CAR_Public/160428.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, April 28, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 85



                            Headlines


5-STAR FLASH: "Redman" Sues Over Taxi Fare Surcharge
ADVANCED MICRO: Court Wants Bulldozer Processors Suit Revised
ALERE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Statistical Sampling Not Enough Proof
AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Court Denies Class Certification in "Murphy"

ARCHIE'S KEY: "Arratia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
ARTISTIC CONCRETE: Faces Ga. Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
ATHENS-CLARKE, GA: 11th Cir. Revives Retirees' Suit
BABEL SECURITY: "Cubias" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
BAREBURGER INC: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay

BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Narrows Claims in "Washington"
CANADA: Judge to Rule on Residential Facilities Class Action
CANADA: Two Law Firms Commence "Sixties Scoop" Class Action
CB1 INC: Magistrate Judge Says "Bellamy" Suit Must Proceed
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Oil, Gas Leaseholds

CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Two Claims in GMO Class Action Can Proceed
CITIMORTGAGE INC: Court Adopts R&R, Declines to Extend Schedules
COCO ASIAN CUISINE: Bid to Dismiss "Goh" Suit Denied
DAIMLER AG: Rebuffs Questions on Internal Emissions Probe
DAIMLER AG: Conducts Emissions Probe After U.S. Gov't Request

DIRECTV LLC: Must Defend Against "Anaya" FLSA Suit
DOMETIC CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Refrigerator Safety Defects
EDS DISTRIBUTION: "Rios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
FONG'S RESTAURANTS: "Ye" Suit to Recover Overtime, Premium Pay

GLOBAL CREDIT: "Steinwurzel" Sues over Illegal Collection
H CARE JOBS: Tishman Files Statutory Action
HIH: Shareholders Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
HYDRO ONE: Flamborough Centre Homeowners File Class Action
FLEET CARD: Judge Allows ESOP Class Action Can Proceed

FRESHPET INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Must Respond to "Orozco" Discovery Requests
J CREW: Faces Class Action Over Fictitious "Sale" Prices
JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Invokana Class Action in Canada
KELLY PAPER: "Rosales" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks

LOS ANGELES, CA: Pershing Square Parking Fee Receipt Suit Settled
LOS ANGELES TURF: "Torres" Suit Seeks Overtime, Missed Breaks
LVNV FUNDING: Wins Summary Judgment in "Casso" FDCPA Suit
M&T BANK: Court Stays "Hatemi" Action Pending Arbitration
MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Favors Seacor in Employee's Suit

MF GLOBAL: July 15 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
MINNESOTA HUMAN SERVICES: New Jensen Internal Reviewer Named
MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Discovers Falsified Fuel Mileage Tests
MOODY MANOR: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Court Tosses "Wendel" Debt Collection Suit

ONE WAY: Faces "Beahm" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
OWENS CORNING: Class Certification Denied for 2 Pa. Suits
PAYPAL INC: "Wiederhold" Sues Over TCPA Violations
PEDRO'S BAGEL: "Bravo" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
PF CHANG'S: Appeals Court Reinstates Data Breach Class Action

PJT PARTNERS: "Barrett" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
PO'S RICE: "Ye" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime, Premium Pay
PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Defective 911 Vehicles
PSCU INC: Faces "Jones" Customer Service Reps' Suit Under FLSA
PULTE HOME: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Stucco Siding

PURE BIOMED: Tishman Files Statutory Action
REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Rothman" Suit Transferred to D.N.M
RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Trial in Class Action v. Water Utility Delayed
RJ REYNOLDS: Liability Exemption Won't Prohibit Tobacco Suits
SANOFI: 3rd Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Dismiss "Weitzner"

SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Kader" Amended Complaint
SECURITAS SECURITY: Sept. 22 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
SETERUS INC: "Courtney" Suit Claims Illegal Debt Collection Acts
SITEL OPERATING: Faces "Gilbert" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
SOLARCITY CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Morris" TCPA Case

SOUTH DAKOTA: Some Inmates Dropped as Plaintiff in Suit v. Warden
SP AUSNET: Bushfire Settlement Payouts to Start This Year
SPACE AGE: Faces "Carter" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
TAISHAN GYPSUM: Cabinet-Level Agency Can't Be Sued Over Drywall
TD BANK: "Feinman" Sues Over Short-changing Coin-counter

TGI FRIDAY'S: Appeals Court Reverses Class Action Ruling
TIDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
TMK IPSCO: Faces "Birkhimer" Suit Seeking Wages Under WARN Act
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Bradshaw" Drivers Suit Under FLSA
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Actions for $100MM

UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Pacer Fees
UNITED STATES: Deal on Unspent Farm Settlement Funds OK'd
UNITED STATES: Judge Issues Proposal in Immigration Case
VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: 6th Cir. Vacates Remand Order
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches Framework Agreement with Plaintiffs

VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions-Related Recall to Costs Billions
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Diesel Emmissions Deal to Cost $10 Billion
VOLKSWAGEN AG: Eager to Wrap Up Diesel Emissions Scandal
WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Ill. App. Trims "Kagan" Complaint
WILD EDIBLES: Faces "Chamilco" Suit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law

WV AMERICAN: Rival Lawyers in Dispute Over Chemical Spill Case
WYOMING CASING: Faces "Burrusss" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
YELLOW CAB: "Patt" Sues over Taxi Fare Surcharge
YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Overrules Bid to Stay "Better" Suit

* No-Injury Class Action Settlements Only Benefit Attorneys
* Federal Courts Can't Intervene in EEOC Class Actions
* SIAS Won't Hesitate to Take Errant Companies to Court
* US Steel Files Antitrust Suit Against Chinese Steel Producers


                            *********


5-STAR FLASH: "Redman" Sues Over Taxi Fare Surcharge
----------------------------------------------------
Scott D.H. Redman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. 5 Star Flash, Inc., E&E Taxi
Company, Boulevard Corp., Mikhalia Cabs Six, Inc., Blue Ribbon
Taxi Association, Inc., SBJ Cab Co., Creative Mobile Technologies,
LLC and Verifone, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2016CHD5252 (Ill.
Cir., April 14, 2016), is a statutory action filed in acordance
with US Code 28:1331.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants, taxi operators, of adding a $0.50
surcharge on taxi fares paid via credit card.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul F. Markoff. Esq.
      Karl G. Leinberger, Esq.
      MARKOFF LEINBERGER LLC
      134 N LaSalle St., Ste. 1050
      Chicago IL 60602
      Tel: 312.726.4162
      Fax: 312.674.7272


ADVANCED MICRO: Court Wants Bulldozer Processors Suit Revised
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Ronald M. Whyte of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted defendant's motion
to dismiss with leave to amend in the case captioned, TONY DICKEY,
Plaintiff, v. ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES, INC., Defendant, Case No.
5:15-CV-04922-RMW (N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff commenced the lawsuit on October 26, 2015. Plaintiff's
complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Violations
of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act (CLRA; (2) Violations
of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL); (3) Violations of
California's False Advertising Law (FAL); (4) Fraudulent
Inducement; (5) Breach of Express Warranties; (6) Negligent
Misrepresentation; and (7) Unjust Enrichment.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of "all individuals in the
United States that purchased any of the following Defendant
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. (AMD) Bulldozer processors: FX-8120,
FX-8150, FX-8320, FX-8350, FX-8370, FX-9370, and FX-9590. "

Plaintiff alleges that AMD's representations regarding the number
of cores on each Bulldozer chip were false. In fact, according to
the complaint, the Bulldozer chips functionally have only four
cores not eight, as advertised because AMD built the Bulldozer
processors by stripping away components from two cores and
combining what was left to make a single module.

AMD moves to dismiss plaintiff Tony Dickey's complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Defendant argues that
(1) Alabama law, not California law, governs plaintiff's claims,
and so the UCL, FAL, and CRLA claims should be dismissed; (2) even
under California law, plaintiff fails to state a claim for fraud;
(3) the breach of warranty allegations fail to state a claim; and
(4) plaintiff's unjust enrichment allegations fail to state a
claim.

In his Order dated April 7, 2016 available at http://is.gd/H29zNF
from Leagle.com, Judge Whyte found that plaintiff's allegations
regarding reliance are insufficient to state a claim for fraud.
His claim for breach of warranty is dismissed with leave to amend
because plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts regarding his
understanding of the term "core" and his unjust enrichment claim
is superfluous.

The Court directed plaintiff to submit an amended complaint that
corrects the deficiencies identified within 14 days and set a case
management conference on May 13, 2106 at 10:30 a.m. and submit a
joint case management statement by May 6, 2013.

Tony Dickey is represented by Alexander Nguyen, Esq. --
anguyen@edelson.com -- Benjamin Scott Thomassen, Esq. --
bthomassen@edelson.com -- Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq. --
rbalabanian@edelson.com -- and Todd M. Logan, Esq. --
tlogan@edelson.com -- EDELSON PC

AMD is represented by Matthew David Powers, Esq. --
mpowers@omm.com -- and Edmundo Clay Marquez, Esq. --
emarquez@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


ALERE INC: Glancy Prongay Files Securities Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP ("GPM") on April 21 disclosed that it
has filed a class action lawsuit in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts on behalf of a class (the
"Class") of purchasers of Alere Inc. ("Alere" or the "Company")
securities between May 9, 2013 and April 20, 2016, inclusive (the
"Class Period").

If you are a member of the Class described above, you may move the
Court no later than 60 days from April 21, 2016, to serve as lead
plaintiff.  Please contact Lesley Portnoy at 888-773-9224 or 310-
201-9150, or at shareholders@glancylaw.com to discuss this matter.

The complaint filed in this lawsuit alleges that throughout the
Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements,
as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the
Company's business, operations, and prospects.  Specifically,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company improperly recognized and
reported revenue in violation of Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles ("GAAP"); (2) that, as a result, the Company's
quarterly and annual SEC filings would be delayed; (3) that, as a
result of the foregoing, the Company's planned merger with Abbott
Laboratories would be thrown into doubt; (4) that the Company
lacked adequate internal controls over accounting and financial
reporting; and (5) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements
about Alere's business, operations, and prospects, were false and
misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.  On or around
March 15, 2016, the Company announced that it would delay the
filing of its 2015 Annual Report, and would need to restate the
financial reports for the years 2013, 2014 and 2015 due to issues
with its revenue recognition practices, and had also received a
subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice relating the
Company's sales practices and compliance with the U.S. Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act.  After these disclosures, the Company's
formerly announced acquisition by Abbott Laboratories might be
jeopardized, and the Company's shares have declined significantly
in value.

GPM represents institutional and retail investors in securities
class actions throughout the country, and has recovered millions
of dollars on behalf of investors.

To be a member of the Class you need not take any action at this
time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and
remain an absent member of the Class.  If you wish to learn more
about this action, or if you have any questions concerning this
announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these
matters, please contact Lesley Portnoy, Esquire, of Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles,
California 90067, at (310) 201-9150, by e-mail to
shareholders@glancylaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.glancylaw.com


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Statistical Sampling Not Enough Proof
---------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Paley, Esq. and Sheryl Skibbe, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP,
in an article for JDSupra, report that Allstate Insurance Company
"insured" a major victory in an off the clock class action pending
in Los Angeles Superior Court, vindicating employers' argument
that plaintiffs cannot simply intone the magical incantation of
"statistical sampling" as a means of collective proof in a class
action.  Rather, plaintiffs must proffer a detailed and manageable
trial plan that relies on sound statistical science.  Likening
Plaintiff's trial plan to a house built on a poor foundation,
Judge John Shepard Wiley rejected the statistically unsound trial
plan because it would be "an enduring source of grief."

After almost nine years of litigation, Judge Wiley granted
Allstate's motion to decertify both an off-the-clock and wage
statement class because none of the multiple trial plans suggested
by Plaintiff complied with the requirements in the California
Supreme Court's 2014 decision in Duran v. U.S. Bank National
Association or last month's U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tyson
Foods, Inc. v. Bouaphakeo.

Over the past two years, Plaintiff offered several trial plans
based on statistical sampling and extrapolation suggested by two
different experts.  The court, however, found that each of the
plans failed to comply with sound statistical methodology and were
"premised on invalid logic."  Recognizing that a 95% confidence
interval and a 5% margin of error is the common convention, the
court roundly criticized Plaintiff's expert who proposed an 84%
confidence interval and anywhere from a 10-20% margin of error.
The court also rejected Plaintiff's plea to let him proceed with
trial and enter a directed verdict if he could not prove his
claims because such a plan was "doomed to be an expensive waste of
time."  Under proper sampling methodologies, the case would be
unmanageable at trial as the sample size would require testimony
from at least 495 class members.

Significantly, the court's decision implicitly rejects the
Plaintiff's argument that not all members of his proposed survey
need to testify at trial.  The decision is therefore powerful
ammunition to counter plaintiffs' oft repeated argument that a
"sample of a sample" is sufficient to testify at trial.  If sound
statistical methodology requires a sample of 495 class members in
order to extrapolate the results to the larger class consistent
with the proper confidence interval and margin of error, then all
495 class members need to testify at trial so that the jury can
determine their credibility and assess their testimony. Plaintiffs
cannot simply propose that their expert will testify at trial as
to the results of a survey of the sample. If this means that the
trial will be unmanageable, then the case should be decertified.

Although Plaintiff argued that Tyson Foods was a "game changer,"
the court found Tyson Foods to be entirely consistent with Duran.
The court recognized that Tyson Foods and Duran prohibit the use
of statistically inadequate evidence such as that presented by
Plaintiff. Although representative proof sometimes can be used in
a certified class action, statistical evidence only can be used if
the proof is reliable.

This case provides employers with several important "take-aways."
Defense counsel should aggressively challenge a plaintiff's
proposed trial plan to ensure that the trial plan is statistically
reliable.  Additionally, neither Tyson Foods nor Duran stands for
the proposition that statistical sampling and surveys can be used
to prove liability in every case.  Whatever the supposed benefits
of a class action may be, they cannot defeat a defendant's right
to due process.  Trial plans must be tailored to the specific
facts of the claims alleged and an unmanageable trial plan that is
not scientifically sound should be rejected.


AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Court Denies Class Certification in "Murphy"
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri denied without prejudice
Plaintiff's Motion for Class Certification in the case captioned,
JAMES S. MURPHY, Plaintiff, v. AJINOMOTO WINDSOR, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-CV-120-JAR (E.D. Mo.).

In his Memorandum and Order dated April 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/IWiis0from Leagle.com, Judge Ross denied pro se
litigant James S. Murphy's motion for class certification and
purported opt-in notices because a pro se litigant can proceed on
his individual claim but not representing a class.

Defendants are represented by David C. Van Dyke, Esq. --
DVanDyke@howardandhoward.com -- Emily E. Bennett, Esq. --
EBennett@howardandhoward.com -- and Tracy C. Litzinger, Esq. --
TLitzinger@howardandhoward.com -- HOWARD AND HOWARD ATTORNEYS,
PLLC


ARCHIE'S KEY: "Arratia" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
JOSE P. ARRATIA, and other similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiff, v. ARCHIE'S KEY BISCAYNE, L.L.C., NICOLAS ESCOBAR, and
DOMINIQUE DUQUE-DANKO, individually, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-
21367-KMW (S.D. Fla., April 15, 2016), seeks to recover money
damages for unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

NICOLAS ESCOBAR and DOMINIQUE DUQUE-DANKO were and are now, the
owners/partners/ managers of Defendant Corporation ARCHIE'S PIZZA.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ARTISTIC CONCRETE: Faces Ga. Suit Under Fair Labor Standards Act
----------------------------------------------------------------
ADRIAN ALVAREZ, ADRIAN ALVAREZ, JR., ALEXIS FIERRO, GONZALO ISLAS,
PEDRO SANCHEZ, JOSE PEREZ ROBLES, VINCENT CISNEROS, and DOMINGO
ALVAREZ, Plaintiffs, v. ARTISTIC CONCRETE OF GEORGIA, INC., and
JOE HALL, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-01216-TWT (N.D. Ga., April 15,
2016), seeks relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act for
Defendants' alleged unlawful employment and compensation
practices.

Artistic Concrete of Georgia Inc. is a concrete contractor in
Norcross, Georgia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Robert M. Weaver, Esq.
     QUINN, CONNOR, WEAVER, DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
     3516 Covington Highway
     Decatur, GA 30032
     Phone: 404/299-1211
     Fax: 404/299-1288
     E-mail: rweaver@qcwdr.com


ATHENS-CLARKE, GA: 11th Cir. Revives Retirees' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Judge Goldberg of the Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit reversed
district court's grant of partial judgment in favor of the Unified
Government of Athens-Clarke County, Georgia (the ACC) in the case
captioned, DAVID A. WOOD, NANCY COCHRAN, BOBBY SNIPES, WENDELL
FAULKNER, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. UNIFIED GOVERNMENT OF ATHENS-
CLARKE COUNTY, GEORGIA, Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 15-11707
(11th Cir.).

In the putative class action, David A. Wood, Nancy Cochran, Bobby
Snipes, and Wendell Faulkner allege that the Unified Government of
Athens-Clarke County, Georgia, breached contractual obligations to
provide health benefits to eligible retirees. The Appellants are
retirees of the ACC. David A. Wood served as an electrician from
1976 until he retired in 2011.

The Appellants allege that when the time came for the ACC to honor
its end, the ACC refused. Each Appellant insists that, on the day
of his or her retirement, the ACC covered all health insurance
premiums. Yet ordinances adopted in 2002 and 2013 now require the
Appellants to elect Medicare at the age of 65 and pay their own
Medicare premiums. Through these ordinances, the ACC also provides
monthly contributions to the Appellants to purchase supplemental
insurance as an add-on to Medicare.

The ACC moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
the statute of limitations bars the Appellants' claims. The
district court granted the ACC's motion.

On appeal, the Appeals Court is asked to determine whether the
contract between the ACC and the Appellants entire or divisible.
In the Memorandum dated April 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7CHRkmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Goldberg held that the
contract between the ACC and the Appellants is divisible so that
the contract requires successive payments of healthcare premiums
and iindemnification for an indefinite total amount over the
uncertain period of each Appellant's life. The Case is remanded
for further proceedings.


BABEL SECURITY: "Cubias" Suit Seeks Recovery of Overtime Pay
------------------------------------------------------------
Wilmer Cubias and Lorenzo Chavez, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Babel Security, Inc. and
Does 1 to 100, Defendants, Case No. BC617347 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
April 18, 2016), seeks premium pay for unpaid meal breaks,
penalties, attorney fees and costs and other relief pursuant to
the California Labor Code, Wage Theft Prevention Act, Government
Code 12940 (Discrimination) and Business and Professions Code.

Plaintiffs were allegedly denied rest periods, overtime pay, final
pay upon termination, issuance of pay stubs and discriminated over
their sexual preference.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert Starr, Esq.
      Adam M. Rose, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF ROBERT STARR
      23901 Calabasas Road, #2072
      Calabasas, CA 91302
      Telephone: (818) 225-9040
      Facsimile: (818) 225-9042
      Email: robert@starrlaw.com
             adam@starrlaw.com


BAREBURGER INC: "Tapia" Suit Seeks Overtime, Spread of Hours Pay
---------------------------------------------------------------
Guadencio Tapia and Marco Lezama, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, v. Bareburger Inc., Bareburger LLC.
and/or Euripides Pelekanos, Jimmy Pelekanos and Georgios Rodas,
Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-01883 (E.D.N.Y., April 18, 2016), seeks to
recover overtime compensation, spread of hours compensation and
damages for failure to provide accurate paystubs pursuant to the
Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Labor Law and New York Codes,
Rules, and Regulations.

Defendants own and operated several organic fast food restaurants,
two of which are located at 23-31 31st Street, Astoria NY 11105
and 33-21 31st Avenue, Astoria, NY, 11106, where Guadencio Tapia
and Marco Lezama were employed by Defendants as line cooks and
food preparers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Leonor H. Coyle, Esq.
      Lloyd R. Ambinder, Esq.
      VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
      40 Broad, 7th Floor
      New York, NY 10004
      Tel: (212) 943-9080
      Fax: (212) 943-9082
      Email: lcoyle@vandallp.com


BRUMBAUGH & QUANDAHL: Court Narrows Claims in "Washington"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TAMERRA F. WASHINGTON, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. BRUMBAUGH &
QUANDAHL, P.C., LLO., KIRK E. BRUMBAUGH, and MARK QUANDAHL,
Defendants, No. 8:15CV444 (D. Neb.), Judge Lyle E. Strom granted
in part and denied, in part, the defendants' motion to dismiss,
and denied the plaintiff's motion to consolidate and motion for
citation of contempt.

Tamerra F. Washington filed a putative class action, alleging
violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the
Nebraska Consumer Protection Act (NCPA), and a "violation of a
previous court order."  Washington argued that the defendants'
actions and "routine practice" of serving interrogatories and
requests for admission with instructions to pro se litigants that
answers be "sworn" and "filed" violates the FDCPA, the NCPA, and a
previous court order.

The defendants, Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., LLO., Kirk E.
Brumbaugh, and Mark Quandahl moved to dismiss.  Washington, on
behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, sought to
consolidate the case with Birge v. Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C.,
LLO, Kirk E. Brumbaugh, Mark Quandahl, Sara E. Miller, and Midland
Funding, LLC 8:13CV8, in which suit the court had issued a Final
Order and Judgment almost two years before Washington's case was
filed.  Washington also sought an order for citation of contempt
against the defendants for alleged violations under the terms of
the Birge Final Order and Judgment.

To the extent Washington asserts a violation of the court's Final
Order and Judgment in Birge, Judge Strom found that Washington was
not a party to the Birge action and therefore lacks standing to
assert the defendants' alleged violation of the Birge Final Order
and Judgment.  Judge Strom, however, denied the defendants' motion
to dismiss Washington's FDCPA and NCPA claims upon finding that
the complaint satisfies the standard required under the federal
rules with respect to those claims.

Judge White also denied Washington's motion to consolidate and
motion for citation of contempt because the Birge action has been
closed since February of 2014.

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

Tamerra F. Washington, Plaintiff, represented by O. Randolph
Bragg, HORWITZ, HORWITZ LAW FIRM, Pamela A. Car, CAR, REINBRECHT
LAW FIRM & William L. Reinbrecht, CAR, REINBRECHT LAW FIRM.

Brumbaugh & Quandahl, P.C., LLO., Defendant, represented by David
A. Houghton, HOUGHTON, BRADFORD LAW FIRM & Karl E. Von Oldenburg
-- karlvonoldenburg@bglaw.com -- BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM.

Kirk E. Brumbaugh, Mark Quandahl, Defendants, represented by Karl
E. Von Oldenburg, BRUMBAUGH, QUANDAHL LAW FIRM.


CANADA: Judge to Rule on Residential Facilities Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Philips, writing for Orilliapacket.com, reports that looms
large in the troubled history of 12 provincial residential
facilities, including locations in Oro-Medonte Township and
Muskoka.

Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba was set to decide
on April 25 whether to approve a $36-million settlement reached
last fall between the province and the Toronto-based legal firm
acting on behalf of former residents at a dozen facilities like
the former Adult Occupational Centre in Edgar.

"If approved, the settlement claims process would start within 38
days," said Jody Brown -- jbrown@kmlaw.ca -- a lawyer with Koskie
Minsky LLP, a Toronto-based firm that was involved with the $35-
million class-action settlement between the province and former
residents of the Huronia Regional Centre (HRC).

During the half-day hearing, Justice Belobaba will hear from both
proponents and potential settlement opponents before ruling on
whether to allow the class action.  He will also be asked to
approve Koskie Minsky's $3.7-million fee for its work on the case.

So far, about 250 individuals have contacted Mr. Brown's firm -- a
number he expects will rise significantly if the lawsuit gets the
green light, since a larger media campaign will begin to alert
people to the class-action settlement.

"The Crown will pay for all of that," M. Brown said, noting the
media blitz would likely include TV ads, radio spots, print
listings and direct mailings.

The lawsuit covers those who may have suffered harm while living
at the Edgar facility between Jan. 1, 1966, and March 31, 1999,
along with eligible former residents staying at the Muskoka Centre
in Gravenhurst between Aug. 28, 1973, and June 30, 1993. It's
estimated 8,000 people once lived at one of the 12 named
institutions.

If approved by the court, compensation claims will be assessed by
an independent claims administrator and overseen by Ian Binnie, a
former Supreme Court justice.

The maximum one can expect from the settlement is $42,000, with a
sliding scale used to determine compensation based on the
"severity of harm someone suffered."

Francesca Allodi-Ross is a staff lawyer with the Orillia-based
Community Legal Clinic, which provides free legal-aid services in
Simcoe County, Haliburton and Kawartha Lakes.

"We have started representing clients that had been at Edgar," she
said, noting those who might need representation or help making
their claims can call her office at 800-461-8953.

"We represented quite a few for the HRC (settlement)."

The involved facilities were shuttered between 1977 and 1999, a
move the province said related to a government decision to close
institutions for adults with developmental disabilities and move
residents to homes in the community, where they could get
appropriate supports.

In announcing the settlement last fall, Attorney General Madeleine
Meilleur said in a release she hopes the agreement is a step
forward in addressing "a painful chapter of our province's
history" while helping "former residents who suffered harm move
forward with dignity."

Besides the aforementioned facilities, compensation may also be
available for those who stayed at the Bluewater Centre (Goderich),
D'Arcy Place (Cobourg), Durham Centre for the Developmentally
Handicapped (Whitby), L.S. Penrose Centre (Kingston), Midwestern
Regional Centre (Palmerston), Northwestern Regional Centre
(Thunder Bay), Oxford Mental Health Centre (Woodstock), Oxford
Regional Centre (Woodstock), Pine Ridge Centre (Aurora), Prince
Edward Heights (Picton) and St. Lawrence Regional Centre
(Brockville).


