CAR_Public/160503.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

               Tuesday, May 3, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 88



                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Action Pending
3JT ENTERPRISES: ARcare Inc. Moves for Class Certification
AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Remand Securities Suit Pending
ALERE INC: June 20 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
ALFA 64 INC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages and Interest

ANADIGICS INC: Zalewski Withdraws TRO Motion
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Says Brewers Retail Litigation Still Pending
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Says Enhanced Benefits Total US$8 Million
ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Appeal in "Anderson" & "Knowlton" Cases Pending
ASSISTED CREDIT: "Yang" Plaintiff Moves for Class Certification

AUSTRALIA: IMF Bentham Plans to Fund Defence Force Class Action
BAKERY EXPRESS: Recalls 7-Eleven Brand Cookies Due to Peanuts
BANK OF AMERICA: Settles TCPA Class Action for $1 Million
BANK OF AMERICA: "Buckingham" Parties to Engage in Mediation
BANK OF AMERICA: "Esquivel" Plaintiffs May File 2nd Amended Suit

BARRON ROSS: Estate Planning Services a Scam, Suit Says
BERNARD LUSKIN: "Ford" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
BESHOFF INFINITI: Sued Over Installment Sales Contract Breach
BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: Residents File Suit Over Taxation
BLUEBONNET NUTRITION: Faces Class Suit Over Liquid Vit. B

BROADCOM CORP: Oral Argument on Dismissal Bid Set for July 18
CADIZ INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
CAMPBELL SOUP: Falsely Marketed Healthy Request Soup, Suit Claims
CANADA: Judge OKs $36MM Settlement in Ontario Class Action
CANADA: St. John Paid PI Firm $446,000 in Estabrooks Abuse Case

CB FINANCIAL: Maryland Court Upheld Denial of Writ of Certiorari
CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss
CENTRINEX LLC: Conditional Certification in "Howard" Suit OK'd
CHANEL: Judge Tosses Employees' Overtime Wage Class Action
CHIPOTLE: Judge Allows Non-GMO Claim in Class Action to Proceed

COBALT MORTGAGE: "Grewe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
COMCAST CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Consumer Refund
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Certified in "Luther" FDCPA Suit
CREDIT ONE: Faces "Concha" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls

DJA CATERING LLC: "Garcia" Suit to Recover OT, Unpaid Premiums
ELRON ELECTRONIC: Partial Settlement Reached in Class Suit
EMERGENT CAPITAL: "Jennings" Class Suit Pending
FARJEAN LLC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Hernandez" Suit Says
FEDEX GROUND: Class Action Deal Conditionally Approved

FMA ALLIANCE: "Devera" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES: Faces "Nicholson" ERISA Class Action
FRESENIUS KABI: Recalls Sensorcaine(R)-MPF Injection
FUEL SYSTEMS: 4 Class Suits Filed Over Westport Merger
GLENN WAYNE: Recalls 7-Eleven Brand Cookies Due to Peanuts

GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Class Action Dismissed Based on SLC Report
GREENVILLE, SC: 4th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Residents' Suit
HALLIBURTON ENERGY: W.Va. Court Affirms "Parsons" Arbitration
HORSEHEAD HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Action
ILLINOIS: Residents' Request for Defense Litigation Plans Nixed

JOHNS HOPKINS: Settlement Payouts in Levy Class Action Uncertain
KANSAS: Judges Set to Rule on Dispute Over Voter Registrations
KIDFRESH LLC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Labeling of Frozen Meals
KITTLE'S HOME: Ind. Ct. App. Affirms Ruling in "Bragg"
KPC LAKEVIEW: Faces "Derilus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

KRAFT HEINZ: Keller Rohrback Files Deceptive Labeling Suit
KRASNYI OKTYABR: Recalls Salted Fish Products Due to C. Botulinum
LANNETT COMPANY: Sued Over Generic Digoxin, Doxycycline Pricing
LA QUINTA HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
LA QUINTA: Faces "Beisel" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports

LEKKI GARDENS: Residents Disclaim Call for Class Action
LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Faces "Mays" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: No Add'l Expenses Expected in Class Action
MAJOR LEAGUE: Samuel & Stein Faces Rule 11 Sanctions Motion
MAZDA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defective Clutch Release Levers

MDL 2543: Hilliard Stays as Lead Counsel in Ignition Switch Case
MDL 2669: Court Rules on Plaintiffs' Bid to Use Pseudonyms
MDL 2695: Suits v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Moved to New Mexico
METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Martin" Suit Dismissed
MEYER WILSON: Habitat for Humanity Recipient of Cy Pres Award

MINNESOTA: Privacy Claims vs. Counties and LLMHS Dismissed
NAT'L PROGRAMMING: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
NEW YORK: Probe Launched Over Voting Scandal
NCO FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Thornton" Suit Claims
NTELOS HOLDINGS: Still Defending "Westen" Action in Delaware

NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Appeal in 2013 Class Action Dismissed
OLD HOME: Recalls Strawberry & Vanilla Creme Cakes Due to Peanuts
OXY RECKITT: Humidifier Victims to File Class Action on May 30
PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Class Suit Still Pending in Oregon Court
PARTNER COMMS: Pursuing Mediation of April 2010 Claim

PARTNER COMMS: Class Action Appeals Remain Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Class Cert. Bid for Sept. 2010 Claim Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Appeals from Oct. 2011 Claim Dismissal Pending
PARTNER COMMS: Still Defending March 2014 Claim
PARTNER COMMS: April 2014 Claim Still in Early Stage

PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim Still in Early Stage
PARTNER COMMS: Nov. 2015 Claim Still in Early Stage
PARTNER COMMS: Claim v. 012 Smile Still in Early Stage
PARTNER COMMS: Nov. 19 Claim Seeks NIS 6.6 Billion
PARTNER COMMS: Dec. 29 Claim Seeks NIS 70 Million

PARTNER COMMS: Jan. 2016 Claim Seeks NIS 234 Million
PARTNER COMMS: Settlement of Claim v. 012 Smile Completed
PARTNER COMMS: Has Deal to Resolve NIS 120MM Claim
PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Defending Class Suit in New York
PEOPLES BANCORP: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal

PFIZER INC: 2nd Cir. Reverses Expert Discovery Ruling
PLY GEM: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
PLY GEM: Continues to Defend "Carrillo-Hueso" Action
PLY GEM: Continues to Defend "Morgan" Class Action
POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending

RADARIS LLC: Court Certifies FCRA Claims in "Huebner"
RADIOLOGY REGIONAL: Faces "Goodman" Suit Over Contract Breach
RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $900,000 in Class Action Settlement
SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SEARS ROEBUCK: "Phan" Case Remanded to San Bernardino Court

SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Action Over European River Cruises
SCHAFFNER DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Re-VITA-lize Products Due to Soy
SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: Recalls Creme Cakes Due to Peanuts
SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Approval Hearing Set for June 13

SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: "Gains" Plaintiff Dismissed Case
SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
STONERIDGE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Verde" Class Suit
STONERIDGE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Royal" Class Suit
TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Campaign Sued Over Unsolicited Texts

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers to Get Less Than $24 Settlement Payout
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Won't Bring Changes
VICAL INCORPORATED: Class Action Appeal Dismissed
VIGO IMPORTING: Mislabels Jumbo Squid as Octopus, Suit Claims
VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Landau" Suit Over Contract Breach

VNS HOTELS: Faces "Valentine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9MM Settlement Has Preliminary OK
VOLT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
VOLVO CARS: "Laurens" Sues Over Breach of Warranty
W3 LTD: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Message Ads

WELTMAN WEINBERG: Neldner Moves for Class Certification
WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces First Choice Suit Over Data Breach
WILSON COUNTY, KS: "Ogden" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
WORLD'S CHOICE: Recalls Drink Products Due to Whey Protein

* Quebec's Class Action Regime Stands Alone, Cases on the Rise


                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Motion to Dismiss Stockholder Action Pending
--------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's motion to
dismiss a stockholder class action lawsuit is pending.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina.  The consolidated action is styled KBC
Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the
"Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
and that the former officers are control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of
stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety
on January 14, 2016, which motion is currently pending.


3JT ENTERPRISES: ARcare Inc. Moves for Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the proposed class action lawsuit captioned
ARcare, Inc., an Arkansas Corporation, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. 3JT Enterprises, LLC, d/b/a/
Cryonize, Case No. 1:16-cv-04663 (N.D. Ill.), moves the Court for
an Order certifying this litigation as a class action.

Plaintiff brings this action on its own behalf and on behalf of a
class of:

     "All persons and entities who hold telephone numbers that
received a facsimile transmission from Defendant at any time
during the applicable statute of limitations to present (the
"Class Period") that 1) promotes Defendant's products and 2)
contains an opt-out notice identical or substantially similar to
that contained on the facsimile advertisement attached as the
Exhibits to the Complaint."

The Plaintiff says it filed this Motion out of an abundance of
caution in light of the Seventh Circuit's opinions in Damasco v.
Clearwire Corporation, 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011), and Chapman
v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783 (7th Cir. 2015), and the
Supreme Court's decision in Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 136 S.
Ct. 663, 193 L. Ed. 2d 571 (2016), as revised (Feb. 9, 2016), and
asks that the Court stay its ruling on class certification until
the issues have been fully briefed.

ARcare tells the Court that it will endeavor to enter into a
stipulation with the Defendant concerning the issues raised herein
once defense counsel appears in this action.

This protective filing is intended to preclude any potential
"'buy-off' problem" under Damasco and Campbell, and to preserve
the Plaintiff's ability to formally brief a class certification
motion after it has had the opportunity to conclude the discovery
process, ARcare contends.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jennifer W. Sprengel, Esq.
          Daniel O. Herrera, Esq.
          CAFFERTY CLOBES MERIWETHER & SPRENGEL LLP
          150 S. Wacker Dr., Suite 3000
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 782-4880
          Facsimile: (312) 782-4485
          E-mail: jsprengel@caffertyclobes.com
                  dherrera@caffertyclobes.com

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=2tkCroOx


AKEBIA THERAPEUTICS: Motion to Remand Securities Suit Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiff's motion to
remand a securities class action lawsuit is pending.

The Company said, "In September 2015, a purported securities class
action lawsuit was filed against the Company, including its Chief
Executive Officer, its Chief Financial Officer, and members of its
Board of Directors, in the Business Litigation Section of the
Suffolk County Superior Court of Massachusetts.  The complaint is
brought on behalf of an alleged class of those who purchased
common stock of the Company pursuant or traceable to our initial
public offering, and purports to allege claims arising under
Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as
amended (the "Securities Act").  The complaint generally alleges
that the defendants violated the federal securities laws by, among
other things, making material misstatements or omissions
concerning the Phase 2b clinical study of vadadustat.  The
complaint seeks, among other relief, unspecified compensatory
damages, rescission of certain stock purchases, attorneys' fees,
and costs."

"In October 2015, we removed the case to the United States
District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and the
plaintiff filed a motion to remand the case back to the Business
Litigation Section of the Suffolk County Superior Court of
Massachusetts.  The plaintiff's motion to remand is currently
pending.  The Company believes such claims are without merit, and
will engage in a vigorous defense of such litigation."

Incorporated in Delaware in 2007, Akebia is a biopharmaceutical
company focused on the development of novel proprietary
therapeutics based on hypoxia inducible factor, or HIF, biology
and the commercialization of these products for patients with
serious unmet medical needs.


ALERE INC: June 20 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC, reminds investors of class
action against Alere, Inc. ("Alere" or "the Company").  The class
action has been filed on behalf of a class consisting of all
persons or entities who purchased Alere, Inc. securities during
the period between May 9, 2013 and April 20, 2016 inclusive (the
"Class Period").

This class action seeks to recover damages against Defendants for
alleged violations of the federal securities laws under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

Alere Inc. is a provider of health information through diagnostic
tests for infections such as HIV, tuberculosis, malaria and
dengue. The Company operates through professional diagnostics,
patient self-testing, consumer diagnostics and, corporate and
other segments.

The Complaint alleges that throughout the Class Period, Defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) Alere inappropriately related revenue in
violation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles; (2) as a
result, Alere's quarterly and annual SEC filings would be late;
(3) as a result of the abovementioned, Alere's prearranged merger
with Abbott Laboratories would be questionable; (4) Alere lacked
satisfactory internal accounting and financial controls; and (5)
as a result, Alere's public statements were materially false and
misleading at all relevant times.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
review a copy of the Complaint and join the action, visit the
firm's website: http://www.bgandg.com/#!alr/s1i4l

To discuss this action, or have any questions, please contact
Peretz Bronstein, Esq. or his Investor Relations Analyst, Yael
Hurwitz of Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC at 212-697-6484 or
via email info@bgandg.com

Those who inquire by e-mail are encouraged to include their
mailing address and telephone number.  If you suffered a loss in
Alere you have until June 20, 2016 to request that the Court
appoint you as lead plaintiff.    Your ability to share in any
recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead plaintiff.

Bronstein, Gewirtz & Grossman, LLC is a corporate litigation
boutique.  Its primary expertise is the aggressive pursuit of
litigation claims on behalf of its clients.  In addition to
representing institutions and other investor plaintiffs in class
action security litigation, the firm's expertise includes general
corporate and commercial litigation, as well as securities
arbitration.


ALFA 64 INC: "Garcia" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT, Damages and Interest
----------------------------------------------------------------
German Garcia on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v.  Alfa 64 Inc. d/b/a Altesi Ristorante and Ahmad
Alavian, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02988 (S.D.N.Y., April 21,
2016), seeks unpaid minimum wages, liquidated damages, prejudgment
and postjudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs pursuant
to the Fair Labor Standards Act, statutory penalties for failure
to provide mandatory written wage notices on a weekly and annual
basis, unpaid spread of hours premiums pursuant to the New York
State Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act, liquidated
damages pursuant to the New York Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Alfa 64 Inc., owned by Ahmad Alavian, operates Altesi Ristorante,
an Italian Restaurant, where Plaintiff worked as a waiter.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis Pechman, Esq.
      Pechman Law Group PLLC
      488 Madison Avenue
      New York, NY 10022
      Tel: (212) 583-9500
      Fax: (212) 308-8582
      Email: pechman@pechmanlaw.com


ANADIGICS INC: Zalewski Withdraws TRO Motion
--------------------------------------------
ANADIGICS, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that class action plaintiff
Wes Zalewski has withdrawn his motion for temporary restraining
order.

On January 26, 2016, an Anadigics shareholder named Wes Zalewski
(the "Plaintiff") filed a Complaint in the Superior Court of New
Jersey (Chancery Division, Somerset County), captioned Zalewski v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. C-12005-16 (the "New Jersey State
Court Action") alleging breach of fiduciary duty on the part of
Anadigics's directors and aiding and abetting of the alleged
breach by defendants Anadigics, II-VI Incorporated and Regulus
Acquisition Sub., Inc. (the latter two of which are referred to
jointly hereinafter as "II-IV") in connection with the then
proposed merger between Anadigics and II-VI at a per-share offer
price of $0.66, as described in their January 15, 2016 merger
agreement (the "January 15, 2016 II-VI Merger Agreement").

On February 4, 2016, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint in the
New Jersey State Court Action. On February 8, 2016, Plaintiff
filed a motion for expedited discovery in the New Jersey State
Court Action ("Plaintiff's Discovery Motion") and Anadigics and
the Anadigics directors (collectively, the "Anadigics Defendants")
moved for an order declaring that Plaintiff was not permitted to
prosecute the New Jersey State Court Action in light of an
Anadigics by-law that designates the exclusive forum for such
claims a state or federal court located in the State of Delaware
(the "Delaware Forum By-Law Motion"). Instead of ruling on
Plaintiff's Discovery Motion or the Delaware Forum By-Law Motion,
the New Jersey Superior Court scheduled a conference for February
24, 2016.

On February 23, 2016, II-VI removed the New Jersey State Court
Action to the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey (the "New Jersey Federal Court") pursuant to the Class
Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332(d)(2). There, the case
was assigned Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-01019-MAS-TJB.

On February 24, 2016, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Temporary
Restraining Order with the New Jersey Federal Court (the "TRO
Motion") seeking to enjoin II-VI's then pending tender offer for
Anadigics's stock.

On February 26, 2016, the last day of the publicly-announced
auction process that the Anadigics Board of Directors had been
conducting since November 12, 2015 (the day after Anadigics had
executed a merger agreement with a bidder at a per-share offer
price of $0.35), Anadigics executed an amended merger agreement
with II-VI (the "February 26, 2016 II-VI Merger Agreement") at a
per-share offer price of $0.85.

On March 2, 2016, the Anadigics Defendants filed a brief and a
supporting affidavit in opposition to Plaintiff's TRO Motion. On
that same date, II-VI filed a brief in opposition to Plaintiff's
TRO Motion. Also on March 2, 2016, Plaintiff filed a brief in
opposition to the Delaware Forum By-Law Motion.

On March 3, 2016, Plaintiff's counsel notified respective counsel
for the defendants that Plaintiff had decided to withdraw his
pending TRO Motion, withdraw his opposition to the Delaware Forum
By-Law Motion, and consent to the transfer of the action to the
United States District Court for the District of Delaware (the
"Delaware Federal Court"). Plaintiff's counsel also indicated
Plaintiff intended to seek a so-called "mootness fee" based on the
disclosure made by Anadigics in Amendment No. 7 to the Schedule
14D-9 filed by the Company on February 29, 2016.

On March 4, 2016, the parties submitted to the New Jersey Federal
Court a Stipulation and Proposed Order that, among other things,
memorialized the concessions made by Plaintiff on March 3, 2016,
including Plaintiff's agreement to forgo seeking to enjoin the
merger transaction contemplated in the February 26, 2016 II-VI
Merger Agreement or the tender offer in connection therewith.

The New Jersey Federal Court adopted and entered the Stipulation
and Order on March 4, 2016 and transferred the action to the
Delaware Federal Court, where it has been currently assigned Civil
Action No. 16-cv-136 (UNA). Pursuant to the March 4, 2016 Order,
defendants had until April 15, 2016 to respond to Plaintiff's
Amended Complaint.

Because the aforementioned litigation, which is in a preliminary
stage, does not specify alleged monetary damages, the Company is
unable to reasonably estimate any possible range of loss, if any,
to the Company in connection therewith.


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Says Brewers Retail Litigation Still Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Brewers Retail Inc.
litigation remains pending in Canada.

On 12 December 2014, a lawsuit was commenced in the Ontario
Superior Court of Justice against the Liquor Control Board of
Ontario, Brewers Retail Inc. (known as The Beer Store or "TBS")
and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. (Molson Coors Canada,
Sleeman Breweries Ltd. and Labatt Breweries of Canada LP). The
lawsuit was brought in Canada pursuant to the Ontario Class
Proceedings Act, and sought, among other things: (i) to obtain a
declaration that the defendants conspired with each other to
allocate markets for the supply of beer sold in Ontario since 1
June 2000; (ii) to obtain a declaration that Brewers Retail Inc.
and the owners of Brewers Retail Inc. conspired to fix, increase
and/or maintain prices charged to Ontario licensees (on-trade) for
beer and the fees charged by TBS to other competitive brewers who
wished to sell their products through TBS and (iii) damages for
unjust enrichment. As part of this third allegation, the
plaintiffs allege illegal trade practices by the owners of Brewers
Retail Inc. They are seeking damages not exceeding CAD $1.4 (USD
1.0 billion), as well as, punitive, exemplary and aggravated
damages of CAD $5 million (USD 4 million) and changes/repeals of
the affected legislation. Ambev has not recorded any provision in
connection therewith.

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


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Says Enhanced Benefits Total US$8 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company believes the
total amount of enhanced benefits related to an employee class
action lawsuit is approximately US$8 million.

On 15 September 2010, Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV and several of
its related companies were sued in Federal Court for the Southern
District of Ohio in a lawsuit entitled Rusby Adams et al. v. AB
InBev, et al. This lawsuit was filed by four employees of Metal
Container Corporation's facilities in Columbus, Ohio, Gainesville,
Florida, and Ft. Atkinson, Wisconsin that were divested on 1
October 2009.

Similar to the Angevine lawsuit, these plaintiffs seek to
represent a class of participants of the Anheuser-Busch Companies
Salaried Employees' Pension Plan (the "Plan") who had been
employed by subsidiaries of Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC that had
been divested during the period of 18 November 2008 through 17
November 2011.

The Company said,"The plaintiffs also allege claims similar to the
Angevine lawsuit, namely, that by failing to provide plaintiffs
with these enhanced benefits, we breached our fiduciary duties
under the U.S. Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. We
filed a Motion to Dismiss and obtained dismissal of the breach of
fiduciary duty claims in April 2011, leaving only the claims for
benefits remaining."

"On 28 March 2012, the Court certified that the case could proceed
as a class action comprised of former employees of the divested
Metal Container Corporation operations.

"On 9 January 2013, the Court granted our Motion for Judgment on
the Administrative Record. The plaintiffs appealed the decision on
5 February 2013. On 11 July 2014, the Sixth Circuit Court of
Appeals reversed the lower court and remanded the case for
judgment. On 16 September 2014, our Motion for Rehearing En Banc
was denied.

"A Final Order and Judgment was then entered by the district court
on 24 December 2014, which ordered the Plan to provide the
enhanced pension benefits to members of the certified class. We
believe the total amount of the enhanced benefits is approximately
USD 8 million."


ANHEUSER-BUSCH: Appeal in "Anderson" & "Knowlton" Cases Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
Anheuser-Busch InBev SA/NV said in its Form 20-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company's appeal
related to the Anderson and Knowlton class action cases remains
pending.

The Company said, "On 10 January 2012, a class action complaint
asserting claims very similar to those asserted in the Angevine
lawsuit was filed in Federal Court for the Eastern District of
Missouri, styled Nancy Anderson et al. v. Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan et al. Unlike the Angevine case, however, the
plaintiff in this matter alleges complete exhaustion of all
administrative remedies."

"On 11 March 2013 the court consolidated the case with the
Knowlton case. A three-count consolidated complaint was filed on
19 April 2013.

"On 30 October 2013, the court dismissed Counts II and III,
including the breach of fiduciary claims, but granted plaintiff
leave to amend. On 19 November 2013, the plaintiff filed an
amended Count III. We filed an Answer to amended Count III on 30
May 2014.

"On 16 May 2014, the Court granted the plaintiff's class
certification motion on Count I, which certified a class of
divested employees of Busch Entertainment Corporation.

"On 10 October 2012, another class action complaint was filed
against Anheuser-Busch Companies, LLC, Anheuser-Busch Companies
Pension Plan, Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan Appeals
Committee and the Anheuser-Busch Companies Pension Plan
Administrative Committee by Brian Knowlton and several other
former Busch Entertainment Corporation Employees. It was filed in
Federal Court in the Southern District of California, and was
amended on 12 October 2012.

"Like the other lawsuits, it claims that the employees of any
divested assets were entitled to enhanced retirement benefits
under section 19.11(f) of the Plan. However, it specifically
excluded the divested Metal Container Corporation facilities that
were included in the Adams class action.

"On 11 March 2013 the court consolidated the case with the Nancy
Anderson case. A consolidated complaint was filed on 19 April
2013. On 30 October 2013, the court dismissed Counts II and III,
including the breach of fiduciary claims, but granted plaintiff
leave to amend. On 19 November 2013, the plaintiff filed an
amended Count III.

"We filed an Answer to amended Count III on 30 May 2014. On 16 May
2014, the court granted the plaintiff's class certification motion
on Count I, which certified a class of divested employees of Busch
Entertainment Corporation. On 10 November 2014, the plaintiffs
filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings based on the decision
by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Adams case.

"On 8 July 2015, the court issued an order of partial judgement on
the pleadings, holding that the employees of Busch Entertainment
Corporation were entitled to enhanced retirement benefits under
the Plan. The 8 July 2015 order, however, was not a final
appealable order.

"On 21 August 2015, we filed a motion seeking entry of a final,
appealable order as well as a stay pending appeal, both of which
were granted on 9 October 2015.

"We subsequently appealed; that appeal remains pending. We believe
that the total amount of enhanced pension benefit at issue in this
case is approximately USD 66 million."


ASSISTED CREDIT: "Yang" Plaintiff Moves for Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the putative class action lawsuit styled MICHAEL
YANG, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated
v. ASSISTED CREDIT SERVICES, INC.; ASSISTED CREDIT SERVICES, LLC.;
ASSISTED CREDIT SERVICES, an unincorporated business, partnership,
or association; CARTER SMITH, individually and in his official
capacity; MARCY COOK, individually and in her official capacity,
Case No. 8:15-CV-2118 AG (JCGx)(C.D. Cal.), notified the Court
that on June 6, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., he will move the Court for an
order certifying this action as a class action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wayne A. Sinnett, Esq.
          SINNETT LAW, APC.
          444 West C Street, Suite 230
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 752-0703
          Facsimile: (619) 330-2120
          E-mail: ws@sinlegal.com

A copy of the Notice is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=fzdAZZJE


AUSTRALIA: IMF Bentham Plans to Fund Defence Force Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that litigation funder IMF
Bentham plans to back a class action against the Australian
Defence Force over the Williamtown contamination scandal.

A firefighting chemical used by the Williamtown RAAF base, 30km
north of Newcastle, five years ago has been found to have polluted
groundwater and soil at the base and in the surrounding
residential area.

Now Williamtown residents want to sue the Defence Department.

A statement from IMF Bentham on April 26 says it plans to fund the
class action that will be conducted by Gadens Lawyers.

"IMF's funding of the class action is conditional on sufficient
claimants with valid claims signing funding agreements with IMF,"
the statement said.

In February, a parliamentary inquiry has recommended the Turnbull
government compensate commercial fishermen affected by the
contamination.


BAKERY EXPRESS: Recalls 7-Eleven Brand Cookies Due to Peanuts
-------------------------------------------------------------
Bakery Express of Southern California of Fullerton, CA is
recalling 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO brand cookies, because it may
contain undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy or severe
sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life-threatening
allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO cookies were distributed and sold
throughout Southern California State including Los Angeles, San
Diego, and Bakersfield local 7-Eleven stores.

The affected cookies are packed in a clear, plastic film with two
cookies per package. Net weight of the package is 4oz., and
products are labeled with Best By dates found on the front of the
package above the ingredient list. Affected UPC Codes and Best By
dates listed below:

7-Eleven Fresh To Go Chocolate Chunk Cookie, UPC: 052548558741

  Product Description      Best By Dates
  -------------------      -------------
  Choco chunk (1421)       0425
  Choco chunk (1421)       0424
  Choco chunk (1421)       0423
  Choco chunk (1421)       0422
  Choco chunk (1421)       0421
  Choco chunk (1421)       0420
  Choco chunk (1421)       0419
  Choco chunk (1421)       0418
  Choco chunk (1421)       0417
  Choco chunk (1421)       0416
  Choco chunk (1421)       0415
  Choco chunk (1421)       0414

7-Eleven Fresh To Go Oatmeal Raisin Cookie, UPC: 052548558758

  Product Description      Best By Dates
  -------------------      -------------
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0425
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0424
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0423
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0422
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0421
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0420
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0419
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0418
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0417
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0416
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0415
  Oatmeal Raisin (1424)    0414

7-Eleven Fresh To Go Peanut Butter Cookie, UPC: 052548585570

  Product Description         Best By Dates
  -------------------         -------------
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0426
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0425
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0424
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0423
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0422
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0421
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0420
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0419
  peanut butter cookie(1429)  0418

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after one of our suppliers reported that
three different frozen cookies dough pucks may have contained
undeclared peanuts. These potentially contaminated cookie pucks
were used in production and distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of peanuts. The company and the ingredient
supplier continue their investigation to determine the cause of
the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the above Best By date codes of the
affected cookies are urged to return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-714-446-9470
Monday-Friday, 8am-5pm, PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/eACIr8


BANK OF AMERICA: Settles TCPA Class Action for $1 Million
---------------------------------------------------------
Tim Bauer, writing for ARM Insider, reports that in documents
filed on April 28 in federal court in Florida, Bank of America
agreed to pay $1 million to settle a proposed TCPA class case.  In
the case, Swift v. Bank of America Corporation (Case No.  3:14-CV-
1539, United States District Court, Middle District of Florida)
Plaintiff alleged that Defendants, Bank of America Corporation, NB
Holdings Corporation, and FIA Card Services, N.A. (collectively,
Defendants) violated the TCPA by calling and texting cellular
telephones through the use of an ATDS or an artificial or
prerecorded voice without the prior express consent of Plaintiff
and Settlement Class Members.

Background

The factual and procedural background of the case and settlement
were outlined in Plaintiff's memorandum in support of their
unopposed motion for preliminary approval of the class action
settlement and certification of the settlement class.

On December 31, 2014, Plaintiff filed a class action complaint
against Defendants.  The complaint alleged violations of the TCPA
and sought class certification, statutory damages, injunctive
relief, and an award of attorneys' fees and costs on behalf of
Plaintiff and the proposed class.  Plaintiff had alleged that the
Defendants had placed calls and sent text messages through the use
of an ATDS or an artificial or prerecorded voice to cellular
telephones belonging to consumers who were not the intended
recipients of the calls and texts, and who did not provide prior
express consent to receive such calls and text messages.

On March 10, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Stay
This Action. On April 3, 2015, Plaintiff filed his Response to
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or Stay This Action.  On June 18,
2015, the Court denied Defendants' motion, and on July 2, 2015,
Defendants filed an Answer to Class Action Complaint.

The parties then began Discovery proceedings.  The parties also
began exploring the potential for resolution of Plaintiff's claims
on a class-wide basis.  The parties agreed to the appointment of a
mediator to facilitate settlement discussions. The mediation
resulted in the Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement
("Settlement") that was before the Court in the unopposed motion
for consideration.

The Settlement Class

The Settlement Class is an opt-out class under Rule 23(b)(3) of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  It is defined to include
all persons who, between February 1, 2013 through April 19, 2016,
received an auto-dialed and/or pre-recorded call or text message
to their cellular telephone from Defendants about a Bank of
America account (including, but not limited to, a mortgage, credit
card, or auto loan account) other than their own Bank of America
accounts, and who did not provide prior express consent to receive
such calls or text messages.

The Monetary, Prospective and Other Relief for the Benefit of the
Class

The Settlement requires Defendants to pay $1,000,000.00 into a
settlement fund (Settlement Fund), which is non-reversionary.
Class Members will receive a check for their equal share of the
Settlement Fund. The check received by each Class Member will not
be less than $15 and not more than $25.

In addition to the monetary payment, a significant aspect of the
Settlement includes important prospective business practice
changes.  As a result of this action, Defendants have implemented
enhancements to their servicing systems which are designed to
prevent the calling of a cellular telephone unless a business
record is systemically coded to reflect the called party's prior
express consent to call his or her cellular telephone.

Class Counsel will also seek, and Defendants will not oppose, a
Service Award of $1,500.00 for Plaintiff (or in another lesser
amount if set by the Court).

Attorney's Fees and Costs

Subject to Court approval, Class Counsel will receive $250,000.00
for their attorneys' fees, costs and expenses, which shall be paid
from the Settlement Fund subject to approval from the Court.
Defendants have agreed not to oppose Class Counsel's motion so
long they do not seek more than $250,000.00.

insideARM Perspective

This case provides interesting perspective on how a settlement was
apparently reached fairly quickly and efficiently in a TCPA case.
The attorney's fee award suggests that the matter was resolved
before significant time was incurred by Plaintiff's counsel.

The Settlement Class is also interesting.  "All persons who,
between February 1, 2013 through April 19, 2016, received an auto-
dialed and/or pre-recorded call or text message to their cellular
telephone from Defendants about a Bank of America account
(including, but not limited to, a mortgage, credit card, or auto
loan account) other than their own Bank of America accounts, and
who did not provide prior express consent to receive such calls or
text messages."

That is a fairly broad, amorphous, group of individuals.  As the
Plaintiff memorandum suggests, the settlement discussions were
"prompted by the parties' desire to avoid the expense,
uncertainties, and burden of protracted litigation, and to put to
rest any and all claims or causes of action that have been, or
could have been, asserted against Defendants arising out of the
alleged TCPA violations." The settlement appears to address those
concerns.


