CAR_Public/160504.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Wednesday, May 4, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 89



                            Headlines


21ST CENTURY: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Network Break-in
411 REST CORP: Faces "Mancio" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
ABASUSHI FUSION: "Baquiax" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ACUMEN FISCAL: Faces "Langston" Suit in N.D. Ga.
ALLERGAN PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Asacol Franchise Monopoly

ALLIANCE FIBER: "Bushansky" Suit Seeks to Block Corning Merger
ALPHA DINER: Faces "Calligandes" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
APPLE INC: "Phillips" Fraud Class Suit Dismissed
ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Fake Leather
AVIS RENT A CAR: "Schleifer" Sues Over Onerous Contract

BARBRI INC: Sued in N.D. Tex. Over Blind Inaccessible Services
BLUE SKY RESORTS: "Alonso" Data Breach Suit Dismissed
BRIGHT HOUSE: "Calleja" Suit Moved from N.D.N.Y. to M.D. Fla.
CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Trans Fat
CARNIVAL CORP: "Hernandez" Sues Over Discrimination

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Gratuity Calculation
CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Nicholl" Suit Seeks to Block Talmer Merger
CORNERSTONE APPAREL: "Cassandra" Suit Damages Under Labor Code
COX COMMUNICATIONS: "Davis" Suit Removed to S.D. California
CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION: Must Provide Refunds, Suit Claims

DEERE & COMPANY: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in Indiana
EINSTEIN NOAH: "Greiner" Sues Over Unredeemable Card Balance
FCA US: "Grimstad" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
FERRARI: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Designs
FIVE-STAR FOOD SERVICES: "Braddy" Sues Over FLSA Violations

FRESHDESK INC: Faces "Kissel" Suit in C.D. California
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid for Class Cert. in "Robinson" Denied
GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Kaskorkis" Suit in S.D. Cal.
GEO GROUP: $1.375MM Settlement in Prison Guards Suit Okayed
HANSEN MEDICAL: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Auris

HATWORLD INC: Faces "Nahas" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
HOMELAND SECURITY: No Compensatory Damages for TSA Air Marshals
IHC HEALTH: Utah Appeals Court Flips Decertification Order
JACKSON HEWITT: "Madris" Sues for Breach of Contract
JAMES M. HENSLER: Faces "Soto" Securities Class Action in Del.

JERSEY CITY: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
KARL STORZ: Faces "Gager" Fraud Suit Over Storz Morcellator
LEXUS: Faces Class Suit Over "Cold Weather Package" in Cars
LIGHTNING OILFIELD: "Patino" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
LOS ANGELES, CA: J.K. Residential Suit Sent to Arbitration

LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Rasmussen" Moved from D. Utah to E.D. Va.
MAGIC INC: Faces "Banbury" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
MARIETTA FISH MARKET: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Recovery
MDL 2262: OTC Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint in LIBOR Litigation
MDL 2693: "Von Haden" Suit Consolidated in C.D. California

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Francois" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MICHAEL R. LONG: Sued in Nevada for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
MINNESOTA: MSOP Commitment Order Affirmed
MJK SOUTH: "Quinto" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
MMS QUALITY: "Sandhu" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code

NATERA INC: "Nguyen" Class Action Moved to N.D. Cal.
NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Nov. 17 Final Hearing on Apparel Case Accord
NEW YORK: Settlement in "Peoples" Suit v. DOCCS Has Final Okay
NEW YORK: Dismissal of Prison Employees' Suit Affirmed
OKLAHOMA: 10th Cir. Rules on "Williams" Appeal

PARTNER COMMS: NIS 72 Million Claim Dismissed
PARTNER COMMS: NIS 232 Million Claim Dismissed by Mutual Consent
PARTNER COMMS: May 2016 Hearing on Supreme Court Appeal
PARTNER COMMS: Aug. 2012 v. 012 Smile Claim in Early Stage
PARTNER COMMS: May 2015 Claim Still in Early Stage

PARTNER COMMS: Sept. 2015 Claim Still in Early Stage
PARTNER COMMS: Class Action Claim Filed March 2016
PARTNER COMMS: Class Action Claim Filed Feb. 2016
PHILLIPS AGENCY: "Ascencio" Suit Moved to District of Montana
PQ NEW YORK: "Kutluca" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA

PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: Faces "Lok" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
PRIDWIN HOTEL: Faces "Munoz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PROCTER & GAMBLE: Old Spice Deodorant Causes Rash, Suit Says
QUALITY DINING: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. Penn.
QUALITY INTEGRATED: "Webb" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay

QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit
RWLS LLC: "Roberson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Arguments Heard in 6th Cir. Appeal
SEPHORA USA: Faces "Burnthorne-Martinez" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
STAR PAINTING: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

SOUTHWEST AIR: "Rubinsohn" Anti-trust Suit Transferred to D.D.C.
T-MOBILE USA: "Farhi" Collection Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
TAKATA CORP: Cunningham RICO Suit Transferred to W.D. Va.
TESORO COMPANIES: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Excessive Rate Charge

TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Automatic Dialing
UNITED SERVICES: Hearing on Sanctions in "Adams" Set for June 10
UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Golden" Suit in N.D. Ala.
VIVUS INC: Securities Class Suit Over "Qnexa" Drug Dismissed
WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. Cal.

WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Meijer Suit in New York
WELLS FARGO: "Santini" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime Pay
WENDY'S: Faces Bank Suit Over Data Breach
WIDE FLANGE: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Breach of Contract
X600 MOTOR: "Fininen" Files Suit Over False Advertising

ZAVALAS ROOFING: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
ZUCKERBERG SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
ZYLERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces ARcare Suit in North Carolina


                            *********


21ST CENTURY: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Network Break-in
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Corbel and Roxanne Haatvedt individually and on behalf of
similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. 21st Century
Oncology of California, a medical corporation; 21st Century
Oncology Holdings, Inc.; and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. RG16813081 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 25, 2016), seeks to
recover statutory damages and equitable relief under California
Civil Code due to Defendants' failure to implement and maintain
reasonable security procedures and practices to preserve the
confidentiality of Plaintiffs' personal and medical information.

According to the complaint, in March 2016, 21st Century Oncology
publicly disclosed that it had suffered a network break-in that it
warned it was at risk for in its Form 10-K. The Defendants
downplayed the risk associated with the data breach. However, the
Defendants did not explain as to why affected patients should feel
confident that their personal and medical information involved in
the breach will not be misused at some later point in time.

21st Century is a provider of cancer care services; the largest
radiation oncology provider; and one of the largest groups of
urologists in the United States. Headquartered in Fort Myers,
Florida, it has 145 treatment centers located in 17 states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


411 REST CORP: Faces "Mancio" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Defendants 411 Rest. Corp. The
case is captioned Andres Olvera Mancio, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Defendants 411
Rest. Corp. doing business as: (d/b/a Tonic East), Kenneth
Caulfield, and Mario Arcari, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03008
(S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2015).

411 is a sports bar, Bar, and restaurant located in New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


ABASUSHI FUSION: "Baquiax" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tomas Benjamin Sapon Baquiax, Florencio Arguello Tentle and Santos
Pubaquiax, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Abasushi Fusion Cuisine Inc. (d/b/a
Aba Asian Fusion Cuisine), Liang He Xie (a/k/a Sammy Xie), and
Liang Ping Xie (a/k/a Wilson Xie), the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02997 (S.D.N.Y., April 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
minimum wages and overtime pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and for violations of the New York
Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs worked for Defendants
in excess of 40 hours per week, without appropriate minimum wage
or overtime compensation for the hours that they worked. The
Plaintiffs were primarily employed as delivery workers, but they
were required to spend a considerable part of their work day
performing non-tipped, non-delivery duties, including but not
limited to cleaning, sweeping and mopping.

Defendants own, operate, or control an Asian Restaurant located at
1588 York Avenue, New York, New York.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Michael Faillace, Esq.
          MICHAEL FAILLACE & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
          60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2540
          New York, NY 10165
          Telephone: (212) 317 1200
          Facsimile: (212) 317 1620
          E-mail: Faillace@employmentcompliance.com


ACUMEN FISCAL: Faces "Langston" Suit in N.D. Ga.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Acumen Fiscal Agent, LLC. The
case is captioned Erin Langston, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Acumen Fiscal Agent,
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-01316-TWT-JKL (N.D. Ga.,
April 22, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Thomas W. Thrash, Jr.

Acumen Fiscal provides fiscal agent solutions for individuals with
disabilities and their families in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Andrew Weiner, Esq.
          Jeffrey Sand, Esq.
          THE WEINER LAW FIRM, LLC
          3525 Piedmont Road
          7 Piedmont Center, 3rd Floor
          Atlanta, GA 30305
          Telephone: (404) 254 0842
          E-mail: aw@atlantaemployeelawyer.com
                  js@atlantaemployeelawyer.com

               - and -

          Oscar Eugene Prioleau Jr., Esq.
          PRIOLEAU & MILFORT, LLC, Suite 520
          271 17th Street, NW
          Atlanta, GA 30363
          Telephone: (404) 526 9400
          E-mail: oprioleau@mindspring.com


ALLERGAN PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Asacol Franchise Monopoly
-------------------------------------------------------------
Meijer, Inc. and Meijer Distribution, Inc., on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
Allergan PLC (f/k/a Actavis PLC); Allergan, Inc.; Allergan USA,
INC.; Allergan Sales, LLC; Warner Chilcott Limited; Warner
Chilcott (U.S.), LLC; Warner Chilcott Sales (U.S.), LLC; Zydus
Pharmaceuticals USA Inc.; and Cadila Healthcare Limited, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03092 (S.D.N.Y., April 26, 2016),
seeks treble damages and other relief for the Defendants' unlawful
impairment of competition to drugs in Warner Chilcott's Asacol(TM)
franchise [Asacol(TM), 400 mg, Asacol HD(TM), and Delzicol(TM)].

According to the complaint, the Defendants, beginning with Warner
Chilcott and continuing after the company became part of Allergan,
allegedly used an extensive array of anticompetitive acts and
practices as part of an overall scheme to improperly maintain and
extend its monopoly power with respect to the Asacol(TM)
franchise, to the detriment of Plaintiff.

Asacol (TM) was a delayed-release mesalamine formulation used to
treat multiple forms of ulcerative colitis, a potentially
debilitating condition affecting 238 out of 100,000 people in the
United States.

Allergan markets branded and generic pharmaceuticals throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Barry S. Taus, Esq.
          Brett Cebulash, Esq.
          Miles Greaves, Esq.
          TAUS, CEBULASH & LANDAU, LLP
          80 Maiden Lane, Suite 1204
          New York, NY 10038
          Telephone: (212) 931 0704
          E-mail: btaus@tcllaw.com
                  bcebulash@tcllaw.com
                  mgreaves@tcllaw.com

               - and -

          Steve D. Shadowen, Esq.
          D. Sean Nation, Esq.
          Matthew C. Weiner, Esq.
          HILLIARD & SHADOWEN LLP
          919 Congress Ave., Suite 1325
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 993 3070
          E-mail: steve@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  sean@hilliardshadowenlaw.com
                  matt@hilliardshadowenlaw.com

               - and-

          Joseph M. Vanek, Esq.
          David P. Germaine, Esq.
          John P. Bjork, Esq.
          VANEK, VICKERS & MASINI, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 224 1500
          E-mail: jvanek@vaneklaw.com
                  dgermaine@vaneklaw.com
                  jbjork@vaneklaw.com

               - and -

          Paul E. Slater, Esq.
          Matthew T. Slater, Esq.
          SPERLING & SLATER, P.C.
          55 W. Monroe, Suite 3200
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 641 3200
          E-mail: pes@sperling-law.com
                  mslater@sperling-law.com


ALLIANCE FIBER: "Bushansky" Suit Seeks to Block Corning Merger
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Bushansky, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc.,
Peter C. Chang, G Wong-Yih Lee, James C. Yeh, Richard B. Black,
Ray Sun, Corning Incorporated, Apricot Merger Company, and Does 1-
25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV294245 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 22, 2016), seeks to enjoin Defendants' merger agreement
with Corning Incorporated, and from taking any steps to consummate
the agreement, or in the event the agreement is consummated, to
recover damages resulting from Defendants' violations of their
fiduciary duties.

According to the complaint, the stockholder class action suit
arose as a result of Defendants' breach of fiduciary duties or
aiding and abetting of such breaches in connection with the
Board's agreement to sell Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc. to
Corning Incorporated through Corning's wholly-owned subsidiary
Apricot Merger Company (Merger Agreement).

On April 7, 2016, Alliance and Corning issued a joint press
release announcing that they entered into an Agreement and Plan of
Merger to sell Alliance to Corning. Apricot will commence a tender
offer to purchase all of the outstanding shares of Alliance common
stock at a price of $18.50 per Alliance share (Offer Price).
Following consummation of the Offer, Apricot will merge with and
into Alliance with Alliance surviving as a wholly-owned subsidiary
of Corning. The Merger Agreement is valued at approximately $305
million which is the result of an unfair process and provides the
Company's stockholders with inadequate consideration. The
complaint says the inadequacy of the Offer Price is evidenced by
the fact that: (i) the $18.50 per share Offer Price is a
significant discount to Alliance stock's 52-week trading high of
$21.73 per share; (ii) the Company's stock traded above the Offer
Price as recently as October 5, 2015, when it reached $18.51 per
share; and (iii) as recently as April 23, 2016, an analyst at
Sidoti & Company LLC set a $19.00 per share price target for the
Company, $0.50 above the Offer Price.

Alliance, a Delaware corporation, designs, manufactures and
markets a broad range of high performance fiber optic components
and integrated modules for the optical network equipment market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Leigh A. Parker, Esq.
          WEISS LAW LLP
          1516 South Bundy Drive, Suite 309
          Los Angeles, CA 90025
          Telephone: (310) 208 2800
          Facsimile: (310) 209 2348
          E-mail: lparker@weisslawllp.com


ALPHA DINER: Faces "Calligandes" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Alpha Diner Corp. The case is
captioned Jessica Calligandes, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, the Plaintiff, v. Alpha Diner Corp.
d/b/a Esquire Diner, jointly and severally; Ftelia Associates
Inc., jointly and severally; Peter Athanasopoulos, jointly and
severally; and Dimitrios Athanasopoulos, jointly and severally,
the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02061 (E.D.N.Y., April 26, 2016).

Alpha Diner operates a restaurant in Queens, New York.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


APPLE INC: "Phillips" Fraud Class Suit Dismissed
------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge dismissed with leave to amend a class action in
San Jose accusing Apple of failing to warn that its iPhone Wi-Fi
Assist app automatically switches customers from wireless to
cellphone data, causing more data use and higher cellphone bills.

Lead plaintiff William Scott Phillips claimed when he upgraded his
iPhone operating system to iOS 9, he unwittingly uploaded Wi-Fi
Assist and would not have done so had he known about the increased
data use.

But U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh said the putative class failed to
show they relied on an actual misrepresentation that caused them
to purchase the app or do the upgrade.

The plaintiffs had a burden to demonstrate they installed Wi-Fi
assist or iOS9 due to a specific representation by Apple, and they
did not, Koh said in her April ruling.

"Plaintiffs do not explain how plaintiffs' data overuse charges
could be 'fairly traceable' to Apple's representations or
omissions if plaintiffs did not rely upon those representations or
omissions in choosing to install iOS 9 or use Wi-Fi Assist," Koh
wrote.

"Rather, for plaintiffs' data overuse charges to be caused by
Apple's representations, plaintiffs must have seen the
representations and taken action based on what they saw -- in
other words, plaintiffs must have actually relied on the
misrepresentations or omissions to have been harmed by them."

Koh did gave the plaintiffs 30 days leave to amend to demonstrate
which statements were misleading and caused them to suffer harm.

The original lawsuit claimed Apple responded to the jacked-up data
use only after "a flood of articles" was published about it.

Articles appeared in Fortune.com, Gizmodo and The Washington Post
in late September 2015, warning customers about the risk of the
default setting "eating up" their data plans.

Apple posted a statement on its website on Oct. 2, 2015, saying
the new operating system and app may bring date use "a small
percentage higher than previous usage."

The plaintiffs said that was too little too late, and that had
they been aware of the new system's propensity to use more data
and inflate cell phone bills they would not have upgraded. They
said Apple's omissions prevented them from making an informed
choice.

Apple said that in a claim involving pure omissions, public safety
must be involved, but in a fraudulent claims case, the plaintiffs
bear the burden of demonstrating which specific misrepresentation
caused them to purchase a product.

Apple cited Palmer v. Apple in its Motion to Dismiss, a case heard
last week by U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte. During that
hearing, Whyte seemed inclined to grant Apple's Motion to Dismiss
for similar reasons: lack of material misrepresentation coupled
with a lack of threat to consumer safety.

Apple's iPhone accounted for 44.2 percent of the U.S. smartphone
market in July 2015, far ahead of second-place Samsung's 28.6
percent, according to data analysis company comScore. But the
Android operating system still ruled Apple, by 52.2 percent to
Apple's iOS 44.2 percent, according to comScore.

The plaintiffs are represented by Charles LaDuca with Cuneo
Gilbert and LaDuca in Washington, D.C., who did not respond
immediately to a request for comment. Not did Apple.

The case captioned, WILLIAM SCOTT PHILLIPS, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
APPLE INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-CV-04879-LHK (N.D. Cal.).


ASHLEY FURNITURE: Faces Class Suit Over Alleged Fake Leather
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Ashley Furniture's "blended
leather" is not leather, a class action claims in Los Angeles
Federal Court.


AVIS RENT A CAR: "Schleifer" Sues Over Onerous Contract
--------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Schleifer, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated consumers, Plaintiff, v. Avis Rent a Car System, LLC and
Avis Budget Group, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02090-WJM-MF
(D.N.J., April 15, 2016), seeks termination of the general terms
and conditions set forth on Defendants website for violation of
the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act.

Avis owns and operates a car rental company. Defendants Terms and
Conditions posted in their website attempts to absolve themselves
of all liability and completely remove the duties it owes to
consumers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Fred M. Zemel Esq.
      THE ZEMEL LAW FIRM, P.C.
      70 Clinton Ave.
      Newark, NJ 07114
      Tel: 973-622-5297
      Fax: 973-824-2446


BARBRI INC: Sued in N.D. Tex. Over Blind Inaccessible Services
--------------------------------------------------------------
Claire Stanley, Derek Manners, and Christopher Stewart, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs,
v. Barbri, Inc. aka Barbri Bar Review, the Defendant, Case No.
3:16-cv-01113-O (N.D. Tex., April 25, 2016), seeks an order
requiring BarBri to provide bar examination preparation services
that are accessible to blind students, so that they can enjoy full
and equal access to BarBri's bar review services, under the
Disabilities Act, and the Texas Human Resources Code.

The action also seeks compensation for blind students who signed
up for and relied on BarBri's review services to study for their
bar exams; seeks redress for the injuries they have suffered or
will suffer if BarBri is allowed to continue to discriminate
against blind students in violation of federal and state law; and
seeks monetary relief that is incidental to the declaratory relief
that Plaintiffs seek in this action.

