguments and submissions in
connection with the proposed settlement.

In his Judgment and Order dated April 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/qZilvXfrom Leagle.com, Judge Pregerson found that
the settlement is, in all respects, fair, adequate, and reasonable
and meets the legal requirements for class certification under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The Court approved of the settlement amount of $1,800,000, and
said $77,000 is payable to ILYM Group, Inc. as class
administrator.

Plaintiffs are represented by Scott B. Cooper, Esq. --
scott@cooper-firm.com -- and Samantha A. Smith, Esq. --
smith@cooper-firm.com -- THE COOPER LAW FIRM PC

They are also represented by:

     Farzad Rastegar, Esq.
     Sharon W. Lin, Esq.
     RASTEGAR LAW GROUP APC
     22760 Hawthorne Blvd #200,
     Torrance, CA 90275
     Tel: (310)961-9600

          - and -

     Kashif Haque, Esq.
     Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
     Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
     AEGIS LAW FIRM
     9811 Irvine Center Dr
     Irvine, CA 92618
     Tel: (949)379-6250

          - and -

     Roger Richard Carter, Esq.
     THE CARTER LAW FIRM
     2561 Dauphin Street
     Mobile AL 36606
     Tel: (251)433-6500

Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corporation is represented by
Joshua Bram Wagner, Esq. -- jwagner@gordonrees.com -- Lisa K.
Garner, Esq. -- lgarner@gordonrees.com -- and Marita Murphy
Lauinger, Esq. -- mlauinger@gordonrees.com -- GORDON AND REES LLP


BUYCHEAPSOFTWARE: Sued Over Disabled-Inaccessible Facilities
------------------------------------------------------------
Miguel Perez, for himself and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Jonathan Dracup, Heather Dracup, BuyCheapSoftware, and
Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC617660 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
21, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to make
their facilities accessible to people who are disabled.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial real property located
at 13470 Washington Boulevard, Marina Del Ray, California 90292.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeff Katofsky, Esq.
      Michael Leff, Esq.
      JEFF KATOFSKY, APC
      4558 Sherman Oaks Avenue
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (818) 990-1475
      Facsimile: (818) 990-1477


CADETE ENTERPRISES: Court Won't Consolidate "Marzuq" & "Pike"
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Leo T. Sorokin of the United States District Court
for the District of Massachusetts denied Plaintiffs' Motion for
Notice to be Issued to Similarly Situated Employees Pursuant to 29
U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) and Plaintiffs' Motion to Consolidate Cases in
the case captioned, GASSAN MARZUQ and TANISHA RODRIGUEZ, as
substituted party for LISA CHANTRE, Plaintiffs, v. CADETE
ENTERPRISES, INC., T.J. DONUTS, INC., SAMOSET ST. DONUTS, INC. and
JOHN CADETTE, Defendants, Case No. 11-10244-LTS (D. Mass.).

Plaintiffs Gassan Marzuq (Marzuq) and Lisa Chantre (Chantre)
(Plaintiffs) initiated this Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)
action, on behalf of themselves and, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec.
216(b), all others similarly situated on February 14, 2011, when
they filed a Complaint.  The case was originally before Judge
Wolf. He referred the case to Magistrate Judge Boal for all pre-
trial proceedings, as well as necessary reports and
recommendations, on January 13, 2012. On September 1, 2011,
Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint, the First Amended
Complaint, which still included claims on behalf of both the
individual plaintiffs and other similarly situated individuals who
chose to opt in.

On July 18, 2012, Plaintiffs filed the operative Third Amended
Complaint which raised only individual claims, and no longer
included any reference to similarly situated individuals in the
caption. The case proceeded through discovery, and on February 22,
2013, Defendants moved for summary judgment. While Judge Boal
recommended that the motion be denied, Judge Saylor, to whom the
case was reassigned, denied the motion solely for the retaliation
claims, and granted summary judgment on the FLSA claims.
Plaintiffs appealed Judge Saylor's decision granting summary
judgment on the FLSA claim. The First Circuit vacated the grant of
summary judgment for defendants and remanded the case.

Plaintiffs bring two motions, both of which Defendants oppose. One
is a Motion for Notice to be Issued to Similarly Situated
Employees Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b) (Motion for notice).
The other is a Motion to Consolidate Cases, which would combine
the case with another one before Judge Saylor, Pike v. New
Generation Donut, 12-cv-12226-FDS, involving two different
employees.

In his Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/BCHkU8
from Leagle.com, Judge Sorokin found that Plaintiffs have waived
any claims on behalf of similarly situated individuals and
Defendants' counsel represented to the Court at a Status
Conference that the parties engaged in settlement negotiations
predicated on Plaintiffs' dismissal of these very claims. The
Court invokes its discretion to decline consolidating the case
with Pike. While the case has completed discovery and is
essentially ready for trial, Pike has yet to begin discovery. And,
unlike the case, Pike features Massachusetts law claims for unpaid
hours and failure to pay minimum wage.

Plaintiffs are represented by Shannon E. Liss-Riordan, Esq. --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.

Defendants are represented by Maria T. Davis, Esq. --
mdavis@toddweld.com -- and Nicholas B. Carter, Esq. --
ncarter@toddweld.com -- TODD & WELD LLP


CALIFORNIA RESOURCES: Faces "Barkau" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against California Resources Corporation.
The case is captioned Brad Barkau, Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. California
Resources Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02971
(S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2016).

California Resources is an independent company and leading
producer of oil and natural gas focused exclusively on California.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS: Must Provide Additional Testimony
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRUCE M. COOPER et al., Plaintiffs. v.
CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. 3:12-cv-
10530-MGM (D. Mass.), Judge Katherine A. Robertson granted in part
and denied, in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel a
continuation of their first Rule 30(b)(6) deposition of Charter
Communications, Inc. and Charter Communications Entertainment, LLC
(collectively, "Charter").  The judge also denied the plaintiffs'
request for attorney's fees and costs.

In this putative class action case, the plaintiffs contended that,
from 2008 to the present, Charter failed to provide its customers
with a credit, refund, or rebate for periods when services already
paid for by Charter customers were unavailable because of wide
spread power outages of which Charter was aware, failed to
disclose its refund policy clearly and conspicuously to its
customers in violation of Massachusetts law, and maintained a
refund policy that was in violation of state law.

The parties have agreed that, as a next step in discovery, the
plaintiffs would take five depositions that they had previously
noticed, including a second Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
30(b)(6) deposition of Charter.

Thomas Cohan, Charter's Director of Government Affairs, was
designated by Charter as its sole Rule 30(b)(6) deponent.  After
the deposition, however, the plaintiffs stated on the record their
intention to "keep the deposition open" on the grounds that
documents requested in discovery related to topics set out in
Schedule A were produced late or had not been produced, that the
witness was not adequately prepared, and that Charter's counsel
had improperly instructed the witness not to answer questions
about the interpretation of customer agreements that contained
arbitration clauses and class action waivers.

The plaintiffs moved to compel a continuation of their first Rule
30(b)(6) deposition, seeking an order from the court that compels
Charter to answer additional questions on any and all of the
topics listed in Schedule A, instructs Charter's counsel not to
object or instruct the deponent not to answer except in compliance
with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 39(c)(2), and compels Charter
to pay the plaintiffs' fees and costs incurred in connection with
the taking of such further Rule 30(b)(6) testimony.

Judge Robertson found that Charter produced a deponent who was
adequately prepared to testify, and thus held that the plaintiffs
are not entitled to a second day of unlimited testimony on the
topics listed in Schedule A.  Further, because Charter did not
frustrate the fair examination of the deponent or otherwise
significantly impede the plaintiffs' examination, the judge held
that the plaintiffs are not entitled to an award of expenses and
reasonable attorney's fees.

Nonetheless, based on the plaintiffs' memorandum in support of
their motion and the deposition transcript, Judge Robertson
ordered that Charter should provide additional Rule 30(b)(6)
testimony in certain areas or topics identified in Schedule A.

A full-text copy of Judge Robertson's April 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/PtUPtCfrom Leagle.com.

Bruce M. Cooper, Roy L. Baker, Whitney Taylor Thompson, Noreen
Nardi, Mauramy Hernandez, Jennifer Colon, Plaintiff, represented
by Francis D. Dibble, Jr. -- fdibble@bulkley.com -- Bulkley
Richardson & Gelinas, Jeffrey S. Morneau --
jmorneau@cmolawyers.com -- Connor Morneau & Olin, LLP, Nathan A.
Olin -- nolin@cmolawyers.com -- Connor, Morneau & Olin, LLP, J.
Lizette Richards, Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Jodi Kim Miller --
jmiller@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, John P. Pucci
-- jpucci@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas & Kevin C.
Maynard -- kmaynard@bulkley.com -- Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas.

Jacqueline Evans, Plaintiff, represented by Francis D. Dibble,
Jr., Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas, Jeffrey S. Morneau, Connor
Morneau & Olin, LLP,Jodi Kim Miller, Bulkley Richardson & Gelinas
& Nathan A. Olin, Connor, Morneau & Olin, LLP.

Charter Communications Entertainments I, LLC, Charter
Communications, Inc., Defendants, represented by Robert J. Wagner
-- rwagner@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro hac
vice, Brian P. Voke -- bvoke@campbell-trial-lawyers.com --
Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC, Jessica C. Jeffrey --
jjeffrey@campbell-trial-lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards
& Conroy, PC, Kathleen M. Guilfoyle -- kguilfoyle@campbell-trial-
lawyers.com -- Campbell, Campbell, Edwards & Conroy, PC & Roman P
Wuller -- rwuller@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, pro
hac vice.

National Grid USA, Interested Party, represented by Lynette
Paczkowski -- lpaczkowski@bowditch.com -- Bowditch & Dewey LLP &
Louis M. Ciavarra -- lciavarra@bowditch.com -- Bowditch & Dewey,
LLP.


CIENA CORPORATION: Defending Class Suit Over Cyan Merger
--------------------------------------------------------
Ciena Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the Company intends
to defend itself against a consolidated class action lawsuit
related to a merger deal with Cyan, Inc.

From May 15 through June 3, 2015, five separate putative class
action lawsuits in connection with Ciena's then-pending
acquisition of Cyan, Inc. ("Cyan") were filed in the Court of
Chancery of the State of Delaware:

     -- Luvishis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11027-CB, filed
May 15, 2015

     -- Poll v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11028-CB, filed May
15, 2015

     -- Canzano v. Floyd, et al., C.A. No. 11052-CB, filed May 20,
2015

     -- Kassis v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11069-CB, filed May
27, 2015

     -- Fenske v. Cyan, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11090-CB, filed
June 3, 2015

Each of the complaints named Cyan (except for the Canzano
complaint), Ciena, Neptune Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Ciena
subsidiary created solely for the purpose of effecting the
acquisition ("Merger Sub"), and the members of Cyan's board of
directors as defendants.

On June 23, 2015, each of these lawsuits was consolidated into a
single case captioned In Re Cyan, Inc. Shareholder Litigation,
Consol. C.A. No. 11027-CB. On July 9, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
verified amended class action complaint, which named as defendants
Ciena, Merger Sub, and the members of Cyan's board of directors.

On August 5, 2015, the defendants filed motions to dismiss the
amended complaint. On October 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a
second amended complaint which named as defendants the members of
Cyan's board of directors. Cyan, Ciena, and Merger Sub were not
named as defendants.

The second amended complaint generally alleges that the Cyan board
members breached their fiduciary duties by engaging in a
conflicted and unfair sales process, failing to maximize
stockholder value in the acquisition, taking steps to preclude
competitive bidding, and failing to disclose material information
necessary for stockholders to make an informed decision regarding
the acquisition. The second amended complaint seeks (i) a
declaration that the plaintiffs are entitled to a quasi-appraisal
remedy, (ii) rescissory damages, (iii) recovery through an
accounting of all damages caused as a result of the alleged
breaches of fiduciary duties, (iv) compensatory damages, and (v)
costs including attorneys' fees and experts' fees. On October 15,
2015, the defendants filed a renewed motion to dismiss. A briefing
schedule for these motions has been set, with briefing to be
completed in March 2016.

The Company said, "As a result of our acquisition of Cyan in
August 2015, we became a defendant in a securities class action
lawsuit. On April 1, 2014, a purported stockholder class action
lawsuit was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of
San Francisco, against Cyan, the members of Cyan's board of
directors, Cyan's former Chief Financial Officer, and the
underwriters of Cyan's initial public offering. On April 30, 2014,
a substantially similar lawsuit was filed in the same court
against the same defendants. The two cases have been consolidated
as Beaver County Employees Retirement Fund, et al. v. Cyan, Inc.
et al., Case No. CGC-14-538355. The consolidated complaint alleges
violations of federal securities laws on behalf of a purported
class consisting of purchasers of Cyan's common stock pursuant or
traceable to the registration statement and prospectus for Cyan's
initial public offering in April 2013, and seeks unspecified
compensatory damages and other relief.

In July 2014, the defendants filed a demurrer to the consolidated
complaint, which the court overruled in October 2014 and allowed
the case to proceed. On May 19, 2015, the proposed class was
certified. On August 25, 2015, the defendants filed a motion for
judgment on the pleadings based on an alleged lack of subject
matter jurisdiction over the case, which motion was denied on
October 23, 2015.

Ciena believes that the consolidated lawsuit is without merit and
intends to defend it vigorously.


COATING PLACE: Faces "Hoffmaster" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Hoffmaster, individually and on behalf of all those
similarly situated v. Coating Place, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00258
(W.D. Wis., April 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Coating Place, Inc. operates a pharmaceutical company specializing
in Wurster fluid bed microencapsulation technology focused on drug
delivery system development and outsource manufacturing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David C. Zoeller, Esq.
      Caitlin M. Madden, Esq.
      HAWKS QUINDEL, S.C.
      Post Office Box 2155
      Madison, WI 53701-2155
      Telephone: (608) 257-0040
      Facsimile: (608) 256-0236
      E-mail: dzoeller@hq-law.com
              cmadden@hq-law.com


COCHRAN WHOLESALE: Faces "ARcare" Suit in Middle Dist. of Georgia
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Cochran Wholesale Pharmaceuticals
Inc.  The case is captioned ARcare doing business as: Parkin Drug
Store and Bald Knob Medical Clinic, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cochran Wholesale
Pharmaceuticals Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00041-CDL
(M.D. Ga., April 20, 2016). The assigned U.S. District Judge is
Hon. Clay D. Land.

Cochran Wholesale is a pharmaceutical products wholesale and
manufacturer company located in Monroe, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Michael I. Fistel, Jr., Esq.
          JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1540
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 230 0063
          Facsimile: (619) 255 1856
          E-mail: MichaelF@JohnsonandWeaver.com


COLE HAAN: "Chin" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------
Alex Chin, individually, and on behalf of other members of the
general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cole Haan,
LLC, Cole Haan Company Store, LLC, and Calceus Acquisition, Inc.,
the Defendants, Case No. CGC16-550794, was removed from San
Francisco Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California (San Francisco). The Northern
District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02154 to the proceeding.

Cole Haan manufactures outerwear, shoes, bags, and accessories for
men, women, and kids.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


COLEMAN COMPANY: Recalls Lithium-Ion Flashlights Due to Fire Risk
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
The Coleman Company Inc., Wichita, Kan., announced a voluntary
recall of about 8,500 Coleman(R) CTAC Lithium-Ion Flashlights in
the United States (in addition, about 500 were sold in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The lithium-ion batteries can overheat, posing a fire hazard to
consumers.

This recall involves three models of Coleman(R) CTAC Lithium-Ion
Flashlights. Models include CTAC20 (model 2000013874), CTAC40
(model 2000013873) and CTAC60 (model 2000013872). The flashlights
are black, with "Coleman" printed in white along the handle and
have the model number in white print on the upper portion of the
handle next to the light. The flashlights are 6.5 inches long. The
lithium-ion batteries inside the flashlights are red with the
Coleman logo printed in white on the battery.

Coleman has received two reports of the flashlight batteries
overheating, catching fire and causing minor property damage. No
injuries have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Academy Sports + Outdoors, Green Supply, Sportsman's Supply
Company and sporting goods stores nationwide and online at
www.coleman.com and www.amazon.com from January 2014 through
August 2015 for between $65 and $75.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled flashlights
and contact Coleman for instructions on returning the flashlights
for a full refund.


CREDIT CONTROL: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern District New York
---------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Credit Control Services. The case
is captioned Sholom D.B. Chein, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Credit Control
Services, Inc., doing business as: Credit Collection Services, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01952 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016).

Credit Control provides business process outsourcing solutions for
customers in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CRF FROZEN: Recalls Frozen Vegetable Products Due to Listeria
-------------------------------------------------------------
CRF Frozen Foods of Pasco, Washington is voluntarily recalling
fifteen frozen vegetable items that have 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.

No illnesses have been reported to date, but the company is
recalling the products as a precaution. The Listeria was
discovered through routine testing by state health officials in
Ohio. Listeria monocytogenes was found to be present in one lot of
Individually Quick Frozen (IQF) organic petite green peas and one
lot of IQF organic white sweet cut corn.

Recalled items were sold in plastic bags and are marked with Use
By Dates located on the back of the package. Listed below are
details regarding the recalled items:

  Label          Size    Item            UPC           Use By
  -----          ----    ----            ---           Date
                                                       ------
  True Goodness  10 oz.  Organic Petite  713733430999  11/26/2017
  By Meijer              Green Peas
  True Goodness  10 oz.  Organic White   713733430982  11/21/2017
  By Meijer              Sweet Corn
  Wellsley Farms 4 lb.   Organic Mixed   888670010136  10/25/2017
  Organic                Veg
  Wellsley Farms 4 lb.   Organic Green   888670009970  2/10/2018
  Organic                Peas
  Wellsley Farms 4 lb.   Organic Green   888670009970  2/15/2018
  Organic                Peas
  Wellsley Farms 4 lb.   Organic Green   888670009970  3/17/2018
  Organic                Peas
  Organic By     2.5 kg. Organic Green   846358000619  10/22/2017
  Nature -               Peas
  Canada
  Organic By     2.5 kg. Organic Green   846358000619  12/3/2017
  Nature -               Peas
  Canada
  Organic By     2.5 kg. Organic Green   846358000619  3/16/2018
  Nature -               Peas
  Canada
  Organic By     4 lb.   Organic Green   846358000695  10/25/2017
  Nature                 Peas
  Organic By     5 lb.   Organic Green   846358000633  2/15/2018
  Nature                 Peas
  Organic By     5 lb.   Organic Veg     846358000657  2/11/2018
  Nature                 Medley w/
                         Shelled
                         Edamame
  Organic By     4 lb.   Organic White   846358000701  11/19/2017
  Nature                 Supersweet
                         Corn
  Organic By     5 lb.   Organic White   846358000640  9/13/2017
  Nature                 Supersweet Corn
  Schwan's       16 oz.  Organic SS      007218060433  2B5320
                         Yellow & White
                         Cut Corn

We know the recalled frozen vegetables were distributed to
retailers and distribution centers between September 13, 2015 and
March 16 in the following states, and may be redistributed in
other states nationwide: AL, AZ, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, ID, IL,
IN, LA, MD, MA, MI, MN, MO, MT, NV, NH, NJ, NY, NC, OH, OR, PA,
RI, SC, TN, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, and in British Columbia,
Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan of Canada.

Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who
purchased these products may take them back to the store where
they purchased them for a refund or simply discard them. Consumers
seeking information may call 844.551.5595 Monday through Friday,
8:00 am to 5:00 pm Pacific Standard Time.

Members of the news media requiring more information should
contact Anne Struthers at 218.616.0769.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/pJA6nn


CVS PHARMACY: Settlement Deal in "Sharobiem" Has Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge George H. King granted final approval of the class action
settlement and awarded fees, costs, and a representative
enhancement award in the case captioned ANGIL SHAROBIEM, et al.
Plaintiffs, v. CVS PHARMACY, INC. et al., Defendants, Case No. CV
13-9426-GHK (FFMx) (C.D. Cal.).

Judge King found, for purposes of settlement only, that the
proposed settlement class satisfies the applicable standards for
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.  The judge
found that the settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable;
appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed
negotiations; and treats all settlement class members fairly.

Having received three requests for exclusion from the settlement,
Judge King found that Yoonah Kim, Jiyoung Kim, and Anh Dao Nguyen
are not bound by the terms of the settlement agreement.

Judge King ordered as follows:

          -- Dispersing the gross settlement fund in accordance
             with the settlement agreement as detailed in the
             Renewed Motion for Preliminary Approval of Class
             Action Settlement, granted on December 1, 2015;

          -- Awarding Class Representative Michael Yee an
             enhancement award of $5,000 as fair and reasonable
             compensation for his services;

          -- Directing payment of up to $14,613.05 to the
             Settlement Administrator, Kurtzman Carson
             Consultants LLC, or, in the event that there will be
             a second distribution to Settlement Class Members
             from unclaimed funds, if any, payment of an
             additional $8,072.93 to the Settlement Administrator;

          -- Approving payment to the California Labor and
             Workforce Development Agency in the amount of
             $6,900, paid from the Gross Settlement Fund,
             pursuant to the Settlement Agreement;

          -- Granting an award of attorneys' fees in the amount
             of $881,280, representing 30% of the Gross
             Settlement Fund, upon consideration of the relevant
             factors and granting $16,258.48 in litigation costs;

          -- Approving the cy pres beneficiary agreed to by the
             Parties, the Legal Aid Foundation of Los Angeles
             ("LAFLA"), provided that any funds be directed to
             LAFLA's "Employment & Employment Barriers" section.