BANK OF AMERICA: "Buckingham" Parties to Engage in Mediation
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg entered a case management order in
the case, ALLEN BUCKINGHAM, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-06344-RS (N.D.
Cal.).  A copy of that order dated April 7, 2016, is available at
http://is.gd/sX4evtfrom Leagle.com.

The Order provides that the parties will seek to engage in private
mediation on or before August 15, 2016.

Also, on or before June 26, 2017, all non-expert discovery shall
be completed by the parties.

Allen Buckingham, II, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Bryan Jeffrey Schwartz, Esq.
     Eduard R Meleshinsky, Esq.
     Bryan Schwartz Law
     1330 Broadway, Suite 1630
     Oakland, CA 94612
     Tel: 888-891-8489
     Fax: 510-444-9301
     E-mail: bryan@bryanschwartz.com

Bank of America, National Association, Defendant, represented by:

     Michael David Mandel, Esq.
     Sylvia Jihae Kim, Esq.
     McGuireWoods LLP
     1800 Century Park East, 8th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90067-1501
     E-mail: mmandel@mcguirewoods.com
             skim@mcguirewoods.com


BANK OF AMERICA: "Esquivel" Plaintiffs May File 2nd Amended Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ANTONIO ESQUIVEL and BEATRIZ ESQUIVEL, Plaintiffs, v.
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.; BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION Defendants,
Case No. 2:12-cv-02502-KJM-KJN (E.D. Cal.), District Judge
Kimberly J. Mueller signed off on a stipulation allowing the
plaintiff to file a second amended complaint. The judge said, "the
Second Amended Complaint attached to the Stipulation as Exhibit A
is deemed filed as of the date of this order."

The Plaintiffs on October 5, 2012, filed their initial putative
class action complaint alleging claims for breach of contract,
promissory estoppel, and violations of the California Consumer
Credit Reporting Agencies Act ("CCRAA"), the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("FDCPA"), the Rosenthal Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act ("Rosenthal Act"), and California Business and
Professions Code Sec. 17200 ("UCL").

A copy of the Stipulation and Order dated April 5, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/4LKKe5from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Daniel Joseph Mulligan, Esq.
     Jenkins Mulligan & Gabriel LLP
     10085 Carroll Canyon Rd, Ste 210
     San Diego, CA 92131
     Tel: (415) 982-8500
     Fax: (415) 982-8515

          - and -

     Eric Andrew Mercer, Esq.
     Mercer Legal & Noah Zinner
     770 L St #950
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Tel: 916-361-6022

Bank of America, N.A., and Bank of America Corporation are
represented by Alyssa A. Sussman -- moc.retcorpniwdoog@namssusa
-- Goodwin Procter LLP, James W. McGarry --
moc.retcorpniwdoog@yrragcmj -- Goodwin Procter LLP --
moc.retcorpniwdoog@silles -- Steven A. Ellis, Goodwin Procter LLP.


BARRON ROSS: Estate Planning Services a Scam, Suit Says
-------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a self-described consulting group preys on elders in a
"patently unlawful" estate-planning scam, a married couple claim
in Martinez, Calif. a class action in Contra Costa County Superior
Court.

Dennis and Helen Clements, an "extremely unsophisticated elderly
couple" who were "duped into paying an unlawful fee for unlawful
services," claim that Barron Ross Corporation deceptively and
predatorily sells estate planning services to elders in violation
of the California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act.

The Clements say Barron Ross, of San Ramon, is not authorized "to
charge plaintiffs and other California elders hefty sums for what
are patently unlawful services."

The company tells its targets the estate planning will be provided
by James Walker, an attorney who was disbarred in 2010, according
to the April 18 lawsuit.

Walker is not a party to the lawsuit. The second defendant is
Edwin D. Griffin, of San Leandro, who "is or has been president
and CEO of Barron Ross" and was its registered agent, according to
the complaint.

Barron Ross gets its clients from a "sucker list" provided by
Walker, who compiled the list of people who responded to a radio
ad for Walker's estate planning services, the Clements say. They
say they responded to the ad and dealt with Walker in 1999.

Fifteen years later, they say, a Barron Ross representative cold-
called them, and persuaded them that unless they took the estate
planning steps she recommended, they could lose everything to
Medi-Cal, California's Medicaid program.

The Clements say they signed a Barron Ross marketing agreement and
paid $10,800 because they were "successfully scared" into thinking
that "the government would take everything they had, including
their home, if they needed to go into a nursing home."

Too late, they say, they realized that Barron Ross's marketing
agreements "are simply vehicles which use distortion and
misrepresentation of Medi-Cal to justify an unconscionable fee."

To top it off, the couple say, Barron Ross refused to refund their
money, and the marketing agreements' arbitration clause contains
an unlawful damage limitation by which Barron Ross representatives
"actively attempt to foreclose their elderly victims' efforts to
get justice."

The company's long game is to gain access to their targets'
financial information and then dispatch affiliates to the targets'
homes to sell them "inappropriate insurance products," according
to the complaint." The affiliates then share the commissions with
Barron Ross, the Clements say.

They seek an injunction, restitution, actual and exemplary damages
and attorneys' fees.  They are represented by:

     Kimberly Swierenga, Esq.
     Majors & Fox LLP
     401 West A Street, Suite 2550
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Phone: 619-234-1000
     E-mail: kimberlyswierenga@yahoo.com

Barron Ross did not immediately respond to an email requesting
comment April 20 afternoon.


BERNARD LUSKIN: "Ford" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit titled Deshay David Ford v.
Chancellor Bernard Luskin, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-01109-MWF-RAO
(C.D. Cal.), filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central
District of California a motion for class certification under Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

According to the motion, the Plaintiff and numerous African-
Americans were seeking jobs opportunities with the Ventura
Community College District were denied those jobs opportunities
because of their race, culture, and racial history of denial of
jobs by the Screening Committees.  The Plaintiff contends that the
Screening Committees have denied work for Black job candidates
because of racial prejudice.

Chancellor Bernard Luskin and Ventura Community college Board
Chair Mr. Larry Kennedy created, encouraged the Screening
Committees to deny job opportunities to all Black job candidates
because of their race, culture, and their poor community in
Ventura County, the Plaintiff alleges.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff asks the Court for an order certifying
a class action and appointing a class counsel.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=x9OVFkG7


BESHOFF INFINITI: Sued Over Installment Sales Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lavonne Wallace individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Beshoff Infiniti Incorporated, d/b/a Beshoff Infiniti,
Rick Morse, California Republic Bank, and, Does 1 through 500,
inclusive, Case No. 16CV294267 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 25, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for violation of the retail
installment sales contract.

Beshoff Infiniti Incorporated is engaged in the business of buying
and selling automobiles to the general public.

California Republic Bank is a financial institution engaged in the
business of holding conditional sale contracts and collecting
payments made by consumers pursuant to such contracts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Louis A. Liberty, Esq.
      LOUIS LIBERTY & ASSOCIATES, PLC
      553 Pilgrim Drive, Suite A
      Foster City, CA 94404
      Telephone: (650) 341-0300
      Facsimile: (650) 403-1783
      E-mail: lou@carlawyer.com


BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP, MI: Residents File Suit Over Taxation
----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Martindale, writing for The Detroit News, reports that a
township resident has filed a class-action lawsuit against
Bloomfield Township for allegedly overtaxing residents' water
rates "for the injustice enrichment" of the township.

The complaint seeks to have assessments reviewed, corrected and a
refund of "millions of dollars" in alleged rate overcharges "not
used to cover the actual expenses of providing water to those
customers but rather to fund the township's general governmental
obligations."

The 18-page complaint is filed in Oakland Circuit Court on behalf
of Jamila Youmans but represents an unknown number of the
township's 41,000 residents who the suit claims have been
excessively assessed over the past years.

Ms. Youmans could not be reached for comment on April 25 and her
attorney, Gregory Hanley, was unavailable.  Township Supervisor
Leo Savoie said the township has not been officially served with
the long-anticipated complaint.

"Several months ago we heard a group was filing lawsuits against
some municipalities and it was only a matter of time before they
got to us," Mr. Savoie said.  "We sat down with our attorneys and
reviewed our billing practices and determined everything we are
doing is appropriate. We don't anticipate any problems with this
but will certainly be fighting it."

The lawsuit is partly based on public fire protection charges not
charged to the township which exceed the cost of water bought by
the township from the city of Detroit and supplied through the
Southeast Oakland County Water Authority.

"If they're talking fire hydrants, how are we supposed to pay for
them? Put water meters on them?" Mr. Savoie said.

The suit, assigned to Judge Nanci Grant, asks for a review of the
practice and a refund of all rate overcharges and fire protection
charges for those covered by the suit; a finding that the charges
are unlawful and stop the township from imposing them.

David C. Thomas, a candidate for Mr. Savoie's elected post, said
on April 25:

"The information cited in this lawsuit is the same information
that I have been seeking from the trustees for almost a year.  The
public has a right to have this information available to them at
all times.

"Local government needs to be transparent with their citizen's tax
dollars."

Attorneys in the complaint won a $2.85 million settlement from the
city of Birmingham in November over water and sewer rates in that
city.  The money will be distributed among ratepayers.

The Birmingham and Bloomfield Township class action lawsuits are
based on local governments' alleged violations of the 1978 Headlee
Amendment in the Michigan Constitution.


BLUEBONNET NUTRITION: Faces Class Suit Over Liquid Vit. B
---------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Bluebonnet Nutrition Co.
sells liquid vitamin B without disclosing that it becomes unstable
upon opening and degrades over time, a class action claims in San
Diego Superior Court.


BROADCOM CORP: Oral Argument on Dismissal Bid Set for July 18
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In re Broadcom Corporation Stockholder Litigation,
Case No. 8:15-cv-00979 (C.D. Cal.), the District Court approved a
stipulation extending the briefing schedule for Defendants' Motion
to Dismiss:

     -- Plaintiff shall file an opposition to the Broadcom
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on or before May 27, 2016;

     -- Defendants shall file a reply brief on or before June 30,
2016;

     -- The Court shall hear argument on the Motion to Dismiss on
July 18, 2016 at 1:30 p.m.

Broadcom Cayman L.P. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended January 31, 2016, that the defendants have
filed a motion to dismiss the federal consolidated complaint
related to the acquisition of Broadcom Corporation.

The Company said, "Broadcom Cayman L.P. (f/k/a Safari Cayman L.P.)
is an exempted limited partnership formed under the laws of the
Cayman Islands pursuant to an Exempted Limited Partnership
Agreement, or the Initial Partnership Agreement, dated May 26,
2015 by and between Broadcom Limited (f/k/a Pavonia Limited), a
limited company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of
Singapore, as our general partner, or Broadcom or our General
Partner, and Antelope Cayman CLP Limited, an exempted company
incorporated under the laws of the Cayman Islands and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Broadcom, or our Initial Limited Partner."

"We were formed in order to effect the business combination, or
the Broadcom Transaction, between Avago Technologies Limited, a
limited company incorporated under the laws of the Republic of
Singapore, or Avago, and Broadcom Corporation, a California
corporation, or BRCM, pursuant to an Agreement and Plan of Merger
dated as of May 28, 2015, by and among the Partnership, our
General Partner, our Initial Limited Partner, Avago, BRCM and
certain other parties named therein, as amended, or the Broadcom
Agreement. Upon completion of the Broadcom Transaction, Avago and
BRCM became our indirect subsidiaries.

"Since the announcement of the Broadcom Transaction, 11 putative
class action complaints have been filed by and purportedly on
behalf of alleged BRCM shareholders. Two putative class action
complaints were filed in the United States District Court for the
Central District of California, captioned: Wytas, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-00979, filed on June 18, 2015;
and Yassian, et al. v. McGregor, et al., Case No. 8:15-cv-01303,
filed on August 15, 2015, or the Federal Actions. On September 2,
2015, plaintiffs in the Wytas, et al. v. McGregor, et al. matter
filed an amended complaint adding claims under the U.S. federal
securities laws. One putative class action complaint was filed in
the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa
Clara, captioned Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 1-15-CV-
281353, filed June 2, 2015.

"Eight putative class action complaints were filed in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange, captioned: Xu
v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00790689-CU-SL-CXC,
filed June 1, 2015; Freed v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00790699-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 1, 2015; N.J. Building
Laborers Statewide Pension Fund v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00791484-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4, 2015; Yiu v. Broadcom
Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00791490-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 4,
2015; Yiu, et al. v. Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-
00791762-CU-BT-CXC, filed June 5, 2015; Yassian, et al. v.
McGregor, et al., Case No. 30-2015-00793360-CU-SL-CXC, filed June
15, 2015; Seafarers' Pension Plan v. Samueli, et al., Case No. 30-
2015-00794492-CU-SL-CXC, filed June 19, 2015; and Engel v.
Broadcom Corp., et al., Case No. 30-2015-00797343-CU-SL-CXC, filed
on July 2, 2015, or together with Jew v. Broadcom Corp., et al.,
the State Actions.

"The Federal Actions and State Actions name as defendants, among
other parties, BRCM, members of BRCM's board of directors and
Avago, and allege, among other things, breaches of fiduciary
duties and aiding and abetting those alleged breaches.
Additionally, the Federal Actions allege violations of Sections
14(a) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

"On August 14, 2015, the Superior Court of the State of
California, County of Orange, issued an order coordinating and
consolidating the State Actions, captioned Broadcom Shareholder
Cases, JCCP 4834. On September 18, 2015, the United States
District Court for the Central District of California consolidated
the Federal Actions under the caption In re Broadcom Corporation
Stockholder Litigation, Case No. 8:15-cv-00979. On September 25,
2015, the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Orange, stayed the State Actions pending the outcome of the
Federal Actions.

"On October 28, 2015, BRCM supplemented its disclosures, and filed
additional proxy materials with the SEC. On November 10, 2015,
BRCM shareholders voted to approve the Broadcom Transaction.
On November 16, 2015, the United States District Court for the
Central District of California appointed lead plaintiffs and lead
counsel in the Federal Actions.

"On January 15, 2016, lead plaintiffs in the Federal Actions filed
a Second Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, or the
Federal Consolidated Compliant, which names as defendants, among
other parties, members of BRCM's board of directors and Avago, and
alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and aiding and abetting those
alleged breaches, as well as violation of Sections 14(a) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act and SEC Rule 14-a9.

"On February 1, 2016, we completed the acquisition of BRCM. On
February 16, 2016, defendants filed a motion to dismiss the
Federal Consolidated Complaint."


CADIZ INC: Motion to Dismiss Securities Action Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Cadiz Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2015, that the Defendants' motion to dismiss
the securities related class action lawsuit remains pending.

On April 24, 2015, a putative class action lawsuit, entitled Van
Wingerden v. Cadiz Inc., et al., No. 2:15-cv-03080-JAK-JEM, was
filed against Cadiz and certain of its directors and officers
("Defendants") in the United States District Court for the Central
District of California purporting to assert claims for violation
of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The complaint, which
purports to be brought on behalf of all Cadiz shareholders,
alleges that the Defendants have made false and misleading
statements regarding the Company's business and prospects. The
complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages and other relief. The
Company believes that the purported class action lawsuit is
without merit and will vigorously defend the action.

On December 2, 2015, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the
lawsuit and a hearing on the motion was held in late February
2016.  "The Judge has not yet issued a ruling and we cannot
predict with certainty the outcome of this proceeding," the
Company said.


CAMPBELL SOUP: Falsely Marketed Healthy Request Soup, Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Harold Brower, on behalf of himself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public v. Campbell Soup Company, Case
No. 3:16-cv-01005-BEN-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 25, 2016), arises out
of the Defendant's alleged false and misleading labeling and
advertising of its Healthy Request Chunky Grilled Chicken &
Sausage Gumbo soup.

Campbell Soup Company is a producer of canned soups and related
products with its principal place of business at 1 Campbell's
Place, Camden, New Jersey 08103.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Joseph, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF PAUL K. JOSEPH, PC
      4125 W. Pt. Loma Blvd. No. 206
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Telephone: (619) 767-0356
      Facsimile: (619) 331-2943
      E-mail: paul@pauljosephlaw.com

         - and -

      Jack Fitzgerald, Esq.
      Trevor M. Flynn, Esq.
      Melanie Persinger, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICE OF JACK FITZGERALD, PC
      Hillcrest Professional Building
      3636 Fourth Avenue, Suite 202
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 692-3840
      Facsimile: (619) 362-9555
      E-mail: jack@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              trevor@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com
              melanie@jackfitzgeraldlaw.com


CANADA: Judge OKs $36MM Settlement in Ontario Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Mehreen Shahid, writing for Orillia Packet & Times, reports that a
judge has approved a $36-million class-action settlement between
the province and former residents of institutions for the
developmentally disabled.

The $36-million settlement was approved on April 25 in Toronto by
Ontario Superior Court Justice Edward Belobaba.

The lawsuit sought compensation for those who suffered harm while
living at the facilities -- including Oro-Medonte Township's Adult
Occupational Centre in Edgar between Jan. 1, 1966, and March 31,
1999, and the Muskoka Centre in Gravenhurst between Aug. 28, 1973,
and June 30, 1993.

Former residents of the following institutions may also be
eligible for compensation: 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).

"We're happy with it," Jody Brown -- jbrown@kmlaw.ca -- a lawyer
with Koskie Minsky LLP, said of the April 25 decision.  "I would
hope that, for some people, it means a certain element of
closure."

Former residents have been waiting a long time for this day, so
the relatively quick approval of the settlement was a positive,
Brown added.

For plaintiff Marlene McIntyre, who started the class action, it
means fairness, he said.

"She'll be able to make a claim for D'Arcy Place just the same as
she was able to make a claim for (the Huronia Regional Centre and
the Rideau Regional Centre). For her, I think it's a sense of
fairness," Ms. Brown said.

With the April 25 settlement having been approved, there is now a
one-month appeal period, after which a media blitz will attempt to
reach as many former residents as possible.

That media campaign will focus on ensuring those who want to make
a claim have the proper information to do so, and they will be
encouraged to submit their claims no more than nine months after
the 30-day appeal period has passed.


CANADA: St. John Paid PI Firm $446,000 in Estabrooks Abuse Case
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connell Smith, writing for CBC News, reports that the City of
Saint John has paid $446,000 to a private investigation firm
working on the Kenneth Estabrooks case and taxpayers could be
exposed to millions more in compensation settlements, according to
a lawyer working for alleged victims.

Mr. Estabrooks was a city police officer who was found guilty in
1999 of indecent assault against four children in cases dating
back to the 1950s.

In October 2012, Saint John council authorized $100,000 to have
Investigative Solutions Network investigate other potential abuse
cases.

In September 2013, private investigator Dave Perry, ISN's
co-chief executive officer, reported that as many of 263 youths
may have been sexually abused by Mr. Estabrooks over a three-
decade period.

By that point council had authorized three additional payments
totaling $272,000 to be made to Perry's firm.

But a right to information request filed by CBC News reveals more
than $100,000 in further payments to the firm were approved
directly by the city manager's office.

ISN's Perry declined an invitation to discuss his company's
billing.

Almost all of the money was taken from the municipality's human
resources budget.

Of the $479,000 invoiced by ISN, $33,000 was recovered through HST
rebates.

Mr. Estabrooks admitted in 1975 to sexually abusing children.

He wasn't fired or charged. Instead, he was transferred out of the
police department into the city works department, where he was in
charge of maintenance for city vehicles until he retired.

A later investigation determined he continued to abuse children
after the transfer.

He was sentenced to six years in prison and died in 2005.

Class action lawsuit

A class action lawsuit was filed against the city in December
2013.

Robert Hayes filed the notice of action and statement of claim
with the Court of Queen's Bench on behalf of himself and others
who may have been abused by Mr. Estabrooks.

John McKiggan, the lawyer for Hayes and other plaintiffs, said
should the class action be certified and the city is later found
liable, the municipality may not have enough insurance to cover
the settlements.

"How much insurance coverage the city actually has is an open
question at this point," said Mr. McKiggan.

"I'm not even sure the city has the answer to that."

Mr. McKiggan said the amount of insurance coverage available
depends on the year in which a victim was abused.

In some cases, claims could be made against insurance policies
taken out by the city in the 1950s.

If compensation is awarded to a victim, and there is not enough
money in the policy for the year the abuse occurred, city
taxpayers would have to make up the difference.

Mr. McKiggan said in some years the city took out what are known
as "diminishing reserve" policies that set a fixed limit on the
amount that could be paid out in total claims.

"If the insurance policy limits in this case are not sufficient to
meet the claims, the city has some pretty significant potential
exposure," said Mr. McKiggan.

Mr. McKiggan points to a Nova Scotia case involving the former
residents of the Home for Coloured Children, a closed Halifax
orphanage, where a settlement agreement totaled $29 million.

An aide to Saint John Mayor Mel Norton said the city does not
comment on ongoing legal proceedings.


CB FINANCIAL: Maryland Court Upheld Denial of Writ of Certiorari
----------------------------------------------------------------
CB Financial Services, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Maryland Court
of Special Appeals has affirmed an order denying a class action
plaintiff's writ of certiorari.

On April 21, 2014, a class action complaint, captioned Sutton v.
FedFirst Financial Corp., et al., was filed under Case No.
24C14002331, in the Circuit Court in Baltimore City, Maryland (the
"Court"), against FedFirst Financial Corp., each of FedFirst
Financial's directors, and CB Financial. The complaint alleged,
among other things, that the FedFirst Financial directors breached
their fiduciary duties to FedFirst Financial and its stockholders
by agreeing to sell to CB Financial without first taking steps to
ensure that FedFirst Financial stockholders would obtain adequate,
fair and maximum consideration under the circumstances, by
agreeing to terms with CB Financial that benefit themselves and/or
CB Financial without regard for the FedFirst Financial
stockholders and by agreeing to terms with CB Financial that
discourages other bidders. The plaintiff also alleged that CB
Financial aided and abetted the FedFirst Financial directors'
breaches of fiduciary duties. The complaint sought, among other
things, an order declaring the Merger Agreement unenforceable and
rescinding and invalidating the Merger Agreement, an order
enjoining the defendants from consummating the merger, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees and certain other damages.

On June 20, 2014, FedFirst Financial and the individual defendants
filed a Motion to Dismiss the complaint. On July 29, 2014, the
plaintiff filed an amended complaint adding an additional claim
that the Form S-4 filed by CB Financial in connection with the
merger contained material misstatements and omissions.

On September 22, 2014, the Court dismissed all claims as to all
defendants with prejudice, including claims against FedFirst
Financial and its directors as well as claims against CB
Financial. The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of the complaint.

On October 29, 2015, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals
affirmed the dismissal of the case. On December 31, 2015, the
plaintiff filed a petition for a writ of certiorari to the highest
court in the state, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals.

On January 13, 2016, CB Financial and FedFirst defendants filed
answers to the plaintiff's petition. On February 22, 2016, the
Maryland Court of Special Appeals issued the order denying the
plaintiff's writ of certiorari, which upheld the appellate
decision and the case is now closed.


CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE: No Ruling Yet on Motion to Dismiss
--------------------------------------------------------
Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral
argument on the Company's motion to dismiss a class action
complaint was set for April 20, 2016.

According to a Minute Entry for the proceedings held before Hon.
William H. Orrick on April 20, 2016, the Motions to Dismiss are
taken under submission and a written order will follow.

On April 21, 2015, a putative class action complaint was filed
against the Company in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California captioned Bonnano v. Cellular Biomedicine
Group, Inc., 3:15-cv-01795-WHO (N.D. Ca.). The complaint also
named Wei Cao, the Company's Chief Executive Officer, and Tony
Liu, the Company's Chief Financial Officer, as defendants. The
complaint alleged that during the class period, June 18, 2014,
through April 7, 2015, the Company made material
misrepresentations in its periodic reports filed with the SEC. The
complaint alleged a cause of action under Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "1934 Act") against all
defendants and under Section 20(a) of the 1934 Act against the
individual defendants. The complaint did not state the amount of
the damages sought.

On June 3, 2015, defendants were served.  On June 29, 2015, the
Court ordered, as stipulated by the parties, that defendants are
not required to respond to the initial complaint in this action
until such time as a lead plaintiff and lead counsel have been
appointed and a consolidated complaint has been filed.  The
deadline for filing motions for the appointment of lead plaintiff
and selection of lead counsel was June 22, 2015.  On that date,
one motion was filed by the Rosen Law Firm on behalf of putative
plaintiff Michelle Jackson.

On August 3, 2015, having received no opposition, the Court
appointed Jackson as lead plaintiff and the Rosen Law Firm as
class counsel.  As stipulated among the parties, Jackson filed an
amended class action complaint on September 17, 2015.  On January
19, 2016, the Company filed a motion to dismiss.  Plaintiff
submitted a response on March 1, 2016 and oral argument on the
motion to dismiss was set for April 20, 2016.  Discovery will be
stayed pending a decision on the motion to dismiss.

The amended complaint names ten additional individuals and
entities as defendants ("additional defendants"), none of whom are
affiliated with the Company, and asserts an additional claim under
Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) thereunder that the
Company purportedly engaged in a scheme with the additional
defendants to promote its securities. The amended complaint does
not assert any claims against Mr. Liu.

The Company believes the suit is without merit and filled with
patently false information, and will vigorously defend the Company
in the matter. At this early stage of the proceedings, it is not
possible to evaluate the likelihood of an unfavorable outcome or
to estimate the range of potential loss.

The case is, FRANCIS J. BONANNO, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. CELLULAR BIOMEDICINE
GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-01795-WHO (N.D.
Cal.).

Francis J. Bonanno, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer Pafiti --
jpafiti@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jeremy A Lieberman --
jlieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, C. Dov Berger --
dberger@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz and Patrick V. Dahlstrom --
pdahlstrom@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

Michelle Jackson, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jacob
Alexander Goldberg -- jgoldberg@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A..

Ervin D. Windom, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law
Firm, P.A..

Ding Liang, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M. Rosen, The Rosen
Law Firm, P.A. & Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The Rosen Law Firm,
P.A..

Beverly J. Nissenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M.
Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm, P.A. & Jacob Alexander Goldberg, The
Rosen Law Firm, P.A..

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jonathan B. Gaskin -- jgaskin@kaufholdgaskin.com -- Kaufhold
Gaskin LLP, Adrienne Marie Ward -- award@egsllp.com -- Ellenoff
Grossman & Schole LLP, Michael J. Sullivan -- msullivan@egsllp.com
-- Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP & Steven Shea Kaufhold --
skaufhold@kaufholdgaskin.com -- Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Wei Cao, Defendant, represented by Jonathan B. Gaskin, Kaufhold
Gaskin LLP, Michael J. Sullivan, Ellenoff Grossman & Schole LLP &
Steven Shea Kaufhold, Kaufhold Gaskin LLP.

Life Tech Capital, Defendant, represented by Gregory Kent
Klingsporn -- gkk@jsmf.com -- Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel,
LLP, Irwin Weltz -- iweltz@srff.com -- Sichenzia Ross Friedman
Ference LLP & Nicolas A Flegel -- naf@jsmf.com -- Jorgenson,
Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP.

Stephen M. Dunn, Defendant, represented by Gregory Kent
Klingsporn, Jorgenson, Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP, Irwin Weltz,
Sichenzia Ross Friedman Ference LLP & Nicolas A Flegel, Jorgenson,
Siegel, McClure & Flegel, LLP.

Streetwise Reports, Defendant, represented by Jahan Pierre Raissi
-- jraissi@sflaw.com -- Shartsis Friese LLP & Roey Rahmil --
rrahmil@sflaw.com -- Shartsis Friese LLP.

Cellular Biomedicine Group, Inc. is a biomedicine company,
principally engaged in the development of new treatments for
cancerous and degenerative diseases utilizing proprietary cell-
based technologies.


CENTRINEX LLC: Conditional Certification in "Howard" Suit OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. John W. Lungstrum granted in part and denied in part the
Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification and for the
issuance of court-supervised notice in the lawsuit entitled Keyle
Howard and Barbara Bates, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Centrinex, LLC; Maximus, Inc.; TDB
Communications, Inc.; and Health Net, Inc. d/b/a Health Net
Veterans, LLC d/b/a Health Net Federal Services, LLC, Case No. 15-
9918-JWL (D. Kan.).

The Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, filed this wage and hour suit against the Defendants,
alleging violations of the overtime provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.  In their motion for conditional certification of
this action as a collective action, the Plaintiffs seek
conditional certification on behalf of "All hourly-paid call
center workers at Defendants' Lenexa, Kansas call center who, at
any point since December 17, 2012, have handled telephone calls on
behalf of the Veterans Choice Program."

The Plaintiffs assert that they are similarly situated to each
other and to potential opt-in plaintiffs in that all were required
to perform pre- and post-shift work without compensation and were
subjected to the same "time shaving" practices uniformly employed
by the Defendants.

The Defendants oppose conditional certification of the class for
two reasons -- the Plaintiffs' allegations are not "substantial"
and the Plaintiffs are not "similarly situated."  In the
alternative, the Defendants contend that certification should be
limited to "hourly-paid call center employees making calls to and
receiving calls from participants on behalf of the Veterans Choice
Program while working at the Lenexa, Kansas Centrinex Call Center,
at any point from May 11, 2015 to December 31, 2015."

Without any evidence on the issue, the Court rejects the
Defendants' proposal to limit the look-back period from May 11,
2015, to December 31, 2015.  The Court, however, does agree with
the Defendants that the maximum reach of the limitations period
for any willful violation of the FLSA would extend back only three
years from the date of this order rather than from the date of the
filing of the complaint.

The Court directed the parties to meet and confer about the form
and substance of the notice and, if an agreement is reached, to
submit the proposed notice to the Court for approval no later than
May 9, 2016.  If the parties are unable to reach an agreement,
then the Plaintiffs will file a motion no later than May 9 seeking
approval of their proposed notice.  The Defendants shall then file
their objections to the Plaintiffs' proposed notice and submit an
alternate proposed notice no later than May 20.

A copy of the Memorandum and Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=eB8noPyz


CHANEL: Judge Tosses Employees' Overtime Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The Fashion Law Chanel has scored a major victory in a lawsuit
filed against it by a group of employees at its Beverly Hills
store.  According to the proposed class action suit filed in
December 2015 by shipping department employees Cristian Luna,
Anthony Hernandez and Javier Delgado, Chanel failed to pay them
and others overtime compensation and minimum wage for overtime
hours worked in violation of both federal and state law.  A
California federal judge rejected the group's bid for
certification of a nationwide class in the suit, thereby cutting
the number of potential plaintiffs by at least a few hundred.

U.S. District Judge Gary Klausner refused to certify the proposed
class action lawsuit, and as a result, has prevented "similarly
situated" employees in other Chanel stores from joining in the
case at hand against the Paris-based design house.  In order for a
proposed class action lawsuit -- one that gathers many individual
claims together into a single lawsuit -- to be certified, the
named plaintiffs must show that all of the potential class members
have claims that raise common legal and factual issues, making it
most efficient to deal with all of the claims together.  In short:
all of the plaintiffs must be "similarly-situated."

This is where the named plaintiffs in the case at hand failed to
meet their burden.  Per Judge Klausner's decision, Messrs. Luna,
Hernandez and Delgado failed to present evidence of wage
violations at Chanel stores besides their own, and as a result, if
other Chanel employees have been forced to work overtime without
adequate compensation and/or without breaks, they will have to
file individual lawsuits of their own.

Judge Klausner's decision comes on the heels of assertions from
Chanel's counsel that the evidence the plaintiffs provided (and
the fact that they were forced to work overtime in the first
place) does not amount to anything more than proof that they're
incapable of fulfilling their job duties.  Moreover, Chanel
asserted that nationwide class certification is improper as the
cases at hand are too individualized and the individual
plaintiffs' claims are not backed up by similar claims from
employees at other stores.


CHIPOTLE: Judge Allows Non-GMO Claim in Class Action to Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lawyer Herald reports that a Florida judge ruled that a proposed
class-action suit accusing Chipotle of intentionally
misrepresenting that the food it serves does not contain
genetically modified organisms (GMO) can proceed.

According to ABC News, plaintiff Leslie Reilly of Florida sued the
food chain in September 2015 claiming she paid a "premium price"
for Chipotle's food only because she believed it did not contain
GMO.  While the Denver-based Mexican grille resto claims in its
website that it is the first national restaurant company "to cook
with non-GMO ingredients," it also admits that the meat and dairy
they serve may have come "from animals given at least some GMO
feed."