According to the complaint, the Defendant enrolled the Plaintiffs
in bar review courses to study for the bar examination, but
refused to remove several accessibility barriers to its mobile
application, website, and course materials, thereby leaving them
with inferior preparation services and preventing them from
effectively preparing for their bar exams.

BarBri is a company headquartered in Dallas, Texas whose primary
product offering is a bar exam preparation course.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Wayne Krause Yang, Esq.
          Abigail Frank, Esq.
          Hani Mirza, Esq.
          TEXAS CIVIL RIGHTS PROJECT
          501 Elm Street, Ste. No. 450
          Dallas, TX 75202
          Telephone: (972) 333 9200
          Facsimile: (512) 474 0726
          E-mail: waynekrauseyang@gmail.com

               - and -

          Matthew K. Handley, Esq.
          Deepinder K. Goraya, Esq.
          WASHINGTON LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR
          CIVIL RIGHTS AND URBAN AFFAIRS
          11 Dupont Circle, Suite 400
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 319 1000
          Facsimile: (202) 319 1010
          E-mail: WLC@washlaw.org


BLUE SKY RESORTS: "Alonso" Data Breach Suit Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Tanya Walton Pratt granted the motion filed by Blue Sky
Resorts, LLC and Blue Sky Casinos, LLC to dismiss the case
captioned ANNIE ALONSO and NATALIE HARDT, and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. BLUE SKY RESORTS, LLC, FRENCH LICK WEST
BADEN DEVELOPMENT PARK, LLC, and BLUE SKY CASINOS, LLC,
Defendants, Case No. 4:15-cv-00016-TWP-TAB (S.D. Ind.).

Annie Alonso and Natalie Hardt filed a consumer action lawsuit
individually and on behalf of all other individuals similarly
situated, alleging Breach of Implied Contract, Unjust Enrichment,
and Breach of Duty of Good Faith and Fair Dealing after their
personal information was stolen as a result of a data breach of
Blue Sky's servers.  Blue Sky moved to dismiss pursuant to Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

A full-text copy of Judge Pratt's April 14, 2016 entry is
available at http://is.gd/YyEldifrom Leagle.com.

ANNIE ALONSO, Plaintiff, represented by Jessica A. Wegg, SAEED &
LITTLE LLP, Ryan R. Frasher, RYAN FRASHER P.C. & Syed Ali Saeed
-- ali@sllawfirm.com -- SAEED & LITTLE LLP.

BLUE SKY RESORTS, LLC, BLUE SKY CASINOS, LLC, Defendants,
represented by James M. Hinshaw, BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP &
John F. McCauley, BINGHAM GREENEBAUM DOLL LLP.


BRIGHT HOUSE: "Calleja" Suit Moved from N.D.N.Y. to M.D. Fla.
-------------------------------------------------------------
James Anthony Calleja, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Bright House Networks,
L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 5:15-cv-00966, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New
York, to the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of
Florida (Tampa). The Middle District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-
cv-00991-EAK-AEP to the proceeding.

Bright House is an American media company, it is the 10th-largest
multichannel video service provider and the 6th largest cable
internet provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jarrett L. Ellzey, Esq.
          William Craft Hughes, Esq.
          HUGHES ELLZEY, LLP
          Suite 1120-Galleria Tower I
          2700 Post Oak Blvd
          Houston, TX 77056-5767
          Telephone: (713) 554 2377
          Facsimile: (888) 995 3335
          E-mail: jarrett@hughesellzey.com
                  craft@hughesellzey.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Eric J. Partlow, Esq.
          ADAMS & REESE, LLP
          Bank of America Plaza
          101 E Kennedy Blvd Ste 4000
          Tampa, FL 33602-5152
          Telephone: (813) 227 5506
          Facsimile: (813) 227 5606
          E-mail: eric.partlow@arlaw.com

               - and -

          Edward R. Conan, Esq.
          BOND, SCHOENECK & KING, PLLC
          One Lincoln Center
          Syracuse, NY 13202-1355
          Telephone: (315) 4220121
          E-mal: econan@bsk.com


CAMPBELL SOUP: Faces "Ferguson" Suit Over Trans Fat
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Campbell tried to capitalize
on wellness trends by promoting its "Healthy Request" soup line
and paying for certifications by the American Heart Association,
but its products still contain artificial trans fat, a class
claims.


CARNIVAL CORP: "Hernandez" Sues Over Discrimination
---------------------------------------------------
Caridad Hernandez and Humberto E. Hernandez, Sr., Plaintiffs, v.
Carnival Corporation and Fathom Travel Ltd, Corporation,
Defendants, Case No. 40321991 (Fla. Cir., April 15, 2016), demand
an injunction enjoining Defendants' conduct, awarding costs for
this proceeding and attorneys' fees pursuant to Florida's
Discriminatory Trade Practices Act and the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act.

Carnival is a cruise line with 24 ships operating around the world
with Fathom as its newest brand.

The complaint says the Defendant denied passage to the Plaintiffs
because they were born in Cuba as per Cuban Law.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Esq.
      Javier A. Lopez, Esq.
      Stephanie Moncada Gomez, Esq
      KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON, LLP
      2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9l h Floor
      Coral Gables, FL 33134
      Tel: (305) 372-1800
      Fax: (305) 372-3508
      Email: tr@kttlaw.com
             jal@kttlaw.com
             sgomez@kttiaw.com

           - and -

      Robert W. Rodriguez, Esq.
      ROBERT W. RODRIGUEZ, P.A.
      5001 SW 74th Court, Suite 105
      Miami, FL 33155
      E-mail: robertwrodriguez@gmail.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Sued in E.D.N.Y. Over Gratuity Calculation
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Rodriguez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. The Cheesecake Factory
Incorporated, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02006 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 24, 2016), seeks damages pursuant to New York General
Business Law, as a result of incorrect gratuity calculation, thus
causing him to pay an inflated gratuity than he intended to pay.

According to the complaint, when consumers dine at Defendant's
restaurants (Restaurant Chains), a dining party may request
separate bills with amounts split evenly amongst the individuals
(or groups within the group) or with varying amounts. When
providing separate checks in the manner described, the Restaurant
Chains allegedly provides incorrect and inflated amounts for the
suggested gratuity calculations, listing the calculations
according to the grand total for the entire party rather than the
total for each separate check.

Cheesecake Factory owns, develops, markets, and operates
Restaurant Chains' brand and restaurant.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Richard M. Hendler, Esq.
          10-14 Bond Street, Suite Box 218
          Great Neck, NY 11021
          Telephone: (516) 984 6900
          Email: hendler@hendlerlawfirm.com


CHEMICAL FINANCIAL: "Nicholl" Suit Seeks to Block Talmer Merger
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Nicholl, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Gary Torgow, David Provost, Arthur
Weiss, Gary S. Collins, Max Berlin, Paul Hodges Iii, Ronald Klein,
Robert Naftaly, Albert Papa, Thomas Schellenberg, Jennifer
Granholm, Barbara Mahone, Chemical Financial Corporation, and
Talmer Bancorp, Inc., a Michigan corporation, the Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-11482-TLL-PTM (E.D. Mich., April 25, 2016), seeks to
enjoin the merger of Talmer with and into Chemical Financial
Corporation, and seeks an order requiring that the Talmer Board
comply with their fiduciary obligations, under the Exchange Act.

According to the complaint, on January 26, 2016, Talmer and
Chemical jointly announced that they had entered into a definitive
merger agreement (Merger), pursuant to which Talmer will merge
with and into Chemical, with Chemical surviving the Merger. Talmer
stockholders will receive only 0.4725 shares of Chemical common
stock and $1.61 per share in cash for each share of Talmer common
stock that they own. Based on the closing price of Chemical's
common stock on January 25, 2016, the day before the announcement
of the Merger Agreement, this implies a per share consideration of
$15.64 per share of Talmer common stock -- a discount to the
previous day's closing price. Notably, despite the fact that the
vast majority of the consideration is in the form of Chemical
common stock, the Merger consideration is not subject to a
protective collar.

Chemical is a diversified financial services company which
operates through one state-chartered traditional bank subsidiary,
Chemical Bank.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony L. DeLuca, Esq.
          ANTHONY L. DELUCA, PLC
          Grand Marais Professional Centre
          14950 East Jefferson Avenue, Suite 170
          Grosse Pointe Park, MI 48230
          Telephone: (313) 821 5905
          Facsimile: (313) 821 5906
          E-mail: anthony@aldplc.com


CORNERSTONE APPAREL: "Cassandra" Suit Damages Under Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Cassandra Silva; individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated and on behalf of other
aggrieved employees pursuant to the California Private Attorneys
General Act, the Plaintiff, v. Cornerstone Apparel, Inc., a
California Corporation; and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC618025 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 25, 2015), seeks to
recover monetary damages and restitution including unpaid
overtime, unpaid meal period, unpaid rest period, unpaid minimum
wage, final wages not timely paid, and wages not timely paid
during employment, under the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendants hired Plaintiff as
hourly-paid or non-exempt employees, and allegedly failed to
compensate her for all hours worked, missed meal periods and/or
rest breaks.

Cornerstone Apparel manufactures and sells apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Edwin Aiwazian, Esq.
          LAWYERS FOR JUSTICE PC
          410 West Arden Avenue Suite 203
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (818) 265 1020
          Facsimile: (818) 265 1021
          E-mail edwin@lfjpc.com


COX COMMUNICATIONS: "Davis" Suit Removed to S.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jimmie L. Davis, an individual and on behalf of himself and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Cox
Communications California, LLC, a Limited Liability Company, and
Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case no. 37-02015-00031791-
CU-OE-CTL, was removed from the San Diego County Superior Court,
Central Division, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00989-BAS-BLM to the proceeding.

Cox Communications (also known as Cox Cable and formerly Cox
Broadcasting Corporation, Dimension Cable Services and Times-
Mirror Cable) is an American privately owned subsidiary of Cox
Enterprises providing digital cable television, telecommunications
and Home Automation services in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul Berkowitz, Esq.
          Thomas Roy Kaufman, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          1901 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 1600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 228 3700
          Facsimile: (310) 228 3701
          E-mail: pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com
                  tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com


CRIME VICTIMS COMPENSATION: Must Provide Refunds, Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the District of Columbia's
Crime Victims Compensation Program should give refunds to people
whose convictions are reversed, a man claims in Washington a
federal class action.


DEERE & COMPANY: Faces "Armstrong" Suit in Indiana
--------------------------------------------------
Craig Armstrong on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated Plaintiff, v. Deere and Company, Inc., Defendants, Case
No. 1:16-cv-00844-TWP-DKL (S.D. Ind., April 15, 2016), is a class
action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of
a Class, who purchased or leased John Deere planters that, due to
a design flaw, did not evenly distribute fertilizer to each of the
numerous distribution nozzles.

Deere and Co. operates under the brand John Deere. It manufactures
agricultural, construction, and forestry machinery and diesel
engines.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jason Ruskin Reese, Esq.
      WAGNER REESE & CROSSEN, LLP
      11939 North Meridian Street
      Carmel, IN 46032
      Tel: (317) 569-0000
      Fax: (317) 569-8088
      Email: jreese@WagnerReese.com

The Defendant is represented pro se.


EINSTEIN NOAH: "Greiner" Sues Over Unredeemable Card Balance
------------------------------------------------------------
Brittney Greiner, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, and the general public, Plaintiffs, v. Einstein Noah
Restaurant Group, Inc., Einstein and Noah Corp., Cardfact XVII,
Inc. and Does l through 500, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
R616811866 (Cal. Super., April 16, 2016), seeks permanent
enjoinment, restitution, restitutionary disgorgement, costs of
suit, prejudgment interest, reasonable attorney's fees and such
other and further relief for violation of the Consumers Legal
Remedies Act, Unlawful Business Practices and Unfair Business
Practices.

Einstein Noah Restaurant Group operates Einstein Bros. Bagels and
Noah New York Bagels franchises in California. Plaintiff purchased
a gift card from the Defendant's stores that refused to convert
the remaining balance below $10 to cash in violation of the
California Civil Code.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary D. Garcia, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF GARY D. GARCIA
      3333 Midway Drive, Suite 208
      San Diego, CA 92110
      Fax: 619-795-6582
      Tel: 619-795-6580


FCA US: "Grimstad" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------
Lynn Grimstad and Mara Manuel, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. FCA US, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company, and Does 1-250, inclusive, the
Defendant, Case No. 30-02015-00819805, was removed from Orange
County Superior Court, to the US District Court for the Central
District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The
Central District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00763 to the
proceeding.

FCA US, also known as simply Chrysler, is an American automobile
manufacturer headquartered in Auburn Hills, Michigan.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Rowena G Santos, Esq.
          Thompson Coburn LLP
          2029 Century Park East 19th Floor
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 282 2500
          Facsimile: (310) 282 2501
          E-mail: rsantos@thompsoncoburn.com


FERRARI: Faces Class Suit Over Defective Designs
------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Ferrari F430s from 2004-2009
have defective designs that allow pieces of the exhaust manifold
to be sucked into the engine, a class action claims in Newalk
Federal Court.


FIVE-STAR FOOD SERVICES: "Braddy" Sues Over FLSA Violations
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janice Braddy on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Five-Star Food Services, Inc., Defendants,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00748 (M.D. Tenn., April 18, 2016), files for
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Defendant is a full-line vending, coffee service and food services
provider.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charles P. Yezbak , III, Esq.
      YEZBAK LAW OFFICES
      2002 Richard Jones Road, Suite B-200
      Nashville, TN 37215
      Tel: (615) 250-2000
      Fax: (615) 250-2020
      Email: yezbak@yezbaklaw.com

The Defendant is represented pro se.


FRESHDESK INC: Faces "Kissel" Suit in C.D. California
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Freshdesk, Inc. The case is
captioned Victoria Kissel, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Freshdesk, Inc., a
Delaware corporation, and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 2:16-cv-02777-TJH-PLA (C.D. Cal., April 22, 2016). The
Assigned Judge is Hon. Terry J. Hatter, Jr.

Freshdesk is a cloud-based customer support platform enabling
companies of all sizes to provide customer service.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David W Reid, Esq.
          Richard H Hikida, Esq.
          Scott J Ferrell, Esq.
          Victoria C Knowles, Esq.
          NEWPORT TRIAL GROUP APC
          4100 Newport Place Suite 800
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 706 6464
          Facsimile: (949) 706 6469
          E-mail: dreid@trialnewport.com
                  rhikida@trialnewport.com
                  sferrell@trialnewport.com
                  vknowles@trialnewport.com

               - and -

          Gillian L Wade, Esq.
          MILSTEIN ADELMAN JACKSON FAIRCHILD AND WADE, LLP
          10250 Constellation Boulevard, Suite 1400
          Los Angeles, CA 90067
          Telephone: (310) 396 9600
          Facsimile: (310) 396 9635
          E-mail: gwade@majfw.com


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Bid for Class Cert. in "Robinson" Denied
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTORIA ROBINSON, AARON MCHENRY, and
CHRISTOPHER COCKS, individually and on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL ELECTRIC
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 09-cv-11912 (E.D. Mich.), Judge
Victoria A. Roberts issued an order:

          -- denying the plaintiffs' Motion for Class
             Certification and Appointment of Class Counsel;

          -- granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs'
             Motion for Leave To Submit A Modified Class
             Definition and for Post-Certification Discovery; and

          -- denying General Electric Company's (GE) Motion to
             Strike Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Motion for
             Leave to Submit a Modified Class Definition and for
             Post Certification Discovery

A full-text copy of Judge Roberts' April 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/JQwmddfrom Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs in this case alleged that GE sold defective
microwave ovens, and that all microwave ovens were defective at
the time of sale because they have a propensity to "self-start"
and lack adequate safety features.

Judge Roberts accepted the plaintiffs' modified class definition
Option 2 which covers 60 models and approximately 2.6 million
microwave ovens.  However, the judge denied the plaintiffs' motion
for class certification without prejudice.

"But, Plaintiffs fail to meet the requirements of Rule 23(a)(2)
and (3), commonality and typicality.  Plaintiffs also do not
sustain their burden under Rule 23(b).  They have not demonstrated
that common issues of law and fact predominate across the proposed
class, as required by Rule 23(b)(3). In addition, the models have
not been shown to be sufficiently similar such that classwide
injunctive relief would be appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2)," the
judge stated in her order.

The remainder of the plaintiffs' alternate classes and causes of
action were held in abeyance.

Aaron McHenry, Christopher Cocks, Victoria Robinson, Plaintiffs,
represented by Ann L. Miller -- alm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller
Law Firm, Anna C. Haac -- ahaac@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei
LLP, Darryl Bressack, Fink + Associates Law, E. Powell Miller --
epm@millerlawpc.com -- The Miller Law Firm, Hassan A. Zavareei --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jeffrey D. Kaliel
-- jkaliel@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP, Jennifer E.
Frushour, Miller Law Firm, Lorenzo B. Cellini --
lcellini@tzlegal.com -- Tycko & Zavareei LLP &Richard L. Braun, II
-- rlb@millerlawpc.com The Miller Law Firm, P.C..

General Electric Company, Defendant, represented by Jodi M.
Schebel, Dickinson Wright, Kenneth J. McIntyre --
kmcintyre@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Michael J.
Mueller -- mmueller@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams, Neil K.
Gilman -- ngilman@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams LLP,Richard W.
Paul -- rpaul@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright, Richard A.
Wilhelm -- rwilhelm@dickinsonwright.com -- Dickinson Wright &
Thomas R. Waskom -- twaskon@hunton.com -- Hunton and Williams.


GENERAL NUTRITION: Faces "Kaskorkis" Suit in S.D. Cal.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against General Nutrition Centers, Inc.
The case is captioned Jenna Kaskorkis, individually and on behalf
of all other similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. General
Nutrition Centers, Inc. (GNC), a Delaware Corporation, General
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-10, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-00990-WQH-JLB (S.D. Cal., April 22,
2016). The Assigned Judge is hon. William Q. Hayes.

GNC is a nutritional-supplements retail chain devoted to items
such as vitamins, supplements, minerals, and dietary products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Trenton R. Kashima, Esq.
          FINKELSTEIN & KRINSK, LLP
          550 W. C Street, Suite 1760
          San Diego, CA 92101-3593
          Telephone: (619) 238 1333
          Facsimile: (619) 238 5425
          E-mail: trk@classactionlaw.com


GEO GROUP: $1.375MM Settlement in Prison Guards Suit Okayed
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a superior court judge in
Los Angeles approved a $1.375 million settlement of a prison
guards' class action labor complaint against The GEO Group;
attorneys' fees of $484,000 will come from the settlement fund.


HANSEN MEDICAL: "Liu" Suit Seeks to Enjoin Merger with Auris
------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Liu, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Hansen Medical, Inc., Cary
Vance, Michael Eagle, Christopher P. Lowe, Marjorie L. Bowen,
Kevin Hykes, William R. Rohn, Stephen L. Newman, Nadim Y Ared,
Auris Surgical Robotics, Inc., and Pineco Acquisition Corp., the
Defendants, Case No. 16CV294288 0:15-cv-62634-PAS (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 25, 2016), seeks to enjoin the merger between Hansen
Medical, Inc, and Auris Surgical Robotics, Inc., and compel the
individual Defendants to properly exercise their fiduciary duties
to Hansen shareholders.