CANADA: Two Law Firms Commence "Sixties Scoop" Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
On April 20, 2016, Koskie Minsky LLP in Toronto and Troniak Law in
Winnipeg commenced a class action against the Attorney General of
Canada on behalf of Aboriginal persons affected by the "Sixties
Scoop" in Manitoba.

The term "Sixties Scoop" refers to the practice in Manitoba
whereby Aboriginal children were taken ("scooped up") from their
families for placing in foster homes or adoption with non-
Aboriginal homes.  As a result, it is alleged these "scooped"
children lost their identity as Aboriginal persons and suffered
mentally, emotionally, spiritually, and physically.  The
plaintiffs also claim they were deprived of their status and other
Aboriginal-related benefits, which Canada unjustly retained.
Aboriginal communities describe the Sixties Scoop as destructive
to their culture.

The claim alleges that by virtue of the Sixties Scoop in Manitoba,
Canada was negligent and breached fiduciary duties owed to the
Aboriginal class members.

The lawsuit is brought on behalf of all "Indian, non-status
Indian, and/or M‚tis" children who were scooped after
September 2, 1966 and were placed in the care of non-Aboriginal
foster or adoptive parents who did not raise the children in
accordance with the Aboriginal person's customs, traditions, and
practices.

It seeks $200 million in damages for breach of fiduciary duty and
negligence and $50 million in punitive damages.

"For too long, this 'scooped' generation in Manitoba has gone
without recourse for the failings perpetrated upon them by the
loss of their families, identities, cultures, and rightful
benefits and treatment", says Kirk Baert, co-lead counsel at
Koskie Minsky LLP, "and this case finally provides a real
opportunity to provide them with access to justice."


CB1 INC: Magistrate Judge Says "Bellamy" Suit Must Proceed
----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Carolyn S. Ostby of the United States District
Court for the District of Montana recommended the denial of CB1
Inc.'s motion to dismiss and strike class allegations in the case
captioned, WILLIAM WITTMAN and AMBER BELLAMY, for themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. CB1, INC.,
Defendant, Case No. CV 15-105-BLG-SPW-CSO (D. Mont.).

Plaintiffs William Wittman and Amber Bellamy (Plaintiffs) incurred
medical bills at the Billings Clinic for treatment of various
health issues and the bills were placed for collection with CB1.
CB1 sent requests for payment to each Plaintiff and the requests
indicated that CB1 would collect a surcharge of 2.5% if the debt
were paid with a debit or credit card.  Each Plaintiff made
payments to CB1 with a debit card at CB1's office in Billings,
Montana, and CB1 added the 2.5% surcharge to each Plaintiff's
bill.

Plaintiffs bring the putative class action against CB1, Inc. (CB1)
alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act
(FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692et seq., and the Montana Consumer
Protection Act (MCPA). The Complaint further alleges that members
of the putative class: (1) incurred consumer debt that was placed
with CB1 for collection; and (2) received requests for payment
from CB1 indicating that it would collect a 2.5% surcharge for use
of a debit or credit card, and that some paid that fee. Plaintiffs
allege that, on information and belief, CB1 agreed with card
issuers not to charge a fee to consumers for using a credit card.

In the motion, CB1 argues that the MCPA claim should be dismissed
for failure to state a claim and that the Court should strike
paragraphs 43 through 49 of the Complaint because Montana law
prevents Plaintiffs from representing a class of individuals under
the MCPA.

In her Findings and Recommendationsdated April 8, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/bgIWU4from Leagle.com, Judge Ostby denied motion
to strike finding that the MCPA class action prohibition does not
apply in federal court and the motion to dismiss MCPA claim
finding that the MCPA class action prohibition is procedural in
nature and Rule 23 applies to determine whether a claim may be
brought as a class action. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs
have adequately stated a claim under the MCPA. Thus, the Court
recommends the motion be denied as to the MCPA claim.

William Wittman and Amber Bellamy are represented by:

     D. Michael Eakin, Esq.
     EAKIN, BERRY & GRYGIEL, PLLC
     2815 Montana Ave
     Billings, MT
     Tel: (406)696- 6001

          - and -

     John C. Heenan, Esq.
     BISHOP AND HEENAN
     1631 Zimmerman Trail
     Billings, MT 59102
     Tel: (406)839-9091

CB1, Inc. is represented by Abraham J. Colman, Esq. ---
acolman@reedsmith.com -- and Raymond Y. Kim, Esq. ---
rkim@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH

          - and -

     Martin Steve Smith, Esq.
     FELT, MARTIN, FRAZIER & WELDON, P.C.
     208 North Broadway, Suite 313
     Billings, MT 59101
     Tel: (406)248-7646


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Oil, Gas Leaseholds
--------------------------------------------------------------
Christian Betancourt, writing for The Duncan Banner, reports that
a class action lawsuit filed in Stephens County seeks restitution
for oil lease holders victimized during a conspiracy to rig bids
and depress prices for oil and natural gas leaseholds.

The petition filed by the Sill Law Group, an Edmond law firm,
names Chesapeake Energy Corporation, Chesapeake Exploration
L.L.C., Chesapeake Exploration L.P., SandRidge Energy and Tom Ward
as defendants who allegedly conspired to rig bids and depress the
price of their leaseholds in the Anadarko Basin.

The Anadarko Basin according to topographical maps extends through
108 counties in Oklahoma, Texas, Kansas and Colorado.

"Stephens county is one of the counties in the geographical region
which was blanketed, we believe, by leases purchased at
artificially low prices because of conspiracies between oil
companies," said Sill Law Group Senior Partner Jim Sill.

Several federal lawsuits have been filed against the companies,
according to Sill who said more plaintiffs are expected to file if
the class action is approved and heard at a state level.  The
class action petition currently names Wesley and Towanda Mallory
as the only plaintiffs.

"While neither the outcome of the Mallory case in Stephens County,
nor the outcome of federal cases, can be predicted, we think the
Mallory case has unique potential," he said.  "In our view,
Oklahoma antitrust laws allow for recovery based upon acts  of a
single conspirator, while cases filed under federal law must
generally identify and prove additional conspirators.  And, in
some instances, state courts are able to move more quickly than
federal, which in turn may allow plaintiffs in a state class
action  to resolve their cases sooner than those in a federal
court action. We do have more (plaintiffs), However the purpose of
the class action is that notices will be sent out the class action
people who had leases (with Chesapeake or SandRidge)."

Court documents state the exact numbers of those affected are not
known due to the information being in the exclusive control of the
defendants thus making it impractical to join all members.

"Due to the nature of the trade involved, plaintiffs believe that
the class numbers are in the 100's or 1,000's," stated the
documents.

Mr. Sill added the class action would allow all affected to be
able to seek compensation without being troubled by hefty attorney
fees associated with large lawsuits on their own.

The lawsuit stems from a March 1 Department of Justice (DOJ) grand
jury indictment of deceased co-founder of Chesapeake Aubrey
McClendon who allegedly engaged in conduct that was described in
the indictment as "a combination and conspiracy to suppress and
eliminate competition by rigging bids from certain leaseholds
interests and producing properties," which had the effect of
"keeping prices down for those leaseholds interests."

"The indictment against Mr. McClendon by the US Department of
Justice, which is public, charged that the conspiracy continued
through 2012," said Mr. Sill.  "However, in our civil cases we are
alleging the conspiracy continued through April 1 of 2013, the
date Mr McClendon resigned from and left Chesapeake."

CNHI State Reporter Janelle Stecklein reported on March 16, Mr.
McClendon died a day after by a federal grand jury indicted him
for conspiring to suppress bids on the purchase of oil and gas
leases in northwest Oklahoma. He denied any wrongdoing.

Mr. McClendon was forced to resign as CEO of Chesapeake after
accusations in 2013 and founded American Energy Partners in
Oklahoma City.

SandRidge and Chesapeake, the petition states, were competitors
for the acquisition of leases in the basin described as one of the
deepest and most prolific hydrocarbon fields in the U.S.

"The 2011 U.S. Geological Survey estimated the Anadarko Basin
Region to have 495 million barrels of oil, 27.5 trillion cubic
feet of natural gas and 410 million barrels of natural gas
liquids," according to the petition.  "Rather than competing
fairly for leases and producing properties and paying prices set
by market forces, defendants engaged in a conspiracy to reduce the
prices they paid plaintiffs and members of the class."

These practices, according to the petition allowed Chesapeake to
amass 2.4 million net acres and SandRidge more than 1.5 million
net acres in the region, affecting the overall market.

"Sellers of leaseholds interests and producing properties to
entities other than the defendants . . . received less value than
they would have in a competitive market, despite the fact that
they did not sell to Chesapeake and SandRidge Energy," stated the
petition.

Chesapeake has stated publicly, according to the petition that it
has been cooperating with DOJ under the agency's conditional
leniency program, which shields the company from criminal
antitrust charges, fines and penalties.

"The (leniency) applicant must admit its participation in a
criminal antitrust violation involving price fixing, bid rigging,
capacity restriction, or allocation of markets, customers or sales
or production volumes before it will receive a conditional
leniency letter," stated the petition describing, 2008 Deputy
Assistant Attorney General for Criminal Enforcement Scott D.
Hammond's explanation of conditional leniency is obtained."
"A company that, for whatever reason is not able or willing to
admit its participation in a criminal antitrust conspiracy is not
eligible for leniency."

No attorneys are listed for Chesapeake or SandRidge in the suit.

Chesapeake Energy Corporation Director - Strategic Communications
Gordon Pennoyer declined to comment.


CHIPOTLE MEXICAN: Two Claims in GMO Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that a
class action lawsuit against Chipotle Mexican Grill over
genetically modified ingredients survived a motion to dismiss in
Miami federal court.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke on April 20 allowed two of three
claims to go forward.  The case is the most advanced of similar
lawsuits against Chipotle, according to plaintiffs lawyer
Lance Harke of Harke Clasby & Bushman in Miami Shores.

The litigation addresses a question not yet settled by legislators
or the courts: Can meat or dairy products be labeled as "non-GMO"
if the animals they came from were raised on genetically modified
feed?

Plaintiff Leslie Reilly alleges she paid a premium for Chipotle
fare because she believed the food was "non-GMO" through and
through, based on the Denver-based fast-casual restaurant chain's
marketing.

Chipotle does not deny selling meat and dairy products that came
from animals that consumed genetically modified feed.  But it does
not believe a reasonable consumer would take that fact to mean
Chipotle serves GMO ingredients.

"We do not believe there is merit to this suit, and we will
contest it," Chipotle spokesman Chris Arnold said in an email.
Cooke dismissed without prejudice a claim for injunctive relief,
finding the plaintiff did not have standing to claim future harm
from eating at Chipotle.

But the judge ruled it was too early to decide whether
Ms. Reilly's interpretation of "non-GMO" was plausible.  She also
allowed an unjust enrichment claim to go forward.

Cooke's decision differed from that of a Northern District of
California judge who dismissed a similar case against Chipotle.
Another Southern District of Florida case with similar allegations
is awaiting a motion to dismiss hearing.

Mr. Harke said Ms. Reilly's case is now on an accelerated schedule
with a November trial date set.

He said people have differed on whether animals on "a diet of
extremely cheap, genetically modified franken-wheat" can be
reasonably represented to consumers as non-GMO.

State legislatures have taken different stances on the issue, and
both parties cited several draft laws, said Mr. Harke's colleague,
Sarah Clasby Engel, who is also on the case.

If it progresses further, the litigation is a chance for
Chipotle to be more upfront with health-conscious consumers, Ms.
Engel said.

"We really hope that they'll be more transparent with their
customers as to what exactly the consumers are paying a premium
price for," she said.


CITIMORTGAGE INC: Court Adopts R&R, Declines to Extend Schedules
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas L. Ludington of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of Michigan overruled Plaintiff's
objections to, and adopted, the report and recommendation by a
magistrate judge; and denied Plaintiff's motion to extend the
scheduling order and for leave to file a first amended complaint
in the case captioned, ANTHONY J. BANASZAK, Plaintiff, v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-13710 (E.D. Mich.).

Plaintiff Anthony J. Banaszak initiated the case by filing his 10-
count complaint on August 29, 2013. In his complaint, Plaintiff
alleged four counts against CitiMortgage arising from its alleged
mismanagement of Plaintiff's residential mortgage loan: (1)
Violation of the Service members Civil Relief Act (SCRA), 50
U.S.C. Sec. 527, which provides that obligations incurred by the
service member before entering military service may not bear an
interest rate greater than 6% during the period of military
service and, in some cases, for a year after discharge from the
military; (2) violation of SCRA Sec. 518, providing that service
member's claim for SCRA protection shall not itself provide the
basis for an adverse credit report, Sec. 527, and Sec. 591, which
permits a service member to apply for relief from collection of
debts; (3) violation of SCRA Sec. 561's prohibition against
foreclosure of a service member's real estate for the purpose of
collecting tax or other assessments; and (4) fraudulent
misrepresentation.

On November 1, 2013, Defendant CitiMortgage filed a motion to
dismiss Plaintiff complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6). The motion was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge Charles Binder, who issued a report on April 10,
2014, recommending that CitiMortgage's motion be granted and that
Plaintiff's complaint be dismissed. On September 10, 2014, the
Court issued an order sustaining Plaintiff's objections in part
and adopting in part the report and recommendation. Plaintiff's
claims under Sections 561 and 518 were dismissed pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), as was his claim of
fraudulent misrepresentation. His claims under SCRA Sections 527
and 591 survived.

Plaintiff Banaszak raises 20 objections to the Magistrate Judge's
report and recommendation. After the close of an extended
discovery period and seven days before dispositive motions were
due, on October 21, 2015, Plaintiff filed a motion to modify and
extend the scheduling order and for leave to file an amended
complaint.

On March 2, 2016, the Magistrate Judge Patricia T. Morris issued
her report recommending denying Plaintiff's motion.

In his Opinion and Order dated April 7, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/o3CLPxfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ludington found that
most of Plaintiff's objections are without merit and unpersuasive.

Anthony J. Banaszak is represented by:

     Matthew R. Cooper, Esq.
     SCHUITMAKER, COOPER
     181 W Michigan Ave # 1,
     Paw Paw, MI 49079
     Tel: (269)657-3177

CitiMortgage, Inc. is represented by Debra Bogo-Ernst, Esq. --
dernst@mayerbrown.com -- and Kathleen Marie Przywara, Esq. --
kprzywara@mayerbrown.com -- MAYER BROWN LLP, Kyle R. Dufrane, Esq.
-- kdufrane@dykema.com -- and Robert H. Ellis, Esq. --
rellis@dykema.com -- DYKEMA GOSSETT


COCO ASIAN CUISINE: Bid to Dismiss "Goh" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------
Judge Kevin McNulty denied the motion filed by the defendants to
dismiss the complaint in the case captioned JIT SHI GOH,
Plaintiff, v. COCO ASIAN CUISINE, INC. and FATT SENG LIM,
Defendants, Civ. No. 15-6310 (KM) (MAH) (D.N.J.).

Jit Shi Goh brought a purported class action seeking to recover
unpaid wages and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the New Jersey Wage and Hour Law (NJWHL), against his
former employers, Coco Asian Cuisine, Inc. and Fatt Seng Lim.  Goh
alleged that he worked as a chef for the defendants at a
restaurant located in Edison, New Jersey, from August 1, 2011, to
October 8, 2013.  Goh alleged that during that time, he worked
well in excess of forty hours a week, was not compensated in
accordance with the minimum wage, and was not given overtime pay.
Goh also alleged that the defendants willfully filed fraudulent
tax returns.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.

Judge McNulty held that the court may exercise subject matter
jurisdiction over the plaintiff's FLSA claim and supplemental
jurisdiction over the plaintiff's NJWHL claim.

A full-text copy of Judge McNulty's April 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/44MEvofrom Leagle.com.

JIT SHI GOH, Plaintiff, represented by JONATHAN DEPERIO HERNANDEZ,
TROY LAW PLLC.

COCO ASIAN CUISINE, INC., FATT SENG LIM, Defendants, represented
by OLIVER G. ZHOU, LAW OFFICES OF OLIVER ZHOU.


DAIMLER AG: Rebuffs Questions on Internal Emissions Probe
---------------------------------------------------------
David McHugh, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
German car, truck and bus maker Daimler AG rebuffed questions
about an internal investigation into its emissions certifications
as news of the probe sent shares lower on April 22.

Daimler shares were off 6.5 percent at 62.36 euros in morning
trading in Europe.

Officials on a conference call with journalists were asked several
questions about the matter but said they could provide no
information beyond the April 21 announcement, as the issue
overshadowed the company's announcement of first-quarter earnings.

"Our conservative communication supports a constructive
relationship with the authorities," said chief financial officer
Bodo Uebber.  "I cannot give you further information."

Stuttgart-based Daimler AG is investigating at the request of the
U.S. government what it says are "possible indications of
irregularities" in its emissions certification process.

Daimler spokesman Han Tjan said on April 21 that the Department of
Justice contacted Daimler.  The company is conducting an internal
investigation of its exhaust emissions certification process.

The issue has made investors uneasy because fellow German
automaker Volkswagen has admitted that its diesels were designed
to defeat U.S. emissions tests.

U.S. owners of Daimler's Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC diesels recently
filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the cars are programmed in a
way that lets them emit illegal levels of emissions, similar to
diesels made by Volkswagen.  Daimler says the lawsuit's claims are
without merit and that the Justice Department investigation is
unrelated.

For the first quarter, Daimler saw net profit fall 32 percent in
the first quarter as costs to launch its new E-Class mid-size
weighed on the bottom line, the company said on April 22.

Net profit fell to 1.40 billion euros ($1.60 billion) from 2.05
billion euros in the year-earlier quarter.

Revenue rose 2 percent to 35 billion euros on vehicle sales of
683,885, a 7 percent increase.

The net profit figure fell short of analyst expectations of 1.70
billion euros as compiled by financial information provider
FactSet.

But company officials said the dip in earnings did not indicate a
lasting slowdown in their business.  The company said in a
statement that net profit had been hurt by expenses associated
with introducing the new E-Class, a luxury sedan stuffed with new
driver-assistance technology the company hopes will make it a
highly profitable contributor to earnings.

Profits were also held back by increased investments in new
products and technology, which in theory should pay off in higher
profits down the road.

Uebber said the company expected a stronger second half of the
year as E-Class sales kick in.

CEO Dieter Zetsche said in a statement on April 22 that the sales
growth shows "we are following the right strategy and have the
right products in the market."


DAIMLER AG: Conducts Emissions Probe After U.S. Gov't Request
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that German automaker Daimler AG is
investigating at the request of the U.S. government what it says
are "possible indications of irregularities" in its emissions
certification process.

Daimler spokesman Han Tjan said on April 21 that the Department of
Justice contacted Daimler.  The company is conducting an internal
investigation of its exhaust emissions certification process.

A message seeking comment was left with the Justice Department.

U.S. owners of Daimler's Mercedes-Benz BlueTEC diesels recently
filed a class-action lawsuit claiming the cars are programmed in a
way that lets them emit illegal levels of emissions, similar to
diesels made by fellow German automaker Volkswagen.

Volkwagen has admitted that its diesels were designed to defeat
U.S. emissions tests.

Daimler says the lawsuit's claims are without merit and that the
Justice Department investigation is unrelated.


DIRECTV LLC: Must Defend Against "Anaya" FLSA Suit
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Darrah of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss
in the case captioned, RICARDO ANAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
DIRECTV, LLC and DIRECTSAT USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-
5703 (N.D. Ill.).

On March 5, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC)
against Defendants DIRECTV, LLC and DirectSat USA, LLC. The FAC
alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (the
FLSA); the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act; and the
Illinois Employee Classification Act. Defendants filed Motions to
Dismiss, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for
failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violated the FLSA by failing to
pay overtime wages and failing to pay minimum wage.

On September 23, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' Motions to
Dismiss. On October 23, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Second Amended
Complaint (SAC) against Defendants. The SAC alleges one count
under the FLSA, alleging overtime wage violations.

In the motion, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs have not shown
that an employer-employee relationship existed for the purposes of
the FLSA and Defendants contend that Plaintiffs have not
sufficiently alleged Defendants had the power to hire or fire
them.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 7, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/m9Ksu3from Leagle.com, Judge Darrah concluded
that Plaintiffs have plausibly alleged FLSA claims. The Complaint
adequately performs the notice function, and, therefore, the
presence of extraneous material does not warrant dismissal.


Plaintiffs are represented by Jason S. Hartley, Esq. --
hartley@stuevesiegel.com -- and George A. Hanson, Esq. --
hanson@stuevesiegel.com -- STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP, & Todd C.
Werts, Esq. -- werts@learwerts.com -- LEAR WERTS LLP; and by:

          - and -

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen Ann Salas, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W Washington St #1402,
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312)419-1008

Directv LLC is represented by Colin D. Dougherty, Esq. --
cdougherty@foxrothschild.com -- Connie L. Chen, Esq. --
cschen@foxrothschild.com -- and Yesenia M. Gallegos, Esq. --
ygallegos@foxrothschild.com -- FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP, Jason S.
Dubner, Esq. -- jdubner@butlerrubin.com -- and Ursula A. Taylor,
Esq. -- utaylor@butlerrubin.com -- BUTLER, RUBIN, SALTARELLI &
BOYD LLP


DOMETIC CORP: Faces Class Suit Over Refrigerator Safety Defects
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dometic has through media received information about a class
action lawsuit against its American subsidiary Dometic Corporation
regarding alleged safety defects in gas driven absorption
refrigerators.

The company takes this accusation seriously but vehemently denies
that the company would consciously have refrained from eliminating
defects in the said product.

Dometic conducts its operations in strongly regulated environment
and it is a vital requirement that all products comply with
applicable laws and regulations regarding safety.  Dometic works
proactively with product safety in an open and close cooperation
with governmental authorities and strictly follows the applicable
legislation and recommendations.

Dometic will come back with more detailed information on this
matter.

                      About Dometic Group

Dometic is a global market leader in branded solutions for mobile
living in the areas of Climate, Hygiene & Sanitation and Food &
Beverage.  Dometic operates in the Americas, EMEA and Asia
Pacific, providing products for use in recreational vehicles,
trucks and premium cars, pleasure and workboats, and for a variety
of other uses.  Dometic offer products and solutions that enrich
people's experiences away from home, whether in a motorhome,
caravan, boat or a truck.  It operates 22 manufacturing/assembly
sites in nine countries, sell its products in approximately 100
countries and manufacture approximately 85% of products sold in-
house.  It has a global distribution and dealer network in place
to serve the aftermarket.  Dometic employs approximately 6,500
people worldwide, had net sales of SEK11.5 billion in 2015 and is
headquartered in Solna, Sweden.



EDS DISTRIBUTION: "Rios" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Rios a/k/a Josefina Aispuro Torres, on behalf of herself
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. EDS Distribution
Services LLC and Does 1 through 100, Inclusive, Defendants, Case
No. BC617069 (Cal. Super., April 14, 2016), seeks penalties for
inaccurate wage statements under California Labor Code, damages
for unpaid wages, penalty wages, missed meal periods and missed
rest periods, damages for minimum wages, damages for premium
wages, liquidated damages for unpaid minimum wages, damages for
unpaid overtime wages under California Labor Code, restitution
under Business and Professions Code, pre-judgment interest, costs,
reasonable attorney's fees and such other and further relief.

Defendant, a New Jersey limited liability company, is a
distribution center. Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant
improperly rounded off time worked and denied them rest breaks
without compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile (310)553-3603


FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Sandor, writing for CFRA, reports that a Class Action
lawsuit has been filed following a massive privacy breach at
Family and Children's Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville that
saw the names of 285 families involved with children's services
leaked on Facebook.

The class action filed on April 21 in the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice on behalf of a person identified only as M.M. names the
agency, its executive director, Children and Youth Servivces
Minister Tracy MacCharles and John Doe -- the person responsible
for sharing the information -- as defendants.

The lawsuit calls for $25-million in general damages, $25-million
in special damages and $25-million in punitive, aggravated and
exemplary damages on behalf of M.M. the families whose names were
shared in a document on the Smiths Falls Swapshop and Families
United Facebook pages.

"This is a very serious breach of privacy, made possible by the
Family and Children's Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville,"
said Sean Brown of Flaherty McCarthy LLP in Toronto.  "That
institution made the decision to use an on-line portal system that
was easily accessed by an individual without any obvious hacking
skills.  The most sensitive and confidential information held by
that body, specifically the names of those under its
investigation, have now been published on the Internet.  The
damage has been done.  That bell can not be unrung."

The statement of claim alleges negligence, breach of fiduciary
duty, breach of confidence, negligent misrepresentation, intrusion
upon seclusion, breach of statutory duty, misfeasance, and/or
failure to act on the part of the defendant.

It alleges also states the defendants "owed the plaintiff and each
class member a duty of care to ensure that their personal,
confidential and identifying information remained confidential and
was not disclosed" and that they "knew or ought to have known,
that their substandard method of the maintenance of the
confidential information and the security of same were such that
it was inevitable, or at least probable, that the confidential
information would likely be stolen or otherwise disclosed, in
breach of their duty."

The allegations have yet to be proven in court.


FONG'S RESTAURANTS: "Ye" Suit to Recover Overtime, Premium Pay
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zhao Jun Ye, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Fong's Restaurants, Inc., John
Fong, Stella Fong, Case No. 3:16-cv-00603 (D. Conn., April 18,
2016) seeks unpaid minimum wages, unpaid wages for overtime work,
premium pay, liquidated damages, declaratory relief, costs,
interest and attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Connecticut Minimum Wage Act.