A full-text copy of Judge King's April 11, 2016 judgment and order
is available at http://is.gd/LUwaerfrom Leagle.com.

Michael Yee, Plaintiff, represented by Aidan C McGlaze, Schonbrun
Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP, Alireza Alivandivafa, Law Offices
of Alireza Alivandivafa, Azadeh C Dadgostar --
azadeh@dadgostarlaw.com -- Dadgostar Law LLP, Hirad D Dadgostar --
hirad@dadgostarlaw.com -- Dadgostar Law LLP, Michael Hagop
Boyamian, Law Offices of Thomas W Falvey, Michael D Seplow,
Schonbrun Seplow Harris and Hoffman LLP,Thomas Walker Falvey, Law
Office of Thomas Falvey, Vincent James DeSimone, V James DeSimone
Law & Armand Raffi Kizirian, Law Offices of Thomas Falvey.

CVS Pharmacy Inc, a Rhode Island corporation, CVS RX Services Inc,
Garfield Beach CVS LLC, Defendants, represented by Michael D Weil
-- mweil@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP,
Timothy J Long -- tjlong@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and
Sutcliffe LLP & Byron Robert Lau, Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe
LLP.


DYNAVAX TECHNOLOGIES: Securities Case in Mediation
--------------------------------------------------
Dynavax Technologies Corporation has participated in mediation
with the lead plaintiff in a securities class action, the Company
said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

On June 18, 2013, the first of two substantially similar
securities class action complaints was filed in the U.S. District
Court for the Northern District of California against the Company
and certain of its former executive officers. The second was filed
on June 26, 2013. On August 22, 2013, these two complaints and all
related actions that subsequently may be filed in, or transferred
to, the District Court were consolidated into a single case
entitled In re Dynavax Technologies Securities Litigation. On
September 27, 2013, the Court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
counsel.

On November 12, 2013, lead plaintiff filed his consolidated class
action complaint (the "consolidated complaint"), which named a
former director of the Company as a defendant in addition to the
Company and the former executive officers identified in the two
prior complaints (collectively, the "defendants"). The
consolidated complaint alleged that between April 26, 2012 and
June 10, 2013, the Company and certain of its executive officers
and directors violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange
Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with
statements related to the Company's product, HEPLISAV-B, an
investigational adult hepatitis B vaccine. The consolidated
complaint sought unspecified damages, interest, attorneys' fees,
and other costs. On January 10, 2014, defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint.

On March 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed an opposition to the motion to
dismiss the consolidated complaint. The opposition introduced a
new theory of the case, so defendants permitted plaintiffs to
amend their complaint. On April 7, 2014, plaintiffs filed an
amended consolidated complaint ("ACC"). The ACC added a new
plaintiff and several new defendants, and alleged that, between
April 26, 2012 and June 10, 2013, the Company, certain of its
executive officers and directors, and entities related to certain
of its directors, violated Sections 10(b), 20A, and 20(a) of the
Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder in connection
with statements related to our product candidate, HEPLISAV-B.
Specifically, the ACC alleged that the Company made fraudulent
misrepresentations or omissions regarding the manufacture of
HEPLISAV-B and that certain insiders unlawfully profited from such
misrepresentations or omissions. The ACC sought unspecified
damages, interest, attorneys' fees, and other costs. On June 6,
2014, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the ACC. On August 8,
2014, plaintiffs filed their Opposition to that motion.

On September 10, 2014, plaintiffs filed the second amended
complaint ("SAC") to remove or correct erroneous statements
attributed to confidential witnesses. The SAC retains all
allegations asserted in the ACC. On October 10, 2014, defendants
filed a motion to dismiss the SAC. On November 10, 2014,
plaintiffs filed an opposition to the Company's motion to dismiss
the SAC. The Company filed its reply in support of the motion on
December 1, 2014.

A hearing on the motion to dismiss the SAC occurred on February
20, 2015. The Court granted the motion with respect to some of the
alleged misrepresentations and omissions made by the Company or
certain named defendants as well as some of the insider trading
claims against certain insiders and denied the motion to dismiss
with respect to other alleged misrepresentations and omissions and
insider trading claims. The Company filed an answer to the SAC on
April 6, 2015. Dynavax and the lead plaintiff in the securities
class action have participated in mediation.

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


EUROPA ELECTRIC: Faces BDM Suit in New York Supreme Court
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Europa Electric of NY. The case
is captioned BDM Solutions LLC, the Plaintiff, v. Europa Electric
of NY, Ano Corp., Aprilakis Evangelina, and John and Jane Does 1-
10 and others similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No.
701731/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. Marguerite A. Grays.

Europa Electric of NY Corp. is in the electric services business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          KING & KING LLP.
          629 Fifth Ave.
          Pelham, NY 10803
          Telephone: (914) 380 5970
          E-mail: pkutil@king-king-law.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          SACCO & FILLAS, LLP
          31-19 Newtown Ave., 7th Floor
          Astoria, NY 11102
          Telephone: (718) 746-3440
          E-mail: info@saccofillas.com


FISHER-PRICE: Recalls Cradle 'n Swings Due to Injury Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Fisher-Price, of East Aurora, N.Y., announced a voluntary recall
of about 34,000 Cradle 'n Swings. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

When the seat peg is not fully engaged the seat can fall
unexpectedly, posing a risk of injury to the child.

This recall includes three models of the Fisher-Price cradle
swings: CHM84 Soothing Savanna Cradle 'n Swing, CMR40 Sweet
Surroundings Cradle 'n Swing, and CMR43 Sweet Surroundings
Butterfly Friends Cradle 'n Swing. The swings have two different
swinging motions -- rocking side-to-side, or swinging head-to-toe,
and six different swing speeds from low to high. The product
number is located on the seat under the pad.

Fisher-Price has received two reports of a seat peg coming out
from the seat, causing the seat to fall. No injuries have been
reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/lgC7Qx

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
buybuyBaby, Target and other stores nationwide and online at
Amazon.com and other websites from November 2015 through March
2016 for about $170.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled cradle swing
and contact Fisher-Price for revised assembly instructions.


FIRST NIAGARA: MOU Reached in KeyCorp Merger Suit
-------------------------------------------------
First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. said in an exhibit to its Form
8-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 9, 2016, that First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. ("First
Niagara"), each of its directors and KeyCorp on March 8, 2016,
entered into a memorandum of understanding with plaintiffs
regarding the settlement of a putative consolidated class action
captioned In re First Niagara Financial Group, Inc. Shareholders
Litigation, Case No. 812908/2015 (the "Actions"), pending before
the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Erie County (the
"Court").

The Actions relate to the Agreement and Plan of Merger, dated as
of October 30, 2015, by and between KeyCorp and First Niagara.
Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, First Niagara and
KeyCorp agreed to make available additional information to the
stockholders of First Niagara and KeyCorp. The additional
information is contained in the supplement (the "Supplement") to
the Joint Proxy Statement/Prospectus of KeyCorp and First Niagara,
dated February 4, 2016 (the "Joint Proxy Statement"). The
Supplement should be read in conjunction with the Joint Proxy
Statement and the documents incorporated by reference therein.
After reaching agreement on the substantive terms of the
settlement, the parties also agreed that the plaintiffs may apply
to the Court for an award of reasonable attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses to be paid by First Niagara, its successor in interest
and/or its insurer.

First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other defendants deny all of the
allegations made by plaintiffs in the Actions and believe the
disclosures in the Joint Proxy Statement are adequate under the
law.  Nevertheless, First Niagara, KeyCorp and the other
defendants have agreed to settle the Actions in order to avoid the
costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation.


FLOOD BROTHERS: "Johnson" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Derek Johnson and Eldridge Cooper, on behalf of themselves and
those similarly situated v. Flood Brothers, Inc. and John Flood,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01289-ELR (N.D. Ga., April 20, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation, liquidated damages,
declaratory relief, and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a commercial moving and storage
company in Atlanta, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
      20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
      P.O. Box 4979
      Orlando, FL 32802-4979
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: RMorgan@forthepeople.com


FLYING J: Court Terminates "Duke" Suits
---------------------------------------
In the case captioned LESLEY DUKE, Plaintiff, v. FLYING J, INC.,
Defendant. LESLIE DUKE, Plaintiff, v. PILOT TRAVEL CENTERS, LLC,
Defendant, Nos. C 15-2564 PJH, C 15-2566 PJH (N.D. Cal.), Judge
Phyllis J. Hamilton denied the plaintiff's motion to transfer
venue and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Rushing v. Alon, Case No. 06-7621, was originally filed in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California on December 13, 2006, as a proposed class action,
asserting claims against numerous defendants under the consumer
protection laws of Arizona, California, Florida, New Jersey, North
Carolina, Texas, and Virginia.  The original plaintiffs' claims
all arose from the retail sale of gasoline and diesel fuel.  The
plaintiffs alleged that because the volume of motor fuel expands
as its temperature rises, selling a gallon of motor fuel (231
cubic inches at 60 degrees Fahrenheit) at a temperature exceeding
60 degrees Fahrenheit ("hot fuel") without disclosing that fact to
consumers or adjusting the price to compensate constituted an
unlawful and deceptive business practice.  In the first amended
complaint, filed March 4, 2007, the plaintiffs added claims under
the consumer protection laws of Arkansas, Nevada, New Mexico, the
District of Columbia, plus a claim of breach of contract.

On July 9, 2007, the case was transferred to MDL No. 1840 in the
District of Kansas, Case No. 07-MD-1840, where it was coordinated
for pretrial proceedings.  On August 30, 2013, the Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation issued a conditional remand order,
directing that the claims asserted against certain defendants be
remanded to this court.  The MDL court subsequently severed the
claims asserted against each of four defendants, created three new
cases, and remanded all four to the Northern District of
California.  The sole remaining plaintiff in the remanded cases
was Lesley Duke.

Duke then sought an order transferring the cases to the Eastern
District of North Carolina.  Pilot/Flying J, on the other hand,
sought summary judgment against the plaintiff, as to all claims
asserted against them.

Denying Duke's motion to transfer venue, Judge Hamilton found that
Duke has not met his burden of showing that transfer is warranted
under either 28 U.S.C. section 1406(a) or 28 U.S.C. section
1404(a).

As to the defendants' motion for summary judgment, Judge Hamilton
found that the plaintiff cannot establish breach of contract, nor
can he prevail on his claim of violation of state consumer laws.

Finally, while not necessary to the decision, Judge Hamilton found
that summary judgment is appropriate for the additional reasons
argued by the defendants -- that the claims present nonjusticiable
political questions, and that they are barred under the doctrine
of field preemption.

A full-text copy of Judge Hamilton's April 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/KpFTyBfrom Leagle.com.

Flying J Inc, Defendant, represented by Amy Crouch --
amcrouch@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon LLP, Tristan L. Duncan --
tlduncan@shb.com -- Shook Hardy Bacon LLP, Mathew Lee Larsen --
mlarsen@shb.com -- Shook, Hardy & Bacon & Tammy Beth Webb --
tbwebb@shb.com -- Shook Hardy & Bacon L.L.P..


FLYING TIGER: Recalls Wooden Toy Blocks and Giraffes
----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Flying Tiger Copenhagen, of New York, announced a voluntary recall
of about 1,000 Wooden Toy Blocks and Giraffes. Consumers should
stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

Parts of the wooden toys can become detached, resulting in small
pieces that can pose a choking hazard to young children.

This recall involves Flying Tiger Copenhagen wooden blocks and
wooden giraffe toys. The Twist & Lock blocks were sold in a
combination of blue, green and yellow and red, pink and yellow.
Item number 1701354 is printed on the packaging for the blocks.
The Twist & Lock giraffe toys were sold in pink and red
combination and a yellow and orange combination. Item number
1701493 is printed on the packaging for the giraffe.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8rQN9s

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Flying Tiger Copenhagen in New York from November 2015 through
December 2015 for about $3.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled toys from young
children and return the products to Flying Tiger Copenhagen for a
full refund.


FREIGHTQUOTE.COM: Collective Action Deal in "Koehler" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NANCY KOEHLER, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
FREIGHTQUOTE.COM, INC. and FREIGHTQUOTE 401(k) PLAN, Defendants,
Case No. 12-2505-DDC-GLR (D. Kan.), Judge Daniel D. Crabtree
denied without prejudice the plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for
Final Approval of Collective Action Settlement and for Approval of
Award of Attorney's Fees and Expenses.

The plaintiffs Nancy Koehler, Regina Brisbane, John Smith, and
Scott Matney, on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), alleging that the defendant Freightquote.com, Inc.
improperly classified them as salaried employees exempt from the
FLSA's overtime-pay requirements.

On March 18, 2015, the court conditionally certified the
plaintiffs' claims as a collective action for three subclasses of
persons.

The plaintiffs then asked the court to certify a final collective
action, approve the settlement as fair and reasonable, and award
the proposed attorney's fees and costs in an amount equal to one-
third of the settlement.

Judge Crabtree concluded that a final collective action
certification is appropriate.  However, the judge found that the
confidentiality provisions and proposed service awards in the
proposed settlement agreement are not fair and equitable to all
parties.

A full-text copy of Judge Crabtree's April 11, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/qZZw4ffrom Leagle.com.

Nancy Koehler, Regina Brisbane, John Smith, Scott Matney, Lisa
Holmes, Jana Norwood, Timothy Johnston, Katherine Mahnken, Victor
Villarreal, Marisa Gulley, James L. Miller, Robin Bishop, David
Wooley, Craig Caskey, Andrea G. Laudick, Laron Bryant, Brad
Jordan, Ernest Pazar, Carlos Pinno, Nancy Peterman, Rafael Javier
Sanchez, Jeremy Flowers, Scott Kerber, Jason M. Meyer, John L.
Hole, David Mazzarese, Patricia Renee Roe, Shane A. Abel, Brett A.
Adams, John H. Amaro, Kendall L. Bailey, Jessie Baker, Asa E.
Barnes, Joseph A. Bove, Tammi Boyd, Michael K. Brown, Zachary P.
Buehrer, Shivon M. Bullock, Wendy D. Burton, Joel E. Cansler,
Craig S. Caskey, Donna D. Claibourn, Billy L. Collins, II, Sally
D. Crews, Timothy P. Cronley, Daniel J. Crowe, William J. Currie,
Ben T. Custer, John R. Davidson, Mark M. Davidson, Chelsea L.
Deeney, Ian M. Dickerson, Tina D. Espy, Lee A. Fadler, Richard L.
Fiene, Susan E. Folsom, Chad C. Fordham, Sean A. Fuller, Ryan J.
Gaus, Tyler D. Gillis, Mary C. Gonzales, Vickie L. Hersh,
Christopher P. Hittner, Mark A. Ingebritson, Richard Jackson,
William E. Johnson, Mindy M. Joyce, James R. Kendel, Patrick M.
Korte, Shawn Krysa, Stephen S. Kuhn, Tara L. Land, James W.
Langley, Samuel Lewin, Michael S. Loehr, Justin D. Long, Stephanie
M. Long, Rachel N. Lehman, Jeffrey M. Manning, Michael J. Manning,
David J. Marcotte, Barbara J. Martin, Kyle J. Martin, Jody L.
Mayer-Johnson, Joseph R. Meyers, Dane Miller, James L. Miller,
John W. Mullies, Kristi J. Nelson, Don X. Nguyen, Andrew D. Noble,
Jana S. Norwood, Traci L. O'Connor, Jason L. Payne, Ernest G.
Pazar, Dorian A. Petty, Alex Pintos, Maxwell C. Remund, Misty M.
Rivera, Zachary W. Roser, Timothy A. Saunders, David P. Shadle,
Brian P. Shoffner, William W. Shope, Christian M. Shuster, Jade O.
Sifers, Mitchell Simons, David G. Simpson, Courtney A. Smith,
Anthony D. Strick, Josiah Summers, Lynn M. Taylor, Kevin Thomas,
Michael Thompson, Margaret Tyler, Claudia A. Velasco, Tonya L.
Vernon, Joslene D. Wakefield, Gary W. Watson, Wayne G. Weidhaas,
Meghan E. Wheat, Jeffery A. Wolfe, Kevin M. Yardley, Stephanie A.
Abbott, Daniel J. Arzoian, Jacquelyn M. Brooks, Plaintiffs,
represented by Amy M. Grace, ERISA Logic LLC, Kathryn J. Starrett
Rickley -- krickley@workerwagerights.com -- Osman & Smay, LLP &
Matthew Edward Osman -- mosman@workerwagerights.com -- Osman &
Smay, LLP.

Tiara Caldwell, Robert D. Dorman, Brett R. Enkelmann, John R.
Hannah, Eric T. Harabin, Patrick S. Henley, Rebekah A. Hicks,
Sarah M. Punzo, Curt M. Stakston, Felipe J. Vargas, Eric W.
Benson, Jeffery A. Foldenaur, Marcel S. Gutierrez, Thomas J.
Lonergan, Kathryn L. Pavao, David M. Roberson, Aaron T. Welch,
Lucas D. Whalen, Antoine Newbill, Kelly M. Olson, Jason B. Savage,
Michael H. Simons, Ramon Sparks, Kyle Brewer, John McCarthy, Regan
Russell, Brett Wolfe, Jeffrey M. Levy, Carrie B. Green, Sam A.
Goade, Paul Warren Ray, Edward Scott Register, Ryan P. Ridgway,
Thomas H. Finken, Byron A. Edstrom, Jamaal T. Mondaine, Paula J.
Myers, Jamie T. Raven, Edgar Rollins, Gregory Lipsky, Patrick
Keenan, Plaintiff, represented by Kathryn J. Starrett Rickley,
Osman & Smay, LLP & Matthew Edward Osman, Osman & Smay, LLP.

Stephen G. Rolf, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Edward Osman,
Osman & Smay, LLP.

Freightquote.com, Inc., Freightquote 401(K) Plan, Defendants,
represented by Julianne P. Story --
juliann.story@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell LLP & Paul F.
Pautler, Jr. -- paul.pautler@huschblackwell.com -- Husch Blackwell
LLP.


FRESH MARKET: "Sherman" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
---------------------------------------------------
Bruce S. Sherman and Bruce & Cynthia Sherman Charitable
Foundation, Inc., Individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. The Fresh Market, Inc., Ray
Berry, Michael Casey, Jeffrey Naylor, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser,
Robert Shearer, Michael Tucci, Steven Tanger, Jane Thompson,
Apollo Global Management, LLC, Apollo Management VIII, L.P.,
Pomegranate Holdings, Inc. and Pomegranate Merger Sub, Inc.,
Defendant, Case No. 12205 (Del. Ch. Ct., April 14, 2016), seeks to
enjoin consummation of the merger between Fresh Market and
Pomegranate Holdings, Inc.; rescissory damages; reasonable
attorney's and experts' fees; and such other and further equitable
relief for violation of Sec. 14(e) and 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934.

Defendant claims that the Fresh Market's merger with Pomegranate
Holdings, Inc. did not undergo the proper process and that it is
an undervalued and onerous deal.

Fresh Market is a corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Delaware with principal executive offices at
628 Green Valley Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27408. Ray
Berry, Richard Anicetti, Jeffrey Naylor, Michael Tucci, Steven
Tanger, Richard Noll, Bob Sasser, Jane Thompson, Michael Casey and
Robert Shearer are members of the Board of Directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Brian C. Kerr
      BROWER PIVEN, A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
      475 Park Avenue South, 33rd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Tel: (212) 501-9000

- and -

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


FTS INTERNATIONAL: Faces "Delaney" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
--------------------------------------------------------------
Brandon Delaney, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated
v. FTS International Services, LLC and J-W Energy Company, and
John Does 1-10, Case No. 4:16-cv-00662-YK (M.D. Penn., April 20,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a well completion company in
Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1878 Marlton Pike East, Suite 10
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08003
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: jswidler@swartz-legal.com

         - and -

      Matthew D. Miller, Esq.
      Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
      SWARTZ SWIDLER LLC
      1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 420
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 685-7420
      Facsimile: (856) 685-7417
      E-mail: mmiller@swartz-legal.com
              rswartz@swartz-legal.com


FU JIN: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Minimum Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alberto Hernandez, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Fu Jin, Inc. d/b/a Tofu Chinese & Japanese Restaurant,
Jiang Chuang You, Fu Jin Jiang and John Doe, Case No. 1:16-cv-
01939 (April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum and
overtime wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a Chinese/Japanese restaurant
located at 1260 Waverly Avenue, Farmingville, New York 11738.

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


GLOBAL CREDIT: Faces "Chein" Suit in Eastern Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Global Credit & Collection Corp.
The case is captioned Menachem Chein, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Global
Credit & Collection Corp., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01949
(E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016).

Global Credit engages in collection activities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


GRAND TAVERN: "Francois" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alain Francois, on his own behalf and others similarly situated v.
Grand Tavern of Delray, LLC and Victor Lucaj, Case No. 9:16-cv-
80622-DM (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
overtime compensation and other relief under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant/establishment which
primarily engages in selling and serving to purchasers prepared
food and beverages for consumption on or off the premises.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maguene D. Cadet, Esq.,
      LAW OFFICE OF DIEUDONNE CADET, P.A.
      2500 Quantum Lakes Drive, Suite 203
      Boynton Beach, FL 33426
      Telephone: (561) 853-2212
      Facsimile: (561) 853-2213
      E-mail: Maguene@DieudonneLaw.com


HEALTHWAYS INC: "Simon" Suit Proceeds in California
---------------------------------------------------
Healthways, 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 class action lawsuit
in California over the Junk Fax Prevention Act is proceeding after
a court denied the plaintiff's motion to stay the case.