According to the complaint, the Merger allegedly undervalues
Hansen and was the result of a flawed sales process. The $4.00 per
share Merger Consideration represents a discount of 66.66% to the
Company's 52-week high of $12.00 per share. Additionally, the
Company last traded as high as 110% over the Merger Consideration
within the last six months.

Hansen develops, manufactures, and sells medical robotics designed
for the positioning, manipulation, and control of catheters and
catheter-based technologies in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Evan J. Smith, Esq.
          BRODSKY & SMITH, LLC
          9595 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 900
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 534 2590
          Facsimile: (310) 247 0160
          E-mail: esmith@brodsky-smith.com


HATWORLD INC: Faces "Nahas" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Hatworld, Inc. The case is
captioned Bronwyn Nahas, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hatworld, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02267-ES-JAD (D.N.J., April 22, 2016).
The Assigned Judge is Hon. Esther Salas.

Hat World, along with its subsidiaries, owns and operates a chain
of retail stores for sports hats, apparels, and accessories in the
United States and Canada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stephen T. Sullivan Jr., Esq.
          KEEFE BARTELS
          170 Monmouth Street
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (732) 224 9400
          Facsimile: (732) 224 9494
          E-mail: ssullivan@keefebartels.com


HOMELAND SECURITY: No Compensatory Damages for TSA Air Marshals
---------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Renda, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a federal judge in San Francisco ruled April 26 that former
Transportation Security Administration air marshals are not
entitled to damages if the agency is found liable for age
discrimination in an ongoing case.

U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar gave a mixed ruling, handing modest
victories to both sides and ultimately telling the marshals to
amend their complaint to state that they seek no compensatory
damages beyond what is strictly allowed in age discrimination
cases.

"Plaintiffs' argument fails because the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act does not permit any other type of relief other than
judgments compelling employment, reinstatement or promotion, the
recovery of unpaid minimum wages or overtime pay, and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs," Tigar wrote in his 8-page ruling.

However, Tigar found that two paragraphs the TSA sought to have
stricken from any amended complaint were relevant and did not
exceed permissible requests under the Age Discrimination in
Employment Act.

"As plaintiffs correctly note, nothing in paragraphs 24 or 28
requests compensatory damages," Tigar said in the ruling. "In
fact, plaintiffs explicitly use the word 'non-compensable' to
describe these injuries."

The class action, filed in June 2015, claims the TSA closed
specifically targeted older marshals when it closed a number of
field offices in cities like Cleveland, Tampa, San Diego,
Cincinnati, Pittsburgh and Phoenix.

The lead plaintiff, who sued under his initials K.H. due to what
he claims are matters of national security, claims at least 90
percent of air marshals in the targeted offices are older than 40.
Those marshals have been reassigned.

"It is the TSA's intent to force older workers from federal
service and it is the TSA's desire that the older workers will in
fact quit due to the closure of the field offices and the
mandatory office reassignment," K.H. claims.

He says the TSA wants to "purge" its workforce of older air
marshals so it can "hire two young field air marshals for every
older field air marshal," according to the complaint. The move
could affect approximately 300 older air marshals.

In addition, he says, "The TSA is making any potential move to
other offices extremely difficult, expensive, unpalatable, and
problematic."
K.H. says he suffered severe stress about uprooting his family
from Florida and moving to California when the TSA decided to
close the Tampa office, where he had worked.

He says he filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission, which failed to act within 180 days.

Tigar gave the plaintiffs 14 days to amend and submit a new
complaint that includes only remedies appropriate to age
discrimination cases.

The plaintiffs are represented by Nicholas Wieczorek with Morris,
Polich & Purdy in Las Vegas, who did not immediately reply to a
request for comment. The TSA also did not respond to a request for
comment.

The case captioned, K.H., et al., Plaintiffs, v. SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY, Defendant., Case No. 15-cv-02740-
JST (N.D. Cal.).


IHC HEALTH: Utah Appeals Court Flips Decertification Order
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANN V. MAAK, Appellant, v. IHC HEALTH
SERVICES, INC., Appellee, No. 20140003-CA (Utah Ct. App.), the
Court of Appeals of Utah vacated the district court's order
granting IHC Health Services, Inc.'s motion to decertify the class
and denying Maak's motion to amend the class definition.  The
appellate court remanded the case to the district court for
further consideration.

The Court of Appeals of Utah remanded the case for (1) a
redetermination of Maak's argument that IHC has waived its
counterclaims to allow the court to provide a developed
explanation of its reasoning, (2) a new consideration of IHC's
motion to decertify the class to permit the district court to
revisit that order in light of its resolution of the issue of the
continuing viability of IHC's counterclaims and any other issues
that may arise on remand, and (3) further consideration of Maak's
motion to amend the class definition to permit the district court
to perform the rigorous analysis that Rule 23 of the Utah Rules of
Civil Procedure demands.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/id3bkzfrom Leagle.com.

Maak had sued IHC, arguing that IHC had engaged in "fraudulent and
improper billing practices."  Maak alleged that IHC improperly
overcharged her for medical care she had received and that the
overcharges resulted from IHC's regular and systematic billing
practices.

Gregory M. Hess -- ghess@parrbrown.com -- Terry E. Welch --
twelch@parrbrown.com -- Breanne D. Fors, and LaShel Shaw --
lshaw@parrbrown.com -- Attorneys for Appellant.

Alan C. Bradshaw -- abradshaw@mc2b.com -- Steven C. Bednar --
sbednar@mc2b.com -- and Chad R. Derum -- cderum@mc2b.com --
Attorneys for Appellee.


JACKSON HEWITT: "Madris" Sues for Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------
Cecilia Morris, Kim Alexander, Wanda Mardis, Sheila Baker, Karla
Corbitt, Karla Dozier, Lenel Nichols, Plaintiff, v. Jackson Hewitt
Tax Service Inc., Jackson Hewitt, Inc., Tax Services of America,
Inc. and Unknown Franchisees 1-100., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02115-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., April 15, 2016), asserts breach of
contract.

Tax Service of America, Inc., is a tax service provider located in
5701 Plauche Court, New Orleans, LA 70123.  Jackson Hewitt is a
full-service, year-round income tax preparation company
specializing in fully computerized federal and state tax
preparation of individual returns with offices all over the U.S.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Philip D. Stern, Esq.
      STERN THOMASSON LLP
      2816 Morris Avenue, Suite 30
      Union, NJ 07083
      Tel: (973) 379-7500
      Fax: (973) 532-0866
      Email: pstern@philipstern.com


JAMES M. HENSLER: Faces "Soto" Securities Class Action in Del.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Javier Soto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. James M. Hensler, Robert D. Scherich
and Gregory M. Belland, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00292-UNA
(D. Del., April 22, 2016), seeks to recover damages as a result of
Defendants' false statements concerning Horsehead securities, in
violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

According to the complaint, in September 2011, Horsehead began
construction of a new, purportedly state-of-the-art zinc
production facility located in Mooresboro, North Carolina to
replace its 80-year old Monaca, Pennsylvania facility. Horsehead
stated that the Mooresboro Facility would produce over 155,000
tons of zinc metal annually once fully operational, compared to
125,000 tons of zinc metal produced at the Monaca Facility in
fiscal 2013. Unknown to the investing public, the Mooresboro
Facility was allegedly plagued with severe construction,
engineering and operational defects. For example, when the plant
began operation a substantial portion of the piping melted and
production processes failed immediately. The Company's management
decided to bypass the failed piping and attempted to operate the
rest of the plant knowing that a portion of the plant would not be
useable. However, after the above revelations seeped into the
market, Horsehead common stock was hammered by massive sales,
sending the stock price down 99% from its Class Period high as the
artificial inflation came out over time and causing economic harm
and damages to class members. At the time of the trading
suspension, the price of the Company's stock had plummeted to
$0.08 per share, and the stock is now essentially worthless.

Horsehead, together with its subsidiaries, is a leading U.S.
producer of zinc metal and a leading recycler of electric arc
furnace (EAF) dust. The Company derives the majority of its
revenues from the sale of zinc. On February 2, 2016, Horsehead
filed for protection under the bankruptcy laws and, therefore, is
not named as a defendant in this action.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joel Friedlander, Esq.
          Jeffrey M. Gorris, Esq.
          Christopher P. Quinn, Esq.
          FRIEDLANDER & GORRIS, P.A.
          1201 N. Market Street, Suite 2200
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 573 3500
          E-mail: jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com
                  jgorris@friedlandergorris.com
                  cquinn@friedlandergorris.com

               - and -

          David C. Walton, Esq.
          Brian E. Cochran, Esq.
          Samuel H. Rudman, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP
          655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone (619) 231 1058


JERSEY CITY: Faces "Cortez" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
-------------------------------------------------------
Jasmine Cortez-Ortiz, Melissa Troncoso, and Robert Lawrence, on
behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Jersey City, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02319-
JLL-JAD (D.N.J., April 25, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Jose
L. Linares.

Jersey City is the second-most populous city in the U.S. state of
New Jersey, after Newark.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Thomas Aston Mckinney, Esq.
          CASTRONOVO & MCKINNEY, LLC
          71 Maple Avenue
          Morristown, NJ 07960
          Telephone: (973) 920 7888
          Facsimile: (973) 920 7924
          E-mail: tom@cmlaw.com


KARL STORZ: Faces "Gager" Fraud Suit Over Storz Morcellator
-----------------------------------------------------------
Janet Gager and Randy Gager, Plaintiffs, v. Karl Storz Endoscopy
America, Inc., Karl Storz Endovision, Inc., Karl Storz GMBH & CO.
KG, and Does 1 through 1000, inclusive, Defendants, Case No.
BC617217 (Cal. Super., April 15, 2016), seeks general and special
damages, medical and related expenses, recovery of the loss of
income, earning capacity, earning potential and other economic
loss, non-economic damages, compensation for physical pain and
discomfort, compensatory damages, punitive and exemplary damages,
prejudgment interest, costs of litigation and other further relief
for failure to warn; negligence; negligent misrepresentation and
fraudulent concealment.

Gager underwent gynaecologic surgery for benign fibroid tumors
using Defendants' Storz Morcellator to cut fibroids inside her
abdominal cavity. Unfortunately, the uterine fibroid turned out to
be leiomyosarcoma and in fragmenting the fibroids, the Storz
Morcellator disseminated and seeded cancer throughout her
abdominal cavity.

Karl Storz Endoscopy-America, Inc. is a California corporation
with its principal place of business at 2151 E. Grand Avenue, El
Segundo, CA, 90245. It is engaged in the business of
manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling and/or
distributing Storz Morcellators.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anne Andrews, Esq.
      John C. Thornton, Esq.
      Lila Razmara, Esq.
      ANDREWS & THORNTON
      2 Corporate Park, Suite 110
      Irvine, CA 92606
      Phone: (949) 748-1000
      Facsimile: (949) 315-3540
      Email: aa@andrewsthomton.com
             ict@andrewsthornton.com
             lr@andrewsthornton.com

           - and -

      Sean P. Tracey, Esq.
      RebeccaB. King, Esq.
      Andy Rubenstein, Esq.
      TRACEY & FOX
      440 Louisiana, Suite 1901
      Houston, TX 77002
      Phone:(713)495-2333
      Facsimile: (866) 709-2333
      Email: stracey@tracevlawfirm.com
             rking@tracevlawfirm.com
             arubenstein@tracevlawfirm.com


LEXUS: Faces Class Suit Over "Cold Weather Package" in Cars
-----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that the 2015 Lexus GS 350 "cold
weather package" does not heat the steering wheel as advertised, a
class action claims in Newark Federal Court.


LIGHTNING OILFIELD: "Patino" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dustin Patino, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lightning Oilfield Services, Inc. and
Mark S. Waddell, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01104-M (N.D.
Tex., April 22, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid back wages,
liquidated damages costs of suit, attorneys' fees, pre-judgment
and post-judgment interest and other relief, pursuant to the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff worked for Defendants as
safety advisor/coordinator and his primary responsibilities
included performing general safety-related tasks for management,
documenting accident scenes, and presenting training classes
developed by others. The Plaintiff routinely worked in excess of
40 hours per week but was not paid overtime for any of the hours
worked in excess of 40.

Lightning Oilfield is a transportation provider in the oil & gas
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jack Siegel, Esq.
          SIEGEL LAW GROUP PLLC
          10440 N. Central Expy., Suite 1040
          Dallas, TX 75231
          Telephone: (214) 706 0834
          Facsimile: (469) 339 0204


LOS ANGELES, CA: J.K. Residential Suit Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned J.K. RESIDENTIAL SERVICES, INC., Petitioner,
v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CELESTINA
CAMPOS, Real Party in Interest, No. B243539 (Cal. Ct. App.), the
Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Three
directed the trial court to vacate its June 28, 2012 order and to
enter a new order granting the motion of the defendant J.K.
Residential Services, Inc. to compel arbitration.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2016 opinion is
available at http://is.gd/Jxa5G0from Leagle.com.

The plaintiff Celestina Campos, formerly a residential property
manager for J.K. Residential under two successive employment
agreements, filed a putative class action lawsuit against the
latter alleging violation of various Labor Code wage and hour laws
and the unfair competition law.  J.K. Residential appealed from
the order denying its renewed motion to compel arbitration.  The
Court of Appeals of California treated the appeal as a petition
for writ of mandate and granted it.

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Jeffry A. Miller --
jeff.miller@lewisbrisbois.com -- Brittany H. Bartold --
brittany.bartold@lewisbrisbois.com -- Azrezoo Jamshidi --
arezoo.jamshid@lewisbrisbois.com -- Law Offices of Kevin B. Jones,
Kevin B. Jones, Gregory W. Marks and Jeffrey Korn for Petitioner.

Cohelan Khoury & Singer, Michael D. Singer, Jeff Geraci; The Pearl
Law Firm and Steven G. Pearl for Real Party in Interest.


LUMBER LIQUIDATORS: "Rasmussen" Moved from D. Utah to E.D. Va.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Val Rasmussen, and Pauline Rasmussen, on behalf of themselves, and
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Lumber
Liquidators, Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Lumber Liquidators
Holdings, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and John or Jane does 1-
10, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00244-JNP, was transferred
from the U.S. District Court for the District of Utah, to the U.S.
District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia -
(Alexandria). The Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-02782-AJT-TRJ to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the suit seeks to obtain damages,
restitution and injunctive relief from Defendants based on their
false, misleading, deceptive, and illegal advertising practices
regarding Chinese-made flooring products pursuant to the Utah
Unfair Competition Law.
Despite assurances that its flooring products are safe and comply
with California formaldehyde regulations, and, ergo, all other
states requirements, several reports have shown that Lumber
Liquidators Chinese-made flooring products actually contain
potentially dangerous levels of formaldehyde. On March 1, 2015, 60
Minutes news aired a story dispelling Lumber Liquidators' claims
that its flooring products are compliant with California
formaldehyde standards.

Lumber Liquidators is a Delaware corporation with its office
located at Toano, Virginia. It is one of the largest specialty
retailers of hardwood flooring in the United States selling
primarily to homeowners directly or to contractor's action on
behalf of homeowners through its extensive network of retail
stores nationwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zane L. Christensen, Esq.
          Steven A. Christensen, Esq.
          CHRISTENSEN YOUNG & ASSOCIATES
          9980 S 300 W Ste 200
          Sandy, UT 84070
          Telephone: (866) 861 3333
          E-mail: zanechristensen@christensenyounglaw.com
                  stevenchristen@gmail.com


MAGIC INC: Faces "Banbury" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Magic, Inc. The case is captioned
Matthew Banbury; IA: and on behalf of others similarly situated,
and as a private attorney general; Patrick Flautt; Gabrielle
Jimeno; Farzad Kashanian; Kevin Pham; Nichole Phillips, Jorge
Tostado; and Mathew Wade, the Plaintiffs, v. Benjamin Goodlove,
Aaron Kemmer, Lowery Grant, Magic, Inc., dba: Magic Services, Inc.
dba: Plus Labs, Inc., dba: Magic, David Merriman, Nic Novak,
Michel Rubin, the Defendants, Case No. 16CV294231 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 22, 2016).

Magic is the oldest continuously family-run magic shop in North
America, located on Chicago's northwest side.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Heather Marie Davis, Esq.
          PROTECTION LAW GROUP, LLP
          136 Main St Ste A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 290 3095
          Facsimile: (866) 264 7880
          E-mail: heather@protectionlawgroup.com


MARIETTA FISH MARKET: "Rodriguez" Suit Seeks Overtime Recovery
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelino Rodriguez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Marietta Fish Market, LLC, Defendant, Case
No. 1:16-cv-01220-WSD (N.D. Ga., April 15, 2016), seeks
declaratory relief, along with liquidated and actual damages for
Defendant's failure to pay federally mandated overtime wages under
the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Marietta Fish Market owns and operates several restaurants in the
metropolitan Atlanta, Georgia area, including Pasta Bella,
Marietta Diner, Marietta Fish Market, Yeero Village and Casa
Grande. Plaintiff has worked at Cherokee Cattle Company and
Marietta Fish Market restaurants as a cook.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      V. Severin Roberts, Esq.
      BARRETT & FARAHANY
      1100 Peachtree Street, Suite 500
      Atlanta, GA 30309
      Telephone: (404) 214-0120
      Facsimile: (404) 214-0125
      Email: vsroberts@justiceatwork.com
             amanda@justiceatwork.com


MDL 2262: OTC Plaintiffs May Amend Complaint in LIBOR Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald issued a memorandum and order resolving
five pending requests in the case captioned In re: LIBOR-Based
Financial Instruments Antitrust Litigation, No. 11 MDL 2262 (NRB)
(S.D.N.Y.).

Judge Buchwald granted the Over-the-Counter Plaintiffs leave to
amend their consolidated complaint to include claims of Texas
Competitive Electric Holdings against Barclays Bank PLC and
Citibank NA and claims of SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust's claims
against Royal Bank of Canada.  Judge Buchwald also granted the
Lender Plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to include the
claims of Berkshire Bank.  Lastly, Judge Buchwald allowed the
Exchange-Based Plaintiffs to amend their complaint consistent with
the court's rulings.

The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the motions.

A full-text copy of the Judge Buchwald's April 14, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at http://is.gd/70wPSnfrom Leagle.com.

FTC Capital GMBH, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell --
clovell@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel
Hume -- dhume@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel --
dkovel@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson --
lpederson@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman -- srudman@rgrdlaw.com --
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP.

FTC Futures Fund PCC Ltd, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela -- amcneela@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner
Pederson, Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff --
mdavidoff@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C, Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod --
telrod@kmllp.com -- Kirby McInerney, LLP.

FTC Futures Fund SICAV, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela, Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lauren Wagner Pederson, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.

Carpenters Pension Fund of West Virginia, Plaintiff, represented
by Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, Darren J. Robbins --
darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, David W. Mitchell -
davidm@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac
vice, Lucas F. Olts -- lolts@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP & Surya Palaniappan,
Kirby McInerney LLP.