Fong's Restaurants, Inc. is a Connecticut company owned by John
and Stella Fong located at 218 Smith Street, Middletown, CT 06457,
where Ye was employed as a kitchen assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


GLOBAL CREDIT: "Steinwurzel" Sues over Illegal Collection
---------------------------------------------------------
Ephraim Steinwurzel on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers  Plaintiff, v. Global Credit and Collection
Corp., Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-01818 (E.D.N.Y., April 14,
2016), sues over illegal collection practices under the Fair Debt
Collection Act.

Global Credit and Collection Corp. is a collection agency located
in 1490 Denison St. Markham, ON L3R 9T7, Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Maxim Maximov, Esq.
      MAXIM MAXIMOV, LLP
      1701 Avenue P
      Brooklyn, NY 11229
      Tel: (718) 395-3459
      Fax: (718) 408-9570
      Email: m@maximovlaw.com


H CARE JOBS: Tishman Files Statutory Action
-------------------------------------------
A statutory action has been filed against H Care Jobs, Inc..  The
case is captioned Tishman & Tishman, P.A. a Florida Professional
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. H Care Jobs, Inc., Alan
Savitch and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80572-WJZ
(S.D.Fla., April 14, 2016).

H Care Jobs, Inc. is an employment agency with Alan Savitch as
President.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5501
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      Email: phil@bockhatchllc.com


HIH: Shareholders Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that a landmark court decision in a shareholder action
against HIH could lead to plaintiffs demanding bigger settlements
and companies facing suits bearing greater risks.

The decision by the NSW Supreme Court on April 20 in favor of 117
shareholders in collapsed insurer HIH and its liquidator could
have a significant impact on current and future shareholder class
actions.  Those going through the courts at the moment include
actions against Arasor, Oz Minerals and Treasury Wine Estates.

The ruling by Justice Paul Brereton means shareholders planning to
sue a company will no longer have to prove they read its
prospectus.  He said that, while HIH's conduct did not directly
mislead the shareholders, it did deceive the market in which the
shares were traded.

Lawyers say the decision is likely to be appealed.

Slater & Gordon principal lawyer Tim Finney --
tim.finney@slatergordon.com.au -- said that, until now, there was
a risk individual group members would be required to establish
that they personally relied on the misleading statements or non-
disclosure breaches of companies in order to prove their case.

Mr. Finney said the court's decision in HIH meant plaintiff
lawyers and litigation funders would no longer face the risk of
having to engage in such costly, time-consuming and onerous
evidence-gathering in order to prove shareholders' claims.  This
tilted the risk ratio in favor of running cases to trial rather
than settling them on a cost-benefit basis, he said.

It could result in larger settlements, as it strengthened the case
for aggrieved shareholders generally, he said.

"Assuming it is not overturned on appeal, in future, plaintiffs
and their lawyers and litigation funders will not be as willing to
apply substantial discounts when negotiating settlements having
regard to risk on this point," Mr. Finney said.

Allens partner Jenny Campbell -- Jenny.Campbell@allens.com.au --
said the decision was a win for shareholders and class action
promoters and clarified more than a decade of uncertainty in the
law.

The associated risk for plaintiffs was a primary reason why no
shareholder class action ever reached a point of final judgment,
Ms. Campbell said.

"It may make class action promoters more confident of their
position and therefore less anxious to settle to avoid the risks
of a finding that direct causation is required -- those risks
will, however, still loom large until the issue is resolved by the
High Court," she said.

Jones Day partner John Emmerig -- jemmerig@jonesday.com -- and
King & Wood Mallesons partner Moira Saville --
moira.saville@au.kwm.com -- agreed there was likely to be an
appeal.

"It will remain to be seen whether funders start demanding higher
settlements in shareholder actions as a result, or whether they
were really discounting previously for this uncertainty,"
Ms. Saville said.

Mr Emmerig referred to the United States as a possible indicator
of the future.  "It's only when the US Supreme Court made its key
rulings back in 1988 on a similar issue that the game really
changed -- and then, when it did the impact, was enormous and is
still being felt."

The HIH shareholders claimed losses on the basis they paid more
for shares, during certain periods between 1998 and 2001, because
of misrepresentations in the insurer's fiscal 1999 and 2000
results.

The shareholders did not claim that they directly relied on or
even read the reports of the financial results, but only that the
company's misrepresentations, which were admitted to by HIH,
caused the share price to be higher than it would have otherwise
traded.

Justice Paul Brereton ruled that while HIH's conduct did not
directly mislead the shareholders, it did deceive the market in
which the shares were traded.

The issue was also raised in a failed shareholder case against
collapsed global investment house Babcock & Brown and its
liquidators. Shareholders lost their appeal to the full Federal
Court in that case on April 21.


HYDRO ONE: Flamborough Centre Homeowners File Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mac Christie, writing for Flamborough Review, reports that
Flamborough Centre homeowners who may have been impacted by power
surges on Feb. 7 and Feb. 23, 2015 can still join a class-action
lawsuit against Hydro One.

Melissa Zogala, an affected resident, said the lawsuit currently
has more than 20 members, with individual damages ranging from
$500 to $15,000. She noted they're still looking for those
affected to join, at no cost.

The lawsuit grew out of a group of residents affected by the power
issues, known as the Flamborough Centre Surge Group.

"We are going forward with the class action lawsuit," she said.

Ms. Zogala suffered $2,500 worth of damage in the surges, which
included a dishwasher, gaming system and computer, among other
things.  She added some residents have gone through their
insurance companies, which has resulted in increased premiums. She
didn't go through insurance due to fears of her premiums
increasing, but submitted a claim to Hydro One's insurance
adjustor Quelmec, but was denied.

The group has retained Ottawa lawyer Gabriel Poliquin from the
firm CazaSaikaley for the suit.

He noted the statement of claim was delivered in court in
November, but has not been served yet. He expects it will be
served in the next five or six months.

Mr. Poliquin said there's no specific deadline to join the suit,
and those impacted may still join.  "The class isn't restricted to
a set number of people," he said.  "It's whoever fits the
description.

"Anyone who lived there during the timeline defined in the
statement of claim."

Anyone who experienced electrical damage to their property is
encouraged to email Fred Bouteiller at fbouteiller@cogeco.ca to
join the lawsuit or for more information.


FLEET CARD: Judge Allows ESOP Class Action Can Proceed
------------------------------------------------------
Carmen Castro-Pagan, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that
participants in an employee stock ownership plan can continue with
their ERISA claims against the plan sponsor and trustees for
allegedly breaching their fiduciary duties and engaging in
self-dealing transactions.

In his April 18 order, Judge James V. Selna of the U.S. District
Court for the Central District of California denied in part the
sponsor's and trustees' motion to dismiss.  Judge Selna held that
the participants sufficiently alleged that the sponsor and
trustees were acting as Employee Retirement Income Security Act
fiduciaries when they directly profited from business decisions
that affected the value of the plan assets.

Earlier this year, Judge Selna held that a financial services firm
retained by the ESOP to provide a fairness opinion and stock
valuation wasn't liable as an ERISA fiduciary.

In this previous ruling, Judge  Selna cited the Department of
Labor's then-proposed fiduciary rule in support of his conclusion
that the firm didn't act as an ERISA fiduciary because it didn't
provide "investment advice" under the statute (40 PBD, 3/1/16).
The rule was finalized earlier this month.

Fiduciary Breaches

Pamela Carter and other former workers of Fleet Card Fuels filed a
class action against the company, its directors William Davies and
Richard Davies, and other entities for allegedly selling company
stock to the Fleet Card Fuels ESOP at "fraudulently inflated
prices" and engaging in self-interested transactions to the
detriment of the plan.

The class alleged that Fleet Card and the Davies breached their
ERISA fiduciary duties when they entered into a $2 million
settlement agreement that shifted the monetary obligations from
one of the Davies's companies to Fleet Card, allegedly causing a
90 percent fall in the price of Fleet Card's stock.

The class further alleged that Fleet Card and the Davies entered
into non-compete, consulting and lease agreements that adversely
affected the value of the plan assets.

Fleet Card and the Davies moved to dismiss the proposed class's
second amended complaint, arguing that when they committed these
alleged breaches, they weren't acting as ERISA fiduciaries because
these acts were business decisions taken in their capacities as an
employer and officers and directors of Fleet Card.

"An individual that has both fiduciary and business functions is
liable for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA for business
decisions affecting the value of plan assets when the individual
could directly profit from business decisions," the court said.

Here, the class sufficiently alleged that Fleet Card and the
Davies entered into agreements and engaged in transactions for
their own profit and to avoid liability, the court concluded.

The court declined to dismiss the class's fiduciary breach claim
against Fleet Card and the Davies for allegedly failing to
disclose to participants information regarding Fleet Card's
financial condition.  It also declined to dismiss the class's
claims for co-fiduciary liability and violation of prohibited
transactions, holding that the facts alleged in the complaint were
sufficient to sustain these causes of action.

However, the court dismissed the class's California law claims for
breach of fiduciary duty since they were preempted by ERISA.

Trujillo and Winnick LLP represented the participants.  Sheppard
Mullin Richter Hampton LLP represented the sponsor and trustees.


FRESHPET INC: Robbins Geller Files Class Action in New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on April 21
disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey on behalf of
purchasers of Freshpet, Inc. ("Freshpet" or the "Company") common
stock during the period between April 1, 2015 and November 11,
2015 (the "Class Period").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 21, 2016.  If you wish to discuss
this action or have any questions concerning this notice or your
rights or interests, please contact plaintiff's counsel, Samuel H.
Rudman or Mario Alba Jr. of Robbins Geller at 800/449-4900 or
619/231-1058, or via e-mail at djr@rgrdlaw.com

If you are a member of this Class, you can view a copy of the
complaint as filed or join this class action online at
http://www.rgrdlaw.com/cases/freshpet/

Any member of the putative class may move the Court to serve as
lead plaintiff through counsel of their choice, or may choose to
do nothing and remain an absent class member.

The complaint charges Freshpet and certain of its officers and
directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.
Freshpet manufactures and markets natural fresh foods,
refrigerated meals, and treats for dogs and cats in the United
States and Canada.  Freshpet's products are sold to consumers
through a network of Company-owned branded refrigerators, known as
Freshpet Fridges, which are located in grocery stores and other
retail outlets.

The complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, defendants
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's true
financial condition, business and prospects. Specifically the
complaint alleges that: (a) one of the Company's material
customers, Target Corp., was undergoing a corporate reorganization
and, accordingly, was delaying the installation of a significant
number of Freshpet Fridges; (b) two of the Company's supermarket
customers were experiencing financial hardships such that it was
likely that any Freshpet Fridges located in their respective
stores would soon have to be removed; and (c) due to the
foregoing, the Company was not growing its overall number of
installed Freshpet Fridges at the levels communicated to investors
and was tracking well below internal forecasts for such
placements.

On August 11, 2015 Freshpet announced its financial results for
the second quarter of 2015, the period ending June 30, 2015, and
revealed that the Company was experiencing weaker gross margins
and slowing fridge growth.  As a result, on August 12, 2015, the
price of Freshpet common stock declined $0.87 per share, or 6%, to
close at $13.73 per share, on heavy trading volume.

Then, on November 11, 2015 Freshpet announced its financial
results for the third quarter of 2015, the period ending September
30, 2015.  For the quarter, the Company reported net sales of
$30.6 million, adjusted EBITDA of $2.3 million, and Freshpet
Fridges of 14,670.  In reaction to this announcement, on November
12, 2015, the price of Freshpet common stock fell $2.09 per share,
or 25%, to close at $6.28 per share.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
Freshpet common stock during the Class Period (the "Class").  The
plaintiff is represented by Robbins Geller, which has extensive
experience in prosecuting investor class actions including actions
involving financial fraud.

With 200 lawyers in ten offices, Robbins Geller --
http://www.rgrdlaw.com-- represents U.S. and international
institutional investors in contingency-based securities and
corporate litigation.  The firm has obtained many of the largest
securities class action recoveries in history and was ranked first
in both the amount and number of shareholder class action
recoveries in ISS's SCAS Top 50 report for 2014.


ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS: Must Respond to "Orozco" Discovery Requests
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JUAN OROZCO and JUAN OROZCO-BRISENO,
individuals, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC., a corporation,
and Does 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-2113-
MCE-EFB (E.D. Cal.), Judge Edmund F. Brennan granted the
plaintiffs' motion to compel and ordered the defendants to produce
further responses to the plaintiffs' discovery requests.

The plaintiffs brought a class action lawsuit against the
defendant Illinois Tool Works, Inc., alleging claims for (1)
unfair business practices, (2) failure to pay overtime, (3)
failure to issue accurate itemized wage statements, and (4)
failure to pay wages due at separation of employment.  The amended
complaint also sought relief under California's Private Attorney
General Act of 2004.

On March 9, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a motion to compel
defendant to provide further responses to discovery requests.  The
balance of the motion taken under submission concerns the
plaintiffs' discovery requests seeking (1) documents containing
job duties for supervisors of proposed class members; (2)
corporate and shareholder minutes regarding policies for class
members' compensation, recording time worked, and taking meal and
rest breaks; and (3) a contention interrogatory requesting
information regarding plaintiffs' meal and rest periods.

Judge Brennan granted the plaintiffs' motion as to Request for
Production of Documents, Set 2, Number 5; Request for Production
of Documents, Set 2, Numbers 9-14; and Special Interrogatory, Set
2, Number 18.  Judge Brennan recommended that the discovery
deadline be extended for the limited purpose of allowing
compliance with the order.

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

Juan Orozco, Juan Orozco-Briseno, Plaintiffs, represented by
Norman Blumenthal, Blumenthal Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Aparajit
Bhowmik, Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik, Kyle R. Nordrehaug,
Blumenthal Nordrehaug and Bhowmik, Ruchira Piya Mukherjee,
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik & Victoria Bree Rivapalacio,
Blumenthal, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik.

Illinois Tool Works, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina
Theresa Tellado -- ctellado@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith, LLP &
Thomas E. Hill -- thill@reedsmith.com -- Reed Smith LLP.


J CREW: Faces Class Action Over Fictitious "Sale" Prices
--------------------------------------------------------
Anthony V. Lupo, Esq., Matthew R. Mills, Esq., and Thorne
Maginnis, Esq., of Arent Fox LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that J Crew Group Inc. was recently hit with a nationwide
class action lawsuit alleging that the clothing retailer offers
fictitious sales on the J Crew Factory store website.  According
to the complaint, while items throughout the site are offered at
"sale" prices, they are never actually sold at the higher "valued
at" price listed to advertise potential savings.  Asserting that
the company's pricing strategy violates dozens of state consumer
protection laws, the complaint seeks compensatory and punitive
damages, as well as injunctive relief.  This is the most recent
case in a litany of class actions attacking allegedly "phantom"
sale prices. It serves as an important reminder to retailers
nationwide to be careful when advertising sale prices and when
using price comparisons.

Background on the Dispute

In February, lead plaintiff Joseph D'Aversa purchased two sweaters
from the J. Crew Factory store website, both of which were
advertised as being "30% off" a higher "valued at" price. Mr.
D'Aversa argues, however, that he did not actually get a 30%
discount because the items are perpetually offered at the
advertised "sale" price.  Accordingly, the complaint alleges, the
prices Mr. D'Aversa paid for the items were, in fact, their
regular prices, making the claim that they were "on sale"
misleading. The plaintiff claims that J Crew offers these
"phantom" sale prices on items throughout its Factory store
website.

In particular, Mr. D'Aversa claims that J Crew strategically
renames and reconfigures its sales to obscure the fact that their
Factory store items are perpetually offered at the same price. For
example, Mr. D'Aversa purchased his sweaters during a 24-hour, 30%
off sale.  According to the complaint, the next day J Crew
advertised a different 24-hour "up to 50% off" sale, but the
sweaters were offered at the same price.  The day after that, he
claims, J Crew began a new 4-day sale offering an "extra 30% off."
Under this sale, the sweaters were listed a higher price, but
customers were given a code to enter at checkout that reduced the
items to the original "sale" price paid by Mr. D'Aversa.  At no
point during these sales, Mr. D'Aversa alleges, were the sweaters
offered at the higher "valued at" price listed next to the items.

Mr. D'Aversa recently filed a putative class action lawsuit in
federal court in the Southern District of New York, seeking to
represent a nationwide class of individuals who, like
Mr. D'Aversa, purchased on sale items from the J Crew Factory
store website.  The complaint asserts that J Crew's pricing
strategy violates dozens of state consumer protection laws. These
state laws -- often called "Little FTC Acts" -- were passed after
the enactment of the Federal Trade Commission Act and, like their
federal counterpart, prohibit deceptive acts and practices in the
sale of products to consumers.  The complaint seeks damages --
including punitive damages -- and an injunction prohibiting the
complained-of pricing strategy.

The Takeaway

Advertising items at a discounted price is a common and
permissible strategy when done properly. Fashion retailers should
be aware, however, that this is an unsettled area of the law and
that their pricing strategies have become a popular target among
the plaintiff bar.  As noted in recent Arent Fox alerts, Macy's
and subsidiary Bloomingdale's, Nordstrom Rack, and many other
retailers, including Saks and Burlington Coat Factory, have
recently been involved in class action litigation over allegedly
"phantom" sale prices.

Accordingly, retailers should be careful when offering items at
"sale" prices and when listing comparisons to former or "valued
at" prices, ensuring that the items were previously offered at the
higher price for a reasonable period of time.  Further, when
possible, retailers should conduct regular reviews of "sale" and
outlet store prices to better understand if they are compliant
with applicable state law, as well as the guidance provided by the
Federal Trade Commission and the Council for Better Business
Bureaus.


JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces Invokana Class Action in Canada
--------------------------------------------------------------
The ProductLawyers.com comments on the recent Canadian class
action lawsuit against Janssen Pharmaceuticals.  A division of
Johnson and Johnson corporation, the company manufactures the
SGLT2 class inhibitor drug, Invokana, which has allegedly been
linked to potentially fatal side effects.  Complaints initially
filed with Canadian courts in September of 2015, recently gained
increased clout, due to patient issues discovered in the United
States.

The plaintiff in the original Canadian suit was prescribed the
drug, but only suspected a health issue after seeing a television
commercial.  She requested that her doctor conduct tests, which
revealed damage to her renal system.  Following the tests, she
suffered kidney failure, which she links to her use of the drug
Invokana for the management of type-2 diabetes.  SGLT2 class
inhibitors work to divert a portion of blood glucose to the
kidneys for direct elimination. This type of process has been
indicated as a stressor on the kidneys and the renal system as a
whole.  Within the body of her lawsuit, she claims negligence on
the part of Janssen, and states that they failed to conduct
adequate testing to determine the scope of potential side effects.

Her lawsuit accuses Janssen of serious understatement of risks
potentially associated with taking the drug, even if the pool of
those affected is limited.  Her suit states that the risk, "must
be balanced against considerations such as the nature of the drug,
the necessity for taking it, the seriousness of the danger, and
the magnitude of the increased danger to the consumer," and
indicates that Janssen should have tested the drug more thoroughly
as well as being more forthcoming about the potential consequences
associated with its consumption.

She remarks that, she been fully apprised of the potential risks,
she never would have agreed to pursue it as a treatment option. In
a CBC interview from September of 2015, she explains that she is
seeking $1 billion in reparations not only for herself, but also
on behalf of the many individuals who may have experienced similar
difficulties in association with taking Invokana.


KELLY PAPER: "Rosales" Sues Over Unpaid OT, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Rosales, individually and on behalf of the general public,
Plaintiffs, v. Kelly Paper Company and Does 1 through 20,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. BC617205 (Cal. Super, April 14,
2016), seeks civil penalties, attorney's fees and costs and
expenses pursuant to the California Labor Code.

Kelly Paper Company operates a series of commercial printing
stores throughout Southern California. Plaintiff accuses the
Defendant of failing to pay overtime wages, provide meal periods
and rest breaks, accurate itemized wage statements and
failing to pay all wages due within the required time and upon
separation of employment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


LOS ANGELES, CA: Pershing Square Parking Fee Receipt Suit Settled
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Hillel Aron, writing for LA Weekly, reports that in June 2014, a
woman named Ashley Solomon parked at Pershing Square and paid with
a credit card.  A machine spit out a receipt; it had all 10 digits
of her credit card.

Turns out that was in violation of the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transaction Act of 2003, which states: "No person that accepts
credit cards or debit cards for the transaction of business shall
print more than the last five digits of the card number or the
expiration date upon any receipt provided to the cardholder at the
point of sale or transaction."

Ms. Solomon's little receipt became the subject of a class action
lawsuit in January 2015.  It was settled, in December, for a
rather modest sum: Solomon got $5,000 and the attorneys got
$90,000 plus $3,000 in expenses.

Since it would be impossible to track down everyone who got one of
those receipts, it was agreed that the City of L.A. would simply
hand out vouchers for free parking, enough to equal the amount of
$360,000. Once that pot of money is gone, no more free parking.

Parking attendants, who had no idea why they were giving away free
parking, said they'd been doing it for "about a month." The
manager of the lot said he thought that they'd be doing it for
another month, but he wasn't really sure.  The Department of
Recreation and Parks, which is managing the program, didn't return
our phone calls.


LOS ANGELES TURF: "Torres" Suit Seeks Overtime, Missed Breaks
---------------------------------------------------------
Krystina Torres, an individual, and on behalfof others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Los Angeles Turf Club, Inc.,
Oak Tree Racing Association and Does 1 through 50, inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. BC617085 (Cal. Super., April 14, 2016), seeks
to recover wages and penalties from unpaid wages earned, unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, and damages resulting from illegal meal and rest
period policies. The lawsuit also asserts failure to pay all wages
due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to indemnify
employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses incurred in
discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements, failure to maintain required records, and seeks
interest, attorneys' fees, costs and expenses for violation of the
California Labor Code, applicable Induatrial Welfare Commission
Orders Wage Orders and the California Business and Professions
Code.

Los Angeles Turf Club Incorporated provides horse racetrack
services. It is located at 285 West Huntington Drive, Arcadia, CA
91066-6014.  Oak Tree Racing Association is an association that
organizes horse racing in the California area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
      MATERN LAW GROUP
      1230 Rosecrans A venue, Suite 200
      Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
      Telephone: (310) 531-1900
      Facsimile: (310) 531-1901


LVNV FUNDING: Wins Summary Judgment in "Casso" FDCPA Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John W. Darrah of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois granted summary judgment in
favor of Defendants in the case captioned, PAMELA CASSO, on behalf
of plaintiff and a class, Plaintiff, v. LVNV FUNDING LLC;
RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, LP; and ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Defendants,
Case No. 12-CV-7328 (N.D. Ill.).

Plaintiff Pamela Casso brought a class action against Defendants,
LVNV Funding, LLC (LVNV); Resurgent Capital Services, LP
(Resurgent); and Alegis Group, LLC (Alegis) (collectively
Defendants), for alleged violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA). Plaintiff incurred a debt and that LVNV
acquired the account attached to that debt. In 2011, LVNV filed a
lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Cook County to collect that debt.

LVNV then filed an affidavit signed by Matthew Sowell in support
of its state court complaint, verifying that the information
submitted is true and correct to the best of Sowell's information
and belief based on Defendants' business records. Plaintiff
alleges that the affidavit is fraudulent because it misled her by
implying that LVNV's affiant had accessed business records that
contained the full details of Plaintiff's debt and could be used
to prove that debt. Plaintiff argues that the submission of the
affidavit is a deceptive collection practice that violates Section
1692e, 1692e(2), and 1692e(10) of the FDCPA.

In the cross-motion for summary judgment, Defendants argue that
summary judgment should be entered on Plaintiff's class FDCPA
claim because the FDCPA does not provide relief for debtors who
claim that affidavits submitted in support of state collection
lawsuits lack sufficient evidentiary foundation, and that the
Citibank Agreement. Plaintiff argues that Sowell's affidavit is
based on "unreliable and unsupported" data and points to the
amount demanded by Defendants as an example of an inaccuracy
resulting from insufficient review and that Consumer Financial
Protection Bureau ("CFPB") consent orders provide a basis to find
that affidavits like that attached to the state collection action
are unlawful, citing to a recent consent order entered into
between Citibank N.A. and the CFPB.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated April 6, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/Ck6gqbfrom Leagle.com, Judge Darrah found no
dispute of material fact as to Plaintiff's FDCPA claim.

Pamela Casso is represented by:

     Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
     Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
     Emiliya Gumin Farbstein, Esq.
     James O. Latturner, Esq.
     Tiffany Nicole Hardy, Esq.
     EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN LLC
     20 S Clark St #1500,
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Tel: (312)739-4200

LVNV Funding, LLC is represented by James A. Rolfes, Esq. --
jrolfes@reedsmith.com -- and Timothy Robert Carraher, Esq. --
tcarraher@reedsmith.com -- REED SMITH LLP


M&T BANK: Court Stays "Hatemi" Action Pending Arbitration
---------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Hugh B. Scott of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York stayed proceedings in the
case captioned, Lachin Hatemi, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. M & T Bank Corporation,
Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-1103S (W.D.N.Y.), pending outcome of
arbitration.

The case has concerned allegations that M & T Bank Corporation (M
& T) charged overdraft fees against Lachin Hatemi's (Hatemi)
checking account even though Hatemi never requested overdraft
services. On April 11, 2014, M & T filed a motion to dismiss and
to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), 9
U.S.C. Sections 1-16. The Court recommended denying the motion,
and Judge Skretny adopted the recommendation.

M & T appealed; in the meantime, some discovery began in the case,
Hatemi retained counsel and ended his pro se status, and new
counsel filed an amended complaint with an eye toward a class
action.