But Ms. Reilly's complaint claims that meat and dairy products
coming from animals given GMO feed are in themselves GMO products.
The suit also says the Chipotle's marketing claim that it uses
only non-GMO ingredients constitutes "unfair and deceptive
practices."

US District Judge Marcia G. Cooke, said Law 360, ruled April 20
that the case must proceed to allow for more analysis on the
customers' claim that animals given GMO feed can't produce
non-GMO meat.  She refused to set aside Reilly's assertion that
she didn't get the benefit of her bargain when she bought food
from Chipotle which she thought was non-GMO, in part because
Reilly has put forth enough evidence to show that the definition
of non-GMO may require that meat and dairy products cannot come
from animals that ate GMO feed, the decision stated.

Chipotle argued that Reilly's interpretation of "non-GMO" is "non-
sensical" and it is not the way ordinary consumers would define
the term.  But Judge Cooke found that Reilly has offered enough
evidence to show that some consumers and legislators do believe
that non-GMO should also apply to the type of feed the animals
consumed.

Food Navigator reported that legal experts warned marketers that
they could be sued for making non-GMO claims for meat and dairy
products coming from animals given GMO feed.  Their warning comes
in the heels of Judge Cooke's ruling on the false advertising case
alleged in the Reilly lawsuit which comes two months after a
California court dismissed a similar suit against the burrito
maker.

There is yet no federal definition of non-GMO ingredients although
state bills requiring GMO labelling do not require them on meat
and dairy products from animals given genetically engineered feed.
Ms. Reilly's suit asserts that non-GMO claim should not be allowed
if genetic engineering had been employed at any stage of the
production process, regardless of the final product.


COBALT MORTGAGE: "Grewe" Suit to Recover Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------
Francene Grewe, Lori Eberhard, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Cobalt Mortgage, Inc.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00577 (W.D. Wash., April 21, 2016),
seeks unpaid overtime wages, liquidated damages, injunction
against Defendants, attorney fees and costs incurred, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and such further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act.

Francene Grewe is a former Production Partner for Cobalt. She sold
mortgages to individual customers who walked into Cobalt offices
and over the telephone. Eberhard worked as Mortgage Loan
Originator Assistant.

Cobalt is a Washington-based private mortgage banking firm with
its principal office located in King County, Washington. It
operates in Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Louisiana,
Nevada, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wyoming.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Beth E. Terrell, Esq.
     TERRELL MARSHALL DAUDT & WILLIE PLLC
     936 North 34th Street, Suite 300
     Seattle, WA 98103-8869
     Tel: 206.816.6603
     Fax: 206.350.3528
     Email: bterrell@tmdwlaw.com

            - and -

     Rowdy B. Meeks, Esq.
     ROWDY MEEKS LEGAL GROUP LLC
     10601 Mission Rd., Suite 100
     Leawood, KS 66206
     Telephone: (913) 766-5585
     Facsimile: (816) 875-5069
     Email: Rowdy.Meeks@rmlegalgroup.com


COMCAST CORPORATION: Sued Over Failure to Provide Consumer Refund
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John C. James, individually and on behalf of himself and others
similarly situated v. Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable
Communications LLC d/b/a Xfinity, and Does 1 through 100, Case No.
3:16-cv-02218-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 25, 2016), arises from
Comcast's failure to provide credits and refunds to month-to-month
customers for the time during which Comcast did not provide
uninterrupted service as a direct result of service disruption.

The Defendants are in the business of providing television,
internet, telephone, and other services to California residents.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony Martin Perez Jr., Esq.
      PEREZ LAW OFFICES
      400 Capitol Mall, Suite 1100
      Sacramento, CA 95814
      Telephone: (916) 441-0500
      Facsimile: (916) 441-0555
      E-mail: aperez@perezlawoffices.com

         - and -

      Dale Curtis Campbell, Esq.
      Brendan J. Begley, Esq.
      Josh H. Escovedo, Esq.
      WEINTRAUB GENSHLEA CHEDIAK
      400 Capitol Mall,11th Floor
      Sacramento, CA 95814
      Telephone: (916) 558-6000
      Facsimile: (916) 446-1611
      E-mail: dcampbell@weintraub.com
              bbegley@weintraub.com
              jescovedo@weintraub.com

         - and -

      Gary A Waldron, Esq.
      WEINTRAUB TOBIN CHEDIAK COLEMAN GRODIN
      23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 200
      Newport Beach, CA
      Telephone: (949) 760-0204
      Facsimile: (949) 760-2507
      E-mail: gwaldron@weintraub.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Illegally Collects Debt, Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Lanin, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. and John Does 1-25, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02328-WJM-MF (D.N.J., April 26, 2016), seeks to stop
the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. owns and operates a debt collection
firm in New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
      JONES, WOLF & KAPASI, LLC
      375 Passaic Avenue, Suite 100
      Fairfield, NJ 07004
      Telephone: (973) 227-5900
      Facsimile: (973) 244-0019
      E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Class Certified in "Luther" FDCPA Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Avern Cohn entered a memorandum and order granting the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification in the lawsuit entitled
JOSEPH LUTHER v. CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING, INC., and PALISADES
COLLECTION, LLC, Case No. 2:15-cv-10902-AC-MKM (E.D. Mich.).

In his case, Plaintiff Joseph Luther claims that the Defendants
violated various provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices
Act by seeking collection of debts from him and other putative
class members through letters that offered settlement of the debts
without disclosing that the debts were time barred.

A status conference will be held on May 31, 2016, at 2:00 p.m. to
chart the future course of the case.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=p8mrQe2e


CREDIT ONE: Faces "Concha" Suit in Cal. Over Automated Calls
------------------------------------------------------------
Aaron Concha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Credit One Bank, N.A., Credit One Financial, and
Sherman Financial Group, LLC, Case No. 3:16-cv-01009-BEN-RBB (S.D.
Cal., April 25, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants'
practice of placing calls on consumers' cellular telephones using
an autodialer and an artificial or prerecorded voice.

Credit One Bank, N.A. is a U.S. based bank specializing in credit
cards.

Credit One Financial operates a debt collection firm with its
principal place of business located at 585 Pilot Road, Las Vegas,
NV, 89119.

Sherman Financial Group, LLC originates, purchases, and services
consumer debt throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      L. Timothy Fisher, Esq.
      Annick M. Persinger, Esq.
      Yeremey O. Krivoshey, Esq.
      1990 North California Blvd., Suite 940
      Walnut Creek, CA  94596
      Telephone: (925) 300-4455
      E-mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
              apersinger@bursor.com
              ykrivoshey@bursor.com

         - and -

      Scott A. Bursor, Esq.
      BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
      888 Seventh Avenue
      New York, NY  10019
      Telephone: (212) 989-9113
      Facsimile: (212) 989-9163
      E-mail: scott@bursor.com


DJA CATERING LLC: "Garcia" Suit to Recover OT, Unpaid Premiums
--------------------------------------------------------------
Santiago Reyes Garcia, on behalf of himself and other similarly
situated employees, Plaintiff, v. DJA Catering LLC, d/b/a Point
Break NYC, or any other business entity doing business as Point
Break NYC, located at 12 West 45th Street, New York, New York
10036, and Dennis Hatzinger, and Roland Jabbour, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02961 (S.D.N.Y., April 21, 2016)
seeks unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, prejudgment and postjudgment interest and attorneys' fees
and costs pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, statutory
penalties for failure to provide mandatory written wage notices on
a weekly and annual basis, unpaid spread of hours premiums
pursuant to the New York State Labor Law and the Fair Labor
Standards Act, and liquidated damages pursuant to the New York
Wage Theft Prevention Act.

Point Break is a restaurant organized and existing under the laws
of the State of New York, with principal place of business located
at 12 West 45th Street, New York, New York 10036 with Roland
Jabbour and Dennis Hatzinger as manager/owner. Plaintiff was
employed by the Defendants in New York County, New York as a
kitchen assistant, dishwasher, cleaner, and food runner,
continuously from in or about March 2015 through January 2016.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
      CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
      708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
      New York, NY 10017
      Tel. (212) 209-3933
      Fax. (212) 209-7102
      Email: info@jcpdaw.com


ELRON ELECTRONIC: Partial Settlement Reached in Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Elron Electronic Industries Ltd. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a request
was submitted to the District Court of Haifa, in Israel, pursuant
to which agreement was reached on a partial settlement agreement
(between all the plaintiffs and all the defendants except the
Company and the group of directors on its behalf.

In November 1999, a number of shareholders of Elscint filed a
claim in the District Court of Haifa, together with a request to
approve certain causes of action set out in the claim, as a class
action on behalf of the public shareholders of Elscint, and a
request for certain causes of action to be treated as a derivative
action against various defendants, including Elscint, Elbit
Imaging, Elron and Europa Israel to which Elron sold its holdings
in Elbit Imaging in May 1999, and certain officers in the
defendant companies. The claim alleges, mainly, that Elbit Imaging
is duty bound to make a tender offer for the shares of Elscint
held by the public and that it unlawfully refuses to do so and, in
addition, it raises allegations of preference of the interests of
the defendants over those of Elscint and its public shareholders
with respect to a number of transactions involving Elscint that
the plaintiffs allege discriminated against Elscint's public
shareholders.

In June 2007 the plaintiffs submitted to the Haifa District Court
an updated statement of claim and request to approve the claim as
a class action. The updated claim claimed compensation for damages
sustained due to the alleged failure to effect the tender offer,
but no longer sought an order compelling the tender offer. The
updated statement of claim does not specify the monetary amount
claimed, but did include various allegations relating to the
manner of determining the damages claimed.

The Haifa District Court dismissed the plaintiffs' request to
approve the claim as a class action but the plaintiffs appealed
and in May 2012 the Supreme Court handed down a judgment in which
it partially accepted the appeal filed by the plaintiffs regarding
the District Court's rejection of the motion to approve their
claim as a "class action" against the various defendants including
the Company. In the said judgment, it was determined, inter alia,
that the motion for approval of the claim as a "class action" was
accepted with some modifications and directions as to the conduct
of the proceeding as detailed in the judgment and the case was
returned to the District Court to conduct the claim as a "class
action" against all of the defendants, including the Company and
its former officers as detailed in the said judgment. The main
cause of action alleged against the Company is minority oppression
of the minority shareholders of Elscint, such that control of
Elscint was sold to someone who is anticipated to exploit the
assets of the company in an unequal manner ("Sabotage Sale"). The
Company denies the allegations against it in the action.

On February 9, 2016, a request was submitted to the District Court
pursuant to which agreement was reached on a partial settlement
agreement (between all the plaintiffs and all the defendants
except the Company and the group of directors on its behalf). The
actual settlement agreement has not been submitted to the District
Court since, according to the above application, the parties are
required to exhaust other approval proceedings regarding the
participation of the insurers. The position of the plaintiffs as
presented to the District Court by their legal representatives
after the submission of the request is that the cause of action
against the Company and the group of directors on its behalf is
separate from the causes of action against the other defendants
and therefore -- as long as the Company and the group of directors
on its behalf do not join the settlement, the plaintiffs are
continuing the proceedings between the plaintiffs and the Company
and the group of directors on its behalf.


EMERGENT CAPITAL: "Jennings" Class Suit Pending
-----------------------------------------------
Emergent Capital, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a complaint was filed
against the Company's subsidiary, styled Kenneth Jennings v.
Washington Square Financial, LLC d/b/a Imperial Structured
Settlements ("Washington Square"), and is currently pending in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois.

The plaintiff seeks, in a purported class action, to represent all
individuals who sold all or a part of a structured settlement
annuity to Washington Square under the Illinois Structured
Settlement Protections Act (the "Illinois Act"), where the
underlying annuity contract contained an anti-assignment clause,
and where a court issued an order under the Illinois Act approving
the transaction. The complaint seeks, among other things, a
declaration that all such transactions are void and compensatory
and punitive damages. The Company has not established any
provision for losses in respect of this matter.

Founded in December 2006 as a Florida limited liability company,
Imperial Holdings, LLC, converted into Imperial Holdings, Inc. on
February 3, 2011, in connection with the Company's initial public
offering. Effective September 1, 2015, the Company changed its
name to Emergent Capital, Inc.


FARJEAN LLC: Fails to Pay Workers Overtime, "Hernandez" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Bolivar Hernandez and Felix Valdez, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated v. Farjean LLC d/b/a Papa John's
Pizza, Jack Stval and Jean Stval, Case No. CV162020 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to
pay overtime wages for work in excess of 40 hours per week.

The Defendants operate a Papa John's Pizza franchise location at
14720 Rockaway Boulevard, South Ozone Park, NY 11436.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman M. Avshalumov, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail: avshalumovr@yahoo.com


FEDEX GROUND: Class Action Deal Conditionally Approved
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DEAN ALEXANDER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FEDEX
GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEM, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No. 05-cv-
00038-EMC (N.D. Cal.), Judge Edward M. Chen conditionally granted
the plaintiffs' motion for final approval of class action
settlement, but deferred ruling on the plaintiffs' motion for
attorney fees and costs and class representative service payments.

In 2004, the plaintiffs initiated a class action against FedEx
Ground Package System, Inc. ("FXG"), asserting, in essence, wage-
and-hour claims.  After being put into MDL proceedings with the
Ninth Circuit holding, on appeal, that the class members were
employees of FXG and not independent contractors, the case was
remanded to the district court where FXG then filed several
motions to limit liability and/or damages.  The parties thereafter
engaged in settlement negotiations, which were ultimately
successful.  The plaintiffs thus moved for preliminary approval,
which the court granted.

Notice was then issued to the class, which is comprised of 2,016
people.  Because of a technical problem with the mailing list,
notice was re-issued.  Ultimately some form of notice was given to
all but three members of the class.

As of April 5, 2016, the settlement administrator had received
1,544 claim forms, which translates to a response rate of
approximately 77%.  The claim forms represent claims for payment
of approximately $149,394,731.79.  The gross settlement fund is
$226,500,000.  The net settlement fund is approximately
$173,245,000.  Based on this net figure, roughly 86% of the net
settlement fund has been claimed by responding members of the
class.

Pursuant to the settlement agreement, the remaining portion of the
net settlement fund will be distributed to the claiming class
members on a pro rata basis.  According to the settlement
administrator, based on the above figures, the average pay-out to
claiming class members will be approximately $112,000, with "the
lowest award at $250 and the highest award [at] $440,670.10."

The settlement administrator has received no requests for
exclusion (with exclusion being an option only for the MRB
subclass as all other class members were previously given an
opportunity to opt out after the class was certified).  Only a
handful of objections were made to the settlement.

Judge Chen found that the objections lack sufficient merit to
warrant a denial of final approval.  However, Judge Chen granted
only conditional approval so that (1) it can consider the response
rate after the plaintiffs make additional outreach to nonclaiming
class members and (2) it can consider the supplemental brief
related to fees.  Because of the latter issue, Judge Chen also
deferred ruling on the fee motion.

A full-text copy of Judge Chen's April 12, 2016 order is available
at http://is.gd/KCUBhYfrom Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

Plaintiffs Dean Alexander, Peter Allen, Albert Anaya, Suzanne
Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines, Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino,
Eric Jeppson, Gupertino Magana, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla,
Margorie Pontarolo, Joey Rodriguez, Dale Rose, Allen Ross,
Agostino Scalercio, and Anthony Ybarra moved the Court for an
Order approving, as proposed in the Settlement Agreement
preliminarily approved by the Court on October 22, 2015:

     (1) an award of $49,830,000 in attorneys' fees and costs to
Plaintiffs' Counsel, and

     (2) an award of $10,000 service awards to each of the 17
Class Representatives for the Class and the Overtime Subclass; and

     (3) an award of a $1,500 service award to the Class
Representative for the Meal and Rest Period Settlement Subclass.

According to the Fee Award Motion, "Counsel secured an
extraordinary result for the class and subclass members in this
case: a $226,500,000 non-reversionary settlement on behalf of
approximately 2,016 current and former drivers for FedEx Ground
Package System, Inc., and its division FedEx Home Delivery.  This
remarkable result is particularly impressive given the risks faced
and obstacles overcome by Counsel while litigating the case for
close to 11 years in the his Court, the Multidistrict Litigation
("MDL"), and before the Ninth Circuit.  Having created this common
fund through skillful litigation efforts and a strategic approach
to settlement negotiations, Counsel requests a 22% fee, in the
amount of $49,830,000, inclusive of litigation expenses."

Dean Alexander, Suzanne Andrade, Jarrett Henderson, Ely Ines,
Jorge Isla, Paul Infantino, Bernard Mendoza, Jesse Padilla, Joey
Rodriguez, Allan Ross, Plaintiffs, represented by Aaron D.
Kaufmann -- akaufmann@leonardcarder.com -- LEONARD CARDER LLP,
Beth A. Ross -- bross@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder LLP,
David Philip Pogrel -- dpogrel@leonardcarder.com -- Leonard Carder
LLP, Elizabeth R Gropman, Leonard Carder LLP & Elizabeth Cara
Morris, Leonard Carder, LLP.

FedEx Ground Package System, Inc., Defendant, represented by Chris
A. Hollinger -- chollinger@omm.com -- O'Melveny & Meyers, Nicole
M. Friedenberg, Winston & Strawn LLP, Carolyn Kubota --
ckubota@omm.com -- Robert Swerdlow -- rswerdlow@omm.com -- & Scott
Michael Voelz -- svoelz@omm.com -- OMelveny Myers.

Fedex Ground Package System Inc., Defendant, represented by Chris
A. Hollinger, O'Melveny & Meyers, Nicole M. Friedenberg, Winston &
Strawn LLP & Scott Michael Voelz, OMelveny Myers.

Rafick El-Hani, Defendant, represented by John William Davis, Law
Office of John W. Davis & Steven F. Helfand, Helfand Law Offices.

El-Hani Services, Inc., Objector, represented by John William
Davis, Law Office of John W. Davis.

Anthony Brooks, Objector, represented by Mindy Monhai Wong, Birka
White Law Offices.

Henrik Zohrabians, Intervenor, represented by Mark Etheredge
Burton, Jr., Audet and Partners & William M. Audet, Audet &
Partners, LLP.


FMA ALLIANCE: "Devera" Suit Plaintiff Seeks Class Certification
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Cerilina Devera moves the Court to certify a class in
the lawsuit captioned CERILINA DEVERA, Individually and on Behalf
of All Others Similarly Situated v. FMA ALLIANCE, LTD., Case No.
2:16-cv-00518-CNC (E.D. Wisc.).

According to the Motion, Damasco and decisions like it imposed
significant burdens on the Court and on the Plaintiff's Counsel.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).  To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative
class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the
Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a
certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to
stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could
commence.

The Plaintiff contends that he is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As this Motion to Certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the Plaintiff contends that the parties and
the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and
the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to
certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed.

Therefore, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order
certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel.

The Plaintiff further requests that the Court stay this class
certification motion until an amended motion for class
certification is filed, and that the Court grant the parties
relief from the local rules' automatic briefing schedule and
requirement that Plaintiff file a brief and supporting documents
in support of this Motion.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=4nbDqFJE


FRANCISCAN MISSIONARIES: Faces "Nicholson" ERISA Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Laurie Nicholson, individually and on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Franciscan Missionaries
of Our Lady Health System, Franciscan Missionaries of Our Lady
Health System Investment Committee and John Does 1-20, Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00258-SDD-EWD (M.D. La., April 21, 2016), seeks
preliminary and permanent injunction, civil money penalties,
declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary and appropriate,
enjoinment from further violating the duties, responsibilities and
obligations, equitable relief and attorney fees and expenses as a
result of the violation of Reporting and Disclosure Provisions
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

Defendants manage the pension plan for employees of Our Lady of
the Lake Regional Medical Center, Inc. Plaintiff accuses the
Defendants of underfunding their plan. Nicholson, a retired
Clinical Social Worker in the Defendant's Family Center, is a
current participant in the Our Lady of the Lake Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

             - and -

      Robert A. Izard, Esq.
      Mark P. Kindall, Esq.
      IZARD NOBEL LLP
      29 South Main Street, Suite 305
      West Hartford, CT 06107
      Tel: (860) 493-6292
      Fax: (860) 493-6290
      Email: rizard@izardnobel.com
             mkindall@izardnobel.com

             - and -

      Robert E. Tarcza, Esq.
      TARCZA & ASSOCIATES
      1310 Whitney Bldg.
      228 St. Charles Ave.
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Tel: (504) 525-6696
      Fax: (504) 525-6701
      Email: bobt@tglaw.net


FRESENIUS KABI: Recalls Sensorcaine(R)-MPF Injection
----------------------------------------------------
Fresenius Kabi USA announced it is voluntarily recalling a single
lot (Lot Number 6111504; Product Code 470237) of Sensorcaine(R)-
MPF (bupivacaine HCl) Injection, USP, 0.75%, 7.5 mg/mL, 30 mL fill
in a 30 mL vial. The recall is being performed to the user level
due to visible particulate matter characterized as glass observed
by the company during inspection of reserve samples.
Administration of a solution containing glass particulate matter
by the epidural or retrobulbar (behind the eyeball) route may
result in inflammation and injury, or cause blockage of
vasculature around the eye or emboli in the vasculature of eye
nerves. If the particulate goes undetected and solution is
administered -- depending on the particle size and number -- it
could block administration of the drug to the patient, causing a
delay in therapy. If the particulates are able to pass through the
catheter and may result in local inflammation, mechanical
disruption of tissue or immune response to the particulate. To
date, Fresenius Kabi has not received any reports of adverse
events related to this recall.

Sensorcaine(R)-MPF (bupivacaine HCl) Injection is indicated for
the production of local or regional anesthesia or analgesia for
surgery, dental and oral surgery procedures, diagnostic and
therapeutic procedures and for obstetrical procedures.

The recalled product is labeled with Product Code 470237 and Lot
Number 6111504 and is supplied as 0.75% strength in a 30 mL single
dose flint molded vial and packaged in units of 25. The product
was shipped in the United States to wholesaler and distributor
outlets between March 4, 2016 and March 21, 2016 and has an
expiration date of September 2019. The NDC number for this product
is 63323-472-37.

Fresenius Kabi is notifying its distributors and customers by
letter and is arranging for return of all recalled product. If
health care facilities have the affected lot, they are to
immediately discontinue distributing, dispensing or using the lot
and return all units to Fresenius Kabi. Distributors are
instructed to immediately notify their customers that have been
shipped, or may have been shipped the product involved in this
recall and direct them to discontinue distributing, dispensing or
using the affected lot and return the product to Fresenius Kabi.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall can contact
Fresenius Kabi at 1-800-551-7176 Monday through Friday, during the
hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or productcomplaint.USA@fresenius-
kabi.com or adverse.events.USA@fresenius-kabi.com.Consumers should
contact their physician or healthcare provider if they have
experienced any problems that may be related to taking or using
this drug product.

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

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

Fresenius Kabi (www.fresenius-kabi.usdisclaimer icon) is a global
health care company that specializes in medicines and technologies
for infusion, transfusion and clinical nutrition. The company's
products and services are used to help care for critically and
chronically ill patients. The company's U.S. headquarters is in
Lake Zurich, Illinois. The company's global headquarters is in Bad
Homburg, Germany. For more information about Fresenius Kabi
worldwide, please visit www.fresenius-kabi.comdisclaimer icon

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


FUEL SYSTEMS: 4 Class Suits Filed Over Westport Merger
------------------------------------------------------
Fuel Systems Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is aware
of four putative stockholder class actions that have been filed
since the announcement of the merger with Westport which challenge
the proposed merger.

"We believe that the claims are without merit and intend to defend
the actions vigorously," the Company said.

On September 1, 2015, Fuel Systems, Westport Innovations Inc., an
Alberta, Canada corporation ("Westport"), and Whitehorse Merger
Sub Inc., a Delaware corporation and a direct wholly owned
subsidiary of Westport ("Merger Sub"), entered into an Agreement
and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Under the terms of
the Merger Agreement, the Company will be merged with and into
Merger Sub, with the Company surviving the Merger and becoming a
direct wholly owned subsidiary of Westport.

Fuel Systems Solutions provides alternative fuel systems for
transportation, industrial, and refueling applications worldwide
as well as idle reduction technologies for the heavy duty truck
and rail markets.


GLENN WAYNE: Recalls 7-Eleven Brand Cookies Due to Peanuts
----------------------------------------------------------
Glenn Wayne Wholesale Bakery of Bohemia, NY, is recalling select
7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO brand cookies because they may contain
undeclared peanuts. People who have an allergy to peanuts run the
risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products.

The select 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO Cookies were sold at 7-ELEVEN
stores located throughout New York State.

The affected cookies are packed in a clear, plastic film, two
cookies per package, NET WT. 4 OZ., with Best By dates codes:
Friday 0422, Saturday 0423, and Sunday 0424 on the front label.

  --- 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO CHOCOLATE CHUNK COOKIE, UPC
      052548558741; Manhattan UPC: 052548570668;
  --- 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO OATMEAL RAISIN COOKIE, UPC
      052548558758; Manhattan UPC: 052548570651;
  --- 7-ELEVEN FRESH TO GO SUGAR COOKIE WITH M&M CHOCOLATE CANDY,
      UPC 052548558765; Manhattan UPC: 052548570644

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The recall was initiated after one of our suppliers reported that
three different cookie mixes may contain undeclared peanuts. These
potentially contaminated cookie mixes were used in production and
distributed in packaging that did not reveal the presence of
peanuts. The company and the ingredient supplier continue their
investigation to determine the cause of the problem.

Consumers who have purchased the above Best By Date codes of the
affected cookies are urged to return them to the place of purchase
for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact the
company at 1-800-255-0711, Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm, EDT.

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


GOLDEN ENTERTAINMENT: Class Action Dismissed Based on SLC Report
----------------------------------------------------------------
Golden Entertainment, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an amended consolidated
class action complaint has been dismissed with prejudice and on
the merits, based on a report by special litigation committee (the
"SLC").

The Company said, "On February 6, 2015, Golden, certain current
and former members of our Board of Directors, LG Acquisition
Corporation, Sartini Gaming and the Sartini Trust were named as
defendants in three complaints filed in the District Court of the
State of Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District in Hennepin County.
These are purported shareholder class action lawsuits brought by
certain of our shareholders on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, alleging that in entering into the Merger, the
defendants had breached their fiduciary duties of good faith,
loyalty and due care, and/or have aided and abetted such breaches.
The plaintiffs seek, among other things, attorney's fees."

"On April 20, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an Amended Consolidated
Class Action Complaint consolidating all pending claims arising
out of the Merger. In response to the lawsuits, the Board of
Directors appointed a special litigation committee (the "SLC")
pursuant to Minnesota law to investigate the plaintiffs'
allegations.

"On June 8, 2015, the judge in the matter denied the plaintiffs'
request for expedited proceedings and stayed the lawsuit until the
conclusion of the SLC investigation and the issuance of its
determinations. The SLC issued its report on October 13, 2015, in
which it determined, among other matters, that the members of our
Board of Directors properly discharged their fiduciary duties
under Minnesota law and that the shareholder claims were without
merit. The SLC report was submitted to the District Court with a
motion requesting that the Court dismiss the litigation.

"On October 30, 2015, an order granting defendant's motion to
dismiss the amended consolidated class action complaint was
granted by the judge. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice
and on the merits, based on the SLC's report."

The Company is a diversified group of gaming companies that focus
on distributed gaming (including tavern gaming) and casino and
resort operations.


GREENVILLE, SC: 4th Cir. Upholds Dismissal of Residents' Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit, affirmed the
district court's dismissal of the case, CFRE, LLC v. Adkins, No.
8:14-cv-03825-TMC (D.S.C. Apr. 14, 2015).

CFRE, LLC, and Sherry T. Ray appealed the district court's order
granting Defendants' motion to dismiss their putative class action
complaint for lack of jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act,
28 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (2012).

"We have reviewed the parties' briefs and the record on appeal and
find no reversible error," the Appeals Court said.

The appellate case is, CFRE, LLC, individually and on behalf of
others similarly situated; SHERRY T. RAY, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v.
DEBBIE H. ADKINS, individually and in her official capacity as
Greenville County Assessor; JILL KINTIGH, in her official capacity
as Greenville County Treasurer; JOSEPH KERNELL, in his official
capacity as Greenville County Administrator; JOHN/JANE DOE,
individually and in his/her/their official capacities, Defendants-
Appellees, and REAL PROPERTY SERVICES, Defendant (4th Cir.)

CFRE and Ray bring this action individually and as proposed
representatives of that class of persons and entities who own or
owned the approximately 200,000+/- parcels of real property in
Greenville County.  They allege that the Defendants willfully and
irrationally raised the fair market value of Plaintiffs' parcel.

A copy of the Fourth Circuit's decision dated April 6, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/hHb8Z1from Leagle.com.

Counsel to Plaintiffs:

     J. William Ray, Esq.
     RAY LAW FIRM, LLC
     P. O. Box 9107
     Greenville SC 29604-9107
     Tel: (864) 313-5332
     Fax: (888) 633-1283

          - and -

     James L. Goldsmith, Jr., Esq.
     JAMES L. GOLDSMITH, JR., P.A.
     P. O. Box 92
     Zirconia, NC 28790-0092
     Tel: (828) 489-3989
     Fax: (828) 489-3870

Counsel to Defendants:

     Christopher R. Antley, Esq.
     DEVLIN & PARKINSON, P.A.
     27 Cleveland St # 201
     Greenville, SC 29601
     Tel: 864-242-4050
     E-mail: crantley@devlinparkinson.com


HALLIBURTON ENERGY: W.Va. Court Affirms "Parsons" Arbitration
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned RICHARD PARSONS, Petitioner, v. HALLIBURTON
ENERGY SERVICES, INC., Respondent, No. 14-1288 (W. Va.), the
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia affirmed the circuit
court's order compelling the parties to arbitrate their dispute.

On December 3, 2013, Richard Parsons filed a complaint in the
Circuit Court of Kanawha County alleging that his former employer,
Halliburton Energy Services, Inc., did not timely pay him his
final wages as required by the West Virginia Wage Payment and
Collection Act (WCPA).  Parsons also sought to create a class
action composed of other former employees of the defendant who
were not timely paid their final wages.

On July 7, 2014, some seven months after Parsons filed his
complaint, Halliburton's first court filing was a motion seeking
to compel Parsons to participate in arbitration.  Parsons
responded to the motion by arguing that Halliburton had waived its
contractual right to arbitration by failing to timely raise
arbitration, and by acting inconsistently with its contractual
right to arbitration in the previous seven months.

In an order dated November 14, 2014, the circuit court granted
Halliburton's motion, dismissed Parson's complaint and compelled
the parties to participate in arbitration.

On appeal, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia found
that there is nothing in the record to suggest that Halliburton
expressly waived its contractual right to arbitration by answering
or responding to the civil complaint without asserting its right.
The appellate court also found that Halliburton did not implicitly
waive its right to arbitrate through its acts and language.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court of Appeal's April 11, 2016
opinion is available at http://is.gd/ymvCDJfrom Leagle.com.

Jonathan R. Marshall, Esq. -- jmarshall@baileyglasser.com -- Ryan
McCune Donovan, Esq. -- rdonovan@baileyglasser.com -- Bailey &
Glasser, LLP, Charleston, West Virginia; Rodney A. Smith, Esq.,
Todd S. Bailess, Esq., Joy B. Mega, Esq., Bailess Law, PLLC,
Charleston, West Virginia, Counsel for the Petitioner.

Marla N. Presley, Esq. -- marla.presley@jacksonlewis.com --
Bethany S. Wagner, Esq. -- bethany.wagner@jacksonlewis.com --
Jackson Lewis P.C., Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Counsel for the
Respondent.


HORSEHEAD HOLDING: Faces Securities Class Action
------------------------------------------------
Rosen Law Firm, a global investor rights law firm, on April 25
announced the filing of a class action lawsuit on behalf of
purchasers of Horsehead Holding Corp. securities from May 21, 2014
through February 2, 2016, both dates inclusive (the "Class
Period").  The lawsuit seeks to recover damages for Horsehead
investors under the federal securities laws.

To join the Horsehead class action, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-886.htmor call Phillip Kim, Esq. or
Kevin Chan, Esq. toll free at 866-767-3653 or email
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com for more information
on the class action.