City of Dania Beach Police & Firefighters' Retirement System,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David
E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, George E. Barrett, Barrette, Johnsn
& Parsley, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Timothy L. Miles, Barrett, Johnston & Parsley.

Ravan Investments, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume,
Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Jay W.
Eisenhofer, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., John D. Radice, Radice Law
Firm, P.C., Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman and Criden, Michael E.
Criden, Hanzman, Criden, Korge, Chaykin, Ponce & Heise, P.A.,
Peter Anthony Barile, III, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Roger W Kirby,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, Plaintiff, represented by
Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Susman Godfrey LLP, Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Drew D Hansen, Susman
Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice, Gary Ivan Smith, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac
vice, Glenn Charles Bridgman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Hilary K
Scherrer, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Hilary Kathleen Scherrer,
Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC,Joel Davidow, Kile Goekjian
Reed & McManus Pllc, Jonathan Watson Cuneo, Cuneo Gilbert &
LaDuca, LLP, Karen Oshman, Susman Godfrey LLP, Marc M. Seltzer,
Susman Godfrey, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Mary Kathryn Sammons, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Matthew Berry, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael C. Kelso, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice,Nathaniel C.
Giddings, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice, Ralph Johnson Bunche, III,
Hausfeld, LLP, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Seth D. Ard, Susman
Godfrey LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, William P.
Butterfield, Hausfeld LLP, pro hac vice & William Christopher
Carmody, Susman Godfrey LLP.

Richard Hershey, Jeffrey Laydon, Plaintiffs, represented by
Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel
Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP,
Douglas Mason Chalmers, Douglas M. Chalmers P.C., Geoffrey Milbank
Horn, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart, P.C., Robert F. Coleman,
Coleman Law Firm, pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney
LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steve
R. Jakubowski, Coleman Law Firm, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Vincent Briganti, Lowey Dannenberg Cohen & Hart,
P.C..

Schwab Short-Term Bond Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan Patrick Glaskin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney
LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP,
pro hac vice, Joseph Richard Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
pro hac vice, Lowell Harry Haky, Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., pro
hac vice, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP,Samuel Howard
Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven E. Fineman, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP.

Schwab Total Bond Market Fund, Schwab U.S. Dollar Liquid Assets
Fund, Plaintiffs, represented by Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Joseph Richard
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Lowell Harry
Haky, Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., pro hac vice, Richard Martin
Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP,Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP &
Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Schwab Money Market Fund, Schwab Value Advantage Money Fund,
Schwab Retirement Advantage Money Fund, Schwab Investor Money
Fund, Schwab Cash Reserves, Schwab Advisor Cash Reserves, Schwab
Yieldplus Fund, Schwab Yieldplus Fund Liquidation Trust, Charles
Schwab Bank, N.A., Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., The Charles Schwab
Corporation, Plaintiffs, represented by Andrew Scirica Kingsdale,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Eric B.
Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice,
Joseph Richard Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Lowell Harry Haky, Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., pro hac vice,
Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, Roger
W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP,Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP, Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann &
Bernstein, LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Metzler Investment GmbH, Plaintiff, represented by Roger W Kirby,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Andrew Martin McNeela, Kirby McInerney
LLP,Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP,
Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney
LLP, Deborah M. Sturman, Milberg LLP, Joseph F. Rice, Motley Rice
LLC, pro hac vice,Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP, Thomas W. Elrod,
Kirby McInerney, LLP & William H. Narwold, Motley Rice LLC.

Roberto E. Calle Gracey, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Lori Ann
Fanning, Miller Law LLC, pro hac vice, Marvin Alan Miller, Miller
Law, LLC, Matthew E Van Tine, Miller Law LLC, Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

AVP Properties, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher Lovell,
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney
LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Richard A. Lockridge,
Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen, P.L.L.P., Roger W Kirby, Kirby
McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP & W. Joseph Bruckner,
Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, P.L.L.P..

303030 Trading LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela, Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff, Berger & Montague,
P.C, Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP & Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.

Ellen Gelboim, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Hume, Kirby
McInerney LLP, David E Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, David Haym
Weinstein, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, pro hac vice, Jeremy
S. Spiegel, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC, pro hac vice, Karen
L. Morris, Morris & Morris, LLC, Patrick F Morris, Morris and
Morris LLC Counselors at Law,Robert S. Kitchenoff, Weinstein,
Kitchenoff, Scarlato & Goldman, Ltd., pro hac vice, Roger W Kirby,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP, Steven A. Asher, Weinstein Kitchenoff & Asher LLC &
Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP.

Atlantic Trading USA, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin
McNeela, Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E
Kovel, Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff, Berger & Montague,
P.C,Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman,
Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby
McInerney LLP &Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.
Community Bank & Trust, Plaintiff, represented by Lesley Elizabeth
Weaver, pro hac vice, Patrick Anthony Klingman, Shepherd,
Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC & Thomas V. Urmy, Shapiro, Haber &
Urmy, L.L.P..

The Berkshire Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joshua B. Silverman, One North LaSalle
Street, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz Haudek Block Grossman & Gross
LLP, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley Rice LLC & Patrick Vincent
Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

33-35 Green Pond Road Associates, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Dylan J. McFarland, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C., Jeffrey Alan
Shooman, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg,, L.L.C., Joseph J. DePalma,
Lite, DePalma, Greenberg & Rivas, L.L.C., pro hac vice, Mayra
Velez Tarantino, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, & Rivas, L.L.C., Steven
Joesph Greenfogel, Lite Depalma Greenberg, LLC, pro hac vice,
Steven A. Kanner, Much, Shelist, Freed, Denenberg, Ament &
Rubenstein, P.C., Vincent J. Esades, Heins Mills & Olson, P.L.C. &
William H. London, Freed Kanner London & Millen LLC, pro hac vice.

Elizabeth Lieberman, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip
Murray, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy
Prongay & Murray LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Abraham Fruchter &
Twersky LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro
hac vice.

Todd Augenbaum, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Philip Murray,
Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Gregory Bradley Linkh, Glancy Prongay
& Murray LLP, Jeffrey Simon Abraham, Abraham Fruchter & Twersky
LLP & Lionel Z. Glancy, Glancy & Binkow Goldberg LLP, pro hac
vice.

Gary Francis, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP,Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel,
Kirby McInerney LLP,Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel
Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya
Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP &Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby
McInerney, LLP.

Nathaniel Haynes, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Martin McNeela,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP, Daniel Hume, Kirby McInerney LLP, David E Kovel,
Kirby McInerney LLP, Merrill G Davidoff, Berger & Montague, P.C,
Roger W Kirby, Kirby McInerney LLP, Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, Surya Palaniappan, Kirby McInerney LLP &
Thomas W. Elrod, Kirby McInerney, LLP.

Courtyard at Amwell II, LLC, Greenwich Commons II, LLC, Jill Court
Associates II, LLC, Maidencreek Ventures II LP, Raritan Commons,
LLC, Lawrence W. Gardner, Plaintiffs, represented by Jason Allen
Zweig, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Annie Bell Adams, Dennis Paul Fobes, Leigh E. Fobes, Margaret
Lambert, Betty L. Gunter, Plaintiffs, represented by John Walter
Sharbrough, John W. Sharbrough, III, PC & Stephen George Stim,
Stimconsul Ltd..

Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiff,
represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP, Joshua B.
Silverman, One North LaSalle Street, Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz
Haudek Block Grossman & Gross LLP, Michael Morris Buchman, Motley
Rice LLC & Patrick Vincent Dahlstrom, Pomerantz LLP.

Carl A. Payne, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone, Baron
Budd, P.C., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron &
Budd, P.C., Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice,
Peter Francis Smith, Baron and Budd, P.C., pro hac vice & Roland
Karim Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., pro hac vice.

Kenneth W. Coker, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Alberstone,
Baron Budd, P.C., pro hac vice, David Brian Fernandes, Jr., Baron
& Budd, P.C.,Mark Philip Pifko, Baron & Budd, P.C., pro hac vice,
Peter Francis Smith, Baron and Budd, P.C., pro hac vice & Roland
Karim Tellis, Baron Budd, P.C., pro hac vice.

City of Riverside, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy,Alexander E. Barnett, Frank Cadmus
Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Gregory P Priamos,
Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice,Joseph Winters Cotchett,
Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy & Richard A Milligan, Riverside City Attorney, pro hac
vice.

The Riverside Public Financing Authority, Plaintiff, represented
by Kevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice,
Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E.
Barnett, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy
LLp, Gregory P Priamos, Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice,
Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy, Nanci E.
Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice &Richard A
Milligan, Riverside City Attorney, pro hac vice.

East Bay Municipal Utility District, Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice,
Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E.
Barnett, Craig Stephen Spencer, Office of General Counsel, Frank
Cadmus Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph
Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy,Jylana Collins, City
of Richmond & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

County of San Mateo, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett, Bert Shinji Nishimura, Eng &
Nishimura, Eugene Whitlock, San Mateo County Counsel's Office,
Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, John
C. Beiers, San Mateo County Counsel's Office,Joseph Winters
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy & Lee Andrew Thompson, San
Mateo County Counsel.

San Mateo Couty Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff,
represented by Kevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro
hac vice, Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Nanci E.
Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Alexander E.
Barnett, Bert Shinji Nishimura, Eng & Nishimura, Eugene Whitlock,
San Mateo County Counsel's Office, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr.,
Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, John C. Beiers, San Mateo County
Counsel's Office, Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy & Lee Andrew Thompson, San Mateo County Counsel.

City of Richmond, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett, Bruce Reed
Goodmiller, City Attorney's Office, Everett Jenkins, Office of the
City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and
McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy
& Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

The Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority, Plaintiff,
represented byKevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro
hac vice, Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander
E. Barnett, Bruce Reed Goodmiller, City Attorney's Office, Everett
Jenkins, Office of the City attorney, Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr.,
Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp,Joseph Winters Cotchett, Cotchett
Pitre and McCarthy & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, pro hac vice.

Successor Agency to the Richmond Community Redevelopment Agency,
Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett, Bruce Reed Goodmiller, City
Attorney's Office, Everett Jenkins, Office of the City attorney,
Frank Cadmus Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph
Winters Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy &Nanci E. Nishimura,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

County of San Diego, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett & Nanci E.
Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

Guaranty Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Chun-Yang Shen, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC,
Caitlin Sinclair Hall, Kellogg, Huber,Hansen,Todd, Evans & Figel,
P.L.L.C, pro hac vice, Joseph Solomon Hall, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Michael John Guzman, Kellogg,
Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, R. Bryant McCulley,
McCulley McCluer PLLC, pro hac vice,Stuart Halkett McCluer,
McCulley Mccluer PLLC & W. Percy Badham, Badham & Buck LLC.

Heather M. Earle, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP,Jeffrey Craig Block, Block & Leviton LLP, Richard
J. Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Whitney Erin Street,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Henryk Malinowski, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher, Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP,Jeffrey Craig Block, Block & Leviton LLP, Richard
J. Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Whitney Erin Street,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Linda Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP,Jeffrey Craig Block, Block & Leviton LLP, Richard J.
Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Whitney Erin Street,
Block & Leviton LLP.

Eric Friedman, Plaintiff, represented by Elana Katcher, Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP, Gregory Keith Arenson, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer
LLP,Jeffrey Craig Block, Block & Leviton LLP, Richard J.
Kilsheimer, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Whitney Erin Street,
Block & Leviton LLP.

County of Riverside, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin Galdston,
Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP, pro hac vice & Blair
Allen Nicholas, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman, LLP, pro hac
vice.

Jerry Weglarz, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice,
James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs & Latturner & Tiffany Nicole
Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

Nathan Weglarz, Plaintiff, represented by Cathleen M. Combs,
Edelman, Combs Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice, Daniel A.
Edelman, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice,
James O. Latturner, Edelman, Combs & Latturner & Tiffany Nicole
Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

Direcors Financial Group, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP & Marc Ian Gross, Pomerantz Haudek Block
Grossman & Gross LLP.

SEIU Pension Plans Master Trust, Plaintiff, represented by David
W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick W. Daniels, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman &
Robbins & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.
Highlander Realty, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Evans J. Carter,
Evans J. Carter, P.C., pro hac vice.

Jeffrey D. Buckley, Plaintiff, represented by Evans J. Carter,
Evans J. Carter, P.C., pro hac vice.

The Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, Plaintiff, represented
byJennifer Abby Hoffman, Zelle LLP, Lisa Marie Kaas, Dickstein
Shapiro LLP & Richard James Leveridge, Adams Holcomb LLP.

County of Sonoma, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett, Frank Cadmus
Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy,Kathleen Anne Larocque,
Sonoma County Counsel & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy.

David E. Sundstrom, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett, Frank Cadmus
Damrell, Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp, Joseph Winters
Cotchett, Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy,Kathleen Anne Larocque,
Sonoma County Counsel & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre &
McCarthy.

The Regents of the University of California, Plaintiff,
represented by Kevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro
hac vice, Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander
E. Barnett, Charles Furlonge Robinson, University of California,
Eric K. Behrens, University of California, Frank Cadmus Damrell,
Jr., Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy LLp,Joseph Winters Cotchett,
Cotchett Pitre and McCarthy & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre
& McCarthy.

San Diego Association of Governments, Plaintiff, represented by
Kevin P. O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice,
Matthew K. Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E.
Barnett & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

CEMA Joint Venture, Plaintiff, represented by William E. Walker,
Jr..

County of Sacramento, Plaintiff, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Alexander E. Barnett & Nanci E.
Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.

The City of Philadelphia, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel, Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel,
Christopher R. Barker, Quinn Emanuel Urguhart Oliver and Hedges,
pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham, Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J
Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Jeremy Daniel
Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP, pro hac
vice, Joshua D. Snyder, BONI & ZACK LLC, pro hac vice & Mathieu J.
Shapiro, Obermayer Rebmann Maxwell & Hippel LLP, pro hac vice.

The Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority,
Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel,
Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R. Barker, Quinn Emanuel
Urguhart Oliver and Hedges, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham,
Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP
& Jeremy Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice.

Principal Funds, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Bond & Mortgage Securities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

PFI Bond Market Index Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Core Plus Bond I Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Diversified Real Asset Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

PFI Equity Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Global Diversified Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

PFI Government & High Quality Bond Fund, Plaintiff, represented
byBenjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

PFI High Yield Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI High Yield Fund I, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D. Steinberg,
Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey Paige
Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F. Berndt,
Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Inflation Protection Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Short-Term Income Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Money Market Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PFI Preferred Securities Fund, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Principal Variable Contracts Funds, Inc., Plaintiff, represented
byBenjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

PVC Asset Allocation Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PVC Money Market Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PVC Balanced Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PVC Bond & Mortgage Securities Account, Plaintiff, represented
byBenjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

PVC Equity Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PVC Government & High Quality Bond Account, Plaintiff, represented
byBenjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan,
Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PVC Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin D.
Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

PVC Short-Term Income Account, Plaintiff, represented by Benjamin
D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac vice, Stacey
Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas F.
Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Principal Financial Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

Principal Financial Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

Principal Life Insurance Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Benjamin D. Steinberg, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, pro hac
vice, Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice &
Thomas F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac
vice.

Principal Capital Interest Only I, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas
F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Principal Commercial Funding, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas
F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Principal Commercial Funding II, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas
F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Principal Real Estate Investors, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Stacey Paige Slaughter, Robins Kaplan LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas
F. Berndt, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Texas Competitive Electric Holdings Company LLC, Plaintiff,
represented by Arun Srinivas Subramanian, Susman Godfrey LLP &
Matthew Berry, Susman Godfrey LLP, pro hac vice.

Charles Schwab Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Eric B.
Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice,
Lowell Harry Haky, Charles Schwab and Co., Inc., pro hac vice,
Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein &
Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

National Credit Union Administration Board, Plaintiff, represented
byAndrew Chun-Yang Shen, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans &
Figel, PLLC, Daniel V. Dorris, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans
& Figel, P.L.L.C., David Charles Frederick, Kellogg, Huber,
Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel, PLLC, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve Siegel
Hanson LLP, pro hac vice,Rachel E. Schwartz, Stueve Siegel Hanson
LLP & Wan Joo Kim, Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd, Evans & Figel,
PLLC.

Federal National Mortgage Association, Plaintiff, represented by
Kenneth E. Warner, Warner Partners, P.C. & Samuel William Cruse,
III, Gibbs & Bruns L.L.P..

Darby Financial Products, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham, Quinn
Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Jeremy Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges,
LLP, pro hac vice & Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel.

Capital Ventures International, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel
Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel, Daniel Paul Cunningham, Quinn
Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Jeremy Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges,
LLP, pro hac vice & Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel.

Bay Area Toll Authority, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick
Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Eric B. Fastiff,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Richard
Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein & Steven E.
Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

PRUDENTIAL INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS 2, Plaintiff, represented
byDaniel Lawrence Brockett, Quinn Emanuel, Kathleen Barnett
Einhorn, Genova, Burns & Giantomasi & Webster, Ross Robert Fulton,
Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A., Daniel Paul Cunningham, Quinn
Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,
Jeremy Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges,
LLP, pro hac vice & Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel.

PRUDENTIAL CORE TAXABLE MONEY MARKET FUND, Plaintiff, represented
by Jacob J Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP,Jeremy
Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver & Hedges, LLP,
pro hac vice & Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel.

The Berkshire Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul
McConville, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.
Government Development Bank for Puerto Rico, Plaintiff,
represented byFrancis Paul McConville, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan
Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Direcors Financial Group, Plaintiff, represented by Francis Paul
McConville, Pomerantz LLP & Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Pomerantz LLP.

Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-1 ltd., Plaintiff, represented by David
Steven Preminger, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Triaxx Prime CDO 2006-2 Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by David
Steven Preminger, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

Triaxx Prime CDO 2007-1 Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by David
Steven Preminger, Keller Rohrback L.L.P. & Derek W. Loeser, Keller
Rohrback L.L.P..

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation as Receiver, Plaintiff,
represented by Jennifer Abby Hoffman, Zelle LLP & Richard James
Leveridge, Adams Holcomb LLP.

Direct Action Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by James R.
Martin, Zelle LLP & Richard James Leveridge, Adams Holcomb LLP.

Salix Capital US Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Lawrence
Brockett, Quinn Emanuel, Christopher R. Barker, Quinn Emanuel
Urguhart Oliver and Hedges, pro hac vice, Daniel Paul Cunningham,
Quinn Emanuel, Jacob J Waldman, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP, Jeremy Daniel Andersen, Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart, Oliver &
Hedges, LLP, pro hac vice & Steig Olson, Quinn Emanuel.

Fran P. Goldsleger, Plaintiff, represented by Craig B. Sokolow,
CRAIG SOKOLOW & ASSOCIATES.

Joseph Amabile, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Louis Haberman,
Law Office of Norman J. Finkelshteyn.

Louie Amabile, Plaintiff, represented by Jeffrey Louis Haberman,
Law Office of Norman J. Finkelshteyn.

National Asbestos Workers Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented by
David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick W. Daniels, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman &
Robbins & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Pension Trust for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff, represented by
David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, pro hac vice,
Patrick W. Daniels, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia Geller, Rudman &
Robbins & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Hawaii Annuity Trust Fund for Operating Engineers, Plaintiff,
represented by David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP, pro hac vice,Patrick W. Daniels, Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia
Geller, Rudman & Robbins &Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Cement Masons' International Association Employees' Trust Fund,
Plaintiff, represented by David W. Mitchell, Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd LLP, pro hac vice, Patrick W. Daniels, Lerach, Coughlin,
Stoia Geller, Rudman & Robbins & Samuel Howard Rudman, Robbins
Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP.