On March 4, 2016, the Second Circuit issued a summary order
vacating the denial of arbitration. The formal mandate issued on
March 30, 2016. The Second Circuit decided that the Account
Agreement's arbitration clause extends to the instant dispute
regardless of whether the disputed overdraft protection agreement
is incorporated into the Account Agreement or even exists. The
Second Circuit decided further that "in such arbitration, factual
disputes as to the existence or terms of any overdraft protection
and fee obligations can be raised and resolved.

The Court has to resolve issues on whether to stay the case
pending arbitration and how quickly that stay should occur;
whether to require that arbitration begin within any particular
timeframe; and what to do about certain other issues in the case
that currently are unresolved.

In his Decision and Order dated April 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/YejgqQfrom Leagle.com, Judge Scott found that the
Second Circuit's mandate is broad enough to send all pending
substantive and procedural issues to the arbitrator. The Court
will issue a stay effective immediately because it sees no reason
to give Hatemi greater consideration than he gave himself before
the Second Circuit with respect to a stay.

The parties are directed to arbitration in accordance with the
Second Circuit's mandate.

Lachin Hatemi is represented by Andre F. Regard, Esq. --
aregard@regardlaw.com -- REGARD LAW GROUP PLLC, Barbara J. Hart,
Esq. -- bhart@lowey.com -- Scott V. Papp, Esq. -- spapp@lowey.com
-- and David C. Harrison, Esq. -- dharrison@lowey.com -- LOWEY
DANNENBERG COHEN & HART, P.C., J. Michael Hayes, Esq. --
jmh@jmichelhayes.com -- LAW OFFICES OF J. MICHAEL HAYES

M&T Bank Corporation is represented by Robert J. Lane, Jr., Esq.
-- rlane@hodgsonruss.com -- and Marissa A. Coheley, Esq. --
mcoheley@hodgsonruss.com -- HODGSON RUSS LLP


MDL 2179: 5th Cir. Favors Seacor in Employee's Suit
---------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Catharina Haynes of the Court of Appeals, Fifth
Circuit affirmed A district court's grant of summary judgment in
favor of Seacor Holdings, Inc., Seacor Offshore, L.L.C., and
Seacor Marine, L.L.C. (collectively, Seacor) as well as the denial
of Duwayne Mason's motion to be recognized as a plaintiff who
opted out of the class action settlement at issue in the case
captioned, IN RE: DEEPWATER HORIZON. SEACOR HOLDINGS,
INCORPORATED; SEACOR OFFSHORE, L.L.C.; SEACOR MARINE, L.L.C., As
Beneficial Owner, Registered Owner, And Managing Owner of the M/V
Seacor Vanguard Petitioning for Exoneration From or Limitation of
Liability, Petitioners-Appellees, v. DUWAYNE MASON, Claimant-
Appellant, v. BP EXPLORATION & PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP
AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP, p.l.c., Appellees. IN RE:
DEEPWATER HORIZON. DUWAYNE MASON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SEACOR
MARINE, L.L.C., Defendant-Appellee, v. BP EXPLORATION &
PRODUCTION, INCORPORATED; BP AMERICA PRODUCTION COMPANY; BP,
p.l.c., Appellees, Case Nos. 15-30597, 15-30598 (5th Cir.).

Seacor owned and operated the M/V SEACOR VANGUARD, a vessel that
assisted in putting out the fire after the explosion in the Gulf
of Mexico and that subsequently took part in the cleanup efforts.

Mason, an employee of Seacor and a member of the crew aboard the
M/V SEACOR VANGUARD, filed a claim in the Limitation Action,
alleging that while assisting in the firefighting efforts aboard
the M/V SEACOR VANGUARD, he was "subjected to intense, prolonged
exposure to chemicals, smoke, heat, and other noxious by-products
of the rig fire resulting in severe and permanent damage to
claimant's lungs and other parts of his body." In a separate
lawsuit against Seacor, Mason further alleged that "while engaged
in collecting the oil and dispersant, plaintiff was exposed to
crude oil, chemical components of the crude oil, chemical
dispersant, and other noxious by-products of the rig fire and oil
spill, resulting in severe and permanent damage to his lungs and
other parts of his body. In response to a class action filed
against it relating to damages stemming from the Deepwater Horizon
incident, Seacor filed a limitation of liability action under 46
U.S.C. Sec. 30505 (Limitation Action). These two claims were
consolidated with the Deepwater Horizon multidistrict litigation
(MDL).

BP Exploration & Production Inc., and BP P.L.C. negotiated the
Medical Benefits Settlement Agreement (the Agreement), which
released all claims of the class members against all released
parties would be dismissed once the Agreement became effective,
including those for personal and bodily injuries related to the
Deepwater Horizon incident.

After the Agreement became effective, Seacor moved for summary
judgment on Mason's claims against it, citing the release
provision of the Agreement. The district court granted the motion
and entered final judgment in favor of Seacor, holding that Mason
"is a member of the Medical Class" covered by the Agreement and
that his claims against Seacor had been released by the Agreement.
Additionally, in accordance with its denial of Mason's motion to
sever, the district court concluded that Mason's motion to sever
was not an effective opt out of the Agreement and that Mason's
counsel received sufficient actual notice of that Agreement, and
the court declined to extend the opt-out deadline for Mason.

On appeal, Mason contends it is unclear what standard of review
applies to whether a "non-formal" attempt to opt out should be
recognized in these circumstances. In his second issue on appeal,
Mason maintains that the notice of the Agreement was
constitutionally deficient in both delivery and content.

In her Order dated April 6, 2016 available at http://is.gd/DEp7Nx
from Leagle.com, Judge Haynes concluded that the district court
did not abuse its discretion in determining that Mason's conduct
did not reasonably indicate a desire to opt out of the Medical
Benefits Settlement Class. In Mason's second issue, the Court hold
that he cannot collaterally attack a class action judgment for a
lack of notice and due process because he was arguably not absent
because his counsel had actual notice of the Agreement.


MF GLOBAL: July 15 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
---------------------------------------------------------------
The following statement is being issued by Bernstein Litowitz
Berger & Grossmann LLP and Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP regarding
the In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN RE MF GLOBAL HOLDINGS LIMITED SECURITIES LITIGATION
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO: All Securities Actions (DeAngelis v.
Corzine)

Civil Action No. 1:11-CV-07866-VM, ECF CASE

SUMMARY NOTICE OF (I) CERTIFICATION OF CLASS; (II) PROPOSED
SETTLEMENT WITH THE REMAINING SENIOR NOTES UNDERWRITER DEFENDANTS;
(III) MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF
EXPENSES; AND (IV) SETTLEMENT FAIRNESS HEARING

TO: All persons who and entities which purchased or otherwise
acquired MF Global 6.25% Senior Notes (CUSIP 55277JAC2) between
August 8, 2011 and November 21, 2011 (including persons who and
entities which placed orders before August 8, 2011) and were
damaged thereby (the "Class")

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, YOUR RIGHTS WILL BE AFFECTED BY
A CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT PENDING IN THIS COURT.

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED, pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure and an Order of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, that the above-
captioned litigation (the "Action") has been certified as a class
action with respect to claims asserted against Jefferies LLC, BMO
Capital Markets Corp., Natixis Securities Americas LLC, Lebenthal
& Co., LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Investments, Inc. (the "Remaining
Senior Notes Underwriter Defendants") on behalf of the Class,
except for certain persons and entities who are excluded from the
Class by definition as set forth in the full printed Notice of (I)
Certification of Class; (II) Proposed Settlement with the
Remaining Senior Notes Underwriter Defendants; (III) Motion for an
Award of Attorneys' Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses; and (IV)
Settlement Fairness Hearing (the "Notice").

YOU ARE ALSO NOTIFIED that Settling Plaintiffs in the Action have
reached a proposed partial settlement of the Action for
$29,825,000 in cash (the "Settlement"), that, if approved, will
resolve all claims asserted against the Remaining Senior Notes
Underwriter Defendants in the Action.1 The claims asserted against
the Remaining Senior Notes Underwriter Defendants are the only
remaining claims in this Action in the District Court and, thus,
if the Settlement is approved the Action will be completely
resolved subject to any appeals.

A hearing will be held on July 15, 2016 at 11:00 a.m., before the
Honorable Victor Marrero at the United States District Court for
the Southern District of New York, Courtroom 11B of the United
States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, New York, NY 10007 to
determine: (i) whether the proposed Settlement should be approved
as fair, reasonable, and adequate; (ii) whether the Action should
be dismissed with prejudice as against the Remaining Senior Notes
Underwriter Defendants, and the Releases specified and described
in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement with Defendants
Jefferies LLC, BMO Capital Markets Corp., Natixis Securities
Americas LLC, Lebenthal & Co., LLC, and U.S. Bancorp Investments
dated March 9, 2016 (the "Stipulation") (and in the Notice) should
be granted; and (iii) whether Co-Lead Counsel's application for an
award of attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation expenses
should be approved.

If you are a member of the Class, your rights will be affected by
the proposed Settlement and any orders or judgments related to the
Settlement, and you may be entitled to share in the Settlement
Fund.  If you have not yet received the Notice, you may obtain a
copy by contacting the Claims Administrator at In re MF Global
Holdings Limited Securities Litigation, c/o Garden City Group,
LLC, P.O. Box 10164, Dublin, OH 43017-3164, 1-877-940-5045.  The
Plan of Allocation that was approved by the Court in connection
with the earlier settlements will be applied to this proposed
Settlement.  Copies of the plan and of the Proof of Claim Form
were mailed in conjunction with the earlier settlements.  Copies
of the Notice, the Plan of Allocation and the Proof of Claim Form
("Claim Form") are available at
www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com

If you are a member of the Class, and previously submitted a Claim
Form in connection with the previously announced settlements in
the Action, do not do so again.  Unless you properly exclude
yourself from the Class, your earlier Claim Form will be
considered for participation in the Settlement.  If you are a
Class Member and did NOT submit a Claim Form in connection with
the earlier announced settlements, in order to be eligible to
share in the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund (as defined
in the Stipulation and the Notice) from the Settlement you must
submit a Claim Form postmarked no later than June 7, 2016.  If you
are a member of the Class and have not previously submitted a
Claim Form and do not now submit a Claim Form postmarked on or
before June 7, 2016, you will not be eligible to share in the
proceeds of the Settlement but you will nevertheless be bound by
the judgments of the Court.  If you require a Claim Form, it may
be obtained from the Claims Administrator or you can download a
copy from the website noted above.

If you are a member of the Class and wish to exclude yourself from
the Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion such
that it is received no later than June 17, 2016, in accordance
with the instructions set forth in the Notice.  If you properly
exclude yourself from the Class, you will not be bound by any
judgments or orders entered by the Court in the Action, and you
will not be eligible to share in the proceeds of the Settlement or
any other recoveries that might be obtained in the Action.

Any objections to the proposed Settlement or Co-Lead Counsel's
motion for attorneys' fees and reimbursement of litigation
expenses must be filed with the Court and delivered to Co-Lead
Counsel and the Remaining Senior Notes Underwriter Defendants'
Counsel such that they are received no later than June 17, 2016,
in accordance with the instructions set forth in the Notice.

Please do not contact the Court, the Clerk's office, the Remaining
Senior Notes Underwriter Defendants or their counsel regarding
this notice.  All questions about this notice or the proposed
Settlement should be directed to Co-Lead Counsel or the Claims
Administrator.

Inquiries, other than requests for the Notice, Plan of Allocation
or Claim Form should be made to Co-Lead Counsel:

BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMANN LLP
Salvatore J. Graziano, Esq.
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10020
(800) 380-8496
blbg@blbglaw.com

or

BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD LLP
Javier Bleichmar, Esq.
7 Times Square, 27th Floor
New York, NY 10036
(212) 789-1341
settlements@bfalaw.com

Requests for the Notice, Plan of Allocation or Claim Form:

In re MF Global Holdings Limited Securities Litigation
c/o Garden City Group, LLC
P.O. Box 10164
Dublin, OH 43017-3164
(877) 940-5045
www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com

By Order of the Court

1 The proposed settlement is in addition to four other partial
settlements previously approved by the Court resulting an
aggregate recovery of approximately $204.4 million total for
investors in MF Global Securities (as defined in the Notice).
These settlements were: (i) a settlement with certain Underwriter
Defendants for $74,000,000 in cash; (ii) a settlement with
defendant Commerz Markets LLC for $932,828 in cash; (iii) a
settlement with PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP for $65,000,000 in
cash; and (iv) a settlement with certain former officers and
defendants of MF Global for $64,500,000 in cash.  Notices of those
settlements were previously disseminated to potential members of
the settlement classes for those settlements.  Copies of those
notices can be viewed and downloaded from
www.MFGlobalSecuritiesClassAction.com


MINNESOTA HUMAN SERVICES: New Jensen Internal Reviewer Named
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Donovan W. Frank of the United States District
Court for the District of Minnesota extended the Court's
jurisdiction, and scheduled submission of compliance report, in
the case captioned, James and Lorie Jensen, as parents, guardians,
Civil and next friends of Bradley J. Jensen; James Brinker and
Darren Allen, as parents, guardians, and next friends of Thomas M.
Allbrink; Elizabeth Jacobs, as parent, guardian, and next friend
of Jason R. Jacobs; and others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency of the State of
Minnesota; Director, Minnesota Extended Treatment Options, a
program of the Minnesota Department of Human Services, an agency
of the State of Minnesota; Clinical Director, the Minnesota
Extended Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department
of Human Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Douglas
Bratvold, individually and as Director of the Minnesota Extended
Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; Scott TenNapel,
individually and as Clinical Director of the Minnesota Extended
Treatment Options, a program of the Minnesota Department of Human
Services, an agency of the State of Minnesota; and the State of
Minnesota, Defendants, Case No. 09-1775 (DWF/BRT) (D. Minn.).

On May 28, 2015, the matter came before the Court for a Status
Conference. The parties participated in mediation meetings with
Magistrate Judge Becky R. Thorson between June 2015 and October
2015. On June 18, 2015, the Court stayed the parties' and the
Court Monitor's reporting obligations to the Court based on the
status of the mediation proceedings. On July 9, 2015, the Court
extended the stay of the reporting requirements during the
pendency of the mediation period to August 10, 2015.

Pending before the Court is the Plaintiffs' Proposal for Reporting
on Jensen Agreement, received by the Court on February 10, 2016
and the Defendants' Proposal on Compliance Reporting, received by
the Court on February 12, 2016.  Both parties seek an Order from
the Court establishing a schedule for compliance reporting with
respect to the Stipulated Class Action Settlement Agreement
(Settlement Agreement) and the Comprehensive Plan of Action (CPA).

In his Order dated February 22, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/CW2h2Jfrom Leagle.com, Judge Frank ordered the
Minnesota Department of Human Services to submit Plaintiffs' Class
Counsel, the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, and the Executive Director of the Minnesota
Governor's Council on Developmental Disabilities (Consultants)
exception, semi-annual, and annual Comprehensive Plan of Action
(CPA) reports based on the schedule listed in the attached Exhibit
A entitled Jensen Settlement Agreement Comprehensive Plan of
Action Reporting Schedule. The Court approved hiring of Dr. Daniel
Baker as the new Jensen Internal Reviewer, replacing Dr. Richard
Amado.

The Court's jurisdiction is extended to December 4, 2019 and
reserves the authority and jurisdiction to order an additional
extension of jurisdiction, depending upon the status of
Defendants' compliance and absent stipulation of the parties.

Plaintiffs are represented by Mark R. Azman, Esq. --
MRAzman@olwklaw.com -- and Shamus P. O'Meara, Esq. --
BMMcSherry@olwklaw.com -- O'MEARA LEER WAGNER & KOHL, PA


MITSUBISHI MOTORS: Discovers Falsified Fuel Mileage Tests
---------------------------------------------------------
Yuri Kageyama, Tom Krisher and Dee-Ann Durbin, writing for The
Associated Press, report that Mitsubishi Motors Corp., the
Japanese automaker tarnished by a massive recall cover-up 15 years
ago, owned up to another scandal on April 20, saying employees had
intentionally falsified fuel mileage data for several vehicle
models.

The inaccurate tests by the Tokyo-based automaker involved 157,000
of its own-brand eK wagon and eK Space light passenger cars, and
468,000 Dayz and Dayz Roox vehicles produced for Nissan Motor Co.

The models are all so-called "minicars" with tiny engines whose
main attraction is generally great mileage. They were produced
from March 2013.

The scandal adds to the list of cases involving automakers
inflating fuel mileage or providing faulty emissions data.  It
surfaced after Nissan pointed out inconsistencies in data,
Mitsubishi said. Mitsubishi Motors conducted an internal probe and
found that tire pressure data was falsified to make mileage appear
better than it actually was.

"The wrongdoing was intentional. It is clear the falsification was
done to make the mileage look better.  But why they would resort
to fraud to do this is still unclear," company president Tetsuro
Aikawa told reporters.

He and other company executives bowed in apology.

Mr. Aikawa said that although he was unaware the irregularities
were happening, "I feel responsible."

The company said it would investigate whether data were altered
for vehicles sold overseas.  A spokeswoman for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency was checking on April 20 to see if
the agency is investigating Mitsubishi models sold in the United
States.  The EPA lists the 2017 Mitsubishi Mirage subcompact with
a three-cylinder engine as getting up to 43 miles per gallon on
the highway, among the highest in the U.S. for gasoline-powered
cars.

It's likely that the EPA will take a closer look at Mitsubishi
vehicles sold here because of the admission in Japan, said
Alan Baum, a consultant in Detroit who advises automakers on fuel-
economy regulations.  But because the number of cars sold by the
company in the U.S. is relatively small, the cars won't get a high
priority, he said.  Mitsubishi sold just over 95,000 vehicles in
the U.S. last year, only 0.5 percent of the market.

Mitsubishi isn't the only automaker that has given faulty mileage
or emissions figures.  Volkswagen has admitted that 11 million of
its diesel-powered vehicles in the U.S. and elsewhere had software
that cheated on emissions tests, turning on pollution controls for
government tests and shutting them off in real-world driving.

Hyundai Motor Co. and Kia Motors Corp. admitted in 2012 that they
overstated the fuel economy of 1.2 million vehicles.  The
companies paid a $100 million fine to settle a U.S. investigation.
They also settled a class-action lawsuit by paying owners for the
cost of extra gas they would buy. Ford Motor Co. also admitted in
2014 that it overstated the fuel economy of six models.  The
company compensated 200,000 customers. The EPA didn't fine Ford in
that case.

In Japan, Mitsubishi said fuel economy was falsely boosted by
about 5 percent or 10 percent on the models, which were billed as
getting 30.4 kilometers per liter (71.5 miles per gallon).

Mitsubishi Motors struggled for years to win back consumer trust
after an auto defects scandal in the early 2000s over cover-ups of
problems such as failing brakes, faulty clutches and fuel tanks
prone to falling off dating back to the 1970s.

Mr. Aikawa was asked if the latest impropriety highlighted how the
company had not fundamentally fixed itself after the recall
scandal, although it had promised repeatedly to come clean.

"I realize that view exists," he said, his voice shaking slightly.
"I see how difficult it can be to have compliance consciousness
spread among all our employees."

Mitsubishi Motors, which also makes the Outlander sport-utility
vehicle and the i-MiEV electric car, said it is setting up a panel
of outsiders to investigate the latest scandal.

Production and sales of all affected models were halted, according
to the companies.

Nissan said in a statement that it recently discovered
discrepancies in data from Mitsubishi Motors about light vehicles
it provided while assessing the current model in preparation for
its next-generation vehicle.

"In response to Nissan's request, Mitsubishi admitted that data
had been intentionally manipulated," Nissan said.

It said that after consulting Japan's transport ministry, it told
dealers to stop selling the affected vehicles.  Nissan said it is
considering ways to help the owners of cars already sold.

Mitsubishi Motors shares fell 15 percent in Tokyo trading.


MOODY MANOR: "Williams" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Back Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zoney Williams and Karendawn Morgan, on behalf of herself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Moody Manor, Inc. and
Mary P. Briggs, Defendants, Case No. 0:16-cv-60857-BB (S.D. Fla.,
April 18, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages with liquidated damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment interest and
such other and further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Defendant operates a home health living facility in Broward County
where Plaintiffs work as a nurses.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Monica Espino, Esq.
      Karendawn Morgan, Esq.
      ESPINO LAW
      2100 Coral Way, Suite 300
      Miami, FL 33184
      Tel: (305) 704-3172
      Email: me@espino-law.com


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Court Tosses "Wendel" Debt Collection Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John T. Curtin of the United States District Court
for the Western District of New York granted Defendant's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, ELAINE S. WENDEL, Plaintiff, v.
MULLOOLY, JEFFREY, ROONEY & FLYNN, L.L.P., Defendant, Case No. 15-
CV-936-JTC (W.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs filed a complaint in the instant action on October 29,
2015, alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692, et seq. (FDCPA). In the original and
proposed amended complaint, plaintiff alleges that she is a
"consumer" and that defendant is a "debt collector" as those terms
are defined by the FDCPA.  Plaintiff incurred a debt to Bank of
America, N.A. (the Bank) and allegedly defaulted on that debt.

On January 13, 2015, defendant sent a letter to plaintiff on the
letterhead of Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP. The letter
lists plaintiff as the "Customer" and the Bank as successor-in-
interest to FIA Card Services as the Creditor. The letter
referenced a balance owed and previous and current account
numbers. Upon information and belief, plaintiff alleges that J.
Kennedy is not an attorney, but a collections manager.

In its motion to dismiss, defendant argued that plaintiff failed
to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Specifically,
it argued that the subject letter contained no material
misrepresentations but simply asserted the fact that the Bank
could invoke its right to file a lawsuit.

In lieu of a response to the motion, plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint. Specifically, plaintiff seeks
to join an additional plaintiff, Richard G. Schneider, and re-file
the complaint as a proposed class action. In the proposed amended
complaint, it is alleged that Mr. Schneider also incurred a
consumer debt to the Bank and defaulted on the debt. Mr. Schneider
allegedly received the same form letter from defendant dated
January 7, 2015. Under the signature line, the name G. BRICKMAN
appears with a telephone number.  Plaintiffs allege that G.
Brickman is not attorney but a debt collector employed by
defendant. Plaintiffs allege that the letter was confusing and
misleading as to the legal representation by defendant to the Bank
and misrepresented plaintiff's potential liability for the alleged
debt, in violation of sections 1692e, 1692e(2), 1692e(3), and
1692e(10) of the FDCPA.

In his Order dated April 6, 2016 available at http://is.gd/omfzsh
from Leagle.com, Judge Curtin found that no attorney had yet
evaluated the case or made recommendations regarding the validity
of the creditor's claims and as a matter of law, the defendants
have not used any false, deceptive, or misleading representation
or means in connection with the collection of any debt, including
the false representation or implication that any individual is an
attorney or that any communication is from an attorney, with
meaningful involvement as an attorney in the debtor's case.

Elaine S. Wendel is represented by:

     Seth Andrews, Esq.
     Kenneth R. Hiller, Esq.
     Timothy Hiller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER
     Plaza Suites, 651 Delaware Avenue
     Suites 123-124
     Buffalo, NY 14202
     Tel: (716) 564-3288

Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, LLP is represented by Robert L.
Arleo, Esq. -- robert@robertarleo.com -- ROBERT A ARLEO ATTORNEY
AT LAW


ONE WAY: Faces "Beahm" Suit Over Unsolicited Calls
--------------------------------------------------
MATTHEW BEAHM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. ONE WAY FUNDING, LLC, Case 1:16-cv-00491 (W.D. Tex.,
April 19, 2016), alleges that Defendant willfully violated the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act by causing unsolicited calls to
be made to Plaintiff's and other class members' cellular
telephones through the use of an auto-dialer and/or artificial or
pre-recorded or artificial voice message.

One Way Funding offers working capital solutions to small
businesses in need of financing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     W. Craft Hughes, Esq.
     Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
     HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Ste. 1120
     Galleria Tower I
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 554-2377
     Fax: (888) 995-3335
     E-mail: craft@hughesellzey.com
             jarrett@hughesellzey.com

        - and -

     Bryant Fitts, Esq.
     FITTS LAW FIRM, PLLC
     2700 Post Oak Blvd., Suite 1120
     Houston, TX 77056
     Phone: (713) 871-1670
     Fax: (713) 583-1492
     E-mail: bfitts@fittslawfirm.com


OWENS CORNING: Class Certification Denied for 2 Pa. Suits
---------------------------------------------------------
Judge Joy Flowers Conti of the United States District Court for
the Western District of Pennsylvania denied class certification in
the cases JAIME GONZALEZ, PATRICIA WRIGHT, KEVIN WEST, and GERALD
BOEHM, On behalf of themselves and all others similarly similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. OWENS CORNING and OWENS CORNING SALES,
LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 13-cv-1378 (W.D. Pa.), and
EDWARD MAAG and DIANE MAAG, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. OWENS CORNING and OWENS CORNING
SALES, LLC, Defendants, Civil Action No. 14-cv-0826 (W.D. Pa.).

The plaintiffs contended that Owens Corning and Owens Corning
Sales, LLC, acted unlawfully by manufacturing Oakridge-brand
shingles in accordance with defective design specifications, and
by promising that all Oakridge-brand shingles would last for at
least 25 years, when, due to those defective design specifications
all Oakridge-brand shingles were "vulnerable" or "susceptible" to
lasting no more than 20 years.  The plaintiffs filed a motion for
class certification, seeking to certify classes pursuant to
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1)(B), (b)(2), and (b)(3).

Judge Conti concluded that the proposed Rule 23(b)(1)(B) class
cannot be certified because the named plaintiffs asked the court
to answer a question that the Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit already answered.  The judge explained that Owens Corning
cannot, and has stated that it will not, relitigate the issue and
that, in addition, the appellate court answered the question in a
way that makes it impossible for the district court to enter any
classwide rulings with respect to the effect that Owens Corning's
bankruptcy proceedings have on proposed class members' claims.