On September 16, 2014, Healthways and its wholly owned subsidiary,
Healthways Wholehealth Networks, Inc ("HWHN"), were named in a
putative class action lawsuit filed by Edward Simon, DC in the
Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, seeking
damages and other relief relating to alleged violations of the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act ("TCPA"), as amended by the Junk
Fax Prevention Act ("JFPA"), in connection with faxes allegedly
transmitted to members of HWHN's network of complementary and
alternative care practitioners. The JFPA prohibits sending an
"unsolicited advertisement" to a fax machine and requires the
sender to provide a notice to allow a recipient to "opt out" of
future fax transmissions (including, pursuant to rules promulgated
by the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC"), those sent with
the prior express invitation or permission of the recipient).

The complaint seeks damages in excess of $5 million. The case has
been removed to the United States District Court for the Central
District of California, Eastern Division ("California Matter").

On December 22, 2014, HWHN was also named in a putative class
action lawsuit filed by Affiliated Health Care Associates, P.C. in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois, Eastern Division ("Illinois Matter"), seeking damages
and other relief relating to alleged violations of the TCPA, the
Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, and
Illinois common law in connection with faxes allegedly sent to
members of HWHN's network of complementary and alternative care
practitioners. The complaint seeks damages in an unstated amount.

On May 29, 2015, the plaintiff in the Illinois Matter voluntarily
dismissed its lawsuit without prejudice; that plaintiff has been
joined as a party in the California Matter.

In connection with these actions, on March 2, 2015, Healthways and
HWHN filed with the FCC a Petition for Retroactive Waiver ("Waiver
Petition") of the FCC's regulation that requires advertising faxes
sent with the prior express invitation or permission of the
recipient to include an "opt-out" notice.

On August 28, 2015, the FCC granted the Company relief requested
in the Waiver Petition.  We cannot predict the impact on the
California Matter of the FCC's grant of relief pursuant to the
Waiver Petition.

On December 17, 2015, the court in the California Matter denied a
class certification motion by the plaintiff and on February 1,
2016, denied the plaintiff's motion to stay proceedings.

"The litigation in the California Matter continues, and we intend
to vigorously defend the allegations," the Company said.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: Faces Rudel Suit in District of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Rudel Corporation, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Heartland Payment Systems,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02229-AET-LHG (D.N.J., April
20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Anne E. Thompson.

Heartland Payment provides payment card processing to enterprise-
quality solutions in security, payroll, and lending.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Olimpio Lee Squitieri
          SQUITIERI & FEARON, LLP
          2600 Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 1K
          Jersey City, NJ 07306
          Telephone: (201) 200 0900
          E-mail: lee@sfclasslaw.com


HILTON GRAND: Faces "Glasser" Suit in Middle District Florida
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Hilton Grand Vacations Company,
LLC. The case is captioned Melanie Glasser, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hilton
Grand Vacations Company, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 8:16-cv-
00952-JDW-EAJ (M.D. Fla., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. James D. Whittemore.

Hilton Grand develops, manages, markets, and operates a system of
brand-name vacation club ownership (timeshares) resorts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Peerce Howard, Esq.
          THE CONSUMER PROTECTION FIRM, PLLC
          210-A South MacDill Avenue
          Tampa, FL 33609
          Telephone: (813) 500 1500
          Facsimile: (813) 435 2369
          E-mail: Billy@TheConsumerProtectionFirm.com


HOME DEPOT: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Automatic Telephone Dialing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tzvee Rotberg, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. The Home Depot, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02959 (S.D.N.Y.,
April 21, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive relief, and
any other available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from
the illegal actions of the Defendant, in negligently and/or
intentionally contacting Plaintiff on Plaintiff's cellular
telephone, in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act
(TCPA), thereby invading Plaintiff's privacy.

The Defendant allegedly violated the TCPA by using and continuing
to use an automatic telephone dialing systems to transmit text
messages to Plaintiff's cellular telephones without prior express
consent.

Home Depot is an American retailer of home improvement and
construction products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Domenic Romano, Esq.
          ROMANO LAW PLLC
          55 Broad Street
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 865 9848
          Facsimile: (646) 661 4599
          E-mail: domenic@romanolaw.com


I.C. SYSTEMS: Faces "Zeccardi" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against I.C. Systems, Inc. The case is
captioned Rocky Zeccardi, on behalf of himself and those similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. I.C. Systems, Inc., and John Does 1-
10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02266-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., April
21, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Susan D. Wigenton.

I.C. System is a collection agency since 1938.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yongmoon Kim, Esq.
          KIM LAW FIRM LLC
          411 Hackensack Ave., 2 Fl.
          Hackensack, N.J. 07601
          Telephone: (201) 273 7117
          Facsimile: (201) 273 7117
          E-mail: ykim@kimlf.com


INNER CITY: "Schneider" Suit Seeks Reimbursement Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Michel Schneider, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Inner City Education
Foundation, a California Non-Profit Corporation, and Does 1-25,
the Defendants, Case No. BC617827 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 21,
2016), seeks to recover monetary and equitable relief
Including reimbursable expenditures, interest, together with
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant required the Plaintiff
and Expense Class to drive their own vehicles to meetings and
other events in order to fulfill their duties as employees. The
Defendant allegedly did not reimburse Plaintiff for the expense of
using their own vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Aaron C. Gundzik, Esq.
          GARTENBERG GELFAND HAYTON LLP
          15260 Ventura Blvd., Suite 1920
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (213) 542 2100
          Facsimile: (213) 542 2101
          E-mail: agundzik@gghslaw.com


INTERNATIONAL METALS: Fails to Pay Employees Overtime, Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eugenio Reyes Gamez and all others similarly situated v.
International Metals Trading Corp., Adiany Perez, Alex J. Fagundo,
Case No. 1:16-cv-21407-FAM (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a metal manufacturing company that
regularly transacts business within Dade County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


JEFFERSON CAPITAL: Faces "Carmona" Suit in District of New Jersey
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Carmona, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Jefferson Capital Systems, LLC, and
John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02215-WHW-CLW
(D.N.J., April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. William H.
Walls.

Jefferson Capital is a debt collector which provides traditional
and unique recovery services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq.
          Yitzchak Zelman
          MARCUS ZELMAN LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (732) 695 3282
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: ari@marcuszelman.com
                  yzelman@marcuszelman.com


KEY ENERGY: Defending Wage and Hour Suit Class Suits in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy 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 between May of 2013 and
June of 2014, five lawsuits (four class actions and one
enforcement action) were filed in California involving alleged
violations of California's wage and hour laws. In general, the
lawsuits allege failure to pay wages, including overtime and
minimum wages, failure to pay final wages upon employment
terminations in a timely manner, failure to reimburse reasonable
and necessary business expenses, failure to provide wage
statements consistent with California law, and violations of the
California meal and break period laws, among other claims.

Two of the five cases have been consolidated in United States
District Court for the Central District of California.  On
December 22, 2015, that court issued an order granting in part and
denying in part a class certification motion. The court certified
a class of hourly paid, non-exempt oilfield employees who allege
they did not receive reimbursement for all business expenses and
allege they did not receive all rest breaks required by California
law. The court did not determine whether Key is liable to any of
the class members.

The court in one of the remaining cases that had been stayed
pending outcome of the class certification motion recently issued
an order lifting the stay.

The fourth case is waiting for a decision regarding whether it
will move forward in California state court or in federal court.

The fifth case is an enforcement action for civil penalties based
on California's Private Attorneys General Act, which is pending in
California state court.

"We have investigated the claims in all five lawsuits, and intend
to vigorously defend them. At this time, we cannot estimate any
possible loss or range of loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Bid to Dismiss Houston, Texas Class Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy 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 court has not ruled
on a motion to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit in
Houston, Texas.

In August 2014, two class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S.
District Court, Southern District of Texas, Houston Division,
individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated
against the Company and certain officers of the Company, alleging
violations of federal securities laws, specifically, violations of
Section 10(b) and Rule 10(b)-5, Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934. Those lawsuits were styled as follows: Sean
Cady, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly
Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, and J.
Marshall Dodson, No. 4:14-cv-2368, filed on August 15, 2014; and
Ian W. Davidson, Individually and on Behalf of All Other Persons
Similarly Situated v. Key Energy Services, Inc., Richard J.
Alario, and J. Marshall Dodson, No. 4.14-cv-2403, filed on August
21, 2014.

On December 11, 2014, the Court entered an order that consolidated
the two lawsuits into one action, along with any future filed tag-
along actions brought on behalf of purchasers of Key Energy
Services, Inc. common stock. The order also appointed Inter-Local
Pension Fund as the lead plaintiff in the class action and
approved the law firm of Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, P.C. as
lead counsel for the consolidated class and Kendall Law Group,
LLP, as local counsel for the consolidated class. The lead
plaintiff filed the consolidated amended complaint on February 13,
2015.

Among other changes, the consolidated amended complaint adds
Taylor M. Whichard III and Newton W. Wilson III as defendants, and
seeks to represent a class of purchasers of the Company's stock
between September 4, 2012 and July 17, 2014. Defendants Key Energy
Services, Inc., Richard J. Alario, J. Marshall Dodson and Newton
W. Wilson III filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 14, 2015.
Defendant Taylor M. Whichard III filed a Joinder in Motion and
Motion to Dismiss on the same date.

Lead plaintiff filed an opposition to that motion, and all
defendants filed reply briefs in support of the motion. The court
has not ruled upon it.

"Because this case is in the early stages, we cannot predict the
outcome at this time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible
loss or range of loss," the Company said.


KEY ENERGY: Merit-Based Discovery to Begin in Corpus Christi Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy 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 parties in one
collective action lawsuit in Corpus Christi, Texas, will begin
merit-based discovery.

In March 2015, two collective action lawsuits were filed in the
Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 ("FLSA").

"We agreed to conditional certification in the first lawsuit and
notice of the case issued to 56 putative class members," the
Company said. "Roughly 20% of the eligible putative class members
timely filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit. We will
soon begin merit-based discovery in the first lawsuit, which will
last at least six months. We also agreed to conditional
certification in the second lawsuit and notice of the case
recently issued to 14 putative class members."

"Four putative class members, including the named plaintiff, have
filed a notice of consent to join the lawsuit thus far and there
is approximately a month and a half remaining for others to join.
The parties will begin merit-based discovery in the second case as
soon as the notice period closes. Because the cases are in the
early stages, we cannot predict the outcome of these cases at this
time. Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range
of loss for either case."


KEY ENERGY: 15% of Eligible Members Join Houston Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Key Energy 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 roughly 15% of eligible
putative class members have consented to join in a class action
lawsuit in Houston, Texas.

In May 2015, a class and collective action lawsuit was filed in
the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, alleging violations of
the FLSA and the New Mexico Minimum Wage Act.

"We agreed to conditional certification of a putative class and
notice issued to 174 putative class members. The notice period
closed in early February and roughly 15% of eligible putative
class members timely filed a consent to join the lawsuit. The
parties will soon begin merit-based discovery in this case, which
will likely last six to nine months. Because the case is in the
early stages, we cannot predict the outcome at this time.
Accordingly, we cannot estimate any possible loss or range of loss
for this case."


MAALT SPECIALIZED: Violated FLSA, "Tenboer" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------
Devin Tenboer, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Maalt Specialized Bulk, LLC, Maalt, LP, Vista
Sand, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-00283-A
(N.D. Tex., April 21, 2016), seeks redress for violations by
Defendants of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and Texas
common law.

The Defendants allegedly failed to compensate the Plaintiff wages
earned.

Maalt Transport is offers logistic solution for the bulk transport
of frac sand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joshua S. Boyette, Esq.
          Richard S. Swartz, Esq.
          Justin L. Swidler, Esq.
          SWARTZ SWIDLER, LLC
          1101 Kings Highway North, Suite 402
          Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
          Telephone: 856-685-7420
          E-mail: jboyette@swartz-legal.com


MARRIOTT HOTEL: "McCray" Suit Moved from Super. Ct to N.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ian McCray, an individual, and on behalf of himself, and on behalf
of all other persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Marriott Hotel Services, Inc., a Delaware corporation, SJMEC,
Inc., and a California corporation, the Defendants, Case No.
16CV291271, was removed from Santa Clara Superior Court, to the
US District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Jose). The Northern District assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02092 to
the proceeding.

Marriott Hotel provides hospitality and lodging facilities
worldwide.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MAZDA MOTOR: Sued in Cal. Over Defective 2010-15 Mazda 3 Vehicles
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Humphrey, Iris Gonzalez, Charles Bunch, Anne Stom, David
Woodward, Greg Thomason, Lisa Massa and Dan Carney, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Mazda Motor
Corporation and Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-
02087 (N.D. Cal., April 20, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
current and former Mazda vehicle owners and lessees with defective
clutch release levers, bearings, and pins (or pivots) ("Clutch
Release Assemblies") in Model Year 2010-15 Mazda 3 vehicles
incorporating 5-speed and 6-speed manual transmissions.

Mazda Motor Corporation is a Japanese corporation that designs,
manufactures, markets, distributes and warrants Mazda automobiles.

Mazda Motor of America, Inc. is Mazda's sales and marketing
division, which oversees sales and other operations across the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Richard D. McCune, Esq.
      David C. Wright, Esq.
      MCCUNEWRIGHT LLP
      2068 Orange Tree Lane, Suite 216
      Redlands, CA 92374
      Telephone: (909) 557-1250
      Facsimile: (909) 557-1275
      E-mail: rdm@mccunewright.com
              dcw@mccunewright.com

         - and -

      Bryan Clobes, Esq.
      Kelly L. Tucker, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWEATHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      1101 Market St., Suite 2650
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 864-2800
      Facsimile: (215) 864-2810
      E-mail:  bclobes@caffertyclobes.com
               ktucker@caffertyclobes.com

         - and -

      Daniel Herrera, Esq.
      CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWEATHER & SPRENGEL LLP
      150 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3000
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Telephone: (312) 782-4880
      Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
      E-mail:  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com


MCCLATCHY COMPANY: Suits by Fresno Bee Carriers Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------
The McClatchy Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend class action lawsuits by carriers of the Fresno Bee.

The Company said, "In December 2008, carriers of The Fresno Bee
filed a purported class action lawsuit against us and The Fresno
Bee in the Superior Court of the State of California in Fresno
County captioned Becerra v. The McClatchy Company ("Fresno case")
alleging that the carriers were misclassified as independent
contractors and seeking mileage reimbursement. In February 2009, a
substantially similar lawsuit, Sawin v. The McClatchy Company,
involving similar allegations was filed by carriers of The
Sacramento Bee ("Sacramento case") in the Superior Court of the
State of California in Sacramento County. Both courts have
certified the class in these cases.  The class consists of roughly
5,000 carriers in the Sacramento case and 3,500 carriers in the
Fresno case. The plaintiffs in both cases are seeking unspecified
restitution for mileage reimbursement."

"With respect to the Sacramento case, in September 2013, all wage
and hour claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an
equitable claim for mileage reimbursement under the California
Civil Code.  In the Fresno case, in March 2014, all wage and hour
claims were dismissed and the only remaining claim is an equitable
claim for mileage reimbursement under the California Civil Code.

"The court in the Sacramento case has trifurcated the trial into
three separate phases: the first phase addressed independent
contractor status, the second phase will address liability, if
any, and the third phase will address restitution, if any.

"On September 22, 2014, the court in the Sacramento case issued a
tentative decision following the first phase, finding that the
carriers that contracted directly with The Sacramento Bee during
the period from February 2005 to July 2009 were misclassified as
independent contractors.

"We objected to the tentative decision but the court ultimately
adopted it as final. The court has not yet established a date for
the second and third phases of trial concerning whether The
Sacramento Bee is liable to the carriers in the class for mileage
reimbursement or owes any restitution.

"The court in the Fresno case has bifurcated the trial into two
separate phases: the first phase addressed independent contractor
status and liability for mileage reimbursement and the second
phase will address restitution, if any. The first phase of the
Fresno case began in the fourth quarter of 2014 and concluded in
late March 2015. The parties are awaiting a ruling on the first
phase.

"We are defending these actions vigorously and expect that we will
ultimately prevail. As a result, we have not established a reserve
in connection with the cases. While we believe that a material
impact on our consolidated financial position, results of
operations or cash flows from these claims is unlikely, given the
inherent uncertainty of litigation, a possibility exists that
future adverse rulings or unfavorable developments could result in
future charges that could have a material impact. We have and will
continue to periodically reexamine our estimates of probable
liabilities and any associated expenses and make appropriate
adjustments to such estimates based on experience and developments
in litigation."


MDL 1840: Costco Wholesale's Appeal Pending
-------------------------------------------
Costco Wholesale Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended February 14, 2016, that the Company's
appeal is pending in the case, Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840.

denied on January 23, 2015. Final judgment was entered on
September 22, 2015, and the Company has filed a notice of appeal.

Numerous putative class actions have been brought around the
United States against motor fuel retailers, including the Company,
alleging that they have been overcharging consumers by selling
gasoline or diesel that is warmer than 60 degrees without
adjusting the volume sold to compensate for heat-related expansion
or disclosing the effect of such expansion on the energy
equivalent received by the consumer.

The Company is named in the following actions: Raphael Sagalyn, et
al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-430 (D. Md.);
Phyllis Lerner, et al., v. Costco Wholesale Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07-1216 (C.D. Cal.); Linda A. Williams, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-179 (M.D.
Ala.); James Graham, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Civil
Action No. 07-193 (E.D. Va.); Betty A. Delgado, et al., v.
Allsups, Convenience Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-202
(D.N.M.); Gary Kohut, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case
No. 07-285 (D. Nev.); Mark Rushing, et al., v. Alon USA, Inc., et
al., Case No. 06-7621 (N.D. Cal.); James Vanderbilt, et al., v. BP
Corporation North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 06-1052 (W.D.
Mo.); Zachary Wilson, et al., v. Ampride, Inc., et al., Case No.
06-2582 (D.Kan.); Diane Foster, et al., v. BP North America
Petroleum, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-02059 (W.D. Tenn.); Mara
Redstone, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al., Case No. 07-20751
(S.D. Fla.); Fred Aguirre, et al. v. BP West Coast Products LLC,
et al., Case No. 07-1534 (N.D. Cal.); J.C. Wash, et al., v.
Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 4:07cv37 (E.D. Mo.); Jonathan
Charles Conlin, et al., v. Chevron USA, Inc., et al.; Case No. 07
0317 (M.D. Tenn.); William Barker, et al. v. Chevron USA, Inc., et
al.; Case No. 07-cv-00293 (D.N.M.); Melissa J. Couch, et al. v. BP
Products North America, Inc., et al., Case No. 07cv291 (E.D.
Tex.); S. Garrett Cook, Jr., et al., v. Hess Corporation, et al.,
Case No. 07cv750 (M.D. Ala.); Jeff Jenkins, et al. v. Amoco Oil
Company, et al., Case No. 07-cv-00661 (D. Utah); and Mark Wyatt,
et al., v. B. P. America Corp., et al., Case No. 07-1754 (S.D.
Cal.).

On June 18, 2007, the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
assigned the action, entitled In re Motor Fuel Temperature Sales
Practices Litigation, MDL Docket No 1840, to Judge Kathryn Vratil
in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.

On April 12, 2009, the Company agreed to settle the actions in
which it is named as a defendant. Under the settlement, which was
subject to final approval by the court, the Company agreed, to the
extent allowed by law and subject to other terms and conditions in
the agreement, to install over five years from the effective date
of the settlement temperature-correcting dispensers in the States
of Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky,
Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Other than payments to class
representatives, the settlement does not provide for cash payments
to class members.

On September 22, 2011, the court preliminarily approved a revised
settlement, which did not materially alter the terms. On April 24,
2012, the court granted final approval of the revised settlement.
A class member who objected has filed a notice of appeal from the
order approving the settlement. Plaintiffs have moved for an award
of $10 in attorneys' fees, as well as an award of costs and
payments to class representatives. A report and recommendation has
been issued in favor of a fee award of $3.8, to which the Company
is objecting.

On March 20, 2014, the Company filed a notice invoking a "most
favored nation" provision under the settlement, under which it
seeks to adopt provisions in later settlements with certain other
defendants. The motion was denied on January 23, 2015. Final
judgment was entered on September 22, 2015, and the Company has
filed a notice of appeal.

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

The Company operates membership warehouses based on the concept
that offering our members low prices on a limited selection of
nationally branded and private-label products in a wide range of
merchandise categories will produce high sales volumes and rapid
inventory turnover.


MDL 2179: BP Plc Provides Updates of Macondo Oil Spill Cases
------------------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c., 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, provided updates on multi-district litigation
proceedings in federal district court in New Orleans for the
remaining cases (MDL 2179).

BP Exploration & Production Inc. (BPXP) was lease operator of
Mississippi Canyon, Block 252 in the Gulf of Mexico (Macondo),
where the semi-submersible rig Deepwater Horizon was deployed at
the time of the 20 April 2010 explosions and fire and resulting
oil spill (the Incident). The other working interest owners at the
time of the Incident were Anadarko Petroleum Company (Anadarko)
and MOEX Offshore 2007 LLC, claims against whom were settled by BP
in 2011. The Deepwater Horizon, which was owned and operated by
certain affiliates of Transocean Ltd. (Transocean), sank on 22
April 2010. Lawsuits and claims arising from the Incident have
generally been brought in US federal and state courts. The
lawsuits have asserted, among others, claims under the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), claims for personal injury in
connection with the Incident itself and the response to it,
wrongful death, commercial and economic injury, breach of contract
and violations of statutes. The plaintiffs include individuals,
corporations, insurers and governmental entities and many of the
lawsuits purport to be class actions.