NO CLASS HAS YET BEEN CERTIFIED IN THE ABOVE ACTION. UNTIL A CLASS
IS CERTIFIED, YOU ARE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL UNLESS YOU RETAIN
ONE. YOU MAY ALSO REMAIN AN ABSENT CLASS MEMBER AND DO NOTHING AT
THIS POINT. YOU MAY RETAIN COUNSEL OF YOUR CHOICE.

According to the lawsuit, throughout the Class Period defendants
issued false and misleading statements to investors and/or failed
to disclose that: (1) the Mooresboro Facility was unable to
operate as planned due construction defects; (2) these operational
problems at the facility were significant, pervasive and the
result of fundamental engineering and operational defects; (3)
Horsehead had not and did not know how to rectify the problems at
the Mooresboro Facility and as a result, production disruptions
and tens of millions of dollars in costs related to these problems
were likely and anticipated; (4) Horsehead was employing
expensive, temporary workarounds at the Mooresboro Facility in
order to achieve limited production capacity and as a result, the
facility was not providing significant cost savings, but was
causing Horsehead to spend cash at an unsustainable rate; (5) the
Mooresboro Facility did not have an annual zinc production
capacity of 155,000 tons and could not even sustainably achieve
50% of that capacity; (6) operational issues at the Mooresboro
Facility were deteriorating as Horsehead used stop-gap measures to
boost production in the short term that were unsustainable,
untested, highly risky and causing decreased operational
stability; (7) Horsehead did not have sufficient liquidity, cash
on hand and anticipated cash flows for general corporate purposes
to sustain it through the full ramp-up of the Mooresboro Facility;
and (8) as a result, Horsehead's public statements were materially
false and misleading at all relevant times. When the true details
entered the market, the lawsuit claims that investors suffered
damages.

A class action lawsuit has already been filed. If you wish to
serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no later than
June 21, 2016.  A lead plaintiff is a representative party acting
on behalf of other class members in directing the litigation. If
you wish to join the litigation, go to the firm's website at
http://rosenlegal.com/cases-886.htmlfor more information.
You may also contact Phillip Kim, Esq. or Kevin Chan, Esq. of
Rosen Law Firm toll free at 866-767-3653 or via email at
pkim@rosenlegal.com or kchan@rosenlegal.com

Rosen Law Firm represents investors throughout the globe,
concentrating its practice in securities class actions and
shareholder derivative litigation.


ILLINOIS: Residents' Request for Defense Litigation Plans Nixed
---------------------------------------------------------------
Heather Isringhausen Gvillo, writing for Madison-St. Clair Record,
reports that Madison County Circuit Judge Dennis Ruth denied an
Illinois resident's motion to compel the state's treasurer and
Firearms Services Bureau chief to provide their litigation plans
and personal information on all Illinoisans who were charged $1
more than state statute allows when they applied for a firearm
owner identification card (FOID).

Wood River attorney Thomas Maag filed the class action on Oct. 15
for plaintiff Gary Patrick Sterr, who says he was charged the
extra dollar in October as a convenience fee through the Illinois
E-pay program for processing applications online.

Represented by Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Jessica Trame and
Michael Frerichs responded to the plaintiff's motion to compel on
March 31, arguing that Mr. Sterr "does not provide a substantive
legal response to Defendants' objection, and the Court should deny
the Motion, name, mailing address, and/or email address, of any
putative class member in this case."

Ms. Trame, Firearms Services Bureau chief, and Mr. Frerichs,
Illinois treasurer, argue that Mr. Sterr is not entitled to the
defendants' counsel's legal theories, mental impressions or
litigation plans.

In his motion to compel, Mr. Sterr asked the defendants to state
the legal authority by which an additional fee can be charged for
a FOID card.

The defendants objected.

"Specifically, Plaintiff does not assert that he is seeking
factual material, but rather insists that legal authority be
presented," Assistant Attorney General Bilal Aziz wrote in the
response.

They explained that Mr. Sterr intends to file a summary judgment
motion and seeks to know what defenses may be raised to his
motion.

"As discussed, discovery is not intended to allow litigants to
delve into the legal theories of opposing counsel.  Instead,
parties use discovery to develop facts to assist in proving their
legal theory," Mr. Aziz wrote.

"It is not Defendants' counsel's role to guess what legal support
Plaintiff will advance and evaluate the merits, or lack thereof,
of Plaintiff's claims for Plaintiff's benefit.  Therefore,
Plaintiff has not identified a legal basis upon which the
undersigned can be compelled to turn over attorney work-product,
and the Motion should be denied," he continued.

The defendants further argue that Mr. Sterr's request for the
personal information of "over 124,000 non-parties" is burdensome,
premature and would invade the privacy of the individuals. They
say the request would be unnecessarily expensive before the court
even determines if the class should be certified.

On April 1, Ruth denied Mr. Sterr's Feb. 16 motion to compel for
being premature. However, he ordered the defendants to retain and
preserve the personal identification information for those who
applied for a FOID card on or after March 2015.

Further, Mr. Trame and Mr. Ferichs responded to Mr. Sterr's motion
to segregate on April 1, stating that they lack the capacity to
comply with his request.  They explain that "no named party over
which the Court has personal jurisdiction currently has possession
of the monies Plaintiff's motion seeks to segregate."

Instead, the $1 processing service fee is paid to a third-party
vendor.

"Put simply, any payments to the State of Illinois under the E-pay
system are remitted to the Office of the Illinois Treasurer, which
then distributes that money to the appropriate state fund and the
State does not receive any $1.00 service charges in connection
with the FOID program.

"Thus, Defendants cannot comply with the plaintiff's requested
Order.  The $1.00 service fee compensation to the third-party
vendor for processing applicants' application fee payments is
never in the possession of either Defendant.  Plaintiff clearly
requests that the $1.00 service fee charges is what he wants
segregated," the response states.

Mr. Sterr has until May 6 to reply to the response.  A motion
hearing is set for May 13 at 9 a.m.

In his complaint, Mr. Maag argues that statute 430 ILCS 65/5
expressly states that the FOID fee is $10.

By charging an additional $1, he claims Mr. Trame is unilaterally
imposing a 10 percent surcharge on FOID cards without statutory
authority.

He further claims it is impossible to get a FOID card without
paying the extra fee on top of the $10 mandatory cost (except for
certain members of the military who are exempt all together)
because the Firearms Services Bureau stopped accepting paper
applications that allowed people to mail $10 checks or money
orders.

"Defendants have charged a minimum of ten thousand people, and
possibly substantially more, well into the hundreds of thousands
or millions of class members," Mr. Maag wrote.

In 2011, the state received 321,000 FOID applications, he wrote.

Mr. Maag notes that in order to lawfully possess a firearm in
Illinois, "it is generally required to have in a person's
possession a currently valid" FOID card.

The plaintiff also asked the court to certify the case as a class
action.  Mr. Maag seeks to represent a class including anyone who
applied for a FOID card any time in 2015 and who paid a fee in
excess of $10.

Messrs. Trame and Frerichs objected to the class definition in
their April 15 response to Mr. Sterr's motion for class
certification.  They argue that the proposed class definition is
too vague and potentially overbroad. They ask that the class be
more specifically defined.

The defendants proposed a class certification to include "all
persons who applied for a Firearm Owners Identification card from
March 15, 2015, through and including the date of final judgment,
and paid a $1.00 payment processing service fee in addition to a
$10.00 application fee upon submission of that application."

Madison County Circuit Court case number 15-L-1337


JOHNS HOPKINS: Settlement Payouts in Levy Class Action Uncertain
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Prudente, writing for The Baltimore Sun, reports that
attorneys who have spent months poring over medical records said
they found no record of about 2,000 women who said they were
victimized by a Johns Hopkins gynecologist accused of secretly
recording women during pelvic exams.

Dr. Nikita Levy, who had practiced about 25 years at a Johns
Hopkins Medicine clinic in East Baltimore, killed himself in
February 2013 after the allegations emerged.  Police found more
than 1,300 photos and videos of undressed women.

In September 2014, more than a year after his suicide, a judge
approved a $190 million settlement between Hopkins and the women,
kicking off an enormous effort to interview and verify thousands
of possible victims.

No payments have been made yet to nearly 9,600 women in the class-
action lawsuit.  And this month, letters were sent to about 2,000
of the women stating that attorneys had found no documentation
showing they were Levy's patients, said
Michael Lee, the chief operating officer of RG/2 Claims
Administration LLC, the company managing the settlement.

The letter, a copy of which was obtained by The Baltimore Sun,
asks the women to answer and return an attached form by May 5.
Their answers will help attorneys continue their search.  The
letter also requests proof, such as test results, insurance
claims, prescription bottles, pharmacy records and birth
certificates.

"It's just very upsetting," said Anna Jackson of Parkville, who
said she saw Levy several times beginning in 1988.  "They want you
to come up with medical records that are practically impossible
for us to get."

As the months pass by, Jackson said, she grows increasingly
frustrated, particularly after learning her records were not
found.

"The only thing I can do is see if we can try and recover the
records," she said.  "I don't know if I'm going to be able to."

Claims administrators are urging patience.

"We understand that you want this process to be over.  We do,
too," retired Court of Appeals Judge Irma Raker, who is serving as
the claims adjudicator in the case, said in a video posted on a
website created to help women navigate the settlement.  "We're
working as fast and hard as we can."

Ms. Raker will propose how the settlement money is divided; the
court must approve her proposal.

She has a team of about 50 people managing the process: about 40
interviewers, also retired judges, a forensic psychiatrist and a
specialist in post-traumatic stress.  The team is paid from
settlement money, but it remains unclear how much they will
ultimately receive.

"It's an enormous undertaking for everybody, and it takes time,"
Ms. Raker said.

All the victims will be paid at the same time, after every woman
is interviewed, a process Ms. Raker expects to take several more
months.

About 60 percent of interviews are finished, according to
Mr. Lee.

Then women will be divided into four groups: no negative effects,
mild negative effects, moderate effects and severe.  The payments
will vary by group and depend on the number of women in each
group.

Administrators have declined to predict the amount of payments.

While more months of interviews will bring the process to nearly
two years from the settlement, that's a reasonable timeline, said
Greg Dolin, a professor at University of Baltimore School of Law.

"It's important to know who's in and who's out," Mr. Dolin said.
"Given the fact that this went on for decades and involved, from
what I understand, thousands of women . . . it would probably take
some time for the settlement to actually be paid."

Vanessa Mack of Parkville also received the letter stating her
records weren't found.  She was a patient of Levy's for about 20
years beginning in the 1980s, she said.

"It was going pretty good," she said.  "Then they turned around,
and it looked like they snatched it away from me."

Ms. Jackson, 69, and Ms. Mack, 62, both said they're worried older
records are lost.

Allison Carroll, 50, Ms. Jackson's daughter, also received the
letter.  She was a patient in the early 1990s and 2000, she said.

"Just look at how many older people are receiving that letter,"
Ms. Carroll said.  "It's like all the younger people don't have
problems and all the older people are getting these letters."

All determinations are based on Hopkins records, Mr. Lee said.

Hopkins spokeswoman Kim Hoppe declined to say how long patient
records are kept.  But she said Hopkins maintains records
"consistent with and often exceeding" state law, which generally
requires health care providers to keep patient records at least
five years.

Hopkins continues to share records with the attorneys, Ms. Hoppe
said.

Documents related to the case, obtained by The Baltimore Sun under
the public information act, show police believe 310 to 360
patients -- including 60 young girls -- were filmed.

Lawyers said thousands of patients were victimized by the
revelations.  Levy was exposed when a co-worker became suspicious
of the pen he wore on a lanyard around his neck.  The co-worker
brought the pen home and discovered a tiny camera.

The victims cannot be identified in the photos, so every woman who
was a patient of Levy was eligible to join the class-action
lawsuit.

In her recent video, Ms. Raker assured women those images remain
secure.

"Those photographs are sealed.  They are under lock and key by
order of the Circuit Court. No one is looking at them now," she
said.  "There is no evidence any of those photographs have been
shared on the Internet."

Claims administrators created a website with information about the
settlement process, drlevyclassaction.com.

Women can help expedite the process by being available for their
interviews and updating their contact information on the website.

Some women received letters stating their documentation was not
found.  The letters are not a denial. Women are urged to complete
the included form and return it by May 5.

Several months are expected to pass before victims are paid.
Payments will be made to all women at the same time.

Questions should be directed to RG/2 Claims Administration,
855-731-7491; info@drlevyclassaction.com


KANSAS: Judges Set to Rule on Dispute Over Voter Registrations
--------------------------------------------------------------
Roxana Hegeman, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
voting rolls in Kansas are in "chaos" because of the state's
proof-of-citizenship requirements, the American Civil Liberties
Union has argued in a court document, noting that about two-thirds
of new voter registration applications submitted during a three-
week period in February are on hold.

Kansas is fending off multiple legal challenges from voting rights
activists, and just months before the state's August primary, the
status of the "dual registration" system remains unclear.  Federal
judges in separate voter-registration lawsuits unfolding in Kansas
and Washington, D.C., could rule at any time. There's also greater
urgency because registrations typically surge during an election
year.

Kansas is one of four states, along with Georgia, Alabama and
Arizona, to require documentary proof of citizenship -- such as a
birth certificate, passport or naturalization papers -- to
register to vote. Under Kansas' challenged system, voters who
registered using a federal form, which hadn't required proof of
U.S. citizenship, could only vote in federal races and not in
state or local races. Kansas says it will keep the dual voting
system in place for upcoming elections if the courts allow its
residents to register to vote either with a federal form or at
motor vehicle offices without providing proof of citizenship.

The following things were revealed in various court filings:

   -- Of the more than 22,000 submitted voter registration
applications submitted between Feb. 1 and Feb. 21, only 7,444 were
completed with proof of citizenship, State Elections Director
Bryan Caskey said.  That meant the majority of those registrants
were put on the suspense list, and their voting registrations will
be purged after 90 days unless proper documents are submitted.

   -- Younger citizens were affected the most. Although those
between the ages of 18 and 29 comprise only 14.9 percent of
registered Kansas voters, that age group makes up more than 58
percent of applicants who registered at motor vehicle offices and
are on the suspense list.

   -- Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach contends that since
the provisions went into effect Jan. 1, 2013, a total of 244,699
people completed their registrations, accounting for about 94
percent of all applicants.

Since the beginning of the year, the state's voter registration
system has been at the forefront of legal challenges.

On Jan. 15, a Shawnee County District Court judge ruled
Mr. Kobach has no authority to bar voters who use a federal form
to register from casting ballots in local and state elections. The
judge also said the right to vote is not tied to the method of
registration.

Two weeks later, the new executive director of the U.S. Elections
Assistance Commission unilaterally -- and without approval of the
commission -- required citizenship documentation on the federal
registration form for voters in Kansas, Georgia and Alabama.
Kobach has argued the dual voting system is no longer needed and
asked a state court to reconsider its earlier ruling as moot.  The
judge has yet to rule on that request.

The League of Women Voters, joined by other voting rights groups,
filed a lawsuit Feb. 12 against EAC head Brian Newby and the EAC,
contending his action will hurt voter registration drives and
deprive eligible voters of the right to vote in the presidential
primary elections.  A ruling is pending in federal court in
Washington over a requested temporary order to block the changes
for the three states.

The ACLU filed a federal lawsuit Feb. 18 seeking class-action
status in Kansas City, Kansas, arguing that Kansas residents
trying to register to vote at motor vehicle offices are being
forced to provide documentary proof of citizenship in violation of
federal law.  The ACLU is seeking a temporary court order that
would allow people to register at motor vehicle offices without
providing the citizenship paperwork, and a decision is expected
soon.

One thing seems almost certain: All rulings will likely be
appealed.


KIDFRESH LLC: Faces N.Y. Suit Over Labeling of Frozen Meals
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reporte that though marketed as "all
natural" and "packed with goodness," Kidfresh frozen meals are
high in saturated fat, consumers claim in Manhattan a federal
class action.


KITTLE'S HOME: Ind. Ct. App. Affirms Ruling in "Bragg"
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Dorothea Bragg, on Behalf of Herself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Appellants-Plaintiffs, v. Kittle's Home
Furnishings, Inc., Appellee-Defendant, No. 49A02-1506-PL-653 (Ind.
Ct. App.), the Court of Appeals of Indiana concluded that the
trial court did not err in dismissing the claims raised on behalf
of unknown purported class members whose employment was
involuntarily terminated by Kittle's Home Furnishings, Inc. or in
awarding summary judgment in favor of Kittle's.

On June 4, 2014, Dorothea Bragg, both on behalf of herself and on
behalf of a proposed class of unknown current and former Kittle's
employees, filed a lawsuit against Kittle's.  In this lawsuit,
Bragg alleged that Kittle's had failed to pay its employees earned
commissions within the 10-day limit set forth in the Indiana Wage
Payment Statute.  Of note, Bragg did not allege that Kittle's had
failed to pay her or any of the other unknown purported class
members any commissions actually earned by the employees, only
that Kittle's failed to do so within the ten-day limit set forth
in the Wage Payment Statute.

Kittle's subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit.  With
respect to the claims relating to any of the unknown purported
class members whose employment had been involuntarily terminated
by Kittle's, the trial court granted Kittle's motion to dismiss
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.  With respect to the
claims relating to Bragg, and seemingly any potential remaining
unknown purported class members, the trial court converted
Kittle's motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.
After the parties submitted designated evidence and legal argument
in support on their position on Kittle's motion for summary
judgment, the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of
Kittle's.

Upon review, the Court of Appeals of Indiana concluded that (1)
the trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the claims
raised on behalf of any unknown purported class members whose
employment with Kittle's was involuntarily terminated because the
said unknown purported class members failed to first submit their
claims to the Indiana Department of Labor as required by the
Indiana Wage Claims Statute; (2) the trial court did not abuse its
discretion in denying certain discovery requests made by Bragg;
and (3) the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor
of Kittle's on the claims raised by Bragg and any remaining
unknown purported class members because the ten-day time limit set
forth in the Wage Payment Statute did not apply to the commissions
at issue as said commissions did not qualify as wages under the
Wage Payment Statute.

A full-text copy of the appellate court's April 11, 2016 opinion
is available at http://is.gd/1VQtXvfrom Leagle.com.

Ronald E. Weldy -- weldy@weldylaw.com -- Weldy Law, Indianapolis,
Indiana, Attorney for Appellants.

Bonnie L. Martin -- bonnie.martin@ogletreedeakins.com -- Steven F.
Pockrass, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C.,
Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee.


KPC LAKEVIEW: Faces "Derilus" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Franceline Derilus, on her own behalf and others similarly
situated v. KPC Lakeview Development LLC, d/b/a Hyatt Place West
Palm Beach, and Sandra Schryver, Case No. 9:16-cv-80654-WPD (S.D.
Fla., April 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel in West Palm Beach,
Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


KRAFT HEINZ: Keller Rohrback Files Deceptive Labeling Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. on April 25 filed a class action lawsuit
against Kraft Heinz Foods Company alleging that Kraft misled
consumers by marketing parmesan cheese products that contain 3.8%
wood-pulp content as "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese."  The complaint
seeks to refund consumers for purchases they made based upon the
deceptive labeling and prevent Kraft from misleading consumers
about its grated cheese products.

Keller Rohrback L.L.P., a nationally-recognized leader in
representing consumers in class action lawsuits, is now
investigating similar allegations against Walmart Stores, Inc.
(WMT).  Independent laboratory testing has confirmed that
Walmart's Great Value Brand "100% Grated Parmesan Cheese" products
may contain even higher percentages of wood pulp content; nearly
7.8 percent, according to some reports.

"Walmart Stores, Inc. cannot and should not mislead consumers by
labeling its Great Value brand parmesan cheese as '100% cheese' if
it, in fact, contains nearly 8 percent wood-pulp content," said
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. attorney Tana Lin.

If you feel like you have been misled by Walmart's deceptive
marketing and labeling of its Great Value brand "100% Grated
Parmesan Cheese" and would like to know more about your rights,
please contact attorneys Tana Lin or Michael Meredith, or
paralegal AJ de Vries, at (800) 776-6044 or via email at
consumer@kellerrohrback.com

With offices in Seattle, Phoenix, New York, Ronan, Oakland, and
Santa Barbara, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. serves as lead and co-lead
counsel in class actions throughout the country.


KRASNYI OKTYABR: Recalls Salted Fish Products Due to C. Botulinum
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Krasnyi Oktyabr Inc. in Brooklyn, NY, is recalling Vobla (Roach)
Dry Eviscerated Salted Fish and Bream Dry Eviscerated Salted Fish
because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Clostridium botulinum, a bacterium which can cause life
threatening illness or death. Consumers are warned not to use the
products even if they do not look or smell spoiled.

Botulism, a potential fatal form of food poisoning, can cause the
following symptoms: general weakness, dizziness, blurred or
double-vision and trouble with speaking or swallowing. Difficulty
in breathing weakness of other muscles abdominal distention and
constipation may also be common symptoms. People experiencing
these problems should seek immediate medical attention.

The products were imported from Russia and sold to retail stores
in New York and California from February through April 2016.

The products are sold in un-coded clear, vacuum pack plastic bags,
each weighing 5.29 ounces:

VOBLA (ROACH) DRY EVISCERATED SALTED FISH, UPC 4606495-001308;
BREAM - DRY EVISCERATED SALTED FISH, UPC 4606495001346
The potential for contamination was noted after routine sampling
and inspection by the US Food and Drug Administration and
subsequent analysis of the Bream fish by the FDA confirmed that
the Bream fish was not properly eviscerated prior to processing.
No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

Consumers who have purchased Vobla Dry Eviscerated Salted Fish and
Bream Dry Eviscerated Salted Fish are advised not to eat them, but
should return them to the place of purchase. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 718-858-6720, Monday -
Friday, 9 am - 4 pm EDT.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/6scNtn


LANNETT COMPANY: Sued Over Generic Digoxin, Doxycycline Pricing
---------------------------------------------------------------
Edward Carpinelli, on behalf of himself and all similarly situated
v. Lannett Company, Inc., Impax Laboratories, Inc., West-Ward
Pharmaceuticals Corporation, Allergan plc, Mylan Pharmaceuticals,
Inc., and Par Pharmaceutical Companies, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
01954-CMR (E.D. Penn., April 25, 2016), arises from the
Defendants' and others' alleged unlawful combination, agreement
and conspiracy to fix, maintain, and stabilize the prices of
generic digoxin or doxycycline products.

Digoxin is s prescription drug that is used to treat mild to
moderate heart failure in adults, increase the heart contracting
functions for pediatric patients with heart failure, and control
the resting heart rate in adult patients with chronic atrial
fibrillation.

Doxycycline monohydrate is a prescription antibiotic used in
treating humans and animals.

The Defendants own and operate pharmaceutical companies that
manufacture and distribute generic digoxin and generic
doxycycline.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald J. Rodos, Esq.
      Jeffrey B. Gittleman, Esq.
      Chad A. Carder, Esq.
      3300 Two Commerce Square 2001
      Market Street Philadelphia, PA  19103
      Telephone: (215) 963-0600
      Facsimile: (215) 963-0838
      E-mail: GRodos@barrack.com
              JGittleman@barrack.com
              Ccarder@barrack.com

         - and -

      R. Alexander Saveri, Esq.
      Cadio Zirpoli, Esq.
      Travis L. Manfredi, Esq.
      SAVERI & SAVERI, INC.
      706 Sansome Street
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 217-6810
      Facsimile: (415) 217-6813
      E-mail: rick@saveri.com
              cadio@saveri.com
              travis@saveri.com

         - and -

      Randy Renick, Esq.
      HADSELL STORMER & RENICK, LLP
      128 N. Fair Oaks Ave.
      Pasadena, CA 91001
      Telephone: (626) 585-9600
      Facsimile: (626) 585-9610
      E-mail: rrr@hadsellstormer.com

         - and -

      Robert J. Bonsignore, Esq.
      Lisa A. Sleboda, Esq.
      Wendy K. Angulo, Esq.
      BONSIGNORE TRIAL LAWYERS, PLLC
      3771 Meadowcrest Drive
      Las Vegas, NV 89121
      Telephone: (781) 856-7650
      Facsimile: (702) 852-5726
      E-mail: rbonsignore@class-actions.us
              lsleboda@class-actions.us
              wangulo@class-actions.us

         - and -

      Allan Steyer, Esq.
      D. Scott Macrae, Esq.
      Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas, Esq.
      ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
      One California Street, Suite 300
      San Francisco, CA  94111
      Telephone: (415) 421-3400
      Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
      E-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
              smacrae@steyerlaw.com


LA QUINTA HOLDINGS: Robbins Geller Files Securities Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP ("Robbins Geller") on April 25
disclosed that a class action has been commenced in the United
States District Court for the Southern District of New York on
behalf of all those who purchased the common stock of La Quinta
Holdings Inc. ("La Quinta") pursuant to the Company's secondary
public offering (the "SPO") on or about March 24, 2015, seeking to
pursue remedies under the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities
Act"), as well as on behalf of purchasers of La Quinta common
stock between February 25, 2015 and September 17, 2015, inclusive
(the "Class Period"), seeking to pursue remedies under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act").

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from April 25, 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/laquinta/

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 La Quinta, certain of its officers and
directors, The Blackstone Group L.P. and the lead underwriters of
the SPO with violations of the Securities Act and/or the Exchange
Act.  La Quinta describes itself as a leading owner, operator and
franchisor of select-service hotels serving primarily the midscale
and upper-midscale markets.

The complaint alleges that the Registration Statement and
Prospectus issued in connection with the SPO failed to disclose
the following material trends, events and/or uncertainties: (i)
the Company was experiencing declining customer demand in La
Quinta's key Texas market; (ii) there were on-going disruptions
caused by the transitioning of the Company's call center
operations; and (iii) the Company was experiencing declining
customer demand and market share losses due, in part, to certain
of La Quinta's facilities being outdated and in need of major
renovation, thereby necessitating that the Company make
significant capital expenditures and undergo operational
disruptions.

Moreover, 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, defendants misrepresented and/or failed to disclose,
among other things, the following adverse facts: (a) that there
was a material slowdown in demand for its hotel rooms in its key
Texas market during the Class Period; (b) that La Quinta was
experiencing disruptions associated with a "transition" of the
Company's reservation call center, which was having a material
adverse effect on the Company's operations; (c) that La Quinta was
facing market share losses and declining customer demand due, in
part, to its outdated facilities; (d) that a significant number of
La Quinta's hotels were in need of major renovation, which would
require significant capital expenditures and result in operational
disruptions; (e) that La Quinta had overstated the amounts buyers
were willing to pay for certain of its properties; (f) that (a)-
(e) above were reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect
on La Quinta's future operating results; and (g) that, based on
the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for the
Company's 2015 guidance and their positive statements about La
Quinta's then-current business and future financial prospects.

On July 29, 2015, the Company announced its financial results for
the second quarter of 2015, ended June 30, 2015.  Among other
things, La Quinta reported that the Company's earnings had been
adversely affected by a $4 million loss on the sale of a property
and an approximate $42 million impairment charge associated with
the potential sale of 24 Company-owned hotels.  In response to
these revelations, the price of La Quinta common stock declined
approximately 3.5% on July 30, 2015.

On September 17, 2015, La Quinta announced that it had further
reduced its 2015 financial guidance and that its President and
Chief Executive Officer had stepped down from his leadership
positions in the Company by mutual agreement with the Company's
Board of Directors.  In response to these revelations, the price
of La Quinta common stock declined more than 15% on September 18,
2015.

Plaintiff seeks to recover damages on behalf of all purchasers of
La Quinta common stock pursuant to the SPO and 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.

Robbins Geller, with 200 lawyers in ten offices, --
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.


LA QUINTA: Faces "Beisel" Suit Over Misleading Financial Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Beisel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. La Quinta Holdings Inc., Wayne B. Goldberg, Keith A.
Cline, James H. Forson, Glenn Alba, Alan J. Bowers, Henry G.
Cisneros, Giovanni Cutaia, Brian Kim, Michael Nash, Mitesh B.
Shah, Gary M. Sumers, The Blackstone Group L.P., J.P. Morgan
Securities, LLC, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03068-
AJN (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made
false and misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose
material adverse facts about the Company's business, operations,
and prospects.

La Quinta Holdings Inc. is a Delaware company that owns, operates
and franchises select-service hotels.

The Blackstone Group L.P. is a multinational private equity,
investment banking, alternative asset management and financial
services corporation based in New York City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
      David A. Rosenfeld, Esq.
      Mario Alba Jr., Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200
      Melville, NY 11747
      Telephone: (631) 367-7100
      Facsimile: (631) 367-1173
      E-mail: srudman@rgrdlaw.com
              drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com
              malba@rgrdlaw.com

         - and -

      Corey D. Holzer, Esq.
      Marshall P. Dees, Esq.
      HOLZER & HOLZER, LLC
      1200 Ashwood Parkway, Suite 410
      Atlanta, GA 30338
      Telephone: (770) 392-0090
      Facsimile: (770) 392-0029
      E-mail: cholzer@holzerlaw.com
              mdees@holzerlaw.com


LEKKI GARDENS: Residents Disclaim Call for Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Kingsley Adegboye, writing for Vanguard, reports that against the
backdrop of a call by Ms. Funke Aboyade, a Senior Advocate of
Nigeria SAN, urging homeowners and residents in all the estates
built by Lekki Gardens Homes Limited to file a class action to
seek judicial reprieve following the uncertainties surrounding the
firm because one of its buildings under construction collapsed in
Lekki recently, the residents and homeowners under the aegis of
Committee of Lekki Gardens Residents' and Homeowners'
Associations, have disclaimed the call.

According to the associations at a meeting in Lekki Gardens
Phase 1 Estate attended by their executive council members, a full
page advertorial in one of the national dailies sponsored by the
SAN about two weeks ago, had suggested that the advertorial was
published on their behalf.  But in a swift reaction to the
publication and a similar publication in Castles magazine of April
10th to 16th, 2016, with the caption "Lekki Gardens Saga", the
committee comprising seven associations unanimously denied the
publication and its sponsor.  The associations present at the
meeting include Horizon 1 Estate, Horizon 2 Estate, Lekki Chevron
Paradise 3 Estate and Lekki Gardens Phase 3 Estate. Others are
Lekki Gardens Phase 4 Estate, Lekki Gardens Phase 2 Estate and
Lekki Gardens Phase 1 Estate.  They deposed that "The residents'
and homeowners' associations are not in support of this suggested
course of action as we believe that the government authorities are
fully capable of doing their jobs under the circumstances.  We
take very strong exception to those parts of the publication where
it was alleged that the investors were aware or suspected that the
buildings being built by Lekki Gardens were defective. We deny
this in its entirety.

"All the housing estates developed by Lekki Gardens and occupied
by investors and residents have legally registered residents' and
homeowners' associations representing their interests.  The
suggested class action is not in the best interest of the
investors and residents.

"The houses developed by Lekki Gardens already belong to investors
as the homes are sold off plan.  In whose interest is the SAN
acting? Her proposed course of action to institute a class action
is premature and shall be counter -- productive at this stage.
"We therefore call on all investors and home owners to reject the
advert and rather join hands and work with the residents' and
homeowners' associations, who have jointly disclaimed the
advertorial in order to protect our investments in our own way.
We believe that it will amount to double jeopardy for some people
to attempt to use this misfortune of Lekki Gardens Limited as an
opportunity to increase their own fortunes at our expense.  "The
residents' and homeowners' associations believe that no one can
love us more than ourselves and any solution that is not supported
by the people directly involved is window dressing and at best an
exercise in futility.

"It is instructive to note that amongst the numerous home owners,
residents and investors in the estates of Lekki Gardens Estates
Limited are many senior and vastly experienced lawyers who have
reviewed the facts of this matter and come to the conclusion that
the institution of a class action at this present moment is not in
the interest of the investors and is not the best approach to
adopt in order to protect their investments.  "For the avoidance
of any doubt the respective residents and homeowner' Associations
categorically state that they have not engaged Ms Funke Aboyade,
SAN or any other legal firm or practitioner to either institute a
class action or make any legal representation on their behalf.

"While we express our deepest sympathy to the families of the
people who lost their loved ones or who were injured in the
unfortunate incident, we are compelled to take a stand in the
unfolding drama as directly involved persons in this whole case",
the committee of associations said.