Axiom Investment Advisors, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Axiom HFT LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S. Sperling,
Sperling & Slater,Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann &
Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice,Eugene J. Frett, Sperling & Slater,
P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff, Cabrasser,
Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff Cabraser
Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell, Partner &
Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Axiom Investment Advisors Holdings L.P., Plaintiff, represented
byBrendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Bruce S. Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett,
Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi,
Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Axiom Investment Company, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Axion Investment Company Holdings L.P., Plaintiff, represented
byBrendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP, Bruce S. Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett,
Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi,
Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Axiom FX Investment Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Axiom FX Investment Fund II, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Bruce S. Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett,
Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi,
Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann,
Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Axiom FX Investment 2X Fund, L.P., Plaintiff, represented by
Brendan Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP,
Bruce S. Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff,
Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett,
Sperling & Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi,
Leiff, Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Ephraim F. Gildor, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick
Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater,Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice,Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Gildor Family Advisors L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Scott F Hessell, Partner &
Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP.

Gildor Family Company L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Brendan
Patrick Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

Gildor Management, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick
Glackin, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Bruce S.
Sperling, Sperling & Slater, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff, Cabraser,
Heimann & Bernstein,LLP, pro hac vice, Eugene J. Frett, Sperling &
Slater, P.C., pro hac vice, Michael Joseph Miarmi, Leiff,
Cabrasser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Richard Martin Heimann, Lieff
Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, pro hac vice, Scott F Hessell,
Partner & Steven E. Fineman, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein,
LLP.

City of Philadelphia, Plaintiff, represented by Ross Robert
Fulton, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A..

Pennsylvania Intergovernmental Cooperation Authority, Plaintiff,
represented by Ross Robert Fulton, Rayburn, Cooper & Durham, P.A..
City of New Britain, Plaintiff, represented by Hilary Kathleen
Scherrer, Cohen, Milstein, Hausfeld & Toll, PLLC.

Maxwell Van De Velde, Movant, represented by Patrick Anthony
Klingman, Shepherd, Finkelman, Miller & Shah, LLC, Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP & Thomas V. Urmy,
Shapiro, Haber & Urmy, L.L.P..

Brian McCormick, Movant, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Karl P. Barth, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
& Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Vito Spillone, Movant, represented by Christopher Lovell, Lovell
Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Elizabeth A. Fegan, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP, Karl P. Barth, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP
& Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice.

Bank of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Paul Steel
Mishkin, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk
& Wardwell, Julie Saranow Epley, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Neal Alan
Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk
& Wardwell LLP.

Barclays Bank Plc,, Defendant, represented by David R. Boyd,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold Braff,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP & Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

Citibank NA, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Wiseman, Covington
& Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington
& Burling LLP, David Marx, McDermott, Will & Emery LLP, Jonathan
James Gimblett, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Mark
Jacob Altschul, McDermott Will & Emery LLP, pro hac vice, Robert
Frank Wise, Jr.,Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP & Thomas
A. Isaacson, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Deutsche Bank AG, Defendant, represented by Andrew Corydon Finch,
Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Moses Silverman, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Ankush Khardori, Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis
Polk & Wardwell,Hallie Suzanne Goldblatt, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind,
Wharton & Garrison LLP,Noam Lerer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr..

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Alexander Nuo
Li, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk &
Wardwell,Francis John Acott, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
Jeffery Li Ding, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Lawrence H.
Heftman, Schiff Hardin LLP, Matthew Charles Crowl, Schiff Hardin
LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP,
Patrick E. King, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Shannon Price Torres, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Thomas C.
Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Lloyds Banking Group plc, Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Andrew Fleming, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Marc Joel
Gottridge, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Polly Davis, Flemming
Zulack Williamson Zauderer, LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr..

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Robert
G. Houck, Clifford Chance US, LLP, Andrea J. Robinson, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, David S. Lesser, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Harriet Hoder, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP,Michael A Mugmon, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr..

The Norinchukin Bank, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Unger,
Sidley Austin LLP, Andrew W. Stern, Sidley Austin LLP, Arthur J.
Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Kenneth Benjamin Meyer, Sidley
Austin LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Thomas Andrew Paskowitz,
Sidley Austin LLP & William J. Nissen, Sidley Austin, LLP.

UBS AG, Defendant, represented by Peter Sullivan, Gibson, Dunn &
Crutcher, LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, David
Jarrett Arp, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Gary
Richard Spratling, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, pro hac vice,
Jefferson Eliot Bell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Joel Steven
Sanders, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, pro hac vice, Lawrence Jay
Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP &Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

WestLB AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Christopher Martin Paparella, Hughes Hubbard & Reed
LLP,Ethan Edward Litwin, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Marc Alan
Weinstein, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, Morgan Jessen Feder,
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr..

Rabobank Group, Defendant, represented by David Robert Gelfand,
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Melanie Westover Yanez,
Milbank, Twwed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP & Sean Miles Murphy, Milbank,
Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.

Credit Suisse Group, NA, Defendant, represented by Elai E. Katz,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP & Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP.

Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd, Defendant, represented by
Christopher Michael Viapiano, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Daryl
Andrew Libow, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk
& Wardwell, Michael Howard Steinberg, Sullivan & Cromwell & Robert
Frank Wise, Jr..

Royal Bank of Canada, Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke,
Davis Polk & Wardwell, Arthur W. Hahn, Katten Muchin Rosenman,
LLP, Brian J. Poronsky, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Christian T.
Kemnitz, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr..

Societe Generale, Defendant, represented by Steven Wolowitz, Mayer
Brown LLP, Andrew Jonathan Calica, Mayer Brown LLP, Henninger
Simons Bullock, Mayer Brown LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Deutsche Bank Financial LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew
Corydon Finch, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Moses
Silverman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jessica
Lillian Brach, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Noam
Lerer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., Defendant, represented by Andrew
Corydon Finch, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP, Moses
Silverman, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Jessica
Lillian Brach, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP & Noam
Lerer, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP.

Barclays Capital Inc., Defendant, represented by Matthew Joseph
Porpora, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP,David R. Boyd, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro
hac vice, David Harold Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey
T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP & Michael Brille, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, pro hac vice.

Barclays U.S. Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by David R.
Boyd, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, David Harold
Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner
LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP &
Michael Brille, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice.

Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Defendant, represented by Elai
E. Katz, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP & Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by Edwin R
Deyoung, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin,
Locke Lord LLP,Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C
Webb, Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke,
Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P..

UBS Securities LLC, Defendant, represented by Jefferson Eliot
Bell, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher, LLP & Peter Sullivan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher,
LLP.

Citiigroup Global Markets Inc., Defendant, represented by Alan M.
Wiseman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice, Andrew Arthur
Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP, Jonathan James Gimblett,
Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Thomas A. Isaacson,
Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Bank of Tokyo-Mistsubishi UFJ, Defendant, represented by Robert
Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Bank of America, N.A., Defendant, represented by Paul Steel
Mishkin, Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Julie Saranow Epley, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Neal Alan
Potischman, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

HSBC Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung, Locke
Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord LLP,
Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr. &
Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P..

WestDeutsche Immobilienbank AG, Defendant, represented by Arthur
J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Christopher Martin Paparella,
Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, Ethan Edward Litwin, Hughes Hubbard &
Reed LLP,Marc Alan Weinstein, U.S. Attorney's Office, SDNY, Morgan
Jessen Feder, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Citigroup Inc, Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin, Cleary
Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP, Jonathan
Samuel Kolodner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, Robert
Frank Wise, Jr. & Tammy Albarran, Covington & Burling LLP.

Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A., Defendant,
represented by Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, David
Robert Gelfand, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Delilah
Garcia Vinzon, Milbank Tweed Hadley et al, Mark David Villaverde,
Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP, Melanie Westover Yanez,
Milbank, Twwed, Hadley & McCloy, LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr. &
Sean Miles Murphy, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, Defendant, represented
byPatrick E. King, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Robert Frank
Wise, Jr..

JPMorgan Chase Bank, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C. Rice, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

JPMorgan Chase & Co, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Chet Alan Kronenberg,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Elizabeth Jane Shutkin, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P. & Thomas C. Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Barklays Bank Plc, Defendant, represented by David R. Boyd, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice & Jonathan David Schiller,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Lloyds Banking Group PLS, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean
Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Marc Joel Gottridge, Hogan Lovells
US LLP.

JP Morgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C. Rice, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Joan Eileen Flaherty, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP & Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP.

Barclays PLC, Defendant, represented by David Harold Braff,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and
Cromwell, LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP,
Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, David R. Boyd,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Jonathan David
Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Leigh Mager Nathanson,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP & Michael Brille, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice.

Barclays Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Seth Paris,
Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, David R. Boyd, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, pro hac vice,David Harold Braff, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,
Jeffrey T. Scott, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Jonathan David
Schiller, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP,Leigh Mager Nathanson,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, Matthew Joseph Porpora, Sullivan &
Cromwell, LLP, Michael Brille, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro
hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. &
Yvonne Susan Quinn, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP.

J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Alexander
Nuo Li, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Francis John Acott,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P., Shannon
Price Torres, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Thomas C. Rice,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Lloyds Banking Group PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J.
Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell, Lisa Jean Fried, Hogan Lovells US
LLP, Marc Joel Gottridge, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Megan Dixon, Hogan
Lovells US LLP &Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, Defendant, represented by
Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A., Defendant, represented by Paul
Christopher Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C.
Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk
& Wardwell, Elizabeth Jane Shutkin, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP, Joan Eileen Flaherty, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Michael
Steven Carnevale, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos
Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Rachel Serenity
Sparks Bradley, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Robert Frank
Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Barclays Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey T. Scott,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP & Jonathan David Schiller, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Citigroup, Inc., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke, Davis
Polk & Wardwell.

Citibank N.A., Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke, Davis
Polk & Wardwell & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

JPMorgan Chase & Co., Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C. Rice, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Michael Steven Carnevale, Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP & Rachel Serenity Sparks Bradley, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP.

Chase Bank USA, NA, Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C. Rice, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Bank Of America Corporation, Defendant, represented by Arthur J.
Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk
& Wardwell L.L.P..

JPMorgan Chase Bank National Association, Defendant, represented
byArthur J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell.

HSBC Bank Plc., Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung, Locke
Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord
LLP &Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, L.L.P..

Lloyds Banking Group plc., Defendant, represented by Benjamin
Andrew Fleming, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Kevin Timothy Baumann, Hogan
Lovells US LLP, Lisa Jean Fried, Hogan Lovells US LLP & Marc Joel
Gottridge, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group Plc., Defendant, represented by
Robert G. Houck, Clifford Chance US, LLP.

Citibank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin, Cleary
Gottlieb, Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

The Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi UFJ, Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Daryl Andrew Libow, Sullivan & Cromwell LLP.

HSBC Bank plc, Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung, Locke
Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, Arthur J. Burke, Davis Polk &
Wardwell, Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb,
Locke Lord LLP, pro hac vice, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk &
Wardwell L.L.P. & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp,
L.L.P..

Chase Bank USA, N.A., Defendant, represented by Paul Christopher
Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C. Rice, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP,Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP, Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P. &
Shannon Price Torres, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Fraser
Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Arthur
J. Burke, Davis Polk & Wardwell & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2007-1, Defendant,
represented byUsher T. Winslett, Winslett Studnicky McCormick &
Bomser.

Barclays Bank Plc,, Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke,
Davis Polk & Wardwell & Michael Brille, Boies, Schiller & Flexner
LLP, pro hac vice.

The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by
Robert G. Houck, Clifford Chance US, LLP, Alan Schoenfeld, Wilmer
Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Colin Reardon, Wilmerhale, David
Sapir Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Fraser Lee
Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Michael J.
Zbiegien, Jr., Taft, Stettinius & Hollister & Tracy A. Turoff,
Taft Stettinius & Hollister.

RBS Citizens, N.A., Defendant, represented by Andrea J. Robinson,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & David Sapir Lesser,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

The Royal Bank of Scotland, Plc, Defendant, represented by Andrea
J. Robinson, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & David Sapir
Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Defendant, represented by Colin
Reardon, Wilmerhale.

Stephanie Nagel, Defendant, represented by Daniel A. Edelman,
Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC, pro hac vice & Tiffany
Nicole Hardy, Edelman, Combs, Latturner & Goodwin, LLC.

British Bankers' Association, Defendant, represented by Jeff G.
Hammel, Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens, Latham & Watkins
LLP,Jennifer Greenberg, Latham & Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova
Vazova, Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk
& Wardwell L.L.P..

BBA Enterprises, Ltd., Defendant, represented by Jeff G. Hammel,
Latham and Watkins, Richard David Owens, Latham & Watkins LLP,
Jennifer Greenberg, Latham & Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova
Vazova, Latham & Watkins LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk
& Wardwell L.L.P..

BBA Libor, Ltd, Defendant, represented by Jeff G. Hammel, Latham
and Watkins, Richard David Owens, Latham & Watkins LLP, Jennifer
Greenberg, Latham & Watkins LLP, Lilia Borislavova Vazova, Latham
& Watkins LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

Credit Suisse International, Defendant, represented by Elai E.
Katz, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer, Cahill
Gordon & Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel
LLP, Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP & Robert
Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

HSBC Bank USA, N.A., Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung,
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord
LLP,Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb, Locke
Lord LLP, pro hac vice & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp,
L.L.P..

Portigon AG, Defendant, represented by David Hugh Stern, Hughes
Hubbard Reed LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis Polk & Wardwell
L.L.P..

RBS Citizens, N.A., Defendant, represented by Robert G. Houck,
Clifford Chance US, LLP, Michael J. Zbiegien, Jr., Taft,
Stettinius & Hollister &Tracy A. Turoff, Taft Stettinius &
Hollister.

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried,
Hogan Lovells US LLP & Marc Joel Gottridge, Hogan Lovells US LLP.
Norinchukin Bank, Defendant, represented by Alan M. Unger, Sidley
Austin LLP, Andrew W. Stern, Sidley Austin LLP & Thomas Andrew
Paskowitz, Sidley Austin LLP.

The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, Defendant, represented by Fraser
Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Robert
G. Houck, Clifford Chance US, LLP, Alan Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP & David Sapir Lesser, Wilmer Cutler
Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP.

Citigroup Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

J.P. Morgan Bank Dublin PLC, Defendant, represented by Jeffery Li
Ding, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Omari Largos Royter Mason,
Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Paul Christopher Gluckow, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Shannon Price Torres, Simpson Thacher &
Bartlett LLP &Thomas C. Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

UBS Limited, Defendant, represented by Jefferson Eliot Bell,
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Lawrence Jay Zweifach, Gibson, Dunn
& Crutcher, LLP &Peter Sullivan, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, LLP.

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Defendant, represented by Alan
Schoenfeld, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, David Sapir
Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Fraser Lee
Hunter, Jr., Wilmer, Cutler, Hale & Dorr, L.L.P. & Jamie Stephen
Dycus, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

Citigroup Financial Products, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lev
Louis Dassin, Cleary Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington &
Burling LLP & Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

ICAP plc, Defendant, represented by Brian S. Fraser, Richards
Kibbe & Orbe LLP, H. Rowan Gaither, IV, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP
& Shari A. Brandt, Richards Kibbe & Orbe LLP.

Credit Suisse (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by Elai E. Katz,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP, Herbert Scott Washer, Cahill Gordon &
Reindel LLP, Jason Michael Hall, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP &
Joel Laurence Kurtzberg, Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

J.P. Morgan Markets Ltd., Defendant, represented by Paul
Christopher Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C.
Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP,Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP & Shannon Price Torres, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP.

Lloyds Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Lisa Jean Fried, Hogan
Lovells US LLP & Marc Joel Gottridge, Hogan Lovells US LLP.

RBC Capital Markets, LLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur W.
Hahn, Katten Muchin Rosenman, LLP, Brian J. Poronsky, Katten
Muchin Rosenman LLP & Christian T. Kemnitz, Katten Muchin Rosenman
LLP.

Bank of America Home Loans, Defendant, represented by Debra A.
Djupman, REED SMITH LLP.

Bank of America National Association, Defendant, represented by
Debra A. Djupman, REED SMITH LLP & Robert Frank Wise, Jr., Davis
Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

CITI SWAPCO INC., CITI SWAPCO INC., Defendant, represented by
Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington & Burling LLP.

Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Defendant, represented by Lev
Louis Dassin, Cleary Gottlieb & Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

J.P. Morgan Securities, LLC, Defendant, represented by Paul
Christopher Gluckow, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Thomas C.
Rice, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Jeffery Li Ding, Simpson
Thacher & Bartlett LLP,Omari Largos Royter Mason, Simpson Thacher
& Bartlett LLP & Shannon Price Torres, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett
LLP.

Citigroup Global Markets Limited, Defendant, represented by Lev
Louis Dassin, Cleary Gottlieb, Andrew Arthur Ruffino, Covington &
Burling LLP & Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen &
Hamilton LLP.

Citigroup Funding Inc., Defendant, represented by Lev Louis
Dassin, Cleary Gottlieb & Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Cleary
Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP.

HSBC Finance Corp., Defendant, represented by Edwin R Deyoung,
Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP, James Matthew Goodin, Locke Lord
LLP,Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb, Locke
Lord LLP, pro hac vice & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp,
L.L.P..

HSBC USA Inc., Defendant, represented by James Matthew Goodin,
Locke Lord LLP, Edwin R Deyoung, Locke Lord Bissell & Liddell LLP,
Gregory Thomas Casamento, Locke Lord LLP, Julia C Webb, Locke Lord
LLP, pro hac vice & Roger Brian Cowie, Locke, Liddell & Sapp,
L.L.P..

Bear Stearns Capital Markets, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Jeffery Li Ding, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP & Shannon Price
Torres, Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP.

Citizens Bank, N.A., Defendant, represented by Alan Schoenfeld,
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr LLP, Colin Reardon,
Wilmerhale, David Sapir Lesser, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP & Fraser Lee Hunter, Jr., Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale &
Dorr LLP.

Citi Swapco Inc., Defendant, represented by Lev Louis Dassin,
Cleary Gottlieb & Jonathan Samuel Kolodner, Cleary Gottlieb Steen
& Hamilton LLP.

LLoyds Bank PLC, Defendant, represented by Robert Frank Wise, Jr.,
Davis Polk & Wardwell L.L.P..

Credit Suisse AG, Defendant, represented by Jason Michael Hall,
Cahill Gordon & Reindel LLP.

HSBC Holdings, PLC, Defendant, represented by Arthur J. Burke,
Davis Polk & Wardwell.

County of Mendocino, ADR Provider, represented by Kevin P.
O'Brien, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K.
Edling, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy & Nanci E. Nishimura, Cotchett,
Pitre & McCarthy.

City of Houston, ADR Provider, represented by Kevin P. O'Brien,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, pro hac vice, Matthew K. Edling,
Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy, Richard Warren Mithoff, Jr., Mithoff
Law Firm, Warner Vandergriff Hocker, Mithoff Law & Nanci E.
Nishimura, Cotchett, Pitre & McCarthy.