Judge Conti also concluded that the proposed Rule 23(b)(2) and
Rule 23(b)(3) classes cannot be certified because, among other
reasons, the named plaintiffs sought to pursue relief under
various state-law theories that are not the same for all members
of a proposed class, it is impossible to determine whether an
owner is a member of the class, and the record contradicts any
finding that either all (or even most or many) Oakridge-brand
shingles suffer from a common defect or Owens Corning represented
that its Oakridge-brand shingles would not crack, degranulate,
fragment, or deteriorate for, or would have a useful life of, at
least 25 years.

Judge Conti found that the plaintiffs proffered no evidence about
how often Owens Corning manufactured shingles "at or near" the
allegedly defective "low-end" of its specifications, and that the
only statistical evidence in the record reflects that only one
half of one percent of Oakridge-brand shingle installations result
in a warranty claim, and only half of the approximately 300
warranty claim shingles tested by the plaintiffs measured "at or
near" the allegedly defective "low end" of Owens Corning's design
specifications.  Judge Conti also found that the plaintiffs
acknowledged that not all Oakridge-brand shingles will be
manufactured "at or near" the allegedly defective "low end" of
Owens Corning's design specifications, and the plaintiffs never
identified how near the "low end" of Owens Corning's design
specifications a measurement must be to qualify as design defect.

With respect to the plaintiffs' claims that Owens Corning made
misstatements about its Oakridge-brand shingles, Judge Conti held
that the plaintiffs failed to establish that Owens Corning made
uniform representations about the expected useful life of
Oakridge-brand shingles, or about whether the shingles would
experience any form of deterioration for a set number of years.

A full-text copy of Judge Conti's March 31, 2016, opinion is
available at http://is.gd/92Ae4Ifrom Leagle.com.

EDWARD MAAG, DIANE MAAG are represented by:

          David I. Cates, Esq.
          CATES MAHONEY, LLC
          Email: dcates@cateslaw.com

OWENS CORNING, OWENS CORNING SALES LLC are represented by:

          Arthur H. Stroyd, Jr., Esq.
          DEL SOLE CAVANAUGH STROYD LLC
          3 PPG Place, Suite 600
          Pittsburgh, PA 15222
          Tel: (412) 944-2723
          Email: astroyd@dscslaw.com

            -- and --

          Eugene A. Schoon, Esq.
          SIDLEY & AUSTIN
          One South Dearborn
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Tel: (312)853-7000
          Fax: (312)853-7036
          Email: eschoon@sidley.com

                    About Owens Corning

Headquartered in Toledo, Ohio, Owens Corning fka Owens Corning
(Reorganized) Inc. (NYSE: OC) -- http://www.owenscorning.com/--
is a producer of residential and commercial building materials and
glass fiber reinforcements, and other similar materials for
composite systems.  The company has operations in 26 countries.

The Company filed for Chapter 11 protection on Oct. 5, 2000
(Bankr. D. Del. Case. No. 00-03837).  Norman L. Pernick, Esq., at
Saul Ewing LLP, represented the Debtors.  Elihu Inselbuch, Esq.,
at Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered, represented the Official
Committee of Asbestos Creditors.  James J. McMonagle served as the
Legal Representative for Future Claimants until June 20, 2007.
Mr. McMonagle was replaced by Michael J. Crames.  Mr. Crames
served as Mr. McMonagle's counsel until July 2005, when he retired
from the law firm Kaye Scholer LLP.

On September 28, 2006, the Honorable John P. Fullam, Sr., of the
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
affirmed the order of Honorable Judith Fitzgerald of the U.S.
Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware confirming Owens
Corning's Sixth Amended Plan of Reorganization.  The Plan took
effect on October 31, 2006, marking the company's emergence from
Chapter 11.

Reorganized Owens sought on July 25, 2008, from the Delaware
Bankruptcy Court a final decree closing the Chapter 11 cases of 17
of its affiliates.  Only the Chapter 11 case of Owens Corning
Sales, LLC, formerly known as Owens Corning, under Case No.
00-03837 will remain open.


PAYPAL INC: "Wiederhold" Sues Over TCPA Violations
--------------------------------------------------
Scott Wiederhold, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Paypal, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 5:16-cv-02040 (N.D. Cal., April 18, 2016), seeks damages and
injunctive relief for violation of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA).

Defendant used an automatic telephone dialing system to send text
messages and artificial or pre-recorded messages to Plaintiff with
regards to his account where calls constituted were not for
emergency purposes.

Defendant facilitates digital payments with principal place of
business is in Santa Clara County, City of San Jose, State of
California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      Email: ak@kazlg.com
             ml@kazlg.com

           - and -

      Joshua B. Swigart, Esq.
      HYDE & SWIGART
      2221 Camino Del Rio South, Suite 101
      San Diego, CA 92108
      Telephone: (619) 233-7770
      Facsimile: (619) 297-1022
      Email: josh@westcoastlitigation.com


PEDRO'S BAGEL: "Bravo" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA, NY Labor Law
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Carlos Diaz Bravo, individually and on behalf of others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Pedro's Bagel Inc. (d/b/a BLVD
Bagel Cafe), CHUL KIM and JOHN DOE KIM, Case 1:16-cv-01923
(E.D.N.Y., April 19, 2016), seeks unpaid minimum and overtime
wages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and for violations
of the New York Labor Law.

BLVD Bagel Cafe is a Diner owned by Chul Kim and John Doe Kim.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PF CHANG'S: Appeals Court Reinstates Data Breach Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nation's Restaurant New's Ron Ruggless, citing Business Insurance,
reports that a federal appeals court has reinstated a class-action
lawsuit filed by two P.F. Chang's China Bistro patrons who claim
they were harmed by the chain's 2014 data breach.

Scottsdale, Ariz.-based P.F. Chang's China Bistro said in
June 2014 that some consumer credit card and debit card data has
been stolen.  The company eventually said that 33 restaurants had
been breached as far back as September 2013.

A 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel of three judges ruled
that the case of the two plaintiffs, who had filed separate suits
that were consolidated and then dismissed for standing in December
2014, could proceed because they had shown a "substantial risk of
harm" in the breach.

One plaintiff, Lucas Kosner, dined at a Northbrook, Ill., P.F.
Chang's in April 2014, and paid with his debit card. He later
found four fraudulent transactions on the card he had used and
cancelled the card.

John Lewert dined at the same restaurant, also in April 2014.  He
did not find any fraudulent charges on his card, but he claimed
after the breach was announced that he had spent time and effort
monitoring his card statements.

"After learning about the data breach, Mr. Kosner believed his
debit-card data were among those compromised.  He then purchased a
credit monitoring service to protect against identity theft,
spending $106.89," wrote Stephen A. Grossman -- sgrossman@mmwr.com
-- a partner and chair of the data privacy and cyber security
practice at the law firm of Montgomery McCracken, at Lexology.com.

"Lewert, however, had no fraudulent charges.  Instead, he spent
'time and effort monitoring his card statements and his credit
report' to ensure that no fraudulent charges or accounts
appeared," Mr. Grossman said.

The men filed separate suits before different judges in U.S.
District Court in Chicago.  The suits were consolidated in August
2014 into a single putative class-action lawsuit that sought
damages resulting from the breach.

The District Court dismissed the lawsuit in December 2014, stating
that the plaintiffs had no standing to sue.

"While plaintiffs allege that security breaches can lead to
identity theft, they do not allege that it has occurred in this
case," the District Court ruled.

Mr. Grossman said that this is an evolution of standing in data
breach/theft cases, based on the 7th Circuit Court's Remijas v.
Neiman Marcus Group ruling, which was issued after the district
court's dismissal of the initial P.F. Chang's suit.

The Court of Appeals found that several of Messrs. Kosner's and
Lewert's alleged injuries fit findings in the Neiman Marcus
ruling, including "the increased risk of fraudulent charges and
identity theft because their data had already been stolen."

Mr. Grossman said that "given the precedent of Neiman Marcus, the
outcome in P.F. Chang's is not surprising, but it does suggest
that, at least in the 7th Circuit, there is a basic equation to
establish standing: evidence of a data breach, temporal customer
activity to the data breach [and] time spent protecting against
future identity theft or fraudulent charges."

Mr. Grossman added, "We'll see how plaintiffs fare on remand if
the district court addresses P.F. Chang's motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim."


PJT PARTNERS: "Barrett" Suit Alleges Securities Act Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
GREGORY G. BARRETT, Individually and On Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. PJT PARTNERS INC. and ANDREW
W.W. CASPERSEN, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-02841 (S.D.N.Y., April
15, 2016), was filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons other than defendants who purchased or otherwise acquired
PJT securities between November 12, 2015 and March 28, 2016, both
dates inclusive (the "Class Period"), seeking to recover damages
caused by defendants' alleged violations of the federal securities
laws and to pursue remedies under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act.

PJT provides various strategic advisory, restructuring and special
situations, and fund placement and secondary advisory services to
corporations, financial sponsors, institutional investors, and
governments worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jeremy A. Lieberman, Esq.
     J. Alexander Hood II, Esq.
     Marc Gorrie, Esq.
     POMERANTZ LLP
     600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
     New York, NY 10016
     Phone: (212) 661-1100
     Fax: (212) 661-8665
     E-mail: jalieberman@pomlaw.com
     E-mail: ahood@pomlaw.com
     mgorrie@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Patrick V. Dahlstrom
     POMERANTZ LLP
     10 South La Salle Street, Suite 3505
     Chicago, IL 60603
     Phone: (312) 377-1181
     Fax: (312) 377-1184
     E-mail: pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com

        - and -

     Peretz Bronstein, Esq.
     BRONSTEIN, GEWIRTZ & GROSSMAN, LLC
     60 East 42nd Street, Suite 4600
     New York, NY 10165
     Phone: (212) 697-6484
     Fax: (212) 697-7296
     E-mail: peretz@bgandg.com


PO'S RICE: "Ye" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime, Premium Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------
Zhao Jun Ye, individually and on behalf of all other employees
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Po's Rice & Spice LLC, Bao Er
Chen, Poyee Fong, John Does and Jane Does # 1-10, Defendants, Case
No. 3:16-cv-00604 (D. Conn., April 18, 2016) seeks unpaid minimum
wages, unpaid wages for overtime work, premium pay, liquidated
damages, declaratory relief, costs, interest and attorneys' fees
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and Connecticut Minimum
Wage Act.

Po's Rice & Spice LLC is a Connecticut company owned by Bao Er
Chen and Poyee Fong located at 97 Main Street, East Hampton, CT
06424, where Ye was employed as a kitchen assistant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jian Hang, Esq.
      136-18 39th Ave., Suite 1003
      Flushing, NY 11354
      Tel: (718) 353-8588
      Email: jhang@hanglaw.com


PORSCHE CARS: Faces "Butler" Suit Over Defective 911 Vehicles
-------------------------------------------------------------
PAUL B. BUTLER, On Behalf Of Himself And All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, vs. PORSCHE CARS NORTH AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant, Case 5:16-cv-02042-LHK (N.D. Cal., April 19, 2016),
seeks redress for Porsche's alleged violations of the California
Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair Competition Law because of
the installation of a defective alternator cable in 2005-2008
Porsche 911 vehicles.

Defendant is the exclusive importer of Porsche vehicles for the
United States and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Dr. Ing. h.c.
F. Porsche AG, which is headquartered in Stuttgart, Germany.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Roy A. Katriel, Esq.
     THE KATRIEL LAW FIRM
     4225 Executive Square, Suite 600
     La Jolla, CA 92037
     Phone: (858) 242-5642
     Fax: (858) 430-3719
     E-mail: rak@katriellaw.com

        - and -

     Michael D. Braun, Esq.
     BRAUN LAW GROUP, P.C.
     1999 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1100
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Phone: (310) 836-6000
     Fax: (310) 836-6010
     E-mail: service@braunlawgroup.com


PSCU INC: Faces "Jones" Customer Service Reps' Suit Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ca'Non Jones, individually, and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. PSCU Inc., a Florida corporation, 2:16-cv-
11387-GER-APP (E.D. Mich., April 18, 2016), arises out of
Defendant's alleged willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards
Act against former customer service representatives.

Defendant provides financial services to credit unions including
operating four call centers in the United States.  PSCU is a
Credit Union Service Organization (CUSO) that was formed by credit
unions to provide services to credit unions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Neil B. Pioch, Esq.
     SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
     One Towne Square, Suite 1700
     Southfield, MI 48076
     Phone: (248) 746-4044
     Fax: (248) 746-4001


PULTE HOME: Faces Fla. Suit Over Defective Stucco Siding
--------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Parker Gazzara and Ana Paula Gazzar and Harry James Whitman
and Marcia Faye Whitman, as individuals, on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Pulte Home
Corporation, a Michigan corporation, Defendant, Case 6:16-cv-
00657-GAP-TBS (M.D. Fla., April 18, 2016), was filed on behalf of
all purported individuals, corporations, associations, trusts or
other entities that currently own homes constructed by Pulte in
Florida between May 1, 2006 and April 15, 2016 with a Drainage
Plane Exterior Stucco Wall System over Wood Frame and Wood
Sheathing, which Pulte allegedly wrongfully constructed in
violation of the Florida Building Code resulting in the Stucco
Siding failing.

Pulte Home Corporation is a licensed California real estate
broker.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Michael C. Sasso, Esq.
     David F. Tegeler, Esq.
     SASSO & SASSO, P.A.
     1031 West Morse Blvd., Suite 120
     Winter Park, FL 32789
     Phone: (407) 644-7161
     Fax: (407) 629-6727
     E-mail: notice@sasso-law.com
             msasso@sasso-law.com
             kdevore@sasso-law.com
             dtegeler@sasso-law.com

        - and -

     Gordon H. "Stumpy" Harris, Esq.
     HARRIS HARRIS BAUERLE ZIEGLER LOPEZ
     1201 East Robinson Street
     Orlando, FL 32801
     Phone: (407) 472-1555
     Fax: (407) 843-0444
     E-mail: stumpy@hhbzflorida.com
             evelyn@hhbzflorida.com

        - and -

     John W. Frost, II, Esq.
     Lydia S. Zbrzeznj, Esq.
     FROST VAN DEN BOOM, P.A.
     395 South Central Avenue
     Bartow, FL 33830
     Phone: (863) 533-0314
     Fax: (863) 533-8985
     E-mail: jfrost1985@aol.com
             lmatlock@fvdblaw.com
             lzbrzeznij@fvdblaw.com


PURE BIOMED: Tishman Files Statutory Action
-------------------------------------------
A statutory action has been filed against Pure Biomed, LLC.  The
case is captioned Tishman & Tishman, P.A. a Florida Professional
Corporation, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons, Plaintiff, v. Pure Biomed, LLC, Karl
Zetmeir and John Does 1-12, Defendants, Case No. 9:16-cv-80571-BB
(S.D.Fla., April 14, 2016).

The Defendant is a pharmaceutical company specializing in anti-
inflamatory medication.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Phillip A. Bock, Esq.
      BOCK & HATCH, LLC
      134 N. La Salle St., Ste. 1000
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Tel: (312) 658-5501
      Fax: (312) 658-5555
      Email: phil@bockhatchllc.com


REYNOLDS AMERICAN: "Rothman" Suit Transferred to D.N.M
------------------------------------------------------
Theodore Rothman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco
Company, Inc., Reynolds American, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
BC617085 (S.D.N.Y., November 3, 2015), has been transfered to
District of New Mexico, under Case No. 1:16-cv-00294-JB on April
14, 2016.

Santa Fe Natural Tobacco is a tobacco grower in Santa Fe, CA.
Reynolds American, Inc. is its parent company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas Gregory Blankinship, Esq.
      FINKELSTEIN BLANKINSHIP, FREI-PEARSON & GARBER, LLP
      1311 Mamaroneck Avenue, Suite 220
      White Plains, NY 10605
      Tel: (914) 298-3281
      Fax: (914) 824-1561
      Email: gblankinship@fbfglaw.com

           - and -

      Kim Eleazer Richman, Esq.
      RICHMAN LAW GROUP
      81 Prospect Street
      Brooklyn, NY 11201
      Tel: (212) 687-8291
      Fax: (212) 687-8292
      Email: krichman@richmanlawgroup.com


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles R.A. Morse, Esq.
      JONES DAY
      222 East 41st Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 326-7847
      Email: cramorse@jonesday.com

           - and -

      Michael Fraser Stoer, Esq.
      JONES DAY (NYC)
      222 East 41st Street
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel: (212) 326-3923
      Fax: (212) 755-6702
      Email: mstoer@jonesday.com

           - and -

      Noel J. Francisco, Esq.
      Peter Biersteker, Esq.
      JONES DAY
      51 Louisiana Avenue, NW
      Washington, DC 20001-2113
      Tel: (202) 879-3939
      Fax: (202) 626-1700
      Email: njfrancisco@jonesday.com


RIDGEWOOD, NJ: Trial in Class Action v. Water Utility Delayed
-------------------------------------------------------------
Richard de Santa, writing for NorthJersey.com, reports that
originally scheduled to begin April 5, the class action lawsuit
trial involving Glen Rock and other municipal customers and the
Ridgewood Water utility is delayed through at least mid-June.

At the Borough Council work session, Mayor Bruce Packer reported
that the New Jersey Superior Court case, whose plaintiffs also
include Midland Park and Wyckoff, has been held up due to personal
circumstances affecting a participant.

The matter was assigned the original trial date following the
failure of two mediation attempts earlier this year, held in
Ridgewood and presided over by retired Superior Court judge Peter
E. Doyne.

Following the first meeting, Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn told
North Jersey Media Group, "We remain committed to resolving this
situation amicably, in a way that best serves the interests of all
of the ratepayers in all of the four towns, but if necessary, we
remain fully prepared to defend this case in court."

The class action by municipal water customers Glen Rock, Midland
Park and Wyckoff alleges some $3.3 million in past overcharges,
and that the Village of Ridgewood improperly applied water company
revenues to other areas of its municipal budget.

Attorney Joseph Fiorenzo, representing the three towns, said
previously that they are seeking a return of the amount officials
believe their residents were overcharged - Glen Rock, $1,049,165;
Midland Park, $619,635; and Wyckoff, $1,640,492.

In an advisory following the initial January mediation attempt,
Mr. Fiorenzo, noting that Ridgewood Water is not regulated by the
New Jersey Board of Public Utilities (BPU), stated that the
mediation process has "reaffirmed and reinforced the position of
the plaintiff municipalities that the actions taken by Ridgewood
in adopting water rate increases in the amount of 37 percent were
illegal and unwarranted."

Prior to the January session, conducted by retired judge Peter E.
Doyne, the last development in the case came in July 2015, when
the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division reversed a
previous decision that the matter should be judged by the BPU, and
not the courts.  That ruling had been handed down by a Superior
Court judge in December 2013, a year-and-a-half earlier.

The 25-page appeals panel opinion reversing the 2013 judgment
stated, "We conclude the trial court misconstrued the
jurisdictional provision [in state statute] causing it to
erroneously transfer this case to the BPU."

It continued, "We discern no legal or public policy basis to defer
to the BPU's jurisdiction a function historically associated with
and inherently performed by the Superior Court."


RJ REYNOLDS: Liability Exemption Won't Prohibit Tobacco Suits
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Collins, writing for the Associated Press, reports that
cigarette manufacturers aren't immune to lawsuits by smokers who
get sick, the state's highest court ruled on April 25 in a
decision that bolsters the case of a smoker who was stricken with
laryngeal cancer and won a $28 million judgment against R.J.
Reynolds Tobacco Co.

Justices said an exemption in liability law doesn't prohibit
lawsuits in Connecticut against cigarette makers.  The Connecticut
Supreme Court was asked to decide the issue by the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, which is considering R.J.
Reynolds' appeal of the award.

Norwich resident Barbara Izzarelli sued the company, based in
Winston-Salem, North Carolina, in federal court in 1999.  She had
smoked the company's Salem Kings brand cigarettes for 25 years --
since she was a teenager in the early 1970s -- before being
diagnosed with cancer in 1996. She no longer has a voice box,
breathes through a tracheotomy hole in her throat and can only eat
soft foods, according to court documents.

In her lawsuit, Ms. Izzarelli alleged R.J. Reynolds designed and
manufactured Salem Kings with increased addictive properties that
delivered more carcinogens than necessary. She sued under the
Connecticut Products Liability Act, which allows claims by people
injured by defective or hazardous products.

At the 2010 trial in federal court in Bridgeport, Ms. Izzarelli's
lawyers introduced evidence that the company manipulated nicotine
in Salem cigarettes to get nonsmokers addicted and to get addicted
smokers to smoke more cigarettes.  The company discovered ways to
increase the nicotine kick -- including adding ammonia compounds,
according to evidence at trial.

Witnesses for R.J. Reynolds testified that Ms. Izzarelli's cancer
was not specific to Salem Kings, that all tobacco was addictive
and that any cigarettes she smoked would have had the same effect
on her health.

But the jury found in favor of Ms. Izzarelli, who now lives in
Daytona Beach, Florida.

R.J. Reynolds argues in its appeal that an exemption in
Connecticut's law bars such lawsuits.  The exemption, which dates
to 1965, basically says tobacco is not unreasonably dangerous
because the dangers of smoking are commonly known.

The Connecticut Supreme Court rejected the company's arguments.

"It makes it clear the cigarette companies don't have immunity
from the terrible injuries and disease and death that their
products cause," said David Golub, Ms. Izzarelli's lawyer.  Mr.
Golub said his client's case was the first one against a tobacco
company to go to trial in Connecticut.

R.J. Reynolds officials declined to comment on April 25.

The appeal before the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals remains
pending.


SANOFI: 3rd Cir. Affirms Denial of Motion to Dismiss "Weitzner"
---------------------------------------------------------------
Senior Circuit Judge Anthony Joseph Scirica of the Court of
Appeals, Third Circuit affirmed the trial court's order denying
Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case captioned, ARI WEITZNER;
ARI WEITZNER, M.D., P.C., Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated, v. SANOFI PASTEUR, INC.; VAXSERVE, INC.,
formerly known as Vaccess America, Inc., Appellants, Case No. 14-
3423 (3rd Cir.).

On November 26, 2011, Ari Weitzner and his professional
corporation, Ari Weitzner, M.D., P.C., filed a putative class
action against Sanofi Pasteur Inc. and Vaxserve Inc. Plaintiffs
allege that beginning at least as early as April 21, 2004,
Defendants transmitted more than 10,000 facsimiles to Plaintiffs
and the other members of the Class without the prior express
invitation or permission of Plaintiffs and the other members of
the Class. Plaintiffs contend these transmissions violate the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

On November 15, 2013 -- after plaintiffs filed the putative class
action, and with no motion for class certification filed --
defendants made offers of judgment under Rule 682 to both Weitzner
and his professional corporation. Defendants also offered to pay
costs and to stop sending any facsimile advertisements in
violation of the TCPA. Plaintiffs did not respond to the offers.

On December 4, 2013 -- more than fourteen days after defendants
made their offers -- defendants moved to dismiss for lack of
subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(1), contending their unaccepted offers mooted the case. On
March 12, 2014, the trial judge denied defendants' motion to
dismiss holding that plaintiffs' action could proceed because they
had not engaged in undue delay in failing to file their motion for
class certification and a successful class certification motion
would relate back to the filing of the class complaint.
Subsequently, defendants moved to certify the trial judge's order
for interlocutory appeal.

In his Opinion dated April 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/q6YpHLfrom Leagle.com, Judge Scirica held that it
moots neither Plaintiffs' individual claims nor the case as a
whole because an unaccepted settlement offer has no force.

Sanofi Pasteur, Inc. and Vaxserve, Inc. are represented by:

     Carl J. Greco, Esq.
     GRECO LAW ASSOCIATES PC
     327 N Washington Ave # 400,
     Scranton, PA 18503
     Tel: (570)346-4434

Ari Weitzner is represented by Todd C. Bank, Esq. --
tbank@toddbanklaw.com -- TODD C. BANK ATTORNET AT LAW, PC & Daniel
A. Osborn, Esq. -- dosborn@osbornlawpc.com -- OSBORN LAW PC


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Court Dismisses "Kader" Amended Complaint
---------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Allison D. Burroughs of the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts allowed in part
Plaintiffs' Motion to Strike and dismissed all claims against the
Defendants in the case captioned, WILLIAM KADER, Individually and
On Behalf of All Other Persons Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS, INC., CHRISTOPHER GARABEDIAN, and SANDESH
MAHATME, Defendants, Case No. 1:14-CV-14318-ADB  (D. Mass.).

Plaintiff William Kader, and Lead Plaintiffs Morad Ghodooshim,
Roger Lam, and Laxmikant Chudasama filed a securities fraud
putative class action on behalf of a class of all purchasers of
securities issued by Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. during a six-month
period between April 21, 2014 and October 27, 2014.  Plaintiffs
contend that during the Class Period, Sarepta and its executives
made materially misleading statements and omissions regarding the
company's ongoing efforts to file a New Drug Application (NDA) for
its lead drug candidate called "eteplirsen" with the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration (FDA). Specifically, Plaintiffs allege that
the Defendants misstated guidance and omitted information that the
FDA purportedly provided to the Company, which pertained to the
sufficiency of Sarepta's clinical data on eteplirsen.

Plaintiffs filed their two-count Amended Complaint on March 20,
2015, alleging that by making misrepresentations and material
omissions in connection with the purchase or sale of Sarepta's
securities, all Defendants violated Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act) and Rule 10b-5
(Count I), and the individual Defendants violated Section 20(a) of
the Exchange Act (Count II).