Many of the lawsuits in federal court were consolidated by the
Federal Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation into two multi-
district litigation proceedings, one in federal district court in
Houston for the securities, derivative and Employee Retirement
Income Security Act (ERISA) cases (MDL 2185) and another in
federal district court in New Orleans for the remaining cases (MDL
2179). A Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC) was established to
act on behalf of individual and business plaintiffs in MDL 2179.

     MDL 2179 - Department of Justice (DoJ) Action and
     Trial of Liability, Limitation, Exoneration and
     Fault Allocation

The US filed a civil complaint in MDL 2179 against BPXP and others
on 15 December 2010 (the DoJ Action). The complaint sought an
order finding liability under OPA 90 for natural resources damages
and civil penalties under the Clean Water Act (CWA). To address
certain issues asserted in or relevant to the claims,
counterclaims, cross-claims, third-party claims, and comparative
fault defences raised in the DoJ Action, a Trial of Liability,
Limitation, Exoneration and Fault Allocation (the Trial) in MDL
2179 commenced on 25 February 2013.

The district court issued its ruling on the first phase of the
Trial in September 2014. BPXP, BP America Production Company
(BPAPC) and various other parties were each found liable under
general maritime law for the blowout, explosion and oil spill from
the Macondo well. With respect to the United States' claim against
BPXP under the CWA, the district court found that the discharge of
oil was the result of BPXP's gross negligence and wilful
misconduct and that BPXP was therefore subject to enhanced civil
penalties.

The district court issued its ruling on the second phase of the
Trial in January 2015. It found that 3.19 million barrels of oil
were discharged into the Gulf of Mexico and were therefore subject
to a CWA penalty. In addition, the district court found that BP
was not grossly negligent in its source control efforts.

BP appealed both rulings.

The penalty phase of the Trial involved consideration of the
amount of CWA civil penalties owed to the United States, and
concluded in February 2015. Briefing concluded on the post-trial
briefing schedule for the penalty phase on 24 April 2015.

     State and local authority claims consolidated
     into MDL 2179

On 12 August 2010, the State of Alabama filed a lawsuit seeking
damages for alleged economic and environmental harms, including
natural resource damages, civil penalties under state law,
declaratory and injunctive relief, and punitive damages as a
result of the Incident.

On 3 March 2011, the State of Louisiana filed a lawsuit to declare
various BP entities (as well as other entities) liable for removal
costs and damages, including natural resource damages under
federal and state law, to recover civil penalties, attorney's fees
and response costs under state law, and to recover for alleged
negligence, nuisance, trespass, fraudulent concealment and
negligent misrepresentation of material facts regarding safety
procedures and BP's (and other defendants') ability to manage the
oil spill, unjust enrichment from economic and other damages to
the State of Louisiana and its citizens, and punitive damages. In
addition, the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality issued
an administrative order seeking environmental civil penalties and
other relief under state law.

On 10 December 2010, the Mississippi Department of Environmental
Quality issued a Complaint and Notice of Violation alleging
violations of several state environmental statutes.

In April 2013, the states of Alabama, Florida and Mississippi each
filed actions against BP related to the Incident, including
general maritime law claims of negligence, gross negligence, and
wilful misconduct; claims under OPA 90 seeking damages for removal
costs, natural resource damages, property damage, lost tax and
other revenue and damages for providing increased public services
during or after removal activities; and various state law claims.

On 17 May 2013, the State of Texas filed suit against BP and
others in federal court in Texas. Its complaint asserted claims
under OPA 90 for natural resource damages, lost sales tax and
state park revenue; claims for natural resource damages under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act; and claims for natural resource damages, cost recovery, civil
penalties and economic damages under state environmental statutes.

Each of these actions filed by the Gulf Coast states was
consolidated with MDL 2179.

On 28 August 2015, the district court in MDL 2179 issued an order
dismissing the local government entity master complaint in view of
the fact that the vast majority of local government entity
plaintiffs who had preserved their claims had released their
claims as part of the local government entity settlement with
BPXP. With respect to claims by local government entities that
have not released their claims, the court held that they are time-
barred except to the extent that those local government entities
previously made timely presentment of their claims under OPA 90
and previously filed either a complaint or a valid short-form
joinder in the MDL 2179 master complaint for local government
entities.

     Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement

On 2 July 2015, BP announced that BPXP had executed agreements in
principle with the United States federal government and five Gulf
Coast states to settle all federal and state claims arising from
the Incident. In addition to settling claims with the states of
Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas, BPXP also
settled the claims made by more than 400 local government
entities.

On 5 October 2015, the United States lodged with the district
court in MDL 2179 a proposed Consent Decree between the United
States, the Gulf states and BP to fully and finally resolve any
and all natural resource damages claims of the United States, the
Gulf states and their respective natural resource trustees and all
CWA penalty claims, and certain other claims of the United States
and the Gulf states. Concurrently, BP entered into a definitive
Settlement Agreement with the five Gulf states (Settlement
Agreement) with respect to state claims for economic, property and
other losses. The United States is expected to file a motion with
the court to enter the Consent Decree as a final settlement around
the end of March, which the court will then consider. The time
period for public comments on the Consent Decree ended on 4
December 2015.

The proposed Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement are
conditional upon each other and neither will become effective
unless there is final court approval of the Consent Decree. A
further condition of the agreements in principle was that local
government entities execute releases to BP's satisfaction. BP
advised the court that it was satisfied with and has accepted
releases received from the vast majority of local entities.
Accordingly, on 27 July 2015, the district court ordered BP to
commence processing payments required under the releases and BP
made such payments in accordance with the court's order.

The principal payments are as follows:

     -- BPXP is to pay the United States a civil penalty of $5.5
billion under the CWA - payable over 15 years.

     -- BPXP will pay $7.1 billion to the United States and the
five Gulf states over 15 years for natural resource damages (NRD).
This is in addition to the $1 billion already committed for early
restoration. BPXP will also set aside an additional amount (up to
$700 million) consisting of $232 million and the NRD interest
payment (see below) partly to cover any further natural resource
damages that are unknown at the time of the agreement.

     -- A total of $4.9 billion will be paid over 18 years to
settle economic and other claims made by the five Gulf Coast
states.

     -- Up to $1 billion to resolve claims made by more than 400
local government entities.

BPXP has also agreed to pay $350 million to cover outstanding NRD
assessment costs and $250 million to cover the full settlement of
outstanding response costs, claims related to the False Claims Act
and royalties owed for the Macondo well. These additional payments
will be paid over nine years, beginning in 2015.

NRD and CWA payments are scheduled to start 12 months after the
Consent Decree and the Settlement Agreement become effective. The
2016 payments in respect of the state claims are due within 90
days of the Settlement Agreement becoming effective. Total
payments for NRD, CWA and state claims will be made at a rate of
around $1.1 billion a year for the majority of the payment period.

Interest will accrue at a fixed rate on the unpaid balance of the
CWA and NRD payments, compounded annually and payable in year 16.
To address possible natural resource damages unknown at the time
of the settlement, beginning 10 years after the Consent Decree and
the Settlement Agreement become effective, the federal government
and the five Gulf states may request accelerated payment of
accrued but unpaid interest on the NRD payments.

Parent company guarantees for these payments will be provided by
BP Corporation North America Inc. as the primary guarantor and BP
p.l.c. as the secondary guarantor.

The federal government and the Gulf states may jointly elect to
accelerate the payments under the Consent Decree in the event of a
change of control or insolvency of BP p.l.c., and the Gulf states
individually have similar acceleration rights under the Settlement
Agreement.

The proposed Consent Decree and Settlement Agreement do not cover
the remaining costs of the 2012 class action settlements with the
PSC for economic and property damage and medical claims. They also
do not cover claims by individuals and businesses that opted out
of the 2012 PSC settlements and/or whose claims were excluded from
them, including claims for recovery of losses allegedly resulting
from the 2010 federal deepwater drilling moratoria and/or the
related permitting processes. The proposed Consent Decree and
Settlement Agreement also do not resolve private securities
litigation pending in MDL 2185.

On 5 October 2015, on the joint motion of BP and the five Gulf
states, the district court dismissed the five Gulf states' claims
(with the exception of claims for NRD and CWA penalties being
addressed by the proposed Consent Decree) against BP. The
dismissal is without prejudice pending the court's entry of the
Consent Decree, which is required for the Settlement Agreement
with the Gulf states to become effective, at which time the
dismissal would be converted into a dismissal with prejudice.

     OPA 90 Test Case Proceedings

A number of lawsuits have been brought, primarily from business
claimants, under OPA 90 in relation to the 2010 federal deepwater
drilling moratoria. Following the dismissal of one test case in
January 2016, six test cases, consolidated with MDL 2179, will
address certain OPA 90 liability questions focusing on, among
other issues, whether plaintiffs' alleged losses tied to the
moratoria and whether federal permit delays are compensable. In
December 2015, BP filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims
arising from the moratoria or permit process, and plaintiffs filed
a motion asking the court to prevent BP from arguing that
government action and/or inaction following the oil spill is a
'superseding' cause with respect to some or all of the damages
that plaintiffs claim. The motions are fully briefed, but the
court has not yet issued a ruling.

     Halliburton and Transocean settlements.

On 20 May 2015, BP and Transocean, and BP and Halliburton Energy
Services Inc. (Halliburton), entered into confidential settlement
agreements to resolve the final remaining disputes between these
parties stemming from the Incident.

Under the agreement with Transocean, BPXP and BPAPC agreed to
indemnify Transocean for compensatory damages (including natural
resource damages), to pay Transocean $125 million in compensation
for incurred legal fees, and discontinue attempts to recover as an
additional insured under Transocean's liability policies.
Transocean agreed to indemnify BPXP and BPAPC for the personal and
bodily injury claims of Transocean employees, as well as for
claims relating to any future cleanup or removal of diesel or
other pollutants stored on the Deepwater Horizon. BPXP, BPAPC, and
Transocean will mutually release all claims between the companies.

BPXP's agreement with Halliburton resolves the remaining claims
between the two companies and includes indemnities and the
dismissal of all claims against each other.

     Agreement for early natural resource restoration

On 21 April 2011, BP announced an agreement with natural resource
trustees for the US and five Gulf Coast states, providing for up
to $1 billion to be spent on early restoration projects to address
natural resource injuries resulting from the Incident. To date, BP
and the trustees have reached agreement on a total of 65 early
restoration projects that are expected to cost approximately $877
million. The remaining unpaid balance of the $1 billion will be
paid within 30 days after court approval of the proposed Consent
Decree.

Under the proposed Consent Decree, Trustees would continue to
implement these early restoration projects as part of the final
settlement of all US and state claims for natural resource
damages.

     PSC settlements - Economic and Property Damages
     Settlement Agreement

The Economic and Property Damages Settlement resolves certain
economic and property damage claims, and includes a $2.3 billion
BP commitment to help resolve economic loss claims related to the
Gulf seafood industry -- the Seafood Compensation Fund -- and a
$57-million fund to support advertising to promote Gulf Coast
tourism. It also resolves property damage in certain areas along
the Gulf Coast, as well as claims for additional payments under
certain Master Vessel Charter Agreements entered into in the
course of the Vessels of Opportunity Program implemented as part
of the response to the Incident. The Economic and Property Damages
Settlement does not cover claims by individuals and businesses
that opted out of the 2012 PSC settlements and/or whose claims
were excluded from them, including claims for recovery of losses
allegedly resulting from the 2010 federal deepwater drilling
moratoria and/or the related permitting processes. The Economic
and Property Damages Settlement also does not resolve private
securities litigation pending in MDL 2185.

The economic and property damages claims process is under court
supervision through the settlement claims process established by
the Economic and Property Damages Settlement. This provides that
class members release and dismiss their claims against BP not
expressly reserved by that agreement. The Economic and Property
Damages Settlement also provided that, to the extent permitted by
law, BP assigned to the PSC certain of its claims, rights and
recoveries against Transocean and Halliburton for damages with
protections such that Transocean and Halliburton cannot pass those
damages through to BP. The claims facility operating under the
framework established by the Economic and Property Damages
Settlement commenced operation in June 2012.

Following numerous court decisions on 31 March 2015, the court
denied the PSC's motion seeking to alter or amend a revised
policy, addressing the matching of revenue and expenses for
business economic loss claims, which requires the matching of
revenue with the expenses incurred by claimants to generate that
revenue, even where the revenue and expenses were recorded at
different times. On 23 April 2015, the PSC appealed this decision
to the Fifth Circuit. On 18 December 2015, the PSC and BP entered
into a joint stipulation to stay this appeal pending resolution of
certain issues in the district court in New Orleans. On 8 January
2016, the Fifth Circuit granted the joint stipulation and stayed
the appeal for 120 days.

The effective date of the Economic and Property Damages Settlement
Agreement was 8 December 2014, and the final deadline for filing
all claims other than those that fall into the Seafood
Compensation Program was 8 June 2015.

On 8 May 2015, the Fifth Circuit upheld three awards to non-profit
entities under the Economic and Property Damages Settlement, each
of which was premised on an official policy that typically treated
grant monies and contributions to non-profit entities as revenue
for purposes of the settlement's calculations. BP argued that this
policy was inconsistent with the language of the settlement
agreement and would place the agreement in violation of United
States law, but the Fifth Circuit upheld the policy and determined
that the district court did not otherwise abuse its discretion in
denying review of the three awards. The court also held that
requests for discretionary review of settlement claims by BP or
individual claimants under the Economic and Property Damages
Settlement can be appealed by BP or individual claimants to the
Fifth Circuit.

     PSC settlements - Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement

The Medical Benefits Class Action Settlement (Medical Settlement)
resolves certain medical claims by response workers and Gulf Coast
residents. Under the Medical Settlement, class members release and
dismiss their claims against BP covered by that settlement, except
that class members do not release certain claims for later-
manifested physical conditions (LMPCs).

The Medical Settlement involves payments to qualifying class
members based on a matrix for certain Specified Physical
Conditions (SPCs), as well as a 21-year Periodic Medical
Consultation Program (PMCP) for qualifying class members. The
Medical Settlement also provides that class members claiming LMPCs
may pursue their claims through a mediation/litigation process,
but waive, among other things, the right to seek punitive damages.
Consistent with its commitment to the Gulf, BP has also agreed to
provide $105 million to the Gulf Region Health Outreach Program to
improve the availability, scope and quality of healthcare in
certain Gulf Coast communities. This healthcare outreach programme
will be available to, and is intended to benefit, class members
and other individuals in those communities. BP has already funded
$93.7 million for projects sponsored by this programme.

The district court approved the Medical Settlement in a final
order and judgment on 11 January 2013. The effective date was 12
February 2014 and the deadline for submitting claims was 12
February 2015. The total number of claims estimated by the Medical
Claims Administrator is approximately 37,200. At year end,
approximately 7,600 SPC claims, totalling approximately $17
million, have been approved for compensation. In addition,
approximately 22,000 claimants have been determined eligible for
the PMCP.


MDL 2185: July 5 Trial on Securities Fraud Claims
-------------------------------------------------
BP p.l.c., 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, provided updates of MDL 2185 and other
securities-related litigation.

Since the Macondo incident, shareholders have sued BP and various
of its current and former officers and directors asserting
shareholder derivative claims and class and individual securities
fraud claims. Many of these lawsuits have been consolidated or co-
ordinated in federal district court in Houston (MDL 2185).

On 20 May 2014, the court denied plaintiffs' motion to certify a
proposed class of ADS purchasers before the Deepwater Horizon
explosion (from 8 November 2007 to 20 April 2010) and granted
plaintiffs' motions to certify a class of post-explosion ADS
purchasers from 26 April 2010 to 28 May 2010 and to amend their
complaint to add one additional alleged misstatement. The parties
appealed the district court's class certification decisions and on
8 September 2015, the Fifth Circuit affirmed both of the district
court's decisions. On 26 October 2015, the Fifth Circuit denied
the pre-explosion ADS purchasers' motion for rehearing en banc. On
25 January 2016, the pre-explosion ADS purchasers filed in the
Supreme Court a petition for a writ of certiorari seeking review
of the Fifth Circuit's decision. The trial of the securities fraud
claims of the class of post explosion ADS purchasers has been
scheduled to commence on 5 July 2016.


MDL 2280: Cert. Bids in Morgan Stanley Wage & Hour Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC WAGE
AND HOUR LITIGATION MDL 2280, Civ. No. 11-cv-3121 (WJM) (D.N.J.),
Judge William J. Martini denied the plaintiffs' motion for
certification of three class actions and motion for conditional
certification of the collective action.

The multidistrict litigation consists of three putative wage and
hour class actions, as well as a putative collective action under
the Fair Labors Standards Act, against the defendants Morgan
Stanley Smith Barney LLC and Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. (together,
"MSSB").

The plaintiffs sought to represent the following classes in three
separate class actions alleging violations of state wage and hour
laws:

          1. A New York Class that consists of all individuals,
             employed by MSSB in covered positions in the State
             of New York at any time since April 21, 2008

          2. A New Jersey Class that consists of all individuals,
             employed by MSSB in covered positions in the State
             of New Jersey since April 21, 2008

          3. A Connecticut Class that consists of all
             individuals, employed by MSSB in covered positions
             in the State of Connecticut at any time since April
             21, 2008

The plaintiffs also sought to represent the following collective
group as part of a collective action alleging violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act ("FLSA"):

          A Federal Collective Group that consists of all
          individuals who were or are employed by MSSB in Covered
          Positions in the United States of America, including
          the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, at any time
          from April 21, 2008, who timely opt-in to any such
          collective group

As to the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, Judge
Martini found that while the numerosity and commonality
requirements have been met, the plaintiffs have failed to
establish typicality or adequacy by a preponderance of the
evidence.  The judge also concluded that common questions do not
predominate and therefore class certification would be
inappropriate.

As to the motion for conditional certification of the collective
action, Judge Martini found that the plaintiffs have failed to
meet their burden for conditional certification.

A full-text copy of Judge Martini's April 11, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/9QMpPdfrom Leagle.com.

Robert Gibson, Movant, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH --
smith@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP &
ROBERT ABRAMS -- abrams@whafh.com -- WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER
FREEMAN & HERZ LLP.

NICK PONTILENA, DENISE OTTEN, GREGG VANASSE, Plaintiffs,
represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &
HERZ LLP, ROBERT ABRAMS, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
& STEPHEN P. DENITTIS -- sdenittis@denittislaw.com -- DENITTIS
OSEFCHEN, PC.

JIMMY KUHN, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, ROBERT ABRAMS, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, STEPHEN P. DENITTIS,
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC, Matthew M Guiney -- guiney@whafh.com --
Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, LLP.

HOWARD ROSENBLATT, Plaintiff, represented by JEFFREY G. SMITH,
WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, ROBERT ABRAMS, WOLF
HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP, STEPHEN P. DENITTIS,
DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC, ANDREW W. SKOLNICK, HURWITZ SAGARIN
SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC & DAVID A. SLOSSBERG, HURWITZ SAGARIN
SLOSSBERG & KNUFF LLC.

MORGAN STANLEY SMITH BARNEY LLC, Defendant, represented by DANIEL
F. MURPHY, JR. -- dmurphy@putneylaw.com -- PUTNEY, TWOMBLY, HALL &
HIRSON, ESQS.,JESSICA R. PERRY, WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN &
HERZ LLP,MARK ANTHONY HERNANDEZ -- mhernandez@putneylaw.com --
PUTNEY TWOMBLY HALL & HIRSON LLP & TRISH M. HIGGINS --
thiggins@orrick.com -- ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP.

MORGAN STANLEY & CO., INC., Defendant, represented by TRISH M.
HIGGINS, ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP.


METROPOLITAN OPERA: Faces "Riley" Suit in Southern Dist. New York
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Metropolitan Opera Association,
Inc. The case is captioned Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Metropolitan
Opera Association, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02944
(S.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016).

Metropolitan Opera, a not-for-profit membership corporation,
engages in sustaining, encouraging, and promoting musical art
worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: info@leelitigation.com


MICHAEL'S PLACE: "Ibarra" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Karla Ibarra, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Michael's Place, Inc., Katina Malliotakis and Michael
Malliotakis, Case No. 4:16-cv-00555-DDN (E.D. Mo., April 20,
2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages
under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a restaurant at 7101 Manchester
Ave., St. Louis, Missouri, 63143.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark Potashnick, Esq.
      WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
      11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
      St. Louis, MO  63141
      Telephone: (314) 997-9150
      Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
      E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com

         - and -

      Eli Karsh, Esq.
      LIBERMAN, GOLDSTEIN & KARSH
      230 South Bemiston, Suite 1200
      St. Louis, MO 63105
      Telephone: (314) 862-3333 ext. 13
      Facsimile: (314) 862-0605
      E-mail: elikarsh@aol.com


MONRO MUFFLER: "Jarmon" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Tyrone Jarmon, Jr. v. Monro Muffler Brake, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-
01185-RDB (D. Md., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
liquidated damages, interest, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs
under Fair Labor Standards Act.

Monro Muffler Brake, Inc. operates an automotive service company
that performs maintenance and repairs on vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MOTOROLA MOBILITY: Breached Repair Warranty, "Lynch" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Douglas Lynch, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Motorola Mobility, LLC d/b/a Motorola
and Lenovo (United States) Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04524 (N.D. Ill., April 21, 2016), seeks damages, restitution, and
injunctive relief as a result of Defendant's failure to comply
with its obligations under its express warranty to purchasers of
Motorola smart phones and smart watches (Devices).