LOCKWOOD ANDREWS: Faces "Mays" Suit Over Civil Rights Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Melissa Mays, Michael Mays, Jacqueline Pemberton, Keith John
Pemberton, Elnora Carthan, Rhonda Kelso, individually and as next
friend of mone minor child, all on behalf of themselves and a
class of all others similarly situated v. Lockwood, Andrews &
Newnam, P.C., Andrews & Newnam, Inc., and Leo A. Daly Company,
Case No. 2:16-cv-11480-RHC-SDD (E.D. Mich., April 25, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for civil rights violation.

The Defendants operate a consulting firm offering planning,
engineering and program management services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      William H. Goodman, Esq.
      GOODMAN AND HURWITZ
      1394 E. Jefferson Avenue
      Detroit, MI 48207
      Telephone: (313) 567-6170
      Facsimile: (313) 567-4827
      E-mail: bgoodman@goodmanhurwitz.com


MABVAX THERAPEUTICS: No Add'l Expenses Expected in Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Mabvax Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Company anticipates that there will be no additional future
expenses incurred related to a California class action lawsuit
that has been settled.

On May 30, 2014, a class action lawsuit was commenced in Santa
Clara County Superior Court, State of California, on behalf of
Cadillac Partners and others similarly situated, naming as
defendants, MabVax Therapeutics, the Company and the Company's
directors, Hudson Bay Capital Management LP, Bio IP Ventures LLC,
Hudson Bay Master Fund Ltd., and Hudson Bay IP Opportunities
Master Fund LP, together the "Parties". The suit alleged the
defendants breached certain fiduciary duties, or aided and abetted
a breach of fiduciary duties, in connection with the Company's
merger with MabVax Therapeutics. In support of their purported
claims, the plaintiff alleged, among other things, that the
Company's board has historically failed to fulfill its fiduciary
duty to its stockholders, and claiming with respect to the Series
B Private Placement and the Merger, that such transactions
involved an inadequate sales process and included preclusive deal
protection devices, and that the Company's board of directors
would receive personal benefits not available to its public
stockholders as a result of the Merger. The plaintiff sought to
enjoin the Merger and obtain damages as well as attorneys' and
expert fees and costs.

On June 29, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation and
Settlement (the "Settlement"), pursuant to which the Company
agreed to file with the SEC certain supplemental disclosures in
connection with the merger. The Settlement was subject to certain
confirmatory discovery to be undertaken by the plaintiff and to
the Parties' agreement on the payment of the plaintiff's
attorneys' fees and expenses.

On July 16, 2014, the Company and all other parties to the
litigation entered into an agreement which, if consummated, would
settle the litigation (the "Proposed Settlement"). Among many
other terms, under the Proposed Settlement the Company and all
defendants will receive a broad release of any and all claims
pertaining to the Series B Private Placement, the Merger, the
prior disclosure and a wide variety of other matters. The Proposed
Settlement also calls for the parties to ask the court to, among
other things, enter orders enjoining other stockholders from
bringing similar actions, certifying the putative settlement
class, and approving the Proposed Settlement as a fair, final, and
binding resolution of the litigation. Under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have expressly
denied the allegations of the complaint and denied engaging in any
other misconduct, nor will any of them make any payment or in any
respect amend the negotiated terms of the since-consummated Series
B Private Placement and merger. Finally, under the Proposed
Settlement, the Company and the other defendants have not agreed
to pay any legal fees, or reimburse any expenses, allegedly
incurred by the plaintiffs who filed the complaint; instead, the
Company expects that counsel for those plaintiffs will present any
such disputed claim for legal fees and expenses to the court for
resolution.

On April 20, 2015, the Parties made an application for an Order
for Notice and Scheduling of Hearing of Settlement in accordance
with a Stipulation of Settlement dated as of April 20, 2015 (the
"Action"), which sets forth the terms and conditions for
settlement and which provides for dismissal of the Action with
prejudice.  The Order after Hearing on June 12, 2015, provided
preliminary approval of the settlement that was agreed to by the
Parties, in which the Company provided supplemental disclosures in
the definitive proxy filed with the SEC on June 30, 2014.  Notice
of the action as a class action was sent to class members in July
2015.

On September 18, 2015, an Order and Final Judgment was entered by
the Superior Court of the State of California, approving the
settlement that was agreed upon by both parties and closing the
case.  The Company anticipates that there will be no additional
future expenses incurred in this action by the Company after the
December 31, 2015 balance sheet date which would not be offset by
insurance.

MabVax is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company focused on
discovering and developing innovative monoclonal antibody-based
therapeutics and vaccines for the diagnosis and treatment of
cancer.


MAJOR LEAGUE: Samuel & Stein Faces Rule 11 Sanctions Motion
-----------------------------------------------------------
Reuters' Alison Frankel reports that the New York plaintiffs' firm
Samuel & Stein took seriously a threat from the class action
lawyers who negotiated a settlement of claims against Major League
Baseball for colluding with teams to monopolize broadcast rights
to games.  Samuel & Stein represented an objector to the proposed
settlement, which reduces the price of MLB viewing packages.  But
when class counsel from Langer Grogan & Diver said they would move
for sanctions unless the objection was withdrawn, Samuel & Stein
asked for leave to drop out of the case.

"We simply do not feel that we have sufficient confidence in the
objection," the firm said in an April 21 letter to U.S. District
Judge Shira Scheindlin of Manhattan, who granted the withdrawal
motion.

Nevertheless, Langer Grogan brought a Rule 11 sanctions motion
against Samuel & Stein and its erstwhile client the next day,
requesting a $50,000 fine against each of them for bringing a
frivolous objection.

Why the extreme tactic of moving for sanctions against a firm that
has already quit the case? Because Samuel & Stein isn't the true
target of Langer Grogan's motion.  That distinction belongs to
Christopher Bandas, the Corpus Christi, Texas, lawyer who is one
of the most prolific -- and reviled -- class action objectors'
counsel in the country.  From California to New York, class action
lawyers have persuaded federal judges that Bandas represents
objectors not in order to improve settlement terms but to force
plaintiffs' lawyers to pay him to drop appeals blocking final case
resolutions.

Lately, Mr. Bandas keeps his name off of official court dockets,
as he did in the MLB case. Samuel & Stein explained in its letter
to Judge Scheindlin that it is only local counsel to its client in
the MLB litigation, Sean Hull, who came to the firm through Mr.
Bandas.  Class counsel in the MLB case claims that Mr. Bandas
avoids entering appearances so that courts will not have
jurisdiction to impose sanctions upon him.  That tactic, according
to Langer Grogan, dates back to 2013, when U.S. District Judge
James Robart of Seattle sanctioned the Texas lawyer for willfully
disobeying a court order to explain the failure to post an
appellate bond.

Instead, according to Langer Grogan's motion in the MLB case,
Mr. Bandas uses surrogates like Samuel & Stein, which previously
worked as local counsel for Mr. Bandas in other class actions,
including a short-lived objection to the Apple e-books settlement.
(The judge overseeing the e-books case described the objection as
having "extraordinarily little validity.") When
Mr. Bandas contacted Samuel & Stein to file a last-minute
objection in the MLB case, the firm said in its letter to Judge
Scheindlin, Mr. Bandas said his firm would prepare the objection.
"Perhaps unwisely," Samuel & Stein said, "we agreed to assist him"
in filing the document.

Mr. Bandas refused to drop the objection when Samuel & Stein
informed him that it wanted out of the case, according to the
firm's letter to Judge Scheindlin.  He supposedly told Samuel &
Stein that the objection his firm had drafted was not frivolous
and he was prepared to defend it.

Class counsel in the MLB case said the only way to stop Bandas and
his confederates from taking advantage of the objection process is
to make them pay.  "Despite courts repeatedly concluding that Mr.
Bandas and his clients and associates have done just that, they
persist in filing baseless objections 'in order to get paid to go
away,'" the sanctions motion said.  "It is clear that only the
imposition of significant sanctions will prevent them from
continuing to abuse the justice system in this manner."

Objectors obviously have an important role in class actions.  Once
defendants and class counsel reach an agreement, objectors are the
only stakeholders who scrutinize proposed settlements.  When they
raise legitimate issues about, say, inadequate compensations, cy
pres or attorneys' fees, the entire class benefits.

(Class counsel, who are slated to receive $16.5 million if the
settlement is approved, say Judge Scheindlin took money damages
out of the case when she refused to certify a damages class; they
contend the price reduction in viewing packages is worth as much
as $205 million to class members).

If Judge Scheindlin determines Mr. Bandas and his client were ill-
intended, I hope she does demand a penalty from the
objector -- and even from Mr. Bandas' former co-counsel at Samuel
& Stein.  Class actions are too embattled to be corrupted from
within.


MAZDA: Faces Calif. Suit Over Defective Clutch Release Levers
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service, reported that Mazda 3 model 2010-2015
vehicles have defective clutch release levers that can cause
premature clutch system and transmission failure, a class action
claims in Oakland, Calif. Federal Court.


MDL 2543: Hilliard Stays as Lead Counsel in Ignition Switch Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH
LITIGATION This Document Relates To All Actions, Nos. 14-MD-2543
(JMF), 14-MC-2543 (JMF) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Jesse M. Furman denied a
motion seeking to remove Robert C. Hilliard as lead counsel for
the plaintiffs.

The multi-district litigation ("MDL") relates to highly publicized
defects in certain General Motors ("GM") branded vehicles and
associated vehicle recalls.  The MDL includes putative class
actions seeking to recover for economic losses allegedly sustained
by certain GM car owners and approximately 3,000 individual
personal injury or wrongful death claims.  As is common in
litigation of this scale and complexity, early on in the process,
the court appointed the plaintiffs' lawyers to leadership
positions, including three lawyers as co-lead counsel -- Steve W.
Berman, Elizabeth J. Cabraser, and Robert C. Hilliard -- and ten
other lawyers to an Executive Committee.  The court directed
Berman and Cabraser to focus on economic class claims and Hilliard
to focus on personal injury and wrongful death claims, but the
three have, in most respects, acted as a team.

All appeared to be going smoothly for the MDL plaintiffs until
January, when the first "bellwether" personal injury case went to
trial.  On January 22, 2016, after it came to light that the
plaintiff in that case, Robert Scheuer, may have committed perjury
and fraud, the case was voluntarily dismissed.  The next business
day, a handful of plaintiffs represented by attorney Lance Cooper
(the "Cooper Plaintiffs"), one of the lawyers appointed to the
Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, filed a Motion To Remove Lead
Counsel, initially seeking to remove all three Lead Counsel, but
later clarifying that they sought the removal only of Hilliard.  A
few days later, the Cooper Plaintiffs followed with a Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order Approving the Establishment of the
2015 New GM Ignition Switch Qualified Settlement Fund, essentially
seeking to undo an agreement between Hilliard and General Motors
LLC ("New GM") to settle the claims of approximately 1,380
plaintiffs represented by Hilliard.  In their motions, the Cooper
Plaintiffs made a number of serious allegations against Hilliard,
accusing him of, at best, mismanagement and, at worst, self-
dealing.

On February 10, 2016, Judge Furman issued a "bottom-line" Order
denying the Cooper Plaintiffs' motions on the ground that they
were "patently untimely," fell "short of meeting the rigorous
standards applicable to motions for reconsideration," and
ultimately amounted to little more than "'Monday morning
quarterbacking'" that did "not even come close to providing a
legal basis for the drastic step of removing Lead Counsel."  Judge
Furman also denied a motion filed by Hilliard and co-counsel
seeking entry of a protective order prohibiting Cooper and others
from contacting their clients "in violation of Rule 4.2 of the New
York Rules of Professional Conduct."

A full-text copy of Judge Furman's April 12, 2016 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/W4GPRYfrom Leagle.com.

GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by
Elizabeth J. Cabraser -- ecabraser@lchb.com -- Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein, Robert Hilliard, Hilliard Munoz Gonzales LLP,
pro hac vice, Steve W. Berman -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Daniel Fayne Dotson, Law
Office of Daniel F. Dotson, Mark Parker Robinson, Robinson
Calcagnie Robinson Shapiro Davis, Inc. & Elizabeth J. Cabraser,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, L.L.P..

Shenyesa Henry, Madelaine Koppelman, Frances Ann Fagans, Wayne
Wittenberg, David Young, Nathaniel Fagans, Paul Pollastro,
Plaintiffs, represented by Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

GM Ignition Switch MDL Defendants, Defendant, represented by
Andrew Baker Bloomer -- andrew.bloomer@kirkland.com -- Kirkland &
Ellis LLP.


MDL 2669: Court Rules on Plaintiffs' Bid to Use Pseudonyms
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John A. Ross denied, in part, Plaintiffs' Motion
for Leave to Proceed under Pseudonyms in the case, IN RE ASHLEY
MADISON CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION, MDL No. 2669
(E.D. Mo.).

The multidistrict litigation arises from a data security breach
involving AshleyMadison.com, a "dating" website that represents
itself as a site to facilitate intimate relationships for
individuals who are either married or in a committed relationship.
Defendant Avid Dating Life, Inc. ("Avid") owns and operates the
website. Plaintiffs in these actions allege, on behalf of similar
putative nationwide or state classes, that Avid failed to
adequately secure their personal and financial information;
marketed a "Full Delete Removal" service that did not, in fact,
purge user account information from the Ashley Madison database;
and made extensive use of artificial intelligence "bots" and other
mechanisms to mimic fake users (specifically, female users) on the
Ashley Madison website in order to induce actual (predominantly
male) users to make purchases.

Following an initial status conference with counsel on January 26,
2015, Plaintiffs were ordered to file any Motion for Leave to
Proceed Under Pseudonyms by February 15, 2016.  The Court also
ordered the parties to file, if necessary, an agreed upon limited
protective order concerning the disclosure of the Doe Plaintiffs'
identities pending the Court's ruling on Plaintiffs' motion to
proceed under pseudonyms no later than February 15, 2016.  On the
parties' consent motion, the Court entered the parties' agreed
upon limited protective order on February 16, 2016.

Forty-two Plaintiffs seeking to represent a class of users of the
Ashley Madison website have filed under pseudonym "to reduce the
risk of potentially catastrophic personal and professional
consequences that could befall them and their families" should
they be publicly identified as someone whose sensitive personal
information, i.e., names, email addresses, credit card
information, and sexual preferences and habits, was contained in
Avid's "cheating website" database.

Avid opposes Plaintiffs' motion on the grounds that anonymous
lawsuits are not permitted except in rare and exceptional
circumstances, none of which apply here.  Avid further argues it
will be significantly prejudiced if Plaintiffs are permitted to
proceed anonymously.  Lastly, if the 42 unnamed plaintiffs prefer
to remain anonymous, they should do so as class members.

Judge Ross held that Plaintiffs currently proceeding under
pseudonym who are seeking to serve as class representatives must
decide whether to proceed using their real names or dismiss their
complaints and proceed, without publicly disclosing their names,
as class members -- if and when a class is certified. The Court
believes this balancing of the equities does not deny a remedy to
those Plaintiffs wishing to remain anonymous. Plaintiffs reply
that forcing some of them to drop their claims could leave a
number of subclasses without a named representative.  But the
Court said the possibility that subclasses might not be
represented is purely speculative at this stage of the
proceedings. If this situation were to occur, the Court can
revisit its order.

A copy of the Court's Memorandum and Order dated April 6, 2016, is
available at http://is.gd/tWuqHqfrom Leagle.com.

Ms. Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Lumaghi, DOWD AND
DOWD, P.C., Andrew D. Kinghorn, THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., Ari
Cherniak, HammondLaw PC, Christopher S. Hinton, ROSEN LAW FIRM,
Christopher J. Quinn, DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., Douglas P. Dowd, DOWD
AND DOWD, P.C., Gregory J. Pals, THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., John J.
Driscoll, DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw PC,
Philip Sholtz, THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C. & William T. Dowd, DOWD AND
DOWD, P.C..

John Doe #1, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Lumaghi, DOWD AND
DOWD, P.C., Ari Cherniak, HammondLaw PC, Christopher J. Quinn,
DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., Douglas P. Dowd, DOWD AND DOWD, P.C., Gregory
J. Pals, THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., John J. Driscoll, DRISCOLL FIRM,
P.C., Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw PC, Polina Pecherskaya,
HammondLawPC & William T. Dowd, DOWD AND DOWD, P.C..

John Doe #2, Plaintiff, represented by Alex Lumaghi, DOWD AND
DOWD, P.C., Ari Cherniak, HammondLaw PC, Christopher J. Quinn,
DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., Douglas P. Dowd, DOWD AND DOWD, P.C., Gregory
J. Pals, THE DRISCOLL FIRM, P.C., John J. Driscoll, DRISCOLL FIRM,
P.C., Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw PC, Polina Pecherskaya,
HammondLawPC & William T. Dowd, DOWD AND DOWD, P.C..

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher S. Hinton, ROSEN
LAW FIRM, Christopher B. Hood, HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC, Jeffrey
P Mauro, BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC, John T. Kirtley, III, FERRER AND
POIROT, John Parker Yates, BADDLEY & MAURO LLC, Taylor C.
Bartlett, HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC, Thomas E Baddley, Jr.,
BADDLEY & MAURO, LLC, William Lewis Garrison, Jr., HENINGER AND
GARRISON, LLC & James F. McDonough, III, Henginger Garrison Davis,
LLC.

John Doe #3, Plaintiff, represented by Ari Cherniak, HammondLaw
PC, Julian Ari Hammond, HammondLaw PC & Polina Pecherskaya,
HammondLawPC.

J. Doe 1, Plaintiff, represented by Byron T Ball, The Ball Law
Firm LLP, Carin L. Marcussen, Federman & Sherwood, Julian Ari
Hammond, HammondLaw PC & William Bernard Federman, FEDERMAN AND
SHERWOOD, pro hac vice.

J. Doe 2, Plaintiff, represented by Byron T Ball, The Ball Law
Firm LLP, Carin L. Marcussen, Federman & Sherwood & William
Bernard Federman, FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD, pro hac vice.

J. Doe 3, Plaintiff, represented by Byron T Ball, The Ball Law
Firm LLP, Carin L. Marcussen, Federman & Sherwood & William
Bernard Federman, FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD, pro hac vice.

J. Doe 4, Plaintiff, represented by Byron T Ball, The Ball Law
Firm LLP, Carin L. Marcussen, Federman & Sherwood & William
Bernard Federman, FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD, pro hac vice.

J. Doe 5, Plaintiff, represented by Byron T Ball, The Ball Law
Firm LLP, Carin L. Marcussen, Federman & Sherwood & William
Bernard Federman, FEDERMAN AND SHERWOOD, pro hac vice.

John Doe #, Plaintiff, represented by Charles D. Davidson,
Davidson Law Firm, Ltd., Christopher D. Jennings, JOHNSON VINES
PLLC, David Louis Gershner, Davidson Law Firm, Ltd. & Stephanie A.
Linam, Davidson Law Firm, Ltd..

John Does 1-21, Pseudonyms, Plaintiff, represented by Allison P.
Fry, JOHN ARTHUR EAVES ATTORNEYS AT LAW.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT PC,
Katrina Carroll, Lite DePalma Greenberg LLC, Michael Loren
Silverman, Siprut PC, John S. Marrese, SIPRUT PC, Kyle Alan
Shamberg, LITE AND DEPALMA, Richard R Gordon, Gordon Law Offices,
Ltd. & Kyle Alan Shamberg, LITE AND DEPALMA.

Christopher Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Gary E. Mason,
MASON LLP & Michael J. Flannery, CUNEO AND GILBERT, LLP.

Michael Pauly, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Siprut, SIPRUT
PC, Michael Loren Silverman, Siprut PC, John S. Marrese, SIPRUT PC
& Kyle Alan Shamberg, LITE AND DEPALMA.

Grant Deloach, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake, Gillen
Withers & Lake, LLC, Gary F. Lynch, CARSON LYNCH, pro hac vice,
Thomas A. Withers, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC & William G. Bell,
III, William G. Bell, III, PC.

John Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Carlton F. Bennett, Bennett &
Zydron PC.

Plaintiffs John Doe No. 1 and John Doe No. 2 are represented by
Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen Law Firm PA.

Plaintiffs SZILVIA BERKI and CHRIS HRIVNAK, Plaintiff, represented
by Jennifer L. Duffy, LAW OFFICES OF JENNIFER DUFFY, APC &
Jonathan Shub, SHELLER AND LUDWIG.

David Poyet, Plaintiff, represented by Ashley R. Rifkin, ROBBINS
ARROYO LLP, Brian J. Robbins, ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, Conrad B
Stephens, Stephens and Stephens LLP, Kevin A. Seely, ROBBINS
ARROYO LLP, Leonid Kandinov, ROBBINS ARROYO LLP, Rebecca Anne
Peterson, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., Robert K. Shelquist,
LOCKRIDGE AND GRINDAL, pro hac vice & Michael J. Flannery, CUNEO
AND GILBERT, LLP.

Gustavo Alfaro, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher B. Hood,
HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC, Steven W. Ritcheson, HENINGER AND
GARRISON, LLC, Taylor C. Bartlett, HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC,
William Lewis Garrison, Jr., HENINGER AND GARRISON, LLC & James F.
McDonough, III, Henginger Garrison Davis, LLC.

Ms. Jane Doe, Plaintiff, represented by Phillip C. Kim, The Rosen
Law Firm P.A..

Lee E. Campbell, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph Henry Bates,
III, CARNEY AND WILLIAMS.

Matthew Lisuzzo, Plaintiff, represented by Jordan Mitchell
Rudnick, Zimmerman Law Offices, Scott Theodore Ferrill, Attorney
at Law & Thomas A. Zimmerman, Jr., Zimmerman Law Offices, P.C..

Robin Fipps, Plaintiff, represented by M Scott Harwell, THE
HARWELL LAW FIRM.

Defendants Avid Life Media, Inc., and Avid Dating Life, Inc., are
represented by Daniel J. Kramer -- dkramer@paulweiss.com -- PAUL
AND WEISS, E. B. Chiles, IV -- cchiles@qgtlaw.com -- Quattlebaum,
Grooms & Tull PLLC, James C Barton, Jr. --
jim.barton@butlersnow.com -- BUTLER SNOW LLP, Lorin L. Reisner --
lreisner@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS, Robert A. Atkins --
ratkins@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS, Helen Claire Looney,
BRYAN CAVE LLP, Richard P. Cassetta --
Richard.Cassetta@bryancave.com -- BRYAN CAVE LLP & Yahonnes S.
Cleary -- ycleary@paulweiss.com -- PAUL AND WEISS.

Defendants Barnes & Thornburg LLP, and Leslie Weiss are
represented by Dale C. Doerhoff -- ddoerhoff@cvdl.net -- COOK AND
VETTER, P.C., Heidi D. Vollet -- hvollet@cvdl.net -- COOK AND
VETTER, P.C. & Timothy W. Van Ronzelen -- tronzelen@cvdl.net --
Cook Vetter Doerhoff & Landwehr PC.

Noel Biderman, Defendant, represented by Christopher M. Green --
cgreen@bsfllp.com -- BOIES AND SCHILLER LLP, Ian M. Dumain --
idumain@bsfllp.com -- BOIES AND SCHILLER LLP & William S.
Ohlemeyer -- wohlemeyer@bsfllp.com -- BOIES AND SCHILLER LLP.

Movants Amicus Doe 1, Amicus Doe 2, and Amicus Doe 3 are
represented by:

     Karl S. Kronenberger, Esq.
     KRONENBERGER ROSENFELD, LLP
     150 Post Street, Suite 520
     San Francisco, CA 94108-4707
     Tel: (415) 955-1155
     E-mail: karl@KRInternetLaw.com


MDL 2695: Suits v. Santa Fe Natural Tobacco Moved to New Mexico
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: SANTA FE NATURAL TOBACCO COMPANY
MARKETING AND SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 2695, the United
States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ordered that
certain actions pending outside the District of New Mexico are to
be transferred to the District of New Mexico.

The putative class action litigation concerns the labeling and
advertising of Natural American Spirit cigarettes as "natural" and
"additive free" in an allegedly false and misleading manner.  The
plaintiffs in one action pending in the District of New Mexico
moved to centralize the litigation in the District of New Mexico.
The litigation consists of five actions pending in four districts.
Since the filing of the motion, the panel has been notified of
eight related actions in four additional districts.

The Judicial Panel found that the actions involve common questions
of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the
parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct
of the litigation.

A full-text copy of Judge Story's April 11, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/r53LOmfrom Leagle.com.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: "Martin" Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg granted the motion filed by Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company ("MetLife") to dismiss the case captioned
BRENDA G. MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 16-cv-00484-RS (N.D. Cal.).

Brenda G. Martin and Joseph R. Giordano filed a suit against
MetLife for allegedly violating a century-old voter initiative by
charging compound interest on policy loans without obtaining
borrowers' written consent.  MetLife countered it is exempt from
this consent requirement by virtue of a constitutional amendment
placed on the books by California voters in 1934.  MetLife also
maintained that, in any event, it complied with the prior
initiative, and submitted that Martin lacks standing to prosecute
her claims because she does not allege she paid compound interest.

Judge Seeborg granted MetLife's motion, explaining that "At
bottom, the 1934 constitutional amendment empowers the California
legislature to regulate compound interest as a form of
"compensation" exempt entities "receive from a borrower in
connection with any loan."  This provision conflicts with -- and
thus supersedes -- the initiative's consent requirement, meaning
exempt entities like MetLife cannot be held liable for violating
the consent requirement. Even setting that aside, MetLife complied
with the initiative."

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's April 12, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/8JWckefrom Leagle.com.

Brenda G. Martin, Joseph R. Giordano, Plaintiffs, represented by
Jennifer Susan Rosenberg -- jrosenberg@bramsonplutzik.com --
Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler & Birkhaeuser & Robert M. Bramson --
rbramson@bramsonplutzik.com -- Bramson, Plutzik, Mahler &
Birkhaeuser LLP.

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Joel Steven Feldman -- jfeldman@sidley.com -- Sidley Austin LLP,
pro hac vice, Lisa Schwartz -- lschwartz@sidley.com -- Sidley
Austin LLP, pro hac vice, Susan Ann Stone -- sstone@sidley.com --
Sidley Austin LLP & Carol Lynn Thompson, Sidley Austin LLP.


MEYER WILSON: Habitat for Humanity Recipient of Cy Pres Award
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer Wilson's recent class action settlement produced nearly
$50,000 to be sent as a cy pres award to benefit Habitat for
Humanity.

When class actions are settled or tried, sometimes it is not
possible or feasible to distribute all of the recovered funds to
either some or all of the class members.  When that is the case,
the cy pres doctrine allows the settlement funds to be given
instead to a nonprofit, charitable organization to support work
that indirectly benefits the class and advances the public
interest.

This particular cy pres award to Habitat for Humanity came about
because of Meyer Wilson's settlement with a mortgage company that
had been allegedly robocalling people on their cell phones to
collect on mortgage debt.

Meyer Wilson attorneys, along with their co-counsel, settled the
case for just over $1 million, and several thousand people
received checks for more than $200 each.  For various reasons,
some of those checks were never cashed, so the leftover amount
(more than $49,000.00) was sent to Habitat for Humanity, with the
court's approval.

Meyer Wilson chose Habitat for Humanity because many of the class
members in this particular case were struggling with mortgage
payments, and Habitat for Humanity's goal is to provide affordable
housing for the needy.

Meyer Wilson is a law firm dedicated solely to class actions and
investor claims.  The firm represents clients across the nation,
and has three office locations: Columbus, Los Angeles, and
Cleveland.  For more information about the firm, call
(888) 390-6491.


MINNESOTA: Privacy Claims vs. Counties and LLMHS Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Jessica Weitgenant, Plaintiff, v. Janet Kay
Patten; Jane Does; Christopher Sorensen; Lincoln, Lyon, and Murray
Human Services; Lincoln County; Lyon County; and Murray County,
Defendants, Civil No. 14-255 ADM/FLN (D. Minn.), Judge Ann D.
Montgomery granted the motion filed by the defendants Lincoln
County, Lyon County, and Murray County for judgment on the
pleadings, thus dismissing the claims against the counties and
Lincoln, Lyon, and Murray Human Services (LLMHS).

Jessica Weitgenant initiated a putative class action alleging that
the counties are liable for violations of the Drivers Privacy
Protection Act (DPPA) and the Minnesota Government Data Practices
Act (MGDPA).  Weitgenant alleged that her motor vehicle records
and those of 284 other individuals were unlawfully accessed by the
defendant Janet Patten and/or "Jane Doe" defendants using their
positions as employees of LLMHS.  The counties were added as
defendants in the action when Weitgenant filed her First Amended
Class Action Complaint.  Weitgenant alleged that the counties, as
the principals or individual members of LLMHS, are directly,
jointly, or vicariously liable for LLMHS's obligations stemming
from Doe and Patten's conduct.

The counties moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that
Weitgenant has failed to plausibly allege that LLMHS or the
counties directly violated the DPPA or the MGDPA.  The counties
also contended that they and LLMHS are not vicariously liable for
the alleged DPPA and MGDPA violations.

Judge Montgomery agreed with the counties that Weitgenant failed
to allege a direct violation of the MGDPA by LLMHS and the
counties because LLMHS's alleged disclosure of DVS records to its
employees was permitted under section 2721(b)(1) of the DPPA, and
thus, also under the MGDPA.

Judge Montgomery also held that LLMHS is not vicariously liable
for Patten and the Doe's allegedly unlawful accesses as there are
no allegations that LLMHS benefitted from such.  Lastly, the judge
held that the amended complaint failed to plausibly allege an
MGDPA violation by LLMHS's director, Christopher Sorensen, LLMHS
and the counties cannot be held vicariously liable for such a
violation.

A full-text copy of Judge Montgomery's April 12, 2016 memorandum
opinion and order is available at http://is.gd/t1dE54from
Leagle.com.

Jessica Weitgenant, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel J Bellig --
dbellig@farrishlaw.com -- Farrish Johnson Law Office, Chtd, Joseph
A Gangi -- jgangi@farrishlaw.com -- Farrish Johnson Law Office,
Chtd., Scott V Kelly -- skelly@farrishlaw.com -- Farrish Johnson
Law Office, Chtd & William S Partridge --
wpartridge@farrishlaw.com -- Farrish Johnson Law Office, Chtd.

Christopher Sorensen, Defendant, represented by Jessica E Schwie
-- jschwie@jlolaw.com -- Jardine Logan & O'Brien PLLP.


NAT'L PROGRAMMING: Obtains Favorable Ruling in TCPA Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
David Krueger, Esq. -- dkrueger@beneschlaw.com -- of Benesch, in
an article for JDSupra, reports that in Friedman v. Nat'l
Programming Servs., LLC, No. CV 15-4866, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS
40575 (C.D. Cal. March 25, 2016), the Central District of
California granted summary judgment in favor of the defendant,
National Programming Services ("NPS"), in a putative class action
for alleged violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act,
47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 ("TCPA").

National Programming Services ("NPS") is an authorized retailer of
DISH Network, the satellite TV provider.  NPS contracts with a
third party, RA Focus, which operates an inbound call service that
assists individuals who have recently moved to select programming
and other home services for their new address.  RA Focus also
contracts with other service providers besides NPS to offer
different services to prospective customers.

The plaintiff alleges that he received an unauthorized text
message from RA Focus advertising RA Focus's services, and that RA
Focus used an automatic telephone dialing system ("ATDS") to send
the message in violation of 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b) (1)(A)(iii).
The plaintiff filed a putative class action against NPS, seeking
to hold NPS vicariously liable for the text message.

Without addressing the issue of vicarious liability, the district
court held that NPS was entitled to summary judgment.
Specifically, because there was an "absence of evidence" that the
message was sent with dialing equipment that could generate random
or sequential numbers (which is part of the statutory definition
of an ATDS), the plaintiff could not prove an underlying TCPA
violation by RA Focus.

After the plaintiff received the text message, he, along with his
attorney, called RA Focus.  They stated they were interested in
obtaining DISH's services, and were transferred to NPS.  After
being connected to NPS, however, the plaintiff hung up the phone.
NPS called the plaintiff back. Independent of the original text
message, the plaintiff also alleged that this return call violated
the TCPA.  The district court dismissed this claim, holding that
there was "no TCPA violation because NPS had Friedman's express
prior consent when NPS returned the dropped call."