Defendants argue that the Amended Complaint fails to state an
actionable claim for securities fraud for two primary reasons: (1)
Plaintiffs fail to plead any facts plausibly suggesting that
Defendants' statements or omissions were materially false or
misleading; and (2) Plaintiffs do not allege facts sufficient to
support a strong inference that Defendants acted with scienter.

Meanwhile, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike 10 exhibits
attached to the Declaration of Mark D. Vaughn, which Defendants
submitted in support of their Motion to Dismiss the Amended
Complaint. Plaintiffs also moved to strike Exhibit A to
Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Support of their Motion to
Dismiss, which is a reference chart cataloguing the purported
pleading deficiencies in Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.

In the Memorandum and Order dated April 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/tnnOlmfrom Leagle.com, Judge Burroughs denied the
motion to strike as to Exhibits 4 and 24 finding that Defendants'
efforts to synthesize the information presented in their moving
papers to be useful and allowed with respect to Exhibits 2, 3, 16,
17, 18, 19, 21, and 23 because they are not properly before the
Court, nor are they essential to evaluating the sufficiency of the
Complaint.  Moreover, the Court ruled that all claims against
Defendants are dismissed because Plaintiffs have not met the
pleading standard under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act of 1995 with respect to scienter and have not plausibly
alleged a motive to mislead.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jason M. Leviton, Esq. --
jason@blockesq.com  -- BLOCK & LEVITON LLP, Kara Wolke, Esq. --
kwolke@glancylaw.com -- and Robert V. Prongay, Esq. --
Rprongay@glancy.com -- GLANCY PRONGAY & MURRAY LLP

Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc. is represented by Christopher G. Green,
Esq. -- Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com -- Justin Florence, Esq.
-- Justin.Florence@ropesgray.com -- and Mark D. Vaughn, Esq. --
Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com -- ROPES & GRAY


SECURITAS SECURITY: Sept. 22 Final Settlement Approval Hearing
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California granted Plaintiff's unopposed
Motion for Preliminary Approval of Amended Settlement and
Modification of End-Date of Settlement Class in the case
captioned, MICHAEL DEATRICK, Plaintiff, v. SECURITAS SECURITY
SERVICES USA, INC., Defendant, Case No. 13-CV-05016-JST (N.D.
Cal.).

Named Plaintiff Michael Deatrick represents a class of individuals
who are current and former employes of Defendant Securitas
Services USA, Inc. (Securitas), a national provider of security
services. Deatrick worked for Securitas as a security guard for
several years before he was laid off. In the Third Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Securitas failed to pay Deatrick
and other security guards the full overtime compensation they were
owed, because Securitas failed to take into account in the
overtime calculation the payments that security guards received in
connection with Securitas' Vacation Pay Plan (the Plan). Plaintiff
alleges that Securitas improperly treated these payments as
vacation payments under the FLSA, even though such payments were,
in practice, retention or productivity bonuses.

Additionally, it asserts the following claims: (1) a claim for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of California Labor
Code sections 510 and 1198; (2) a claim for inaccurate wage
statements in violation of California Labor Code sections 226 and
1174; (3) a claim for waiting time penalties under California
Labor Code section 203 for failure to pay the wages owed upon
termination; (4) a claim under California's Unfair Competition Law
(UCL); (5) violation of overtime and wage premium laws in eight
other states besides California; and (6) a claim under
California's Private Attorneys General Act.

On May 9, 2014, Securitas filed a Motion for Summary Judgment or
in the alternative, for Partial Summary Judgment which the Court
denied on June 23, 2014. Deatrick filed a motion for conditional
class certification of "All persons throughout the United States,
including its territories and possessions: (1.) who are or were
security employees of Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.; (2.)
who received annual lump-sum vacation pay upon an anniversary of
employment since October 28, 2010; and (3.) who were required to
be employed on their anniversaries of employment to receive
vacation pay." The Court certified the classes and approved the
proposed notices and consent forms and ordered them distributed to
the putative class.

On March 8, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Amended Settlement and Modification of End-Date
Settlement Class. Plaintiff now requests that the class be
modified to establish an end date of December 31, 2015, rather
than the date the Court grants preliminary approval of the
Settlement." Plaintiff explains that it used the original
definition of the California class because at the time, it was
possible that preliminary approval would have been granted prior
to December 31.  He further explains that because Defendant ended
its challenged vacation pay policy on July 1, 2015, the change
will not affect any class members or settlement amounts.

The proposed settlement provides for a total payment of $2,550,000
by Securitas. Plaintiff notes that this amount has been increased
by $50,000, and that some other apportions of the settlement have
been adjusted to allow for a total increase of $85,000 to the
settlement award for class members.

In his Order dated April 7, 2016 available at http://is.gd/cCAJJB
from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar concluded that the modification is
appropriate and does not affect the class's sufficiency under Rule
23. The Court appointed Rust Consulting as the Settlement
Administrator.

The Court sets the Final Approval Hearing for September 22, 2016
at 2:00 p.m.

Michael Deatrick is represented by:

     John R. Hurley, Esq.
     Daniel Chris Quintero, Esq.
     Eduardo Gregory Roy, Esq.
     Jill Dessalines, Esq.
     PROMETHEUS PARTNERS L.L.P.
     The Mills Tower
     220 Montgomery Street, Suite 1094
     San Francisco, CA 94104
     Tel: (415)527-0255

Securitas Security Services, Inc. is represented by Sherry Beth
Shavit, Esq. -- sshavit@tharpe-howell.com -- and Stuart Edward
Cohen, Esq. -- scohen@tharpe-howell.com -- THARPE AND HOWELL, LLP
& John Kevin Lilly, Esq. -- klilly@littler.com -- LITTLER
MENDELSON PC


SETERUS INC: "Courtney" Suit Claims Illegal Debt Collection Acts
----------------------------------------------------------------
SANDRA COURTNEY f/k/a SANDRA WINDHAUSER, on behalf of herself and
all others similarly situated, v. SETERUS, INC., Case 6:16-cv-
06253-FPG (W.D.N.Y., April 15, 2016), alleges damages, injunctive
relief, and any other available legal or equitable remedies
resulting from Defendant's alleged violations of the Fair Debt
Collection Practices Act, and the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

SETERUS, INC. is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kenneth R. Hiller, Esq.
     Seth Andrews, Esq.
     Timothy Hiller, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF KENNETH HILLER PLLC
     6000 North Bailey Avenue, Ste. 1A
     Amherst, NY 14226
     Phone: (716) 564-3288
     E-mail: khiller@kennethhiller.com
             sandrews@kennethhiller.com
             thiller@kennethhiller.com


SITEL OPERATING: Faces "Gilbert" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angel Gilbert, on her own behalf and others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. Sitel Operating Corporation, a Foreign for Profit
Corporation, Defendant (M.D. Tenn., April 18, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Sitel Operating Corporation provides customer service outsourcing
services through telephone call center services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kathryn E. Barnett, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     810 Broadway, Suite 105
     Nashville, TN 37203
     Phone: (615) 490-0944
     Fax: (615) 313-9965
     E-mail: KBarnett@forthepeople.com

        - and -

     Carlos V. Leach, Esq.
     MORGAN & MORGAN, P.A.
     20 N. Orange Ave., 14th Floor
     Orlando, FL 32802-4979
     Phone: (407) 420-1414
     Fax: (407) 245-3341
     E-mail: CLeach@forthepeople.com


SOLARCITY CORP: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Morris" TCPA Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the United States District Court
for Northern District of California denied SolarCity's motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, GEORGE MORRIS, Plaintiff, v.
SOLARCITY CORP., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-05107-RS (N.D. Cal.).

The putative class action asserts that defendant SolarCity has
violated Telephone Consumer Protection Act, (TCPA), by placing
marketing telephone calls to consumers that (1) utilized an
artificial or prerecorded voice (Robocalls), and/or (2) utilized
an automatic telephone dialing system as defined under the TCPA
(autodialer calls) and/or (3) that were made to telephone numbers
listed on the National Do Not Call Registry. Morris asserts that
during a seventeen day period in October of 2015, SolarCity made
ten robocalls from various phone numbers to his residential
telephone line in order to sell him solar panels.

SolarCity moves to dismiss, contending that named plaintiff George
Morris has not alleged sufficient facts to show that any of the
ten telephone calls he is complaining about were actually made by
it, as opposed to by some unspecified third party. SolarCity
alternatively seeks to strike the class allegations. Pursuant to
Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the motion has been submitted without
oral argument.

In his Order dated April 6, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Mlj3Rz
from Leagle.com, Judge Seeborg found that SolarCity's challenge to
the class allegations is not ripe for disposition at the point in
time. While class allegations may be stricken at the pleading
stage in the appropriate case, doing so is not warranted here.
SolarCity's contentions, if accepted, might alter the scope of the
class definitions and/or the particular claims that could go
forward on a class basis, but it has not presented any argument
that would completely preclude class certification.

George Morris is represented by Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq. --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Annick Marie Persinger, Esq. --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Joshua David Arisohn, Esq. --
jarisohn@bursor.com -- and Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq. --
ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- BURSOR FISHER, P.A.

SolarCity Corp. is represented by Randall Scott Luskey, Esq. --
rluskey@orrick.com -- Christina Guerola Sarchio, Esq. --
csarchio@orrick.com -- Elyse D. Echtman, Esq. --
eechtman@orrick.com -- and Katie Lieberg Stowe, Esq. --
kstowe@orrick.com -- ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP


SOUTH DAKOTA: Some Inmates Dropped as Plaintiff in Suit v. Warden
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Roberto A. Lange of the United States District
Court for the District of South Dakota adopted the reports and
recommendations in part, sustained plaintiffs' objection and
denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider in the case by inmates
James Irving Dale et al., against the South Dakota Department of
Corrections and its warden and other personnel.

Plaintiffs are prisoners incarcerated at Mike Durfee State Prison
(MDSP). On June 1, 2015, plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging
that their rights are being violated by prison conditions at MDSP.
Dale moved to proceed in forma pauperis. On June 3, 2015,
Magistrate Judge Duffy sent notice to all of the plaintiffs,
warning them that they must individually pay a filing fee and that
they would be legally responsible as plaintiffs in the case. She
also ordered plaintiffs give notice to the Court if they wished to
proceed with the lawsuit by July 2, 2015. Because plaintiffs Kevin
Christopher Crank and Edward Eugene Darity did not respond to
Magistrate Judge Duffy's June 3 order, she recommends they be
dismissed from the case. Neither Crank nor Darity objected to this
recommendation.

Dale appealed Magistrate Judge Duffy's June 3 order, moved to
appoint counsel, and sought class action certification. Most of
the other plaintiffs also moved to proceed in forma pauperis.
Magistrate Judge Duffy denied class certification and the motion
to appoint counsel. The Court denied Dale's appeal of Magistrate
Judge Duffy's original order and adopted her report and
recommendation denying class certification and the motion to
appoint counsel.

Magistrate Judge Duffy granted various plaintiffs' motions to
proceed in forma pauperis and set initial partial filing fees for
each such plaintiff. A number of plaintiffs paid their initial
partial filing fees.

On February 22, 2016, Magistrate Judge Duffy recommended dismissal
of plaintiffs Dale, Brian Holzer, Guy Blesi, and Dennis Stanish II
because they did not pay their initial partial filing fees.

In the motion, Dale objects to the recommendation, arguing that he
cannot afford to pay the initial partial filing fee. Dale also
moves the Court to reconsider its decision concerning his filing
fee, raising the same argument put forth in his objection to the
report and recommendation.

In his Opinion and Order dated April 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/cHKACBfrom Leagle.com, Judge Lange adopted
Magistrate Judge Duffy's recommendation dismissing Crank and
Darity as plaintiffs because they failed to object to Magistrate
Judge Duffy's recommendation that they be dismissed from the case.
The Court also adopted Magistrate Judge Duffy's recommendation
that Holzer, Blesi, and Stanish II be dismissed because they did
not pay their initial partial filing fees. Dale's motion to
reconsider seeks the same relief as his objection to Magistrate
Judge Duffy's report and recommendation. Because the Court grants
Dale's relief by sustaining his objection, his motion to
reconsider is denied as moot.

The case is captioned, JAMES IRVING DALE, BRIAN MICHAEL HOLZER,
MICHAEL EUGENE KOCH, GUY ALLEN BLESI, KEVIN CHRISTOPHER CRANK,
JAMES EDWARD HAYES, EDWARD EUGENE DARITY, JOSIA JEREMIAH FUERST,
JEFFERY JACOB-DANIEL KLING HAGEN, DENNIS LOUIS STANISH II, UKNOWN
MIKE DURFEE STATE PRISON INMATES, Plaintiffs, v. DENNIS KAEMINGK,
SOUTH DAKOTA SECRETARY OF CORRECTIONS; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ROBERT DOOLEY, WARDEN AT MDSP AND THE DIRECTOR
OF PRISON OPERATIONS FOR THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL
AND OFFICIAL MANAGER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; TAMMY DEJONG, UNIT COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; SUSAN JACOBS, ASSOCIATE WARDEN
AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; REBECCA
SCHIEFFER, ASSOCIATE WARDEN AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY
COORDINATOR AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JENNIFER STANWICK, DEPUTY WARDEN AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; MICHAEL DOYLE, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK MAJOR, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JEREMY LARSON, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE RANK SERGEANT, AND
THE DISCIPLINARY HEARING OFFICER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; COREY TYLER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK SERGEANT, AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
MICHAEL MEYER, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND
OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY TJEERDSMA, CORRECTIONAL OFFICER, WITH THE
RANK CORPORAL, AT MDSP; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
LORI DROTZMAN, GENERAL EDUCATION DIPLOMA TEACHER, WHO ALSO IS IN
CHARGE OF THE LAW LIBRARY AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MICHAEL JOE HANVEY, PHYSICIANS ASSISTANT AND HEALTH CARE
PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; ANDRA
GATES, NURSING SUPERVISOR AND HEALTH CARE PROVIDER AT MDSP; IN HER
INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; KELLY SWANSON, HEALTH SERVICES
SUPERVISOR AT MDSP; IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
STEPHANIE HAMILTON, NURSE AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; MARY CARPENTER, EMPLOYEE OF THE SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT
OF HEALTH AND ASSISTS WITH INMATE HEALTH CARE DECISIONS FOR
INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL
CAPACITY; BARRY SCHROETER, SUPERVISOR FOR CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD
SERVICES AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY;
JENNIFER BENBOON, DIETITIAN EMPLOYED BY CBM CORRECTIONAL FOOD
SERVICES; IN HER INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; CBM
CORRECTIONAL FOOD SERVICES, PRIVATE FOR PROFIT COMPANY CONTRACTED
BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE MEALS TO INMATES INCARCERATED
AT MDSP; DELMAR SONNY WALTERS, ATTORNEY AT LAW CONTRACTED BY THE
SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE LEGAL SERVICES TO INMATES INCARCERATED
AT MDSP; IN HIS INDIVIDUAL AND OFFICIAL CAPACITY; UNKNOWN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS EMPLOYEES, CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS
EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC WHO WORK AT MDSP; UNKNOWN
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HEALTH SERVICES STAFF, HEALTH SERVICES
DEPARTMENT STAFF EMPLOYED BY THE SOUTH DAKOTA DOC TO PROVIDE
HEALTH CARE FOR INMATES INCARCERATED AT MDSP; AND UNKNOWN CBMCORRE
CTIONAL FOOD SERVICES EMPLOYEES, EMPLOYEES OF CBM CORRECTIONAL
FOOD SERVICES AT MDSP, Defendants, Case No. 4:15-CV-04103-RAL
(D.S.D.).


SP AUSNET: Bushfire Settlement Payouts to Start This Year
---------------------------------------------------------
Marianna Papadakis, writing for Australian Financial Review,
reports that distributions from the $494 million class action
settlement over the 2009 Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria
could begin flowing from the end of 2016, a court has revealed.

Some group members whose claims have been assessed could receive
interim payments ahead of the completion of reviews of all group
members, the ruling by the Victorian Supreme Court on April 19
said.

The firm which ran the class action and is in charge of managing
the settlement distribution scheme, Maurice Blackburn, has blamed
the Victorian Bar for delays in their completion of group members
assessments.

The class action was settled in July 2014, with Maurice Blackburn
receiving its share of $60 million for its costs in running the
case.

The scheme determines the amount group members receive after their
claims for either personal injury and dependency, or for economic
loss and property damage, or both, are assessed.

"I am satisfied that Maurice Blackburn has acted reasonably in its
handling of the assessment of claims under the settlement
distribution scheme," Justice Jack Forrest said.  "But that is not
to say that improvements cannot be made."

According to the ruling, Maurice Blackburn's national head of
class actions advised the court that a distribution to group
members with personal injury or dependency claims could begin by
the end of this year or early next year, but it depended on
whether there was any increase in the rate at which assessments
were completed and the backlog reduced.

A spokesman for the firm Cameron Scott said: "The court has
acknowledged that everything that can be done has and is being
done by our firm to accurately and expeditiously process this
important claim of unprecedented size and complexity."

Justice Forrest said in his ruling he would continue to hold
regular reviews of the assessment process.  If in November, it
seemed unlikely that personal injury reviews were not likely to be
completed by the end of the year, he would discuss with Maurice
Blackburn's head class actions, principal Andrew Watson, the
prospect of making interim payments to people whose claims had
been assessed.

Discussions would also be held if it became clear that assessments
for claimants' economic loss and property damage were delayed into
next year.

There are more than 10,000 claims on behalf of over 5000
individuals.  As at March of there were 1854 registered personal
injury or dependency claims of which 788 had been completed. About
700 of the total 3523 claims for economic loss and property had
also been completed.

About 25 court-appointed barristers are currently working on the
personal injury claims.

Maurice Blackburn had suggested that its lawyers be deployed as
assessors to speed up the process, but the judge declined, saying
it was important the claims be conducted independently.

The judge said he made orders for Maurice Blackburn to be paid for
costs and disbursements in administering the settlement
distribution scheme, including a payment of $4.9 million for the
period of September 2015 to January this year.

Justice Forrest appointed Michael Wilson QC, to supervise the
administration of the scheme to replace Andrew Keogh SC who was
recently appointed to the Victorian judiciary.


SPACE AGE: Faces "Carter" Suit Seeking Overtime Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
MARCUS CARTER, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. SPACE AGE COMMUNICATIONS, INC. AND JOHN S.
PEARCY, INDIVIDUALLY, Defendants, Case 7:16-cv-00098 (N.D. Tex.,
March 14, 2016), was filed on behalf of people who worked as
installers of internet, cable, and other telecommunications
systems, who were allegedly denied overtime pay in violation of
the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a full-service telecommunications business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     J.Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Phone: Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010


TAISHAN GYPSUM: Cabinet-Level Agency Can't Be Sued Over Drywall
---------------------------------------------------------------
Janet McConnaughey, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
China's Ministry of Justice has sent back a lawsuit in which
thousands of U.S. homeowners say a Cabinet-level agency should pay
for damage to their homes from defective drywall made in China.

The ministry says it won't serve the legal papers because the
agency is immune to such lawsuits and the legal service would
infringe on China's sovereignty.

U.S. District Judge Eldon Fallon has ruled that Taishan Gypsum Co.
Ltd. must pay for damages from the drywall it made.  He's
considering damages for as many as 4,000 homeowners in six states.

The brief letter from Beijing became part of the court record,
about 21 months after lawyers for the homeowners sued the State-
Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission, which
oversees 117 state-owned companies.  It was dated April 8.

An attorney for the homeowners did not immediately respond to a
request for comment emailed on April 21.

Judge Fallon ruled in 2010 that Taishan's drywall emitted sulfur
gas that damaged the homes of seven "bellwether" plaintiffs from
Virginia, making occupants ill, corroding copper, silver and other
metals, damaging appliances and electronics, and stinking up the
houses so they were "hard if not impossible to live in."

All the drywall, wiring, copper pipes, insulation, and heating,
ventilation and air-conditioning units in each house, most
electronics and appliances, and all hardwood or vinyl flooring had
to be replaced, he ruled.

The other states involved in the lawsuit include Alabama, Florida,
Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas.


TD BANK: "Feinman" Sues Over Short-changing Coin-counter
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeffrey Feinman, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. TD Bank, N.A., Defendant, Case
No. 652083/2016 (N.Y. Sup., April 18, 2016), seeks damages,
restitution of funds wrongfully retained by TD Bank, counsel and
expert fees and such other and further relief resulting from
negligence, unjust enrichment, fraud, breach of unilateral
contract and New York General Business Laws.

Feinman deposited loose change in the Penny Arcade coin counting
machine operated by TD Bank and was short-changed.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national banking association chartered by the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency with principal place of
business in Cherry Hill, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jeffrey H. Squire, Esq.
      Lawrence P. Eagel, Esq.
      David J. Stone, Esq.
      885 Third Avenue, Suite 3040
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 308-5858


TGI FRIDAY'S: Appeals Court Reverses Class Action Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a March
New Jersey appeals court decision in a case involving drink prices
at TGI Friday's restaurants raised the evidence bar for
plaintiffs, a Philadelphia attorney says.

Gregory Hauck, a partner with the firm Pepper Hamilton, said the
decision by the Appellate Division of the New Jersey Superior
Court in Dugan v. TGI Friday's Inc. could serve as a possible
disincentive to plaintiffs filing class action lawsuits and help
root out frivolous lawsuits.

"The case was initiated in January 2010 and went on for years,"
Hauck told Legal Newsline.  "And at the end of the day, plaintiffs
lawyers are getting nothing."

The class action lawsuit was filed against TGI Friday's because
certain restaurants in the state did not disclose prices on beer,
mixed drinks and sodas on their menus, despite an alleged
requirement to do so by the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.

The plaintiffs in the class action were attempting to recover the
price differences between what they paid for the drinks and their
actual value.

The company, however, argued that those class action members who
may not have received a menu could not prove a causal connection
between the alleged violation and the overpayment of the beverage.
It was on this point the appeals court agreed, concluding that
some customers may have decided to purchase beverages with
undisclosed pricing without reflecting on any pricing information.

"The plaintiffs claimed that customers didn't know the prices
before buying their drinks, but the court said that a lot of them
may not have even looked at the menu before ordering," Mr. Hauck
said.

The trial court had certified the class to encompass TGI Friday's
customers who bought one of the beverages in question at one of 14
restaurants over a timespan of more than a decade.

That court also decided that members of the class did not have to
demonstrate that they used the menu when they purchased their
beverages -- a point the appeals court reversed.

The plaintiffs attorneys argued that class certification
requirements were satisfied by the restaurant chain's policy of
providing all customers with menus.

Mr. Hauck said that the Appellate Division's holding in the Dugan
case can make things more challenging for plaintiffs.  He advised
defendants that if they have facts to demonstrate a plaintiff
would not be able to prove their claims using common evidence,
they should consider fighting class certification.

"In a class action, plaintiffs must demonstrate that they can use
common evidence to prove the elements of their claims," Mr. Hauck
said.


TIDE ENERGY: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Annie Hunt, writing for PennRecord.com, reports that a former
employee is filing a class-action lawsuit against Tide Energy for
allegations of unpaid overtime compensation.

Stephen Falk, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed a lawsuit on March 9 in the U.S. District Court
for the Western District of Pennsylvania against Tide Energy LLC,
citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA).

According to the complaint, Mr. Falk was employed by the defendant
from November 2013 through March 2014, working as a title
contractor.  The defendant provides mineral title, surface title,
right of way title and acquisition, mineral leasing, and surface
leasing services, the suit says.

The plaintiff claims that he was not salaried and that he and
others regularly worked in excess of 40 hours per week without
receiving overtime compensation in violation of the FLSA and the
PMWA.

Mr. Falk seeks class-action designation, damages for overtime
compensation, liquidated damages, attorney's fees, and costs. He
is represented by John R. Linkosky and Sara E. Linkosky of John
Linkosky & Assoc. in Carnegie.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania Case
number 2:16-cv-00272-AJS


TMK IPSCO: Faces "Birkhimer" Suit Seeking Wages Under WARN Act
-----------------------------------------------------------------
WILLIAM BIRKHIMER on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. TMK IPSCO KOPPEL TUBULARS, L.L.C.,
Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00453-JFC (W.D. Pa., April 15, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages and benefits for 60 calendar days pursuant to
the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act.

The Koppel name is recognized as a premium producer of seamless
oil country tubular goods, drill pipe, coupling stock and line
pipe used in the exploration production and transmission of oil
and natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Kyle T. McGee, Esquire, Esq.
     MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
     525 William Penn Place, Suite 3300
     Pittsburgh, PA 15219
     Phone: (412) 281-4256
     Fax: (412) 642-2380
     E-mail: kmcgee@margolisedelstein.com

       - and -

     James E. Huggett, Esq.
     MARGOLIS EDELSTEIN
     300 Delaware Avenue, Suite 800
     Wilmington, DE 19801
     Phone: (302) 888-1112
     Fax: (302) 888-1119

        - and -

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Phone: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

        - and -

     Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
     M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
     THE GARDNER FIRM, PC
     210 S. Washington Ave.
     Post Office Drawer 3103
     Mobile, AL 36652
     Phone: (251) 433-8100
     Fax: (251) 433-8181

        - and -

     THE NLG MAURICE AND JANE SUGAR LAW CENTER FOR ECONOMIC AND
     SOCIAL JUSTICE
     733 St. Antoine, 3rd Floor
     Detroit, MI 48226
     Phone: (313) 962-6540


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces "Bradshaw" Drivers Suit Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Bradshaw, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly-situated, Plaintiff, vs. Uber Technologies, Inc., and
Rasier, LLC, Case 5:16-cv-00388-R (W.D. Okla. April 19, 2016),
alleges that Uber misclassifies its drivers as independent
contractors to evade basic wage protection and other protections
of Oklahoma law as well as the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Uber owns and operates the Uber ride sharing service and is
authorized to conduct its business, and does conduct its business
throughout the State of Oklahoma.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Noble McIntyre, Esq.
     Jeremy Thurman, Esq.
     MCYNTYRE LAW, P.C.
     8601 South Western Avenue
     Oklahoma City, OK 73139
     Phone: (405) 917-5250
     Fax: (405) 917-5405
     E-mail: Noble@McIntyreLaw.com
             Jeremy@McIntyrelaw.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settles Drivers' Class Actions for $100MM
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Uber has agreed to pay up to
$100 million and make several policy concessions to settle a pair
of major class-action lawsuits in two states that will keep its
drivers independent contractors instead of employees, both sides
announced on April 21.

The settlement is a major step toward the ride-hailing company
keeping its thriving business model that has been threatened as
drivers have sought a more secure status and more bargaining
rights.

Under the deal, Uber will pay $84 million to the plaintiffs in
California and Massachusetts and another $16 million if the
company goes public and meets certain goals.

In a concession touted by the plaintiffs, Uber will allow drivers
to put signs in their cars saying "tips are not included" in the
price of a ride and would be appreciated.  Lyft, a rival ride-
hailing service, allows for riders to add a tip for the driver on
the app, Uber does not.

San Francisco-based Uber also agreed to improve its systems for
communicating with drivers about their ratings and why they are
terminated, to allow arbitration in disputes with drivers, and to
help start drivers' associations in both states.

In the past, Uber could deactivate drivers without explanation.
Now the company must give cause for deactivation, and certain
standards like drivers' accepting too few passengers are no longer
consider grounds for being cut off by the company.

"We believe these to be very significant changes that will improve
work conditions for Uber drivers," plaintiffs' attorney Shannon
Liss-Riordan said in a statement on the deal.

Uber CEO Travis Kalanick said in a blog post announcing the deal
that "we haven't always done a good job working with drivers,"
especially on the issues of deactivation and appeal.

He said with more than 450,000 drivers now working for the
company, "it's time to change."

The deal settles the two largest lawsuits Uber faced, counted by
the number of drivers involved. It still faces similar suits in
several other states including Arizona and Florida.

Classifying its workers as employees could have raised Uber's
operating expenses significantly and would go against its business
model and identity.  Uber's selling points for drivers are based
on ideas of freedom and autonomy.

"Drivers value their independence -- the freedom to push a button
rather than punch a clock, to use Uber and Lyft simultaneously, to
drive most of the week or for just a few hours," Mr. Kalanick said
in his statement.

Federal law does not extend collective bargaining rights to
independent contractors such as architects, masseuses or workers
dispatched through mobile applications such as Uber and Lyft.
The settlement, which involved about 385,000 drivers in in the two
cases, was filed in a U.S. District Court in San Francisco.

After the initial $84 million, Uber will pay out the other $16
million if the company goes public and the average valuation
increases to 1 1/2 times its previous financing round.

U.S. District Court Judge Edward Chen must still sign off on the
deal.

Judge Chen had dealt the company a blow last year when he granted
class-action status to the California drivers, rejecting Uber's
argument that most of its drivers preferred their contractual
status and therefore Uber drivers should not be considered a
class.

He rejected that drivers should be able to sue the company for
expenses in addition to tips, however.


UNITED STATES: Faces Class Action Over Excessive Pacer Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------
Stephanie Francis Ward, writing for ABA Journal, reports that the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts illegally charges
excessive fees for Pacer, the federal electronic court records
system, a lawsuit (PDF) filed on April 21 asserts.

The case alleges that the 10-cents-per-page download fee, capping
out at $3, is much higher that the actual cost of providing public
records, and may prevent access to important court records.  It
was brought by the Alliance for Justice, the National Veterans
Legal Services and the National Consumer Law Center.

According to a press release about the lawsuit filed in U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, the administrative
office has a practice that discourages waiving Pacer fees for pro
se litigants, journalists, researchers and nonprofit
organizations.  The three name plaintiffs are all nonprofits.

Although Congress intended Pacer fees to cover its operating fees,
the administrative office uses the money to pay for the
judiciary's public access offerings, according to the complaint.
It's also alleged that the Pacer service center has used private
collections agencies to sue people who owed them money.

"Faith in our judicial system depends on transparency and
uninhibited access to court documents for all Americans,
regardless of the ability to pay," Nan Aron, president of the
Alliance for Justice said in a press release about the lawsuit.

"It's particularly disturbing that the courts themselves are
violating a plainly written law, especially one designed
specifically to promote public confidence in the judicial system."

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts was not available for
comment at press time.


UNITED STATES: Deal on Unspent Farm Settlement Funds OK'd
---------------------------------------------------------
Spencer S. Hsu, writing for The Washington Post, reports that a
federal judge on April 20 approved the creation of what is
expected to become the largest U.S. philanthropy serving Native
American farmers and ranchers, redistributing $380 million left
unclaimed in a landmark 2010 civil rights settlement in which the
U.S. government agreed to pay for years of official
discrimination.

Most of the $680 million in the 2010 settlement went unspent after
far fewer people than expected brought successful claims. Instead
of the 10,000 anticipated, only about 3,600 applicants were paid.

On April 20, U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of the District
approved an agreement reached in December over how to handle the
remaining funds.

Under the new deal, those Native American farmers and ranchers
will receive $21,275 in cash and tax payments on their behalf --
about $77 million in all -- atop the $50,000 apiece most received
initially.

An additional $38 million will go to nonprofit groups chosen by
lawyers who represented those in the class action, and the
remaining $265 million will endow a Native American-led trust that
will distribute money at its discretion to nonprofit groups over
20 years.

"The Court finds that with the creation of this Trust, governed by
community leaders with relevant expertise, the process for
distributing those funds will be fair, reasonable, and adequate,"
Sullivan wrote.

If the judge had not approved the new plan, all of the leftover
money would have been distributed in equal shares to nonprofit
groups chosen by class attorneys, an outcome all sides opposed
once it became clear that the sum would be vast.

Under the new terms, funds can be spent by the trust for business
assistance, education and technical support to promote Native
American farmers and ranchers in agriculture.  Court documents
also show that recipients can include new nonprofit groups as well
as certain agencies of tribal governments.

In a statement, lawyers for lead plaintiff Marilyn Keepseagle, a
North Dakota Sioux rancher, said they were pleased with the
decision.

"Faced with limited realistic choices, we believe it was the best
option available to favorably resolve this suit and provide
additional direct relief to the class members," while allowing the
distribution of trust funds by "Native American leaders who
understand the unique challenges of Indian agriculture," said
Marshall L. Matz and John G. Dillard of the Olsson Frank Weeda
Terman Matz law firm.

Lead class attorney Joseph Sellers of Cohen Milstein Sellers &
Toll had argued for the change, saying it would serve the
interests of an estimated class of 30,000 members, not only
successful claimants.

Experts blamed the inability to distribute money under the initial
agreement in part on the Agriculture Department's failure to keep
records of applicants who previously were denied loans and were
eligible for a settlement, a history of skepticism in Indian
country about federal promises, and the difficulty in reaching
poor and isolated Native Americans in remote areas to identify
wronged parties and make them aware of the settlement.

Those objecting to the new agreement included individuals who had
tried to collect through the initial settlement but were denied
and those who had never filed and were left out altogether.

Class representative Keith Mandan, a North Dakota rancher with the
Hidatsa tribe, also opposed awards to what he called "undeserving
third parties" instead of splitting the remaining money among
successful claimants who proved they were victims of
discrimination.

The suit filed in 1999 alleged that the Agriculture Department
discriminated against Native Americans in loan programs from 1981
to 1999.

In a statement, Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, "We have
worked hard to build a new era for civil rights at USDA, where all
people are treated with dignity and respect. This decision is
another positive step forward."


UNITED STATES: Judge Issues Proposal in Immigration Case
--------------------------------------------------------
Venice Buhain, writing for The Seattle Globalist, reports a
federal judge in Seattle has a tentative proposal to set who can
join a class action lawsuit in a battle over whether undocumented
immigrant children have a right to a lawyer in deportation
hearings.

U.S. District Judge Thomas Zilly issued a court order that
tentatively proposes that the class action suit includes children
under 18 who are in deportation proceedings in the U.S. Ninth
Judicial Circuit and who could be eligible for asylum, but who
cannot afford a lawyer.

The U.S. Ninth Judicial Circuit includes cases in Washington,
California, Arizona and eight other states and territories on the
West Coast.

Judge Zilly rejected a request by the federal Justice Department
to have the case thrown out, according to Politico.

American Civil Liberties Union and the Northwest Immigrant Rights
Project filed the lawsuit in 2014 against the federal government
on behalf of several children aged 1 to 17 who appeared in
immigration court without a lawyer present.  The children
originally came from El Salvador, Honduras, Guatemala and Mexico
and are currently in Washington state and Southern California and
had been in the United States for varying lengths of time.

They say that their right to a fair hearing was jeopardized
because they didn't have attorneys representing them, leaving the
children -- who have no legal training -- to represent themselves
in court.

Three of the children listed in the original suit include two
brothers and an older sister from El Salvador -- aged 10, 13 and
15 at the time of the filing and living in Washington state -- who
were threatened by a local gang if they did not join.  Several
years before they fled, the children saw their father, a former
gang member, killed in front of their home in retaliation for
helping others leave gangs.

After U.S. Customs and Border Protection caught the family in
2013, they were released to a family member in Washington state.
But they faced their deportation hearings without a lawyer because
they couldn't afford one and legal service providers were
stretched too thin to provide them with representation, according
to the lawsuit.  In 2014, a flood of undocumented children who
entered the United States without adults strained social services,
as well as immigration courts.

The parties in the case have until May 6 to respond to his class
action proposal, Judge Zilly's court order said.


VISIONWORKS OF AMERICA: 6th Cir. Vacates Remand Order
-----------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Karen Nelson Moore of the Court of Appeals, Sixth
Circuit vacated the order of the district court remanding the case
captioned, ELLIOTT GRAISER, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. VISIONWORKS OF
AMERICA, INC., Defendant-Appellant, Case No. 16-3167 (6th Cir.).

Elliott Graiser filed a proposed class-action complaint against
Visionworks of America, Inc. in the Court of Common Pleas of
Cuyahoga County, Ohio on June 24, 2014.  Graiser's complaint
alleged that Visionworks's "Buy One, Get One Free" promotion
violated Ohio Administrative Code Sec. 109:4-3-04 and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act because the price of the second pair
of eyeglasses was not truly "free."  Graiser sought to represent a
proposed class of "all consumers who (1) have purchased or who may
yet purchase eyeglasses at a Visionworks store in Ohio or (2) have
seen or may yet see an advertisement published by  Visionworks
purporting to offer" the promotion.  Graiser requested only
declaratory and injunctive relief, in addition to statutory
attorney's fees.

Visionworks removed the case under the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 (CAFA), 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d), claiming that the amount
in controversy recently surpassed CAFA's jurisdictional threshold
of $5,000,000. Graiser moved to remand, arguing that Visionworks
removed the case more than thirty days after it could have first
ascertained that the case was removable, and thus Visionworks's
removal was untimely under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1446(b)(3).

Graiser moved to remand on November 13, 2015, arguing that
Visionworks's removal was untimely. The district court granted
Graiser's motion to remand on January 11, 2016. The district court
noted that Graiser made "persuasive arguments" that the Amended
Complaint was originally removable under diversity jurisdiction,
and thus Visionworks should have removed within thirty days of the
amended complaint.  Moreover, the district court found that
Visionworks "possessed its own sales data at the time the Amended
Complaint was filed," and thus "was able to `ascertain' CAFA
jurisdiction" from the filing of the Amended Complaint or from
Graiser submitting his September 18, 2015 damages formula.  "Under
either theory," the district court concluded, Visionworks's
removal was untimely under Sec. 1446(b)(3).

Visionworks appeals from the district court's grant of Plaintiff-
Appellee Elliott Graiser's motion to remand contending that the
district court erred in holding that its notice of removal was
untimely filed.

In his Opinion dated April 5, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Y0pTAnfrom Leagle.com, Judge Moore found that the
district court erred in granting Graiser's motion to remand. The
hold that Sec. 1446(b)'s thirty-day window for removal under CAFA
is triggered when the defendant receives a document from the
plaintiff from which it can first be ascertained that the case is
removable under CAFA and that the presence of CAFA jurisdiction
provides defendants with a new window for removability, even if
the case was originally removable under a different theory of
federal jurisdiction.

Elliott Graiser is represented by John B. Nalbandian, Esq. --
nalbandian@taftlaw.com -- Ronald D. Holman, II, Esq. --
rholman@taftlaw.com -- and Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Esq. --
mzbiegien@taftlaw.com -- TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP

Visionworks of America, Inc. is represented by:

     Drew Legando, Esq.
     Jack Landskroner, Esq.
     Drew Legando, Esq.
     LANDSKRONER GRIECO MERRIMAN, LLC
     1360 W 9th St #200
     Cleveland, OH 44113
     Tel: (866)823-3332


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Reaches Framework Agreement with Plaintiffs
----------------------------------------------------------
Andreas Cremer, writing for Reuters, reports that Volkswagen said
it has reached a framework agreement with class action plaintiffs
in U.S. court proceedings on April 21.

The accord with class action plaintiffs will result in "a
comprehensive settlement" in coming weeks, Volkswagen (VW) said in
an emailed statement published by its Wolfsburg, Germany-based
headquarters.

The German carmaker and the U.S. Justice Department reached a deal
in principle to address excess diesel emissions in nearly 600,000
vehicles that will include buyback offers and a possible fix, a
federal judge said on April 21.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Emissions-Related Recall to Costs Billions
---------------------------------------------------------
David McHugh and Frank Jordans, writing for The Associated Press,
report that German carmaker Volkswagen capped two grim days for
the country's auto industry by revealing its diesel emissions
cheating cost it a chunky 16.2 billion euros ($18.2 billion) for
2015 alone -- and that's likely only a part of the total bill.

The revelation last September from U.S. environmental authorities
that the company had been cheating on emissions test rocked one of
the most venerable brand names in the auto industry and cost it
its chief executive as well as a host of goodwill.

It's also raised questions over the practices of others.

On April 22, German government officials said five German brands,
including Volkswagen, would conduct a voluntary recall over
emissions issues, a day after Mercedes-Benz owner Daimler said it
was conducting an internal investigation into its emissions
certifications at the request of U.S. authorities.

The Volkswagen announcement follows agreement in a U.S. federal
court in San Francisco on the outlines of a deal with U.S.
environmental authorities.

Under the terms of the proposed deal, Volkswagen would offer to
buy back almost 500,000 cars sold in the U.S. equipped with
software that disabled emissions controls when the car was not
being tested. Some 11 million cars worldwide are affected.

The company had delayed its earnings announcement until it could
get a better estimate of the costs involved.  Now that it has
revealed the cost of the scandal, Volkswagen said that it is to
post a massive net loss of 5.5 billion euros for last year.

The writedown of 16.2 billion euros is more than double the 6.7
billion euros the company had previously estimated.  Analysts at
Warburg Research think direct cost of fines, recalls and
settlements worldwide will end up reaching 28.6 billion euros for
fines -- and that's excluding any impact on sales and market
share.

Volkswagen also said it's not in a position to release results of
an internal probe into the scandal as expected.  The company now
says the probe conducted by U.S. law firm Jones Day could be
completed by year-end but that early release of partial results
would interfere with settlement negotiations in the U.S. and could
interfere with cooperation with U.S. law enforcement. Some 450
interviews have been consulted and 65 million documents submitted
for electronic review.

On advice of the company's attorneys, management and directors,
the company said "a disclosure of interim results of the
investigation at this point in time would present unacceptable
risks for Volkswagen and, therefore, cannot take place now."

Volkswagen CEO Matthias Mueller said as he released the headline
earnings numbers that the company remains "fundamentally healthy"
and that he is "convinced that Volkswagen has what it takes to
overcome its challenges."

Volkswagen's announcement coupled with more negative news about
German companies and auto emissions that has weighed heavily on
their share prices.  Volkswagen's share price was down 1 percent
in late Frankfurt trading while Daimler's tanked 6 percent.

The scandal is not just confined to German automakers -- Japanese
company Mitsubishi Motors and Italy's FIAT also have questions to
answer.

Still, Germany's car companies appear to be having the most
trouble at the moment.

On April 22, Germany's transport minister, Alexander Dobrindt,
said five German automakers agreed to recall a total of 630,000
diesel vehicles in Europe following an investigation into their
emissions levels.  He identified the companies concerned as
Mercedes, Opel and Volkswagen and its subsidiaries Audi and
Porsche.

The move followed a probe of 53 models by Germany's Federal Motor
Transport Authority that was sparked by revelations last year
about Volkswagen's emissions test cheating.  VW's cars could tell
when they were on the test stand and turned up the emissions
controls, then turned them off in real-world driving to improve
performance and mileage.

Mr. Dobrindt said none of the newly scrutinized models were found
to have rigged engine control software devices of the kind used by
Volkswagen, but that they displayed elevated levels of nitrogen
oxide in both laboratory and real-world tests.

Some models used technology to switch off the vehicles' emissions
treatment systems at certain temperatures to protect the engine,
he said.

While such technology is legal, investigators found that the
temperatures at which the emissions treatment systems were
throttled didn't appear to be justified in all cases, so the five
manufacturers agreed to voluntarily recall those vehicles.
Additionally, all engine protection features would have to be
declared and fully explained by manufacturers in future before
their cars are approved by German authorities, Mr. Dobrindt said.

Separately, Italian automaker FIAT is being investigated following
a tip from parts supplier Bosch about possible emissions
irregularities, he said.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Diesel Emmissions Deal to Cost $10 Billion
---------------------------------------------------------
Alexandria Sage and David Shepardson, writing for Reuters, report
that Volkswagen AG, driving to move beyond a scandal that has
disrupted its global business and sullied its reputation,
announced a sweeping U.S. deal on April 21 to buy back or
potentially fix about a half million polluting diesel cars and set
up environmental and consumer compensation funds.

The settlement, which sources and analysts said could cost VW at
least $10 billion, is not likely to end the Dieselgate controversy
that began last September when the world's No. 2 automaker
admitted using sophisticated secret software in its cars to cheat
exhaust emissions tests.

Despite the potentially big price tag, Volkswagen shares rose 6
percent on April 21 after rising nearly 7 percent on April 20 on
news of the agreement, which must be finalized by June 21.

VW shares are still down nearly 20 percent since the emissions
cheating was exposed as investors worried not only about large
fines and management instability, but the toll the scandal would
take on the German automaker's efforts to stay competitive.

VW still faces U.S. Justice Department fines as part of an
expected civil settlement, an ongoing Justice Department
investigation that could lead to criminal charges and an outcry in
Europe to do more for millions of owners of vehicles there that
also have illegal software to defeat emissions testing.
[nL8N1541VG]

The framework of the deal was hammered out by VW with the Justice
Department, state of California, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency and Federal Trade Commission as well as lawyers for car
owners who filed class action civil lawsuits.

It was brokered by former FBI director Robert Mueller, the court-
appointed mediator, in marathon talks at a Washington law firm
over the past week.  It is expected to settle more than 600 class
suits in U.S. courts.

U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer, who outlined the agreement
during a hearing in San Francisco, said he expects the issues of
Justice Department fines and resolving the 3.0 liter engines will
be addressed "expeditiously."

Judge Breyer did not disclose the amount of money involved, and
ordered lawyers for all parties not to disclose details until they
were final.  He said there is "definite momentum" toward a final
resolution.

The judge set the June 21 deadline for VW and the other parties to
nail down the final details before the agreement faces a public
comment period.  It would need final judicial approval before
taking effect.

The judge said the settlement includes VW's offer to buyback
482,000 2.0-liter vehicles, fix them if regulators agree on that
step after further testing, or cancel outstanding leases.

Big automakers have shown resiliency once damaging scandals are
resolved.  Toyota Motor Corp and General Motors Co have been
rocked by safety scandals in recent years, paid substantial
penalties to regulators, and both are now healthy.

GM on April 21 reported first quarter profits that soundly beat
investors' expectations.

Many questions must be answered.  Among them is whether Volkswagen
will be allowed to resell repurchased vehicles and how to fix
nearly 90,000 Porsche, Audi and VW cars and SUVs also made by the
company that are equipped with six-cylinder diesel engines that do
not comply with U.S. clean air standards.

The U.S. settlement will include an environmental remediation fund
to address excess emissions and a fund to promote green automotive
technology, and additional "substantial compensation" to owners to
sell back or have their vehicles fixed, Judge Breyer said.

LINGERING QUESTIONS

Many other issues remain, including what happens if vehicles are
not deemed fixable and owners opt not to sell them back.  A fix
could potentially reduce vehicles' road performance and it is not
clear if VW would have to compensate owners for that.  Also
unanswered is when VW can sell thousands of diesel cars sitting in
showrooms that are subject a government-ordered stop sale.


VOLKSWAGEN AG: Eager to Wrap Up Diesel Emissions Scandal
--------------------------------------------------------
Alison Frankel, writing for Reuters, reports that U.S. District
Judge Charles Breyer of San Francisco made the formal announcement
in court on April 21: Volkswagen has reached an agreement in
principle to resolve the clean diesel emissions cheating mess in
the U.S.  The company's settlement encompasses U.S. and California
officials, including the Justice Department and the Federal Trade
Commission, and owners of clean diesel cars, most of whom will
have the option of selling their cars back to Volkswagen or
getting the cars fixed to meet U.S. emissions standards. All of
the details will be revealed in June, when the government and
counsel for the car owners submit deal documents.

This was an unbelievably fast resolution of a sprawling case. VW's
lead lawyer, Robert Giuffra -- giuffrar@sullcrom.com -- of
Sullivan & Cromwell, said in court on April 21 that he is not
aware of any other multidistrict litigation that has settled as
quickly as this one.  Judge Breyer was assigned the case in mid-
December.  He appointed lead counsel in mid-January. The class
filed its consolidated complaint in February, and two months
later, the case settled.

In part, the head-spinning pace was set by Judge Breyer, who made
it clear to VW that he wanted the company either to offer
customers a fix for polluting cars or pay them to get the cars off
the road.

At the April 21 hearing, the judge referred to the "aggressive
deadlines" he set for VW, state and federal regulators, and
lawyers for the consumer class, led by Elizabeth Cabraser of Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein.  That's a bit of an understatement.
Mr. Giuffra said he had logged about 400 hours since the last
status conference in March.  Ms. Cabraser told reporters outside
of the courtroom, "Weekends and weekdays are all the same.  That's
the way it works."

VW was also eager to get the case wrapped up so it could begin to
try to win back the trust of U.S. car buyers.  VW investors were
so happy to hear about the settlement that shares rose 6 percent
in anticipation of the April 21 hearing.

But the unseen hand that guided the case to its quick,
multilateral agreement belonged to Robert Mueller, the former
director of the Federal Bureau of Investigations who is now a
partner at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr.

Mr. Mueller was a surprise pick when Judge Breyer appointed him as
special settlement master in January.  VW and class action lawyers
had suggested different mediators, many with long experience
overseeing settlement talks in multidistrict cases and class
actions. Mueller, by contrast, is known in private practice for
his white-collar defense, cybersecurity and crisis management
expertise.

Judge Breyer, in fact, knew Mueller as a prosecutor.  As he
explained in the order appointing the former FBI director, the
judge met Mueller 40 years ago when Mueller served as an assistant
U.S. attorney in San Francisco, and continued their acquaintance
during Mueller's tenure as U.S. attorney from 1998 to 2001.

UNIQUELY QUALIFIED

"There are few, if any, people with more integrity, good judgment,
and relevant experience than Mr. Mueller," wrote Judge Breyer,
adding that Mr. Mueller was "uniquely qualified to work with and
earn the trust of the parties, including the consumer and car
dealer plaintiffs, the United States government, the Volkswagen
defendants and the interested state governments."

Judge Breyer showed acute insight.  Who's not going to return
calls from the former director of the FBI? Within weeks of
Mueller's appointment, it was already clear that he was pushing VW
hard.

At a status conference in February, VW counsel Mr. Giuffra told
Judge Breyer that Mueller had met with senior VW officials and the
engineers working on an emissions fix.  VW also said it had
apprised the former FBI director of its negotiations with state
and federal regulators, even providing him with the PowerPoint
presentation VW gave to officials from the Justice Department, the
EPA and the California Air Resources Board.

Judge Breyer suggested that Mr. Mueller wanted even more access.
He instructed VW to make top board members available to the former
FBI director.  By March, Mueller was hosting negotiating sessions
between VW, regulators and lawyers for class members at his office
in Washington.  He attended the status conference on March 24,
when Judge Breyer agreed to give the company and its adversaries
another month to work out a deal.  The judge said he was willing
to extend the deadline because of Mr. Mueller's assurances that a
deal was in sight.

In the two weeks leading up to the April 21 hearing, VW and its
adversaries from the government and the class action bar were in
talks almost every day, for up to 14 hours a day, according to
Judge Breyer.

"We were all at Director Mueller's offices at literally 3 o'clock
in the morning on April 16," said VW lawyer Giuffra, who thanked
Breyer and Mueller "for all you've done to promote this process."
The precise details of Mueller's involvement in the settlement
haven't emerged, and he declined, through a Wilmer representative,
to comment for this post.  His work isn't done, either.  VW's
agreements in principle must still be put into a consent decree
with federal regulators, an agreement with California officials
and a proposed settlement of the class action.

Judge Breyer joked that he expects all of the lawyers to keep up
their brutal work schedule until the deals are done.  And if they
are in Mueller's offices until 3 in the morning, you can bet the
former FBI director will be there as well.