MDL 2693: "Von Haden" Suit Consolidated in C.D. California
----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Von Haden, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Vizio Inc., a California
corporation, and Cognitive Media Networks Inc., a Delaware
corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01201, was
transferred from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District
of California, to the U.S. District Court for the Central District
of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central
District Court assigned Case No. 8:16-Cv-00741-JLS-KES.

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

The Von case is consolidated with MDL 2693 in re: Vizio, Inc.,
Consumer Privacy Litigation. The MDL was created by Order of the
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation on April
7, 2016. The Panel finds that these actions involve common
questions of fact, and that centralization in the Central District
of California will serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this
litigation. All the actions are putative nationwide class actions
against Vizio arising from allegations that it violated its
customers' privacy rights by installing software on Vizio Smart
TVs called "Smart Interactivity" that allowed Vizio to collect
viewing data displayed on the customers' televisions. Presiding
Judge in the MDL is Hon. Josephine L. Staton. The lead case is
8:16-ml-02693-JLS-KES.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph C Bourne, Esq.
          Jason S Kilene, Esq.
          GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
          120 South Sixth Street Suite 2600
          Minneapolis, MN 55402
          Telephone: (612) 333 8844
          Facsimile: (612) 339 6622
          E-mail: jbourne@gustafsongluek.com
                  jkilene@gustafsongluek.com


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Francois" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau,
LLC. The case is captioned Vangee Maxime Francois, on behalf of
herself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Mercantile Adjustment Bureau, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-01984-MKB-RML (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2016). The Assigned Judge is
Hon. Margo K. Brodie.

Mercantile Adjustment is a full service, nationally licensed
collections and accounts receivable management firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MICHAEL R. LONG: Sued in Nevada for Breach of Fiduciary Duties
--------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Mcfarland, derivatively on behalf Payment Data Systems,
Inc., and individually on behalf of himself and all other
similarly situated shareholders of Payment Data Systems, Inc., the
Plaintiff, v. Michael R. Long, Louis A. Hoch, Larry Morrison,
Kenneth Keller, and Peter G. Kirby, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-
cv-00930-RFB-GWF (D. Nev., April 25, 2016), seeks to recover
damages resulting from Defendants' unfair self-dealing.

According to the complaint, the Defendants self-interestedly
granted themselves excessive and unfair compensation during 2013
and 2014. The Plaintiff asserts a direct claim against the
Defendants for breaching their fiduciary duties in connection with
their improper misappropriation of substantial voting power from
the Company's minority public shareholders.

Michael R. Long has served as Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Board since co-founding the Company in 1998. Long also
served as Chief Financial Officer of the Company from September
2003 to March 2015. Louis A. Hoch has served as the Company's
President, Chief Operating Officer, and a director since co-
founding the Company in 1998, and has also served as
Vice Chairman of the Board since 2007. Larry Morrison has served
as the Company's Senior Vice President, Sales and Marketing
Officer since July 2003.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John P. Aldrich, Esq.
          ALDRICH LAW FIRM, LTD
          1601 S. Rainbow Blvd., Suite 160
          Las Vegas, NV 89146
          Telephone: (702) 853 5490
          Facsimile: (702) 227 1975
          E-mail: jaldrich@johnaldrichlawfirm.com

               - and -

          Nicholas I. Porritt, Esq.
          LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
          1101 30th Street, NW, Suite 115
          Washington, DC 20007
          Telephone: 202-524 4293
          Facsimile: 202-333 2121
          E-mail: nporritt@zlk.com


MINNESOTA: MSOP Commitment Order Affirmed
-----------------------------------------
In the case captioned In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of:
Kenneth Donald Hand, No. A15-1341 (Minn. Ct. App.), the Court of
Appeals of Minnesota affirmed a 2010 order for Kenneth Donald
Hand's indeterminate commitment to the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (MSOP) as a "sexually dangerous person" or SDP.

Seeking relief under rules 60.02, 65.01, and 65.02 of the
Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure, Hand challenged his continued
confinement to the MSOP, as well as his 2010 order for
indeterminate commitment to the MSOP as an SDP.  Hand argued that
the MCTA is unconstitutional and unlawful ab initio.

The appellate court held that Hand's rule 60.02 motion is barred
by the exclusive transfer-or-discharge remedies of the MCTA.  In
addition, because Hand's rule 60.02 motion does not state a viable
claim for relief from his 2010 order of indeterminate commitment,
the appellate court concluded that the district court did not err
in denying Hand relief under rules 65.01 and 65.02.

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

Lori Swanson, Attorney General, Angela H. Kiese, Assistant
Attorney General, St. Paul, Minnesota, for respondent.


MJK SOUTH: "Quinto" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Quinto and Jorge Quiroz, individually and all other
similarly situated persons, known and unknown, the Plaintiffs. v.
MJK South Loop, Inc. d/b/a Sarpino's Pizzeria and Julius Jokimas,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. Case: 1:16-cv-04597 (N.D.
Ill., April 22, 2016), seeks redress for Defendants' alleged
willful violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, (FLSA), and
the Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants' failed to pay
Plaintiffs overtime wages for hours worked more than 40 hours in a
week. The Defendants also failed to keep proper time records
tracking Plaintiffs' time worked and have failed to post a notice
of rights.

Sarpino's Pizzeria offers traditional and gourmet pizzas,
authentic pastas, succulent chicken wings, variety of salads, and
cheese bread,

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Susan J. Best, Esq.
          CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
          6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
          Chicago, IL 60646
          Telephone: (312) 445 9662
          E-mail: sbest@yourclg.com


MMS QUALITY: "Sandhu" Suit Seeks Damages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------
Rajbir K. Sandhu, and other similarly situated employees and/or
former employees, the Plaintiff, v. MMS Quality Nursing Services,
Inc., Marilyn M. Santiago, Ogen Delek, and Does 1-20, the
Defendants, Case No. RG16812725 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 22, 2016),
seeks to recover damages as a result of Defendants' failure to pay
for overtime and provide employment records, under California
Industrial Welfare Commissions Wage Order and Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff alleged that the LLC
and/or corporations of Defendants are inadequately capitalized and
that the individual Defendants and Does used assets of the
corporate Defendant for their personal uses. The Defendants have
failed to maintain proper corporate records, maintain proper
employment records, or observe corporate formalities.

MMS Quality is a skilled nursing facility in Berkeley, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Spencer C. Young, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SPENCER C. YOUNG
          1300 Clay Street, Suite 600
          Oakland, CA 94612-1427
          Telephone: (510) 645 1585
          Facsimile: (510) 645 1586
          E-mail: spencer@spenceryounglaw.com


NATERA INC: "Nguyen" Class Action Moved to N.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------
Van Nguyen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Natera, Inc., Matthew Rabinowitz, Herm
Rosenman, Jonathan Sheena, Roelof Botha, Todd Cozzens, Edward C.
Driscoll, Jr., James Healy, John Steuart, Sequoia Capital XII, LP,
SC XII Management, LLC, Lightspeed Venture Partners VIII, LP,
Lightspeed Ultimate General Partner VII, Ltd., Morgan Stanley &
Co. LLC, Cowen and Company, LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., Robert W.
Baird & Co. Inc., and Wedbush Securities Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. CIV538020, was removed from San Mateo County Superior
Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California. The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 03:16-
cv-02226-RS to the proceeding.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated the Securities
Act of 1933.

Natera, a genetic testing company, develops and commercializes
non-invasive methods for analyzing deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) in
the United States and Europe.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendants are represented by:

          Bruce G. Vanyo, Esq.
          Richard H. Zelichov, Esq.
          Christina L. Costley, Esq.
          KATTEN MUCHIN ROSENMAN LLP
          2029 Century Park East, Suite 2600
          Los Angeles, CA 90067-3012
          Telephone: (310) 788 4400
          Facsimile: (310) 788 4471
          E-mail: bruce@kattenlaw.com
                  richard.zelichov@kattenlaw.com
                  christina.costley@kattenlaw.com


NATIONAL FOOTBALL: Nov. 17 Final Hearing on Apparel Case Accord
---------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in San Jose preliminarily approved a $4.75
million settlement of class action claims that the NFL's exclusive
license with Reebok for team apparel violated antitrust law.

Lead plaintiff Michael Villa sued the NFL and Reebok in 2012,
claiming the licensing deal stifled competition and created a
monopoly.

U.S. District Judge Edward Davila preliminarily approved the
settlement on April 21.

The nationwide class includes all people who made an "eligible
purchase" of NFL team apparel.

An eligible purchase is a "purchase made in California at retail
for personal use and not for resale or other commercial gain" of a
licensed jersey, hat or pair of shoes bearing NFL intellectual
property.

Davila will hold a final approval hearing of the settlement on
Nov. 17.

Neither the class counsel nor the NFL immediately responded to an
email requesting comment April 27, afternoon.

The case captioned, MICHAEL VILLA, On Behalf of Himself and All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, vs. al., SAN FRANCISCO FORTY
NINERS, LTD. Et al., Defendants., Case No. 12-cv-5481-EJD (N.D.
Cal.).


NEW YORK: Settlement in "Peoples" Suit v. DOCCS Has Final Okay
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEROY PEOPLES, DEWAYNE RICHARDSON, and TONJA
FENTON, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. ANTHONY ANNUCCI, Acting Commissioner of the New
York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision, et
al., Defendants, No. 11-cv-2694(SAS) (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Shira A.
Scheindlin granted final approval of a settlement that was reached
on behalf of thousands of prisoners, in a class action lawsuit
challenging solitary confinement practices across the New York
State prison system.

A full-text copy of Judge Scheindlin's April 14, 2016 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/DqAnjvfrom Leagle.com.

In April 2011, Leroy Peoples, appearing pro se, sued the New York
State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision
("DOCCS"), claiming that his designation to solitary confinement
for a three-year term for improperly maintaining certain legal
documents in his cell and related conduct was unconstitutional.
Two years later, in March, 2013, an action previously filed by
Dewayne Richardson, also appearing pro se, was joined with
Peoples' case.  Similarly to Peoples, Richardson was sentenced to
three years' solitary confinement for maintaining documents in his
cell that were designated as contraband and related conduct.  Also
in March, 2013, a pro se complaint previously filed by Tonja
Fenton was joined with Peoples' case.  Fenton had sued DOCCS after
being sentenced to two years' solitary confinement for three
infractions: (1) helping another inmate purchase personal hair
care appliances and sneakers; (2) reporting a sexual assault that
was later deemed unsubstantiated; and (3) sending a food sample to
a court in support of a lawsuit she filed alleging that
corrections officers had retaliated against her by tampering with
her food.

The Settlement Agreement was reached five years after Peoples
filed his initial complaint.  The settlement provides for three
broad categories of reform: (1) reduction in the frequency and
duration of special housing unit (SHU) sentences; (2) improvements
to the conditions of SHU incarceration; and (3) mechanisms for
implementation and enforcement of the agreed-upon measures.

Leroy Peoples, Tonja Fenton, Plaintiffs, represented by Taylor
Scott Pendergrass, New York Civil Liberties Union, Adam James Hunt
-- adamhunt@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Aimee Krause
Stewart, New York Civil Liberties Union, Alexander A Reinert --
aar@kmlaw-ny.com -- Koob & Magoolaghan, Christopher T Dunn, New
York Civil Liberties Union, David John Fioccola --
dfioccola@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jennifer Kay Brown
-- jbrown@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster, Kayvan Betteridge
Sadeghi -- ksadeghi@mofo.com -- Morrison & Foerster LLP & Philip
Louis Desgranges, Goodwin Procter, LLP.

Dewayne Richardson, Plaintiff, represented by Taylor Scott
Pendergrass, New York Civil Liberties Union, Adam James Hunt,
Morrison & Foerster LLP, Aimee Krause Stewart, New York Civil
Liberties Union, Alexander A Reinert, Koob & Magoolaghan, David
John Fioccola, Morrison & Foerster LLP, Jennifer Kay Brown,
Morrison & Foerster, Kayvan Betteridge Sadeghi, Morrison &
Foerster LLP & Philip Louis Desgranges, Goodwin Procter, LLP.

William Lee, Norman Bezio, David Rock, Albert Prack, William
Powers, Sabina Kaplan, L. Collins, Diane Catalfu, Ada Perez,
Patrick Griffin, James Cavaleri, Defendants, represented by Jeb
Harben, Office of the Attorney General, New York State.


NEW YORK: Dismissal of Prison Employees' Suit Affirmed
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned In the Matter of ARTHUR M. ANDREWS et al.,
Appellants, v. STATE OF NEW YORK et al., Respondents, 521666 (N.Y.
App. Div.), the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New
York, Third Department affirmed the judgment of the Supreme Court
of New York which granted the respondents' motion for summary
judgment dismissing the petition.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2016 decision is
available at http://is.gd/TAirWefrom Leagle.com.

The appellants, current or former employees of the respondent
Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (hereinafter
DOCCS) who, in turn, also are current or former members of the
United States Armed Forces, appealed from an order of the Supreme
Court of New York which, among other things, implicitly converted
what was denominated as a declaratory judgment action into a CPLR
article 78 proceeding and granted the respondents' motion for
summary judgment dismissing the petition.  In so doing, the
Supreme Court concluded that the respondent State of New York did
not waive its sovereign immunity, that only those claims arising
within the four-month statute of limitations applicable to CPLR
article 78 proceedings were timely and, in any event, that the
petition failed to state a cause of action.

Lippes Mathias Wexler Friedman LLP, Albany (Jeffrey P. Mans --
jmans@lippes.com -- of counsel), for appellants.

Hancock Estabrook, LLP, Syracuse (John G. Powers --
jpowers@hancocklaw.com --  of counsel), for respondents.


OKLAHOMA: 10th Cir. Rules on "Williams" Appeal
----------------------------------------------
The United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit affirmed in part
and reversed in part the district court's orders in the case
captioned MARIO WILLIAMS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TIM WILKINSON;
BRIAN WIDEMAN, Defendants-Appellees, No. 15-7022 (10th Cir.).

Mario Williams, a Muslim serving a life sentence in Oklahoma state
prison, sued prison officials for alleged violations of his
religious-freedom and equal-protection rights.  He named as
Defendants in a putative class action Justin Jones, who was at the
time Director of the Oklahoma Department of Corrections (ODOC),
and Warden Tim Wilkinson and Chaplain Brian Wideman, both of the
Davis Correctional Facility (DCF), where Williams was in maximum-
security confinement when he filed his complaint.  Williams
claimed these prison officials violated his statutory and
constitutional free-exercise rights by eliminating communal Muslim
prayer services for maximum-security inmates at DCF.  He further
alleged these prison officials violated his free-exercise rights
by denying his faith-based request for a kosher diet.  Williams
also asserted an equal-protection violation based on these
actions.  Williams pursued these claims on behalf of a "fluid"
class of all Muslims in the Oklahoma state prison system.

The Tenth Circuit reversed and remanded as to the district court's
12(b)(6) dismissal of Williams' communal-services and kosher-diet
claims and its denial of Williams' motions to appoint counsel and
for class certification.  The Tenth Circuit, however, affirmed the
12(b)(6) dismissal of Williams' equal-protection claim and his
personal-capacity claims against former Director Jones and the
district court's denial of Williams' motion to amend.

A full-text copy of the Court's April 14, 2016 order and judgment
is available at http://is.gd/llVQq0from Leagle.com.


PARTNER COMMS: NIS 72 Million Claim Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
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
and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed on
June 19, 2012, against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company unlawfully charged its subscribers for certain calls in
which a call-filtering system has been activated by the subscriber
being called. The total amount claimed from Partner was estimated
by the plaintiff to be approximately NIS 72 million. In February
16, 2016, the court dismissed the 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: NIS 232 Million Claim Dismissed by Mutual Consent
----------------------------------------------------------------
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
and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed on
June 23, 2013, against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company acted unlawfully by not offering its customers discounted
cellular tariff plans which are offered under the 012 mobile brand
and by charging its customers that transferred to a plan under the
012 mobile brand a payment for a new SIM card. The total amount
claimed from Partner was estimated by the plaintiff to be NIS 232
million. The claim was dismissed by mutual consent in November
2015.

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: May 2016 Hearing on Supreme Court Appeal
-------------------------------------------------------
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
Supreme Court is set to hear an appeal for May 2016.

On July 14, 2010, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges
that Partner is breaching its contractual and/or legal obligation
and/or is acting negligently by charging V.A.T for roaming
services that are consumed abroad.

If the claim is recognized as a class action, the plaintiff
demands to return the total amount of V.A.T that was charged by
Partner for roaming services that were consumed abroad. The
plaintiff also pursued an injunction that will order Partner to
stop charging VA.T for roaming services that are consumed abroad.

In August 2014, the claim was dismissed and in October 2014 the
plaintiff filed an appeal with the Supreme Court. The appeal has
been set in the Supreme Court for May 2016 in front of an expanded
panel of seven judges.

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: Aug. 2012 v. 012 Smile Claim 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 August 8, 2012, is still in its preliminary stage of the
motion to be certified as a class action.

On August 8, 2012, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against 012 Smile and another Internet
Service Provider to the Central District Court in Israel. The
claim alleges that the defendants breached certain provisions of
their licenses by not offering their services at a unified tariff
to all customers. The total amount claimed against 012 Smile if
the lawsuit is recognized as a class action was not stated by the
plaintiff. The Company is unable, to evaluate, with any degree of
certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range
of potential exposure, if any. 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: May 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 May 6, 2015, is still in its preliminary stage of the motion
to be certified as a class action.

On May 6, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as a
class action were filed against the Company. The claim alleges,
that Partner discriminated between its cellular customers,
including between new customers and existing customers, by
offering the same type of customers, different terms, not in
accordance with the provisions of its license. The plaintiff noted
that it cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the lawsuit,
if the lawsuit is certified as a class action. The Company is
unable, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty, the probability
of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential exposure, if
any. 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: Sept. 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 September 7, 2015, against the Company and 012 Smile is
still in its preliminary stage.

On September 7, 2015, a claim and a motion to certify the claim as
a class action were filed against the Company and 012 Smile. The
claim alleges that Partner and 012 Smile overcharge its
subscribers according to a special tariff for overseas call
destinations that are defined by the Company as special tariff
destinations despite the fact that they are fixed-line
destinations. The total amount claimed against Partner and 012
Smile if the lawsuit is recognized as a class action was not
stated by the plaintiff.

The Company is unable, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty,
the probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of
potential exposure, if any. 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: Class Action Claim Filed March 2016
--------------------------------------------------
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
and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed on
March 3, 2016, against the Company and another cellular operator.
The claim alleges that Partner unlawfully charges its customers
that are abroad for rejecting an incoming call. The plaintiffs
noted that they cannot estimate the total amount claimed in the
lawsuit, if the lawsuit is certified as a class action. The
Company is unable, to evaluate, with any degree of certainty, the
probability of success of the lawsuit or the range of potential
exposure, if any. The claim is 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: Class Action Claim Filed Feb. 2016
-------------------------------------------------
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
and a motion to certify the claim as a class action were filed on
February 24, 2016, against the Company. The claim alleges that the
Company harasses recipients by sending advertising messages
without receiving their prior approval for this. In addition, the
content of the advertisements does not comply with the legal
provisions, among others, with respect to the fact that most of
the advertising messages do not easily include an option to remove
or send a refusal notice.  The total amount claimed against the
Company if the lawsuit is recognized as a class action was not
stated by the plaintiff. The Company is unable, to evaluate, with
any degree of certainty, the probability of success of the lawsuit
or the range of potential exposure, if any. 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").