Accordingly, the district court entered summary judgment in NPS's
favor on the plaintiff's claims.


NEW YORK: Probe Launched Over Voting Scandal
--------------------------------------------
Nick Divito, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
hours before New Yorkers handed Democratic president hopeful
Hillary Clinton and her likely Republican challenger Donald Trump
highly coveted wins in their quest for the White House on April
19, a voting scandal erupted in the state's largest city.

New York City's comptroller, who acts as the city's chief
financial officer, announced his office will audit the Board of
Elections after it confirmed more than 125,000 Brooklyn voters
were removed from the rolls, miscategorized by party and shut out
of the Democratic process.

On April 20, afternoon, New York State Attorney General Eric
Schneiderman announced that he too has begun an investigation into
"alleged improprieties in yesterday's voting by the New York City
Board of Elections."

In a letter to Michael Ryan, the board's executive director, New
York Comptroller Scott Stringer talked of a "deep concern" over
"problems and irregularities" as New Yorkers hit the polls on
Primary Day.

Among them: "faulty ballot scanners and polling locations that
opened late (or not at all) to poorly staffed polling sites and
voters whose registrations were seemingly purged from the rolls
without effective notification."

"There is nothing more sacred in our nation than the right to
vote, yet election after election, reports come in of people who
were inexplicably purged from the polls, told to vote at the wrong
location or unable to get in to their polling site," Stringer
said.

"The people of New York City have lost confidence that the Board
of Elections can effectively administer elections and we intend to
find out why the BOE is so consistently disorganized, chaotic and
inefficient," the letter continued.

With four upcoming elections throughout the city this year, he
added: "we don't have a moment to spare."

"As I am sure you would agree, whether you are a Democrat or a
Republican, all New Yorkers deserve an electoral system that it is
free, fair and efficient -- not one riddled with chaos and
confusion," Stringer said.

Fourteen Long Island Democrats filed a federal class action in
Brooklyn, late April 18 claiming their party affiliation was
mysteriously missing, and they challenged New York's closed
primary system. Such a system shuts out anyone who doesn't
identify as a Republican or Democrat, they said.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio also chimed in and called for a
fix to the vexing voting issues just hours before he took the
stage at Clinton's victory rally at the Sheraton Hotel in
Manhattan's Times Square neighborhood April 19 night.  He called
on the city's Board of Elections to reverse the purge, and
applauded Stringer's announcement to audit the process before
upcoming city elections in June.

"These errors today indicate that additional major reforms will be
needed to the Board of Elections and in the state law governing
it," he said. "We will hold the BOE commissioners responsible for
ensuring that the board and its borough officers properly conduct
the election process to assure that voters are not
disenfranchised."

Mayor de Blasio continued: "The perception that numerous voters
may have been disenfranchised undermines the integrity of the
entire electoral process and must be fixed."

In a statement released April 20 afternoon, New York's attorney
general explained why he believes an inquiry into April 19 primate
is warranted.

"Yesterday, New Yorkers turned out in impressively high numbers to
vote for the nominees in their respective parties," Schneiderman
said. "By most accounts, voters cast their ballots smoothly and
successfully. However, I am deeply troubles by the volume and
consistency of voting irregularities, both in public reports and
direct complaints to my office's voter hotline."

Schneiderman said the hotline received more than 1,000 complaints
about voting issues on April 19.

"If necessary, we will initiate inquiries in additional areas of
the State where voting irregularities appeared unusually high,"
the attorney general said. "Voting is a cornerstone of our
democracy, and if any New Yorker was illegally prevented from
voting, I will do everything in my power to make their vote count
and ensure that it never happens again."

A spokeswoman with the BOE did not respond to a request for
comment April 20.

The federal prosecutors for Manhattan and Brooklyn encouraged
voters to report possible violations of federal election laws by
calling in.


NCO FINANCIAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Thornton" Suit Claims
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Wesley Thornton and Antoinette Stansberry, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. NCO Financial Systems,
Inc., Case No. 2016-CH-05780 (Ill. Cir. Ct., April 25, 2016),
seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of making unsolicited
telephone calls to the cellular telephones of consumers
nationwide, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by its
conduct.

NCO Financial Systems, Inc. provides business process outsourcing
and accounts receivable management services to the healthcare
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jay Edelson, Esq.
      Rafey S. Balabanian, Esq.
      Benjamin H. Richman, Esq.
      EDELSON PC
      350 North LaSalle Street, 13th Floor
      Chicago, IL 60654
      Telephone: (312) 589-6370
      Facsimile: (312) 589-6378
      E-mail: jedelson@edelson.com
              rbalabanian@edelson.com
              brichman@edelson.com


NTELOS HOLDINGS: Still Defending "Westen" Action in Delaware
------------------------------------------------------------
NTELOS Holdings Corp. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on August 24, 2015, Mr.
Marvin Westen and Mr. Paul Sekerak, each filed a purported class
action complaint relating to the merger in the Court of Chancery
of the State of Delaware. The Plaintiffs have sued all members of
the Board, alleging that the members of the Board breached their
fiduciary obligations to the purported class by agreeing to sell
the Company for consideration deemed "inadequate" and by agreeing
to deal protection terms that allegedly foreclose competing
offers. Plaintiffs further allege that Shentel and Merger Sub (or,
in the case of Mr. Sekerak, Shentel and the Company) for
purportedly aiding and abetting the foregoing breaches. Plaintiffs
seek, among other things, injunctive relief preventing
consummation of the merger (and/or directing rescission of the
transaction, to the extent already implemented), unspecified
damages and an award of plaintiff's expenses and attorneys' fees.

The Company and the members of the Board believe these claims are
without merit and intend to defend themselves vigorously.

NTELOS is a regional provider of digital wireless communications
services to consumers and businesses primarily in Virginia, West
Virginia, and certain portions of surrounding states.


NUVERRA ENVIRONMENTAL: Appeal in 2013 Class Action Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
plaintiffs in a 2013 class action complaint have voluntarily
dismissed their appeal.

The Company said, "In September 2013, two separate but
substantially-similar putative class action lawsuits were
commenced in Federal court against us and certain of our current
and former officers and directors alleging that we, along with the
individual defendants, made certain material misstatements and/or
omissions relating to our operations and financial condition which
caused the price of our shares to fall."

"By order dated October 29, 2013, the two putative class actions
were consolidated and a consolidated complaint was filed.
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss these claims in May 2014, and
such motion was granted by the Court on November 17, 2014, whereby
the forgoing class action was dismissed without prejudice.
Plaintiffs were permitted by the Court to file a motion to amend
the complaint and did so on December 8, 2014. Defendants filed
their opposition to plaintiffs' motion to amend the complaint on
December 22, 2014.

"On March 12, 2015, the Court issued an order denying plaintiffs'
motion to amend the complaint as to certain claims, but granting
plaintiffs' motion as to other claims. Plantiffs filed an amended
complaint on March 19, 2015, and on March 23, 2015 we filed a
motion to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to comply with
the court's March 12, 2015 order. Both parties filed subsequent
pleadings.

"On June 24, 2015, the Court granted our motion to dismiss
plaintiffs' amended consolidated class action complaint and
dismissed the case with prejudice. On July 24, 2015, plaintiffs
filed a notice of appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The appeal was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiffs on November 5,
2015, thereby concluding this litigation."

Nuverra Environmental Solutions, Inc. is a provider of
comprehensive, full-cycle environmental solutions to customers
focused on the development and ongoing production of oil and
natural gas from shale formations in the United States.


OLD HOME: Recalls Strawberry & Vanilla Creme Cakes Due to Peanuts
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Old Home Kitchens is voluntarily recalling "Old Home Kitchens
14oz. Sliced Lemon Creme Cake production code 16104" "Old Home
Kitchens 14oz. Sliced Vanilla Creme Cake production code 16104,"
and "Old Home Kitchens 14oz. Sliced Strawberry Swirl Creme Cake
with a production code of 16098" ink jet coded on plastic clam
shell package, due to a potential presence of peanut allergen in a
CSM Bakery Solutions supplied ingredient. People who have allergy
or sensitivity to peanuts run the risk of serious or life
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The recalled product was distributed in multiple Retail Stores in
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina,
Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The recall was initiated after Old Home Kitchens was informed by
CSM Bakery Solutions that an ingredient supplied to Old Home
Kitchens had a potential presence of a peanut allergen. These
products do not reveal the presence of peanuts. No illnesses have
been reported to date.

Old Home Kitchens has alerted the Distributers of these Retailers,
which has removed this product from its stores. The recall is
being made with the knowledge of the U. S. Food and Drug
Administration.

Consumers who have purchased "Old Home Kitchens 14oz Sliced Creme
Cake" with the codes noted are urged to return it to their Retail
Stores for product replacement or refund.


OXY RECKITT: Humidifier Victims to File Class Action on May 30
--------------------------------------------------------------
KBS World Radio reports that a group of people affected by toxic
humidifier sterilizers plan to file a class-action lawsuit this
against the manufacturers, distributors and the government.

The group of plaintiffs, the Asian Citizen's Center for
Environment and Health, and Lawyers for a Democratic Society or
Minbyun held a news conference on April 26 in southern Seoul to
announce the plan.

Minbyun lawyers who will represent the plaintiffs plan to form the
first group of litigants for the lawsuit by May ninth and file a
suit on May 30th. One-hundred-50 people, including 74 victims,
have so far expressed intent to join the lawsuit.

The amount of damages is expected to range between 30 million and
50 million according to the level of damage.

Four victims previously lost in a damage suit against the
government last year.


PACIFIC CONTINENTAL: Class Suit Still Pending in Oregon Court
-------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific Continental Corporation said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action
lawsuit remains pending in the Circuit Court of the State of
Oregon for the County of Multnomah.

On August 23, 2013, a putative class action lawsuit ("Class
Action") was filed in the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for
the County of Multnomah on behalf of individuals who placed money
with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of Portland (collectively,
"Berjac"). The Berjac entities merged and the surviving company,
Berjac of Oregon, is currently in Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Class
Action complaint, which has been amended several times, currently
asserts three claims against Pacific Continental Bank, Fred "Jack"
W. Holcomb, Holcomb Family Limited Partnership, Jones & Roth,
P.C., and Umpqua Bank, as defendants. The lawsuit asserts that
Pacific Continental Bank is jointly and severally liable for
materially aiding or participating in Berjac's sales of securities
in violation of the Oregon Securities Law. Claimants seek the
return of the money placed with Berjac of Oregon and Berjac of
Portland, plus interest, and costs and attorneys' fees. The
current version of the complaint seeks $44 million in damages from
all defendants.

After a lengthy proceeding to determine whether jurisdiction over
the Class Action is properly in the state or federal court, on
January 14, 2015, the federal court ruled that jurisdiction is
properly in the state court. The Class Action is now pending in
the Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for the County of
Multnomah.

Pacific Continental Bank and the other defendants filed motions to
dismiss. The court declined to dismiss the claims against Pacific
Continental Bank and the other defendants other than Jones & Roth,
P.C. Plaintiffs have sought leave to reassert their claims against
Jones & Roth, P.C.

Pacific Continental Corporation is an Oregon corporation and
registered bank holding company headquartered in Eugene, Oregon.
The Company was organized on June 7, 1999, pursuant to a holding
company reorganization of Pacific Continental Bank, its wholly
owned subsidiary (the "Bank").


PARTNER COMMS: Pursuing Mediation of April 2010 Claim
-----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
parties are pursuing mediation of a class action claim filed in
April 2010 in order to reach a settlement agreement.

On April 12, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company charges its subscribers for certain content
services without their consent. If the claim is recognized as a
class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 343 million.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Class Action Appeals Remain Pending
--------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that appeals by
plaintiffs related to the May and June 2010 class action claims
remain pending.

On May 23, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and all other cellular
operators. The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the
other defendants, is breaching its contractual and/or legal
obligation to erect cellular sites in the appropriate scope,
quantity and coverage in order to provide cellular services in the
required and appropriate quality. The plaintiffs claimed that this
omission also causes, inter alia, monetary damages caused to
consumers as a result of lack of sufficient coverage, including
call disconnections, insufficient voice quality etc., as well as a
significant increase in the non-ionized radiation that the public
is exposed to mainly from the cellular telephone handset.

In addition, it is claimed that the Company and the other
defendants are breaching their contractual and/or legal obligation
to ensure and/or check and/or repair and/or notify the consumer,
that after repair and/or upgrade and/or exchange of cellular
handsets, the handsets may emit radiation in levels that exceed
the levels of radiation as set forth by the manufacturer in the
handset data and even exceeds the maximum permitted levels set
forth by law.

In addition, it was claimed that the Company and the other
defendants do not fulfill their obligation to caution and warn the
consumers of the risks involved in holding the handset and the
proximity of the handset to the body while carrying it and during
a phone call.

In addition, it was claimed that if the handsets marketed by the
Company and the other defendants emit non-ionizing radiation above
the permitted level, at any distance from the body, then the
marketing and sale of such handsets is prohibited in Israel.

If the claim is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 3.600 billion.

In November 2013 the parties filed a request to approve a
settlement agreement and in February 2014 the parties filed a
request to approve a revised settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement also includes a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action that was filed in a similar matter.

In July 2014, the court approved the settlement agreement and in
October 2014 the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court
with respect to the court's decision not to appoint an external
examiner regarding the radiation measurement method as well as
attorney fees.

                           *     *     *

On June 6, 2011, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and the three other
cellular operators. The claim alleges that the Company sell or
supply accessories that are intended for carrying cellular
handsets on the body, in a manner that contradicts the
instructions and warnings of the cellular handset manufacturers
and the recommendations of the Ministry of Health, all this
without disclosing the risks entailed in the use of these
accessories when they are sold or marketed.

If the claim is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to be
approximately NIS 1,010 million.

On November 7, 2013, the parties filed a request to approve a
settlement agreement and on February 5, 2014, the parties filed a
request to approve a revised settlement agreement. The settlement
agreement also includes a claim and a motion to certify the claim
as a class action that was filed in May 2010.

In July 2014 the court approved the settlement agreement and in
October 2014 the plaintiffs filed an appeal with the Supreme Court
with respect to the court's decision not to appoint an external
examiner regarding the radiation measurement method as well as
attorney fees.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Class Cert. Bid for Sept. 2010 Claim Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
filed September 7, 2010 has not yet been certified as a class
action.

On September 7, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company unlawfully charges its customers for services of
various content providers, which are sent through text messages
(SMS). If the claim is recognized as a class action, the total
amount claimed from the Company is estimated by the plaintiffs to
be approximately NIS 405 million.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Appeals from Oct. 2011 Claim Dismissal Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal
on the dismissal of a class action claim filed October 2011
remains pending.

On October 5, 2011, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company enables its customers to subscribe to a content
back up service for cellular handsets without informing them in
cases in which the handset does not support the service or only
partially supports such service. If the claim is recognized as a
class action, the total amount claimed from the Company is
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 117 million.
In November 2014 the claim was dismissed and in January 2015 the
plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court.

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

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Still Defending March 2014 Claim
-----------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
dated March 24, 2014, is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On March 24, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company did not include in the severance pay calculation
for its employees various components that constitute an addition
to the salary for the severance pay calculation and thereby acted
unlawfully.  If the claim is recognized as a class action, the
total amount claimed from Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to
be approximately NIS 100 million. On November 15, 2015, the
plaintiff requested to withdraw from the claim except for two
components. The court accepted the motion and instructed the
plaintiff to file a new claim.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: April 2014 Claim Still in Early Stage
----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
dated April 1, 2014, is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On April 1, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that the Company charged its customers for cellular internet
services abroad not in accordance with the subscriber agreement.
If the claim is recognized as a class action, the total amount
claimed from Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 2 Billion. The claim is still in its preliminary
stage of the motion to be certified as a class action.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: July 2014 Claim Still in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
dated July 15, 2014 is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On July 15, 2014, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company and against additional
cellular operators and content providers. The claim alleges that
the cellular operators, including the Company, breached legal
provisions and provisions of their licenses and thereby created a
platform that led to the customers' damages alleged in the claim.
If the lawsuit is recognized as a class action the total amount
claimed against all of the defendants is estimated by the
plaintiff to be approximately NIS 300 million.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Nov. 2015 Claim Still in Early Stage
---------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
dated November 12, 2015, is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action was filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that Partner required their customers to purchase a router and/or
a call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a condition for using
its fixed-line telephony services, not in accordance with the
provisions of their licenses. If the claim filed against Partner
is recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed against
Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 116
million.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Claim v. 012 Smile Still in Early Stage
------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
filed against 012 Smile is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On November 12, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action was filed against 012 Smile. The claim alleges that
012 Smile required their customers to purchase a router and/or a
call adaptor and/or terminal equipment as a condition for using
its fixed-line telephony services, not in accordance with the
provisions of their licenses. If the claim filed against 012 Smile
is recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed against
012 Smile is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 64
million. The claim is still in its preliminary stage of the motion
to be certified as a class action.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Nov. 19 Claim Seeks NIS 6.6 Billion
--------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
dated Nov. 19, 2015, is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On November 19, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and other cellular
operators.  The claim alleges that the Company coordinated prices
with other cellular operators of pre-paid plans that it markets,
and by doing so prevented competition and breached legal
provisions. If the claim is recognized as a class action, the
total amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff
to be approximately NIS 6.6 billion.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Dec. 29 Claim Seeks NIS 70 Million
-------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a claim
dated December 29, 2015, is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On December 29, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleged
that Partner charges its customers, while they are abroad, for
incoming calls that are transferred to voice mail. If the claim is
recognized as a class action, the total amount claimed against
Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 70
million.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Jan. 2016 Claim Seeks NIS 234 Million
----------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on January
4, 2016, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a class
action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges that
Partner charges its customers the full price of telecommunication
packages that are intended for use abroad despite the fact that
the packages are not fully utilized and does not allow to transfer
the balance to the next trip abroad or to receive a credit for the
balance. If the claim is recognized as a class action, the total
amount claimed against Partner is estimated by the plaintiff to be
approximately NIS 234 million. The claim is still in its
preliminary stage of the motion to be certified as a class action.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Settlement of Claim v. 012 Smile Completed
---------------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court
has declared that the settlement of a class action claim dated
February 15, 2012, has been completed.

On February 15, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against 012 Smile and other
telecommunication operators. The claim alleges that the defendants
misled the purchasers of prepaid calling cards designated for
international calls with respect to certain bonus minutes. The
total amount claimed against 012 (and against each of the other
defendants) was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 2.7 billion.
On May 26, 2013, the court approved a settlement agreement filed
by the parties and regarding an additional lawsuit, dealing with
similar issues. The parties filed a revised settlement agreement
in December 2014 that was approved by the court in January 2015.
In January 2016, the court declared that in accordance with the
documents filed with the court, the execution of the settlement
agreement had been completed.

                           *     *     *

During 2008, several claims and motions to certify the claims as
class actions were filed against several international telephony
companies including 012 Smile. The plaintiffs allege that with
respect to prepaid calling card services, the defendants misled
the consumers regarding certain issues, charged consumers in
excess, and formed a cartel that arranged and raised the prices of
calling cards.

On November 3, 2010, the court granted the plaintiffs' request and
certified the lawsuit as a class action against all of the
defendants. The total amount of damages claimed by the plaintiff
against 012 Smile was approximately NIS 128 million.

On May 26, 2013, the court approved a settlement agreement filed
by the parties regarding an amended request and regarding an
additional lawsuit, dealing with similar issues in an amount of
NIS 2.7 billion. The parties filed a revised settlement agreement
in December 2014 that was approved by the court in January 2015.
In January 2016, the court declared that in accordance with the
documents filed with the court, the execution of the settlement
agreement had been completed.

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTNER COMMS: Has Deal to Resolve NIS 120MM Claim
--------------------------------------------------
Partner Communications Company Ltd. said in its Form 20-F Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
parties in the class action claim dated February 6, 2012, have
reached a settlement agreement for the court's approval.

On February 6, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and other cellular
operators. The claim alleges that the Company, as well as the
other defendants does not comply with the requirements set by the
Equal Rights for People with Disabilities (Accessibility to
Telecommunications Services and Telecommunications Devices)
Regulations of 2009. The total amount claimed from the Company was
estimated by the plaintiffs to be approximately NIS 120 million.

In December 2015, the parties filed a settlement agreement for the
court's approval.

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

The Company provides telecommunications services in the following
two segments: (1) cellular telecommunications services ("Cellular
Services") and (2) fixed-line communication services ("Fixed-Line
Services").


PARTY CITY HOLDCO: Defending Class Suit in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Party City Holdco Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a putative class action
complaint was filed on November 18, 2015, in the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York, naming Party City
Holdco, Chief Executive Officer James Harrison, and Chief
Financial Officer Michael Correale as defendants.

"The complaint alleges violations of Section 11 of the Securities
Act of 1933 in connection with public filings related to our April
2015 initial public offering," the Company said. "The plaintiff
seeks to represent a class of shareholders who purchased stock in
the initial public offering or who can trace their shares to that
offering. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and costs. We
intend to vigorously defend ourselves against this action. We are
unable at this time to determine whether the outcome of the
litigation would have a material impact on our results of
operations, financial condition or cash flows."

The Company is a party goods retailer.


PEOPLES BANCORP: Oral Argument Held in Class Action Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------
Peoples Bancorp of North Carolina, Inc. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that oral
argument was held in February 2016 in an appeal related to a class
action lawsuit.

On April 2, 2013, the Bank received notice that a lawsuit was
filed against it in the General Court of Justice, Superior Court
Division, Lincoln County, North Carolina.  The complaint alleged
(i) breach of contract and the covenants of good faith and fair
dealing by the Bank, (ii) conversion, (iii) unjust enrichment and
(iv) violations of the North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade
Practices Act in its assessment and collection of overdraft fees.
It seeks the refund of overdraft fees, treble damages, attorneys'
fees and injunctive relief.  The Plaintiff sought to have the
lawsuit certified as a class action.

On June 10, 2015, the North Carolina Business Court granted
summary judgment in favor of the Bank on all claims and ordered
the case dismissed with prejudice.  The Plaintiff appealed to the
North Carolina Court of Appeals.  Oral argument was held in the
Court of Appeals on February 25, 2016.

Ordinarily that court issues its opinions within ninety days of
oral argument, but some cases take longer and there is no way to
accurately predict a date of decision.  The Bank continues to
believe that the allegations in the complaint are without merit
and intends to vigorously defend the lawsuit on appeal.


PFIZER INC: 2nd Cir. Reverses Expert Discovery Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE PFIZER INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION.
TEACHERS' RETIREMENT SYSTEM OF LOUISIANA, CHRISTINE FLECKLES,
JULIE PERUSSE, ALDEN CHACE, Plaintiffs-Appellants, L. NORMAN
SHOWERS, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED,
MICHAEL FEITERLAND, ANTHON JOHNSON, Plaintiffs, v. PFIZER, INC.,
HENRY A. MCKINNEL, GAIL CAWKWELL, JOSEPH M. FECZKO, KAREN L.
KATEN, Defendants-Appellees, JOHN L. LAMATTINA, Defendant, No. 14-
2853-cv (2nd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit vacated and remanded the judgment of the district court
for further proceedings.

The Teachers' Retirement System of Louisiana and Christine
Fleckles, acting on behalf of themselves and other similarly
situated investors, brought suit in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against Pfizer, Inc.
and several of its directors and officers, alleging violations of
sections 10(b), 20(a), and 20A of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as well as Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5
promulgated thereunder.  According to the plaintiffs, between
October 31, 2000 and October 19, 2005, Pfizer made fraudulent
misrepresentations and fraudulently omitted to disclose
information regarding the safety of two of its drugs, Celebrex
(celecoxib) and Bextra (valdecoxib).  When the market eventually
learned of the cardiovascular risks associated with these drugs,
the value of Pfizer's shares fell, harming the plaintiffs and
other shareholders in the process.

The district court denied Pfizer's motion to dismiss the
complaint, certified the class, and allowed the parties to proceed
through discovery.  After extensive discovery and nearly a decade
of litigation, the district court granted a motion in limine to
exclude Daniel R. Fischel, the plaintiffs' expert on loss
causation and damages, from testifying at trial.

On appeal, the Second Circuit concluded, first, that the district
court abused its discretion by excluding Fischel's testimony in
its entirety.  The appellate court held that the district court
erred in concluding that Fischel needed to disaggregate the
effects of Pfizer's allegedly fraudulent conduct from G.D. Searle
& Co. ("Searle") and Pharmacia Corporation ("Pharmacia") -- the
companies that manufactured Celebrex and Bextra before Pfizer --
regardless of whether Pfizer is ultimately found liable for the
latters' statements.

As for Fischel's adjustment to the price increases, the Second
Circuit stated that "the district court did not abuse its
discretion in concluding that this change was not sufficiently
reliable to be presented to a jury.  However, Fischel's error did
not render the remainder of his testimony unreliable.  The court
should have prevented him from testifying about the adjustment,
but otherwise allowed him to present his findings on loss
causation and damages."

The Second Circuit further find that the district court erred in
concluding, as a matter of law, that Pfizer had insufficient
authority over certain Searle and Pharmacia statements as to have
"made" them for the purposes of Rule 10b-5.  The appellate court
noted, however, that its finding that the district court abused
its discretion in excluding Fischel's testimony does not turn on
the question of Pfizer's ultimate liability for these statements.

A full-text copy of the Second Circuit's April 12, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/4SuWHDfrom Leagle.com.

GREGORY P. JOSEPH, Douglas J. Pepe -- dpepe@jha.com -- Sandra M.
Lipsman -- slipsman@jha.com --  Joseph Hage Aaronson LLC, New
York, NY. Jay W. Eisenhofer, James J. Sabella, Charles T. Caliendo
-- ccaliendo@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., New York, NY.
Jonathan S. Massey -- jmassey@masseygail.com -- Massey & Gail LLP,
Washington, DC. David Kessler -- dkessler@ktmc.com -- Andrew L.
Zivitz -- azivitz@ktmc.com -- Matthew L. Mustokoff --
mmustokoff@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Radnor,
PA., for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

MIGUEL A. ESTRADA -- mestrada@gibsondunn.com -- Mark A. Perry --
mperry@gibsondunn.com -- Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, Washington,
DC. Beth A. Wilkinson, Charles E. Davidow --
cdavidow@paulweiss.com -- Alexandra M. Walsh, Paul, Weiss,
Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Washington, DC.Andrew J. Ehrlich
-- aehrlich@paulweiss.com -- Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP, New York, NY. Lynn K. Neuner -- lneuner@stblaw.com -
- George S. Wang -- gwang@stblaw.com -- Simpson, Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, New York, NY. John R.

Wellschlager, DLA Piper LLP, (US), Baltimore, MD, Counsel for
Pfizer, Inc.

Jennifer L. Spaziano -- jen.spaziano@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, Washington, DC, Counsel for Henry A.
McKinnell.

George A. Stamboulidis -- gstamboulidis@bakerlaw.com -- Baker &
Hostetler LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for Gail Cawkwell.

Pamela R. Chepiga, Allen & Overy LLP, New York, NY, Counsel for
Joseph M. Feczko.

Michael L. Calhoon -- michael.calhoon@bakerbotts.com -- Julie B.
Rubenstein -- julie.rubenstein@bakerbotts.com -- Baker Botts LLP,
Washington, DC,Counsel for Karen L. Katen. for Defendants-
Appellees.


PLY GEM: Continues to Defend Securities Litigation
--------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend against In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation,
and the defendants have filed their motion to dismiss an amended
complaint.

In re Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation is a purported
federal securities class action filed on May 19, 2014 in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
against Ply Gem Holdings, Inc., several of its directors and
officers, and the underwriters associated with the Company's IPO.
It is filed on behalf of all persons or entities, other than the
defendants, who purchased the common shares of the Company
pursuant and/or traceable to the Company's IPO and seeks remedies
under Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, alleging
that the Company's Form S-1 registration statement was negligently
prepared and materially inaccurate, containing untrue statements
of material fact and omitting material information which was
required to be disclosed. The plaintiffs seek a variety of relief,
including (i) damages together with interest thereon and (ii)
attorneys' fees and costs of litigation.

On October 14, 2014, Strathclyde Pension Fund was certified as
lead plaintiff, and class counsel was appointed. On February 13,
2015 the defendants filed their motion to dismiss the complaint,
on April 14, 2015 the lead plaintiff filed its opposition to that
motion to dismiss, and on May 14, 2015 the defendants filed their
reply brief in support of their motion to dismiss.

On September 29, 2015, the District Court granted defendants'
motion to dismiss, but ruled that plaintiff could file an amended
complaint. On November 6, 2015, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint, and on January 13, 2016, the defendants filed their
motion to dismiss this amended complaint. The damages sought in
this action have not yet been quantified.

Pursuant to the Underwriting Agreement, dated May 22, 2013,
entered into in connection with the IPO, the Company has agreed to
reimburse the underwriters for the legal fees and other expenses
reasonably incurred by the underwriters' law firm in its
representation of the underwriters in connection with this matter.
Pursuant to Indemnification Agreements, dated as of May 22, 2013,
between the Company and each of the directors and officers named
in this action, the Company has agreed to assume the defense of
such directors and officers.

"We believe the purported federal securities class action is
without merit and will vigorously defend the lawsuit," the Company
said.


PLY GEM: Continues to Defend "Carrillo-Hueso" Action
----------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Raul Carrillo-Hueso
and Chec Xiong v. Ply Gem Industries, Inc. and Ply Gem Pacific
Windows Corporation, a purported class action filed on November
25, 2015 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County
of Alameda, plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, allege damages as a result of, among other
things, the defendants' failure to provide (i) statutorily
required meal breaks at the Sacramento, California facility, (ii)
accurate wage statements to employees in California, and (iii) all
wages due on termination in California. The plaintiffs seek a
variety of relief, including (i) economic and compensatory
damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties, (iv) pre- and
post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and costs of
litigation. The damages sought in this action have not yet been
quantified.


PLY GEM: Continues to Defend "Morgan" Class Action
--------------------------------------------------
Ply Gem Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Tina Morgan v. Ply
Gem Industries, Inc. and Simonton Industries, Inc., a purported
class action filed on December 11, 2015 in the Superior Court of
the State of California, County of Solano, plaintiff, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, alleges damages as a
result of, among other things, the defendants' failure at the
Vacaville, California facility to (i) pay overtime wages, (ii)
provide statutorily required meal breaks, (iii) provide accurate
wage statements, and (iv) pay all wages owed upon termination. The
plaintiff seeks a variety of relief, including (i) economic and
compensatory damages, (ii) statutory damages, (iii) penalties,
(iv) pre- and post-judgment interest, and (v) attorneys' fees and
costs of litigation. The damages sought in this action have not
yet been quantified.


POWERSECURE INTERNATIONAL: Motion to Dismiss Class Action Pending
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Powersecure International, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that briefing on the
Company's motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in a
class action lawsuit has concluded.

The Company said, "On May 22, 2014, a putative securities class
action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our executive
officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina. Subsequently, in May and in July 2014,
two additional purported securities class action lawsuits were
filed against the same defendants in the United States District
Courts, one in the Eastern District of North Carolina and the
other in the Western District of North Carolina."

"On October 10, 2014, these lawsuits were consolidated in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina, and a lead plaintiff was appointed. As consolidated, the
lawsuit was filed on behalf of all persons or entities that
purchased our common stock during a purported class period from
August 8, 2013 through May 7, 2014, which is the longer of the two
different purported class periods used in the pre-consolidation
lawsuits. A consolidated amended complaint was filed on December
29, 2014. The action alleges that certain statements made by the
defendants during the class period violated federal securities
laws and seeks damages in an unspecified amount.

"We filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on February
26, 2015, which the court granted on September 15, 2015, with
leave for the plaintiff to file an amended complaint. On October
16, 2015, the plaintiff filed a second amended consolidated class
action complaint, with similar allegations over the same class
period.

"On November 23, 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the second
amended complaint, and the briefing on that motion concluded on
February 5, 2016.

"We cannot provide any assurance as to when the court will rule on
our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint or whether our
motion will be granted, and even if granted whether the complaint
will be dismissed with prejudice or appealed."


RADARIS LLC: Court Certifies FCRA Claims in "Huebner"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Vince Chhabria granted in part and denied, in part, the
plaintiff's motion for class certification in the case captioned
JOHN HUEBNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RADARIS, LLC, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-04735-VC (N.D. Cal.).

Judge Chhabria certified the FCRA Class under both Rule 23(b)(2)
and Rule 23(b)(3).  The judge also certified the proposed
California Subclass under Rule 23(b)(2) as to all state-law claims
except the false light claim, and additionally under Rule 23(b)(3)
as to the ICRAA, Civil Code section 3344, and common law
misappropriation-of-likeness claims.  Judge Chhabria denied the
motion to certify as to the false light claim.

A full-text copy of Judge Chhabria's April 12, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/lIUbmzfrom Leagle.com.

John Huebner and Irmin Langton, Plaintiffs, are represented by:

     Anthony Joshua Orshansky, Esq.
     Justin Kachadoorian, Esq.
     CounselOne, PC
     9301 Wilshire Boulevard. Suite
     650 Beverly Hills, CA, 90210


RADIOLOGY REGIONAL: Faces "Goodman" Suit Over Contract Breach
-------------------------------------------------------------
Irene Goodman, Jennifer Combs, Jenna Cron, Robert H. Goodman,
Laura Graff, Tamara Hunter, Lana Izworski, Nicole Izworski, Robert
Katler, Angela McMahon, Luz M. Murillo, John M. Pisowicz, Raelyn
Pisowicz, Deborah A. Miller, Jeremy Miller, Carlos Salamanca,
Karen Vosganian, each individually and on behalf of all other
similarly situated persons v. Radiology Regional Center, P.A. and
Radiology Regional Center Professional Services, LLC, Case No.
2:16-cv-00301-JES-MRM (M.D. Fla., April 26, 2016), arises out of
the Defendants' alleged breach of contract.

The Defendants operate a diagnostic imaging facility located at
3680 Broadway, Fort Myers, FL 33901.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony James Dimora, Esq.
      RHODES TUCKER PHOENIX CHARTERED
      551 S Collier Blvd Ste 2
      Marco Island, FL 34145-5501
      Telephone: (239) 394-5151
      Facsimile: (239) 394-5807
      E-mail: ad@rhodestucker.com

         - and -

      Charles PT Phoenix, Esq.
      Jason T. File, Esq.
      RHODES TUCKER PHOENIX CHARTERED
      Suite 6, 2407 Periwinkle Way
      Sanibel, FL 33957
      Telephone: (239) 472-1144
      Facsimile: (239) 244-1976
      E-mail: cptp@rhodestucker.com
              jf@rhodestucker.com

         - and -

      Jason W. Graham, Esq.
      GRAHAM & PENMAN, LLP
      Suite 115, 17 Executive Park Dr.
      Atlanta, GA 30329
      Telephone: (404) 842-9380
      Facsimile: (678) 904-3110
      E-mail: jason@grahamandpenman.com

         - and -

      Thomas V. Girardi, Esq.
      GIRARDI & KEESE
      1126 Wilshire Blvd
      Los Angeles, CA 90017
      Telephone: (213) 977-0211
      Facsimile: (213) 481-1554
      E-mail: tgirardi@girardikeese.com


RUBICON TECHNOLOGY: Paid $900,000 in Class Action Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
Rubicon Technology, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company recorded for
the twelve months ended December 31, 2015 an expense of $1.1
million of which $900,000 is the amount the Company contributed to
the settlement and paid on February 17, 2016.

The Company said, "In 2015, one of our stockholders instituted
securities class action litigation following a decline in our
stock price."

"On April 30, 2015, Firerock Global Opportunity Fund LP filed a
complaint in the Northern District of Illinois asserting federal
securities claims against the Company, certain officers, its
directors and the underwriters in the Company's March 2014 stock
offering. The complaint sought as a remedy either money damages or
rescission of the March offering, plus attorneys' fees.

"On October 29, 2015, after mediation and subsequent discussions,
the parties reached a settlement agreement in principle. On
January 27, 2016 the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois granted a motion for preliminary approval of
the agreement.

"The settlement agreement includes a release of all defendants,
and dismissal of the case against all defendants with prejudice.

"The Company recorded for the twelve months ended December 31,
2015 an expense of $1.1 million of which $900,000 is the amount
the Company contributed to the settlement and paid on February 17,
2016. The remaining costs of the settlement are expected to be
covered by insurance."

Rubicon is a vertically integrated, advanced electronic materials
provider specializing in monocrystalline sapphire for applications
in light-emitting diodes ("LEDs"), optical systems and specialty
electronic devices.


SEARS ROEBUCK: Faces "Morris" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Joann Morris and Ann Williams, individually and on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Sears, Roebuck and
Co., Case No. 2016CH05775 (Ill. Ch. Ct., April 25, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the Illinois Wage Payment and Collection Act.

Sears, Roebuck and Co. owns, operates and manages retail
department stores throughout the State of Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
      Maureen A. Salas, Esq.
      WERMAN SALAS P.C.
      77 W. Washington Street, Suite 1402
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Telephone: (312) 419-1008
      E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
              msalas@flsalaw.com

         - and -

      Sheldon A. Ostroff, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF SHELDON A. OSTROFF
      1441 State Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 544-0881

         - and -

      James C. Kostas, Esq.
      David Huffinan, Esq.
      HUFFMAN & KOSTASA
      Partnership of Professional Corporations
      1441 State Street
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 544-0880


SEARS ROEBUCK: "Phan" Case Remanded to San Bernardino Court
-----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Otis D. Wright, II granted the motion filed by the plaintiff
Jim Thuan Phan to remand the case captioned JIM THUAN PHAN,
individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.,
and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 5:15-cv-
02582-ODW (KK) (C.D. Cal.).

The labor dispute arose out of Phan's employment with the
defendant Sears, Roebuck and Co. as a non-exempt technician.  Phan
alleged that the defendant violated the California Labor Code and
Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Orders by failing to show the
number of piece-rate units earned on employees' itemized wage
statements and failing to keep accurate payroll records.

Phan filed the putative class action in San Bernardino Superior
Court, but the defendant removed the action to the District Court
for the Central District of California.  Phan then moved to remand
the action to San Bernardino Superior Court for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Judge Wright concluded that the court does not have subject matter
jurisdiction over the action, finding that the amount in
controversy does not exceed the minimum threshold required for
federal jurisdiction.

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

Jim Thuan Phan, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica L Campbell,
Aegis Law Firm PC, Kashif Haque, Aegis Law Firm PC, Samantha A
Smith, The Cooper Law Firm PC, Samuel A Wong, Aegis Law Firm PC &
Scott B Cooper, The Cooper Law Firm PC.

Sears, Roebuck and Co., Defendant, represented by Joseph C Liburt
-- jliburt@orrick.com -- Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.


SEQUENTIAL BRANDS: Plaintiffs File Amended Complaint
----------------------------------------------------
Sequential Brands Group, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that plaintiffs have
filed an amended complaint in the merger class action lawsuit.

The Company said,"We were formed on June 5, 2015, for the purpose
of effecting the merger of Singer Merger Sub, Inc. with and into
SQBG, Inc. (previously known as Sequential Brands Group, Inc.)
(SEC File No. 001-36082) ("Old Sequential") and the merger of
Madeline Merger Sub, Inc. with and into Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia, Inc. (SEC File No. 001-15395) ("MSLO"), with Old
Sequential and MSLO each surviving the merger as wholly owned
subsidiaries of us (the "Mergers"). Prior to the Mergers, we did
not conduct any activities other than those incidental to its
formation and the matters contemplated in the Agreement and Plan
of Merger, dated as of June 22, 2015, as amended, by and among
MSLO, Old Sequential, us, Singer Merger Sub, Inc., and Madeline
Merger Sub, Inc. (the "Merger Agreement"). On December 4, 2015,
pursuant to the Merger Agreement, Old Sequential and MSLO
completed the strategic combination of their respective businesses
and became wholly owned subsidiaries of the Company."

"In connection with the Mergers, the following 13 putative
stockholder class action lawsuits have were been filed in the
Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware: (1) David Shaev Profit
Sharing Plan f/b/o David Shaev v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et. al. filed on June 25, 2015; (2) Malka Raul v. Martha
Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on June 26, 2015; (3)
Daniel Lisman v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al.
filed on June 29, 2015; (4) Matthew Sciabacucchi v. Martha Stewart
Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 2, 2015; (5) Harold
Litwin v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on
July 5, 2015; (6) Richard Schiffrin v. Martha Stewart filed on
July 7, 2015; (7) Cedric Terrell v. Martha Stewart Living
Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 8, 2015; (8) Dorothy Moore v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 8,
2015; (9) Paul Dranove v. Pierre De Villemejane. et. al. filed on
July 8, 2015; (10) Phuc Nguyen v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia
Inc. et. al. filed on July 10, 2015; (11) Kenneth Steiner v.
Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia Inc. et. al. filed on July 16,
2015; (12) Karen Gordon v. Martha Stewart et. al. filed on July
27, 2015; and (13) Anne Seader v. Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia,
Inc. et. al. filed on July 28, 2015. All of the 13 class action
lawsuits name Old Sequential, MSLO, the MSLO board of directors,
Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub and New Sequential as
defendants and allege that (a) members of the MSLO board of
directors breached their fiduciary duties and (b) Old Sequential,
MSLO, Madeline Merger Sub, Singer Merger Sub and New Sequential
aided and abetted such alleged breaches of fiduciary duties by the
MSLO board of directors.

"On August 18, 2015, the Delaware Chancery Court issued an order
consolidating these actions for all purposes under the caption In
re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc., et. al. to be the
operative complaint in the consolidated action.

"On January 12, 2016, after the consummation of the Mergers, the
plaintiffs filed a Verified Consolidated Amended Class Action
Complaint, naming Ms. Martha Stewart, New Sequential, Old
Sequential Madeline Merger Sub and Singer Merger Sub and alleging
that (a) Ms. Stewart breached her fiduciary duties to MSLO's
stockholders and (b) New Sequential, Old Sequential, Madeline
Merger Sub and Singer Merger Sub aided and abetted Ms. Stewart's
breach of her fiduciary duties. The plaintiffs seek to recover
unspecified damages allegedly sustained by the plaintiffs,
restitution and disgorgement by Ms. Stewart, the recovery of
plaintiff's attorney's fees and other relief.

"We believe that we have meritorious defenses to the claims made
by the plaintiffs, and we are vigorously defending such claims.
Litigation costs in this matter may be significant. We do not
expect that the ultimate resolution of this matter will have a
material effect on our consolidated financial statements."


SCENIC TOURS: Faces Class Action Over European River Cruises
------------------------------------------------------------
Louise Hall, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
more than a thousand unhappy passengers who paid for a luxury
European river cruise say what they got was more akin to a
"backpackers' Contiki tour" and are demanding compensation.

A class action against leading Australian travel company Scenic
Tours began in the NSW Supreme Court on April 26, with the 1265
plaintiffs claiming its "expensive, luxury river cruises" turned
into "cheap, second-rate bus tours" because of extensive flooding
in Europe.

The passengers travelled with Scenic Tours and Evergreen Tours in
Europe between May 10, 2013 and June 14, 2013 on the promise of a
"relaxing" and "once in a lifetime" experience on ships that are
"luxury floating hotels".

Heavy rainfall in France and Germany in April and May 2013 caused
extensive flooding and water levels on the Rhine, Saone, Rhone and
Danube rivers rose so high that cruise boats were unable to
operate as scheduled for about six weeks.

The 13 affected tours included Amsterdam to Budapest, Amsterdam to
Basel and the rivers of southern France.

The plaintiffs' barrister, Alister Abadee, told Justice Peter
Garling that on two of the tours, 11 out of 15 cruising days were
lost.  Other cruises lost between one and 10 cruising days.

Instead of visiting cities and sites via the river and spending
nights in "five-star accommodation" on a boat, the passengers
endured very long bus rides and in some cases stayed overnight at
"low-budget hotels", Mr. Abadee said.

"The consumers did not pay for a backpackers' Contiki tour," he
said.

Mr. Abadee said Scenic "later issued apologies to any passenger
who complained [saying] circumstances had occurred beyond its
control".

But he said internal documents show Scenic's then-general manager
of operations, Justin Brown, was canvassing alternative options,
including cancelling tours, during the critical period.  He also
gave "serious consideration" to cancelling tours already part-way
through and providing a partial refund.

Gregory McNally SC for Scenic Tours admitted the "majority" of
passengers were not given the option to cancel.

He said Scenic wanted passengers to experience as much as the
planned tour as possible and made every effort to do so. He said
had the 13 tours been cancelled, hundreds of passengers would have
been "stranded in Europe".

Justice Garling asked Mr. McNally if the terms and conditions
which allow ship travel to be replaced by coach or other method of
transportation could in theory apply to the entire tour so that no
cruising actually took place.

Mr. McNally said it could, if the alternative provided was a
reasonable substitute.

The leading plaintiffs, Lake Macquarie school teacher David Moore
and his partner, Janette Howell, spent their life savings --
$26,200 -- on what they expected to be a relaxing river cruise
through the picturesque French and German countryside.
Instead, they spent hours on what they considered to be sub-
standard coaches, including one without a working toilet and
airconditioning.

Mr. Moore said he opted for a river cruise because spinal fusion
surgery he had more than 20 years earlier meant he could not spend
extended periods of time sitting down in a bus.
He said Scenic Tours did not give passengers any warning of the
significant changes, disruption or delays to the itinerary
necessitated by the weather.

In cross-examination Mr McNally asked Mr. Moore if he would have
wanted the cruise to go ahead if he had been told, on the day of
embarkation, that the first few days could proceed as planned but
weather conditions meant the remainder could be affected.
Mr. Moore replied: "No.  Because I'm not getting what I want from
the cruise".

In a statement of claim, the group said Scenic Tours breached
Australian Consumer Law by failing to cancel or delay the cruises,
offer alternative tours, or warn of expected disruptions,
particularly to passengers who travelled to Europe from Australia.

Scenic Tours is defending the case.  It said the standard terms
and conditions of the contract allowed it to make changes to
itineraries, including due to road, river or weather conditions.
The company said it was not liable for any loss, cost or damage,
including the failure to perform its obligations, because of a
force majeure event such as high water levels.

Furthermore, it said the river cruises were not operated by it but
by independent contractors, including Scenic Tours Europe AG, and
any claim must be pursued against them.

But Mr. Abadee said the internal emails show it was Scenic's
Australian general manager, Mr. Brown, and not someone from the
contractors, who was canvassing its options, including
cancellations and refunds.

The plaintiffs are seeking compensation and/or personal injury
damages for inconvenience, distress and disappointment and the
lost opportunity to cancel.

If successful, the litigation lender will take its fees and a
percentage of the settlement.

The hearing continues.


SCHAFFNER DISTRIBUTING: Recalls Re-VITA-lize Products Due to Soy
----------------------------------------------------------------
Schaffner Distributing Pronutri LLC. is recalling Re-VITA-lize LOT
#15554, because it contains undeclared SOY Lecithin and MILK
ingredient. People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to
SOY OR MILK ingredients may run the risk of serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
Re-VITA-Lize was distributed through retail stores and direct
delivery to the following states, California, Washington, Oregon,
Minnesota, Texas, and Iowa.

The product is packaged in a 32oz white plastic bottle with the
name Re-VITA-Lize Tropical Orange Flavor The lot number, lot
#15554, can be found on the side of the bottle.

No illnesses have been reported to date. The recall was initiated
after it was discovered by FDA that the product contained
undeclared whey protein which contains the allergens of milk and
soy lecithin.

Consumers who have purchased Re-VITA-Lize are urged to return it
to the place of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-866-688-7220 Monday-Friday
8am to 5pm PST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/8ScE4T


SOUTHEASTERN GROCERS: Recalls Creme Cakes Due to Peanuts
--------------------------------------------------------
Southeastern Grocers, the parent company of BI-LO, Harveys and
Winn-Dixie stores, is voluntarily recalling its 32 ounce Bakery
Creme Cakes and 14 ounce Bakery Sliced Creme Cakes, because the
products may contain undeclared peanuts.

The 32 ounce Bakery Creme Cakes and 14 ounce Bakery Sliced Creme
Cakes were distributed through all BI-LO, Harveys and Winn-Dixie
stores throughout Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana,
Mississippi, North Carolina and South Carolina in all counties.

The products were sold between April 11, 2016 and April 26, 2016,
with UPC codes of 205509000005, 205510000001, 205473000001,
205508000006, 205476000008, 205506000008, 205474000000 and
269740000002.

People who have an allergy or severe sensitivity to peanuts run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume these products. BI-LO, Harveys and Winn-Dixie stores have
received no reports of illness from customers associated with
consumption of this product and all affected product in the stores
has been discarded.

The recall was initiated after Southeastern Grocers was informed
by Benson's Bakery, the supplier of the bakery cakes, that the
bakery products potentially contained peanuts in packaging that
did not reveal the presence of peanuts.

Consumers who have this product at home, and have a peanut
allergy, should discard the product and return to the store for a
full refund. To receive the refund, customers may present proof of
purchase through a receipt or the product-packaging label.

Customers with questions about the recalled products may contact
the Southeastern Grocers Customer Call Center toll free at 866-
946-6349, Mon. - Fri., 8 a.m. - 6 p.m. EDT, and Sat., 8 a.m. - 4
p.m. EDT.

Southeastern Grocers, LLC, parent company and home of BI-LO,
Harveys and Winn-Dixie grocery stores, is the second-largest
supermarket in the Southeast based on store count. The company
employs nearly 60,000 associates who serve customers in
approximately 750 grocery stores, 140 liquor stores and 500 in-
store pharmacies throughout the seven southeastern states of
Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina
and South Carolina. BI-LO, Harveys and Winn-Dixie are well-known
and well-respected regional brands with deep heritages, strong
neighborhood ties, proud histories of giving back, talented and
loyal associates, and strong commitments to providing the best
possible quality and value to customers. For more information,
visit www.bi-lo.comdisclaimer icon,
www.harveyssupermarkets.comdisclaimer icon and
www.winndixie.comdisclaimer icon.


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: Final Approval Hearing Set for June 13
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has
scheduled a hearing on final approval of the settlement for June
13, 2016, in the case, John Perry v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals,
Inc. et al. (Filed March 14, 2013 in United States District Court,
District of Nevada; Case Number 2:2013-cv-00433-LDG-CWH).

The Company said, "This putative consolidated class action raises
substantially identical claims and allegations against defendants
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya, Brett L.
Scott, and Joseph Kenneth Keller. The alleged class period is
August 8, 2012 to March 12, 2013. The lawsuits allege a violation
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all
defendants and control person liability, as a violation of Section
20(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against the
individual defendants. The claims purportedly stem from the our
March 12, 2013 press release, in which it announced that it
anticipated a change in ordering patterns of FUSILEV. The
complaints allege that, as a result of the March 12, 2013 press
release, our stock price declined. The complaints further allege
that during the putative class period certain defendants made
misleadingly optimistic statements about FUSILEV sales, which
inflated the trading price of our stock. The lawsuits seek relief
in the form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other
equitable or injunctive relief that the court deems appropriate.

"On March 21, 2014, the Court entered an order appointing Arkansas
Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff. On May 20, 2014,
Arkansas Teacher Retirement System filed a consolidated amended
class action complaint. On July 18, 2014, we filed a motion to
dismiss the consolidated amended class action complaint.

"On March 26, 2015, the court denied the motion to dismiss. On
June 15, 2015, the Court ordered a stay of the proceedings pending
the outcome of mediation between the parties. On October 27, 2015,
we reached a $7 million settlement in principle with the lead
plaintiff (which involved our insurance carrier, as the
reimbursing party in full), subject to preliminary and final court
approval. We have included this settlement amount, along with $0.1
million of reimbursable legal expenses for this matter, on our
accompanying Consolidated Balance Sheets as of December 31, 2015
within "other receivables" and "accounts payable and other accrued
liabilities."

"On January 26, 2016, the Court preliminarily approved the
settlement.  The Court has scheduled a hearing on final approval
of the settlement for June 13, 2016."


SPECTRUM PHARMACEUTICALS: "Gains" Plaintiff Dismissed Case
----------------------------------------------------------
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiff has
dismissed the case, Ira Gains v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Rajesh C. Shrotriya was filed in the United States District
Court, District of Nevada on November 3, 2015.

The Company said, "This putative class action was brought against
defendants Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and Dr. Rajesh C.
Shrotriya.  The alleged class period was May 7, 2015 to October
23, 2015.  The complaint alleged a violation of Section 10(b) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against all defendants and
control person liability, as a violation of Section 20(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, against Dr. Rajesh C. Shrotriya.
The claims purportedly stemmed from our October 23, 2015 press
release in which we announced that the FDA issued a Complete
Response Letter indicating that the FDA would not approve our NDA
for EVOMELA in its present form.  The complaint alleged that, as a
result of the October 23, 2015 press release, our stock price
declined.  The complaint further alleged that during the putative
class period defendants made misleadingly optimistic statements
about the progress of the NDA for EVOMELA with the FDA, our
expectations regarding FDA approval of the NDA, and EVOMELA's
potential as a future driver of our revenue, which inflated the
trading price of our stock.  The complaint sought relief in the
form of monetary damages, costs and fees, and any other relief
that the Court deemed appropriate. On December 11, 2015, plaintiff
voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice."


SPROUTS FARMERS: Faces Data Breach Class Action in California
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Vanover, writing for Top Class Actions, reports that a
proposed nationwide lawsuit seeks class certification for possibly
thousands of Sprouts Farmers Market employees who might have been
affected by a data breach last month through a scam
e-mail.

Sprouts is a Phoenix, Ariz.-based supermarket chain with about
21,000 employees and 224 stores in 13 states.  The payroll
department at Sprouts Farmers Market Inc. allegedly fell prey to a
"phishing scam," in which it voluntarily released the 2015 W-2
Wage and Tax Forms of up to 21,000 or more of its 2015 employees.

As a result of the Sprouts data breach, unknown third parties
allegedly now possess the personal information of these workers,
including Social Security Numbers, full names, addresses and wage
tax statements.

Lead plaintiff Julio Hernandez, a former employee of a Sprouts
Farmers Market in San Diego, filed the class action lawsuit in
California federal court, alleging that the company owed a legal
duty to its employees to "maintain, protect, and safeguard their
tax information" and breached that obligation by negligently
releasing private tax information to a third party who is believed
to using the data for illegal purposes.

According to the class action lawsuit, in early March 2016 the
payroll department at Sprouts responded to an email request for
its current and former employees' 2015 IRS form W-2's from an
unknown person posing as a senior executive of the company.

Mr. Hernandez claims that Sprouts should have known that such a
security breach was likely and should have taken adequate
precautions to protect their current and former employees' tax
information and social security numbers.  He also purports that
not only did Sprouts fail to prevent this attack, but have not
taken any action to remedy it.

Court documents state that Sprouts issued a letter to affected
employees informing them of the data breach and offering a year's
worth of credit monitoring and insurance through Experian
ProtectMyID Alert, but Mr. Hernandez and other potential Class
Members claim that this monitoring service can only inform them of
suspicious activity and cannot prevent actual identity theft or
fraud.

Mr. Hernandez says he was forced to subscribe to a identity theft
protection program through Wells Fargo bank for a monthly fee of
$12.99.

"Going forward, Plaintiff anticipates spending considerable time
in an effort to contain the impact of Defendant's Data Breach on
himself.  Plaintiff suffers from an increased risk of future
identity theft as a result of Defendant's actions," the lawsuit
states.

Mr. Hernandez is bringing this lawsuit on behalf of himself and
all current and former employees of Sprouts whose 2015 W-2s and
related information were transmitted to a third party in or around
the week of Mar. 14, 2016.

He also seeks to certify a California subclass, claiming specific
violations of the California Customer Records Act and other
privacy statutes by "unreasonably" delaying relaying to the
proposed Class that a security breach occurred until two weeks had
passed.

"But for Sprouts' omissions, [Hernandez] would have taken
additional steps to protect his identity and to protect himself
from the sort of harm that could flow from Sprouts' lax security
measures," the complaint says.

The proposed Class is seeking actual and statutory damages,
restitution, and disgorgement.  They are also asking the Court to
award equitable, declaratory relief as well as an injunctive order
that mandates Sprouts hire a third party security monitoring firm
to conduct regular audits and training on identifying possible
future data breaches.

The Sprouts W-2 data breach has also prompted a similar data
phishing scam lawsuit filed in Colorado federal court.

Mr. Hernandez is represented by Scott B. Cooper and Samantha A.
Smith of The Cooper Law Firm, Roger R. Carter of The Carter Law
Firm, and Marc H. Phelps of the Phelps Law Group.

The Sprouts W-2 Data Breach Class Action Lawsuit is Julio
Hernandez v. Sprouts Farmers Market Inc., Case No. 16-cv-0958 in
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.


STONERIDGE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Verde" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has a legal
proceeding, Verde v. Stoneridge, Inc. et al., currently pending in
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Texas, Cause No. 6:14-cv-00225- KNM.

The plaintiff filed this putative class action against the Company
and others on March 26, 2014.  Plaintiff alleges that the Company
was involved in the vertical chain of manufacture, distribution,
and sale of a control device ("CD") that was incorporated into a
Dodge Ram truck purchased by Plaintiff in 2006.  Plaintiff alleges
that the Company breached express warranties and indemnification
provisions by supplying a defective CD that was not capable of
performing its intended function.  The putative class consists of
all Texas residents who own manual transmission Chrysler vehicles
model years 1994-2007 equipped with the subject CD.  Plaintiff
seeks recovery of economic loss damages incurred by him and the
putative class members associated with inspecting and replacing
the allegedly defective CD, as well as attorneys' fees and costs.

Plaintiff filed his motion for class certification seeking to
certify a class of Texas residents who own or lease certain
automobiles sold by Chrysler from 1998-2007.  Plaintiff alleges
this putative class would include approximately 120,000 people.

In the motion for class certification, the Plaintiff states that
damages are no more than $1 per person.  A hearing on Plaintiff's
motion for class certification was held on November 16, 2015, and
the United States District Court has not yet ruled on class
certification at December 31, 2015.

                           *     *     *

In an Order dated Feb. 24, 2016, a copy of which is available at
http://is.gd/4L6DcAfrom Leagle.com, District Judge Michael H.
Schneider adopted a report and recommendation by a magistrate
judge granting Defendant FTE Automotive Inc.'s Motion for Summary
Judgment and dismissing Count III of Verde's Complaint against FTE
Automotive USA, Inc.

The case is, FERNANDO VERDE, Individually and on behalf of
putative class members, Plaintiff, v. STONERIDGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 6:14-CV-225-MHS KNM (E.D. Tex.).

Fernando Verde, Plaintiff, represented by Frederick Leighton
Durham -- ldurham@kdplawfirm.com -- Durham & Pittard, Kirk Louis
Pittard -- kpittard@kdplawfirm.com -- Durham & Pittard & Jeffrey
Todd Embry, Hossley & Embry LLP.

Stoneridge, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott P. Drake --
scott.drake@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright US
LLP, D Bowen Berry -- berry@berryfirm.com -- The Berry Firm PLLC,
Gary D Lykins -- lykins@berryfirm.com -- The Berry Firm, P.L.L.C.
& William Patrick Courtney --
patrick.courtney@nortonrosefulbright.com -- Norton Rose Fulbright
US LLP.

FTE Automotive USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark Anthony
Giugliano -- mgiugliano@gibbsbruns.com -- Gibbs & Bruns.

Arrow Manufacturing Co, Defendant, represented by Robert Wayne
Gordon -- wayne.gordon@tbjbs.com -- Touchstone Bernays Johnston
Beall & Smith.

Old Carco Liquidation Trust, Defendant, represented by How-Ying
Albert Liou -- aliou@jonesday.com -- Jones Day.

Founded in 1965, Stoneridge, Inc. (the "Company") is a global
designer and manufacturer of highly engineered electrical and
electronic components, modules and systems for the automotive,
commercial, motorcycle, off-highway and agricultural vehicle
markets.


STONERIDGE INC: Continues to Defend Against "Royal" Class Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stoneridge, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the case, Royal v.
Stoneridge, Inc. et al. is currently pending in the United States
District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, Cause No.
5:14-cv-01410-F.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action against the Company,
Stoneridge Control Devices, Inc., and others on December 19, 2014.
Plaintiff alleges that the Company was involved in the vertical
chain of manufacture, distribution, and sale of a CD that was
incorporated into Dodge Ram trucks purchased by Plaintiff between
1999 and 2006.  Plaintiffs allege that the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc. breached various express and implied
warranties, including the implied warranty of merchantability.
Plaintiffs also seek indemnity from the Company and Stoneridge
Control Devices, Inc.  The putative class consists of all owners
of vehicles equipped with the subject CD, which includes various
Dodge Ram trucks and other manual transmission vehicles
manufactured from 1997-2007, which Plaintiffs allege is more than
one million vehicles.  Plaintiffs seeks recovery of economic loss
damages associated with inspecting and replacing the allegedly
defective CD, diminished value of the subject CDs and the trucks
in which they were installed, and attorneys' fees and costs.  The
amount of compensatory or other damages sought by Plaintiffs and
the putative class members is unknown.

The Company is vigorously defending itself against these
allegations, and has and will continue to challenge the claims as
well as class action certification. The Company believes the
likelihood of loss is not probable or reasonably estimable, and
therefore no liability has been recorded for these claims at
December 31, 2015.

Founded in 1965, Stoneridge, Inc. (the "Company") is a global
designer and manufacturer of highly engineered electrical and
electronic components, modules and systems for the automotive,
commercial, motorcycle, off-highway and agricultural vehicle
markets.


TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Campaign Sued Over Unsolicited Texts
---------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Donald Trump's presidential campaign has been hit with a class
action lawsuit alleging the campaign texted people without
permission, and should pay as much as $1,500 for each improper
text message sent.

On April 25, plaintiff Joshua Thorne, identified in the court
documents as a resident of Cook County, filed suit in Chicago
federal court against Donald J. Trump for President Inc. --
Trump's official campaign committee -- asserting Trump's campaign
violated federal telecommunications law by using an automated
program to send campaign-related text messages to Mr. Thorne's
mobile phone, as well as likely phones belonging to thousands of
other people, allegedly without receiving permission to do so.

Mr. Thorne is being represented in the action by the firm of
Siprut P.C., of Chicago.

According to the complaint, Mr. Thorne received a text message
from Trump for President on March 4.  The message purportedly
asked him to "Reply YES to subscribe to Donald J. Trump for
President."  The message further read "Your subscription will help
Make America Great Again!"

The complaint asserted the source of the message, listed as
"88022" is a texting short code "leased by Trump for President or
Trump for President's agent(s) or affiliate(s) and is used for
operating Trump for President's text message marketing program."

Thorne asserted he "did not provide prior express consent for
Trump for President to send text messages" to his phone, nor did
he provide his number to Trump's campaign."

The complaint claimed Thorne and his counsel believe the same text
message and others like it have likely been sent "en masse to
thousands of wireless telephone numbers or randomly generated
phone numbers."

The complaint asserted the registrant of the website that hosts
Trump's campaign's privacy policy is a company identified as
Tatango Inc., which "advertises bulk messaging software on its
website."  According to the complaint, Tatango's website brags its
programs allow text messages to be simultaneously sent to "42,435
cellular phone numbers."

"On information and belief, prior to sending the text messages,
Trump for President entered into an agreement with Tatango to use
Tatango's software to send hundreds, if not thousands, of text
messages en masse," the complaint said.

Further, the complaint said Thorne and his counsel believe the
Trump campaign received a guide on complying with federal law from
Tatango prior to sending the text messages.

Mr. Thorne's complaint asked the judge to certify a class of
additional plaintiffs including anyone who received such
unsolicited and unapproved text messages from the Trump campaign
at any point in the last four years.

Mr. Thorne's complaint asked the judge to order Trump's campaign
to no longer send such text messages using automated equipment to
anyone who did not provide appropriate consent.

Further, the complaint asked the court to award damages of three
times the amount allowed by federal law, of $500 per text message,
plus attorney fees.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers to Get Less Than $24 Settlement Payout
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Fast Company reports that when you see "$100 million" in the
headlines of the Uber class-action lawsuit settlement in
California and Massachusetts, it's easy to assume that plenty of
Uber drivers are in for a windfall -- but in actuality, most Uber
drivers covered under the settlement will get less than $24,
reports MarketWatch.  The figure comes from court documents that
show settlement figures ranging from $10 to $8,000 per driver
based on the state (or class) the driver operates in and the total
miles driven per driver.

In California, for example, there are over 160,000 drivers who
drove less than 750 miles.  Those drivers will only get between
$10 and $24 in the settlement.  On the other hand, there are less
than 10,000 drivers who drove more than 25,000 miles.  Those
drivers will receive between $836 and $1,950 in the settlement. As
for drivers who get the $8,000 settlement, that sum will only go
to drivers who opted out of the arbitration clause and were in the
California class.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Class Action Settlement Won't Bring Changes
--------------------------------------------------------------
Johana Bhuiyan, writing for Re/code, reports that Uber settled a
class action employee misclassification suit in California and
Massachusetts that, had it lost, could have forced the company to
reevaluate its core business model.

At the center of the case was whether drivers are indeed
independent contractors, as Uber would have it, or should be
classified as employees. The main distinction is that if drivers
are employees, then Uber has to front the costs of operations and
pay benefits like health insurance.

The settlement agreement boils down to one thing: If a judge
accepts the terms, Uber can still treat its drivers as independent
contractors, in exchange for a number of concessions that address
just a few of the concerns that drivers had expressed throughout
the case.

What does this mean for Uber riders?
As a rider, not much is changing. (Had things gone differently,
reclassifying Uber drivers as employees might have led to
significant changes, including higher prices.)

The main part of the settlement that directly affects Uber riders
is the company's agreement to stop saying that the tip is included
in the fare.  Because it never was.

Drivers were often discouraged from soliciting tips from riders
because the company argued the extra step made the experience much
less seamless and thus less on-demand.  But riders were never
prohibited from tipping their drivers; they were just told they
didn't need to.

That's mostly because Uber didn't want riders to have to carry
around cash.  The bottom line is: Tipping was always an option.

The settlement does not require Uber to add an in-app tipping
feature similar to rival Lyft's, which allows riders to add a tip
to their electronic bill.  But if there's enough pressure on
riders to start shelling out extra dollars per ride in loose cash,
Uber may be forced to consider integrating the feature in order to
maintain its seamless rider experience. (Many see Uber's cashless,
friction-free payment experience as a positive differentiator from
taxis.)

What does this mean for Uber drivers?
The biggest change for U.S. drivers outside of California and
Massachusetts is that they cannot be deactivated from the platform
-- Uber's term for getting fired -- for failing to accept a
minimum number of ride requests.

Previously, drivers would receive emails or other forms of
communication warning that they would be deactivated if they did
not raise their acceptance rate to at least 80 percent of all ride
requests.

Here's an example of an email a driver received:

In April, you accepted less than 80% of trips you were connected
with.  This level of acceptance severely degrades the Uber user
experience for both riders and partners, as well as lowering the
amount you're able to earn while using the platform. Our data
shows that partners who accept at least 90% of trips earn 40% more
than partners with low acceptance rates.

Please improve your acceptance rate if you want to continue to use
the Uber platform.

Otherwise, U.S. drivers outside of Massachusetts and California
will operate in largely the same way.

What about for drivers in Massachusetts and California?
Drivers in these two states will see more significant changes --
but that's not saying much.  Specifically, they'll get some cash
and a new appeals panel.

For one, drivers in these states will be entitled to a piece of
the $84 million the company has agreed to pay as part of the
settlement, as well as part of a second payout pool of $16 million
if Uber ever goes public.

The distribution of the money that drivers receive will be based
on:

   -- How many miles they drove
   -- Whether they were part of the group of drivers granted class
action status (i.e. didn't drive for Uber through a third-party
company)
   -- Whether they opted out of the arbitration clause Uber has in
its driver contract
   -- How many drivers claim their share of the payout
   -- Which state they drove in

The plaintiffs' attorney, Shannon Liss-Riordan, expects that claim
rate to be 50 percent, she wrote in a court filing.

In that case, California drivers who drove the most -- or more
than 25,000 miles -- and were certified members of the class would
receive an average of about $8,000.  If 100 percent of the
eligible drivers claimed their share, that number drops to $1,950.

The rest of the drivers who were members of the class and drove
between zero and 25,000 miles will receive between $24 and $1,137
if every single member of the class filed a claim to receive a
share.

In Massachusetts, drivers who drove more than 25,000 miles will
receive an average of $949 if 100 percent of drivers submit a
claim.  Based on the numbers Ms. Liss-Riordan included in the
declaration, class members in California have been allotted about
80 percent of the payout.

All together, the estimated average settlement shares listed in
Ms. Liss-Riordan's declaration add up to around $73 million.  This
leaves more than $10 million of the initial payout of $84 million,
which will likely cover legal and other fees.

The most significant long-term impact of the settlement for
drivers comes in the form of an appeals panel, through which
drivers can appeal the company's decision to deactivate them, and
a driver association that serves in the place of a union but will
not be legally recognized as one.

So at the very least there is a protocol for attempting to remedy
what a driver might see as a wrongful deactivation.  The appeals
panel, made up of highly rated drivers, will recommend whether a
deactivation should be overturned.  Uber ultimately has the final
say.

The driver association, on the other hand, formalizes the channels
of communication that drivers all over America have been
attempting to forge through various ad-hoc and online-based driver
groups.  But now, Uber has committed to meeting with the elected
leaders of this association on a quarterly basis.

Again, the company has made no promises and has explicitly stated
that drivers can't try to collectively bargain for better fares
through this association.  For drivers in these two states, this
might centralize many of the driver groups and efforts, thus
making it easier to organize a critical mass of people under one
cause.  It may also serve as a model for similar systems in other
states.

Until now, this has been an obstacle for the company's amorphous
labor force of drivers.

What does this mean for Uber?

Uber is the clear winner in the settlement, because the company
still gets to call its drivers independent contractors. (To be
sure, a judge still has to accept the terms of the agreement,
which means Uber could be forced to go to trial and argue its case
in front of a jury.)

But it also means the company is now an even bigger target.

In fact, just a few hours after Uber announced the settlement,
another group of drivers in Florida filed a suit seeking to
organize drivers nationwide, alleging the company misclassified
them as independent contractors.  That's because the settlement in
no way precludes drivers in states outside of Massachusetts and
California from suing Uber for the same exact thing.

Further, class action suits are driven by lawyers, and while the
terms of the settlement work largely in Uber's favor, the payout
signals the company is willing to cough up a fair amount of cash
to make these problems go away, labor lawyer Tom Rohback told
Re/code.

So class-action lawyers in search of a winning case with a big
payout will be looking for new opportunities to get a piece of the
cash cow that is Uber.

What about the rest of the "gig economy"?

We can expect to see some shifts in the industry as companies with
a similar contractor model implement changes that will alleviate
threats of similar lawsuits.  As Uber continues to become a bigger
target, so too do its counterparts in the sharing economy.

The question of whether workers are contractors or employees
centers largely on how much control the company exerts over them.
So, gig economy companies that depend on independent contractors
may be forced to reevaluate the way they treat their contractors.

Some may even choose to preemptively classify them as employees in
order to avoid a lengthy and expensive legal battle.  This has
already started happening: Startups Shyp, Luxe, Instacart and
Honor have all shifted completely or partially to a traditional
employee model.


VICAL INCORPORATED: Class Action Appeal Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------
Vical Incorporated said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Ninth Circuit has
granted a joint motion and dismissed a class action appeal.

The Company said, "In late October and early November 2013,
following our announcement of the results of our Phase 3 trial of
Allovectin(R) and the subsequent decline of the price of our
common stock, two putative securities class action complaints were
filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
California against us and certain of our current and former
officers. On February 26, 2014, the two cases were consolidated
into one action and a lead plaintiff and lead counsel were
appointed ("Consolidation Order")."

"On May 12, 2014, the lead plaintiff filed a first amended
consolidated complaint alleging that the defendants violated
Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by
making materially false and misleading statements regarding our
business prospects and the prospects for Allovectin(R), thereby
artificially inflating the price of our common stock.  On June 9,
2014, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended
complaint and a motion to strike certain allegations in the
amended complaint.

"On March 9, 2015, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss
the first amended complaint and terminated as moot defendants'
motion to strike, or Order. The lead plaintiff was granted leave
to amend his first amended complaint on or before March 25, 2015.
The lead plaintiff chose not to amend his complaint and instead
stipulated to an entry of judgment.

"On April 28, 2015, the Court entered final judgment dismissing
the action, or Judgment. On May 28, 2015, the lead plaintiff
appealed the Judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit.

"That same day, another group of our stockholders that had
previously moved for appointment as lead plaintiff, or the Vical
Investor Group, also appealed the Judgment, as well as the
Consolidation Order, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. On August 3, 2015, the Vical Investor Group voluntarily
dismissed its appeal.

"On October 8, 2015, the lead plaintiff-appellant filed an opening
brief in support of his appeal. Defendants' filed an answering
brief on December 9, 2015. On January 27, 2016, lead plaintiff-
appellant filed a motion to dismiss his appeal with prejudice,
which was joined by defendants. On February 1, 2016, the Ninth
Circuit granted the joint motion and dismissed the appeal."


VIGO IMPORTING: Mislabels Jumbo Squid as Octopus, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that as octopus prices spiral due to worldwide overfishing, an
importer is mislabeling its jumbo squid as octopus to trick
consumers, a diner claims in San Jose a federal class action.

Luis Diego Zapata Fonseca sued Vigo Importing Co. on April 19, "on
behalf of purchasers of Vigo octopus products that Vigo had
labeled and sold as octopus when in reality the products contained
jumbo squid, which is significantly cheaper and of a lower quality
than octopus."

The nine-count lawsuit, alleging fraud, false advertising, unfair
competition and other charges, contains a wealth of information
about the octopus, which, like the squid, is a cephalopod.

The European Union restricted octopus fishing in 2005, declaring
that "the octopus might be at risk of 'dying out ... if controls
are not enforced to stop overfishing.'"

The United Nations' Food and Agriculture Organization repeated the
warning in 2010, and in 2014 Monterey Bay Aquarium reported that
"octopus stocks are in poor shape" worldwide. Also in 2014,
SeafoodSource.com reported that "octopus supplies had fallen by 45
percent in approximately one year, causing a dramatic increase in
the price of octopus," according to the complaint.

The octopus does extremely well on intelligence tests such as
mazes, it can open jars and build shelters for itself, and is said
to be able to recognize its handlers. A captive octopus named Inky
made worldwide news in April when he escaped from his aquarium at
the National Aquarium in New Zealand, slithered across the floor
and into a drainpipe and escaped into Hawke's Bay. A marine
biologist told The New York Times that octopuses are "fantastic
escape artists."

As food, they are chewy and increasingly expensive. Their taste is
similar to the cheaper jumbo squid, which is thriving.

Stanford biologist William Gilly said in a 2013 TED talk that the
jumbo squid's success is due to its ability to adapt to changing
ocean conditions caused by global warming.

"As a result of these developments, the cost of octopus has risen
dramatically compared to the cost of squid," according to Zapata's
lawsuit. "In addition, due to similarities in texture, squid can
easily be substituted for octopus without the consumer being able
to tell the difference, particularly when sold in a sauce like
garlic sauce or marinara sauce."

Vigo sells "Octopus in Marinade Sauce" and "Octopus in Soy and
Olive Oil," with the word "Octopus" prominently displayed on the
labels in a large font. Nowhere on the boxes does it say that the
products contain squid instead of octopus, Zapata says. And he
says he has DNA tests to prove it.

"Independent DNA testing determined that Vigo's octopus products
are actually jumbo squid and not octopus. Octopus and jumbo squid
are both cephalopods, but are otherwise completely different
species," according to the complaint.

"Vigo has intentionally replaced the octopus in its octopus
products with squid as a cheap substitute to save money because it
knew an ordinary consumer would have trouble distinguishing the
difference," Fonseca says.

He seeks class certification, restitution, compensatory and
punitive damages and an injunction. He is represented by L.
Timothy Fisher -- ltfisher@bursor.com -- with Bursor & Fisher of
Walnut Creek, and by:

     James Gitkin, Esq.
     SALPETER GITKIN, LLP ?
     1 E Broward Blvd #1500
     Fort Lauderdale, FL 33301

Vigo, which is based in Tampa, Fla., did not immediately respond
to a request for comment April 21.


VIRIDIAN ENERGY: Faces "Landau" Suit Over Contract Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
Steven Landau, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Viridian Energy PA, LLC, Case No. 2:16-cv-01938-GAM
(E.D. Penn., April 25, 2016), arises out of the Defendants'
alleged breach of contract.

Viridian Energy PA, LLC provides utility services and offers
generation, transmission, and distribution of electric energy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jonathan Shub, Esq.
      KOHN SWIFT & GRAF PC
      One South Broad St Suite 2100
      Philadelphia, PA 19107
      Telephone: (215) 238-1700
      Facsimile: (215) 238-1968
      E-mail: jshub@kohnswift.com

VNS HOTELS: Faces "Valentine" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Angela Valentine, individually and on behalf of other similarly
situated v. Pradeep K. Khatri, VNS Hotels, Inc., and, Does 1-
through 50, inclusive, Case No. RG16813080 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

The Defendants own and operate a hotel located at 2440 Mission
Blvd., Hayward, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Edward J. Wynne, Esq.
      WYNNE LAW FIRM
      100 Drakes Landing Road, Suite 275
      Greenbrae, CA 94904
      Telephone: (415) 461-6400
      Facsimile: (415) 461-3900
      E-mail: ewynne@wynnefirm.com


VOCERA COMMUNICATIONS: $9MM Settlement Has Preliminary OK
---------------------------------------------------------
Vocera Communications, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a California court
has granted preliminary approval of the settlement in the
securities litigation.

The Company said, "On August 1 and 21, 2013, two putative
securities class action suits were filed in the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California against us
and certain of our officers, our board of directors, a former
director and the underwriters for the initial public offering."

"On November 20, 2013, the court consolidated the actions as In re
Vocera Communications, Inc. Securities Litigation and appointed
Lead Plaintiffs.  Lead Plaintiffs filed their consolidated
complaint on September 19, 2014.

"The consolidated complaint names certain current and former
officers and directors and the underwriters for our initial public
offering and secondary offering and alleges claims under Sections
11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended
(Securities Act) and Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act
based on allegedly false and materially misleading statements and
omissions in the registration statement for our initial public
offering and secondary offering and in communications regarding
its business and financial results. The suit is purportedly
brought on behalf of purchasers of our securities between March
28, 2012 and May 2, 2013, and seeks compensatory damages,
rescission, fees and costs, as well as other relief.

"On November 3, 2014, Defendants moved to dismiss the consolidated
complaint. On February 11, 2015, the Court granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss the Securities Act claims, but denied the motion
as to the Exchange Act claims, allowing the matter to proceed on
that basis. On April 27, 2015, Defendants filed answers to the
consolidated complaint.

"In connection with a mediation, an agreement in principle to
settle the suit was reached in October 2015. On March 4, 2016, the
Court issued an order granting Lead Plaintiffs' motion for
preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement, which is
subject final approval of the Court, calls for payment of $9
million, which will be funded entirely by our insurance carriers."

Vocera is a provider of secure, integrated, intelligent
communication solutions, focused on empowering mobile workers in
healthcare, hospitality, energy, and other mission-critical mobile
work environments in the United States and internationally.


VOLT MANAGEMENT: Faces "Sanchez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ana Sanchez, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Volt Management Corp., Moldex-Metric, Inc., and Does 1
through 100, inclusive, Case No. BC618153 (Cal. Super. Ct., April
25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Volt Management Corp. provides workforce consulting, technology
management consulting, and database services.

Moldex-Metric, Inc. designs and manufactures hearing and
respiratory protection products for industrial worker safety
applications.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Blvd
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603

         - and -

      Mehrdad Bokhour, Esq.
      BIBIYAN & BOKHOUR, P.C.
      1801 Century Park East, Suite 2600
      Los Angeles, CA 90067-2328
      Telephone: (310) 438-5555
      Facsimile: (310) 300-1705


VOLVO CARS: "Laurens" Sues Over Breach of Warranty
--------------------------------------------------
Xavier Laurens, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Volvo Cars of North America, LLC and Volvo
Cars USA, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04507 (N.D. Ill.,
April 21, 2016), seeks compensatory and actual damages, including
restitution and disgorgement of Defendants' revenues, attorney
fees and costs and such other and further relief resulting from
common law fraud, breach of express warranty, unjust enrichment
and violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiff purchased the Volvo XC90 T8 twin gasoline-electric
engine vehicle which the Defendant claims to run 25 miles on full
charge. Laurens alleges that his T8 only runs for 8 to 10 miles on
a full electric charge.

Volvo Cars of North America, LLC is a Delaware limited liability
company with its principal place of business in the State of New
Jersey. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Volvo Car Corporation,
based in Gothenburg, Sweden which manufactures Volvo-branded cars.

Volvo Cars of North America provides marketing, sales,
distribution, parts service and training support for Volvo brand
passenger cars in the United States.

Volvo Car USA, LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
its principal place of business in New Jersey. It is an authorized
importer and distributor of Volvo motor vehicles in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
      Todd L. McLawhorn, Esq.
      John S. Marrese, Esq.
      SIPRUT PC
      17 North State Street, Suite 1600
      Chicago, IL 60602
      Phone: 312.236.0000
      Fax: 312.754.9616
      Email: jsiprut@siprut.com
             tmclawhorn@siprut.com
             jmarrese@siprut.com

                           *     *     *

Lisa Klein, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
Volvo made false promises that its environmentally friendly SUV,
the T8, can run solely on electrical power all day for the average
person, a class claims in Chicago.

Lead plaintiff Xavier Laurens says he "has become a victim of a
classic bait and switch."  Laurens claims he waited eight months
for a T8 that he bought from a Chicago dealer, thinking he could
drive 25 miles before switching over to gas. But when the SUV
arrived, he found he could only get 8 to 10 miles on the electric
battery, "a far cry" from what Volvo said, according to a class-
action lawsuit.

"Volvo markets its environmental and safety features to
differentiate Volvo cars from those of other car manufacturers,"
the complaint states.

Laurens says he paid $18,300 more than an identical all-gas
vehicle for the cost-saving and environmental benefits of the T8's
electric motor.

The April 21 lawsuit alleges the Swedish manufacturer represented
that the 25 all-electric miles were enough to "cover the average
commute and daily errands for most people," but later changed its
mind and said the T8 could only go 17 miles without gas.  But,
Laurens claims, the only way "to even come close" to that is to
drive 40 miles per hour on the highway with all of the car's
safety features disabled.

Laurens took his car back to the dealer, who was only able to get
10 miles out of it on electric power driving normally.

For practical purposes and daily use, Laurens says in the class-
action complaint, "the difference between an 8-10 mile range and a
17-25 mile range is enormous."

"As a result of this reduced electric battery capacity, Plaintiff
is unable to complete his daily commute or everyday tasks without
using the gasoline engine, which prevents plaintiff from obtaining
the cost saving effects of foregoing gasoline for local trips and
the environmental benefits of operating solely on electricity,"
the 19-page lawsuit states.

Volvo is being sued for consumer fraud, breach of warranty and
unjust enrichment. Volvo Car USA has not returned a voicemail
request for comment from Courthouse News.

The proposed national class includes all people who bought or
leased a 2016 Volvo XC90 T8. It is represented by Todd McLawhorn
of Siprut PC in Chicago.


W3 LTD: Faces Class Action Over Unwanted Text Message Ads
---------------------------------------------------------
Braden Campbell, Y. Peter Kang and Steven Trader, writing for
Law360, reports that a British roommate and rental matching
service was slapped with a putative class action in Ohio federal
court on April 22 alleging it sent unwanted text message
advertisements in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act.

Cleveland resident Max Gerboc claims he received an unsolicited
text message earlier this month advertising W3 Ltd.-operated
rental matching service easyroommate.com through "an illegal mass
marketing scheme" run by W3 in violation of the TCPA.

W3 is a British company that provides services for matching its
users with roommates and lodging and helping them rent out their
own space, according to Mr. Gerboc's complaint.  The company runs
sites include short-term accommodation service WhereToSleep,
classified ad service Vivastreet, student accommodation database
HomesForStudents and easyroommate.com.

Mr. Gerboc claims he received an unsolicited text message on April
14 suggesting he list property on Post2RentFast.com, which
redirects to W3-operated easyroommate.com.  The text, which is
reproduced in the complaint, is attributed to a "Victoria Witman,"
which Mr. Gerboc claims is a false identity created by W3 to
market its services.

"An extensive Internet search for 'Victoria Witman' and for
victoriawitman735@mail.com, demonstrates those names are phony,
used by defendant with the intent to disguise its illegal mass
marketing scheme and its violation of the TCPA," Mr. Gerboc said.

That the text was written in a conversational tone, as though
Victoria Witman were a friend of Mr. Gerboc's, makes the violation
especially egregious, Gerboc's attorney, Patrick J. Perotti of
Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA told Law360 on April 25.

"What they did is already clearly illegal, but they had to go an
extra step and dress it up to look like it was a text from some
friend," he said.  "It's amazing how far companies will go in
violating the law to make money."

Mr. Gerboc claims the "nature of this text message" indicates it
was sent en masse to class members via an automatic telephone
dialing service in violation of the TCPA. The act prohibits using
automatic dialing systems to make unsolicited phone contact.

While the language of the TCPA prohibits the unwanted
advertisement of services via phone calls, Mr. Gerboc points out
in his complaint that courts routinely interpret texts as phone
calls for purposes of the TCPA per the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission's recommendations.

Mr. Gerboc aims to represent a class of all others who received
such spam advertisements from W3 in violation of the TCPA.
Mr. Gerboc does not offer an estimate for how many members this
class numbers.

Mr. Gerboc seeks unspecified monetary and other relief for W3's
alleged violations of the TCPA, fees and an injunction barring the
company from continuing such conduct.

Bank of America ponied up $1 million to resolve a class action
accusing it of making unwanted automated phone calls and texts to
an estimated 30,000 customers between February 2013 and April
2016.  Also driving service Uber pushed for summary judgment
tossing a proposed class action claiming it sent potential drivers
text messages in violation of the TCPA, claiming the recipients
consented to the texts.

Attorneys for Mr. Gerboc and representatives for W3 did not
immediately respond on April 25 to requests for comment.

Mr. Gerboc is represented by Frank A. Bartela, Patrick J. Perotti
and Nicole T. Fiorelli of Dworken & Bernstein Co. LPA.

Attorney information for W3 was not available on April 25.

The case is Max Gerboc v. W3 Ltd., case number 1:15-CV-00971, in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, Eastern
Division.


WELTMAN WEINBERG: Neldner Moves for Class Certification
-------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Christopher Neldner moves the Court to certify a class
in the lawsuit entitled CHRISTOPHER NELDNER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. WELTMAN, WEINBERG &
REIS CO., LPA, Case No. 2:16-cv-00519-NJ (E.D. Wisc.).

According to the Motion, Damasco and decisions like it imposed
significant burdens on the Court and on the Plaintiff's Counsel.
Damasco v. Clearwire Corp., 662 F.3d 891 (7th Cir. 2011),
overruled, Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (7th
Cir. 2015).  To avoid the risk of a defendant mooting a putative
class representative's individual stake in the litigation, the
Seventh Circuit in Damasco instructed plaintiffs to file a
certification motion with the complaint, along with a motion to
stay briefing on the certification motion until discovery could
commence.

The Plaintiff contends that he is obligated to move for class
certification to protect the interests of the putative class.

As this Motion to Certify a class is a placeholder motion as
described in Damasco, the Plaintiff contends that the parties and
the Court should not be burdened with unnecessary paperwork and
the resulting expense when a one paragraph, single page motion to
certify and stay should suffice until an amended motion is filed.

Therefore, the Plaintiff requests that the Court enter an order
certifying the proposed class in this case, appointing the
Plaintiff as its representative, and appointing Ademi & O'Reilly,
LLP as its Counsel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shpetim Ademi, Esq.
          John D. Blythin, Esq.
          Mark A. Eldridge, Esq.
          Denise L. Morris, Esq.
          ADEMI & O'REILLY, LLP
          3620 East Layton Avenue
          Cudahy, WI 53110
          Telephone: (414) 482-8000
          Facsimile: (414) 482-8001
          E-mail: sademi@ademilaw.com
                  jblythin@ademilaw.com
                  meldridge@ademilaw.com
                  dmorris@ademilaw.com

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=AhsGBupi


WENDY'S COMPANY: Faces First Choice Suit Over Data Breach
---------------------------------------------------------
First Choice Federal Credit Union, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated v. The Wendy's Company, Wendy's
Restaurants, LLC, and Wendy's International, LLC, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00506-MPK (W.D. Penn., April 25, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to comply with industry standards and
protect payment card and customer data, which results to data
breach.

The Defendants are engaged in the business of operating,
developing and franchising a system of quick-service restaurants.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary F. Lynch, Esq.
      Jamisen A. Etzel, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER, LLP
      1133 Penn Ave., 5th Floor
      Pittsburgh, PA 15222
      Telephone: (412) 322-9243
      Facsimile: (412) 231-0246
      E-mail: glynch@carlsonlynch.com
              jetzel@carlsonlynch.com


WILSON COUNTY, KS: "Ogden" Plaintiffs Seek Class Certification
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled RUSSELL K. OGDEN, BEATRICE
HAMMER, and JOHN SMITH, on behalf of themselves and a class of
persons similarly situated v. PETE FIGGINS, in his official
capacity as Sheriff for Wilson County, Kansas, Case No. 16-cv-2288
(D. Kan.), ask the Court to certify this case as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiffs challenge the Defendant's policy and practice of
forbidding inmates of the Wilson County Correctional Facility and
their parents, children, spouses, relatives, friends and other
correspondents from sending letters enclosed in envelopes to and
from the Jail ("Postcard-Only Mail Policy").  Instead, Jail
inmates and their outside correspondents must write all of their
correspondences on pre-paid U.S. Postal postcards.

The only exception to this Postcard-Only Mail Policy applies to
"Legal Mail," which is not defined, but includes mail sent from an
attorney's office.  Moreover, the Postcard-Only Mail Policy does
not afford either the sender or the intended recipient of any
rejected communication with any notice of, reasons for, or
opportunity to challenge, the Jail's censorship of their protected
speech, the Plaintiffs contend.

The Plaintiffs argue that the policy impermissibly restricts the
ability of inmates and their outside correspondents from
exercising their rights to communicate in writing, as well as
their due process rights, in violation of the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

The Plaintiffs also ask the Court to appoint them as class
representatives for the proposed class and appoint Joshua A.
Glickman, Esq., and Stephen Douglas Bonney, Esq., as Class
Counsel.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua A. Glickman, Esq.
          SOCIAL JUSTICE LAW COLLECTIVE, PL
          6709 W. 119th St., #198
          Overland Park, KS 66209
          Telephone: (913) 213-3064
          Facsimile: (866) 893-0416
          E-mail: josh@sjlawcollective.com

               - and -

          Stephen Douglas Bonney, Esq.
          ACLU FOUNDATION OF KANSAS
          6701 W. 64th Street, Suite 210
          Overland Park, KS 66202
          Telephone: (913) 490-4102
          Facsimile: (913) 490-4119
          E-mail: dbonney@aclukansas.org

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=t1f1rpPF


WORLD'S CHOICE: Recalls Drink Products Due to Whey Protein
----------------------------------------------------------
World's Choice Products, Inc. of San Diego, CA, is recalling the
following products:

  --- 32 fluid ounce "Supreme Elixir" drink
  --- 32 fluid ounce "Kid's Juice" drink
  --- 1 pound and 8 ounce "Xtreme Fiber Detox"

The recall was initiated because the products contain undeclared
whey protein, which contains the allergens of milk and soy
lecithin. People who have allergies to milk and soy lecithin run
the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic reaction if they
consume this product.

The above mentioned products were distributed nationwide through
mail orders.

  --- "Supreme Elixir" comes in 32 fluid ounce white HOPE bottles
      marked with lots #15094, 15258, 15310, 15483, 16053 and
      16091 stamped on the bottom of the bottle.
  --- "Kid's Juice" comes in 32 fluid ounce white HDPE bottles
      marked with lots #15104 and 15326 stamped on the bottom of
      the bottle.
  --- "Xtreme Fiber Detox" comes in two presentations of 8 ounces
      and 1 pound, white HDPE container marked with lots #15174,
      15372, 15423, 15538 and 16051 stamped on the bottom of the
      container.

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

The recall was initiated after it was discovered by FDA that the
whey protein containing products were distributed in packaging
that did not reveal the presence of whey protein. The problem was
caused by a temporary breakdown in the manufacturer's production
and packaging processes.

Production of the product has been suspended.

Consumers who have "Supreme Elixir", "Kids Juice" and "Xtreme
Fiber Detox" are urged to return them to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact World's Choice
Products at 1-800-675-1845. We are open Monday through Friday from
8 AM until 5 PM PST

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
http://is.gd/LmQqu2


* Quebec's Class Action Regime Stands Alone, Cases on the Rise
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vincent de l'Etoile, Esq. -- vincent.deletoile@langlois.ca -- of
Langlois Lawyers LLP, in an article for InHouse, reports that
Quebec stands alone in the Canadian common law legal landscape
with a French-inherited legal system inspired by the Napoleonic
Code.  Unsurprisingly, Quebec's class action regime differs from
that of the jurisdictions surrounding it.

Quebec's class action filtering phase is referred to as the
"authorization," a process by which a proposed claim that does not
formally exist is analyzed to be authorized (or not) to proceed as
a class action.  The authorization phase is a screening mechanism
seeking to ensure that defendants do not have to defend against
untenable or frivolous claims.  The burden is low, with Quebec
often being seen as a class action-friendly jurisdiction. Once the
four authorization criteria discussed below are met, the court
must authorize the bringing of the class action, having no
residual discretion and any doubt favoring the plaintiff.

The first criterion is whether the class members' claims raise
identical, similar, or related questions of law or fact.  The
underlying test is whether a class action will avoid duplication
of fact-finding or legal analysis.

Common issues do not have to predominate.  A single common issue
suffices if it can significantly move forward the class members'
claims.  The answer to the common issue does not need to be common
for everyone to the extent that all members benefit from the
action and that there is no conflict within the class.

The second criterion is whether the facts alleged seem to justify
the conclusions sought.  The factual allegations of the claim are
to be taken as true. The plaintiff does not have to prove the
justness or correctness of its suit.

The third criterion is whether it would have been difficult for
the members of the class to have joined in the same suit or
conferred a mandate to a representative to act on their behalf.
This criterion is best described as demonstrating that there are a
sufficient number of class members.

The last criterion is whether the representative plaintiff is in a
position to adequately represent the class.  This test is met if
the proposed representative has the required legal interest to
sue, has the required qualifications, and is free of conflicts of
interest.

The authorization is usually assessed based on a limited
evidentiary basis, Quebec law not providing for the filing of
motion records, affidavits, or expert reports at the authorization
stage.  To the contrary, the defendant has to seek leave to file
evidence, which will be granted only if relevant to either of the
authorization criteria.

The authorization of a class action is thus not exceptional in
Quebec.  Conversely, a judgment authorizing a class action is not
determinative on the defendant's rights and grounds of defense and
is not indicative of the plaintiff's likelihood of success.

For years, Quebec was infamously known for its "asymmetrical"
right of appeal.  A judgment denying the authorization to
institute a class action was appealable de plano by the plaintiff,
but a judgment authorizing a class action could not be appealed by
the defendant.  This imbalance has been partially corrected since
January 2016 with the enactment of the new Code of Civil Procedure
providing the defendant with a long-awaited right of appeal with
leave of a judgment authorizing a class action.

Another significant change relates to class membership.
Historically, class membership was only available to individuals
or entities having fewer than 50 employees, entailing that
entities could never be part of a class.  This barrier has been
lifted, opening class membership to anyone.

Finally, new provisions relating to international lis pendens and
the conduct of multijurisdictional class actions are granting the
court extended powers to ensure the best interests of Quebec class
members are taken care of when facing competing class actions in
other jurisdictions.

Quebec class action activity has been steadily on the rise for the
past few years.  Although Quebec's new Code of Civil Procedure is
not overhauling the authorization test and threshold, it will
provide for interesting developments in class actions in Quebec.



                            *********

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  * * *