Judge Breyer and his hand-picked settlement master have shown that
it's possible to get the government, hundreds of thousands of
class action plaintiffs and a global corporation to move fast.


WALDHEIM CEMETERY: Ill. App. Trims "Kagan" Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Justice Shelvin Louise Marie Hall of the Appellate Court of
Illinois affirmed in part the dismissal of the second amended
consolidated complaint in the case captioned, LINDA S. KAGAN, on
Behalf of Herself and All Persons Similarly Situated, and ELLIOT
SAMUELS, Trustee of the Abe Samuels Trust and Executor of the
Estate of Diane Samuels and on Behalf of Himself and All Persons
Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WALDHEIM CEMETERY
COMPANY, ROSEMONT PARK, INC., and DAVID GALE, Defendants, (Zion
Gardens, Inc., Defendant-Appellant; Bank of America, N.A.,
Successor to LaSalle Bank, N.A., Defendant-Appellee). ZION
GARDENS, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.,
Successor to LaSalle Bank, N.A., Defendant-Appellee, Case No.
1-13-1274, 1-13-1331 & 1-13-3131 Cons.(Ill. App.).

The Court kept alive the plaintiffs' claim against Bank of America
for violation of section 2Z of the Consumer Fraud Act and remanded
action.

In June 2011, plaintiffs Kagan and Samuels filed separate class
action complaints against the defendants. Both complaints sought
redress for themselves and others who purchased extended-care
services from Rosemont. On August 23, 2011, following the circuit
court's consolidation of the Kagan and Samuels complaints, an
amended consolidated complaint was filed against BofA, Zion and
the other named defendants alleging conversion, common law breach
of fiduciary duty, violations of the Illinois Cemetery Oversight
Act and the Care Act and violation of the Consumer Fraud Act. They
also sought an accounting.

BofA filed a combined motion to dismiss the amended consolidated
complaint pursuant to section 2-619.1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure. The circuit court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss
in part finding that under section 2-615 of the Code, the
plaintiffs failed to state causes of action for conversion and
common law breach of fiduciary duty. The plaintiffs were granted
leave to replead the dismissed conversion and common law breach of
fiduciary duty counts.

On September 26, 2013, the circuit court dismissed Zion's amended
complaint against the Bank with prejudice.

On appeal, plaintiffs contend that the circuit court abused its
discretion when it denied their request to amend their second
amended consolidated complaint to further support their claim to
the existence of a private right of action under the Care Act.

Zion filed separate appeals from the order dismissing the second
amended consolidated complaint and from the dismissal of its
separate amended complaint against the Bank.

In her Opinion dated April 8, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/gpj3hkfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hall concluded that as
to plaintiffs' claim against BofA for violation of section 2Z of
the Consumer Fraud Act, the circuit court erred in dismissing
count VI of the second amended consolidated complaint because that
the plaintiffs have stated a cause of action. As to the remaining
claims, the issue raised with respect to the motion for leave to
amend is procedurally defaulted because the plaintiffs abandoned
their motion for leave to amend their second amended consolidated
complaint.

The Court also affirmed the dismissal of Zion's amended complaint.
"The dispositive issue in Zion's appeal is whether it had standing
to maintain an action against the Bank either on behalf of itself
or on behalf of the gravesite owners whose funds made up the
principal of the care fund of which the Bank was trustee. Our
determination that no private right of action exists under the
Care Act and that the Bank did not owe a fiduciary duty to the
gravesite owners disposes of Zion's appeal from the dismissal of
its amended complaint," the Court held.


WILD EDIBLES: Faces "Chamilco" Suit Under FLSA, N.Y. Labor Law
--------------------------------------------------------------
Carlos Chamilco, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Wild Edibles Inc. and Richard Martin, in
his individual capacity and professional capacity, Defendants,
Case 1:16-cv-02848 (S.D.N.Y., April 18, 2016), was brought under
the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a fish store.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Ariadne Panagopoulou, Esq.
     PARDALIS & NOHAVICKA, LLP
     35-10 Broadway, Suite 201
     Astoria, NY 11106
     Phone: 718.777.0400
     Fax: 718.777.0599
     E-mail: ari@pnlawyers.com


WV AMERICAN: Rival Lawyers in Dispute Over Chemical Spill Case
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Ward Jr., writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
rival factions of local lawyers continue to wrestle over dueling
lawsuits against West Virginia American Water Co. and Eastman
Chemical Co. over their roles in the water crisis that followed
the January 2014 Elk River chemical spill.

U.S. District Judge John Copenhaver held a hearing on April 21 to
consider a motion by one group of lawyers complaining that the
other faction is wrongly contacting local residents and businesses
who have withdrawn from a class-action case pending before Judge
Copenhaver.

Charleston lawyers Marvin Masters and Tim Bailey filed motions
asking Judge Copenhaver to block local attorney Stuart Calwell
from contacting those residents and businesses, saying such
contact was improper because those residents and businesses are
represented by Bailey and Masters.

Messrs. Bailey and Masters also complained during the April 21
hearing that an investigator working for Mr. Calwell's firm has
wrongly tried to convince one of Bailey's clients -- the owner of
Bammy's Chili Dogs in St. Albans -- to switch to Mr. Calwell's
case.

"Whether this is a pattern or this is a one-off, I can't tell,"
Bailey told Judge Copenhaver.  Mr. Masters added, "It sounds like,
to me, that's an organized plan or operation, and that's a
concern."

Messrs. Bailey and Masters, along with Charleston lawyer
Anthony Majestro and others, are pursuing a series of lawsuits
over the chemical spill through actions before the state court
system's Mass Litigation Panel.  But their cases are further
behind in the process from the one Mr. Calwell and lawyers
Kevin Thompson and Van Bunch have pending before Judge  Copenhaver
in federal court.

The federal court case has already been approved by Judge
Copenhaver to proceed as a class-action on behalf of tens of
thousands of residents, businesses and wage earners impacted by
the loss of clean water for homes and work after the spill.  A
July trial date is fast approaching.

But Mr. Masters, Mr. Bailey and other lawyers in the state court
suit are trying to slow down the federal case, arguing that a
public notice that gave residents and businesses the right to opt-
out of the class-action was improperly done. They are also hoping
to push the case into a mediation session that would be overseen
by the Mass Litigation Panel.

Previously, the lawyers in Mr. Calwell's federal court case have
complained to Mr. Copenhaver about what they argued were improper
contacts between the state court lawyers and members of the class
in the federal case.

At the April 21 hearing, Mr. Calwell explained that his firm has
been trying to gather information about the economic impacts of
the water crisis on 6,700 local businesses, and it accidentally
sent some questionnaires to some businesses that had opted out of
the federal court case.

"Given the sheer number of letters that have gone out, it's not
surprising that there were some errors in the cross-check," Mr.
Calwell said.  "These weren't sent out to try to acquire clients.
We have more clients than anyone needs."

Judge Copenhaver said that after listening to Mr. Calwell's
explanation, he didn't think the matter was as serious as the
written court filings from Masters and Bailey made it sound. But
the judge said he would likely order a new letter sent to any opt-
out businesses Mr. Calwell contacted to inform them that the
letters from his firm were sent by mistake.

The judge said the state court lawyers should also provide the
names and addresses of their clients so Mr. Calwell's firm can be
sure not to contact them again.


WYOMING CASING: Faces "Burrusss" Suit Seeking OT Pay Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Burrusss, and all others similarly situated under 29 USC
Section 216(b), Plaintiff, v. Wyoming Casing Service, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-00080-CSM (D.N.D., April 19, 2016), seeks
to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendant is an oil field service company that has provided
casing services in oilfieldds throughout the United States over
the last three years.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jack Siegel, Esq.
     SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
     10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
     Dallas, TX 75231
     Phone: (214) 706-0834
     Fax: (469) 339-0204
     Web site: 40vertimelawyer.com

        - and -

     J. Derek Braziel, Esq.
     Jay Forester, Esq.
     LEE & BRAZIEL, L.L.P.
     1801 N. Lamar Street, Suite 325
     Dallas, TX 75202
     Phone: (214) 749-1400
     Fax: (214) 749-1010


YELLOW CAB: "Patt" Sues over Taxi Fare Surcharge
------------------------------------------------
Aviv A. Patt, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated; Plaintiff, v. Taxi Affiliation Services LLC, American
United Taxi Affiliation Services, Blue Diamond Taxi Affiliation,
Checker Taxi Affiliation, and Yellow Cab Affiliation, Defendants,
Case 2016-CH-05258 (Ill. Cir., April 14, 2016), seeks restitution,
statutory, compensatory, treble and punitive damages, attorneys'
fees, expenses and recoverable costs and all other relief for
violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business
Practices Act and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act.

Plaintiff accuses Defendants, affiliated taxi operators, of adding
a $0.50 surcharge on taxi fares paid via credit card.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clinton A. Krislov, Esq.
      Matthew Peterson, Esq.
      KRISLOV & ASSOCIATES, LTD.
      20 North Wacker Drive, Suite 1300
      Chicago, IL 60606
      Tel: (312) 606-0500
      Fax: (312) 739-1098


YRC WORLDWIDE: Court Overrules Bid to Stay "Better" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kathryn H. Vratil of the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas overruled plaintiff's Unopposed
Motion And Incorporated Memorandum To Stay Proceedings Pending
Ruling On Plaintiffs' Rule 23(f) Petition  and sustained
plaintiff's Unopposed Motion And Incorporated Memorandum For
Expedited Consideration Of Plaintiffs' Motion To Stay Proceedings
in the case captioned, STAN BETTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YRC
WORLDWIDE INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 11-2072-KHV (D.
Kan.).

On behalf of themselves and all who purchased common stock of YRC
Worldwide Inc. (YRC) between April 24, 2008 and November 2, 2009,
Stan Better and YRC Investors Group bring suit against YRC,
William D. Zollars, Michael Smid, Timothy A. Wicks, F. Joseph
Whitsel III and Stephen L. Bruffett under Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b)
and 78t(a), and SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5.

On March 14, 2016, the Court entered an order which overruled
plaintiffs' motion to certify a class under Rule 23(b)(3), Fed. R.
Civ. P.  On March 29, 2016, plaintiffs filed in the Tenth Circuit
a petition under Rule 23(f), Fed. R. Civ. P., for permission to
appeal the Court's class certification ruling. See Letter from
10CCA.

Plaintiffs ask the Court to stay all proceedings pending the Tenth
Circuit resolution of their Rule 23(f) petition asserting that if
the Tenth Circuit grants permission to appeal, the parties will be
forced to brief issues on appeal while simultaneously briefing
dispositive motions in the underlying case. Plaintiffs assert that
they request a stay to avoid additional and potentially
unnecessary litigation expenses while they prepare a reply to the
petition for permission to appeal, and potentially substantive
briefing on the Rule 23(f) petition should the Tenth Circuit grant
permission to appeal.

In her Memorandum and Order dated April 6, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/7dwpCEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Vratil found that
plaintiffs have not shown that they will likely succeed on the
merits.  Plaintiffs also have not shown that absent a stay, they
will suffer irreparable harm, and because defendants do not oppose
the motion, presumably plaintiffs can show that the threatened
injury of proceeding without a stay outweighs any harm that
imposing a stay would cause defendants.

Stan Better is represented by David A. P. Brower, Esq. --
brower@browerpiven.com -- BROWER PIVEN, PC, Frank J. Johnson, Esq.
& Shawn E. Fields, Esq. -- JOHNSON & WEAVER, LLP, John M. Parisi,
Esq. -- jparisi@sjblaw.com -- and Lynn R. Johnson, Esq. --
ljohnson@sjblaw.com -- SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHTD.

Better is also is represented by:

     Ashley L. Ricket, Esq.
     DOLLAR, BURNS & BECKER, LC
     1100 Main St #2600,
     Kansas City, MO 64105
     Tel: (816)876-2600

          - and -

     J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
     Shane D. Pendley, Esq.
     Matthew P. Woodard, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St,
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Tel: (504)455-1400

YRC Investors Group is represented by David A. P. Brower, Esq. --
brower@browerpiven.com -- BROWER PIVEN, PC, John M. Parisi, Esq.
-- jparisi@sjblaw.com -- and Lynn R. Johnson, Esq. --
ljohnson@sjblaw.com -- SHAMBERG, JOHNSON & BERGMAN, CHTD.

YRC Investors Group is also represented by:

     Bruce W. Dona, Esq.
     Matthew P. Woodard, Esq.
     J. Ryan Lopatka, Esq.
     Lewis S. Kahn, Esq.
     Shane D. Pendley, Esq.
     KAHN SWICK & FOTI, LLC
     206 Covington St,
     Madisonville, LA 70447
     Tel: (504)455-1400

YRC Worldwide, Inc. is represented by J. Emmett Logan, Esq. --
emmett.logan@stinson.com -- and Kristin L. Farnen, Esq. --
kristin.farnen@stinson.com --STINSON LEONARD STREET LLP,  Karen
Pieslak Pohlmann, Esq. -- karen.pohlmann@morganlewis.com -- Laura
Hughes McNally, Esq. -- laura.mcnally@morganlewis.com -- and Marc
J. Sonnenfeld, Esq. -- marc.sonnenfeld@morganlewis.com -- MORGAN,
LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP


* No-Injury Class Action Settlements Only Benefit Attorneys
-----------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a recent
university study offers objective empirical evidence that no-
injury class action lawsuits only benefit the attorneys who bring
the litigation, leaving little to trickle down to the plaintiffs
while raising costs for consumers.

The findings of Emory University School of Law professor
Joanna Shepherd are backed by Philadelphia attorney James Beck,
who works for Reed Smith's Life Sciences Health Industries Group.

"A class action tax is pretty much being levied on every product,"
Mr. Beck said.  "Businesses pass on these costs to consumers."

The study found that class members of no-injury class actions
typically receive less than nine percent of the total settlement,
with nearly 38 percent going to attorneys' fees and the balance
collected by third parties.

"What a colossal waste of time, money and effort," Mr. Beck
recently wrote.

He said no bias was evident in the study, which identified class
action settlements that occurred between the years 2005 and 2015
and then culled from those settlements in which the plaintiffs
sustained no actual harm.

Instead, the key issue identified was a technical statutory
violation, such as a case involving the federal Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

"It was as objective as it can be," Mr. Beck said about the study.
"It's not an easy thing to research."

He concluded that, if anything, the study let class action lawyers
off easily because at one point it found that at most, 15 percent
of settlement funds potentially available to plaintiffs actually
went to the class members.

Mr. Beck said that figure related to insurance class actions,
however.  In no-injury cases, the plaintiffs are often left with
much less than 15 percent and sometimes less than one percent, he
said.

Ms. Shepherd herself concluded in her study of 432 settlements, "A
result in which plaintiffs recover less than 10 percent of the
award, with the rest going to lawyers or unrelated groups, clearly
does not achieve the compensatory goals of class actions."

Mr. Beck's article explains that a key to understanding where
funds go in such class action cases is the legal doctrine of cy
pres -- that is, when the identified recipient of a settlement
cannot be found or is absent, the money is then earmarked to a
substitute group in a supposedly similar situation.

That's where the bulk of settlement funds go, the study found.

Mr. Beck believes the third parties that receive this money can
become "slush funds" that finance future litigation.

Mr. Beck said that the named class members in the lawsuit might
each receive $5,000 to $20,000, but that pales in comparison to
what plaintiffs' attorneys receive as a result of class actions.

Mr. Beck also sees the current system as self-perpetuating because
any particular defendant in such a lawsuit may find it makes more
economic sense to seek a settlement rather than continue a court
fight.  But he sees such settlements as continuing to fuel the
current class action system.

He advises defendants and companies to get involved with legal
groups that are trying to put an end to the system, adding that
the passage of additional legislation may be the answer.

"These things are a drag on the system and the economy," Mr. Beck
said.  "The amounts of money are obscene."

Mr. Beck noted that amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure that took effect in December may be a step in the right
direction, but none of them address key class action problems.

"They are ignoring the elephant in the room and are going after a
few mice," he said.


* Federal Courts Can't Intervene in EEOC Class Actions
------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that after a 2015
U.S. Supreme Court ruling, companies facing class action Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission complaints will have a tough
time mounting a certain defense, a Charlotte, N.C., attorney says.

In Mach Mining vs Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the
high court's decision held that courts have authority to review
whether the EEOC has fulfilled its duty to attempt conciliation
under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act.

However, the EEOC needs only to show it contacted the company
about the type of discrimination alleged and attempted to engage
the company in a discussion.  A sworn affidavit from the EEOC is
enough evidence, the court ruled.

"Federal courts will not intervene to police the EEOC's efforts to
settle the class action claim before litigation" said
Jonathan Crotty -- jonathancrotty@parkerpoe.com -- a partner with
Parker Poe and head of the firm's employment and benefits group.

"As long as the agency makes some effort to advise the employer of
its demands and consider a response, it has fulfilled its pre-suit
legal obligations."

The case began in 2008 when a woman who applied for a mining
position at Mach Mining in Marion, Ill., filed a complaint with
the EEOC claiming she was denied the job because she is female.
Mach Mining had never hired a female for its mining positions.

The EEOC investigated and said it found reason to believe Mach
Mining discriminated against a certain class of women.  The EEOC
then attempted informal conciliation between the parties, but an
agreement could not be reached. After that, the EEOC sued in
federal court on behalf of the woman who filed the complaint.

Mach Mining has maintained it never unlawfully discriminated and
called for the case to be dismissed, claiming the EEOC had not
attempted conciliation in good faith.

Much of the litigation at the district court level followed the
good faith question, specifically whether a lack of good faith
conciliation efforts was enough to dismiss the case.  Ultimately,
the EEOC filed a motion for summary judgment over whether a
failure to conciliate is a proper affirmative defense.

The district court ruled it could review the adequacy of the
EEOC's conciliation efforts but also granted an appeal.

The Seventh Circuit reversed the district court, rejecting Mach
Mining's affirmative defense.  The Seventh Circuit ruled that so
long as the EEOC maintained its compliance with Title VII and its
documentation was facially sufficient, that was enough to satisfy
judicial review.

"I think that the Seventh Circuit reached two conclusions,"
Mr. Crotty said.  "First, Mach Mining has limited impact, meaning
that federal courts will not scrutinize in detail how the EEOC
conducts conciliation negotiations.

"Second, the court concluded that it would be impractical to
require the EEOC to conciliate on behalf of individual class
members each time it decides to pursue a class action claim."

The high court heard arguments in January 2015.  Mr. Crotty said
he was not surprised by the ruling, which found a court's ability
to review conciliation efforts is narrow.

"Not really," he said.  "In Mach Mining, the Supreme Court went
out of its way to limit the ability of lower courts to inject
themselves too far into the EEOC's administrative process.  The
Seventh Circuit opinion seems consistent with this direction."


* SIAS Won't Hesitate to Take Errant Companies to Court
-------------------------------------------------------
Michelle Quah, writing for The Business Times, reports that
investor lobby group Securities Investors Association (Singapore),
or SIAS, announced that it will not hesitate to take errant
companies to court -- representing minority investors in class-
action suits more commonly seen in jurisdictions like the United
States.

The association's announcement begs the question: is such an
action a viable alternative for minority investors here seeking to
bring recalcitrant companies to heel? To answer that, we need to
examine if such an action can be successfully brought about, if it
will yield the outcome that investors desire, and if this will
impact positively on Singapore's capital markets.

To begin with, class-action suits -- or representative actions,
which include class actions -- are not often seen in our courts.
Singapore is, by nature, not a litigious society; and it is even
less common to have large groups of people pursuing similar legal
redress against the same party.

As one litigation lawyer pointed out, there have been "only a
handful" of such cases in the last decade.

But, while rare, representative actions have been pursued
successfully in Singapore.

The best known would be the Raffles Town Club case.  In 2000, some
5,000 members sued the club's shareholders for misrepresentation
and breach of contract; they claimed it misrepresented to them
that it was the most "prestigious private city club" in Singapore
and demanded a refund of their $28,000 membership fees.

After a lengthy court battle, the members won the suit in 2005.
The Court of Appeal awarded the claimants a total of $45 million
in damages.

Perhaps less well known, but of greater importance, was the
Treasure Resort case.  In 2009, 202 ex-members of the Sijori
Resort Club -- represented by seven plaintiffs -- sued the club's
owner, Treasure Resort.  They alleged they had been denied
membership privileges after the club was sold by Sijori to
Treasure in 2006.

The case was important because it laid out a comprehensive roadmap
for representative actions in Singapore. Among various things, the
Court of Appeal ruled in 2013 that:

   -- the case brought forth in a representative action will
determine the rights of, and be binding on all claimants;

   -- not all interests of the claimants must be identical before
the "same interest" requirement is met, but the claimants must
share some common interests in relation to a substantial question
of fact or law, and that this is to be determined on a case-by-
case basis;

   -- the trial judge will have the discretion to refuse to permit
a representative action from going forward, even after the "same
interest" condition is met.

It is important for investors to note that no shareholder
representative action has ever been undertaken here -- so any such
suit would be a test case.  There will be procedural hurdles to
overcome.

Benefits and downsides

There are benefits to undertaking a representative action --
especially under the auspices of SIAS -- as opposed to going it
alone.

For one, because one would be banding together with other
similarly aggrieved investors, legal costs are shared.

For another, having an investor lobby group like SIAS be the
representative in such an action means SIAS will act as the leader
in such an effort, helping to galvanise the others, liaise with
the lawyers and coordinate other details.

SIAS's access to a reputable legal team and the association's
experience in dealing with minority shareholder issues could also
offer a considerable advantage over most retail investors'
solitary efforts.

The downsides? Having to depend on others to move the process
ahead. And, as in the case with any lawsuit, being involved in a
possibly very time-consuming, unpleasant and long-drawn-out
affair.

In terms of legal costs, SIAS has said that it is thinking of
setting up a litigation fund, which members and minority investors
-- whether or not they are involved in the action -- could
contribute too.  Depending on how padded this war chest gets, one
could conceivably still be shelling out a substantial sum in legal
fees.

And what if the outcome isn't as desired? As with all lawsuits,
the end result of a representative action cannot be determined
beforehand -- no matter how good a legal team one has, or how deep
one's pockets are, though these could help with the fight.

"Strength in numbers" does not necessarily mean a stronger case.

So, as with any lawsuit, minority shareholders intending to take
action against a company or its board need to first determine the
merits of their case.  They should either seek independent legal
advice, or work with SIAS and its lawyers to understand their
case.

They will need to familiarize themselves with the legal process,
and be prepared for how long it might take and how much it could
cost.  They should also build in contingencies and back-up plans,
in the event the case does not unfold as they expect or hope.

There is also the broader impact to consider.  Would a growing
prevalence of representative actions -- should investors
increasingly favor them as a means of resolving shareholder
disputes and other perceived cases of wrongdoing -- be a good or
bad development for capital markets here?

SIAS president and CEO David Gerald is not in favor of lawsuits
becoming the preferred course of action for aggrieved minority
shareholders.  He's in favor of a more conciliatory approach --
having investors meet the company's management and board, along
with market regulators, to work out an acceptable solution in the
interests of all parties.  Mr. Gerald believes that, "when you
have acrimony in the capital markets, people will think twice
about investing in our country".

There is some truth in that. Also of concern is the risk of
payouts from such class actions ballooning into billions of
dollars, as is not uncommon in the US.

To address such concerns, Singapore could take a leaf from the
United Kingdom's book.  The UK is gradually allowing its courts to
hear class-action-style claims from groups of consumers seeking
compensation from companies alleged to have practiced anti-
competitive behavior, under its Consumer Rights Act 2015.

Safeguards

But, concerned that these claims could result in damages awards of
the quantum seen in the US, "the regime has built in a number of
safeguards against what are perceived to be the 'excesses' of the
US system," competition law specialist Anna Morfey told the BBC
recently.

Among these, is the fact that the losing party will typically be
required to pay the winner's costs (acting as a deterrent to
frivolous claims), that there will be no trebling of or
"exemplary" damages, and no jury trials of these claims as there
are in the US. This should ensure that damages awards really are
compensatory and not windfalls for claimants, she said.

Managed carefully, having access to and a growing preference for
representative actions might not be a bad thing.  Some would even
argue that it provides another check and balance for listed
companies here.


* US Steel Files Antitrust Suit Against Chinese Steel Producers
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that United States Steel Corp. has
filed a complaint with U.S. regulators against the biggest Chinese
steel producers, accusing them of conspiring to fix prices,
stealing trade secrets and skirting duties on imports in the U.S.
with false labeling.

The big steelmaker is alleging illegal unfair competition by the
Chinese producers and their distributors, and is seeking "the
exclusion of all unfairly traded Chinese steel products from the
U.S. market."

U.S. Steel announced on April 26 that it lodged the complaint with
the U.S. International Trade Commission.  Normally the independent
federal agency decides within 30 days whether or not to act. The
case would go before an administrative law judge at the agency if
it decides to proceed.

Pittsburgh-based U.S. Steel brought the complaint under a section
of the Depression-era Tariff Act, which empowers the U.S.
government to bar imports deemed to be anti-competitive. The
provision has mostly been used against perceived violations of
intellectual property rights.

"We have said that we will use every tool available to fight for
fair trade," U.S. Steel President and CEO Mario Longhi said in a
statement.

The United Steelworkers union voiced support for the company's
action.

"America's steel sector is under attack by China," union President
Leo Gerard said in a statement.  "Repeated illegal and predatory
trade practices have devastated production and employment in steel
and many other sectors."

U.S. Steel and the union, though sometimes at odds on labor
issues, have been united in decrying low-priced steel imports from
China and elsewhere.  The sharp decline in oil prices in recent
months has crimped oil and gas drilling, reducing the demand for
steel.

U.S. Steel has taken cost-cutting measures including closing and
idling mills across the country, and laying off thousands of
workers.




                            *********

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  * * *