PHILLIPS AGENCY: "Ascencio" Suit Moved to District of Montana
-------------------------------------------------------------
Nissa Ascencio, and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff,
v. Phillips Agency, Inc., doing business as: Applicantprofile.com,
the Defendant, Case No. DV-16-00247, was removed from the Montana
Fourth Judicial District Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
District of Montana (Missoula). The Montana District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 9:16-cv-00064-DLC to the proceeding.

Phillips Agency handles insurance and retirement needs.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Jill M. Gerdrum, Esq.
          Susan G. Ridgeway, Esq.
          AXILON LAW GROUP, PLLC
          Millennium Building, Suite 403
          125 Bank Street
          Missoula, MT 59802
          Telephone: (406) 532 2635
          Facsimile: (406) 294 9468
          E-mail: jgerdrum@axilonlaw.com
                  sridgeway@axilonlaw.com


PQ NEW YORK: "Kutluca" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Cuneyt Kutluca and Taniqua Brown, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. PQ New York
Inc., PQ Operations Inc., PQ Licensing S.A., PQ 933 Broadway, Inc.
PQ Central Park, and Does 1-51, the the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
cv-03070-VSB (S.D.N.Y., April 25, 2016), seeks relief and monetary
damages under New York Labor Law and the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were denied lawful
minimum wage and overtime compensation, spread of hours pay, and
reimbursement of the cost of laundering required uniform.
Plaintiffs are former tipped servers employed at the Defendant's
corporately owned Le Quotidien restaurant throughout the United
States.

PQ New York operates bakeries and offers breakfast, brunch, lunch,
and dining services.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Christopher Quincy Davis, Esq.
          Rachel Meredith Haskell, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER DAVIS
          18 W. 18th Street, 11th fl.
          New York, NY 10011
          Telephone: (646) 356 1011
          Facsimile: (646) 349 2504
          E-mail: cdavis@workingsolutionsnyc.com
                  rhaskell@workingsolutionsnyc.com


PRESSLER AND PRESSLER: Faces "Lok" Suit in Dist. of New Jersey
--------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Pressler and Pressler LLP. The
case is captioned Jenny Lok, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pressler and Pressler LLP,
and John Does 1-25, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02283-MCA-LDW
(D.N.J., April 22, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Madeline C. Arleo.

Pressler and Pressler is a law firm located in East Hanover New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph K. Jones, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF JOSEPH K. JONES LLC
          555 Fifth Avenue, Suite 1700
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (646) 459 7971
          E-mail: jkj@legaljones.com


PRIDWIN HOTEL: Faces "Munoz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Pridwin Hotel Limited. The case
is captioned Carlos Munoz, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pridwin Hotel Limited, and
Richard A. Petry, an individual, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-
01978 (E.D.N.Y., April 22, 2016).

Pridwin Hotel is a classic all-wood American resort hotel.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PROCTER & GAMBLE: Old Spice Deodorant Causes Rash, Suit Says
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
San Francisco claims Procter & Gamble fails to warn consumers that
its Old Spice deodorant can cause rashes and blisters.


QUALITY DINING: Faces "Joseph" Suit in E.D. Penn.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Quality Dining. The case is
captioned Stephanie Joseph and Ryan Rutherford, on behalf of
themselves and similarly situated employees, the Plaintiff, v.
Quality Dining, the Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-01907-JLS (E.D.
Penn., April 22, 2016).

Quality Dining operates 48 Chili's restaurants as franchisees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J Hank, Esq.
          Rachel Fendell Satinsky, Esq.
          Martha J. Keon, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, PC
          Three Parkway
          1601 cherry Street, Suite 1400
          Philadelphia, PA 19102-1321
          Telephone: (267) 402 3000
          Facsimile: (267) 402 3131
          E-mail: mhank@littler.com
                  rsatinsky@littler.com
                  mkeon@littler.com


QUALITY INTEGRATED: "Webb" Suit Seeks Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------
Jesse Webb, individually and on behalf of all persons similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. Quality Integrated Services, Inc.,
Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00457-CRE (W.D. Penn., April 15, 2016),
seeks back pay with damages including unpaid overtime compensation
and unpaid wages, prejudgment interest, liquidated damages,
litigation costs, expenses and attorneys' fees and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29
U.S.C. Sec. 201, et seq. and Pennsylvania state law.

Quality Integrated Services, Inc. is a corporation providing third
party services, including inspection, for the construction and
maintenance of oil and natural gas transmission, midstream and
gathering lines, facility construction, meter runs and many other
types of oil and gas construction throughout the United States.
Plaintiff worked at the Laurel Mountain Midstream Project as a
pipeline inspector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
      Alexandra K. Piazza, Esq.
      Camille Fundora, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-3000
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      Email: scarson@bm.net
             sschalman-bergen@bm.net
             apiazza@bm.net
             cfundora@bm.net


QUEST DIAGNOSTICS: N.D. Cal. Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Maria Dinzeo, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
federal judge in San Francisco dismissed class action antitrust
claims against Quest Diagnostics for a third and final time,
finding patients never showed the company overcharged for its
medical tests or shut out competition.

"Despite the benefit of a prior related case bringing
substantially similar claims against Quest, three opportunities to
flesh out their claims, and two dismissal orders pointing out the
deficiencies in their complaints, plaintiffs have been unable to
state a plausible claim for relief, and have persisted in accusing
Quest of the same basic misconduct without meaningfully adding to
the facts stated in support," U.S. District Judge William Orrick
said in his ruling. "There is no indication that another chance to
amend would yield a different result."

Lead plaintiff Colleen Eastman sued Quest Diagnostics in January
2015, claiming it monopolizes medical testing in Northern
California by giving kickbacks to doctors and paying insurers to
get rid of competition, and overcharges patients for inferior
service.

Orrick dismissed Eastman's complaint with leave to amend in June
2015, finding the plaintiffs lacked standing because they failed
to show an injury resulting from Quest's conduct.

The judge also found the plaintiffs failed to allege what prices
Quest charged for tests or how they compared to competitive
prices.

In November 2015, Orrick dismissed the action with leave to amend
a second time, once again finding that the class' amended
complaint didn't include specific facts to support its alleged
injuries.

On April 26, Orrick delivered the final blow and dismissed the
action with prejudice.

"Plaintiffs have not alleged facts from which it can be plausibly
inferred that Quest's alleged exclusive dealing arrangements with
medical providers have foreclosed a substantial share of the
plan/outpatient market," Orrick wrote. "Plaintiffs have not
identified, for example, the approximate number of medical
providers that have entered into such arrangements with Quest, the
approximate number and/or characteristics of the other
laboratories operating in the physician billing and plan
outpatient markets, or what competing laboratories have been
adversely affected by the arrangements or the extent to which they
have been affected."

Orrick also found the class' collusion and acquisition theories
hadn't changed much since the first amended complaint, and did not
show that Quest unreasonably restricted competition.

Allegations of kickbacks, collusion with major private health
insurers Anthem and Blue Shield and acquisition of competitors
were also raised against Quest by competing labs in a related
case, Rheumatology Diagnostics Lab., Inc. v. Aetna, Inc. In his
order April 26, Orrick noted that he had twice dismissed claims in
that case with leave to amend.

Lead plaintiff attorney Robert Berry did not respond to a phone
request for comment.

Richard Raskin, the lead attorney for Quest, said in an email
statement: "We are pleased with the court's decision, which is in
line with its prior decisions rejecting antitrust claims against
Quest Diagnostics. Judge Orrick carefully reviewed the facts and
the law and concluded that there were no grounds for such a claim.
We believe this decision should put the issue to rest."


RWLS LLC: "Roberson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
-------------------------------------------------
Bryant Roberson, and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. RWLS, LLC, Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00481-SS (W.D. Tex.,
April 15, 2016), seeks unpaid back wages due with liquidated
damages, attorneys' fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest
and other further relief pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendant failed to include the bonus pay in determining the
Plaintiff's regular rate for overtime calculation purposes.
Plaintiff worked as a rigger, operator, and engineer in training.

RWLS, LLC is a Texas company operating as Renegade Wireline
Services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

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


SCOTTS MIRACLE-GRO: Arguments Heard in 6th Cir. Appeal
------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Koeninger, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that both sides of a federal class action in Cincinnati over
poisonous bird feed faced a tireless interrogation April 27, by a
panel of Sixth Circuit judges.

Scotts Miracle-Gro already faced criminal liability for treating
its bird food with insecticide that is actually toxic to birds.

With a federal judge having ordered the company to pay $12.5
million in criminal fines, however, multidistrict civil litigation
against Scotts remains ongoing in Ohio.

As discovery in the case proceeds, a judge denied the plaintiff
consumers access to a pre-sentence report from Scotts' criminal
case.

Laura Cyphert and the other plaintiffs want the Sixth Circuit to
reverse, saying they have a First Amendment right to a three-
sentence report addendum that describes the U.S. government's
belief that "illegal [Scotts] products had caused harm to birds."

Eric Isaacson, an attorney for the consumers with the San Diego
firm Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, told the court April 27 that
the right of access cannot be overridden by Scotts' decision to
"hide behind a nondisclosure agreement."

Judge David McKeague -- who grilled each attorney extensively
during the arguments -- interrupted. "Either the material is
privileged or it's not," he said. "From my perspective, you have
to convince us why you should get something."

Judge McKeague also pointed out that his two colleagues on the
panel had extensive criminal court experience, and that the
process followed in the government's case against Scotts "is the
way it happens in every case in my district."

Isaacson emphasized at this point his own 12 years as a
prosecutor. In over two decades of experience in criminal law,
Isaacson said he has "never seen a case like this before."

Judge McKeague questioned the relevance of the information as
well, and argued that a comment by Scotts during a deposition
regarding the government's position amounts to "classic hearsay."

Isaacson denied McKeague's claim, and argued that all consumers
have a right to know the seriousness of the claims being brought
against Scotts Miracle-Gro, and that that information is found in
the government's addendum to the pre-sentencing report.

Jeff Jones, the attorney for Scotts Miracle-Gro, argued that the
plaintiffs could obtain the requested information in a "myriad" of
ways that do not involve the government's statement in the pre-
sentencing report.

"The fact that Scotts and the government disagreed on the risks
[of the bird food] is available to the public," said Jones, of the
firm Jones Day.

Jones also reminded the panel that the plaintiffs have submitted
numerous subpoenas for information on the bird feed and its risks,
all of which were granted.

Isaacson denied this in his rebuttal. Amid numerous requests under
the Freedom of Information Act, Scotts "accused us of contempt
[when we] submit[ted] a request under seal to a federal judge,"
Isaacson said.

Judge McKeague ended Jones's arguments by asking if the
government's position had been memorialized anywhere other than
the letter included in the objection.

Jones hesitated and attempted to maneuver around the question.

Judge McKeague reprimanded the attorney. "Please stop changing the
question," he said.

Jones apologized and answered, "No."

McKeague continued his questioning during Isaacson's rebuttal.
"Does this mean anytime the press wants something [from a criminal
proceeding], a judge has to hold a hearing [to determine its
relevance]?" McKeague asked.

Isaacson shot back. "I'm not going to take the bait on an
apocalyptic question," he answered.

Judge Bernice Donald rounded out the panel. No timetable has been
set for the court's decision.


SEPHORA USA: Faces "Burnthorne-Martinez" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
----------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Sephora USA. The case is
captioned Alyssa Burnthorne-Martinez, an individual, on behalf of
herself, all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sephora
USA, Inc., a Delaware Corporation, and Does 1-100, Inclusive, the
the Defendant, Case No. CGC 16 551620 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 22,
2016).

Sephora is a French chain of cosmetics stores founded in 1970.


STAR PAINTING: "Ramirez" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Felix David Buendia Ramirez, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Star Painting & Restoration
Co., Inc., and Anastasios Mouzakis, and Defendants, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02033 (E.D.N.Y., April 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and unpaid overtime wages based upon Defendants' violations of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the New York Labor Law, and the
supporting New York State Department of Labor.

According to the complaint, the Defendants paid Plaintiff a flat
rate of $750 per week, or $125 per day. Defendants previously paid
Plaintiff $690 per week and $600 per week, or $115 and
$100 per day at an hourly rate of $14.37 and $12.50 respectively.
The Plaintiff regularly worked 48 hours a week, but Defendants
allegedly violated the law by failing to pay Plaintiff overtime.

The Defendants operate a painting and construction company based
out of Lindenhurst, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David Harrison (DH 3413)
          HARRISON, HARRISON & ASSOCIATES
          110 State Highway 35, 2nd Floor
          Red Bank, NJ 07701
          Telephone: (718) 799 9111
          Facsimile: (718) 799 9171
          E-mail: nycotlaw@gmail.com


SOUTHWEST AIR: "Rubinsohn" Anti-trust Suit Transferred to D.D.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------
William Rubinsohn, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Southwest Airlines Co., Delta Air Lines,
Inc., American Airlines, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.,
Defendants, anti-trust Case No. 1:16-cv-00718-CKK (N.D. Cal.,
December 7, 2015), was transferred to the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia on April 15, 2016.

The antitrust class action arises out of an alleged conspiracy
among the largest U.S. airline companies, who collectively account
for over 80% of all domestic air travel, to unlawfully restrain
competition on key airline routes throughout the United States.

American Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its
principal places of business located in Fort Worth, Texas.

Delta Air Lines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business located in Atlanta, Georgia. Delta operates more
than 5,400 flights per day to 326 locations in 64 countries.

Southwest Airlines Co. is a Texas corporation with its principal
place of business located in Dallas, Texas. Southwest operates
more than 3,600 flights per day to 94 locations in the United
States and six additional countries.

United Airlines, Inc. is a Delaware corporation with principal
places of business located in Chicago, Illinois.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph M. Alioto, Esq.
      Theresa D. Moore, Esq.
      Jamie Miller, Esq.
      ALIOTO LAW FIRM
      One Sansome Street, Suite 3500
      San Francisco, CA 94104
      Telephone: (415) 434-8900
      Facsimile: (415) 434-9200
      Email: jmiller@aliotolaw.com
             tmoore@aliotolaw.com

           - and -

      Lingel H. Winters, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF LINGEL H. WINTERS
      275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Tel: (415) 398-2941
      Fax: (415) 393-9887
      Email: sawmill2@aol.com


T-MOBILE USA: "Farhi" Collection Suit Transferred to S.D. Fla.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Farhi on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., Defendants, Case No.
502016CA1251 (Fla. Cir., April 14, 2016), is an illegal collection
suit that was removed to S.D. Fla. under Case No. 9:16-cv-80580-
RLR on April 15, 2016.

T-Mobile USA is telecommunications company based in Bellevue,
Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Darren R. Newhart, Esq.
      Hicks, Motto, Ehrlich, P.A.
      3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 683-2300

           - and -

      Jack Dennis Card, Jr., Esq.
      HICKS, MOTTO & EHRLICH, P.A.
      3399 PGA Blvd., Suite 300
      Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410
      Tel: (561) 683-2300
      Fax: (561) 697-3852
      E-mail: Dcard@Consumerlaworg.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kristine McAlister Brown, Esq.
      ALSTON & BIRD
      1201 W Peachtree Street, NE
      One Atlantic Center
      Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
      Tel: (404) 881-7584
      Fax: (404) 253-8497
      Email: kristy.brown@alston.com

           - and -

      Scott Gardner Hawkins, Esq.
      JONES FOSTER JOHNSTON & STUBBS
      505 S Flagler Drive
      Suite 1100 PO Box 3475
      West Palm Beach, FL 33402-3475
      Tel: (561) 650-0460
      Fax: (561) 650-0436
      Email: shawkins@jones-foster.com


TAKATA CORP: Cunningham RICO Suit Transferred to W.D. Va.
---------------------------------------------------------
Cunningham Brothers Auto Parts, LLC Individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Takata Corporation,
TK Holdings Inc., Honda Motor Co. Ltd., American Honda Motor Co
Inc., Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, BMW of North America, LLC, BMW
Manufacturing Co., LLC, Ford Motor Company, Toyota Motor
Corporation, Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., Toyota Motor
Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc., Mazda Motor
Corporation, Mazda Motor of America, Inc., Nissan Motor Co. Ltd.,
Nissan North America, Inc., Fuji Heavy Industries, Ltd., Subaru of
America, Inc., Defendants, Case No. 1:15-md-02599-FAM (S.D. Fla.,
March 29, 2016) is transferred to U.S. District Court of Western
Virginia under Case No. 6:16-cv-00013 on April 15, 2016.


TESORO COMPANIES: "Vasquez" Suit Moved to C.D. California
---------------------------------------------------------
Manuel Vasquez, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, the Plaintiff. v. Tesoro
Companies, Inc., and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No.
30-02016-008397-19-CU, was removed from Orange County Superior
Court, to the US District Court for the Central District of
California (Southern Division - Santa Ana). The Central District
Court assigned Case No. 8:16-Cv-00767 to the proceeding.

Tesoro engages in the exploration and production of petroleum and
petroleum products.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TRANSAMERICA LIFE: Sued in S.D. Cal. Over Excessive Rate Charge
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lois Thompson and Gail Thompson, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Transamerica Life
Insurance Company, an Iowa corporation and Does 1-50, the
Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01007-DMS-WVG (S.D. Cal., April 25,
2016), seeks to stop Transamerica from charging excessive monthly
deduction rates; require Transamerica to reinstate any class
member's policy, which lapsed or was surrendered as a result of
the rate increase; and to obtain redress for those who have been
or will be harmed as a result of Transamerica's conduct.

According to the complaint, in letters sent to policyholders,
Transamerica has announced that it will dramatically increase
monthly deduction rates by as much as 38% for certain universal
life insurance policies. These excessive rate increases force a
Hobson's Choice on policyholders: either pay exorbitant premiums
that cannot be justified by the ultimate death benefits of the
policy, or just surrender the policy and walk away from years of
premium payments.

Transamerica provides life and health insurance products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James R. Patterson, Esq.
          Allison H. Goddard, Esq.
          Catherine S. Wicker, Esq.
          PATTERSON LAW GROUP
          402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 756 6990
          Facsimile: (619) 756 6991
          E-mail: jim@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  ali@pattersonlawgroup.com
                  catherine@pattersonlawgroup.com


TRUMP FOR PRESIDENT: Sued in N.D. Ill. Over Automatic Dialing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Thorne, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Donald J. Trump For President, Inc., a
principal campaign committee, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
04603 (N.D. Ill., April 25, 2016), seeks an injunction requiring
Trump For President to cease sending all text messages, using an
automatic telephone dialing system, without prior express consent;
an award of statutory damages under the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act (TCPA); and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees.

According to the complaint, the Defendant sent (or directed to be
sent on its behalf) text messages to the wireless telephones of
Plaintiff without prior express consent in violation of the TCPA.