According to the complaint, Motorola's express warranty provides
that Motorola will repair, replace or refund the purchase price of
Devices that develop defects within 12 months of purchase.
Motorola allegedly breached this promise by failing to repair,
replace or refund the purchase price of Plaintiff's
Motorola smart watch that failed within 12 months of purchase.

Motorola Mobility, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, is a
company owned by Lenovo that develops mobile devices.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth A. Wexler, Esq.
          Mark R. Miller, Esq.
          Adam Prom, Esq.
          WEXLER WALLACE LLP
          55 W. Monroe Street, Ste. 3300
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 346-2222
          Facsimile: (312) 246-0022
          E-mail: kaw@wexlerwallace.com
                  mrm@wexlerwallace.com
                  ap@wexlerwallace.com

               - and -

          Daniel C. Girard, Esq.
          Esfand Y. Nafisi, Esq.
          Jordan Elias, Esq.
          LIEFF, CABRASER, HEIMANN, & BERNSTEIN, LLP
          275 Battery St.
          Embarcadero Center W., 30th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
          Telephone: (415) 956 1000
          E-mail: jelias@lchb.com

               - and -

          Norman E. Siegel, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP
          460 Nichols Road, Suite 200
          Kansas City, MO 64112
          Telephone: (816) 714 7100
          Facsimile: (816) 714 7101
          E-mail: siegel@stuevesiegel.com


MRS BPO: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in Eastern District New York
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against MRS BPO, LLC. The case is
captioned Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. MRS BPO, LLC., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01948 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016).

MRS provides accounts receivables solutions and back office
solutions to improve return on investment and net back through
compliant collections.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MRV COMMUNICATIONS: Still Defends "Vo" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------
MRV Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend against the case, Nhan T. Vo, individually and on behalf of
other aggrieved employees vs. the Company, Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles.

On June 27, 2013, the plaintiff in this matter filed a lawsuit
against the Company alleging claims for failure to properly pay
overtime or provide meal and rest breaks to its non-exempt
employees in California, among other things. The complaint seeks
an unspecified amount of damages and penalties under provisions of
the Labor Code, including the Labor Code Private Attorneys General
Act.

The Company has filed an answer denying all allegations regarding
the plaintiff's claims and asserting various defenses. Management
believes it has accrued adequate reserves for this matter and does
not expect the matter to have a material adverse effect on its
business or financial condition. However, depending on the actual
outcome of this case, further provisions could be recorded in the
future which may have a material adverse effect on the Company's
operating results.

MRV Communications, Inc. develops products and services to meet
the needs of telecommunications service providers and cable
operators (collectively "Service Providers"), data center
operators, government entities and enterprises, including the
educational, financial, healthcare and equipment manufacturing
segments in North, South and Central America ("Americas"), Europe,
Middle East and Africa ("EMEA") and Asia Pacific ("APAC").


NAC MARKETING: 9th Cir. Affirms Dismissal of Certain Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------
Chief Justices M. Margaret McKeown, Kim Mclane Wardlaw and Richard
C. Tallman of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, affirmed in
part the district court's ruling in the case captioned, FLOYD
LUMAN; JOEL AMKRAUT, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. JOE THEISMANN; NAC
MARKETING COMPANY, LLC, DBA New Vitality, Defendants-Appellees,
Case No. 14-15385 (9th Cir.).

The Ninth Circuit remanded the action for further proceedings.

Plaintiffs Floyd Luman and Joel Amkraut filed a complaint brought
on behalf of a putative class alleging (i) violation of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, (ii) breach of express warranty, (iii)
breach of implied warranty of merchantability, (iv) breach of
implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, (v) unjust
enrichment, (vi) violation of the California Consumers Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), (vii) violation of California Unfair
Competition Law, and (viii) violation of California's False
Advertising Law in connection with NAC's sales of its Super Beta
Prostate (SBP) product. They request declaratory and injunctive
relief, compensatory and punitive damages, and restitution.

The district court held that Plaintiffs' individual claims for
monetary relief were rendered moot when NAC refunded Plaintiffs'
money to their credit cards. The district court further held that
Plaintiffs lacked standing to pursue injunctive relief because
they could not demonstrate a likelihood of future injury. The
court reasoned that because Luman's individual claims were moot
before he filed his complaint, class certification of the putative
class could not relate back to the original complaint. The court
further reasoned that Amkraut's claims were moot and not
transitory because such claims would not expire before the court
could rule on class certification.

Plaintiffs appeal the district court's order granting Defendants
NAC Marketing Company, LLC's (NAC) and Joe Theismann's motion to
dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint brought on behalf of a putative
class for lack of standing under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1).

In the Memorandum dated April 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/QNk13sfrom Leagle.com, Justices McKeown, Wardlaw and
Tallman found that the district court did not err in dismissing of
Luman's individual claim for monetary relief and in determining
Luman's individual claim for monetary relief. The Court also
properly dismissed the claims against Theismann because he is
merely the celebrity spokesperson for NAC and not the seller of
SBP. The Court reversed the district court's judgment declaring
Amkraut's claim moot because he satisfied the injury-in-fact
requirement and had standing to sue.


NATURAL HEALTH: Says Securities Class Suits in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------------
Natural Health Trends Corp. 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 has yet
to respond to two securities class action lawsuits.

The Company said, "In January 2015, two purported class action
complaints were filed against us in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California: Ford v. Natural
Health Trends Corp. and Li v. Natural Health Trends Corp.
(collectively, the "Class Action Complaints"). The Class Action
Complaints purport to assert claims on behalf of certain of our
stockholders under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder against Natural Health Trends
Corp., Chris T. Sharng and Timothy S. Davidson and to assert
claims under Section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
against Messrs. Sharng and Davidson. The Class Action Complaints
allege, inter alia, that we made materially false and misleading
statements regarding the legality of our business operations in
China, including purportedly running an illegal multi-level
marketing business. The Class Action Complaints seek an
indeterminate amount of damages, plus interest and costs."

"The cases are both in their early stages, and we have not yet
filed a response. Nevertheless, we believe that these claims are
without merit and intend to vigorously defend against the
allegations in these actions."


NEW YORK: Democrats Sue State Board of Elections
------------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
fourteen Long Island Democrats filed a federal class action
complaint in Central Islip, N.Y. late April 18, claiming their
mysteriously rejiggered party affiliations puts them in jeopardy
of being disenfranchised in the primary.

New York has a closed primary system, so voters can cast ballots
only in the party in which they are registered.

That's not fair, lead plaintiff Leonard Joseph Campanello says,
calling it a "widespread and ongoing" pattern of removing eligible
voters from the state's voter rolls.

In their lawsuit against the State Board of Elections, Campanello
and other plaintiffs say their registration was changed to other-
than-Democratic without their consent.

Campanello says his registration was switched to Republican
through "an identical, pixel-by-pixel copy of the electronic
signature appearing on his driver's license in 2007, which had
been electronically transferred to the 'change of party
affiliation form.'"

The federal lawsuit came the night before New Yorkers take to the
polls, with 247 delegates at stake in the Democratic primary and
95 in the Republican one.

It's likely to be a first no matter which Democrat prevails at the
national convention: the first woman presidential candidate,
Hillary Clinton, or the first Jewish one, Vermont Sen. Bernie
Sanders; and, if Trump takes the Republican race, the first
reality TV star.

All three -- along with a host of celebrity supporters and
political heavyweights, including former President Bill Clinton
and the Clintons' daughter Chelsea -- have criss-crossed the
Empire State, New York City and especially Brooklyn in the past
few days to stump for votes in a state's closed primary system.

Independent-minded New Yorkers, however, say in their lawsuit that
they should be free to choose whomever they want despite their
party affiliation, and that state law disenfranchises
independents.

As a result, the plaintiffs "are likely to be deprived of the
right to vote, as have the thousands of similarly situated voters
who complained to the Board of Elections regarding the improper
voter registration switches and purges," the lawsuit states.

"Tens of thousands of New Yorkers face the threat of
disenfranchisement in the 2016 Presidential Preference Primary ...
and will continue to be shut out of the democratic process until
defendants reform their registration practices.

"In Brooklyn alone, 63,558 Democrats have been inexplicably purged
from voter rolls," according to the complaint.

Plaintiffs and "thousands of other voters" seek redress in
"anticipation of the tumult that will assuredly engulf" the
nominating process. They call New York State's laws among the most
"opaque and oppressive voter laws" in the nation.

They ask the court to jump in, as that they have appealed to the
Board of Election "without result."

"Nothing can protect their right to vote save an order from this
court."

They also say a federal judge's order "will serve to foster a
belief in democracy."

Plaintiffs say they had already put the election board on notice
that it planned to sue, but never heard back.

In addition to Campanello's complaint of de facto electronic
forgery, other plaintiffs say their Democratic party affiliation
was switched to independent, or not registered at all, or purged,
or not changed from a different party to Democrat.

Justice USA, which describes itself as a "national organization
advancing election integrity, transparency and the protection of
voting rights for all Americans," says it's turned in 200 unsworn
affidavits of voters who can't pull the lever April 19.

The 2016 presidential primaries have "produced record breaking
turnout and a general excitement that has motivated many people to
vote who are voting for the first time or who have not voted in
years," the lawsuit states. "Unfortunately, states throughout the
nation have found themselves to be ill-equipped to deal with the
unprecedented voter turnout, and the elections were botched
causing dubious results which foster a growing sense of mistrust
in the American democratic process."

The plaintiffs cite the scandal in Arizona, where voters stood in
line for as much as five hours after the state and Maricopa County
(Phoenix) elections officials closed 70 percent of the county's
polling places to save money. The Democratic National Committee
sued Arizona for this on April 15.

Plaintiffs in the New York lawsuit call that Arizona debacle a
"disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of voters; a primary
election result that is irreparably erroneous; and numerous
contentious lawsuits with little chance of redressing the
substantial constitutional violations."

The Long Island plaintiffs say the stakes are high.

"New York's procedure for dealing with voters who fail to appear
on the rolls in the polling place is byzantine in its complexity;
onerous on the burden it places on the voter; and utterly
ineffective in preserving voters' rights," the lawsuit states.

If a voter is not on the rolls, or his or her affiliation is
incorrect, or if no party affiliation is ticked by their name,
their vote will be "provisional" and "likely go uncounted."

They also aim at New York's Legislature for failing to declare
Election Day a holiday, leaving many voters unable to go to the
polls because they can't afford to take time off from work.
"Many voters are only able to carve out adequate time to cast a
vote, yet are unable to take the hours that it would require to
get a court order permitting them to vote if they are not on the
voter rolls," the complaint states.

"Others are simply too intimidated to seek a court order and
decide to turn away from the polls, dejected and skeptical about
the democratic process."

Chief among those voters, the plaintiffs say, are blacks, Latinos
and Native Americans.

The issue of closed primaries spurred about 150 voters to kvetch
and rally outside New York City Hall last week.

Sanders, who has been a Vermont senator since 2007, also released
his widely sought tax returns on Friday. At the debate a day
earlier, Sanders had offered to do so if Clinton revealed the
transcripts of speeches that make her big bucks on Wall Street.
Those transcripts remain unaccounted for.

Former President Clinton is stumping for his wife across the
Empire State to "discuss Hillary Clinton's plan to raise incomes
and get results for all communities, keep Americans safe and bring
the country together." He was to appear in Buffalo and Rochester
on April 19.

The former first lady, ex-senator from New York and former
secretary of state held several Get Out the Vote campaigns
throughout New York City over the weekend, then held a rally
Sunday night on the oft-forgotten borough of Staten Island, a
traditional Republican stronghold.

Sanders stumped in his own backyard of Greenpoint, Brooklyn, to
deliver his message of reforming big banks and Wall Street. "This
is a campaign that is bringing millions of people into the
political process," Sanders said at a Sunday rally that brought
28,000 people to Prospect Park. He said he was speaking for
"working people and young people who are sick and tired of
establishment politics and establishment economics" and who want
"a government which represents all of us, not just the 1 percent."

Campanello et al. seek an order that they have been unlawfully
purged and shall be allowed to vote, a finding that New York
Election Law Sec. 8-303 (2) (b) is unconstitutional, and other
relief.  They are represented by Blaire Fellows with Clarke &
Fellows in Farmingdale.


NEW YORK CITY CENTER: Faces "Riley" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against New York City Center, Inc. The
case is captioned Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. New York City Center,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02948 (S.D.N.Y., April 20,
2016).

New York City Center is home to companies, including Alvin Ailey
American Dance Theater, as well as Manhattan Theatre Club.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          C.K. Xee, Esq.
          LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
          30 East 39th Street, Second Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 465 1188
          Facsimile: (212) 465 1181
          E-mail: info@leelitigation.com


NORMANDIN CHRYSLER: OneCommand Must Produce Documents
-----------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of California ordered OneCommand
to produce any unproduced documents, databases, and other
electronically stored information that identify putative class
members or contain contact information for those class members in
the case captioned, ALAN BRINKER, Plaintiff, v. NORMANDIN'S, et
al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-03007-EJD (HRL) (N.D Cal.).

Alan Brinker (Brinker) sues Normandin's d/b/a Normandin Chrysler
Jeep Dodge Ram (Normandin) and OneCommand, Inc. (OneCommand) in
the class action for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act. The putative class includes everyone in the United
States "to whom: (a) Defendants made one or more non-emergency
telephone calls; (b) promoting Defendant Normandin's goods or
services; (c) to their cellular telephone number; (d) through the
use of an automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or
prerecorded voice; and (e) at any time in the period that begins
four years before the date of filing the Complaint to trial."

Brinker and OneCommand filed Discovery Dispute Joint Report (DDJR)
4; they dispute whether OneCommand should produce any unproduced
documents, databases, and other electronically stored information
that identify putative class members or contain contact
information for those class members. Brinker argues: (1)
OneCommand does not claim that the production of the requested
discovery would be disproportionate to the needs of this case or
unduly burdensome; and (2) OneCommand has raised no valid reason
to withhold the relevant information Brinker requested.

OneCommand responds it is appropriate to withhold the requested
information because: (1) Brinker's alleged injury is not typical
of the injury that may have been suffered by people who were
called with a different prerecorded message, and so any
information about people who were called with a different
prerecorded message is irrelevant; and (2) Brinker's request for
"additional call data" could have been raised "prior to the
submission of" DDJR 3, which involved a similar issue, and
therefore "in keeping with the Court's standing order on discovery
disputes Brinker should now be precluded from further delaying his
motion for class certification and from seeking to expand the
scope of the class."

In his Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/tIDA2V
from Leagle.com, Judge Lloyd concluded that it was improper for
OneCommand to withhold relevant and discoverable materials related
to members of the proposed class based on the belief that an
impending motion for class certification should eventually be
denied for lack of typicality.

OneCommand was to complete production of any discovery materials
no later than April 14, 2016.

Alan Brinker is represented by Beth E. Terrell, Esq. --
eadams@terrellmarshall.com -- Adrienne McEntee, Esq. --
amcentee@terrellmarshall.com -- Allyson Janay Ferguson, Esq. --
jferguson@terrellmarshall.com -- and Mary Bondy Reiten, Esq. --
mreiten@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC,
Michael Francis Ram, Esq. -- mram@rocklawcal.com -- RAM, OLSON,
CEREGHINO & KOPCZYNSKI LLP

Normandin's is represented by Andrew Stearns, Esq. -
astrearns@boglawyers.com -- BUSTAMANTE & GAGLIASSO

Onecommand, Inc. is represented by Sean P. Flynn, Esq. -
sflynn@gordonrees.com -- and Daniel Scott Kubasak, Esq. -
dkubasak@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES & Steven Charles Coffaro,
Esq. -- steve.coffaro@knklaw.com -- KEATING MUETHING AND KLEKAMP
PLL


OPPENHEIMER HOLDINGS: To Defend EveryWare Global Investors' Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Oppenheimer Holdings 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 it intends to vigorously
defend against a class action lawsuit filed against it by
investors of EveryWare Global, Inc.

On May 15, 2015, plaintiffs IBEW Local No. 58 Annuity Fund and
Electrical Workers Pension Trust Fund of IBEW Local No. 58,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed
an Amended Class Action Complaint ("CAC") relating to EveryWare
Global, Inc. ("EveryWare") in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of Ohio. The CAC names as defendants certain
current and former officers and directors of EveryWare, Monomoy
Capital Partners, L.P. and certain of its affiliates, as well as
Oppenheimer, CJS Securities, Inc., Telsey Advisory Group, LLC,
Imperial Capital, LLC and BTIG, LLC (collectively, the
"Underwriter Defendants"), Plaintiffs allege that, among other
things, the Registration Statement issued in connection with a
secondary offering of EveryWare's stock on or about September 16,
2013 contained misrepresentations and omissions of material facts.

In the secondary offering, the Underwriter Defendants sold
1,750,000 shares of EveryWare stock to the public at a price of
$11.50 per share. The CAC alleges claims against the Underwriter
Defendants for violations of Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the
Securities Act of 1933. Plaintiffs purport to bring their action
on behalf of a class comprising all persons or entities who
purchased or otherwise acquired EveryWare securities between May
21, 2013 and May 16, 2014. The CAC seeks an award of unspecified
compensatory damages, interest and attorneys' fees and costs.

On August 14, 2015, the Underwriter Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss the CAC. The Underwriter Defendants, including
Oppenheimer, believe they have meritorious defenses to the CAC,
and Oppenheimer intends to vigorously defend the matter.


PACIFIC CAPITAL: MRI's Bid to Dismiss Counterclaims Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MRI SOFTWARE, LLC, Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC., Defendants, Case No. 1:15 CV 1268 (N.D.
Ohio), Judge Donald C. Nugent denied the MRI Software LLC's motion
to dismiss Pacific Capital Management Inc.'s counterclaim.

A class action suit was brought by MRI alleging breach of contract
against Pacific Capital for failure to pay in accordance with the
contract terms between the parties.  Pacific Capital filed a
counterclaim alleging breach of contract and negligent/false
misrepresentation against MRI.

MRI sought to have Pacific Capital's counterclaims dismissed,
claiming that those actions are barred by the parole evidence
rule, the economic loss doctrine, and by the release that was made
part of the contract between the parties.  Pacific Capital argued
that its counterclaims are actionable under the terms of the
contract and under the principle of fraud in the inducement, which
creates an exception to the parole evidence rule and the economic
loss doctrine.

Judge Nugent held that at this stage of the litigation, and based
on the information currently before it, the court cannot determine
as a matter of law that the written contract is unambiguous with
regard to the types of reports it was to include, nor that Pacific
Capital could not prove any of the alleged breaches of contract
without resort to inadmissible parole evidence.

Judge Nugent also found that Pacific Capital has sufficiently
alleged a breach of contract that does not rely on the warranty
provisions of the contract, and that whether that claim has any
validity is a question to be determined at a later stage of the
proceedings.

Judge Nugent also pointed out that Ohio courts and many courts in
the district have held that the economic loss doctrine does not
prevent a party from raising a claim for fraud in the inducement
or negligent misrepresentation when the alleged misrepresentation
was intended to induce a party into entering into a contract.

Lastly, the judge stated that fraud in the inducement and/or
negligent misrepresentation with the intent to induce someone into
entering into a contract is actionable and can be supported by
extrinsic evidence so long as the alleged representations relied
upon do not directly contradict the terms of the written contract,
and all of the other elements of the claim are met.

A full-text copy of Judge Nugent's April 11, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/SZ6mvkfrom
Leagle.com.

MRI Software, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Alexander E.
Gertsburg -- ag@gertsburglaw.com -- Gertsburg Law Firm, Henry G.
Grendell -- hg@gertsburglaw.com -- Gertsburg Law Firm & Michael A.
Callam -- mc@gertsburglaw.com -- Gertsburg Law Firm.

Pacific Capital Management, Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
J. Dorman -- adorman@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger & Brian
P. Nally -- bnally@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger.


PANERA LLC: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Southern Dist. of Florida
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Panera, LLC. The case is
captioned Andres Gomez and Juan Carlos Gil, on their own behalf
and on behalf of all other individuals similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Panera, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21421-
FAM (S.D. Fla., April 21, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Federico A.
Moreno.

Panera owns and franchises bakery-cafes in the United States. Its
bakery-cafes primarily offers baked goods, dough items, and custom
roasted coffees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
          SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
          4200 NW 7th Avenue
          Miami, FL 33127
          Telephone: (786) 431 1333
          Facsimile: (786) 513 7700
          E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


PAPA MURPHY'S: Still Defending "Lennartson" Class Suit in Wash.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 28, 2015, that the Company is
currently named as a defendant in a putative class action lawsuit
filed by plaintiff John Lennartson on May 8, 2015, in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Washington.

"The lawsuit alleges we failed to comply with the requirements of
the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) when we sent SMS text
messages to consumers," the Company said.  "The plaintiff in the
lawsuit asks that the court certify the putative class and that
statutory damages under the TCPA be awarded to plaintiff and each
class member. We believe the plaintiff's interpretation of the
applicable law is incorrect and we will continue to vigorously
defend ourselves in the lawsuit, but provide no assurance that we
will be successful. An adverse judgment or settlement related to
this lawsuit could have a material adverse effect on our
consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash
flows."

Papa Murphy's Holdings, Inc. is a franchisor and operator of the
largest Take 'N' Bake pizza chain in the United States. We were
founded in 1981 and have grown our footprint to a total of 1,536
system-wide stores as of December 28, 2015.


PATRIARCH PARTNERS: "Eisenstadt" Suit Moved to S.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------------
Warren Eisenstadt, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Patriarch Partners LLC and
XYZ Entities 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-01009, was
transferred from the US District Court for the Eastern District of
New York, to the US District Court for the Southern District of
New York (Foley Square). The Southern District Court assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-02831-UA to the proceeding.

Patriarch Partners is a private equity firm specializing in
acquisition, buyouts, and turnaround investment in distressed
American companies and brands. The firm makes control investments
in its investee companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Kupka, Esq.
          Levi & Korsinsky LLP
          Michael B. Ershowsky
          30 Broad Street, 24th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 363 7500
          Facsimile: (866) 367 6510
          E-mail: ckupka@zlk.com
                  ek@zlk.com
                  mershowsky@zlk.com


The Defendants are represented by:

          Kathleen Mary McKenna
          PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP
          Eleven Times Square
          New York, NY 10036
          Telephone: (212) 969-3130
          Facsimile: (212) 969-2900
          E-mail: kmckenna@proskauer.com


PINGTAN MARINE: Still Defends Against "Fila" Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company
continues to defend the case, Paul Fila, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. Pingtan Marine
Enterprise Ltd., Xinrong Zhuo, Roy Yu, Jin Shi, and Xuesong Song.

On January 14, 2015, Paul Fila, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed a
putative class action complaint in the United States District
Court, Southern District of New York, against the Company and
certain of its executive officers and directors, entitled Fila v.
Pingtan Marine Enterprise Ltd. et al, No. 15 Civ. 267 (AJN).

On July 1, 2015, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. The
amended complaint alleges, among other things, that our public
securities filings in 2013 and 2014 contained materially false and
misleading statements that the Company received 100% of the annual
net income and net profit from Fujian Provincial County Ocean
Fishing Group, Ltd. when it allegedly did not. The amended
complaint seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief.

The Company said, "On September 11, 2015, we filed a motion to
dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that the amended complaint
fails to state a claim against the defendants. Plaintiffs'
opposition to our motion to dismiss was filed on November 10,
2015, and our reply in support of our motion to dismiss was filed
on December 10, 2015. We intend to defend the lawsuit vigorously;
however, given the unpredictability of litigation, there can be no
assurance regarding the ultimate outcome of this lawsuit."

Pingtan Marine is a marine enterprises group primarily engaging in
ocean fishing through our wholly-owned PRC operating subsidiary
and VIE, Fujian Provincial Pingtan County Ocean Fishing Group Co.,
Ltd., or Pingtan Fishing.


PIZZA THE PIE: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Thomas Phillips III, individually and on behalf of similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Pizza The Pie, LLC and Becca
Boo Pies, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00075-WCO (N.D.
Ga., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants employ delivery drivers
who use their own automobiles to deliver pizza and other food
items to their customers. Instead of reimbursing delivery drivers
for the reasonably approximate costs of the business use of their
vehicles, Defendants allegedly use a flawed method to determine
reimbursement rates that provides such an unreasonably low rate
beneath any reasonable approximation of the expenses they incur
that the drivers' unreimbursed expenses cause their wages to fall
below the federal minimum wage during some or all workweeks.

Pizza the Pie, LLC and Becca Boo Pies, LLC own and operate
approximately 40 Domino's Pizza franchise stores in Georgia and
South Carolina.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ralph Jordan, Esq.
          345 Eastcote Dr.
          Atlanta, GA 30350
          Telephone: (404) 449 4861
          E-mail:ralph.a.jordan@gmail.com

               - and -

          Jack McInnes, Esq.
          PAUL MCINNES LLP
          600 Walnut Street, Suite 300
          Kansas City, MO 64106
          Telephone: (816) 984 8100
          Facsimile: (816) 984 8101
          E-mail: mcinnes@paulmcinnes.com

               - and -

          Mark A. Potashnick, Esq.
          WEINHAUS & POTASHNICK
          11500 Olive Blvd., Suite 133
          St. Louis, MO 63141
          Telephone: (314) 997-9150
          Facsimile: (314) 997-9170
          E-mail: markp@wp-attorneys.com


PLANT ENGINEERING: "Ortega" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sam Ortega, individually and for others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Plant Engineering Services (PES), LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00106 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages and other damages, pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, PES failed to pay certain hourly
employees overtime as required by the FLSA. Instead, PES paid
these workers "straight-time" for all hours worked, including
those in excess of 40 in a workweek. Although it appears to have
fixed the problem by reclassifying the workers and starting to pay
them overtime, it allegedly didn't pay the workers for overtime
worked in the past.

Plant Engineering provides multi-disciplined engineering and
project management services including conceptual engineering,
front-end engineering, detailed engineering, and design, project
management controls and estimating, with procurement,
construction, turnaround, commissioning, and start-up support
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


POLARIS INDUSTRIES: Recalls RZR 900 & 1000Off-Highway Vehicles
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Polaris Industries Inc., of Medina, Minn., announced a voluntary
recall of about 133,000 Polaris Model Year 2013-2016 RZR 900 and
RZR 1000 recreational off-highway vehicles (ROVs).

CPSC and Polaris warn consumers to stop using these recreational
vehicles immediately and contact their Polaris dealer for a free
repair. Polaris has agreed to voluntarily suspend sale of all
recalled vehicles until they are repaired.

Polaris has received more than 160 reports of fires with the
recalled RZR ROVs, resulting in one death of a 15 year old
passenger from a rollover that resulted in a fire and 19 reports
of injuries, including first, second and third degree burns.

Visit www.polaris.com to determine if your RZR ROVs VIN number is
included in this recall.

2013/2014 RZR XP 900
3NSJT9EAXEF364144 - 3NSJT9EA4EF385345
4XAJT87A0DP456738 - 4XAJT87A8EF366714

2014/2015/2016 RZR XP 1000

additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com.

3NSVDE992FF361215 - 3NSVDE998GF784060
4XAST1EA0EB165962 - 4XAVFE992GB344924

2015/2016 RZR 900

additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com.

3NSVAE871FF366883 - 3NSVAE874GH861374
4XAVAA878FB926614 - 4XAVAE873GB673176

2015/2016 RZR S 900

additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com.

3NSVBE870FF361395 - 3NSVBA876GH860331
4XAVBE879FP340592 - 4XAVBE876GB673749

2016 RZR S 1000

additional VIN numbers included. Visit Polaris.com

3NSVBE994GH102740 - 3NSVBE99XGH108171
4XAVBE995GP340655 - 4XAVBE997GB673744

The VIN is normally located on the driver's side rear frame rail,
above the PVT cover.  Check your Owner's Manual if you have any
difficulty locating the VIN. VINs are not sequential and not all
VINs in the ranges above are included in this recall. To determine
if a specific ROV is included in this recall visit www.Polaris.com
and click on "Off-Road Safety Recalls" under the "Rider Community"
heading on the main page of the Polaris website.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/sBL3c8

The ROVs were sold at Polaris dealers nationwide from July 2012
through April 2016 for between $16,000 and $26,000.  The ROVs were
manufactured in the United States and Mexico and imported and
distributed by Polaris.

Due to the serious risk of injury, owners and riders should stop
using these recalled vehicles immediately. Repairs will start
April 22, 2016. To schedule a free repair, consumers should call
their local Polaris dealer.  Contact Polaris at 800-POLARIS or
800-765-2747 from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. CT Monday through Friday and 9
a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Saturday and Sunday or online at www.polaris.com
and click on "Off-Road Safety Recalls" on the main page of the
Polaris website.


ROKA BIOSCIENCE: In Talks to Settle Securities Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Roka Bioscience, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is in
settlement discussions and currently estimate a potential
settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million.

A putative securities class action originally captioned Ding v.
Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 3:14-cv-8020, was filed against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on
December 24, 2014, on behalf of a putative class of persons and
entities who had purchased or otherwise acquired securities
pursuant or traceable to the Registration Statement for the
Company's IPO. The original putative class period ran from July 17
through November 6, 2014.  The original complaint asserted claims
under the Securities Act of 1933 and contended that the IPO
Registration Statement was false and misleading, or omitted
allegedly material information, in connection with the Company's
statements about its placement of Atlas instruments and its
expectations of future growth and increased market share, and the
Company's alleged failure to disclose "known trends and
uncertainties about the Company's sales."  The alleged
misrepresentations and omissions purportedly came to light when
the Company issued its third-quarter 2014 earnings release on
November 6, 2014.

Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995,
the court appointed Stanley Yedlowski as lead plaintiff and The
Rosen Law Firm as lead counsel on April 21, 2015. The lead
plaintiff then filed an amended complaint, captioned Stanley
Yedlowski v. Roka Bioscience, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-8020, on June
23, 2015. The amended complaint pleads Securities Act claims on
behalf of persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
Roka securities pursuant or traceable to the IPO Registration
Statement during an extended putative class period, running from
July 17, 2014 through March 26, 2015.

The Company said, "The amended complaint alleges that the
Registration Statement was false or misleading in that it failed
to disclose that our customers purportedly were experiencing false
positives and other usage issues with our Listeria assays
apparently arising from the customers' employees' inability to
follow tour Listeria assay workflow. The amended complaint alleges
that the full extent of the purported misstatements and omissions
was not revealed until March 26, 2015. Defendants filed a motion
on August 25, 2015 to dismiss the amended complaint, and
plaintiffs filed an opposition to that motion on October 9, 2015.
The parties agreed to attempt to resolve the case through
mediation, and that process is continuing."

"We are currently in settlement discussions and currently estimate
a potential settlement amount of approximately $3.3 million.

"We believe that the claims in the securities class action are
without merit, and, if the case cannot be settled through the
mediation, intend to defend the litigation vigorously and we
expect to incur costs associated with defending the securities
class action. In addition, we have various insurance policies
related to the risk associated with our business, including
directors' and officers' liability insurance policies. However,
there is no assurance that we would be successful in our defense
of the securities class action if the case cannot be settled, and
there is no assurance that our insurance coverage would be
sufficient or that our insurance carriers would cover all claims
or litigation costs."

Roka Bioscience, Inc. is a molecular diagnostics company initially
focused on providing advanced testing solutions for the detection
of foodborne pathogens.


ROLLERBLADE USA: Recalls Rollerblade Inline Skating Helmets
-----------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rollerblade USA, of West Lebanon, N.H., announced a voluntary
recall of about 500 Rollerblade inline skating helmets. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The helmet's plastic shell can crack where the straps attach,
causing the helmet to shift and move on the wearer's head. This
can result in a head injury hazard to the user in the event of a
fall.

This recall involves black Rollerblade brand Maxxum helmets.
"Rollerblade" is printed on the side of the helmet, a white inline
skate logo is printed on the back of the helmet and a label on the
inside of the helmet contains the model number "YJ-219" and
production date of October 2014 or earlier. The SKU number
06520210100 is printed on the helmet's box.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

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

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Inline Warehouse, Paragon Athletic Goods, Summit Sports and other
sporting goods stores and Rollerblade helmet dealers nationwide
and online at www.amazon.com, www.inlineskates.com,
www.inlinewarehouse.com and www.rollerblade.com from November 2014
through January 2016.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled helmets and
contact the firm for instructions on receiving a full refund.


ROSICKI ROSICKI: Faces "Felberbaum" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates,
P.C. The case is captioned Aron Felberbaum, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Rosicki, Rosicki & Associates, P.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01950 (E.D.N.Y., April 20, 2016).

Rosicki Rosicki is a mortgage banking law firm based in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


S CARTER ENTERPRISES: Faces Class Suit Over "Life of Pablo"
-----------------------------------------------------------
Nicholas Iovino, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Kanye West tricked 2 million people into signing up for Jay-
Z's struggling music-streaming service, Tidal, by falsely claiming
that Kanye's album "The Life of Pablo" would be released
exclusively on Tidal, a class action claims in San Francisco
Federal Court.

Lead plaintiff Justin Baker-Rhett sued West and Jay-Z's company,
S. Carter Enterprises, on April 18. He claims West and Tidal used
false advertising to coax him and 2 million others into handing
over their private information and credit card numbers to the
streaming service.

Jay-Z acquired the Swedish company Aspiro, which owns Tidal, for
$56 million in March 2015 with plans to launch the first artist-
owned streaming service to compete with other music streaming
giants such as Spotify and Pandora.

In February 2015, Jay-Z held a secret meeting with superstars --
including Beyonce, Madonna, Rihanna, Jack White, Usher and Kanye
West -- offering them 3 percent stakes in his company in exchange
for their creating exclusive content for the service, according to
news reports cited in the complaint.

At the time Jay-Z was acquiring the streaming service, Aspiro's
board of directors acknowledged the company lacked the money to
survive beyond 12 months, according to a February 2015 board
report.

By early 2016, Tidal was "teetering on the brink of collapse," and
West announced on Twitter that had $53 million in personal debt.

With financial woes abounding, West tweeted to his 22 million
followers in February that his new album, "The Life of Pablo," one
of the most anticipated of 2016, would be released exclusively on
Tidal.

"My album will never never never be on Apple. And it will never be
for sale . . . You can only get it on Tidal," West wrote in a
tweet on Feb. 15.

That announcement, and similar tweets from Tidal, helped the
streaming triple its subscriber base from 1 million to 3 million
users in just over a month, according to the lawsuit.

Each new subscriber, including those who signed up for a free
trial membership, had to provide a credit card number, which would
be charged at the end of the trial period.

"Consumers were uniformly tricked into handing over their private
data and credit card information by a singular mistruth," the 26-
page complaint states.

"The Life of Pablo" was streamed 250 million times in the first 10
days after it was released on Feb. 14, Tidal told The New York
Times in March.

But after about six weeks, West reneged on his promise and began
selling the album on his personal website and making it available
to Tidal's biggest competitors, including Apple Music and Spotify.

"In reality, neither Mr. West nor SCE ever intended 'The Life of
Pablo' to run exclusively on the Tidal platform," the complaint
states. "To the contrary, they -- knowing that Tidal was in
trouble but not wanting to invest their own money to save the
company -- chose to fraudulently induce millions of American
consumers into paying for Tidal's rescue."

Tidal not only benefited from users' subscription fees but from
their personal data, including user habits, demographics and
browsing history, the lawsuit claims.

"By increasing their user base multiple times over, Tidal is able
to create valuable usage information to aid them in better
monetizing their site as well sharing with or selling that
information to third parties (such as record labels, artists on
its platform, and other media companies)," the complaint states.

Baker-Rhett says he would not have signed up for Tidal or paid the
$9.99 subscription fee had he known "The Life of Pablo" would be
made available elsewhere.

He seeks class certification, damages for false advertising,
unfair competition, fraud and unjust enrichment, restitution, and
an order directing Tidal to delete all class members' personal
data, cancel any outstanding fees and to stop using their personal
information to make money.

He is represented by Todd Logan -- tlogan@edelson.com -- with
Edelson PC in San Francisco.

S. Carter Enterprises and Tidal's parent company, Aspiro, did not
immediately return phone calls and emails seeking comment April
18.

Neither Kanye West nor a representative for him could be reached
for comment.


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Cuebas" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695
--------------------------------------------------------
Victoria Cuebas, individually and on behalf of all other similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company,
Inc., and the Reynolds American, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
7:16-cv-00270, was transferred from the US District Court for the
Southern District of New York, to US District Court for the
District of New Mexico. The District of New Mexico assigned 1:16-
cv-00320-JB-LF to the proceeding.

Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier
Natural American Spirit cigarette brand.

The Cuebas case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants
label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as
"natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading
manner in violation of state consumer protection and false
advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA
warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27,
2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and
"additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In
its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of
New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its
headquarters in this district, and it represents that key
witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers
tasked with the development and execution of product labeling,
marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES
          1212 SE 3rd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320 9507
          E-mail: JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Waldo" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2695
-------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Waldo, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company,
Inc., and Reynolds American Inc., the Defendant, Case no. 6:16-cv-
00427, was transferred from the US District Court for the Middle
District of Florida, to the US District Court for the District of
New Mexico (Albuquerque). The New Mexico District assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-00324-JB-LF to the proceeding.

The Waldo case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants
label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as
"natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading
manner in violation of state consumer protection and false
advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA
warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27,
2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and
"additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In
its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of
New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its
headquarters in this district, and it represents that key
witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers
tasked with the development and execution of product labeling,
marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF.

Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier
Natural American Spirit cigarette brand.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John Allen Yanchunis Sr., Esq.
          Keith R. Mitnik, Esq.
          Marisa Kendra Glassman, Esq.
          Scott Wm. Weinstein, Esq.
          Morgan & Morgan, PA
          201 N Franklin St Fl 7
          Tampa, FL 33602-5157
          Telephone: (813) 223 5505
          Facsimile: (813) 223 5402
          E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com
                  kmitnik@forthepeople.com
                  mglassman@forthepeople.com
                  sweinstein@forthepeople.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Paul Courtney Huck, Jr., Esq.
          JONES DAY
          600 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3300
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 714 9742
          Facsimile: (305) 714 9799
          E-mail: paulhuck@jonesday.com

               - and -

          Troy A. Fuhrman, Esq.
          HILL WARD HENDERSON, PA
          101 E Kennedy Blvd-Ste 3700
          PO Box 2231
          Tampa, FL 33602-5195
          Telephone: (813) 221 3900
          Facsimile: (813) 221 2900
          E-mail: troy.fuhrman@hwhlaw.com


SANTA FE NATURAL: "Okstad" Suit Consolidated in MDL  2695
---------------------------------------------------------
Steve Okstad, Brooke Balocca, Elijah Bent, Charlene Blevins, Sam
Bowman, Matokie Brim, Terry Cliver, Christos Christolow, George
Coon, Gary Cruse, Margie Harris, Charles Honse, Clinton Horton,
Collin Jass, Cristopher Jensen, Shereen Keith, Kelly Keiser, Asher
King, Marilyn Komarinski, Jodi Kumpula, Tom Kurtz, Richard Kusick,
Mike Lair, Tracy Lee, Kathleen Lelli, Robert Litwin, Linda
MacDonald-Lewis, Rudolph Miller, Richard Morelock, Deborah Orrtim
Paulson, Richard Peavy, Concetta Schultz, Judy Sell, Harrison
Thomas, Dani Weir, Tom Weir, Kyle Wiebe, and Vicki Wilson, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company Inc., and Reynolds
American Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00084, was
transferred from the US District Court for the Middle District of
Florida Middle, to the US District Court for the District of New
Mexico (Albuquerque). The New Mexico District Court assigned Case
No. 1:16-cv-00323-JB-LF to the proceeding.

The Okstad case is consolidated with MDL 2695 in re: Santa Fe
Natural Tobacco Company Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation.
The MDL was created by Order of the United States Judicial Panel
on Multidistrict Litigation on April 11, 2016. These actions share
factual questions arising out of the allegation that defendants
label and advertise Natural American Spirit cigarettes as
"natural" and "100% additive free" in a false and misleading
manner in violation of state consumer protection and false
advertising laws. Additionally, all actions stem from an FDA
warning letter to Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company on August 27,
2015, concerning the allegedly unauthorized use of "natural" and
"additive free" on Natural American Spirits cigarette labeling. In
its April 1, 2016, order, the MDL persuaded that the District of
New Mexico is an appropriate transferee district for this
litigation. Defendant Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Company has its
headquarters in this district, and it represents that key
witnesses reside there, including employees and decision makers
tasked with the development and execution of product labeling,
marketing and advertising. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon.
James O. Browning. The lead case is 1:16-md-02695-JB-LF.

Santa Fe Natural is an American tobacco manufacturer based in
Santa Fe, New Mexico, known for its production of the premier
Natural American Spirit cigarette brand.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Jeffrey Louis Haberman, Esq.
          Jonathan Gdanski, Esq.
          Scott P. Schlesinger, Esq.
          SCHLESINGER LAW OFFICES
          1212 SE 3rd Avenue
          Fort Lauderdale, FL 33316
          Telephone: (954) 320 9507
          E-mail: JHaberman@schlesingerlaw.com
                  jgdanski@schlesingerlaw.com
                  scott@schlesingerlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David M. Monde, Esq.
          Paul Courtney Huck, Jr., Esq.
          Michael Fraser Stoer, Esq.
          JONES DAY
          1420 Peachtree Street, Suite 800
          Atlanta, GA 30309
          Telephone: (404) 521 3939
          Facsimile: (404) 521 8330
          E-mail: dmmonde@jonesday.com
                  paulhuck@jonesday.com
                  mstoer@jonesday.com


SEAGATE TECHNOLOGY: Faces "Dattoma" Suit in N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Seagate Technology, LLC. The case
is captioned Nicholas Dattoma, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Seagate Technology, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-02136-NC (N.D. Cal., April 21, 2016).
The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Nathanael M. Cousins.

Seagate is an American data storage company. It was incorporated
in 1978 as Shugart Technology.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jeremiah Frei-Pearson, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN, BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER
          1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
          White Plains, NY 10605
          Telephone: (914) 298 3281
          E-mail: jfrei-pearson@fbfglaw.com

               - and -

          Eric A. Grover, Esq.
          KELLER GROVER LLP
          1965 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94103
          Telephone: (415) 543 1305
          Facsimile: (415) 543 7861
          E-mail: eagrover@kellergrover.com


SEPHORA USA: Does Not Properly Pay Workers, "Provencio" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rose Provencio and all other persons similarly situated v. Sephora
USA, Inc., Case No. 16CV294112 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 21, 2016),
seeks to recover unpaid regular wages, compensation for missed
meal periods, reporting time pay, reimbursable business expenses,
illegal paycheck deductions, related penalties, injunctive and
other equitable relief, and reasonable attorneys' fees and
litigation costs pursuant to California Labor Code.

Sephora USA, Inc. is a luxury products provider with corporate
headquarters in San Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin Allen, Esq.
      VELTON ZEGELMAN P.C.
      525 W Remington Drive
      Sunnyvale, CA 94087
      Telephone: (408) 505-7892


SIENTRA INC: Consolidated Complaint Filed in Shareholder Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the lead plaintiffs in a
class action lawsuit have filed their consolidated amended
complaint.

The Company said, "On September 25, 2015, a lawsuit styled as a
class action of the Company's stockholders was filed in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. The
lawsuit names the Company and certain of our officers as
defendants and alleges violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of
the Exchange Act in connection with allegedly false and misleading
statements concerning our business, operations, and prospects.
The plaintiff seeks damages and an award of reasonable costs and
expenses, including attorneys' fees."

"On November 24, 2015, three stockholders (or groups of
stockholders) filed motions to appoint lead plaintiff(s) and to
approve their selection on lead counsel.  On December 10, 2015,
the court entered an order appointing lead plaintiffs and
approving their selection of lead counsel.  On February 19, 2016,
lead plaintiffs filed their consolidated amended complaint."

Sientra Inc. is a medical aesthetics company.


SIENTRA INC: Plaintiffs Want Suit Remanded to Superior Court
------------------------------------------------------------
Sientra, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 10, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs in three
stockholder class action lawsuits in California fought the
Defendants' bid to remove the case to federal court.

The Company said, "On October 28, November 5, and November 19,
2015, three lawsuits styled as class actions of the Company's
stockholders were filed in the Superior Court of California for
the County of San Mateo. The lawsuits name the Company, certain of
our officers and directors, and the underwriters associated with
our follow-on public offering that closed on September 23, 2015 as
defendants. The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 11,
12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act in connection with
allegedly false and misleading statements in our offering
documents associated with the follow-on offering concerning our
business, operations, and prospects. The plaintiffs seek damages
and an award of reasonable costs and expenses, including
attorneys' fees."

"On December 4, 2015, defendants removed all three lawsuits to the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California. On December 15 and December 16, 2015, plaintiffs filed
motions to remand the lawsuits back to San Mateo Superior Court,
or the Motions to Remand.

"On January 19, 2016, defendants filed their opposition to the
Motions to Remand, and plaintiffs filed their reply in support of
the Motions to Remand on January 26, 2016."

Sientra Inc. is a medical aesthetics company.


SOUVNEAR INC: Recalls Women's Scarves Due to Burn Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
SouvNear Inc., of Trevose, Pa., announced a voluntary recall of
about 650 Women's scarves. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The scarves do not meet the federal flammability standard for
clothing textiles, posing a burn risk.

This recall involves 51 different styles of women's 100 percent
silk scarves. The scarves are between 72 inches long by 31 inches
wide. "100% Pure Silk" and "Made in India" are printed on the
sewn-in tags. The scarves come in standard and infinity styles and
come in various colors and patterns, including floral, leopard and
paisley.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/nGp3fa

The recalled products were manufactured in India and sold at
Averroes International stores and online at amazon.com and
souvnear.com from October 2014 through March 2016 for between $8
and $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled scarves and
return them to SouvNear for a full refund. Consumers who purchased
the scarves online will be contacted directly.


SPARK ENERGY: Dismissal, Arbitration Bids in "Amaya" Case Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ARTURO AMAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPARK
ENERGY GAS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02326-JSW
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Jeffrey S. White denied the motion filed by the
defendant Spark Energy Gas, LLC to dismiss all claims in the first
amended complaint and to compel arbitration of the claims of
plaintiff Barbara Gehrke.  Judge White granted the plaintiffs'
administrative motion to continue the schedule for the briefing
and hearing of the plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

In their complaint, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants are
retail energy suppliers that provide retail utilities services
including natural gas and electricity.  The plaintiffs are former
customers of the defendants.  The plaintiffs alleged that the
defendants engage in fraudulent and deceptive bait and switch
sales practices.

The defendants sought to compel arbitration of the claims of the
plaintiff Barbara Gehrke.  Judge White, however, concluded that
the issue of whether a valid agreement to arbitrate was ever
concluded between the defendants and Gehrke cannot be resolved on
the present record, and thus denied the motion without prejudice.

The defendants also moved to dismiss each of the plaintiffs'
claims in the first amended complaint, relying on three legal
theories.  Judge White, however, denied the defendants' motion
based on all three arguments.

Because of the need for supplemental briefing on the defendants'
motion to compel arbitration and the time for ruling on that
motion, Judge White found that the plaintiffs have shown good
cause for continuing the class certification hearing.
Additionally, Judge White agreed with the plaintiffs that the
question of whether to amend the complaint to substitute proposed
plaintiff Gabino Ortiz for deceased plaintiff Margaret Smith
should be resolved prior to briefing on class certification.
Accordingly, Judge White granted the plaintiffs' administrative
motion.

A full-text copy of Judge White's April 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/DYQAeyfrom Leagle.com.

Arturo Amaya, Barbara Gehrke, Gabino Ortiz, Plaintiff, represented
by William M. Audet, Audet & Partners, LLP, Beatrice Oluwayemisi
Yakubu -- byakubu@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP,
pro hac vice, Charles J. LaDuca -- charles@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca, LLP, pro hac vice, Sara Dawn Avila, Milstein
Adelman, LLP, Steven Richard Weinmann, Audet & Partners LLP,
Taylor Asen -- tasen@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP,
pro hac vice & Gillian Leigh Wade, Milstein Adelman, LLP.

Spark Energy Gas, LLC, Defendant, represented by Joshua Carter
Thomas -- jthomas@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler LLP, pro hac
vice, Michael Roland Matthias -- mmatthias@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, Michelle D. Pector -- mpector@bakerlaw.com -- Baker
Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice & Paul G. Karlsgodt --
pkarlsgodt@bakerlaw.com -- Baker Hostetler, LLP, pro hac vice.

Spark Energy Gas, L.P., Defendant, represented by Michael Roland
Matthias, Baker & Hostetler LLP, Joshua Carter Thomas, Baker
Hostetler LLP & Michelle D. Pector, Baker Hostetler, LLP.


SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Alleged Data Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Julio Hernandez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc. and SFM, LLC,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00958-CAB-DHB (S.D. Cal. April 20, 2016), is
brought on behalf of all the Defendants' current and former
employees whose most sensitive data, including over 21,000 Form W-
2's and their related information, was compiled and negligently
released by the Defendants in response to a "phishing scam" and is
now in the possession of unknown third parties who are believed to
be using the data for illegal purposes.

The Defendants operate 224 Sprouts Farmers 22 Markets in thirteen
states, including California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott B. Cooper, Esq.
      Samantha A. Smith, Esq.
      THE COOPER LAW FIRM, P.C.
      4000 Barranca Parkway, Suite 250
      Irvine, CA 92604
      Telephone: (949) 724-9200
      Facsimile: (949) 724-9255
      E-mail: scott@cooper-firm.com
              samantha@cooper-firm.com

         - and -

      Roger R. Carter, Esq.
      THE CARTER LAW FIRM
      23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 629-2565
      Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
      E-mail: roger@cartelawfirm.com

         - and -

      Marc H. Phelps, Esq.
      PHELPS LAW GROUP
      23 Corporate Plaza Drive, Suite 150
      Newport Beach, CA 92660
      Telephone: (949) 629-2533
      Facsimile: (949) 629-2501
      E-mail: marc@phelpslawgroup.com


STAPLES THE OFFICE: Recalls Office Chairs Due to Fall Hazard
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Staples the Office Superstore LLC, of Framingham, Mass., announced
a voluntary recall of about 2,000 "Back in Motion" Office Chairs.
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The chair can tip over when leaning back, posing a fall hazard.

This recall involves Staples and Quill brand "Back in Motion"
office chairs. The black, bonded leather chair has a tilt function
and a base with wheels. The chairs have SKU # 203439 and item
number SBG 24422 printed on the white label on the underside of
the seat cushion. A second label, also located on the underside of
the seat cushion, states "Reg. No. CA31704 (CN)" and "Made by LF
Products PTE LTD."

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/83rrm3


The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Staples stores nationwide and online at Staples.com and Quill.com
from January 2014 through January 2016 for about $215.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled office chair
and contact Staples for a free replacement base.


SUPERIOR HEALTHPLAN: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Jewett" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Dominique Jewett, and all others similarly situated v. Superior
Healthplan, Inc. & Centene Company of Texas, L.P, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01068-L (N.D. Tex. April 20, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants administer and operate government-sponsored health
insurance plans in the state of Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
      Jesse Hamilton Forester, Esq.
      LEE & BRAZIEL LLP
      1801 North Lamar Street, Suite 325
      Dallas, TX 75202
      Telephone: (214) 749-1400
      Facsimile: (214) 749-1010
      E-mail: jdbraziel@l-b-law.com
              forester@l-b-law.com

         - and -

      Jack Lewis Siegel, Esq.
      SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
      10440 North Central Expy, Ste 1040
      Dallas, TX 75231
      Telephone: (214) 706-0834
      Facsimile: (469) 339-0204
      E-mail: jack@siegellawgroup.biz


TACO BELL: Court Awards $291,987 as Prejudgment Interest
--------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California awarded prejudgment
interest of $291,987.70 in favor of Plaintiffs in the case
captioned, IN RE TACO BELL WAGE AND HOUR ACTIONS, Case No. 1:07-
CV-01314-SAB (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs filed the action over eight and one half years ago.
Following a twelve day jury trial, on March 9, 2016, the jury
returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiffs for the Underpaid Meal
Premium Class claim and in favor of Defendants on the claims of
the Rest Period Class and Late Meal Period Class. The jury awarded
Plaintiffs' damages of $495,913.66 for unpaid meal premiums.

In the motion, Plaintiffs contend that the award of the jury was
for unpaid wages and they are entitled to statutory prejudgment
interest at the California rate of ten percent. Plaintiffs seek
prejudgment interest under California Civil Code section 3289.
Section 3289 provides for interest at ten percent per annum after
a breach of contract.

Defendants argue that the amount awarded was uncertain until the
jury returned its award so Plaintiffs are not entitled to
prejudgment interest. Further, Defendants argue that the amount
awarded by the jury is not wages, but a penalty and therefore no
prejudgment interest is due.

In his Order dated April 8, 2016 available at http://is.gd/CyxXTv
from Leagle.com, Judge Boone found no reason to deviate from the
general rule that an award of interest should be simple, rather
than compound. The Court award prejudgment interest to the
Underpaid Meal Premium Class from November 12, 2007 to the date
that judgment at 7 percent per annum. Prejudgment interest is
awarded in the action in the amount of $291,987.70.

Sandrika Medlock, et al. are represented by Andrew Joseph
Sokolowski, Esq. -- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Jennifer Renee Bagosy, Esq. -- Jennifer.Bagosy@CapstoneLawyers.com
-- Jonathan Sing Lee, Esq. -- Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com --
Raul Perez, Esq. -- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca
Maria Labat, Esq. -- Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert
J. Drexler, Esq. -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and
Matthew Thomas Theriault, Esq. --
Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- CAPSTONE LAW APC, Monica
Balderrama, Esq. -- MBalderrama@initiativelegal.com -- INITIATIVE
LEGAL GROUP APC, Stuart Rowe Chandler, Esq. -- LAW OFFICE OF
STUART R. CHANDLER

Taco Bell Corp. is represented by Morgan Patricia Forsey, Esq. --
mforsey@sheppardmullin.com -- and Nora K. Stiles, Esq. --
nstiles@sheppardmullin.com -- SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER AND HAMPTON


TUFCO INC: Faces "Romano" Suit Over Home Improvement Deal Breach
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvatorevatore Romano v. Tufco Inc. and Carmine Tufano, Case No.
605449/2015 (N.Y. Super. Ct., April 20, 2016), is brought against
the Defendants for failure to perform all of the work required by
the home improvement contract and change orders.

The Defendants, with a principal place of business at 24 Harbor
Avenue, Islip, New York 11751, operate a construction company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Karl Silverberg, Esq.
      KARL SILVERBERG, P.C.
      320 Carleton Ave., Ste. 6400
      Central Islip, NY 11722
      Telephone: (631) 778-6077
      Facsimile: (631) 778-6078



TULANE UNIVERSITY: "England" Suit Seeks Benefits
------------------------------------------------
Christopher England, Individually and on behalf of similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. The Administrators of the
Tulane Educational Fund d/b/a Tulane University, Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-03184 (E.D. La., April 14, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime wages with liquidated damages, prejudgment interest,
recovery of paid time off, vacation, sick time and paid holidays
denied, benefits denied to Plaintiff and/or damages caused by
denial of same, all costs incurred and reasonable attorney's fees
and all relief requested to be awarded under the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

Tulane Educational Fund, operates as Tulane University, in New
Orleans, Louisiana, where Plaintiff worked as a tutor. Tulane
allegedly denied Plaintiff benefits paid to other full-time
employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Laura L. Catlett, Esq.
      LAURA L. CATLETT, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      650 Poydras Street, Suite 1414
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504)521-7958
      Fax: (866)587-6697
      Email: LauraLCatlettLaw@gmail.com


UNITED GUARANTY: Faces "Rodan" Suit in Western Dist. Kentucky
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against United Guaranty Residential
Insurance Company.   The case is captioned Lawrence Rodan,
individually and on behalf of a class of similarly situated
persons, the Plaintiff, v. United Guaranty Residential Insurance
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00229-DJH (W.D. Ky.,
April 20, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. David J. Hale.

United Guaranty provides mortgage guaranty insurance and
reinsurance solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachary L. Taylor, Esq.
          9900 Corporate Campus Drive, Suite 3000
          Louisville, KY 40223
          Telephone: (502) 822 2500
          Facsimile: (502) 631-9680
          E-mail: ztaylor@taylorlawcenter.com


VAM USA: "Guidry" Suit Seeks Compensation & OT Pay Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Glen Guidry, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. VAM USA, LLC, the Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-01064 (S.D. Tex., April 21, 2016), seeks to recover
compensation, liquidated damages, attorneys' fees, and costs,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for
Defendant and was paid a salary plus job bonuses but did not
receive overtime. VAM allegedly failed to compensate Plaintiff
overtime for all hours worked in excess of 40 hours per workweek.

VAM manufactures and markets connection solutions for the oil and
gas industry worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Clif Alexander, Esq.
          Austin W. Anderson, Esq.
          Lauren E. Braddy, Esq.
          PHIPPS ANDERSON DEACON LLP
          819 N. Upper Broadway
          Corpus Christi, TX 78401
          Telephone: (361) 452 1279
          Facsimile: (361) 452 1284
          E-mail: calexander@phippsandersondeacon.com
                  aanderson@phippsandersondeacon.com
                  lbraddy@phippsandersondeacon.com


VECO AUTO: "Mendoza" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Antonio Fernandez Mendoza, Ramon Fernando Aguero, Vianyolet
E. Mendoza and similarly, situated individuals v. Veco Auto Body
Parts, Inc., Alberto Segovia, Sr. and Alberto Segovia, Jr., Case
No. 1:16-cv-21413-JA (S.D. Fla., April 20, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid overtime wages and an additional equal amount as liquidated
damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an auto body parts company in
Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary Andrew Costales
      GARY A. COSTALES, P.A.
      1200 Brickell Ave, Suite 1230
      Miami, FL 33131
      Telephone: (305) 375-9510
      Facsimile: (305) 375-9511
      E-mail: costalesgary@hotmail.com


VECTOR GROUP: $26.9MM Product Liability Legal Expenses in 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that for the years ended
December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, Liggett incurred tobacco product
liability legal expenses and costs totaling $26,987,000,
$9,944,000 and $9,321,000, respectively. The 2013 costs exclude a
charge of $86,213,000 associated with the Engle progeny
settlement.

Since 1954, Liggett and other United States cigarette
manufacturers have been named as defendants in numerous direct,
third-party and purported class actions predicated on the theory
that cigarette manufacturers should be liable for damages alleged
to have been caused by cigarette smoking or by exposure to
secondary smoke from cigarettes. The cases have generally fallen
into the following categories: (i) smoking and health cases
alleging personal injury brought on behalf of individual
plaintiffs ("Individual Actions"); (ii) lawsuits by individuals
requesting the benefit of the Engle ruling ("Engle progeny
cases"); (iii) smoking and health cases primarily alleging
personal injury or seeking court-supervised programs for ongoing
medical monitoring, as well as cases alleging that use of the
terms "lights" and/or "ultra lights" constitutes a deceptive and
unfair trade practice, common law fraud or violation of federal
law, purporting to be brought on behalf of a class of individual
plaintiffs ("Class Actions"); and (iv) health care cost recovery
actions brought by various foreign and domestic governmental
plaintiffs and non-governmental plaintiffs seeking reimbursement
for health care expenditures allegedly caused by cigarette smoking
and/or disgorgement of profits ("Health Care Cost Recovery
Actions"). With the commencement of new cases, the defense costs
and the risks relating to the unpredictability of litigation
increase. The future financial impact of the risks and expenses of
litigation are not quantifiable.


VECTOR GROUP: 171 Engle Progeny Cases Settled for $3.6-Mil.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015,
Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual
basis, settled 171 Engle progeny cases for approximately
$3,612,000 in the aggregate. Three of those settlements occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2015.

Judgments have been entered against Liggett and other industry
defendants in Engle progeny cases. A number of the judgments have
been affirmed on appeal and satisfied by the defendants. As of
December 31, 2015, 24 Engle progeny cases where Liggett was a
defendant at trial resulted in verdicts. Fifteen verdicts were
returned in favor of the plaintiffs (although in two of these
cases (Irimi and Cohen) the court granted defendants' motion for a
new trial and nine in favor of Liggett.

In four of the cases, punitive damages were awarded against
Liggett. In certain cases, the judgments were entered jointly and
severally with other defendants and Liggett may face the risk that
one or more co-defendants decline or otherwise fail to participate
in the bonding required for an appeal or to pay their
proportionate or jury-allocated share of a judgment. As a result,
Liggett under certain circumstances may have to pay more than its
proportionate share of any bonding or judgment related amounts.
Several of the judgments remain on appeal.

Except as discussed regarding the cases where an adverse verdict
was entered against Liggett and that remain on appeal, management
is unable to estimate the possible loss or range of loss from the
remaining Engle progeny cases as there are currently multiple
defendants in each case and, in most cases, discovery has not
occurred or is limited. As a result, the Company lacks information
about whether plaintiffs are in fact Engle class members (non-
class members' claims are generally time-barred), the relevant
smoking history, the nature of the alleged injury and the
availability of various defenses, among other things. Further,
plaintiffs typically do not specify their demand for damages.

Although Liggett has generally been successful in managing
litigation, litigation is subject to uncertainty and significant
challenges remain, including with respect to the remaining Engle
progeny cases. There can be no assurances that Liggett's past
litigation experience will be representative of future results.
Judgments have been entered against Liggett in the past, in
Individual Actions and Engle progeny cases, and several of those
judgments were affirmed on appeal and satisfied by Liggett. It is
possible that the consolidated financial position, results of
operations and cash flows of the Company could be materially
adversely affected by an unfavorable outcome or settlement of any
of the remaining smoking-related litigation. Liggett believes, and
has been so advised by counsel, that it has valid defenses to the
litigation pending against it, as well as valid bases for appeal
of adverse verdicts. All such cases are, and will continue to be,
vigorously defended, however, Liggett has entered into settlement
discussions in individual cases or groups of cases, where Liggett
has determined it was in its best interest to do so, and it may
continue to do so in the future, including the remaining Engle
progeny cases.

In October 2013, Liggett announced a settlement of the claims of
over 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs. As of December 31, 2015,
Liggett (and in certain cases the Company) had, on an individual
basis, settled 171 Engle progeny cases for approximately
$3,612,000 in the aggregate. Three of those settlements occurred
in the fourth quarter of 2015.


VECTOR GROUP: 260 Claims Outstanding Amid Engle Progeny Deal
------------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that approximately 260 claims
remain outstanding notwithstanding the Engle Progeny Settlement.

In May 1994, Engle was filed against Liggett and others in Miami-
Dade County, Florida. The class consisted of all Florida residents
who, by November 21, 1996, "have suffered, presently suffer or
have died from diseases and medical conditions caused by their
addiction to cigarette smoking."

In July 1999, after the conclusion of Phase I of the trial, the
jury returned a verdict against Liggett and other cigarette
manufacturers on certain issues determined by the trial court to
be "common" to the causes of action of the plaintiff class. The
jury made several findings adverse to the defendants including
that defendants' conduct "rose to a level that would permit a
potential award or entitlement to punitive damages." Phase II of
the trial was a causation and damages trial for three of the class
plaintiffs and a punitive damages trial on a class-wide basis
before the same jury that returned the verdict in Phase I.

In April 2000, the jury awarded compensatory damages of
$12,704,000 to the three class plaintiffs, to be reduced in
proportion to the respective plaintiff's fault. In July 2000, the
jury awarded approximately $145,000,000,000 in punitive damages,
including $790,000 against Liggett.

In May 2003, Florida's Third District Court of Appeal reversed the
trial court and remanded the case with instructions to decertify
the class. The judgment in favor of one of the three class
plaintiffs, in the amount of $5,831,000, was overturned as time
barred and the court found that Liggett was not liable to the
other two class plaintiffs.

In July 2006, the Florida Supreme Court affirmed the decision
vacating the punitive damages award and held that the class should
be decertified prospectively, but determined that the following
Phase I findings are entitled to res judicata effect in Engle
progeny cases: (i) that smoking causes lung cancer, among other
diseases; (ii) that nicotine in cigarettes is addictive; (iii)
that defendants placed cigarettes on the market that were
defective and unreasonably dangerous; (iv) that defendants
concealed material information knowing that the information was
false or misleading or failed to disclose a material fact
concerning the health effects or addictive nature of smoking; (v)
that defendants agreed to conceal or omit information regarding
the health effects of cigarettes or their addictive nature with
the intention that smokers would rely on the information to their
detriment; (vi) that defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that
were defective; and (vii) that defendants were negligent. The
Florida Supreme Court decision also allowed former class members
to proceed to trial on individual liability issues (using the
above findings) and compensatory and punitive damage issues,
provided they filed their individual lawsuits by January 2008.

In December 2006, the Florida Supreme Court added the finding that
defendants sold or supplied cigarettes that, at the time of sale
or supply, did not conform to the representations made by
defendants. In October 2007, the United States Supreme Court
denied defendants' petition for writ of certiorari.

Pursuant to the Florida Supreme Court's July 2006 ruling in Engle,
which decertified the class on a prospective basis, and affirmed
the appellate court's reversal of the punitive damages award,
former class members had until January 2008 in which to file
individual lawsuits. As a result, Liggett and the Company, and
other cigarette manufacturers, were sued in thousands of Engle
progeny cases in both federal and state courts in Florida.

Although the Company was not named as a defendant in the Engle
case, it was named as a defendant in substantially all of the
Engle progeny cases where Liggett was named as a defendant.

In October 2013, the Company entered into a settlement with
approximately 4,900 Engle progeny plaintiffs and their counsel.
Pursuant to the terms of the settlement, Liggett agreed to pay a
total of approximately $110,000,000, with approximately
$61,000,600 paid in a lump sum and the balance to be paid in
installments over 14 years, starting in February 2015.  In
exchange, the claims of over 4,900 plaintiffs were dismissed with
prejudice against the Company and Liggett.

Due to the settlement, in 2013 the Company recorded a charge of
$86,213,000, of which $25,213,000 is related to certain payments
discounted to their present value using an 11% annual discount
rate. The Company recorded an additional charge of $643,000 in the
first quarter of 2015 for additional cases joining the settlement
and the restructuring of certain payments related to several
previously settled cases. The installment payments total
approximately $48,000,000 on an undiscounted basis. The Company's
future payments will be approximately $3,400,000 per annum through
2028, with a cost of living increase beginning in 2021.

Notwithstanding the comprehensive nature of the Engle Progeny
Settlement, approximately 260 plaintiffs' claims remain
outstanding. Therefore, the Company and Liggett may still be
subject to periodic adverse judgments which could have a material
adverse affect on the Company's consolidated financial position,
results of operations and cash flows.


VECTOR GROUP: Liggett Faces Class Suit in E.D. Louisiana
--------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that as of December 31, 2015,
three actions were pending for which either a class had been
certified or plaintiffs were seeking class certification where
Liggett is a named defendant. Other cigarette manufacturers are
also named in these actions. Liggett is aware of another action
seeking class certification recently filed in the Eastern District
of Louisiana. Liggett has not been served with that complaint.

Plaintiffs' allegations of liability in class action cases are
based on various theories of recovery, including negligence, gross
negligence, strict liability, fraud, misrepresentation, design
defect, failure to warn, nuisance, breach of express and implied
warranties, breach of special duty, conspiracy, concert of action,
violation of deceptive trade practice laws and consumer protection
statutes and claims under the federal and state anti-racketeering
statutes. Plaintiffs in the class actions seek various forms of
relief, including compensatory and punitive damages,
treble/multiple damages and other statutory damages and penalties,
creation of medical monitoring and smoking cessation funds,
disgorgement of profits, and injunctive and equitable relief.

Defenses raised in these cases include, among others, lack of
proximate cause, individual issues predominate, assumption of the
risk, comparative fault and/or contributory negligence, statute of
limitations and federal preemption.


VECTOR GROUP: Trial in W.Va. Tobacco Case Set for Jan. 2017
-----------------------------------------------------------
Vector Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 8, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in the case, In Re:
Tobacco Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a trial court has set
the first date for the consolidated trials for January 9, 2017.

Although not technically a class action, in In Re: Tobacco
Litigation (Personal Injury Cases), a West Virginia state court
consolidated approximately 750 individual smoker actions that were
pending prior to 2001 for trial of certain "common" issues.
Liggett was severed from trial of the consolidated action. After
two mistrials, in May 2013, the jury rejected all but one of the
plaintiffs' claims, finding in favor of plaintiffs on the claim
that ventilated filter cigarettes between 1964 and July 1, 1969
should have included instructions on how to use them. The issue of
damages was reserved for further proceedings.

The court entered judgment in October 2013, dismissing all claims
except the ventilated filter claim. The judgment was affirmed on
appeal and remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

In April 2015, the plaintiffs filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to the United States Supreme Court which subsequently
declined review. In July 2015, the trial court ruled on the scope
of the ventilated filter claim and determined that only 30
plaintiffs have potentially viable claims against the non-Liggett
defendants, which may be pursued in a second phase of the trial.

The court intends to try the claims of these plaintiffs in six
consolidated trials, each with five plaintiffs.  The trial court
set the first date for the consolidated trials for January 9,
2017.

With respect to Liggett, the trial court requested that Liggett
and plaintiffs brief whether any claims against Liggett survive
given the outcome of the first phase of the trial.  Briefing is
complete. If the case proceeds against Liggett, it is estimated
that Liggett could be a defendant in less than 25 of the remaining
individual cases.


VITA-MIX CORPORATION: Faces "Candelario" Suit in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Vita-Mix Corporation. The case is
captioned Lucia Candelario, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. Vita-Mix Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-02260-MAS-DEA (D.N.J., April 21,
2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Michael A. Shipp.

Vita-Mix manufactures and supplies blending equipment for home and
commercial use.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gerald H. Clark, Esq.
          Clark Law Firm, PC
          811 Sixteenth Avenue
          Belmar, NJ 07719
          Telephone: (732) 443 0333
          Facsimile: (732) 894 9647
          E-mail: gclark@clarklawnj.com


VIVUS INC: Bid to Dismiss "Jasin" Securities Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Vivus, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the California court has yet to rule
on the company's motion to dismiss a securities class action
lawsuit.

On March 27, 2014, Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin, who purport to be
purchasers of VIVUS common stock, filed an Amended Complaint in
Santa Clara County Superior Court alleging securities fraud
against the Company and three of its former officers and
directors. In that complaint, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case
No. 114-cv-261427, plaintiffs asserted claims under California's
securities and consumer protection securities statutes. Plaintiffs
alleged generally that defendants misrepresented the prospects for
the Company's success, including with respect to the launch of
Qsymia, while purportedly selling VIVUS stock for personal profit.
Plaintiffs alleged losses of "at least" $2.8 million, and sought
damages and other relief.

On June 5, 2014, the Company and the other defendants filed a
demurrer to the Amended Complaint seeking its dismissal. With the
demurrer pending, on July 18, 2014, the same plaintiffs filed a
complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Jasin v. VIVUS, Inc., Case No.
5:14-cv-03263. The Jasins' federal complaint alleges violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
based on facts substantially similar to those alleged in their
state court action.

On September 15, 2014, pursuant to an agreement between the
parties, plaintiffs moved to voluntarily dismiss, with prejudice,
the state court action. In the federal action, defendants filed a
motion to dismiss on November 12, 2014. On December 3, 2014,
plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint in the federal action.

On January 21, 2015, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
First Amended Complaint. The court ruled on that motion on June
18, 2015, dismissing the seven California claims with prejudice
and dismissing the two federal claims with leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint on August 17, 2015.
Defendants moved to dismiss that complaint on October 2, 2015.

On September 10, 2015, plaintiffs moved for entry of judgment on
their state claims. Briefing on both defendants' motion to dismiss
and plaintiffs' motion for entry of judgment was completed on
December 15, 2015. The court heard oral argument on both motions
on January 14, 2016. The court has not yet issued a ruling on
either motion.

The Company maintains directors' and officers' liability insurance
that it believes affords coverage for much of the anticipated cost
of the remaining Jasin action, subject to the use of the Company's
financial resources to pay for the Company's self-insured
retention and the policies' terms and conditions.

VIVUS is a biopharmaceutical company with two therapies approved
by the FDA: Qsymia(R) (phentermine and topiramate extended-
release) for chronic weight management and STENDRA(R) (Avanafil)
for erectile dysfunction, or ED. STENDRA is also approved by the
European Commission, or EC, under the trade name, SPEDRA, for the
treatment of ED in the EU.


VIZIO INC: "Tongarm" Suit Transferred from N.D. to C.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------------
Caroline Tongarm, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vizio Inc., a California
Corporation and Cognitive Media Networks Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00822, was
transferred from the US District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the US District Court for the Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central
District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00739-JLS-KES to the
proceeding.

Based in Irvine, California, Vizio is an American privately held
company making consumer electronics.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Tran, Esq.
          Joseph W. Cotchett, Esq.
          Joyce Chang, Esq.
          Adam John Zapala, Esq.
          COTCHETT PITRE AND MCCARTHY LLP
          840 Malcom Road Suite 200
          Burlingame, CA 94010
          Telephone: (650) 697 6000
          Facsimile: (650) 697 0577
          E-mail: etran@cpmlegal.com
                  jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
                  jchang@cpmlegal.com
                  azapala@cpmlegal.com

               - and -

          Erin Green Comite, Esq.
          Joseph P Guglielmo, Esq.
          SCOTT AND SCOTT LLP
          156 South Main Street
          Colchester, CT 06415
          Telephone: (860) 537 5537
          Facsimile: (860) 537 4432
          E-mail: ecomite@scott-scott.com
                  jguglielmo@scott-scott.com

               - and -

          Gary F Lynch, Esq.
          CARLSON LYNCH SWEET AND KILPELA LLP
          1133 Penn Avenue 5th Floor
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Telephone: (412) 322 9243
          Facsimile: (724) 656 1556
          E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Hyongsoon Kim, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER AND FELD LLP
          4 Park Plaza Suite 1900
          Irvine, CA 92614
          Telephone: (949) 885 1000
          Facsimile: (949) 885 1001
          E-mail: kimh@akingump.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Napleton Suit Consolidated With MDL 2672
----------------------------------------------------------
Napleton Orlando Imports, LLC, doing business as: Napleton's
Volkswagen of Orlando, an Illinois limited liability company;
Napleton Sanford Imports, LLC, doing business as: Napleton's
Volkswagen of Sanford, an Illinois limited liability company;
Napleton Automotive of Urbana, LLC, doing business as: Napleton
Volkswagen of Urbana, a Florida limited liability company, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., a New Jersey
corporation; VW Credit Inc., a Delaware corporation; Volkswagen
A.G., a German corporation; Robert Bosch, LLC, a Michigan limited
liability company; and Robert Bosch GmbH, a German corporation,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04071, was transferred from the
US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, to the US
District Court for the Northern District of California (San
Francisco). The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-
02086-CRB to the proceeding.

Volkswagen Group of America designs, manufactures, and sells
automobiles in the United States and internationally. The company
operates as a subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, and is based in
Herndon, Virginia.

The Napleton case is being consolidated with MDL 2672 in re:
Volkswagen Clean Diesel Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products
Liability Litigation. The MDL was created by order of the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on December 8,
2015. These cases primarily concern certain 2.0 and 2 3.0 Liter
diesel engines sold By Defendants Volkswagen Group Of America,
Volkswagen AG And affiliated companies, which allegedly contain
software that enables the vehicles to evade emissions requirements
by engaging full emissions controls only when Official Emissions
Testing Occurs. In its December 8, 2015 order, the MDL panel found
that the actions in this litigation involve common questions of
fact, and that centralization in the northern District of
California will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.
Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Charles R. Breyer, United
States District Judge. The lead case is 3:15-md-02672-CRB.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


VS PHARMACY: Recalls Organic Spiced Herbal Tea Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
VS Pharmacy(R) announced that it has voluntarily recalled select
cases of Gold Emblem Abound(TM) Organic Spiced Herbal Tea
following notification from the manufacturer that the product is
potentially contaminated with Salmonella. An ingredient produced
by the manufacturer's raw material supplier tested positive for
Salmonella in another company's product. CVS Pharmacy's Gold
Emblem product also contains this ingredient.

The product is labeled "Gold Emblem Abound Organic Spiced Herbal
Tea 1.41 oz" and was packed in 1.4 oz cartons. The recalled
product has a single best by date of 18 Mar 2018 with a UPC code 0
50428 541043. No other best by dates are affected. The product was
available at CVS Pharmacy stores nationwide.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Approximately 200 units of the recalled product were sold prior to
this recall. The Company is not aware of any reported cases of
illness to date related to this product and it has issued this
voluntary recall as a matter of precaution.

CVS Pharmacy has removed the affected products from its stores and
the manufacturer has notified the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration. A "do not sell" block has also been placed in the
Company's store register system to prevent further sale of these
recalled items.

Any customer who purchased the recalled product should immediately
discontinue use and return the item to CVS Pharmacy for a refund.
For additional information, please contact the Company at 1-800-
SHOP-CVS Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 7:00 PM ET.

CVS Pharmacy, the retail division of CVS Health (NYSE:CVS), is
America's leading retail pharmacy with over 9,600 locations. It is
the first national pharmacy to end the sale of tobacco and the
first pharmacy in the nation to receive the Community Pharmacy
accreditation from URAC, the leading health care accreditation
organization that establishes quality standards for the health
care industry. CVS Pharmacy is reinventing pharmacy to help people
on their path to better health by providing the most accessible
and personalized expertise, both in its stores and online at
CVS.com. General information about CVS Pharmacy and CVS Health is
available at www.cvshealth.com.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/v6or8M


WEST MARINE: Calif. Court Approves Class Suit Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
West Marine, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 9, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 2, 2016, that a court has approved the
settlement of a class action lawsuit.

In October 2014, a putative class action was filed against West
Marine in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
San Diego, by a California former hourly employee claiming
violations of the California Labor Code and the California
Business and Professions Code. The complaint sought unspecified
damages and attorney's fees, alleging the company's failure to pay
overtime to hourly California store employees who earned bonus
wages or commissions during pay periods in which they worked
overtime, and the derivative claims of failure to provide accurate
wage statements and all wages owed upon termination of employment.

The Company said, "Although we continued to vigorously defend the
claims underlying the lawsuit, on October 16, 2015, the parties
agreed in principle to settle this matter on an individual and
class-wide basis to avoid the uncertainty and costs associated
with protracted litigation. On February 19, 2016, the court
approved the settlement. Our aggregate obligation, including
settlement funds, plaintiff's attorneys' fees and costs and
settlement administration costs had no material impact on our
financial statements."

West Marine is a specialty retailer serving people who enjoy
recreating on or around the water.


WESTLEX CORP: 5th Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Remand
---------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges Carolyn D. King, Edith B. Clement and Priscilla R.
Owen of the Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment
of the district court denying Plaintiffs' motion to remand in the
case captioned, FELICIA CARTER; ANGELLIA DOZIER; NEVALYN FARLEY,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WESTLEX CORPORATION; McCALL-TL,
INCORPORATED; PARK PLACE LX OF TEXAS, LIMITED; TOYOTA MOTOR SALES
USA, INCORPORATED, Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 15-20561.
Summary Calendar (5th Cir.).

Plaintiffs-Appellants Felicia Carter, Angellia Dozier, and Nevalyn
Farley (Plaintiffs) filed suit against Toyota Motor Sales USA,
Inc., (TMS) and several dealerships (Defendants) in Texas state
court on November 6, 2014. Plaintiffs asserted, inter alia, claims
of products liability, fraud, and breach of implied warranty based
on alleged heat damage to the dashboards and other interior
components of their Lexus and Toyota vehicles. Plaintiffs filed
this action individually and on behalf of a putative class of all
Texas residents who own a Toyota or Lexus vehicle that suffered
from the alleged heat damage. Plaintiffs alleged that the putative
class consisted of more than one thousand members, and although
they did not specify a particular amount in controversy,
Plaintiffs alleged that the collective damages exceeded $100,000.

Defendants timely removed the case on December 19, 2014, arguing
in their notice of removal that the district court had subject
matter jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

On January 14, 2015, Plaintiffs moved to remand the case to state
court, challenging Defendants' damages calculations and arguing
that the amount of potential damages was not in excess of $5
million. The district court denied the motion to remand on March
17, 2015. After Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, Defendants
moved to dismiss the amended complaint. The district court granted
Defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing all of Plaintiffs'
claims with prejudice on August 26, 2015.

On appeal, Plaintiffs challenge only the district court's denial
of their motion to remand arguing that Defendants failed to
establish that the amount in controversy exceeded the $5 million
threshold as required by the Class Action Fairness Act when
Defendants introduced evidence of the average costs of repairing
class members' vehicles and calculated a total amount in
controversy of over $5 million.

In the Per Curiam dated April 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/XOIn07from Leagle.com, Judges King, Clement and Owen
found that the district court committed no error in relying on the
evidence and calculations of Defendants. Plaintiffs failed to
introduce any evidence suggesting that Defendants' evidence
presented an inaccurate picture of the amount in controversy, and
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the district court
incorrectly interpreted Defendants' evidence or calculations.


WILBUR PRODUCTS: "Tatum" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to N.D. Ala.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Clyde Tatum Jr., individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wilbur Products Inc., doing
business as: Motiv Bowling, the Defendant, Case No. 64-CV-16-
900097 was removed from the Circuit Court of Walker County
Alabama, to US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama
(Jasper). The Northern District court assigned Case No. 6:16-cv-
00643-LSC to the proceeding.

Wilbur is in the sporting and recreational goods and supplies
industry in Spring Lake, Missouri.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Seth L Diamond, Esq.
          SETH L DIAMOND
          3 Riverchase Office Plaza Suite 102
          Birmingham, AL 35244
          Telephone: (256) 778 1529
          E-mail: sediamondlaw@gmail.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jennifer M Busby, Esq.
          Michael R Dodson, Esq.
          BURR & FORMAN LLP
          420 North 20th Street, Suite 3400
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 251 3000
          Facsimile: (205) 458 5614
          E-mail: gbusby@burr.com
                  mdodson@burr.com


WINDSOR WINDOW: "Clark" Suit Consolidated With MDL 2688
-------------------------------------------------------
Walter Clark and Stephanie Clark, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Windsor Window
Company, doing business as: Windsor Windows and Doors, and
Woodgrain Millwork Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00721,
was transferred from the US District for the Southern District of
Indiana, to the US District for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
(Milwaukee). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-
00479-LA to the proceeding.

Windsor Windows & Doors manufactures wood, vinyl & cellular PVC
windows and doors for new home construction, and home improvement
projects.

The Clark case is being consolidated with MDL 2688 in re: Windsor
Wood Clad Window Products Liability Litigation. The MDL was
created by order of the United States Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation On April 7, 2016. These actions -- all of
which are either putative nationwide or statewide class actions --
share factual questions arising from allegations that windows in
two Windsor product lines, Pinnacle and Legend Hybrid, are
defective in that purported deficiencies in Windsor's design,
engineering, and manufacturing practices cause the windows to
leak, and the leaks eventually result in wood rot. In its December
8, 2015 order, the Panel found that centralization in the Eastern
District of Wisconsin will serve the convenience of the parties
and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. Presiding Judge in the MDL is Hon. Lynn S. Adelman,
United States District Judge. The lead case is 2:16-md-02688-LA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Donn H Wray, Esq.
          Glenn David Bowman, Esq.
          KATZ & KORIN PC
          The Emelie Building
          334 North Senate Avenue
          Indianapolis, IN 46204-1708
          Telephone: (317) 464 1100
          Facsimile: (317) 464 1111
          E-mail: dwray@katzkorin.com
          gbowman@katzkorin.com


WOODGRAIN MILLWORK: "Forster" Suit Moved to E.D. Wisconsin
----------------------------------------------------------
Todd Forster and Maria Forster, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Woodgrain Millwork
Inc., and Windsor Window Company, doing business as: Windsor
Windows and Doors, the Defendants, Case No., 1:16-cv-00257, was
transferred from the US District Court for the Western District of
New York, to the US District Court for the Eastern District of
Wisconsin (Milwaukee). The Eastern District Court assigned Case
No. 2:16-cv-00480-LA to the proceeding.

Woodgrain manufactures moldings and turnings.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Stephen J Fearon, Jr, Esq.
     Squitieri & Fearon LLP
     32 E 57th St-12th Fl
     New York, NY 10022
     Telephone: (212) 421 6492
     Facsimile: (212) 421-6553
     E-mail: stephen@sfclasslaw.com


YAMAHA MOTOR: Recalls Recreational Off-Highway Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Yamaha Motor Corporation USA, of Cypress, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 7,000 Yamaha Recreational Off-Highway
Vehicles. Consumers should stop using this product unless
otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to
resell a recalled consumer product.

Water can get into the throttle cable and if it freezes during
cold weather, the ice can prevent the throttle from returning to
idle. This can cause the rider to lose control, posing crash and
injury hazards.

This recall involves model year 2016 YXZ1000R and YXZ1000R SE
Side-by-Side utility vehicles sold in four colors: orange and
black, blue and white, silver and red, and yellow and white. The
model name (YXZ . . . ) and "1000" is displayed in a graphic on
both the left and right side of the vehicle. The vehicle
identification number (VIN) is stamped on the frame near the
driver's side rear wheel. The letter G in the 10th position of the
VIN number indicates that the unit was made in the 2016 model
year.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/s6wUWf

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at Yamaha
side-by-side dealers nationwide from September 2015 to February
2016 for between $19,800 and $21,600.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled utility
vehicles and contact their local Yamaha dealer to schedule a free
repair. Yamaha is contacting all registered owners directly.


                            *********

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  * * *