Donald J. Trump is a candidate running for the office of the
President of the United States of America. Trump For President is
the official candidate committee that facilitates and financially
supports Mr. Trump's campaign for office.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph J. Siprut, Esq.
          Ismael T. Salam, Esq.
          SIPRUT PC
          17 North State Street, Suite 1600
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 236 0000
          Facsimile: (312) 878 1342
          E-mail: jsiprut@siprut.com
                  isalam@siprut.com


UNITED SERVICES: Hearing on Sanctions in "Adams" Set for June 10
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK I. and KATHERINE S. ADAMS, individually
and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION; USAA CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY; and USAA GENERAL INDEMNITY CO, Defendants, No. 2:14-CV-
02013 (W.D. Ark.), Judge P.K. Holmes, III has set a hearing for
June 10, 2016 for the purpose of determining the nature of the
sanctions to be imposed on certain counsels for violating Rule 11
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or for abuse of the
judicial process.

Judge Holmes ordered that Respondents D. Matt Keil, Jason Earnest
Roselius, John C. Goodson, Richard E. Norman, Stevan Earl Vowell,
Timothy J. Myers, W. H. Taylor, William B. Putman, A. F. "Tom"
Thompson, III, Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff,
R. Martin Weber, Jr., Stephen C. Engstrom, Lyn Peeples Pruitt,
Stephen Edward Goldman, and Wystan Michael Ackerman may appear
before the court on June 10, 2016, to be heard regarding the
nature of the sanctions the court intends to impose.  A final
order will issue following that hearing.

Judge Holmes further ordered that Respondent Stephen O. Clancy did
not violate Rule 11 or abuse the judicial process and has shown
cause why sanctions should not be imposed against him.

A full-text copy of Judge Holmes' April 14, 2016 opinion and order
is available at http://is.gd/ehm9Uifrom Leagle.com.

Mark I. Adams, Plaintiff, represented by D. Matt Keil, Attorney at
Law, Jason Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius, John C.
Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Richard E Norman, Crowley Norman LLP,
Stevan Earl Vowell -- svowell@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor Law
Firm, Timothy J Myers -- tmyers@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor
Law Firm, W H Taylor -- whtaylor@taylorlawpartners.com -- Taylor
Law Firm, William B. Putman -- wbputman@taylorlawpartners.com --
Taylor Law Partners, A.F. (Tom) Thompson, III, Murphy, Thompson,
Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry,Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, Murphy,
Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff --
mmustokoff@ktm.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check LLP, R. Martin
Weber, Jr., Crowley Norman LLP & Stephen C. Engstrom, Stephen
Engstrom Law Office.

Katherine S. Adams, Plaintiff, represented by D. Matt Keil,
Attorney at Law, Jason Earnest Roselius, Mattingly & Roselius,
John C. Goodson, Keil & Goodson, Stevan Earl Vowell, Taylor Law
Firm, Timothy J Myers, Taylor Law Firm, W H Taylor, Taylor Law
Firm, William B. Putman, Taylor Law Partners, A.F. (Tom) Thompson,
III, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner & Castleberry, Kenneth
(Casey) Castleberry, Murphy, Thompson, Arnold, Skinner &
Castleberry, Matthew L. Mustokoff, Kessler Topaz Meltzer Check
LLP, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Crowley Norman LLP, Richard E Norman,
Crowley Norman LLP & Stephen C. Engstrom, Stephen Engstrom Law
Office.

United Services Automobile Association, Defendant, represented by
David R. Matthews, Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson &
Fryauf, P.A., Lyn Peeples Pruitt -- lpruitt@mwlaw.com -- Mitchell,
Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, Stephen O. Clancy --
sclancy@rc.com -- Robinson Cole LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Edward
Goldman -- sgoldman@rc.com -- Robinson Cole LLP & Wystan Michael
Ackerman -- wackerman@rc.com -- Robinson & Cole, LLP.

USAA Casualty Insurance Company, USAA General Indemnity Co,
Defendant, represented by David R. Matthews, Matthews, Campbell,
Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A., Lyn Peeples Pruitt,
Mitchell, Williams, Selig, Gates & Woodyard, Stephen O. Clancy,
Robinson Cole LLP, pro hac vice, Stephen Edward Goldman, Robinson
Cole LLP & Wystan Michael Ackerman, Robinson & Cole, LLP.

Wystan Michael Ackerman, Stephen O. Clancy, Stephen Edward
Goldman, Respondents, represented by David R. Matthews, Matthews,
Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A..

Kenneth (Casey) Castleberry, John C Goodson, D. Matt Keil, Matthew
L. Mustokoff, Timothy J. Myers, Richard E. Norman, William B.
Putman, Jason Earnest Roselius, W H Taylor, A. F. (Tom) Thompson,
III, Stevan Earl Vowell, R. Martin Weber, Jr., Respondents,
represented by James M. Moody -- jmoody@wlj.com -- Wright, Lindsey
& Jennings LLP, John R. Elrod -- jelrod@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, LLP & Vicki Bronson -- vbronson@cwlaw.com -- Conner &
Winters, LLP.

Stephen C. Engstrom, Respondent, represented by James M. Moody,
Wright, Lindsey & Jennings LLP.

Lyn Peeples Pruitt, Respondent, represented by David R. Matthews,
Matthews, Campbell, Rhoads, McClure, Thompson & Fryauf, P.A..


UNITED STATES: OPM Faces "Golden" Suit in N.D. Ala.
---------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against the United States Office of
Personnel Management. The case is captioned David A. Golden,
individually, and as parent and next friend of Connor B. Golden, a
minor, and Ronnie Golden and Liliana Golden on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v.
United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM), KeyPoint
Government Solutions, Katherine Archuleta, Donna Seymour, and Beth
Cobert, the Defendants, Case No. 5:16-cv-00656-HGD (N.D. Ala.,
April 22, 2016). The Assigned Magistrate Judge is Harwell G. Davis
III.

OPM manages the civil service of the federal government, and
coordinates recruiting of new government employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis A. Mastando, Esq.
          Eric J Artrip, Esq.
          MASTANDO & ARTRIP LLC
          301 Washington Street, Suite 302
          Huntsville, AL 35801
          Telephone: (256) 532 2222
          E-mail: tony@mastandoartrip.com
                  artrip@mastandoartrip.com

               - and -

          Richard P Rouco, Esq.
          QUINN CONNOR WEAVER DAVIES & ROUCO LLP
          Two North Twentieth Street
          2 20th Street North, Suite 930
          Birmingham, AL 35203
          Telephone: (205) 870 9989
          Facsimile: (205) 803 4143
          E-mail: rrouco@qcwdr.com


VIVUS INC: Securities Class Suit Over "Qnexa" Drug Dismissed
------------------------------------------------------------
Mike Heuer, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
drugmaker's optimistic outlook about a new obesity drug's
potential doesn't amount to fraud, a federal judge in San Jose
said in dismissing a securities class action with prejudice.

U.S. District Judge Beth L. Freeman dismissed without leave to
amend a second amended class action against Vivus, involving its
drug Qnexa.

Mary Jane and Thomas Jasin claimed they lost more than $2.8
million when the drug was approved for use in the United States,
but not in Europe. They said Vivus misled investors and concealed
concerns raised by regulators in Europe, where the drug was to be
sold as Qsiva.

Vivus said its statements were made based upon the best available
information at the time and sought dismissal for failure to plead
falsity and materiality and failure to sufficiently plead
scienter.

Freeman agreed on April 19, saying the effort failed due to bad
management, and Vivus told investors there was no assurance that
the drug would be approved in Europe.

Vivus' statements "reflected their optimism about the drug's
launch -- which ultimately flopped through mismanagement rather
than fraud -- far more compelling than an inference of fraudulent
intent," Freeman wrote.

She said the complaint could survive only if the Jasins could show
Vivus acted maliciously, but they didn't.

"At the hearing on this motion, plaintiffs stated that they could
better explain the public record, but did not represent that they
could offer new allegations," Freeman wrote.

She said if "'simple allegations'" were sufficient to establish
scienter, "virtually every company in the United States that
experiences a downturn in stock price could be forced to defend
securities class actions."

The Jasins "offer nothing beyond motive and opportunity," and any
"'reasonable inference of intent'" is "negated by the fluidity of
the approval process and the divergent opinions of the committee
members -- which persisted even in the final vote," Freeman wrote.

"Because the court must 'compare the malicious and innocent
inferences'" and "'only allow the complaint to survive if the
malicious inference is at least as compelling as any opposing
innocent inference,'" Freeman said she must dismiss the complaint,
due to the innocent inference being more compelling.

The case captioned, MARY JANE JASIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VIVUS,
INC., et al., Defendants., Case No. 14-cv-03263-BLF (N.D. Cal.).


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Johnson" Suit in E.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. The case is
captioned Hayley Johnson, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00580-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal., April 22,
2016). The Assigned District Judge is Hon. Dale A. Drozd.

Wal-Mart provides a wide array of electronics, apparel, baby,
sports, toys and fitness.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Annick Marie Persinger, Esq.
          Yeremey Olegovich Krivoshey, Esq.
          Lawrence Timothy Fisher, Esq.
          BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
          1990 N. California Blvd., Suite 940
          Walnut Creek, CA 94596
          Telephone: (925) 300 4455
          E-mail: apersinger@bursor.com
                  ykrivoshey@bursor.com
                  ltfisher@bursor.com


WARNER CHILCOTT: Faces Meijer Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Allergan subsidiary Warner
Chilcott blocked generic competition and prolonged a patent
monopoly over its Asacol franchise of treatments for ulcerative
colitis, Meijer Inc. claims in a federal class action in Manhattan
on behalf of direct purchasers.


WELLS FARGO: "Santini" Suit to Recover Unpaid Wages, Overtime Pay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Lindsay Santini, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Wells Fargo Bank, a National Association
with its principal place of business in the State of California,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01992-EDL (N.D. Cal., April 15, 2016),
seeks unpaid wages and overtime and special damages, pre-judgment
interest on any unpaid compensation and reasonable attorneys' fees
and costs under the California Labor Code and Industrial Welfare
Commission Wage Orders.

Plaintiff worked as a phone banker for the Defendant. She claims
to have worked through rest periods and off the clock, and did not
receive accurate paystubs, as well as final pay upon termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      David R. Markham, Esq.
      Peggy J. Reali, Esq.
      Janine R. Menhennet, Esq.
      Maggie K. Realin, Esq.
      THE MARKHAM LAW FIRM
      750 B Street, Suite 1950
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: (619) 399-3995
      Fax: (619) 615-206

           - and -

      Walter F. Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP
      5500 Bolsa Avenue, Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Tel: (310)234-5678
      Fax: (310)652-2242


WENDY'S: Faces Bank Suit Over Data Breach
-----------------------------------------
Nick Rummell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
a major data security breach at Wendy's restaurants could have
been easily prevented had the company acted faster, according to a
class action filed in Pittshurgh, Pa., on behalf of banks whose
customers were affected by the breach.

The suit, filed in Federal Court in Pittsburgh on April 25 by
First Choice Federal Credit Union, claims the fast-food chain
"refused to take steps to adequately protect its computer systems
from intrusion," which led to a nearly five-month-long data breach
where customer credit card information was stolen.

The lawsuit lists several outdated computer and credit card
systems Wendy's used, from easily hackable computer systems to
outdated credit card technology, and notes how the company failed
to meet regulations and guidelines set by several federal agencies
to prevent such data breaches.

The data breach occurred when hackers used malware to break into
Wendy's computer system and stole data from possibly millions of
customer credit cards used at the chain's locations from Oct. 22,
2015 through March 10, 2016.

The source of the data breach has not yet been determined. A
Wendy's spokesman said malware was found at some of the company's
locations by third-party investigators, but that the company has
not yet validated those findings. The company has not yet
confirmed conclusively how many of it 6,000 stores worldwide were
affected by the breach.

Customers alerted Wendy's to the breach in January, after noticing
unapproved charges on their credit cards and banks noticed
patterns of fraud on cards used at Wendy's locations. However,
instead of publicly acknowledging the data breach and notifying
banks, Wendy's waited until the end of January to state it was
investigating unusual activity on credit cards at some of its
locations, the lawsuit claims.

The company didn't publicly admit to the data breach until Feb. 9,
and then assured customers their banks would reimburse them for
any fraudulent charges.

"Despite the growing threat of computer system intrusion, Wendy's
systematically failed to comply with industry standards and
protect payment card and customer data," the lawsuit states,
noting that financial institutions have borne the brunt of the
data breach.

"As a result of Wendy's data breach, plaintiff and class members
have been forced to cancel and reissue payment cards, change or
close accounts, notify customers that their cards were
compromised, investigate claims of fraudulent activity, refund
fraudulent charges, increase fraudulent monitoring on potentially
impacted accounts, and take other steps to protect themselves and
their customers," the lawsuit claims.

The main problem, according to the plaintiffs, is that Wendy's
computer system was admittedly outdated. The lawsuit cites
statements made by the company in 2012 that it needed to update
its point-of-sale platforms. In a 2014 lawsuit, Wendy's biggest
franchisee DavCo claimed the company's new POS system often froze
up and disconnected from the store's network. Wendy's sued DavCo
for not installing the POS system.

The lawsuit also references Wendy's most recent annual report,
filed in January with the Securities and Exchange Commission, in
which the company states it is "heavily dependant" on its computer
systems and that any security breach "could impair our ability to
efficiently operate our business."

In addition, Wendy's did not follow regulations related to credit
card data, often keeping credit card information in its computer
system longer than necessary, the plaintiffs claim. The company
also allegedly failed to meet the October 2015 deadline for moving
to the EMV chip system for credit cards, in which credit card data
is transmitted as a unique code that cannot be used again, and
kept on using the old magnetic strip technology.
During the breach and in the years before it, Wendy's hadn't
followed 2007 guidelines set by the Federal Trade Commission -- as
well as similar state regulations -- designed to protect customer
data, the lawsuit states.

Wendy's spokesman Bob Bertini declined to comment on the lawsuit
and noted that since January the company was worked with
cybersecurity experts.

"We are working with federal law enforcement and the card brands
to ensure that the investigation and remediation is appropriate
and comprehensive, and that will still take some time to fully
complete," Bertini wrote in an e-mail.

The Wendy's data breach is considered one of the worst in recent
years, according to some financial officials. Dan Berger,
president of the National Association of Federal Credit Unions,
said in a recent interview that the dollar amounts from debit
cards involved in the breach were much higher than those from
recent breaches at Home Depot and Target.

A February class action filed by a customer in Orlando, Florida,
also claims the data breach occurred due to deficiencies in
Wendy's operating system security.


WIDE FLANGE: Sued in N.Y. Sup. Ct. Over Breach of Contract
----------------------------------------------------------
K Detailing, Inc., the Plaintiff, v. Wide Flange, Inc., King Star
Construction Co. Inc., 38 Group Inc., and John and Jane Does 1-10
and others similarly situated, the Defendants, Case No.
506700/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., April 25, 2016), seeks judgment for
breach of contract.  The complaint also seeks interest, attorney
fees and collection costs if such are permitted by law of per
Contract.

According to the complaint, on October 22, 2014, Detailing and
Wide Flange entered into a Contract by which Detailing agreed to
provide steel detailing services and structural steel shop
drawings for a new building at the Premises. Wide Flange allegedly
failed to pay Detailing in accordance with the Contract a sum of
$42,700.00.

Wide Flange has provided customers with high-quality structural
steel products since 2000.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Peter M. Kutil, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES KING & KING LLP
          The Sanborn Map Building
          629 Fifth Avenue - Suite 113
          Pelham, NY 10803
          Telephone: (914) 380 5970
          E-mail: pkutil@king-king-law.com


X600 MOTOR: "Fininen" Files Suit Over False Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------
Stacy Fininen, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff(s), v. X600 Motor Sport LLC, an active
California Limited Liability Company, dba The Dealer; Credit
Acceptance Corporation, an active California corporation; and,
DOES 1-500, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16813042 (Cal.
Super. Ct., April 25, 2016), seeks declaratory and injunctive
relief as a result of Defendants' violations of the Consumers
Legal Remedies Act, the Rees-Levering Motor Vehicle Sales and
Finance Act, the California Business and Professions Code, the
Unlawful/Unfair Business Practices, and California Business and
Professions Code.

According to the complaint, representations on Defendants'
website, confirmed telephonically by a salesperson, that the
vehicle would be sold for $6,700 is a bait and switch tactic
violating of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act and is also false
advertising under Business and Professions Code.

X600 Motor is engaged in the business of buying and selling
automobiles to the general public.

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


ZAVALAS ROOFING: "Sanchez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leandro Sanchez, Eliseo Valencia, and Fatuel Sanchez, individually
and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, Plaintiffs, v.
Manuel Nava Zavala, Individually and d/b/a Zavalas Roofing and
Sheet Metal Company, S.L.M. Construction Services, LLC, Exterior
Architectural Systems, LLC and Jim R. Wimberley, Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-01023 (S.D. Tex., April 15, 2016), seeks unpaid
overtime wages at the applicable rate with liquidated damages,
prejudgment interest, attorney's fees and costs incurred
prosecuting these claims and such further relief under the Fair
Labor Standards Act of 1938.

Zavalas Roofing and Sheet Metal Company, S.L.M. Construction
Services, LLC and Exterior Architectural Systems, LLC constitute a
joint enterprise, and jointly worked on construction projects
together. Plaintiffs worked as panel installers. They claim
overtime wages.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
      Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
      2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
      Houston, TX 77018
      Tel: 713-868-3388
      Fax: 713-683-9940
      Email: jbuenker@buenkerlaw.com
             vijay@buenkerlaw.com


ZUCKERBERG SAN FRANCISCO: Faces Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Zuckerberg San Francisco General
Hospital and Trauma Center. The case is captioned Jane Doe,
individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital and Trauma
Center, a Public Entity, University of California, San Francisco,
a Public Entity, The Regents of The University Of California, a
Public Entity, The City and County of San Francisco, a California
Municipality, Dr. Shirley Stiver, an individual, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CGC 16 551618 (Cal. Super.
Ct., April 22, 2016).

Zuckerberg San Francisco is a safety-net hospital in San
Francisco, California.


ZYLERA PHARMACEUTICALS: Faces ARcare Suit in North Carolina
-----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Zylera Pharmaceuticals, LLC. The
case is captioned ARcare, doing business as: d/b/a Parkin Drug
Store and Bald Knob Medical Clinic, on behalf of itself and all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zylera
Pharmaceuticals, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00378 (M.D.
N.C., April 25, 2016).

Zylera Pharmaceuticals develops, acquires and commercializes
prescription products and dietary supplements, specifically for
pediatric and women's health.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Janet Ward Black, Esq.
          WARD BLACK LAW
          208 W. Wendover Ave.
          Greensboro, NC 27401
          Telephone: (336) 273 3812
          Facsimile: (336) 379 9415
          E-mail: jwblack@wardblacklaw.com


                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N  I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills, Pennsylvania,
USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Washington, D.C., USA.  Marion
Alcestis A. Castillon, Ma. Cristina Canson, Noemi Irene A. Adala,
Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo,
Christopher G. Patalinghug, and Peter A. Chapman, Editors.

Copyright 2016. All rights reserved. ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $775 for six months delivered via
e-mail. Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each. For subscription information, contact
Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-362-8552.



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *