CAR_Public/160505.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Thursday, May 5, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 90



                            Headlines


A&G COAL CORP: "Middleton" Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
ABBVIE INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Rubinstein" Suit
ALCON LABORATORIES: NJ Judge Tosses "Cottrell" Suit
ALLERGAN PLC: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over Asacol Franchise Monopoly
ALPHA DINER: Faces "Calligandes" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Solak" Seeks to Enjoin Sale of Carmike to AMC
AROCK SERVICES: "Mizuta" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
BLACKMAN PLUMBING: Court Grants Motion to Re-Open Discovery
BLUE CROSS: Faces "Horner" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: "George" Suit Stayed Pending FDA Matter

BOSE CORP: Privacy Breach Class Action Nears Resolution
CANADA: St. John Can't Request Names in Estabrooks Class Action
CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Brokerage Fees
CENTURYLINK INC: Missouri Cities' Appeal Dismissed
CHESAPEAKE BAY: Faces "Barnhart" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws

CHOBANI LLC: 9th Cir. Vacates Dismissal Order in Yogurt Suit
COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. Cal.
COSL: Judge Allows Union's Class Action to Proceed
CREST-MEX CORPORATION: "Valenzuela" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA

DAEWON AMERICA: Court Won't Modify Settlement Approval Order
DOLE FOOD: Investor Group Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
ECR ENERGY: "Alanis" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
EQT PRODUCTION: Faces "Barnett" Suit Under FLSA, PMWA
FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action

FANNIE MAE: Ohio High Court Sends "Radatz" Back to Trial Court
FIDELITY NATIONAL: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion
FIRST NATIONAL: Faces "Schild" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
FLORIDA BEAUTY: Faces "Amodei" Suit For FLSA Violation
FOSTER POULTRY: Recalls Fully Cooked Frozen Chicken Nuggets

FRESHPET INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Okays Limited Discovery in "Grayson" Case
GENERAL MOTORS: Ally's Bid to Dismiss "Burin" Suit Granted
GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Freeman" Sues Over Zofran Side-effects
GREENCORE USA: Recalls Meat and Poultry Products

GW COMMUNICATIONS: "Epperson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Wage-Statement Class Certified in "Clemens"
HANGER INC: Texas Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
HANSEN MEDICAL: "Stevens-Juhl" Seek to Enjoin Merger with Auris
HERITAGE OPERATING: Class Action Deal in "Fontes" Gets Final Okay

HERNANDEZ ENTERPRISES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages
HILTON GRAND VACATIONS: Court Denies Bid to Substitute Plaintiff
HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Trims Suit Over Defective Humidifiers
IDS PROPERTY: "Achziger" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
INDIANA: Settlement Okayed in Suit Over Mentally Ill Prisoners

INSIGHT HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Stay Spine and Sports Suit
INTERMODAL BRIDGE: Faces Driver Misclassification Suit
ITC HOLDINGS: "Mehrotra" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
JAPAN: Faces Class Action Over New Defense Law
JAZZI'S MULTI-SERVICES: "Pina" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA

JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $55MM in Talcum Power Suit
K&M DELI: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
KEY ENERGY: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
LIBERTY MUTUAL: "Dicara" Class Action Bid Denied
LPL FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Files Securities Class Action

LVNV FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Moukengeschaie" Suit
MAJOR ENERGY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Carrera" TCPA Suit
MARC COBEN: "Walker" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay Under FLSA
MARJIM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Barillas" Suit Over FLSA Violation
MDL 2143: Deals in ODD Antitrust Suits Have Final Okay

MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in "Bey" Suit
NASSAU, NY: Court Trims "Henrius" Suit v. Corrections Dept.
NEBRASKA: Fees Settlement in "Leiting-Hall" Case Approved
NEW ORLEANS, LA: Justice Department Wants to Take Control of Jail
NEW YORK: Health Dept's Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part

NICOLET RESTAURANT: Court Denies Class Certification in "Meyers"
ORBIT BABY: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over False Advertising
PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Travelers Must Cover Class Action Defense
PRODUCTION TESTING: Faces "Brown" Suit Under FLSA, AWHA
PULTE HOME: Court Dismisses "Bullock" Suit as Moot

REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Camera Tickets
REGENCY GP: Brief in "Dieckman" Appeal Due June 10
ROADVIEW INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 28
SACRAMENTO, CA: "Tanskley" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Sued in N.D.N.Y. Over Toxic Substances

SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for July 8
SCENIC TOURS: Disputes Class Action Claims Over River Cruises
SONOMA, CA: Court Nixes Defendants' Defenses in Strip Search Case
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get Addt'l $450K Fees
STARBUCKS: Sued for Allegedly Overfilling Cold Drinks with Ice

STATE FARM: Sued in S.D. Cal. for Invasion of Privacy
SUBARU OF AMERICA: "O'Neill" Sues over Defective Lighting
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Apprves Class Notice, Distribution
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Patel" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.

TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. California
TGI FRIDAYS: NJ Appeals Court Reverses Rulings in Beverage Suit
THAXTON INVESTMENT: "DeBenedetto" Wages Suit Has Conditional Cert
TOTAL RENAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fraud Class Action Can Go to Trial

TWIN ARCHES: Court Grants Conditional Cert. in Employee Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Lamour" Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement with Blind Riders
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Driver Class Action Settlement Big Win
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Challenge Settlement

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement to Provide Clarity on Tipping
UNITED STATES: Flint Residents Sue EPA Over Lead Water Crisis
UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Tosses "Merrick" ERISA Suit
US NONWOVENS: Court Decertifies Class in "Mendez" Wages Suit
VECTREN CORP: Court Trims Claims "Gray" Suit

WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment in "Hayes" Suit Upheld
WAL-MART STORES: High Court Won't Hear Wage Class Action Appeal
WELLS FARGO: Must Defend Against "Morgan" Suit

* Class Actions to Test Fiduciary Rule, Attorney Says
* One Central Issue in Class Arbitrations Remains Undecided


                            *********


A&G COAL CORP: "Middleton" Seeks to Collect Unpaid Wages
--------------------------------------------------------
Phillip Middleton, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. A&G COAL CORPORATION and SOUTHERN COAL
CORPORATION, Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-00008-JPJ-PMS. (W.D. Va.
April 22, 2016), seeks collection of unpaid wages and benefits
pursuant to the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act
of 1988.

Plaintiff was an employee of A&G Coal until she was terminated as
part of the plant closure.

A&G Coal was a Virginia corporation with its headquarters and
Facility at Norton, Virginia. Southern Coal was a Virginia
corporation, located at Roanoke, Virginia. Defendants jointly
maintained, owned, and operated the facility at Norton, Virginia.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Correy Diviney, Esq.
     STRICKLAND, DIVINEY & STRELKA
     23 Franklin Road SW
     Roanoke, VA 24011
     Telephone: (540)982-7787
     Fax: (540)342-2909
     Email: correy@aps.roacoxmail.com

          - and -

     Stuart J. Miller, Esq.
     LANKENAU & MILLER, LLP
     132 Nassau Street, Suite 1100
     New York, NY 10038
     Tel: (212) 581-5005
     Fax: (212) 581-2122

          - and -

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


ABBVIE INC: Court Grants Motion to Dismiss "Rubinstein" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert M. Dow, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Defendants'
motion to dismiss in the case captioned, MURRAY RUBINSTEIN,
JEFFREY F. ST. CLAIR, WILLIAM McWADE, HARJOT DEV and VIKAS SHAH,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. RICHARD GONZALEZ and ABBVIE INC., Defendants, Case
No. 14-cv-9465 (N.D. Ill.).

AbbVie is a biopharmaceutical company with its principal executive
offices in Chicago, Illinois. On November 25, 2014, Plaintiffs
Murray Rubinstein, Jeffrey F. St. Clair, William McWade, Harjot
Dev and Vikas Shah filed the class action lawsuit on behalf of all
persons who purchased or otherwise acquired Shire ADS or purchased
call options or sold put options during the period June 20, 2014
(when AbbVie disclosed it had approached Shire) through October
14, 2014 (when Gonzalez announced the Board was reconsidering its
decision to approve the merger) against Defendants Richard
Gonzalez (Gonzalez) and AbbVie, Inc. (AbbVie) for alleged
violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs allege in their complaint that AbbVie and Gonzalez
violated Section 10(b) of the Act and Rule 10b-5 and that Gonzalez
also violated Section 20(a) of the Act. Section 10(b) of the Act
makes it unlawful for any person to "use or employ, in connection
with the purchase or sale of any security any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and
regulations as the Commission may prescribe as necessary or
appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of
investors."

Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to Rules
12(b)(6) and 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and 15
U.S.C. Sec. 78u-4(b)(3)(a). Defendants argue that Plaintiffs fail
to allege sufficient facts to support three of the elements of
their Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 claim: (1) a misrepresentation
of material fact; (2) scienter; and (3) loss causation. Defendants
also argue that Plaintiffs' Section 20(a) claim should be
dismissed because Plaintiffs have failed to state a primary
violation of the securities laws.

In his Memorandum Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2016 available
at http://is.gd/0KUsGtfrom Leagle.com, Judge Dow, Jr. concluded
that Plaintiffs have not adequately pled a primary violation of
the Securities Act.


ALCON LABORATORIES: NJ Judge Tosses "Cottrell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Freda L. Wolfson of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey granted Defendants' motions
to dismiss in the case captioned, LENOARD COTTRELL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. ALCON LABORATORIES, INC., et al., Defendants, Case
No. 14-5859(FLW) (D.N.J.).

Defendants are makers and distributors of various FDA-approved
prescription eye drop medications. These medications are sold as
fluid, in a given volume, in plastic bottles. Plaintiffs allege
that Defendants set the price for these medications without
"stating how many doses are contained in the bottles or how many
days they will last." As a part of the alleged illegal and unfair
business practices, Plaintiffs aver that Defendants have
deliberately designed and manufactured the tips of the bottles to
dispense larger than necessary drops of medication, in an effort
to compel consumers, like Plaintiffs, "to pay for much more
medication than the users of those medications needed."

Previously, the Court dismissed Plaintiff's original complaint
based on a lack of standing. The Court rejected Plaintiffs' theory
that they were injured when Plaintiffs were precluded from using
the wasted eye drops, because, absent any allegation that
consumers were promised a specific number of doses or drops and
that they failed to receive those amounts, Plaintiffs' theory of
loss was too conjectural.

In their Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs assert twenty-three causes
of action against Defendants. Plaintiffs seek to bring these
claims individually, and on behalf of classes of consumers and
third-party payors who have paid all or part of the purchase
prices of prescription eye drops manufactured and sold by
Defendants. More specifically, each of the named plaintiffs
asserts consumer fraud related claims applicable in the state in
which he/she resides. Those state laws include New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, California Unfair Competition Law, Florida Deceptive
and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Illinois Consumer Fraud Act, North
Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act and Texas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

In the motion, the Generic and Brand Name Defendants separately
move once again to dismiss the Amended Complaint, challenging,
inter alia, Plaintiffs' new theory of Article III standing.

In her Opinion dated March 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/6nSKNsfrom Leagle.com, Judge Wolfson held that
Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently allege Article III
standing.

Plaintiffs are represented by Jeffrey W. Herrmann, Esq. --
jwh@njlawfirm.com -- COHN, LIFLAND, PEARLMAN, HERRMANN & KNOPF,
LLC

Alcon Laboratories, Inc. is represented by Roger B. Kaplan, Esq.
-- kaplanr@gtlaw.com -- GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP


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


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.


AMC ENTERTAINMENT: "Solak" Seeks to Enjoin Sale of Carmike to AMC
-----------------------------------------------------------------
John Solak on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. S. David Passman III, Roland C.
Smith, Jeffrey W Berkman, James A. Fleming, Patricia A.
Wilson, Mark R. Bell, Sean T. Erwin, AMC Entertainment Holdings,
Inc., and Congress Merger Subsidiary, Inc., the Defendants, Case
No. 4:16-cv-00154-CDL (M.D. Ga., April 26, 2016), seeks to enjoin
the Individual Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary
duties in their pursuit of a sale of the company at an unfair
price through an unfair process that was tilted in favor of AMC.

According to the complaint, on March 3, 2016, Defendants issued a
press release announcing that the Board had agreed to sell Carmike
to AMC. AMC will acquire all of the outstanding common stock of
Carmike for $30 per share in cash (Proposed Consideration"), in a
transaction valued at approximately $1.1 billion. The Proposed
Acquisition undervalues Carmike and is marred with preclusive deal
protections that effectively prevent the Company from receiving a
superior offer.

Carmike is a leader in digital cinema, 3-D cinema deployments, and
alternative programming, and is one of the largest motion picture
exhibitors in the United States. The Company has 276 theatres with
2,954 screens in forty-one states.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Brian J. Robbins, Esq.
          Stephen J. Oddo, Esq.
          ROBBINS ARROYO LLLP
          600 B Street, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101 1Y
          Telephone: (619) 525 3990
          Facsimile: (619) 525 3991
          E-mail: brobbins@robbinsarroyo.com
                  soddo@robbinsarroyo.com

               - and -


AROCK SERVICES: "Mizuta" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly A. Mizuta, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Arock Services, the
Defendants, Case No. :16-cv-00092-CSM (D. N.Dak., April 26, 2016),
seeks to recover damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA) and the Wage and Hour laws of the State of North Dakota.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiff was employed by the
Defendant as a saltwater disposal operator from October 2014
through March 2015 and was paid on salary basis and was not paid
overtime.

The Defendant owns and/operates saltwater disposal wells in
Wyoming and North Dakota.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Philip Bohrer, Esq.
          BOHRER BRADY, LLC
          8712 Jefferson Highway, Suite B
          Baton Rouge, LA 70809
          Telephone: (255) 925 5297
          Facsimile: (255) 231 7000
          E-mail: phil@bohrerbrady.com
                  scott@bohrerbrady.com


BLACKMAN PLUMBING: Court Grants Motion to Re-Open Discovery
-----------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York granted
Defendants' motion to (1) re-open discovery and (2) to amend the
Joint Pre-Trial Order in the case captioned, MICHAEL CALLARI,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated who
were employed by BLACKMAN PLUMBING SUPPLY, INC., and/or any other
entities affiliated with or controlled by BLACKMAN PLUMBING
SUPPLY, INC., Plaintiffs, v. BLACKMAN PLUMBING SUPPLY, INC.,
ROBERT MANNHEIMER, as Co-Executor of the Estate of Richard
Blackman, and ROBERT A. TEPEDINO, as the co-Executor of the Estate
of Richard Blackman, and JOHN DOES #1-10, Defendants, Case No. CV
11-3655 (ADS) (AKT) (E.D.N.Y.).

Michael Callari (Plaintiff) brings the wage and hour action,
individually and on behalf of other persons similarly situated,
against Defendants Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc. (BPS), Robert
Manheimer, as co-executor of the Estate of Richard Blackman, and
Robert A. Tepedino, as co-executor of the Estate of Richard
Blackman, and John Does #1-10 (collectively, the Defendants),
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 207 and 216, New York Labor Law (NYLL) Article 19 Sec.
663, NYLL Article 6 Sections 190 et seq. and 12 New York Codes,
Rules and Regulations (NYCRR) Sec. 142-2.2. Plaintiff alleges that
he and similarly situated employees were misclassified by the
Defendants as exempt employees under the FLSA and were thus
unlawfully deprived of overtime compensation.

After the close of discovery, Defendants moved for summary
judgment, which was ultimately granted, in part, and denied, in
part, on December 19, 2013. On January 8, 2014, Plaintiffs filed a
motion for reconsideration of Judge Spatt's December 13, 2013
Memorandum of Decision and Order, pursuant to Local Civil Rule
6.3.

While Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was under review by
Judge Spatt, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking collective action
certification on April 17, 2014. On April 28, 2014, Judge Spatt
issued a Memorandum Decision and Order concerning Plaintiffs'
motion for reconsideration and motion to strike, finding that the
Court did not overlook controlling law and/or facts in issuing its
December 19, 2013 summary judgment decision. See DE 100.
Consequently, Judge Spatt denied Plaintiffs' motion for
reconsideration in its entirety.

In the motion, Defendants seek to: (1) re-open discovery for the
limited purpose of permitting Defendants to conduct fact discovery
with respect to each opt-in plaintiff who joins the action; and
(2) further amend the Amended Joint Pre-Trial Order to add nine
additional trial witnesses whom Defendants may seek to call when
the case goes to trial.

In her Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/i6QMO8from Leagle.com, Judge Tomlinson held that the
nine potential witnesses identified by Defendants may possess
information relevant to the Defendants' defense of the collective
action claims and to deny Defendants the opportunity to present
these witnesses at trial would amount to significant prejudice and
is contrary to the notion that the parties should enjoy a level
playing field at trial. Likewise, the Court found no indication in
the record that Defendants are acting in bad faith.

Michael Callari is represented by:

     Robert Connolly, Esq.
     BEE READY FISHBEIN HATTER & DONOVAN, LLP
     170 Old Country Rd # 200
     Mineola, NY 11501
     Tel: (516)746-5599

Blackman Plumbing Supply, Inc., Defendant, represented by Douglas
E. Rowe, Esq. -- drowe@certilmanbalin.com -- and James A. Rose,
Esq. -- jrose@certilmanbalin.com -- CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER & HYMAN,
LLP


BLUE CROSS: Faces "Horner" Suit Over Market Allocation Conspiracy
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea L. Horner and Montis, Inc., on behalf of themselves
and all others similarly situated v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association, et al., Case No. 2:16-cv-00628-RDP (W.D. Mo., April
25, 2016), is brought on behalf of subscribers of BCBS-KC health
insurance to enjoin an ongoing conspiracy between and among Blue
Cross and Blue Shield of Kansas City (BCBS-KC), the Individual
Blue Plans and Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association (BCBSA) to
allocate markets in violation of the prohibitions of the Sherman
Act.

Headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, Blue Cross and Blue Shield
Association is owned and controlled by thirty-six health insurance
plans that operate under the Blue Cross and Blue Shield trademarks
and trade names.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael J. Fleming, Esq.
      Quentin M. Templeton, Esq.
      FORBES LAW GROUP, LLC
      6900 College Boulevard, Ste. 840
      Overland Park, KS 66211
      Telephone: (913) 341-8600
      Facsimile: (913) 341-8606
      E-mail: mfleming@forbeslawgroup.com
              qtempleton@forbeslawgroup.com


BLUE DIAMOND GROWERS: "George" Suit Stayed Pending FDA Matter
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Carol E. Jackson granted the defendant's motion to dismiss
or stay the case captioned PAUL GEORGE, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated in Missouri, Plaintiff, v. BLUE
DIAMOND GROWERS, Defendant, No. 4:15-CV-962 (CEJ) (E.D. Mo.).

Paul George filed suit in state court on behalf of himself and a
putative class, asserting claims for violations of the Missouri
Merchandising Practices Act (MMPA) and unjust enrichment.  The
defendant, Blue Diamond Growers, manufactures "Almond Breeze"
almond milk, a product it labels as "All Natural" and which also
uses the term "evaporated cane juice."  George alleged that the
listed ingredients include items that are artificial within the
meaning of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance.
George sought to certify a class consisting of all persons in
Missouri who purchased Almond Breeze in the past five years.  Blue
Diamond removed the action to the district court, puruant to the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Blue Diamond then filed a motion to dismiss or stay pursuant to
the primary jurisdiction of the FDA.

Judge Jackson granted Blue Diamond's motion pursuant to the
primary jurisdiction doctrine.  The judge ordered that the case be
stayed pending resolution of the FDA's proceedings pertaining to
the terms "evaporated cane juice" and "natural."

A full-text copy of Judge Jackson's April 14, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at http://is.gd/aG2KWJfrom Leagle.com.

Paul George, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew H. Armstrong,
ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM, LLC & Julie Ellen Piper-Kitchin, KAMBERLAW,
LLC.

Blue Diamond Growers, Defendant, represented by James Muehlberger
-- jmuehlberger@shb.com -- SHOOK AND HARDY, LLP, Megan Oliver
Thompson -- moliverthompson@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON BRIDGETT
LLP, Geoffrey R. Pittman gpittman@hansonbridgett.com -- HANSON AND
BRIDGETT & Lawrence Michael Cirelli -- lcirelli@hansonbridgett.com
-- HANSON BRIDGETT LLP.


BOSE CORP: Privacy Breach Class Action Nears Resolution
-------------------------------------------------------
Michael Carroll, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that a class
action lawsuit against Bose Corp. for alleged violations of a
California law designed to protect consumers' privacy and personal
information may be moving toward a resolution as lawyers for both
sides have had cooperative discussions about the case, the
plaintiffs' attorney said.

"They have not admitted any fault," attorney E. Elliot Adler of
the Adler Law Group in San Diego told Legal Newsline, "but they
are very cooperative with us in moving the case forward and
seeking to resolve it."

Filed in late January in U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California, the lawsuit alleges that the audio
equipment company violated the state's Song-Beverly Credit Card
Act, which was passed in 1971.  The lawsuit stated that the
California law had been enacted to help protect consumers'
personal information from being collected and sold off to the
highest bidder.

The complaint also indicated that the law was designed to prevent
subsequent harassment by store clerks who obtained a shopper's
address and telephone number.

The lawsuit alleges that Patrick Keegan was shopping at a Bose
retail outlet in Carlsbad and purchased goods he paid for with a
credit card.  During the transaction, however, the cashier
requested Keegan's driver's license, phone number and address, and
Keegan assumed that he had to provide the information as a
condition to complete the transaction, the lawsuit states.

The employee next typed the information into a store computer
terminal, the complaint states.  Mr. Adler said the Song-Beverly
Credit Card Act, which was amended in 1991, expressly prohibits
retailers from requesting such information from cardholders while
a purchase is made.

"They can't make it a condition of the sale, and what they were
doing was exactly that," Adler said, indicating that the cashier
asked Keegan for the personal information prior to completing the
credit card transaction.

The complaint charges that Bose has engaged in a pattern of
obtaining personal information from its customers and that the
company seemed to lack a policy of advising employees about the
provisions of the California law.

"There was no policy in place that protected against violating the
Song-Beverly Act," Mr. Adler said.  "Or if there was a policy, it
was not adhered to."

He said that a number of lawsuits have been filed against
companies for similar behavior, but his law firm has only
uncovered evidence against Bose.  "I think there are many
retailers that do this," Mr. Adler said.

He emphasized that the case was still in its preliminary stages
and that no trial date has been set.

"But a settlement is always possible," Mr. Adler added.

The class in the Keegan case is defined as all those customers of
Bose retail stores in California who purchased goods with credit
cards -- in the year prior to the lawsuit being filed -- and gave
out personal information during transactions in response to
employee requests.  The complaint seeks monetary penalties of up
to $250 for primary violations of the Song-Beverly Act and up to
$1,000 for each subsequent violation.

Bose representatives did not immediately respond to requests for
comment about the case.


CANADA: St. John Can't Request Names in Estabrooks Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Connell Smith, writing for CBC News , reports that a judge has
rejected a request by the City of Saint John that would have
forced a Halifax law firm to turn over the names of potential
participants in a class action lawsuit over abuse by former police
officer Kenneth Estabrooks.

In his decision, Court of Queen's Bench Justice William Grant
notes that at this stage -- before the class action suit has been
certified to go ahead -- some potential participants may yet
choose not to participate.

"I find that the effect of making the order sought by the
defendants in this motion would be to require those class members
to make a decision, which they are not required to make at this
time," wrote Justice Grant.

The city does not plan to appeal, said Michael Brenton, the lawyer
hired by the city.

"I thought it was a fair decision," he said.  "It doesn't impact
on our defense at all."

John McKiggan, the lawyer behind the class action, is pleased with
the decision.

"It was our view that requiring potential class members to provide
their names to the defendants at this stage was premature, and
Justice Grant agreed," he said.

As many as 263 youths may have been sexually abused by the late
Mr. Estabrooks during a three-decade period dating back to the
1950s, a private investigator hired by the city found.

Mr. McKiggan contends it could be one of the worst cases of sexual
abuse in Canadian history.

Both sides are scheduled to be in court in July for a week-long
certification hearing, which will determine whether the case will
be allowed to proceed as a class action.

Common issues must be clear

Two Canadian law professors say the judge will have to determine
if there are enough similarities to make a class action the proper
route.

"They're all different individual situations," said
Catherine Piche, of the University of Montreal.  "It just goes to
say that the case has to be presented in a way that the common
issues become clear."


Ms. Piche says the judge must also look out for the rights of the
victims, who would become part of the case, even if they did not
approach a lawyer.

Under class action rules, victims would be automatically in and
would lose the right to launch their own lawsuits unless they
physically opt out of the class action.

"There is a duty on the judge to be a sort of protector of the
members of the class," said Ms. Piche.  "So he or she has to
anticipate what their interests are, that their needs are."

Jasminka Kalajdzic, of the University of Windsor's faculty of law,
says there are many precedents for a case like the
Mr. Estabrooks one to be allowed to proceed as a class action.

"It's not a rubber-stamp exercise by any means," said
Ms. Kalajdzic.  "But this type of case has a strong chance of
getting certified."

Ms. Kalajdzic says a class action could provide justice to a large
number of people, while saving both victims and the courts the
cost of multiple suits.

"Given the financial and emotional barriers to individual
lawsuits, it seems to me that class action may be the only viable
option," said Ms. Kalajdzic.


CASH CONVERTERS: Faces Class Action Over Brokerage Fees
-------------------------------------------------------
Kym Agius, writing for ABC, reports that a class action has been
launched against Cash Converters over allegations it effectively
charged Queensland borrowers more than 400 per cent interest on
loans.

Maurice Blackburn has filed the class action in the Federal Court
to obtain refunds for all brokerage fees paid by an estimated
23,000 borrowers between 2009 and 2013.

It follows a $23 million settlement last year in NSW over similar
allegations.

The law firm said the company had been loading short-term loans
with brokerage fees.

Maurice Blackburn special counsel Miranda Nagy said the fees to
access cash advance loans pushed the "effective" interest rate to
420 per cent a year, exceeding the legal limit.

Ms. Nagy said in Queensland the law caps lending rates at 48 per
cent for credit cards.

"The reality is that excessive fees and interest can force
borrowers to borrow again and again, and their debt can easily
spiral out of control," she said.

Gold Coast resident, carer and disability pensioner Kim McKenzie
will lead the class action on behalf of other affected borrowers.

"Loans like this should be designed as a short-term solution to
help get you out of trouble, not set up in such a way that they
almost ensure you're stuck in more trouble for longer," she said.

Cash Converters company secretary Ralph Groom released a statement
to the ASX saying the "action would be vigorously defended".

"These proceedings attack the brokerage fee system used for
customers between 28 April 2010 and 30 June 2013," he said.

"The brokerage fee system has not been used since June 30, 2013."


CENTURYLINK INC: Missouri Cities' Appeal Dismissed
--------------------------------------------------
Justice Sherri B. Sullivan of the Missouri Court of Appeals
dismissed the City of Butler, Missouri's appeal from the trial
court's December 12, 2014 judgment awarding attorney's fees to
class action counsel, and denying Appellant's motion for
attorney's fees in the case captioned, CITY OF O'FALLON, MISSOURI,
CITY OF TROY, MISSOURI, and CITY OF ORRICK, MISSOURI, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarlysituated,
Plaintiffs/Respondents, and CITY OF BUTLER, MISSOURI, Appellant,
v. CENTURYLINK, INC., CENTURYTEL OF MISSOURI, L.L.C. d/b/a
CENTURYLINK, CENTURYTEL LONG DISTANCE, L.L.C. d/b/a CENTURYLINK
LONG DISTANCE, EMBARQ, MISSOURI, INC., SPECTRA COMMUNICATIONS
GROUP, L.L.C., EMBARQ COMMUNICATIONS, INC., and CENTURYLINK
COMMUNICATIONS, L.L.C., Defendants/Respondents, Case No. ED102562
(Mo. App.).

The class action involved cities or municipalities in Missouri
that were serviced by CenturyLink, Inc.; CenturyTel of Missouri,
L.L.C. d/b/a CenturyLink; CenturyTel Long Distance, L.L.C. d/b/a
CenturyLink Long Distance; Embarq, Missouri, Inc.; Spectra
Communications Group, L.L.C.; Embarq Communications, Inc.; and
CenturyLink Communications, L.L.C. (Defendants) in various
telephonic and telecommunication capacities. These cities imposed
business license taxes on income Defendants derived from the
provision of such services that Defendants neglected to pay.
Plaintiffs were represented throughout negotiations by Class
Counsel. The negotiations ended in a favorable settlement for
Plaintiffs.

On May 10, 2012, the petition filed by Class Counsel on behalf of
the named plaintiffs and all others similarly situated alleged
Defendants underpaid license taxes in connection with the
provision of telephone services to certain Missouri
municipalities. Defendants denied Plaintiffs' allegations and
alleged various defenses. After removal to the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of Missouri at Defendants' request, the
federal court remanded it to the circuit court of St. Louis
County.

On March 21, 2013, the case was reopened from mandate in the
circuit court and Judge Joseph S. Dueker was assigned. The parties
began to engage in settlement discussions and negotiations which
continued for over one and one-half years. On August 14, 2014,
Cunningham, Vogel and Rost, P.C. (CVR) entered their appearance in
the action on behalf of putative class members, the cities of
Aurora, Cameron, Harrisonville, Oak Grove, and Wentzville.
After extensive settlement negotiations between Plaintiffs by
Class Counsel and Defendants, facilitated and overseen by Judge
Dueker, the parties reached an agreement on material terms and
submitted a preliminary proposed settlement to Judge Dueker. On
December 12, 2014, the court entered its Order and Judgment
Approving the Settlement and its Order and Judgment Approving
Attorney's Fees for Class Counsel.

On appeal, Appellant maintains the trial court erred in awarding
attorney's fees to Class Counsel because the deadline for Class
Members to object to the amount of the fees was prior to the
deadline for Class Counsel to request the fees. Appellants also
claimed that the trial court failed to apply a heightened standard
of scrutiny when considering the amount of attorney's fees it
awarded Class Counsel because the amount was contained in a clear
sailing clause and that the trial court failed to apply a
heightened standard of scrutiny when considering the amount of
attorney's fees it awarded Class Counsel because it adopted Class
Counsel's proposed judgment of attorney's fees as its own.

In her Order dated March 29, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qewcgg
from Leagle.com, Judge Sullivan discerned no basis for concluding
that the circuit court abused its discretion with regard to its
award of attorney's fees to Class Counssel and non-award of
attorney's fees to CVR.


CHESAPEAKE BAY: Faces "Barnhart" Suit Under FLSA, Md. Wage Laws
---------------------------------------------------------------
MORGAN BARNHART, on behalf of herself and all other persons
similarly situated, known and unknown 2291 Canteen Circle
Odenton, Maryland 21113 Plaintiff, v. CHESAPEAKE BAY SEAFOOD HOUSE
ASSOCIATES, L.L.C., 1960 Gallows Road, Suite 200, Vienna, Virginia
22182, Serve On: Alan A. Diamonstein, 12350 Jefferson Ave., Suite
300, Newport News, Virginia 23602, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-01277-
MJG (D. Md., April 28, 2016), arises under the Fair Labor
Standards Act, the Maryland Wage and Hour Law, and the Maryland
Wage Payment and Collection Law, for Defendant's alleged failure
to pay Plaintiff and other similarly-situated tipped employees all
earned minimum wages.

Defendant operates approximately 31 franchised Chili's restaurants
in Maryland and Virginia, collectively, which are the subject of
this lawsuit.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Joseph B. Espo, Esq.
     BROWN GOLDSTEIN LEVY LLP
     120 East Baltimore Street, Suite 1700
     Baltimore, MD 21202
     Phone: (410) 962-1030
     Fax: (410) 385-0869
     E-mail: jbe@browngold.com

        - and -

     Douglas M. Werman, Esq.
     Zachary C. Flowerree, Esq.
     WERMAN SALAS P.C.
     77 West Washington, Suite 1402
     Chicago, IL 60602
     Phone: (312) 419-1008
     Fax: (312) 419-1025
     E-mail: dwerman@flsalaw.com
             zflowerree@flsalaw.com


CHOBANI LLC: 9th Cir. Vacates Dismissal Order in Yogurt Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judges M. Margaret McKeown, Kim McLane Wardlaw and Richard
C. Tallman of the Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit vacated the
district court's February 20, 2014 order granting Chobani's motion
to dismiss the third amended complaint and remanded for entry of
an order staying proceedings in the case captioned, KATIE KANE;
DARLA BOOTH; ARIANNA ROSALES, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. CHOBANI, LLC,
Defendant-Appellee, Case No. 14-15670 (9th Cir.).

Plaintiffs' claims arise from their assertions that Chobani
deceptively and unlawfully labels its yogurt as "natural" in
violation of FDA regulations, and that Chobani deceptively and
unlawfully uses the term "evaporated cane juice" to describe its
yogurt's added sugar ingredient. The Court dismissed the action
pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

Katie Kane, Arianna Rosales, and Darla Booth appeal the Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal of their putative class action asserting claims
against Chobani in connection with Chobani's labeling and sale of
yogurt.

In the Memorandum dated March 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Dfed25from Leagle.com, Judges McKeown, Wardlaw and
Tallman concluded that resolution of the action will not be
needlessly delayed and that judicial resources will be conserved
by staying these proceedings.

The Court remanded the action to the district court with
instructions to enter a stay of proceedings under the primary
jurisdiction doctrine.


COMPUCOM SYSTEMS: "Nunez" Suit Seeks Overtime Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Robert Nunez, Sr., individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Compucom Systems, Inc.,
a Delaware corporation, and Does 1-100, the Defendant, Case No.
BC618385 (Cal Super. Ct., April 26, 2016), seeks to recover
overtime wages, and meal period and rest period pay pursuant to
the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Plaintiff was employed by Defendants
as an hourly non-exempt employee. The Plaintiff was, and is, a
victim of Defendants' policies and/or practices complained, and of
lost money and/or property, and has been deprived of the rights
guaranteed to him by the California Labor Code.

CompuCom Systems, a global company headquartered in Dallas, Texas,
provides IT managed services, infrastructure solutions, and
consulting.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Paul K. Haines, Esq.
          HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
          2274 East Maple Ave., Suite A
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (424) 292 2350
          Facsimile: (424) 292 2355
          E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com


CONVERGENT OUTSOURCING: Faces "Morris" Suit in S.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Convergent Outsourcing, Inc. The
case is captioned Florence Morris, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Convergent Outsourcing,
Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01026-H-NLS (S.D. Cal.,
April 26, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Marilyn L. Huff.

Convergent provides contact management services that help to lower
cost, manage uneven call volumes, deal with specific call types
and prepare for unexpected outages or natural disasters.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino del Rio South, Suite 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: DanielShay@TCPAFDCPA.com


COSL: Judge Allows Union's Class Action to Proceed
--------------------------------------------------
Phil Allan, writing for Energy Voice, reports that a Norwegian
district court has opened the way for all 229 employees who were
dismissed from Norwegian drilling company COSL via email on 30
June last year to participate in a class action against the firm.

The action was brought by Norwegian trade union SAFE.

SAFE lawyer Elisabeth Bjelland said: "This is a positive ruling
from the district court, SAFE gladly [takes] this fight for all,
regardless of the organization."

Ms. Bjelland will send letters to all those potentially party to
the lawsuit, providing information and the opportunity to sign up
for the class action.

The union said it will meet all costs.

The case relates to COSL issuing dismissals by email on June 30
last year. The emails were followed up with dismissal letters
through the post several days later.

In a statement on its website, SAFE said: "We won at least the
first round . . .  COSL argued that the case could not be brought
as a class action, which the court, however, accepted.

"In addition, it expands the circle of plaintiffs significantly,
at least in several strikes'" Ms. Bjelland said.  She will act as
counsel if the case comes to court.

SAFE has been in dialogue with COSL considering the calculation of
notice periods for those made redundant.

The union has argued that it follows clearly from the Working
Environment Act that notice period commences when the registered
letter is received, while COSL has argued that the deadline should
be calculated from the sending of the emails.

"This has economic importance for those affected.  The notice
period begins to run from the first day of the month after the
dismissal occurred. It is therefore essential to clarify when
redundancies took place," said Ms. Bjelland.

Norwegian law states the dismissal must be delivered personally or
sent by registered mail.

SAFE believes the law does not allow the posting by e-mail,
therefore believes that the basis for calculation shall be 1
August.

The union took legal action on behalf of 27 employees made
redundant who have calculated the notice period from July 1 and
have received one month salary less than the SAFE contends they
are entitled.

SAFE also asked the court to accept the case could be treated as a
class action, which COSL opposed. The company believed that each
dismissed had to lead his own case.

J‘ren district court's ruling now opens thus the court that all
laid-off who believe they have suffered financial loss, may enroll
in the lawsuit SAFE has traveled.


CREST-MEX CORPORATION: "Valenzuela" Suit Seeks OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Felipe Valenzuela, Jose Guillermo Gandara, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Crest-Mex Corporation d/b/a
Lasierra Apartments, Mtorma Trust, Dallas Net Lease Trust, Sierra
Management Trust, Sierra Management Co., La Sierra Apartments
Trust, Cedar Sierra Management Co, LLC, 3328 Cedar Plaza Lane
Apartments, Inc., Thomas Townsend, and Kelly Goodwin a/k/a Kelly
Townsend, the Defendants, Case No. 3:16-cv-01129-D (N.D. Tex.,
April 26, 2016), seeks to recover double damages including
overtime wages, and reasonable attorney fees from Defendants,
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiffs' overtime wages and
recklessly failed to investigate whether Defendants' payroll
practices were in accordance with the FLSA.

Crest-Mex Corporation operates an apartment building in Dallas
area.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          J.H. Zidell, Esq.
          Robert L. Manteuffel, Esq.
          Joshua A. Petersen, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.A.
          Attorney For Plaintiff
          300 71st Street, Suite 605
          Miami Beach, Florida 33141
          Telephone: (305) 865 6766
          Facsimile: (305) 865 7167
          Email: ZABOGADO@AOL.COM
                 rlmanteuffel@sbcglobal.net
                 josh.a.petersen@gmail.com


DAEWON AMERICA: Court Won't Modify Settlement Approval Order
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Myron H. Thompson of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Alabama denied Plaintiff's motion
for modification of settlement approval in the case captioned,
KELVIN TODD, Plaintiff, v. DAEWON AMERICA, INC., Defendant, Case
No. 3:11cv1077-MHT (M.D. Ala.).

Plaintiff Kelvin Todd sued defendant Daewon America, Inc.,
alleging that Daewon had underpaid him and other employees in
violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C.
Sections 201-219. After the court conditionally certified a
plaintiff class, the parties negotiated a settlement. The
settlement agreement states: "the Settlement Amount of this
Agreement is a lump sum payment by Defendant to Plaintiffs in the
amount of One Hundred and Twenty Thousand Dollars ($120,000.00)
made payable to the Plaintiffs' law firm, Arendall Law Firm, Inc.,
d/b/a Arendall & Arnold, as attorney for Plaintiffs."

Upon Todd's motion, the court held a fairness hearing on the
proposed settlement agreement. At the fairness hearing, Todd's
attorney explained how the $120,000 lump-sum settlement would be
divided: $29,771.91 would go to award back pay for each member of
the plaintiff class for the two and half of the three years they
originally had sought; Todd would receive $4,981.81 in "incentive
pay," to compensate primarily for the time he invested in the
lawsuit; Todd's attorneys would receive $81,246.29 in attorneys'
fees; and $4,000.00 would go towards the attorneys' costs.

Todd filed the motion requesting that the court modify its
approval of the settlement by requiring -- in place of the
settlement's lump-sum provision -- that Daewon issue separate
payroll checks to each member of the plaintiff class and withhold
payroll taxes from those checks.

In the Opinion and Order dated March 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Aed72ffrom Leagle.com, Judge Thompson found that
Todd has not shown that the settlement of a FLSA class action must
be paid in the manner requested by the plaintiff class and that he
has failed to present any reasonable justification for why the
issue was not addressed in the settlement agreement or addressed
prior to, or at, the fairness hearing. As Daewon points out, there
is no reason that the members of the plaintiff class cannot pay
taxes on the money they are to receive from the settlement. And
there is no reason that Todd's attorney cannot issue the
appropriate tax documentation to members of the plaintiff class
when he issues their checks.

Kevin Lee Todd is represented by:

     Allen Durham Arnold, Esq.
     David Randall Arendall, Esq.
     ARENDALL & ARNOLD
     2018 Morris Ave,
     Birmingham, AL 35203
     Tel: (205)252-1550

Daewon America, Inc. is represented by:

     Gary Rick Trawick, Esq.
     Jason James Baird, Esq.
     SLATEN LAW, P.C.
     5950 Carmichael Place, Suite 100
     Montgomery, AL 36117
     Tel: (877)464-5022


DOLE FOOD: Investor Group Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SAN ANTONIO FIRE & POLICE PENSION FUND and
FIRE & POLICE HEALTH CARE FUND, SAN ANTONIO, Plaintiffs, v. DOLE
FOOD COMPANY, INC., DAVID H. MURDOCH and C. MICHAEL CARTER,
Defendants, Civ. No. 15-1140-SLR (D. Del.), Judge Sue L. Robinson
appointed as lead plaintiff the Dole Institutional Investor Group
and their selection as lead counsel, Bernstein Litowitz Berger &
Grossman LLP and Entwistle & Cappucci LLP.

A full-text copy of Judge Robinson's April 14, 2016 memorandum is
available at http://is.gd/mbBvk4from Leagle.com.

The action arises out of the defendants' alleged fraudulent scheme
to acquire the publicly-held shares of Dole Food Company, Inc.,
one of the world's largest producers of fresh fruit and
vegetables, and convert the company to a privately-held enterprise
owned by defendant David H. Murdoch.

San Antonio Fire and Police Pension Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Joel E. Friedlander -- jfriedlander@friedlandergorris.com --
Friedlander & Gorris, P.A., Christopher M. Foulds --
cfoulds@friedlandergorris.com -- Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.,
Heather Sertial, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice,Jeffrey M.
Gorris -- jgorris@friedlandergorris.com -- Friedlander & Gorris,
P.A., Jordan A. Cortez, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice &
Vincent R. Cappucci, Entwistle & Cappucci LLP, pro hac vice.

Fire & Police Health Care Fund, San Antonio, Plaintiff,
represented by Joel E. Friedlander, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.,
Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. & Jeffrey M.
Gorris, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A..

Dole Food Company, Inc., David H. Murdock, C. Michael Carter,
Defendants, represented by Elena C. Norman -- enorman@ycst.com --
Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Anne Shea Gaza --
agaza@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Bruce L.
Silverstein -- bsilverstein@ycst.com -- Young, Conaway, Stargatt &
Taylor LLP & James M. Yoch, Jr. -- jyoch@ycst.com -- Young,
Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP.

Dole Investor Group, Movant, represented by Brian D. Long --
bdl@rl-legal.com -- Rigrodsky & Long, P.A..

City of Providence, Movant, represented by Gregg S. Levin --
glevin@motleyrice.com -- Motley Rice, LLC, pro hac vice, Joshua C.
Littlejohn -- jlittlejohn@motleyrice -- Motley Rice, LLC, pro hac
vice & sPeter Bradford deLeeuw, Rosenthal, Monhait & Goddess,
P.A..

Sutton View Capital LLC, Movant, represented by David L. Finger --
dfinger@delawgroup.com -- Finger & Slanina LLC.

Proxima Capital Master Fund Ltd, Arbitage Fund, Movants,
represented by Joel E. Friedlander, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A.,
Christopher M. Foulds, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A. & Jeffrey M.
Gorris, Friedlander & Gorris, P.A..


ECR ENERGY: "Alanis" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
-------------------------------------------------------
Efren Alanis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. ECR Energy Source Inspection Services, LLC
and Denise Swartz, Defendants, Case No. 4:16-cv-01091 (S.D. Tex.,
April 22, 2016) seeks to recover all unpaid overtime compensation,
liquidated damages, attorneys' fees and costs, prejudgment
interest at the applicable rate, post-judgment interest at the
applicable rate, incentive awards and all such other and further
relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

ECR provides inspection and expediter services where Alanis worked
as a pressure vessel inspector. Plaintiff claims not receiving
overtime pay for hours rendered in excess of 40 per workweek and
accuses the Defendant of not maintaining time keeping for
employees.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Melissa Moore, Esq.
      Curt Hesse, Esq.
      MOORE & ASSOCIATES
      Lyric Center 440 Louisiana Street, Suite 675
      Houston, TX 77002
      Telephone: (713) 222-6775
      Facsimile: (713) 222-6739


EQT PRODUCTION: Faces "Barnett" Suit Under FLSA, PMWA
-----------------------------------------------------
Bradley Barnett, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. EQT Production Company,
Defendant, Case 2:16-cv-00531-MRH (W.D. Penn., April 28, 2016),
seeks to recover overtime compensation under the Fair Labor
Standards Act and the Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act.

Defendant produces, drills, explores, sells, and develops oil and
natural gas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Michele R. Fisher, Esq.
     Paul J. Lukas, Esq.
     Alexander M. Baggio, Esq.
     NICHOLS KASTER, PLLP
     4600 IDS Center
     80 South 8th Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Phone: (612) 256-3200
     E-mail: fisher@nka.com
             lukas@nka.com
             abaggio@nka.com


FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S: Faces Privacy Breach Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------
The Canadian Press reports that an eastern Ontario children's aid
society is facing a $75 million lawsuit after a cyber attack
resulted in a list of client names being stolen and shared on
local Facebook groups.

At least three dozen people have expressed interest in taking part
in the proposed class action against Family and Children's
Services of Lanark, Leeds and Grenville (CFSLLG), according to the
lawyer representing the plaintiffs.

Sean Brown -- sbrown@fmlaw.ca -- of Flaherty McCarthy LLP said the
organization took a lax approach to protecting the confidentiality
of those under investigation and alleged that their negligence
resulted in a serious violation of privacy.

"That institution made the decision to use an online portal system
that was easily accessed by an individual without any obvious
hacking skills," Mr. Brown said.  "The most sensitive and
confidential information held by that body, specifically the names
of those under its investigation, have now been published on the
Internet. The damage has been done. That bell can not be unrung."

CFSLLG Executive Director Raymond Lemay said the suit did not come
as a particular surprise, since some clients had expressed
considerable anger upon seeing their names surface online.

It was a client who first alerted the agency to the hack on
April 18, Mr. Lemay said, adding she had seen the list on a
Facebook group usually dedicated to local trading.

"People are acting within their rights and as they should," he
said.

"It'll be up to the courts to determine whether or not there was
neglect and who's responsible."

According to the statement of claim, FCSLLG had prepared a report
for its board of directors including new cases taken on between
April and November 2015.  That report included the list of all 285
specific clients and was saved to a portal that board members
could access, the statement said.

The suit alleges that an unknown hacker obtained access to the
list and posted it to Facebook groups for the Smiths Falls
Swapshop and Families United.

The suit names negligence and breach of confidence among the
causes for legal action, alleging that the organization didn't
take proper measures to secure its data.

"They knew or ought to have known that the encryption of their
computer systems, if any, was inadequate to protect against breach
and compromise by computer hackers and they failed to take any or
sufficient steps to remedy the same," the claim reads. "They
employed computer personnel and/or computer contractors who lacked
the necessary skills, education, training, and expertise in
computer data and security and encryption."

Mr. Lemay acknowledged that the agency had struggled with security
issues in the past, saying there had been a data breach involving
less sensitive information in February.

Mr. Lemay said a third party had been called into tighten security
on the board portal, but declined to discuss details because the
matter is before the courts.

The suit is being led by a client referred to simply as M.M.

The emotional consequences of the privacy breach were
considerable, the claim reads.

"The loss of the plaintiff's and class members' personal and
private information occasioned by the defendants' lax security
measures was highly offensive to the plaintiff and class members,
causing them distress, anxiety, shame, humiliation, and anguish,"
it said.

Mr. Lemay said the breach is currently being investigated by the
Smiths Falls police department, who did not immediately respond to
a request for comment.


FANNIE MAE: Ohio High Court Sends "Radatz" Back to Trial Court
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Judith L. French of the Supreme Court of Ohio affirmed the
Eighth District's judgment reversing the decision of the trial
court in the case captioned, Radatz, Appellee, v. Federal National
Mortgage Association, Appellant, Case No. 2014-1126 (Ohio), and
and remanded the matter to the trial court.

On August 7, 2003 -- before Congress enacted the Housing and
Economic Recovery Act of 2008 -- Radatz filed a class-action
complaint in Cuyahoga County. Radatz alleges on behalf of
similarly situated class members that Fannie Mae failed to timely
record in the appropriate county recorder's office the
satisfaction of her residential mortgage within 90 days after
payoff, as state law (R.C. 5301.36(B)) requires. Radatz and the
class members each seek to recover $250 under R.C. 5301.36(C).
Division (C) of R.C. 5301.36 states that if a mortgagee fails to
record the satisfaction of a mortgage in compliance with R.C.
5301.36(B), "the mortgagor of the unrecorded satisfaction and the
current owner of the real property to which the mortgage pertains
may recover, in a civil action, damages of two hundred fifty
dollars."

In December 2006, the trial court certified the following class:
"all persons who, since May 9, 1997 and thereafter, paid off an
Ohio residential mortgage, where Fannie Mae was the mortgagee at
the time of the payoff, and a satisfaction was not recorded with
any Ohio county recorder within 90 days from the date of payoff."

On September 6, 2008, during class-certification proceedings, FHFA
placed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac under its conservatorship.
Fannie Mae thereafter sought to remove the class action to federal
court, invoking the conservatorship as a basis for its petition.
The district court denied Fannie Mae's removal petition and
remanded the matter to the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court in
March 2010.

On March 13, 2013, Fannie Mae moved to dismiss for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The trial court agreed with Fannie Mae and
dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
The Eighth District Court of Appeals reversed and held that the
FHFA consent order did not divest the trial court of jurisdiction
concluding that R.C. 5301.36(C) does not implicate 12 U.S.C.
4617(j)(4), which immunizes Fannie Mae from incurring liabilities
in the nature of a penalty or fine.

On appeal, the court address whether a cease and desist order
issued by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) to defendant-
appellant, Fannie Mae, divested the trial court of subject matter
jurisdiction over the class action of plaintiff-appellee, Rebekah
R. Radatz, for statutory damages against Fannie Mae under R.C.
5301.36(C).

In her Decision dated March 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/hN5TsTfrom Leagle.com, Judge French concluded that
that a different federal statute, 12 U.S.C. 4617(j)(4), bars the
trial court from ordering Fannie Mae to pay damages under R.C.
5301.36(C) while Fannie Mae is under FHFA's conservatorship. The
awarding of such damages runs afoul of 12 U.S.C. 4617(j)(4), which
prohibits Fannie Mae from incurring liabilities "in the nature of
penalties or fines" while under FHFA conservatorship.

The matter is remanded to the trial court for resolution of any
remaining issues.

Rebekah R. Radatz is represented by Patrick J. Perotti, Esq. --
pperotti@dworkenlaw.com -- and James S. Timmerberg, Esq. --
jtimmerberg@dworkenlaw.com -- DWORKEN & BERNSTEIN CO., L.P.A.

Federal National Mortgage Association is represented by Richard S.
Gurbst, Esq. -- Richard.gurnst@squirepb.com -- SQUIRE PATTON
BOGGS, L.L.P., J. Philip Calabresem, Esq. --
pcalabrese@porterwright.com -- and Kathleen M. Trafford, Esq. --
ktrafford@porterwright.com -- PORTER WRIGHT MORRIS & ARTHUR,
L.L.P., Jeffrey Kilduff, Esq. - jkilduff@omm.com -- O'MELVENY &
MYERS, L.L.P.


FIDELITY NATIONAL: Cal. App. Affirms Denial of Anti-SLAPP Motion
----------------------------------------------------------------
Associate Justice Victoria Gerrard Chaney of the Court of Appeals
of California affirmed the trial court's order denying Cothran's
April 7, 2014 anti-SLAPP motion in the case captioned, FIDELITY
NATIONAL TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, Cross-complainant and
Respondent, v. JONATHAN COTHRAN, Cross-defendant and Appellant,
Case No. B258692 (Cal. App.).

On May 20, 2011, before the judgment in the underlying action was
entered, Teodoro Sanchez filed a lawsuit (Case No. BC461969)
against Lawyers Title Insurance Company, asserting class action
causes of action for slander of title and unlawful business
practices and an individual cause of action for intentional
infliction of emotional distress. Quyen Kiet, Cothran and Kiet
Cothran & Zirillo, APC are the attorneys/law firm who commenced
and are prosecuting the present action. After Lawyers Title filed
a demurrer to the complaint -- which was not ruled on by the trial
court -- Sanchez filed a first amended complaint on September 13,
2011, adding an individual cause of action for slander of title
against Lawyers Title.

On July 16, 2012, cross-defendants including Cothran filed their
first anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil Procedure section
425.16, asking the trial court to strike Fidelity Title's cross-
complaint. On October 3, 2012, the trial court heard oral argument
on the anti-SLAPP motion and issued an order denying it as to the
cause of action for malicious prosecution and granting it as to
the cause of action for abuse of process.

On April 7, 2014, Cothran filed his second anti-SLAPP motion
asking the trial court to strike the malicious prosecution cause
of action in Fidelity Title's first amended cross-complaint as to
him. On August 4, 2014, the trial court heard oral argument on
Cothran's second anti-SLAPP motion and denied it based on the law
of the case and, alternatively, on a consideration of the merits.

Cross-defendant Jonathan Cothran appeals from an order denying his
special motion to strike (anti-SLAPP motion under Code of Civil
Procedure section 425.16) a first amended cross-complaint for
malicious prosecution filed by Fidelity National. He asserts that
he is entitled to file another anti-SLAPP motion after
unsuccessfully appealing the denial of his first anti-SLAPP
motion.

In her Order dated March 23, 2016 available at http://is.gd/WKiX72
from Leagle.com, Judge Chaney held that Cothran may not use a
second anti-SLAPP motion to challenge the same allegations in
Fidelity Title's cause of action for malicious prosecution.

Jonathan Cothran is represented by:

     Tang Kiet, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF TANG KIET
     16121 Beach Blvd
     Huntington Beach, CA 92647
     Tel: (714)847-4600

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company is represented by:

     Lori C. Hershorin, Esq.
     Claudia Mourad, Esq.
     HERSHORIN & HENRY
     27422 Portola Pkwy # 360
     Foothill Ranch, CA 92610
     Tel: (949)859-5600


FIRST NATIONAL: Faces "Schild" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against First National Collection Bureau,
Inc. The case is captioned Donna Schild and Sulay Lopez,
individually and on behalf of all those similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc. and LVNV
Funding, LLC, the Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-02040 (E.D.N.Y.,
April 26, 2016).

First National is doing business in the collection industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Craig B. Sanders, Esq.
          Sanders Law, PLLC
          100 Garden City Plaza, Suite 50
          Garden City, NY 11530
          Telephone: (516) 203 7600
          Facsimile: (516) 281 7601
          E-mail: csanders@sanderslawpllc.com


FLORIDA BEAUTY: Faces "Amodei" Suit For FLSA Violation
------------------------------------------------------
ALEJANDRO AGUSTIN AMODEI, and all others similarly situated under
29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiffs, vs. FLORIDA BEAUTY EXPRESS, INC.,
and RALPH MILMAN, Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-21502-JAL (S.D. Fla.,
April 28, 2016), was filed pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Florida Beauty Express Inc. is a licensed and bonded freight
shipping and trucking company running a freight hauling business
from Miami, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FOSTER POULTRY: Recalls Fully Cooked Frozen Chicken Nuggets
-----------------------------------------------------------
Foster Poultry Farms, a Farmerville, La. establishment, is
recalling approximately 220,450 pounds of fully cooked frozen
chicken nuggets that may be contaminated with extraneous blue
plastic and black rubber materials, the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The fully cooked frozen chicken breast nuggets were produced on
Feb. 22, 2016 and March 8, 2016. The following products are
subject to recall:

  --- 5-lb. bags containing FOSTER FARMS "Breast Nuggets - Nugget
      Shaped Breaded Chicken Breast Patties with Rib Meat." The
      bags exhibit best by dates of 2/21/17 and 3/8/17.
  --- 10-lb. bulk boxes containing FOSTER FARMS "Fully Cooked
      Breast Nuggets - Nugget Shaped Chicken Breast Patties with
      Rib Meat Fritters." The boxes contain package code 6053 and
      6068.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-33901"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
distributors in Alaska, Arizona, California, Utah, and Washington
state.

The problem was discovered after the company received several
consumer complaints and immediately notified FSIS on April 29,
2016.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about an injury or
illness should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact the Foster
Farms Recall hotline at, 1-800-338-8051. Media with questions
about the recall can contact Lorna Bush, with Media Affairs, at
(415) 392-1000.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem


FRESHPET INC: Faces Securities Class Action in New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------
Safirstein Metcalf LLP on April 26 disclosed that a class action
has been commenced in the United States District Court for the
District of New Jersey on behalf of purchasers of Freshpet, Inc.
("Freshpet" or the "Company") common stock during the period
between April 1, 2015 and November 11, 2015 (the "Class Period").

If you purchased Freshpet securities during the Class Period, you
may, no later than June 20, 2016, request that the Court appoint
you lead plaintiff of the proposed class.  A lead plaintiff is a
representative party that acts on behalf of all class members in
directing the litigation. Any member of the purported class may
move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through counsel of their
choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an absent class
member.

If you want more information about the Freshpet Securities Class
Action, contact Sheila Feerick at Safirstein Metcalf LLP, 1-800-
221-0015 or email info@SafirsteinMetcalf.com or at
http://www.safirsteinmetcalf.com/freshpet.html

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

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

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

                  About Safirstein Metcalf LLP

Safirstein Metcalf LLP focuses its practice on shareholder rights.
The law firm also practices in the areas of antitrust and consumer
protection.


GENERAL ELECTRIC: Court Okays Limited Discovery in "Grayson" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge William I. Garfinkel of the United States
District Court for the District of Connecticut granted in part
Plaintiffs' motion to compel General Electric's (GE) to produce
certain discovery, including discovery from Samsung Electrics Co.,
Ltd. in the case captioned, GLEN GRAYSON ET AL., Plaintiffs, v.
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. 3:13-cv-1799
(WWE)(WIG) (D. Conn.).

In the putative class action, Plaintiffs claim that certain models
of microwave ovens branded with defendant General Electric's (GE)
name were defectively designed or manufactured, causing their
glass doors to spontaneously shatter.

Pursuant to Rule 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
Plaintiffs move to compel GE to produce certain discovery,
including discovery from Samsung Electrics Co., Ltd. (Samsung
Korea), who is the manufacturer of the microwaves at issue, or in
the alternative excluding GE from relying on the discovery at
trial with all adverse inference drawn in Plaintiffs' favor.

Plaintiff's Motion to Compel seeks four categories of documents:
Category One: Documents in Samsung Korea's possession relating to
the design and manufacture of the microwaves at issue. Category
Two: Additional information from GE's Factory Service Database,
which records customer complaints and service requests relating to
the microwaves at issue. Category Three: Customer service
documents that GE produced in a different legal matter. Plaintiffs
claim that these documents relate to GE's procedures for
collecting consumer relations information. Category Four: Copies
of any GE policies or procedures that GE contends are relevant to
any issue in this litigation. GE has objected to the request as
overly broad and unduly burdensome.

In his Ruling dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/sO8hTY
from Leagle.com, Judge Garfinkel found that in Category One
Plaintiffs failed to establish agency relationship between GE and
Samsung Korea. In Category Two, the Court ordered the parties to
meet and confer in good faith regarding the application of the ESI
protocol to the singular issue and file a joint status report
within 14 days of the Ruling. In Category Three, the Court ordered
GE to produce customer service documents within 45 days of the
Ruling. In Category Four, the Court found that the request is
premature as the issue is speculative at the present juncture.

Plaintiffs are represented by Anna C. Haac, Esq. --
ahaac@tzlegal.com -- and Hassan A. Zavareei, Esq. --
hzavareei@tzlegal.com -- TYCKO & ZAVAREEI, LLP, Mark P. Kindall,
Esq. -- mkindall@izardnobel.com -- and Seth R. Klein, Esq. ---
sklein@izardnobel.com -- IZARD NOBEL PC

General Electric Company is represented by Jeffrey J. White, Esq.
-- jwhite@rc.com -- John Higgins Kane, Esq. -- jkane@rc.com --
Sorell E. Negro, Esq. -- snegro@rc.com -- and Wystan M. Ackerman,
Esq. -- wackerman@rc.com -- ROBINSON & COLE, LLP


GENERAL MOTORS: Ally's Bid to Dismiss "Burin" Suit Granted
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned TY BURIN, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC.,
et al., Defendants, Case No. 1:16CV77 (N.D. Ohio), Judge
Christopher A. Boyko granted the motion to dismiss filed by Ally
Financial, Inc.

Ty Burin filed a complaint, containing class action claims against
Ally, in the Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court on December 15,
2015. The matter was removed by Ally on January 13, 2016 on the
basis of original jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act
of 2005 ("CAFA").

Burin purported to represent those Ohio residents who, during the
six-year period prior to the filing of the complaint, leased a
vehicle from an Ally-authorized dealer and were charged an Ally
administrative fee.  Burin asserted claims for injunctive and
declaratory relief and monetary damages against Ally for violation
of the Ohio Retail Installment Sales Act ("RISA") and the Ohio
Consumer Sales Practices Act ("CSPA"); for civil conspiracy; and
for breach of contract.

Ally filed its Motion to Dismiss on January 13, 2016.  Judge Boyko
granted the motion in his April 14, 2016 opinion and order, a
full-text copy of which is available at http://is.gd/NhStClfrom
Leagle.com.

Since the class claims against Ally under CAFA were dismissed, and
the parties acknowledged that Burin's other claims do not
independently trigger federal court jurisdiction, Judge Boyko
declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining
parties and claims.  The case was remanded to Cuyahoga County
Common Pleas Court for further proceedings.

Ty Burin, Plaintiff, represented by John T. Murray, Murray &
Murray,Michael L. Berler, Frederick & Berler, Ronald I. Frederick,
Frederick & Berler & Rosemary Taft Milby, Frederick & Berler.

Ally Financial, Inc., Defendant, represented by Jeffrey A. Lipps -
- lipps@carpenterlipps.com -- Carpenter, Lipps & Leland & Joel E.
Sechler -- sechler@carpenterlipps.com -- Carpenter, Lipps &
Leland.

General Motors, LLC, Buick-GMC of Beachwood, Defendants,
represented by Jennifer B. Orr -- jorr@taftlaw.com -- Taft
Stettinius & Hollister & Timothy C. Sullivan --
sullivan@taftlaw.com -- Taft, Stettinius & Hollister.

Lambert Buick GMC, Inc., Defendant, represented by Brian C. Lee --
blee@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger & Michael J. Pelagalli --
mpelagalli@reminger.com -- Reminger & Reminger.


GLAXOSMITHKLINE LLC: "Freeman" Sues Over Zofran Side-effects
------------------------------------------------------------
Megan Freeman and Jared Freeman, individually and as Parents and
Natural Guardians of J.F., a Minor, Plaintiff, v. Glaxosmithkline
LLC, Defendant, Case 1:16-cv-10772-FDS (D. Mass., April 22, 2016),
seeks compensatory and punitive damages, and equitable relief.

Zofran is a powerful drug developed by GSK to treat only those
patients with severe nausea, usually for cancer patients who
require chemotherapy or radiation therapy.

Plaintiffs' minor child, J.F., was born with numerous congenital
heart defects after his mother, Megan Freeman, was prescribed and
began taking the generic bioequivalent of Zofran beginning in her
first trimester of pregnancy to alleviate and prevent the symptoms
of morning sickness.

GlaxoSmithKline LLC is a pharmaceutical company organized under
the laws of the State of Delaware.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael T. Gallagher, Esq.
      THE GALLAGHER LAW FIRM
      2905 Sackett Street
      Houston, TX 77098
      Tel: (713) 222-8080
      Fax: (713) 222-0066
      Email: donnaf@gld-law.com


GREENCORE USA: Recalls Meat and Poultry Products
------------------------------------------------
Greencore USA, Inc., a North Kingstown, R.I. establishment, is
recalling approximately 1,341 pounds of meat and poultry products
that were produced without the benefit of federal inspection and
outside inspection hours, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The meat and poultry wrap and salad items were produced on April
7, 14, 18, 21 and 25, 2016. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 7.7-oz. packages of "STARBUCKS SOUTHWEST STYLE STEAK WRAP"
      with use-by dates of 4/10/2016 and 4/24/2016.
  --- 8.2-oz. packages of "STARBUCKS THAI-STYLE PEANUT CHICKEN
      WRAP" with use-by dates of 4/10/2016 and 4/17/2016.
  --- 9.5-oz. packages of "STARBUCKS ZESTY CHICKEN & BLACK BEAN
      SALAD BOWL" with a use-by date of 4/28/2016.
  --- 7.8-oz. packages of "HANNAFORD ITALIAN PESTO WRAP" with a
      use-by date of 4/25/2016.
  --- 7-oz. packages of "HANNAFORD ASIAN-STYLE SALAD" with a use-
      by date of 4/30/2016.
  --- 9.9-oz. packages of "TURKEY HILL FRESH TO GO GRILLED
      CHICKEN RANCH WRAP" with a use-by date of 4/23/2016

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-45540"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
distributors for retail sale in Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York and Rhode Island.

The problem was discovered by FSIS inspection program personnel
while reviewing establishment records during verification
activities.

There have been no confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to
consumption of these products. Anyone concerned about a reaction
should contact a healthcare provider.

Consumers who have purchased these products are urged not to
consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned to
the place of purchase.

Consumers and media with questions about the recall should contact
Greencore USA's food recall coordinator at (978) 716 -2530 ext.
2543.

Consumers with food safety questions can "Ask Karen," the FSIS
virtual representative available 24 hours a day at AskKaren.gov or
via smartphone at m.askkaren.gov. The toll-free USDA Meat and
Poultry Hotline 1-888-MPHotline (1-888-674-6854) is available in
English and Spanish and can be reached from l0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
(Eastern Time) Monday through Friday. Recorded food safety
messages are available 24 hours a day. The online Electronic
Consumer Complaint Monitoring System can be accessed 24 hours a
day at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/reportproblem.


GW COMMUNICATIONS: "Epperson" Suit Seeks Unpaid Back Wages
----------------------------------------------------------
Bradley Epperson, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GW Communications LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01109-L (N.D. Tex., April 22, 2016),
seeks unpaid back wages due with liquidated damages, attorneys'
fees, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and such other and
further relief under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

GW Communications is a Texas Corporation involved in installation
of fiber optic cables where Epperson worked as Drafter. He was
paid 0.05 cents per foot of fiber optic cable laid and was not
compensated for overtime.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

           - and -

      Jill J. Weinberg, Esq.
      WEINBERG LAW FIRM PLLC
      6425 Willow Creek Dr.
      Plano, TX 75093
      Tel: (972) 403-3330
      Fax: (972) 398-8846


HAIR CLUB FOR MEN: Wage-Statement Class Certified in "Clemens"
--------------------------------------------------------------
Judge William Alsup granted in part and denied, in part, a motion
to certify a class in the case captioned TERESA CLEMENS, JORDAN
SIMENSEN, and ADRIA DESPRES, individuals, for themselves and all
members of the putative class and on behalf of aggrieved employees
pursuant to the Private Attorneys General Act ("PAGA"),
Plaintiffs, v. HAIR CLUB FOR MEN, LLC, a Delaware corporation, and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendant, No. C 15-01431 WHA (N.D.
Cal.).

Teresa Clemens, Jordan Simensen, and Adria Despres commenced a
wage-and-hour putative class action in March 2015 claiming that
Hair Club for Men, LLC imposed uniform policies and practices that
denied them meal periods and rest breaks as required by California
law, that Hair Club's managing directors improperly edited
timesheets resulting in off-the-clock work for which plaintiffs
seek unpaid wages, and that Hair Club's wage statements did not
contain required information.  The plaintiffs also brought several
additional claims derivative of those already addressed.

In an order dated April 14, 2016, a full-text copy of is available
at http://is.gd/OPk6o0from Leagle.com, Judge Alsup certified a
class defined as: "All current and former hourly-paid or non-
exempt employees employed by Hair Club within the State of
California at any time during the period from March 27, 2014, to
March 27, 2015."  However, the judge specified that the class
shall proceed only on to the plaintiffs' wage-statement claims
under Section 226 of the California Labor Code.

Clemens and Simensen were appointed as class representatives.  R.
Rex Parris Law Firm was appointed as class counsel, with attorney
John M. Bickford to serve as lead counsel.

Teresa Clemens, Adria Despres, Plaintiffs, represented by John
Michael Bickford, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Naomi C Pontious, R. Rex
Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris Law
Firm, Eric Nathan Wilson, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit Yee
Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris, R. Rex Parris Law
Firm.

Jordan Simensen, Plaintiff, represented by John Michael Bickford,
R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Alexander Russell Wheeler, R. Rex Parris
Law Firm, Eric Nathan Wilson, R. Rex Parris Law Firm, Kitty Kit
Yee Szeto, R. Rex Parris Law Firm & R. Rex Parris, R. Rex Parris
Law Firm.

Hair Club for Men, LLC, Defendant, represented by Andrew More
McNaught -- amcnaught@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP & Justin
Taylor Curley -- jcurley@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP.


HANGER INC: Texas Court Dismisses Securities Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas granted Defendants'
Hanger, Inc., Vinit Asar, and George McHenry's Motion to Dismiss
in the case captioned, CITY OF PONTIAC GENERAL EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM, on Behalf of Its Self and All Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiff, v. VINIT K. ASAR, GEORGE McHENRY, and HANGER,
INC., Defendants, Case No. A-14-CA-1026-SS (W.D. Tex.).

The case is a securities fraud class action brought on behalf of
all persons who purchased common stock of Defendant Hanger, Inc.,
an orthotic and prosthetic (O&P) patient care services company,
between July 1, 2013 and November 6, 2014 (the Class Period). Lead
Plaintiff Alaska Electrical Pension Fund, on behalf of the
plaintiff class, alleges that during the Class Period, Hanger, its
CEO, Defendant Vinit Asar, and its former CFO, Defendant George
McHenry, made a variety of misrepresentations to shareholders in
violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5.

Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Plaintiff has failed to
adequately plead scienter, falsity, and loss causation. Defendants
also contend many of the allegedly misleading statements
identified by Plaintiff fall within the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA)'s safe harbor.

In the Order dated March 31, 2016 available at http://is.gd/tzUjbJ
from Leagle.com, Judge Sparks found that Plaintiff failed to plead
facts supporting a strong inference of scienter, the complaint is
subject to dismissal on that basis alone.

The Court directed Lead Plaintiff Alaska Electrical Pension Fund
to file an amended complaint 20 days from the date of entry of the
Order.

City of Pontiac General Employees' Retirement System is
represented by Avi Josefson, Esq. -- avi@blbglaw.com -- Gerald H.
Silk, Esq. -- jerry@blbglaw.com -- BERNSTEIN, LITOWITZ, BERGER &
GROSSMAN & Gerald Thomas Drought, Esq. -- gdrought@mdtlaw.com --
MARTIN & DROUGHT, P.C.

Defendants are represented by James P. Sullivan, Esq. --
jsullivan@kslaw.com -- Michael J. Biles, Esq. -- mbiles@kslaw.com
-- and Paul R. Bessette, Esq. -- pbessette@kslaw.com -- KING &
SPALDING, LLP


HANSEN MEDICAL: "Stevens-Juhl" Seek to Enjoin Merger with Auris
---------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Stevens-Juhl, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Hansen Medical, Inc., Cary Vance,
Michael Eagle, Marjorie L. Bowen, Kevin Hykes, Stephen Newman,
William R. Rohn, Nadim Yared, Christopher P. Lowe, Auris Surgical
Robotics, Inc., And Pineco Acquisition Corp., the Defendants, Case
No. 16CV294354 (Cal. Super. Ct., April 26, 2016), seeks to enjoin
a merger between Hansen Medical Inc., and Auris Surgical Robotics,
Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary, Pineco Acquisition Corp.

On April 20, 2016, the Board caused Hansen Medical to enter into
an agreement and plan of merger. Pursuant to the terms of the
Merger Agreement, stockholders of Hansen Medical will receive only
$4.00 per share in cash.

According to the complaint, the Merger is the product of a flawed
process and deprives Hansen Medical's public stockholders of the
ability to participate in the Company's long-term prospects. In
approving the Merger Agreement, the Individual Defendants breached
their fiduciary duties to Plaintiff and the Class. Moreover,
Hansen Medical and Auris aided and abetted the Individual
Defendants' breaches of fiduciary duties.

Hansen designs and manufactures medical robotics for positioning
and control of catheter-based technologies.

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


HERITAGE OPERATING: Class Action Deal in "Fontes" Gets Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Michael M. Anello granted final approval of a class action
settlement in the case captioned EDWARD FONTES, an individual, on
behalf of himself; WILLIAM BECKMAN, an individual, on behalf of
himself, a class of persons similarly situated, and the general
public, Plaintiffs, v. HERITAGE OPERATING, L.P., a Delaware
Limited partnership; AMERIGAS, a Pennsylvania corporation; and
DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 14cv1413-MMA
(NLS) (S.D. Cal.).  The judge also granted the plaintiff's motion
for attorney's fees, costs, and class representative incentive
award.

The settlement provides for a non-reversionary common fund of
$550,000.  Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the seven
members of the high volume class who purchased more than 35,000
gallons of propane during the class period will receive
approximately 75% of their calculated net overcharges.  The
balance of the settlement fund will then be distributed to the 633
members of the remaining class who purchased fewer than 35,000
gallons of propane during the class period on a pro rata basis.
Based on an average overcharge of 32 cents per gallon, as
determined by the parties in discovery, the remaining class
members will receive approximately 84% of their calculated net
overcharges as a result of this settlement.

Judge Anello also granted the application presented by class
counsel for an award of attorneys' fees in the amount of $165,000
and reimbursement of litigation costs in the amount of $19,295.67.
The application for a class representative incentive award in the
amount of $5,000 to William Beckman was also approved.

A full-text copy of Judge Anello's April 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/Wfmea9from Leagle.com.

The putative class action lawsuit was filed by Edward Fontes
against Heritage Operating, L.P.  and AmeriGas, alleging
violations of California's False Advertising Law and Unfair
Competition Law.  Fontes alleged that the defendants inflated the
true price of their laid-in cost to class members, and that class
members were therefore overcharged for each gallon of propane they
purchased.

Edward Fontes, Plaintiff, represented by James M Treglio, Clark
and Treglio, Robert Craig Clark, Clark Law Firm & Dawn Berry,
Clark and Treglio.

Heritage Operating, L.P., Defendant, represented by John
Mittelbach, Munger Tolles & Olson LLP & Joseph D Lee, Munger
Tolles and Olson.

Amerigas, Defendant, represented by John Mittelbach, Munger Tolles
& Olson LLP & Joseph D Lee -- joseph.lee@mto.com -- Munger Tolles
and Olson.


HERNANDEZ ENTERPRISES: "Lopez" Suit Seeks to Recover OT Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Abelardo Lopez, individually and all other similarly situated
persons, known and unknown, Plaintiff, v. Hernandez Enterprises,
Inc. d/b/a Taqueria Hernandez and Ruben Hernandez, individually,
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-04593 (N.D. Ill., April 22, 2016),
seeks, among other things, statutory damages, reasonable attorney
fees and costs of this action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act and Illinois Minimum Wage Law.

Defendants manage Taqueria Hernandez, a restaurant where Plaintiff
worked as a kitchen aid/cook. He claims to have been denied lunch
breaks and overtime pay.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Susan J. Best, Esq.
      CONSUMER LAW GROUP, LLC
      6232 N. Pulaski, Suite 200
      Chicago, IL 60646
      Tel: 312-445-9662
      Email: sbest@yourclg.com


HILTON GRAND VACATIONS: Court Denies Bid to Substitute Plaintiff
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Frank P. Geraci, Jr. of the United States District
Court for the Western District of New York denied the motion to
substitute filed by Plaintiff's estate in the case captioned, MARK
HANNABURY, Plaintiff, v. HILTON GRAND VACATIONS COMPANY, LLC,
Defendant, Case No. 14-CV-6126-FPG (W.D.N.Y.).

In 2014, Plaintiff Mark Hannabury had instituted the putative
class action against Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC after
Hilton allegedly made two unsolicited phone calls to Plaintiffs
cell phone. Hilton was apparently calling Plaintiff to try to sell
him an interest in its timeshare properties. By making these two
phone calls, Hilton allegedly violated the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA).

Plaintiff brings four TCPA claims against Hilton. The first claim,
brought under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b), seeks $500 in damages per
call due to Hilton's use of an autodialer in making the calls. The
second claim, also brought under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(b), seeks
treble damages of up to $1,500 per call because Hilton willfully
or knowingly violated the TCPA in using an autodialer to make the
calls. The third claim, brought under 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227(c), seeks
$500 in damages per call due to Hilton calling Plaintiff more than
once while his number was listed on the national do-not-call
registry. The fourth claim, also brought under 47 U.S.C. Sec.
227(c), seeks treble damages of up to $1,500 per call because
Hilton willfully or knowingly violated the TCPA in calling
Plaintiff more than once while his number was listed on the do-
not-call registry.  Plaintiff also seeks injunctions prohibiting
Hilton from making these types of calls in the future.

Plaintiff passed away on December 19, 2015. His estate moved to
substitute in the action. Plaintiff had not yet moved to certify a
class at the time of his death, he sought to bring the action on
behalf of two proposed subclasses.

In his Decision and Order dated March 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/rizxTVfrom Leagle.com, Judge Geraci, Jr. concluded
that Plaintiff's death makes it impossible for the Court to grant
effectual relief in terms of the sought-after injunction and that
Plaintiff's claims for money damages abated upon his death, the
remaining part of the action is moot. There is no longer a
plaintiff in the case nor anyone who could substitute as the
Plaintiff.

Mark Hannabury is represented by:

     Charles W. Rogers, Esq.
     David Rothenberg, Esq.
     GEIGER AND ROTHENBERG, LLP
     45 Exchange Blvd #800,
     Rochester, Ny 14614
     Tel: (585)232-1946

Hilton Grand Vacations Company, LLC is represented by Angela C.
Agrusa, Esq. -- aagrusa@linerlaw.com -- David B. Farkas, Esq. --
dfarkas@linerlaw.com -- LINER LLP, Michael Davis Hoenig, Esq. --
mhoenig@woodsoviatt.com -- and Warren B. Rosenbaum, Esq. --
wrosenbaum@woodsoviatt.com -- WOODS OVIATT GILMAN LLP


HONEYWELL INT'L: Court Trims Suit Over Defective Humidifiers
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned, SCOTT JOHNSEN, individually and on behalf
of others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. HONEYWELL
INTERNATIONAL INC., a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Case No.
4:14CV594 RLW (E.D. Mo.), District Judge Ronnie L. White of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Count 7 of the Second Amended
Complaint as to Plaintiffs' misrepresentation claim under the
Missouri Merchandising Practices Act and granted with regard to
Plaintiffs' omission claim under the MMPA.

In Count 7 of the Second Amended Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff
alleges a violation of the MMPA, Mo. Rev. Stat. Sections 407.020,
et seq., on behalf of himself and the Missouri class. Plaintiff
claims that he purchased two Honeywell Humidifiers which had a
defect in workmanship and material necessitating repeated repair
and replacement. Plaintiff contends that Defendant made false
promises, misrepresentations, and omissions of material facts
regarding the advertisement and sale of the Honeywell Humidifiers,
causing Plaintiff and members of the Missouri Class to suffer
damages and losses.

Plaintiff alleges that he chose the Honeywell TrueSTEAM
Humidifiers, Model number HM506, based on Defendant's
representations as to the quality and the warranty, which created
the expectation that the humidifiers would last for at least 5
years. Plaintiff alleges that Defendant affirmatively made a false
warranty representation that its humidifiers were free from
defects in workmanship or materials for 5 years from the date of
purchase in violation of MMPA.

In the motion, Defendant argued that Plaintiff has failed to
sufficiently plead a consumer fraud claim under the MMPA.
Specifically, Defendant contends that the mere allegation of a
breach of warranty is insufficient as a matter of law to state a
claim of consumer fraud under the MMPA. In response, Plaintiff
asserts that he has sufficiently alleged an MMPA claim based on
Defendant's misrepresentations and omissions.

In his Memorandum and Order dated March 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/V4oJwqfrom Leagle.com, Judge White found that
Plaintiff has stated a plausible claim under the MMPA based upon
the alleged false claims and misrepresentations made by Defendant
regarding the humidifiers and that Plaintiff has presented
sufficient facts to allow the Defendant to prepare a defense to
the misrepresentation claim under the MMPA set forth in Count 7 of
the Second Amended Complaint. However, the Court found that
Plaintiff has failed to state a plausible claim for omission under
the MMPA because he has not alleged that Defendant possessed the
requisite state of mind and that in the instant case, Plaintiff
has failed to demonstrate when Defendant became aware of the
alleged defect and purposeful omission of the allege defect in its
representations to the putative class.

Scott Johnsen is represented by Bonnie Joy Prober, Esq. --
bprober@cuneolaw.com -- and Michael J. Flannery, Esq. --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- CUNEO AND GILBERT, LLP & Robert K.
Shelquist, Esq. -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- and Eric N. Linsk,
Esq. -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- LOCKRIDGE AND GRINDAL, Melissa W.
Wolchansky, Esq. -- wolchansky@halunenlaw.com -- HALUNEN LAW

Honeywell International Inc. is represented by Andrew J. Scavotto,
Esq. -- andrew.scavotto@stinson.com -- Jeannine Louise Lee, Esq.
-- jeannine.lee@stinson.com -- and Todd Anders Noteboom, Esq. --
todd.noteboom@stinson.com -- STINSON AND LEONARD LLP


IDS PROPERTY: "Achziger" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington denied Plaintiff Gene
Achziger's motion for class certification in the case captioned,
GENE ACHZIGER, Plaintiff, v. IDS PROPERTY CASUALTY INSURANCE
COMPANY, Defendant, Case No. C14-5445 BHS (W.D. Wash.).

On October 4, 2013, Achziger was involved in a car accident while
driving his pickup truck. Achziger's truck was damaged, and the
repairs cost $6,325.87.  As a result of the damage, Achziger
claims his truck was worth less after it was repaired than before
the accident. Achziger had a car insurance policy with Defendant
IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company (IDS). Achziger sought
coverage for his damaged truck under his IDS policy. Achziger
claims IDS neither informed him about the availability of coverage
for diminished value nor adjusted his loss to include diminished
value.

On April 4, 2014, Achziger filed a class action complaint against
IDS in Pierce County Superior Court.  Achziger claims IDS (1)
breached the insurance policy, and (2) violated the Washington
Consumer Protection Act (CPA). On June 3, 2015, IDS removed the
suit to the Court under the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C.
Sec. 1332(d).

On March 18, 2015, Achziger moved for class certification of a
class of IDS insureds with Washington policies under Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 23.

In his Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ejDHTd
from Leagle.com, Judge Settle concluded that Achziger has failed
show his proposed class satisfies all of the Rule 23 requirements
at the present stage of litigation.

Gene Achziger is represented by:

     Debra Brewer Hayes, Esq.
     THE HAYES LAW FIRM
     4265 San Felipe St,
     Houston, TX 77027
     Tel: (713)862-2152

          - and -

     Scott P Nealey, Esq.
     NEALEY LAW
     71 Stevenson St #400,
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Tel: (415)231-5311

          - and -

     Stephen M. Hansen, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF STEPHEN M. HANSEN
     1703A Dock St,
     Tacoma, WA 98402
     Tel: (253)302-5955

          - and -

     Van Bunch, Esq.
     BONNETT FAIRBOURN FRIEDMAN & BALINT PC
     2325 E Camelback Rd #300,
     Phoenix, AZ 85016
     Tel: (602)274-1100

IDS Property Casualty Insurance Company is represented by Donald
J. Verfurth, Esq. -- dverfurth@gordonrees.com -- Sally Kim, Esq.
-- skim@gordonrees.com -- Shannon Wodnik, Esq. --
swodnik@gordonrees.com -- Fletcher C. Alford, Esq. --
falford@gordonres.com -- and Jordan S. Altura, Esq. --
jaltura@gordonrees.com -- GORDON & REES


INDIANA: Settlement Okayed in Suit Over Mentally Ill Prisoners
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Tanya Walton Pratt of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana granted final judgment
to the private settlement agreement reached in the case captioned,
INDIANA PROTECTION AND ADVOCACY SERVICES COMMISSION, JOSHUA
HARRISON, GREGGORY SIMS, and JAMES PANOZZO, Plaintiffs, v.
COMMISSIONER, INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION, Defendant, Case
No. 1:08-cv-01317 TWP-MJD (S.D. Ind.).

The action was filed on October 1, 2008, and alleged that the
confinement of seriously mentally ill prisoners in segregation or
segregation-like conditions violated, among other things, the
Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

On April 7, 2010, the Court certified the case as a class action
with the class represented by the three prisoner named plaintiffs
and defined as "all current and future mentally ill prisoners who
are committed to the Indiana Department of Correction and who are
housed in settings in Department of Correction institutions or in
the New Castle Correctional Facility that feature extended periods
of time in cells, including, but not limited to, prisoners in
disciplinary segregation, administrative segregation, or in the
New Castle Psychiatric Unit."

The class has been given proper and adequate notice of the
proposed resolution of this case through the Private Settlement
Agreement. The notice to the class fully satisfied the
requirements of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the requirements of due process.

On March 18, 2016, the Court held a fairness hearing pursuant to
Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to determine
whether the proposed settlement is a fair, reasonable, and
adequate resolution of the matter.

In her Order dated March 24, 2016 available at http://is.gd/0wbmxp
from Leagle.com, Judge Pratt found that the Private Settlement
Agreement is a fair, reasonable, and adequate resolution of this
matter. The Court has also found that it is appropriate that the
approval of the Private Settlement Agreement be issued in the form
of Final Judgment.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Gavin Minor Rose, Esq.
     Jan P. Mensz, Esq.
     Kenneth J. Falk, Esq.
     ACLU OF INDIANA
     1031 E Washington St
     Indianapolis, IN 46202
     Tel: (317)635-4059

          - and -

     Melissa Keyes, Esq.
     Thomas E. Crishon, Esq.
     INDIANA PROTECTION & ADVOCACY SERVICES
     4701 N Keystone Ave # 222,
     Indianapolis, IN 46205
     Tel: (317)722-5555

Commissioner, Indiana Department of Correction is represented by:

     David A. Arthur, Esq.
     Thomas D. Quigley, Esq.
     OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel:  (202)353-1555


INSIGHT HEALTH: Court Denies Bid to Stay Spine and Sports Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio denied Defendants' motion
to stay proceedings in the case captioned, SPINE AND SPORTS
CHIROPRACTIC, INC., Plaintiff, v. INSIGHT HEALTH CORP., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-3041 (S.D. Ohio).

Plaintiff filed the class action lawsuit alleging that Defendants
violated the Junk Fax Prevention Act (JFPA), 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227,
by sending unsolicited advertisements that did not include the
required opt-out notice concerning unwanted faxes to its fax
machine and the fax machines of those similarly situated.

On March 2, 2016, Defendants moved to stay the case claiming that
Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Federal Communications Commission,
a case pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the
D.C. Circuit, will have a profound effect on the case, and
therefore the Court should wait for the resolution of that appeal
before allowing this matter to proceed.

In her Opinion and Order dated March 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/DNjvMKfrom Leagle.com, Judge Jolson concluded that
stay is not warranted because Plaintiff's Complaint concerns only
unsolicited faxes and the matter under consideration by the D.C.
Circuit is inapplicable.

Spine And Sports Chiropractic, Inc. is represented by Matthew E.
Stubbs, Esq. -- mstubbs@mrjlaw.com -- and George Demetrios Jonson,
Esq. -- gjonson@mrjlaw.com -- MONTGOMERY, RENNIE & JONSON

Insight Health Corp. is represented by Vladimir P. Belo, Esq. --
vladimir.belo@dinsmore.com -- DINSMORE AND SHOHL LLP, Arthur G.
Boylan, Esq. -- aboylan@anthonyostlund.com -- and Steven C.
Kerbaugh, Esq. -- skerbaugh@anthonyostlund.com -- ANTHONY OSTLUND
BAER & LOUWAGIE P.A.


INTERMODAL BRIDGE: Faces Driver Misclassification Suit
------------------------------------------------------
Rip Watson, writing for Transport Topics, reports that Intermodal
Bridge Transport, a nationwide port trucking company, is facing a
formal National Labor Relations Board action that could become a
precedent-setting case involving claims the company misclassified
its Southern California drivers as independent contractors.

The case, which arose from incidents last year, is an escalation
of a union complaint about misclassification and represents the
"first test of whether misclassification in and of itself violates
the National Labor Relations Act," Julie Dickinson Gutman --
jgutmandickinson@bushgottlieb.com -- an attorney at union law firm
Bush Gottlieb in Los Angeles, told TT.

The NLRB action coincided with a one-day strike by drivers on
April 20 against the trucking company, an affiliate of COSCO
Logistics (Americas).  The NLRB case is the latest in a series of
labor actions by port drivers in the region, who with Teamsters
backing also have fought driver classification battles in
state-level actions before labor regulators, and in class-action
suits.

Gary Schubert, executive vice president of the drayage company
that has six other operating locations, including some in the
New York and Chicago areas, declined to comment when reached by
TT. COSCO (China Ocean Shipping Co.), is a government-owned ocean
carrier that is combining with another ocean shipping carrier,
China Shipping Container Line, to become the fourth-largest ocean
carrier in the world.

Intermodal Bridge's actions have been "interfering with,
restraining and coercing employees in the exercise of the rights
guaranteed" to form a union, states the complaint signed by NLRB
Regional Director Olivia Garcia, which sets a June 13 hearing for
the case.

"The case is significant for a number of reasons," said
Steve Swirsky -- sswirsky@ebglaw.com -- an attorney at Epstein
Becker Green, a New York law firm that represents companies in
employment cases.

"While it is quite unusual, it is likely to be a harbinger of the
NLRB taking similar action in other cases," such as those
involving Uber drivers, he told TT.  "What the board is saying
here is that it agrees with the Teamsters. By arguing that it is
an unfair labor practice to misclassify a driver in these
circumstances, the board is forcing the terminal operators and
other logistics firms to act at their peril."


ITC HOLDINGS: "Mehrotra" Sues Over Shady Merger Deal
-----------------------------------------------------
Sanjiv Mehrotra, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff,, v. Joseph L. Welch, Albert Ernst,
Christopher H. Franklin, Edward G. Jepsen, David R. Lopez, Hazel
R. O'Leary, Thomas G. Stephens, G. Bennett Stewart III, Lee C.
Stewart, ITC Holdings Corp., Fortisus Inc. and Element Acquisition
Sub Inc., Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-11449-AC-APP (E.D. Mich.,
April 8, 2016) asks the Court to enjoin the consummation of the
acquisition of ITC Holdings Corp. by Fortis, Inc.; rescind any
resulting merger; for compensatory and rescissory damages,
reasonable attorneys' fees, expenses and experts' fees and such
other and further relief pursuant to Sec. 14(a) and 20(a) of the
U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934.

Fortis was to acquire all outstanding shares of ITC for the
equivalent of $11.3 billion in stock and cash. ITC shareholders
will receive 0.7520 shares of Fortis stock and $22.57 per share in
cash for each ITC share they own valued at $44.90 per share.
Plaintiffs claim to be shortchanged by this deal.

ITC is the largest independent electricity transmission company in
the United States. It is a Michigan corporation with its principal
executive offices located at 27175 Energy Way, Novi, Michigan
48377. Joseph L. Welch, Albert Ernst, Christopher H. Franklin,
Edward G. Jepsen, David R. Lopez, Hazel R. O'Leary, Thomas G.
Stephens, G. Bennett Stewart III and Lee C. Stewart are members of
the board of directors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Donald J. Enright, Esq.
      LEVI & KORSINSKY LLP
      1101 30th Street, N.W., Suite 115
      Washington, DC 20007
      Tel: (202) 524-4290

           - and -

      Lance C. Young, Esq.
      SOMMERS SCHWARTZ, P.C.
      One Towne Square, 17th Floor
      Southfield, MI 48076
      Tel: (248) 355-0300
      Email: lyoung@sommerspc.com


JAPAN: Faces Class Action Over New Defense Law
----------------------------------------------
Sputnik reports that two contentious security laws allowing
Japan's Self-Defense Forces to be deployed overseas, interpreting
but not amending the country's post-World War II pacifist
constitution, took effect on March 29.

Some 500 people in Tokyo and 200 in Fukushima filed the suit in
the Tokyo District Court alleging that the new laws violate
article 9 of the Japanese constitution, according to the NHK
broadcaster.

Another 1,500 people across the country were planning to file
similar suits with local courts, including in Osaka, Hiroshima and
Nagasaki, the outlet added.

The plaintiffs demand the new laws to be scrapped, and seek up to
100,000 yen ($900) in compensation for moral damages.

Japan's National Security Secretariat issued a statement on
April 26 contending that the new laws comply with the constitution
and are vital in the protection of lives.


JAZZI'S MULTI-SERVICES: "Pina" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Janett Pina, 6000 S. Buckhorn Ave, Apt. 107 Cudahy, WI 53110,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Jazzi's Multi-Services, 17592 Parkside Dr. S.
Commerce City, CO 80022; Toro Tax Services LLC d/b/a Toro Taxes
4701 Peoria St. Unit 102 Denver, CO 80239; Jazmin A. Porras, 17592
Parkside Dr. S. Commerce City, CO 80022, the Defendants, Case No.
2:16-cv-00504-RTR (E.D. Wisc., April 26, 2016), seeks to recover
damages against Defendants for violations of the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

The Plaintiffs allege that Defendants unlawfully classified their
tax preparers and office managers as exempt from the FLSA, and
thereby failed to pay them both minimum wage and overtime at time
and one-half for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek.

Jazzi's Multi-Services and Toro Tax Services LLC operate tax
preparation franchises under the name Toro Tax in several states
including Colorado, Wisconsin, and Washington.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Ave. Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53202
          Telephone: (414) 271 4500
          Facsimile: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: nde@previant.com
                  efm@previant.com


JOHNSON & JOHNSON: Jury Awards $55MM in Talcum Power Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
Jim Salter, writing for The Associated Press, reports that for the
second time in three months, a St. Louis jury has ordered Johnson
& Johnson to pay a huge award over claims that its talcum powder
causes cancer.

The jury deliberated eight hours on May 2 before ordering the
company to pay $55 million to a South Dakota woman who blamed her
ovarian cancer on years of talcum powder use.

In February, another St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the
family of an Alabama woman who died from ovarian cancer, which she
said was caused by using Johnson & Johnson's baby powder and other
talcum products.

New Jersey-based Johnson & Johnson will appeal the latest ruling.

"Unfortunately, the jury's decision goes against 30 years of
studies by medical experts around the world that continue to
support the safety of cosmetic talc," Johnson & Johnson
spokeswoman Carol Goodrich said in a statement.

"For over 100 years, Johnson & Johnson has provided consumers with
a safe choice for cosmetic powder products and we will continue to
work hard to exceed consumer expectations and evolving product
preferences."

But Jim Onder, attorney for the plaintiff, Gloria Ristesund, said
researchers began linking talcum powder to ovarian cancer in the
1970s, and he said internal Johnson & Johnson documents showed
that the company was aware of those studies.

"The evidence is real clear that Johnson & Johnson has known about
the dangers associated with talcum powder for over 30 years,"
Mr. Onder said.  "Instead of giving a warning, what they did was
targeted the groups most at risk for developing ovarian cancer,"
specifically marketing to overweight women, he said.

Talc is naturally occurring, mined from the soil and composed of
magnesium, silicon, oxygen, and hydrogen.  It's widely used in
cosmetics and personal care products, such as talcum powder, to
absorb moisture, prevent caking and improve the product's feel.

In February, a St. Louis jury awarded $72 million to the family of
Jackie Fox of Birmingham, Alabama.  Her son took over as plaintiff
after his mother death in October at age 62.  She had used the
talcum powder for decades.

Johnson & Johnson faces at least 1,200 still-pending talcum powder
lawsuits, including about 1,000 in St. Louis and 200 in New
Jersey, Onder said.

Johnson & Johnson previously has been targeted by health and
consumer groups over possibly harmful ingredients in items
including its iconic Johnson's No More Tears baby shampoo.

In May 2009, a coalition of groups called the Campaign for Safe
Cosmetics began pushing Johnson & Johnson to eliminate
questionable ingredients from its baby and adult personal care
products.  After three years of petitions, negative publicity and
a boycott threat, the company agreed in 2012 to eliminate the
ingredients 1,4-dioxane and formaldehyde, both considered probable
human carcinogens, from all products by 2015.


K&M DELI: "Hernandez" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
--------------------------------------------------------
Eleodoro Hernandez, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. K&M Deli of Savannah, Inc., Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01328-AT (N.D. Ga., April 22, 2016), seeks
declaratory relief, along with liquidated and actual damages for
Defendant's failure to pay federally mandated overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.

K&M Deli of Savannah is a Georgia corporation involved in the
restaurant business where Plaintiff worked as a cook and kitchen
aid. He claims not to have received overtime premium for hours
rendered above 40.

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: severin@justiceatwork.com


KEY ENERGY: Court Dismisses Amended Securities Complaint
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Melinda Harmon of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas granted Defendants' two motions
to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Complaint in the case
captioned, IN RE KEY ENERGY SERVICES, INC. SECURITIES LITIGATION,
Case No. 4:14-CV-2368 (S.D. Tex.).

The action is brought on behalf of a putative class composed of
all persons and entities, excluding Defendants and their
affiliates, who or which purchased or acquired Key Energy
Services, Inc. common stock from September 4, 2012 to July 17,
2014.  The case stemmed from alleged material misrepresentations
and omissions by Defendants regarding Key's financial condition
and the future of its business, leading to inflated stock prices
in violation of Sections 10(b), control person liability under
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the Exchange Act),
15 U.S.C. Sections 78j(b) and 78t(a), as amended by the Private
Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the PSLRA), 15 U.S.C.
Sec. 78u-4(b)(2), et seq., Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5, and by the Foreign
Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the FCPA), 15 U.S.C. Sec. 78dd-1,
et al., by overstatement of lucrative business opportunities in
foreign countries despite significant, highly publicized risks,
particularly in Mexico and Russia, and by failure to disclose
serious deficiencies in Key's internal control systems to protect
Key from the threat of FCPA violations and to attract and maintain
investor interest in Key's business operations in areas known for
corruption.

Plaintiff filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint which alleges
that six, unidentified confidential witnesses (CWs) have come
forward to testify against Key with regard to its illusory
compliance program and its actual FCPA violations. It charges that
although Key had compliance programs that looked strong on paper,
in actuality Key did not have an effective compliance or training
program in effect and therefore created an atmosphere in which
violations of laws and regulations and the Company's own internal
policies were ignored and there were rampant FCPA violations.

Pending before the Court are two motions to dismiss the
Consolidated Amended Complaint of Lead Plaintiff Inter-Local
Pension Fund of the Graphic Communications of the International
Brotherhood of Teamsters, pursuant to the PSLRA and Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure 9(b) and 12(b)(6), filed by (1) Defendants Key
Energy Services, Inc. (Key), Richard J. Alario, J. Marshall Dodson
and Newton W. Trey Wilson III; and (2) Defendant Taylor M.
Whichard, III who also joins in.

In her Opinion and Order dated April 1, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/xKgUiwfrom Leagle.com, Judge Harmon concluded that
Lead Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts that give rise to a
strong inference of scienter and has erroneously relied too
heavily on short, generalized statements of unnamed CWs without
discounting them and providing corroborating documentary evidence
and/or a sufficient general description of the personal sources of
the plaintiffs' beliefs.

The Court also granted leave to Lead Plaintiff to file within 20
days a Second Consolidated Amended Complaint that satisfies the
heightened pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) and the PSLRA.

Sean Cady is represented by Joe Kendall, Esq. --
jkendall@kendalllawgroup.com -- KENDALL LAW GROUP, LLP, Laurence
M. Rosen, Esq. -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- and Phillip Kim, Esq.
-- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.

He is also represented by:

     R. Dean Gresham, Esq.
     GRESHAM, PC
     2911 Turtle Creek Blvd Suite 1400,
     Dallas, TX 75219
     Tel: (469)916-0524

Key Energy Services, Inc. is represented by David D Sterling, Esq.
-- david.sterling@bakerbotts.com -- BAKER BOTTS LLP


LIBERTY MUTUAL: "Dicara" Class Action Bid Denied
------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALAN DICARA, Plaintiff, v. LIBERTY MUTUAL
INSURANCE, Defendant, No. 3:16-cv-165 (SRU)(WIG) (D. Conn.), Judge
William I. Garfinkel ruled on various motions filed by the
plaintiff as follows:

         1) denying the plaintiff's Motion to Appoint Counsel;

         2) denying the plaintiff's Motion to File
            Electronically, without prejudice to renewal; and

         3) denying the plaintiff's Motion to Designate a Class
            Action

The plaintiff, Alan Dicara, is proceeding pro se in this diversity
action.

A full-text copy of Judge Garfinkel's April 14, 2016 ruling is
available at http://is.gd/k5E9hZfrom Leagle.com.

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

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


LPL FINANCIAL: Howard Smith Files Securities Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------
Law Offices of Howard G. Smith on April 26 disclosed that a class
action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of investors who purchased
LPL Financial Holdings Inc. ("LPL" or the "Company") (NASDAQ:
LPLA) securities between December 8, 2015 and February 11, 2016,
inclusive (the "Class Period").  LPL investors have until May 23,
2016 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

Investors who suffered losses on their LPL investments are
encouraged to contact the Law Offices of Howard G. Smith to
discuss their legal rights in this class action at 888-638-4847 or
by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com

The complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, LPL
issued false and misleading statements and/or failed to disclose
adverse information regarding the Company's business and prospects
to investors.  Specifically, the complaint alleges that: (1) LPL's
earnings and revenue were not steady, but were substantially
declining; (2) LPL's client assets were not in the midst of a
recovery, but were actually deteriorating and would decline by
billions of dollars; (3) LPL's gross profits would not decline
"slightly", as indicated, but significantly, (4) LPL would in fact
experience its worst sequential gross profit decline in four
years; and (5) as a result of the aforementioned, LPL common stock
would trade at artificially inflated prices during the Class
Period.

If you purchased shares of LPL during the Class Period you may
move the Court no later than May 23, 2016 to ask the Court to
appoint you as lead plaintiff if you meet certain legal
requirements.  To be a member of the Class you need not take any
action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take
no action and remain an absent member of the Class. If you wish to
learn more about this action, or if you have any questions
concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with
respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire,
of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112,
Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-
free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to
howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com or visit our website at
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com


LVNV FUNDING: Court Narrows Claims in "Moukengeschaie" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Margo K. Brodie of the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of New York granted in part Defendants'
motion to dismiss and denied Defendants' motion to strike the sub-
class allegations in the case captioned, JOVANA N. MOUKENGESCHAIE,
on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff,
v. ELTMAN, ELTMAN & COOPER, P.C., LVNV FUNDING LLC and RESURGENT
CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P., Defendants, Case No. 14-CV-7539 (MKB)
(E.D.N.Y.).

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiff Jovana Moukengeschaie filed an Amended
Complaint against Defendants Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C.
(Eltman), LVNV Funding LLC (LVNV) and Resurgent Capital Services
(Resurgent), alleging violations of the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1692 et seq. (FDCPA), and seeking
statutory damages.

Plaintiff alleges that Eltman sent a debt collection letter to her
and hundreds of other consumers containing language that
constitutes false, deceptive, misleading and unfair collection
practices under the FDCPA.  Plaintiff alleges that the Collection
Letter makes three threats in violation of the FDCPA: (1) to
investigate and seize consumers assets, without the intent to do
so; (2) to seize assets that are precluded from attachment by
creditors under to state law; and (3) to seize assets to enforce
judgments without legal authority, due to failure to comply with
state law procedural requirements for the filing of assignments of
judgment.

Defendants move to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to
state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure. Defendants further move to strike allegations on
behalf of a putative sub-class.

In her Memorandum and Order dated March 31, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/HJvMobfrom Leagle.com, Judge Brodie concluded that
Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiff's claims pursuant to
section 1692e(4), e(5) and f(6) is:

     -- denied as to the allegations that the Collection Letter
threatens to seize assets because Plaintiff has stated a claim
that the Collection Letter violates section 1692e(4), e(5) and
f(6) by making false threats about the seizure of assets; and

     -- granted as to the allegations that the Collection Letter
threatens to seize exempt assets because Plaintiff's allegation
that the Collection Letter threatens to seize assets that are
exempt from attachment by state law is not based on a reasonable
interpretation of the language in the Collection Letter, even by
the least sophisticated consumer.

The Court also denies Defendants' motion to strike the subclass
allegations because it still premature to undertake a complete
analysis of Plaintiff's typicality as a member of the sub-class
before class certification is properly before the Court.

Javana N. Moukengeschaie is represented by:

     Jonathan Robert Miller, Esq.
     Brian L. Bromberg, Esq.
     BROMBERG LAW OFFICE, P.C.
     26 Broadway
     New York, NY 10004
     Tel: (212)248-7906

Eltman, Eltman & Cooper, P.C. is represented by Concepcion A.
Montoya, Esq. -- cmontoya@hinshawlaw.com -- and Matthew E. Lewitz,
Esq. -- mlewitz@hinshawlaw.com -- HINSHAW & CULBERTSON LLP


MAJOR ENERGY: Court Denies Motion to Dismiss "Carrera" TCPA Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Michael A. Shipp of the United States District
Court for the District of New Jersey denied Defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case captioned, RODRIGO CARRERA, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. MAJOR
ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-3208 (MAS)
(LHG) (D.N.J.).

This is a putative class action brought by Plaintiff against
Defendants for violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227 et seq. (TCPA). Plaintiff alleges that
Defendants "make telemarketing calls to cellular telephones
advertising their energy and power services without the prior
express written consent of the called party." Specifically,
Plaintiff alleges that on April 7, 2015, and April 9, 2015, he
received telephone calls from a person claiming to represent
Respond Power.

Plaintiffs four-count Amended Complaint asserts claims for
negligent and knowing or willful violation of the TCPA for
telephone calls made by an automatic telephone dialing system, and
negligent and knowing or willful violation of the TCPA for calls
made to those on the national Do Not Call Registry.

In the motion, Defendants rely on documents outside the Amended
Complaint, including: (1) a Lexis Nexis search showing Plaintiffs
alleged former address; (2) a log of Defendants' telephone calls
to Plaintiff; (3) transcripts and a CD of the conversations
between Plaintiff and Defendants; (4) a screenshot of the online
order summary showing Plaintiffs enrollment with Defendants; (5)
data from an electronic data interchange; and (6) an e-mail
message from PSE&G. Defendants argued that Plaintiff failed to
plead any factual content to allow the Court to draw a reasonable
inference that Defendants used an automatic telephone dialing
system.

In his Memorandum Order dated March 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/hYUY6efrom Leagle.com, Judge Shipp found that none
of the documents Defendants attach to their motion to dismiss were
attached to, integral to, or explicitly relied on in the Amended
Complaint, nor are they matters of public record.

Rodrigo Carrera is represented by Ari Hillel Marcus, Esq. --
Ari@MarcusZelman.com -- MARCUS ZELMAN LLC & Jeremy M. Glapion,
Esq. -- jmg@glapionlaw.com -- THE GLAPION LAW FIRM

Major Energy Services, LLC is represented by Samuel Judah Bazian,
Esq. -- sbazian@herrick.com -- and David R. King, Esq. --
dking@herrick.com -- HERRICK, FEINSTEIN LLP


MARC COBEN: "Walker" Suit Seeks Minimum Wage & OT Pay Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
William Walker, 27216 Cook Rd. No. 64, Olmsted Township Ohio,
44138 and David Chovanek, 12611 Walnut Hill Dr. Apt 312 North
Royalton, Ohio 44133, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Marc Coben, 3839 New Hudson
Road Orwell, Ohio 44076, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-00999
(N.D. Ohio, April 26, 2016), seeks to recover minimum wage and
overtime compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), and the Ohio Fair Minimum Wage Amendment (OMFWA).

According to the complaint, the Defendants unlawfully
misclassified the Plaintiffs as independent contractors, and
failed to pay the Plaintiffs minimum wages and overtime
compensation.

Marc Coben is the owner, operator, and principal manager of
Reliable Runners Courier Service, Inc.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joseph F. Scott, Esq.
          Ryan A. Winters, Esq.
          SCOTT & WINTERS LAW FIRM, LLC
          The Superior Building
          815 Superior Avenue E., Suite 1325
          Cleveland, OH 44114
          Telephone: (440) 498 9100
          E-mail: jscott@ohiowagewlawyers.com
                  rwinters@ohiowagelawyers.com

               - and -

          Thomas A. Downie, Esq.
          46 Chagrin Falls Plaza No. 104
          Chagrin Falls, Ohio 44022
          Telephone: (440) 973 9000
          E-mail: tom@chagrinlaw.com


MARJIM ENTERPRISES: Faces "Barillas" Suit Over FLSA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ERICK ARTURO RAMIREZ BARILLAS and all others similarly situated
under 29 U.S.C. 216(b), Plaintiff, vs. MARJIM ENTERPRISES, CORP.
d/b/a CHALAN ON THE BEACH, JIMMY C ABANTO, MARIO E ABANTO,
Defendants, Case 1:16-cv-21505-JLK (S.D. Fla., April 28, 2016),
was filed under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

MARJIM ENTERPRISES CORP. is classified under the Hotels and
Restaurants business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2143: Deals in ODD Antitrust Suits Have Final Okay
------------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard Seeborg issued an order granting final approval of
the class action settlements in the case captioned IN RE OPTICAL
DISK DRIVE ANTITRUST LITIGATION. This Document Relates to: DIRECT
PURCHASER CLASS ACTIONS, Case No. 3:10-md-02143 RS (N.D. Cal.).

The direct purchaser plaintiffs' class action settlements are with
the following defendants:

          (1) BenQ Corp. and BenQ America Corp.;

          (2) Pioneer Corp.; Pioneer North America, Inc; Pioneer
              Electronics (USA) Inc.; and Pioneer High Fidelity
              Taiwan Co., Ltd.;

          (3) Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V.; Lite-On It
              Corp.; Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corp.;
              and Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc.;

          (4) Quanta Storage Inc. and Quanta Storage America,
              Inc.;

          (5) Sony Corp.; Sony Optiarc, Inc.; Sony Optiarc
              America, Inc.; Sony NEC Optiarc Inc.; and Sony
              Electronics, Inc.;

          (6) TEAC Corp. and TEAC America, Inc.; and

          (7) Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.; Samsung Electronics
              America, Inc.; Toshiba Corp.; Toshiba America
              Information Systems, Inc.; Toshiba Samsung Storage
              Technology Corp.; and Toshiba Samsung Storage
              Technology Korea Corp.

Saveri & Saveri, Inc. was appointed as counsel for the Class.

A full-text copy of Judge Seeborg's April 14, 2016 order is
available at http://is.gd/oq0LCrfrom Leagle.com.

CMP Consulting Services, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M.
Nast -- dnast@nastlaw.com -- NastLaw LLC, Christopher T.
Heffelfinger -- cheffelfinger@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman
DeValerio, Joseph R. Saveri -- jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com --
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Kevin Bruce Love, Hanzman Criden &
Love, P.A., Laurence D. King -- lking@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan Fox
& Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong -- lfong@kaplanfox.com -- Kaplan
Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Michael E. Criden, Criden & Love P.A. &
Steven Noel Williams -- swilliams@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett Pitre &
McCarthy LLP.

KI, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC,
Jonathan Whitcomb -- jwhitcomb@dmoc.com -- Siserio Martin O'Connor
& Castiglioni LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
Laurence D. King, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Linda M. Fong,
Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP & Robert N. Kaplan, Kaplan Fox &
Kilsheimer LLP.

Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, Plaintiff, represented
by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC & Sarah Robin London --
slondon@lchb.com -- Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP.

Rokas Beresniovas, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC & Rosemary M. Rivas -- rrivas@finkelsteinthompson.com
-- Finkelstein Thompson LLP.

Patrick Keyes, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio & Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, /Inc..

Prisco Electronic Company, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne
M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Adam John Zapala, Davis Cowell & Bowe LLP,
Aron K. Liang, Minami Tamaki LLP, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Gene Woo Kim, Cotchett, Pitre and McCarthy, LLP,
Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Joseph M. Alioto, Sr., Alioto
Law Firm, Joseph W. Cotchett -- jcotchett@cpmlegal.com -- Cotchett
Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., Niki B. Okcu, AT&T Services, Inc. Legal Dept., Richard
Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP &Theresa Driscoll Moore, Alioto Law
Firm.

Heather Tremblay, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC,Lee Albert, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Susan Gilah
Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP & Sylvia M. Sokol,
Scott+Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP.

Technology Depot of La Mesa, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M.
Nast, NastLaw LLC & Sylvia M. Sokol, Scott+Scott, Attorneys at
Law, LLP.

Christopher Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC & Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP.

Matthew Slavin, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Christopher T.
Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, Christopher L. Lebsock, Hausfeld
LLP, Eugene A. Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC,
Jeffrey Lawrence Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis P.C.,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael D.
Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP, Robert
G. Eisler, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld
LLP & William G. Caldes, Spector, Roseman, Kodroff & Willis, P.C..

Warren S. Herman, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, Joseph
R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Lawrence Walner, The
Walner Law Firm LLC & Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc..

David Carney, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Aaron M. Sheanin,
Pearson, Simon & Warshaw, LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC &
Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP.

L.E. Hoover Co., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Elizabeth R. Odette, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P., W.
Joseph Bruckner, Lockridge Grindal Nauen P.L.L.P & Clinton Paul
Walker, Damrell Nelson Schrimp Pallios Pache.

JLK Systems Group, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Paul
Germaine, Vanek Vickers & Masini PC, pro hac vice, Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC,John Paul Bjork, Vanek Vickers Masini PC, Joseph M
Vanek, Vanek Vickers Masini PC, Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri &
Saveri, Inc., Allan Steyer, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Arthur Nash Bailey, Jr., Hausfeld LLP, Bruce Lee Simon,
Pearson Simon & Warshaw, LLP,Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, Christopher
L. Lebsock, Hausfeld LLP, Donald Scott Macrae, Steyer Lowenthal
Boodrookas Alvarez & Smith LLP, Douglas A. Millen, Freed Kanner
London & Millen LLC, pro hac vice, Guido Saveri, Saveri & Saveri,
Inc., Jill Michelle Manning, Steyer Lowenthal Boodrookas Alvarez &
Smith LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Michael
D. Hausfeld, Hausfeld LLP, Michael Paul Lehmann, Hausfeld LLP,
Patrick Howard, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett & Bendesky, Robert W
Biederman, Steyer Lowenthal, et al., Robert G. Eisler, Grant &
Eisenhofer P.A., Simon Bahne Paris, Saltz Mongeluzzi Barrett and
Bendesky, Stephanie Yunjin Cho, Hausfeld LLP, Steven Noel
Williams, Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP &Travis Luke Manfredi,
Saveri and Saveri Inc.

Univisions-Crimson Holding Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne
M. Nast, NastLaw LLC, Christopher T. Heffelfinger, Berman
DeValerio, Daniel Bushell, Berman DeValerio, Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,Joseph J. Tabacco, Jr., Berman
DeValerio, Manuel Juan Dominguez, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll,
Marc Jeffrey Greenspon, Berman DeValerio,Matthew W Ruan, Berman
DeValerio & Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio.

Diana Saed, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC
&Susan Gilah Kupfer, Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP.

Amber Nikkel, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Adam J. Levitt, Grant & Eisenhofer P.A., Christopher T.
Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio, Francis M. Gregorek, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP, Michael D Yanovsky, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman Herz LLC & Rachele R. Rickert, Wolf
Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz LLP.

Ann Carney, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC,
Craig C. Corbitt, Zelle LLP, Francis Onofrei Scarpulla, Law
Offices of Francis O. Scarpulla & Qianwei Fu, Zelle LLP.

Don Cheung, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC,
Amy Harrington, Law Office of Amy Harrington & Julio J Ramos, Law
Offices of Julio J. Ramos.

Tina Corse, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC
& John Dmitry Bogdanov, Cooper & Kirkham, P.C..

Alec Berezin, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick Glackin,
Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein LLP,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Joel Cary
Meredith, Meredith & Associates, Marc Anthony Pilotin, U.S.
Department of Labor & Steven J. Greenfogel, Lite DePalma
Greenburg, LLC.

The Stereo Shop, Plaintiff, represented by Brendan Patrick
Glackin, Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein LLP, Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC, Eric B. Fastiff, Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein
LLP, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Christopher
T. Heffelfinger, Berman DeValerio,Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice, Jason Kilene, Gustafson Gluek PLLC &
Marc Anthony Pilotin, U.S. Department of Labor.

Bay Area Systems, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC, Brad Yamauchi, Minami Tamaki LLP, Derek G. Howard,
Howard Law Firm & Jack Wing Lee, Minami Tamaki LLP.

Larson Group, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Elizabeth Cheryl Pritzker, Pritzker Levine LLP.

Aaron Wagner, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,George W. Sampson, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Jeff D
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Robert William
Finnerty, Girardi Keese, Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP,
pro hac vice.

Mr. Cullen Byrne, Parish & Small 1919 Grand Canal Boulevard Suite
A-5 Stockton, CA 95207-8114 (209) 952-1992, Plaintiff, represented
by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC & William Henry Parish, Parish &
Small.

Freud Reia, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC
& Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP.

Brent Pickett, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP.

Charles Zakin, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP.

Ben Flaccus, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC
&Terry Gross, Gross Belsky Alonso LLP.

Alireza Tabatabai, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC & Robert M. Partain, O'Donnell & Associates.

Mary Jane Garland, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC, James Lewis Wilkes, Wilkes & McHugh & Timothy Charles
McHugh, Wilkes & McHugh.

Beth O'Donnell, Plaintiff, represented by Brian Joseph Barry, Law
Offices of Brian Barry, Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC & Jennifer
Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Vanessa Stark, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Jerred Cook, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC
&Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Alex Afanasyev, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Scott Druschke, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Jennifer Sarnelli, Gardy & Notis, LLP.

Gregory Sinigiani, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof, Joseph Mario
Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP.

Aimee Brock, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

William Craig Stephenson, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M.
Nast, NastLaw LLC, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott,
LLP,Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Lauren Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP &
Sherman Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Raymond F. Barbush, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman
Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Sidney Plitnik, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Cynthia Saia, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Goeffrey Korwan, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Patrick Piper, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Frank Warner, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC,Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP, Joseph
Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren Clare
Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman Kassof,
Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

Christopher Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast,
NastLaw LLC, Mario N. Alioto, Trump Alioto Trump & Prescott, LLP,
Joseph Mario Patane, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP, Lauren
Clare Capurro, Trump, Alioto, Trump & Prescott, LLP & Sherman
Kassof, Law Offices of Sherman Kassof.

EMW, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC
&Lingel Hart Winters, Law Offices of Lingel H. Winters.

Aaron Deshaw, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Ernest Warren, Walker & Warren.

David Knight, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Mark A. Friel, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter PC.

Debra Knight, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC &Mark A. Friel, Stoll Stoll Berne Lokting Shlachter PC.

James P. Ito-Adler, Plaintiff, represented by Charles E. Tompkins,
Williams, Montgomery & John, Ltd., Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw LLC &
Ian J McLoughlin, Shapiro Haber & Urmy LLP.

All Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Dianne M. Nast, NastLaw
LLC, Todd Anthony Seaver, Berman DeValerio, Jeff D Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

State of Florida, Office of the Attorney General, Department of
Legal Affairs, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Liz Ann Brady, Office of the Attorney
General & Nicholas J. Weilhammer, Office of the Attorney General.

Indirect Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Ivy Arai
Tabbara, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, pro hac vice, Jeff D
Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP, Shana E. Scarlett,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Steve W. Berman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Dell Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck, Alston and
Bird LLP, Adrian James Sawyer, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Debra Dawn
Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan, Alston &
Bird LLP, James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP, Kelley
Connolly Barnaby, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Micah Dean
Moon, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Kenny, Alston &
Bird LLP, Michael John Newton, Alston & Bird, Nicolas Ward
Steenland, pro hac vice & Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP.

Dell Products L.P., Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Jacob Tuck,
Alston and Bird LLP, Adrian James Sawyer, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
Debra Dawn Bernstein, Alston & Bird LLP, Elizabeth Helmer Jordan,
Alston & Bird LLP,James Matthew Wagstaffe, Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP,
Kelley Connolly Barnaby, Alston and Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Micah
Dean Moon, Alston Bird LLP, pro hac vice, Michael P. Kenny, Alston
& Bird LLP, Michael John Newton, Alston & Bird, Nicolas Ward
Steenland, pro hac vice & Rodney J Ganske, Alston & Bird LLP.

Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory K
Arenson, Kaplan Fox and Kilsheimer LLP, Aaron Ross Walner, The
Walner Law Firm LLC, Cadio R. Zirpoli, Saveri & Saveri, Inc., Gary
Laurence Specks, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, Guido Saveri, Saveri
& Saveri, Inc., Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP &
Richard Alexander Saveri, Saveri & Saveri, Inc..

John McKee, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Benjamin Porter, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Chris Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Evan Jacobson, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Douglas Hatfield, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Barney Gooman, Jr., Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Gregg Cooper, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Benjamin Murray, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Sandra Steffen, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Alex Bissen, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Benjamin Faber, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Matthew Hosking, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Cindy Booze, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Matthew Ence, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Evan Ravenelle, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Mike Reilly, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Angela Pritchard, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman,
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP.

Mike Bishop, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Kyle Kovalchek, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens
Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol
Shapiro LLP.

Kim Wood, Plaintiff, represented by Jeff D Friedman, Hagens Berman
Sobol Shapiro LLP & Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
LLP.

Hewlett-Packard Company, Plaintiff, represented by Alistair B.
Dawson, Beck Redden & Secrest, Beatrice B. Nguyen, Crowell &
Moring LLP, Angela Julie Yu, Crowell and Moring LLP, Daniel A
Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP,Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring
LLP, Nathanial John Wood, Crowell & Moring LLP & Ryan Christopher
Wong, Crowell and Moring LLP.

Ingram Micro Inc, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Allen Sasse,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel A Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP &
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Synnex Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Allen Sasse,
Crowell & Moring LLP, Daniel A Sasse, Crowell & Moring LLP &
Matthew J. McBurney, Crowell & Moring LLP.

Acer Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford Esau, David
Victor Sack, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Eric Sofge,
TechKnowledge Law Group, LLP, Hsiang James H Lin, TechKnowledge
Law Group LLP & Kaiwen Tseng, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Acer America Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford
Esau,Hsiang James H Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor
Sack, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Eric Sofge, TechKnowledge Law
Group, LLP, Fatima S Alloo, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP & Kaiwen
Tseng, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Gateway, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford Esau,
Hsiang James H Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor
Sack, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Eric Sofge, TechKnowledge Law
Group, LLP, Fatima S Alloo, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP & Kaiwen
Tseng, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Gateway U.S. Retail, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by David Bedford
Esau,Hsiang James H Lin, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, David Victor
Sack, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP, Eric Sofge, TechKnowledge Law
Group, LLP, Fatima S Alloo, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP & Kaiwen
Tseng, TechKnowledge Law Group LLP.

Alfred H. Siegel, Plaintiff, represented by Colleen M Keating,
Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff and Stern LLP, Larry Gabriel, Ezra
Brutzkus Gubner LLP,Michael W. Davis, Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP,
Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff Stern LLP, Robert J.
Pfister, Klee, Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP & Steven Todd Gubner,
Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP.

Peter Kravitz, Plaintiff, represented by Robert J. Pfister, Klee,
Tuchin, Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Colleen M Keating, Klee, Tuchin,
Bogdanoff and Stern LLP, David Marc Stern, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff &
Stern LLP, Jason Benjamin Komorsky, Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP,
Jonathan Mark Weiss, Klee Tuchin Bogdanoff & Stern LLP, Michael W.
Davis, Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP, Michael Lloyd Tuchin, Klee Tuchin
Bogdanoff Stern LLP &Steven Todd Gubner, Ezra Brutzkus Gubner LLP.

Sony Corporation, Defendant, represented by John F. Cove, Jr.,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP
& Steven Christopher Holtzman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

Sony Optiarc America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Beko Osiris
Ra Reblitz-Richardson, Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, John F. Cove, Jr., Boies Schiller
& Flexner LLP &Steven Christopher Holtzman, Boies Schiller &
Flexner LLP.

Sony Optiarc, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Cove, Jr.,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Beko Osiris Ra Reblitz-Richardson,
Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP
& Steven Christopher Holtzman, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP.

LG Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ameri Rose
Klafeta, Eimer Stahl LLP, Arin Charles Aragona, Eimer Stahl LLP,
pro hac vice, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Nathan P.
Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP,Samuel R. Miller, Sidley Austin LLP, Sarah
Hargadon, Eimer Stahl LLP &Vanessa Greenwood Jacobsen, Eimer Stahl
LLP, pro hac vice.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Inc., Defendant, represented by Anthony
C. Biagioli, Ropes & Grat LLP, Emily Jessica Derr, Ropes and Gray
LLP, pro hac vice, Jane E. Willis, Ropes & Gray LLP, Mark Samuel
Popofsky, Ropes and Gray LLP & Michelle Lynn Visser, Ropes and
Gray LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Casandra Leann
Thomson, Latham & Watkins, Daniel Murray Wall, Latham & Watkins
LLP, Deana Louise Cairo, Tucker Ellis LLP, Belinda S Lee, Latham &
Watkins, Brendan Andrew McShane, Latham & Watkins LLP, Catherine
E. Palmer, Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Pearl, Kevin Douglas Feder,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP, Leah Suzanne Martin, OMelveny and Myers
LLP, pro hac vice & Stephen Joel McIntyre, OMelveny and Myers LLP.
Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Casandra Leann Thomson, Latham & Watkins, Daniel
Murray Wall, Latham & Watkins LLP, Belinda S Lee, Latham &
Watkins,Brendan Andrew McShane, Latham & Watkins LLP, Catherine E.
Palmer, Latham and Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Koninklijke Philips N.V., Defendant, represented by Evan J Werbel,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Gina Ann Bibby, Baker Botts LLP,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James G. Kress, BAKER BOTTS
L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P.,Kimberly Ann Murphy, Baker Botts LLP, Stacy
Turner, Baker Botts L.L.P., pro hac vice & William Lavery, Baker
Botts LLP, pro hac vice.

Lite-On It Corporation, Defendant, represented by Evan J Werbel,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Gina Ann Bibby, Baker Botts LLP,
Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James G. Kress, BAKER BOTTS
L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson,
Baker Botts L.L.P. &William Lavery, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice.

Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Evan J Werbel, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Gina
Ann Bibby, Baker Botts LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
James G. Kress, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & William Lavery,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice.

Philips & Lite-On Digital Solutions USA, Inc., Defendant,
represented byEvan J Werbel, Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice, Gina
Ann Bibby, Baker Botts LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
James G. Kress, BAKER BOTTS L.L.P., John M. Taladay, Baker Botts
L.L.P., Jon Vensel Swenson, Baker Botts L.L.P. & William Lavery,
Baker Botts LLP, pro hac vice.

Teac Corporation, Defendant, represented by Aharon Shaul Kaye,
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Lily Niu Chinn, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy,
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Stuart Matthew Richter, Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP.

Teac America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Aharon Shaul Kaye,
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP,
Lily Niu Chinn, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, Mary Ellen Hennessy,
Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP & Stuart Matthew Richter, Katten Muchin
Rosenman LLP.

Hitachi-LG Data Storage, Korea, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Anthony C. Biagioli, Ropes & Grat LLP, Emily Jessica Derr, Ropes
and Gray LLP, pro hac vice, Mark Samuel Popofsky, Ropes and Gray
LLP & Michelle Lynn Visser, Ropes and Gray LLP.

NEC Corporation, Defendant, represented by Dana Lynn Cook-
Milligan, Winston and Strawn LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP,Jeanifer Ellen Parsigian, Winston and Strawn, Matthew Robert
DalSanto, Winston and Strawn LLP, Paul R. Griffin, Winston &
Strawn LLP, Robert Benard Pringle, Winston & Strawn LLP & Sean D.
Meenan, Winston and Strawn.

Toshiba Samsung Storage Technology Korea Corporation, Defendant,
represented by Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins, Brendan Andrew
McShane, Latham & Watkins LLP, Catherine E. Palmer, Latham and
Watkins LLP, pro hac vice & Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.
Quanta Storage Inc, Defendant, represented by Anthony James
Ellrod, Manning & Kass Ellrod Ramirez Trester LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Keith A. Walter, Jr., Drinker Biddle &
Reath LLP, M. Curt Lambert, Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP, Paul
Hanna, Manning & Kass, Ellrod, Ramirez, Treater, LLP & Zhun Lu,
Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP.

BenQ Corporation, Defendant, represented by Cheryl Stephanie
Chang, Blank Rome LLP, Joel Barry Kleinman, Blank Rome LLP, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lisa Marie Kaas, Blank Rome LLP &
Nicholas Cheolas, Dickstein Shapiro LLP.

BenQ America Corp., Defendant, represented by Cheryl Stephanie
Chang, Blank Rome LLP, Joel Barry Kleinman, Blank Rome LLP, Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Lisa Marie Kaas, Blank Rome LLP &
Nicholas Cheolas, Dickstein Shapiro LLP.

Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc., Defendant, represented
byJohn F. Cove, Jr., Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP.

LG Electronics USA, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ameri Rose
Klafeta, Eimer Stahl LLP, Arin Charles Aragona, Eimer Stahl LLP,
pro hac vice, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, Nathan P.
Eimer, Eimer Stahl LLP &Vanessa Greenwood Jacobsen, Eimer Stahl
LLP, pro hac vice.

Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Ian T
Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James Pearl, Kevin Douglas Feder,
O'Melveny and Myers LLP & Stephen Joel McIntyre, OMelveny and
Myers LLP.

Toshiba America Information Systems, Inc., Defendant, represented
byBelinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins, Brendan Andrew McShane, Latham
& Watkins LLP, Catherine E. Palmer, Latham and Watkins LLP, pro
hac vice & Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers LLP.

Quanta Storage America, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Christopher M. Neumeyer, Asia Law, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP, Keith A. Walter, Jr., Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP, M.
Curt Lambert, Drinker Biddle and Reath LLP & Zhun Lu, Drinker
Biddle & Reath LLP.

Panasonic Corporation, Defendant, represented by A. Paul Victor,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston & Strawn LLP, David
L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston &
Strawn LLP,Elizabeth A Cate, Winston and Strawn, LLP, George E
Mastoris, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny & Myers
LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP, Kelli L Lanski,
Winston & Strawn LLP, Marissa C. Nardi, pro hac vice, Matthew C
Oxman, Dewey Leboeuf LLP & Susannah P. Torpey, Winston & Strawn
LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of America, Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey L. Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey H. Newhouse,
Winston & Strawn LLP, pro hac vice, A. Paul Victor, Winston &
Strawn LLP, David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, George E
Mastoris, Winston & Strawn LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn
LLP & Susannah P. Torpey, Winston & Strawn LLP.

Sony Electronics, Inc., Defendant, represented by John F. Cove,
Jr., Boies Schiller & Flexner LLP & Ian T Simmons, O'Melveny &
Myers LLP.

Panasonic Corporation of North America, Defendant, represented by
A. Paul Victor, Winston & Strawn LLP, Aldo A. Badini, Winston &
Strawn LLP,David L. Greenspan, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey L.
Kessler, Winston & Strawn LLP, Jeffrey H. Newhouse, Winston &
Strawn LLP, pro hac vice,Elizabeth A Cate, Winston and Strawn,
LLP, George E Mastoris, Winston & Strawn LLP, Ian T Simmons,
O'Melveny & Myers LLP, James F. Lerner, Winston & Strawn LLP,
Kelli L Lanski, Winston & Strawn LLP, Marissa C. Nardi, pro hac
vice, Matthew C Oxman, Dewey Leboeuf LLP & Susannah P. Torpey,
Winston & Strawn LLP.

Pioneer North America, Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
Patrick Enson, JONES DAY, Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Jones Day & Kathleen
Patricia Wallace, Attorney at Law.

Pioneer Electronics (USA) Inc., Defendant, represented by Eric
Patrick Enson, JONES DAY, Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Jones Day & Kathleen
Patricia Wallace, Attorney at Law.

Pioneer Corporation, Defendant, represented by Jeffrey Alan LeVee,
Jones Day & Eric Patrick Enson, JONES DAY.

Pioneer High Fidelity Taiwan Co., Ltd., Defendant, represented by
Jeffrey Alan LeVee, Jones Day & Eric Patrick Enson, JONES DAY.

Pioneer Digital Design & Manufacturing Company, Defendant,
represented by Eric Patrick Enson, JONES DAY & Jeffrey Alan LeVee,
Jones Day.

Philips Electronics North America Corporation, Defendant,
represented byEvan J Werbel, Baker Botts LLP.

Lite-On Sales & Distribution Inc., Defendant, represented by Evan
J Werbel, Baker Botts LLP.

John Doe 1, Movant, represented by Sean F. O'Shea, O'Shea Partners
LLP &Daniel Mark Hibshoosh, O'Shea Partners LLP, pro hac vice.

Gregory Starrett, Interested Party, represented by Jeffrey B.
Gittleman, Barrack Rodos & Bacine, Christopher T. Heffelfinger,
Berman DeValerio,Joshua D. Snyder, Boni & Zack LLC & Kimberly Ann
Kralowec, The Kralowec Law Group.

Newegg Inc., Interested Party, represented by Gordon M. Fauth,
Jr., Litigation Law Group.

John W Davis, Objector, Pro se.

John W Davis, Objector, represented by John William Davis, Law
Office of John W. Davis.

Debbie Bosse, Objector, represented by Joseph Darrell Palmer.

All Parties, Miscellaneous, represented by Steven Noel Williams,
Cotchett Pitre & McCarthy LLP, Belinda S Lee, Latham & Watkins &
Shana E. Scarlett, Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.

U.S. Department of J Antitrust Division, Intervenor, represented
by Sidney A. Majalya, USDOJ - Antitrust Division, Ila Casy Deiss,
United States Attorney's Office, Lara Meredith Kroop, USDOJ -
Antitrust Division &Manish Kumar, Department of Justice.

Fanshawe College of Applied Arts and Technology, Intervenor,
represented by Karl Olson, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP
& Susan S. Brown, Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski LLP.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Court Grants Arbitration Bid in "Bey" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge George J. Hazel of the United States District Court
for the District of Maryland granted Defendants' Motion to Compel
Arbitration and to Stay Proceedings, or, in the alternative, to
Dismiss the Complaint in the case captioned, MALIK BEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. MIDLAND CREDIT MANAGEMENT, INC., et al.,
Defendants, Case No. GJH-15-1329 (D. Md.).

Pro se Plaintiffs Malik Bey and Dawud Best, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, allege that Defendants
Midland Credit Management, Inc. and Midland Funding, LLC violated
provisions of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), the
Fair Credit Reporting Act, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1681 et seq., the
Maryland Consumer Debt Collection Act (MCDCA) and the Maryland
Consumer Protection Act (MCTA).

Plaintiffs initiated the action in state court on March 2, 2015,
alleging that Defendants' standard policy and practice is to
"purchase no more than an electronic file of names, addresses and
amounts owed on accounts" that are in default and that Midland
Credit sends alleged debtors "dunning letters" that threaten
litigation if the debtors do not make prompt payment, regardless
of whether Defendants may properly pursue litigation under a
particular state's laws.

In the motion, Defendants argue that, as the assignee of Mr. Bey's
Citibank account and Mr. Best's T-Mobile account, it has the right
to enforce the respective arbitration agreements and compel
arbitration of the claims presented in the action on an
individual, non-class basis.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 23, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/kpfD0Kfrom Leagle.com, Judge Hazel found that the
Defendants submitted sufficient evidence to establish that Midland
is indeed the assignee of Plaintiffs' respective debts and that
Defendants may enforce the arbitration agreement entered between
Plaintiffs and Midland's predecessors in interest.

Midland Credit Management, Inc. is represented by Amy Estelle
Askew, Esq. --- askew@kg-law.com -- James P. Ulwick, Esq. --
julwick@kg-law.com -- and Steven Andrew Book, Esq. --
sbook@kg-law.com -- KRAMON AND GRAHAM PA


NASSAU, NY: Court Trims "Henrius" Suit v. Corrections Dept.
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sandra J. Feuerstein of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted in part the
motion filed by defendant Michael J. Sposato, as Sheriff of Nassau
County; the County of Nassau, to dismiss the case captioned,
JOVANY HENRIUS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. COUNTY OF NASSAU, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 13-CV-1192 (SJF)(SIL) (E.D.N.Y.).

On or about February 11, 2014, Tedesco commenced an action against
Anthony J. Annucci (Annucci), and/or his predecessor, as the
Acting Commissioner of the New York State Department of
Corrections and Community Supervision; Sheriff Sposato; the Nassau
University Medical Center (NUMC) and its employees Mrs. Davis,
John Doe and Jane Doe (collectively, the NUMC defendants); Armor
Correctional Health Services of New York, Inc. (Armor), i/s/h
Armour Correctional Health, Inc., and its employees Dr. Theodora
Kay-Njemanzi, Mrs. Miller, John Doe and Jane Doe (collectively,
the Armor defendants); C.O. Saeed; C.O. Hayman; and John Doe and
Jane Doe employees of the Nassau County Sheriff's Department and
the NCCC, which was assigned docket number 14-cv-1054.

Tedesco challenges, inter alia, a variety of purportedly
unsanitary, unhealthy and/or unsafe conditions existing at the
NCCC during the time that he was incarcerated there as a pretrial
detainee, i.e., from on or about March 23, 2011 through April 6,
2012, and as a convicted prisoner, i.e., from on or about August
3, 2012 through December 5, 2012, as well as C.O. Hayman's alleged
verbal harassment and interference with his medical needs on
September 6, 2012; and claims, inter alia, to have suffered
irritation and itching on his body, severe foot and toenail
fungus, rashes and skin irritation and discoloration from the
purported conditions of confinement, as well as "tress, physical
and mental anguish, depression, anxiety and symptoms of (P.T.S.D.)
Post Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of the continued abuse
and neglect conspired by the defendants at the NCCC.

Tedesco seeks, inter alia, (1) judgment declaring that defendants
have acted in violation of the United States Constitution; (2) an
injunction prohibiting defendants "from repeating such action as
described in his complaint to him and or any person, inmate, at
the NCCC; and (3) compensatory damages in the amount of one
million dollars ($1,000,000.00), cosmetic damages in the amount of
two hundred fifty-thousand dollars ($250,000.00), indeterminate
damages in the amount of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00), and
punitive damages in the amount of ten million dollars
($10,000,000.00)."

By order dated April 22, 2014, Tedesco's action was consolidated
with the case assigned docket number 13-cv-1192, which is now
called Henrius v. County of Nassau (the Henrius case), the lead
case in a number of consolidated cases challenging the conditions
of confinement purportedly existing at the NCCC that were
commenced on or after February 28, 2013.

Defendants seek, inter alia, to dismiss all claims asserted
against them by consolidated plaintiffs Anthony Tedesco (Tedesco),
Young, Bruny E. Fenelon (Fenelon), Joseph Marone (Marone) and Alan
Mayo (Mayo) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure and the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 42
U.S.C. Sections 1997e(a) and (e). Only Marone opposes the motion.
Although Tedesco, Young, Fenelon, and Mayo were served with the
County defendants' motion to dismiss their claims on August 22,
2014, none of them have filed any response to the respective
motions, nor sought an extension of time to do so.

In her Opinion and Order dated March 31, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/Y9fBfTfrom Leagle.com, Judge Feuerstein concluded
that defendants' motion seeking dismissal of Tedesco's, Young's,
Fenelon's, Marone's and Mayo's claims against them pursuant to
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the PLRA
is granted to the extent that, (1) with the exception of Tedesco's
claims against C.O. Hayman, Tedesco's claims against the County
defendants are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice for
failure to exhaust administrative remedies; (2) Tedesco's Section
1983 claims against C.O. Hayman are dismissed in their entirety
with prejudice for failure to state a claim for relief; (3)
Young's and Mayo's claims against the County defendants are
dismissed in their entirety with prejudice for failure to exhaust
administrative remedies; (4) Fenelon's claims against the County
defendants are dismissed in their entirety with prejudice for
failure to state a claim for relief; and (5) Marone's claims
against the County defendants are dismissed in their entirety with
prejudice for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and
failure to state a claim for relief, and the motion is otherwise
denied. There being no just reason for delay, the Clerk of the
Court shall enter judgment in favor of the County defendants on
Tedesco's claims against them pursuant to Rule 54(b) of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Armor Correctional Health Service of New York, Inc. is represented
by John J. Doody, Esq. -- John.Doody@lewisbrisbois.com -- and Dale
Nicholson McLaren, Esq. -- DaleMcLaren@lewisbrisbois.com -- LEWIS,
BRISBOIS, BISGAARD & SMITH LLP


NEBRASKA: Fees Settlement in "Leiting-Hall" Case Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John M. Gerrard of the United States District Court
for the District of Nebraska granted approval of an agreement for
attorney's fees and costs in the case captioned, TAMI LEITING-HALL
and ASHLEY DANKLEFF, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. COURTNEY PHILLIPS, as Chief
Executive Officer of the Nebraska Health and Human Services, and
DOUGLAS WEINBERG, as Director of the Division of Children and
Family Services, Defendants, Case No. 4:14CV3155 (D. Neb.).

Plaintiffs brought the action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 alleging
that Defendants Courtney Phillips, as Chief Executive Officer of
the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (or DHHS),
and Douglas Weinberg, as Director of the Division of Children and
Family Services, fail to provide Supplemental Nutrition Assistance
Program (SNAP) benefits within the time frames mandated by federal
law to eligible households who file initial or renewal
applications.

Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief against
Defendants on behalf of themselves and members of a certified
class to require Defendants to (1) ensure that SNAP applicants
have the right to apply, including the right to apply for
recertification, and to complete the application process in time
to receive SNAP benefits within the federally mandated time
frames; and (2) determine such households' eligibility within the
mandated time frames and provide SNAP benefits within the mandated
time frames to those eligible. A class has been certified in the
action.

Tami Leiting-Hall and Ashley Dankleff and Courtney Phillips and
Douglas Weinberg made an agreement to settle claims for attorney's
fees and costs. Defendants agreed to pay Nebraska Appleseed Center
for Law in the Public interest the lump sum of $230,000.00 in full
and complete settlement of any and all claims for attorney's fees,
associated costs, and expenses in the above-captioned lawsuit up
to the date the Stipulation and Order of Settlement is so ordered.
In consideration of the Fees Settlement Agreement, the Plaintiffs
agree to release Defendants from any and all claims for attorney's
fees, associated costs, and expenses in the lawsuit up to the date
the Stipulation and Order of Settlement is so ordered.

In his Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/fTmO2w
from Leagle.com, Judge Gerrard found the agreement to be a product
of the parties' joint effort to resolve the matter containing the
entire understanding of the parties. Approval to the agreement is
deemed final and binding upon their parties, their successors and
assigns.

Tami Leiting-Hall is represented by:

     James A. Goddard, Esq.
     Molly M. McCleery, Esq.
     NEBRASKA APPLESEED CENTER
     941 O St #920,
     Lincoln, NE 68508
     Tel: (402)-438-8853

          - and -

     Marc Cohan, Esq.
     NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW AND ECONONIC JUSTICE
     275 Seventh Ave.
     New York, NY 10001-6860
     Tel: (212)633-6967

Courtney Phillips, Defendant, represented by:

     David A. Lopez, Esq.
     Jessica M. Forch, Esq.
     ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202) 353-1555


NEW ORLEANS, LA: Justice Department Wants to Take Control of Jail
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Mustian, writing for The Advocate, reports that the U.S.
Justice Department asked a federal judge on April 25 to take
control of the city's jail away from Orleans Parish Sheriff Marlin
Gusman, citing an "unacceptable" level of violence at the lockup
despite three years of federal oversight.

Attorneys for the government and the MacArthur Justice Center
asked U.S. District Judge Lance Africk to appoint an outside
administrator, known as a receiver, to assume supervision of the
facility, saying Sheriff Gusman has shown a lack of leadership and
proved incapable of improving the jail's "unconstitutional"
conditions.

The situation has become so dire, they said, that some inmates
have resorted to harming themselves in order to be transferred
away from the newly opened Orleans Justice Center.

"Urgent and extraordinary action is required of this court to
address the immediate risk of harm and death to the men, women and
youth in the jail," the attorneys wrote in a voluminous filing.
"Although there is no question that receivership is an
extraordinary remedy, so, too, is the level of harm that continues
to plague the jail, with no apparent end in sight."

The government's request, long viewed as a last resort, follows
years of litigation over the city's jail -- a problem that has
remained unresolved for decades despite numerous reform efforts.

The most recent overhaul attempt, the result of a class-action
lawsuit filed by inmates, began about three years ago when Judge
Africk approved a sweeping federal consent decree, a blueprint for
change that called for major changes in Sheriff's Office policies
and improved conditions for inmates.

The judge declared at the time that the now-shuttered Orleans
Parish Prison had left an "indelible stain" on the community and
presented a "public safety crisis."

The Justice Department, which joined the inmates' suit, was
initially slow to publicly criticize the pace of progress and
balked at the idea of appointing a receiver when Mayor Mitch
Landrieu proposed it in 2013.  The department said it wanted to
give the sheriff an opportunity to turn things around under the
guidance of court-appointed monitors who regularly tour the
facility and provide updates to Judge Africk.

On April 25, though, the Justice Department, joined by the
MacArthur Justice Center, which represents the inmates, argued
that the sheriff has missed his chance and that a receiver is
needed to implement the consent decree.

They warned Judge Africk that inmates are being "left to fend for
themselves for long periods of time" without the protection of
deputies and that "it does not seem that the sheriff even knows
how many staff actually are required to safely operate the jail."

"The prisoners are taking control of the jail," they wrote.  "It
is only a matter of time before more prisoners, or staff members,
suffer serious injury or death."

Several aspects of receivership remain unclear, including its
price tag, in part because the move is exceedingly rare.  A
receiver would assume Sheriff Gusman's core responsibilities and
enjoy "full authority to administer operations of the jail,"
including the ability to discipline and promote jail employees and
allocate jail budget funds, the government and inmates' attorneys
wrote.

"A receiver may not be able to operate the Orleans Parish jail at
a cheaper daily cost," they added. "But an independent entity --
untethered from local politics and with the authority and goal of
operating a constitutional jail without further unnecessary delay
and foot-dragging -- will conserve resources in the long run."

Sheriff Gusman would not be removed from office and likely would
continue to oversee various other functions of the Sheriff's
Office, including its civil division.  But the appointment of a
receiver could fuel calls for his resignation.

"The Justice Department's filing speaks for itself," Hayne Rainey,
a City Hall spokesman, said in a statement.   "It is in the best
interests of our taxpayers and our public safety that the jail is
run competently and constitutionally."

Sheriff Gusman said on April 25 that he "vigorously" disagrees
with the request to appoint a receiver, even as he acknowledged
"there is more work to be done" at the jail.  He said the motion
filed by the government "contains numerous inaccuracies and
misleading statements."

"I will aggressively defend the work of the Orleans Parish
Sheriff's Office and the progress being made," he said in a
statement.

The government's request came weeks after a team of experts
recommended that parts of the Orleans Justice Center, the city's
new jail, be closed down until Gusman can retrain its guards and
get a handle on inmate attacks, which they said are occurring in
large part because of a lack of supervision.  The jail remains
dangerously understaffed, and the sheriff has struggled to recruit
new deputies, a predicament he has blamed on City Hall's refusal
to approve pay raises.

"If it were up to us, we would close the facility floor by floor
until it can be successfully operated," Susan McCampbell, the lead
federal monitor for the jail, told Judge Africk in March.

At the same court hearing, Laura Coon, a Justice Department
lawyer, hinted that the government had lost patience with Sheriff
Gusman and would be asking the judge to name a third party to
bring the jail's conditions in line with the Constitution.

She said the Justice Department and Sheriff's Office were "not on
the same page" as to what steps are needed to reform the jail.

Ms. Coon's remarks followed testimony from a mental health expert
who expressed grave concerns over a suicide at the jail in March
in which Cleveland Tumblin, a 63-year-old bipolar inmate, hanged
himself inside a shower facility.  The expert said the shower door
had been locked from the inside, a security risk that should have
been eliminated before the building opened in September.

The government pointed to Tumblin's death as an example of the
"many flaws with the jail's suicide prevention practices," and it
noted that Tumblin had not seen a mental health care provider even
though his intake screening indicated he should receive an
evaluation.

The April 25 request comes about three years after Landrieu made a
similar request for Sheriff Gusman to be removed from control of
the jail.  The mayor's proposal, which failed to gain traction,
followed the release of shocking videos depicting inmates using
drugs in the jail and walking the streets when they were supposed
to be locked up.

"Given the long and tortured history involving (Orleans Parish
Prison), no consent decree, even as appropriately modified and
tailored, will be effective unless the leadership changes,"
Harry Rosenberg, an attorney for the city, wrote in an April 2013
court filing.

The sheriff's attorneys countered that the jail had been neglected
by city officials for more than 30 years.  State law requires the
city to pay for the operation of the lockup, but Gusman has long
accused city leaders of underfunding his agency.

"To place the blame for the present situation on Sheriff Gusman,
much less to suggest he should be stripped of virtually all powers
and responsibilities of the office to which he was elected by the
citizens of New Orleans, is patently wrong," Freeman Matthews, a
Gusman attorney, wrote at the time.


NEW YORK: Health Dept's Summary Judgment Bid Granted in Part
------------------------------------------------------------
Circuit Judge Gerard E. Lynch of the Court of Appeals, Second
Circuit, affirmed in part and vacated in part district court's
judgment in the case captioned, HARRY DAVIS, RITA-MARIE GEARY,
PATTY POOLE, ROBERTA WALLACH, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. NIRAV SHAH,
individually and in his official capacity as Commissioner of the
New York State Department of Health, Defendant-Appellant, Case
Nos. 14-543-cv (2nd Cir.).

Plaintiffs-appellees Harry Davis, Rita-Marie Geary, Patty Poole,
and Roberta Wallach brought the class action against defendant-
appellant Nirav Shah, Commissioner of the New York State
Department of Health challenging New York's coverage restrictions
on certain medical services provided under its Medicaid plan.

In October 2012, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on all
counts of the complaint, and the Commissioner cross-moved for
summary judgment on all counts. Prior to considering those
motions, the district court granted plaintiffs' motion for class
certification.

Judge Charles J. Siragusa of the United States District Court for
the Western District of New York granted summary judgment to
defendant on plaintiffs' home health services claim and the
hearing aspect of their due process claim, and granted summary
judgment to plaintiffs on all their remaining claims. The court
subsequently entered a permanent injunction barring New York from
enforcing its coverage restrictions against any beneficiaries
under its plan.

The Court reviewed the district court's order granting summary
judgment de novo, resolving all ambiguities and drawing all
permissible factual inferences in favor of the non-moving party.

In his Decision dated March 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/1xqg7Ifrom Leagle.com, Judge Lynch affirmed in part
as to plaintiffs' claims under the home health services, due
process, the comparability provisions of the Medicaid Act, and
under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Sec. 504
of the Rehabilitation Act because New York's restrictions violate
the integration mandate of the ADA and Rehabilitation Act and
vacated in part as to plaintiffs' claims under the Medicaid Act's
reasonable standards provision because neither the Medicaid Act
nor the Supremacy Clause confers a private cause of action to
enforce the reasonable standards provision.

Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health is
represented by:

     Victor Paladino, Esq.
     Barbara D. Underwood, Esq.
     Andrea Oser, Esq.
     SOLICITOR GENERAL
     950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
     Washington, DC 20530-0001
     Tel: (202)353-1555

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Geoffrey A. Hale, Esq.
     Bryan D. Hetherington Esq.
     Jonathan Feldman, Esq.
     EMPIRE JUSTICE CENTER
     1 W Main St #200,
     Rochester, NY 14614
     Tel: (585)454-4060

          - and -

     Martha Jane Perkins, Esq.
     NATIONAL HEALTH LAW PROGRAM
     1444 I Street NW, Suite 1105
     Washington, D.C. 20005
     Tel: (202) 289-7661


NICOLET RESTAURANT: Court Denies Class Certification in "Meyers"
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge William C. Griesbach of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin denied
Plaintiff's motion to certify class and Defendant's motion to
compel discovery in the case captioned, JEREMY MEYERS,
individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. NICOLET RESTAURANT OF DE PERE, LLC, a Wisconsin
limited liability company, Defendant, Case No. 15-C-444 (E.D.
Wis.).

Plaintiff Jeremy Meyers alleges that Defendant Nicolet Restaurant
of De Pere, LLC, violated the Fair and Accurate Credit
Transactions Act (FACTA) amendment to the Fair Credit Reporting
Act (FCRA), by negligently, recklessly and/or willfully printing
the expiration date of the card number on receipts provided to
debit card and credit card cardholders transacting business with
Defendant.

On February 10, 2015 -- after the statutory deadline to comply
with Sec. 1681 c(g)(1) -- Meyers alleges that he visited Nicolet
Restaurant of De Pere located at 525 Reid St., De Pere, Wisconsin
54115 and received a computer-generated cash register receipt
which displayed the last four digits of Plaintiff's credit card
number as well as the card's expiration date. Plaintiff is seeking
class certification for "all persons to whom Defendant provided an
electronically printed receipt at the point of sale or
transaction, in a transaction occurring at the Nicolet Restaurant
after June 3, 2008, which receipt displays the expiration date of
the person's credit card or debit card."

Additionally, Defendant has filed a motion to compel discovery
pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26 and 34.

In his Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/qCWXvQ
from Leagle.com, Judge Griesbach found that that Plaintiff has
failed to carry his burden of showing that a class action is a
superior method of adjudicating the case. The Court denied
Defendant's motion to compel discovery because it is inappropriate
under Rule 26(b)(1) and not necessary to resolve the issues.

Jeremy Meyer is represented by Amelia S. Newton, Esq. --
amelia@attorneyzim.com -- Nickolas J. Hagman, Esq. --
nick@attorneyzim.com -- and Thomas A Zimmerman, Jr., Esq. --
tom@attorneyzim.com -- ZIMMERMAN LAW OFFICES PC & Mark A.
Eldridge, Esq. -- meldridge@ademilaw.com -- and John D. Blythin,
Esq. -- jblythin@ademilaw.com -- ADEMI & O'REILLY LLP

Nicolet Restaurant of De Pere LLC is represented by:

     Ryan R. Graff, Esq.
     Nicole R Radler, Esq.
     NASH SPINDLER GRIMSTAD & MCCRACKEN LLP
     1425 Memorial Dr,
     Manitowoc, WI 54220
     Tel: (920)684-3321


ORBIT BABY: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over False Advertising
----------------------------------------------------------
Jordana Lee Kopin, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Orbit Baby, Inc., a Delaware
Corporation, The Ergo Baby Carrier, Inc., a Hawaii Corporation,
and Does 1-20, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. RG16813239
(Cal. Super. Ct., April 26, 2016), seeks equitable relief in the
form of order requiring restitution to Plaintiff, and injunctive
relief in the form of an order prohibiting Defendants from
engaging in misconduct, and requiring a corrective advertising
campaign of premium infant and toddler products, pursuant to False
Advertising Law and the California Unfair Competition Law.

According to the complaint, Defendants market high-end, premium
infant and toddler products to parents. Despite alleged
representations that their products are free from hazardous
chemicals, such as chlorinated and brominated flame retardants,
independent testing has shown that these toxic chemicals are
indeed present in these very products with which children are
routinely in contact--namely, infant and toddler car seats,
bassinets, and/or stroller systems. Defendants' representations,
made as part of a marketing strategy to cash in on parents'
concerns for the health and safety of their young children, were
clearly false, deceptive, and/or misleading.

Defendants produce, market, and sell infant and toddler car seats,
car seat bassinets, and 17 stroller systems, including accessories
such as the car seat base, cargo basket, cargo pod, rocker base
and others.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Rana S. Ziaee, Esq.
          ZIAEE LAW
          620 Newport Center Drive, Suite 1100
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 544 1260
          E-mail: rsz@zlplc.com

               - and -

          James M. Lee, Esq.
          Heather F. Auyang, Esq.
          Timothy S. Fox, Esq.
          David A. Crane, Esq.
          LTL ATTORNEYS LLP
          601 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3900
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: 213 612 8900
          Facsimile: 213 612 3773
          E-mail: james.lee@ltlattorneys.com
                  heather.auyang@ltlattorneys.com
                  timothy.fox@ltlattorneys.com
                  david.crane@ltlattorneys.com


PORTAL HEALTHCARE: Travelers Must Cover Class Action Defense
------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Fowler, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that while a U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ruling on a data breach
insurance case was presented in a way that limits its impact, it's
still a significant win for the insured, a Los Angeles attorney
says.

"While the decision may not dramatically shift the playing field
for data breach coverage, it still is a significant victory for
policyholders because it shows that there can be coverage for
inadvertent disclosure of confidential information under a CGL
policy," said Ken Kronstadt -- kkronstadt@kelleydrye.com -- an
attorney in the insurance recovery group of the law firm Kelley,
Drye, and Warren.

Earlier in April, the Fourth Circuit upheld a lower court's ruling
in the case of Travelers Indemnity Co. of America v. Portal
Healthcare Soultions LLC. Portal, which had a commercial general
liability insurance policy with Travelers, believed that policy
should cover the costs of its legal defenses after a data breach
at the company.

Portal is facing a class action lawsuit in New York state court
after it allegedly failed to secure one of its servers, allowing
confidential patient information to be viewed online for two
months, without even a password required.

This case was significant because it was unclear legally before
this point if a general CGL insurance policy would cover something
like a data breach.

The Fourth Circuit ruled that Travelers was bound to provide
coverage because the policy did not specifically exclude data
breaches from the policy language.

"It is universally recognized that ambiguities in an insurance
policy will be strictly interpreted against the insurance company,
as the drafter of the policy," Mr. Kronstadt said.

"In other words, an insurer has the ability to unambiguously
exclude data breaches from coverage, and any time it fails to do
so and a data breach fits within the policy's grant of coverage,
the policyholder's expectation that it will be covered in the
event of a data breach is reasonable."

However, the scope of this decision is limited, he said.  Perhaps
recognizing that this was a very particular case and wanting to
avoid setting a specific precedent, the Fourth Circuit decided not
to publish its decision.

So while it is legally binding against Travelers in this
particular case, it cannot be used as legal precedent in other
cases.  Also, in 2014, Insurance Services Office (a company that
writes standard policy forms that most policies are based on)
revised the standard CGL policy to exclude damages resulting from
data breaches.  Portal's policies were written in 2012 and 2013,
before these changes were made.

Mr. Kronstadt said an appeal isn't likely.

"Practically speaking, an appeal seems like an unnecessary risk
for Travelers. Right now, they have an unpublished opinion that is
not binding on courts in subsequent actions," Mr. Kronstadt said.

"y appealing, given the possibility that the Supreme Court could
uphold the Fourth Circuit's decision, Travelers would risk turning
that unpublished opinion into an opinion that is binding on every
court in the country."


PRODUCTION TESTING: Faces "Brown" Suit Under FLSA, AWHA
-------------------------------------------------------
SHELBY BROWN, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiff v. PRODUCTION TESTING SERVICES, INC. and
ROBERT A. HOFF Defendants, Case 4:16-cv-01152 (S.D. Tex., April
28, 2016), seeks to recover overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, attorney's fees and costs under the provisions of the
Fair Labor Standards Act and the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.

The primary services of Production Testing Services, Inc. (PTS)
are Well Testing, Drill Stem Test - DST, Frac Flow Back Services,
Subsea Test Trees/Subsea Intervention Landing Strings, Early
Production Facilities, Long Term Testing, Production Rental
Equipment.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     John David Hart, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF JOHN DAVID HART
     Wells Fargo Tower
     201 Main Street, Suite 1720
     Fort Worth, TX 76102
     Phone: (817) 870-2102
     Fax: (817) 332-5858
     E-mail: johnhart@hartlaw.com


PULTE HOME: Court Dismisses "Bullock" Suit as Moot
--------------------------------------------------
District Judge Peter J. Messitte of the United States District
Court for the District of Maryland dismissed as moot the case
captioned, TROY AND NICOLE BULLOCK Plaintiffs, v. PULTE HOME
CORPORATION, et al. Defendants, Case No. PJM 15-903  (D. Md.).

The Bullocks obtained a loan to purchase the property at 7104
Sudley Avenue, Brandywine, Maryland on December 1, 2009. As part
of the loan, they allege they executed a Deed of Trust and
executed a Promissory Note payable to CTX Mortgage Company LLC.
The Bullocks allege that Pulte Corporation became the owner of the
loan on February 23, 2010, citing a Wall Street Journal article
that Pulte Buys Centex.

On December 23, 2011, the Bullocks paid the loan in full when they
refinanced the property. MERS, the "beneficiary" of the Deed of
Trust, presumably as agent for the Lender's assignee, then
executed a Certificate of Satisfaction, which stated that the Deed
of Trust was released on January 26, 2012. The Deed of Trust
included a provision stating that when the debt would be
satisfied, the lender was obliged to mark the Note "paid" and
return it to the borrower.

Troy and Nicole Bullock brought the suit, ostensibly pro se, on
behalf of themselves and "on behalf of persons similarly
situated," against Defendants Pulte Home Corporation (Pulte) and
MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (MERSCORP), alleging breach of contract
and other claims based on Defendants' failure to return their
satisfied Promissory Note, per the terms of Plaintiffs' Deed of
Trust.

Defendants have moved to dismiss the suit on the grounds that, as
parent corporations to the lender and beneficiary of the Deed of
Trust, they are not liable for the obligations of their
subsidiaries.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/CGbwIGfrom Leagle.com, Judge Messitte found claims
in the suit are moot because the Note was returned marked "paid"
to the Bullocks on January 13, 2012, per the terms of the Deed of
Trust and because the Bullocks suffered no cognizable damage by
reason of anything that any Defendant whether current or proposed
has done.

Pulte Home Corporation is represented by Christopher A. Taggi,
Esq. -- CTaggi@asm-law.com -- ASMAR SCHOR AND MCKENNA PLLC

MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. is represented by Craig Robert Haughton,
Esq. -- chaughton@mcguirewoods.com -- MCGUIREWOODS LLP


REDFLEX TRAFFIC: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Camera Tickets
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chad Calder, writing for TheAdvocate.com, reports that a Monroe
law firm has filed a lawsuit in state district court in Jefferson
Parish seeking class-action status against the city of Gretna and
Arizona-based Redflex Traffic Systems Inc.

The suit claims the city's use of an automated camera system to
issue traffic tickets and the hearings at which cited motorists
can challenge their tickets are both illegal.

The Hudson Potts & Bernstein firm filed the suit on April 22 in
24th Judicial District Court on behalf of Michael Brantley Jr. and
Theodore Traigle, saying the two men are among tens of thousands
who have been ticketed in Gretna since the city started using the
Redflex system in early 2009.

The suit raises the same basic issue that cases settled last year
against Jefferson Parish and Redflex did, though those challenges
didn't fare well before a judge.  The eventual settlement netted
motorists who became class members between $20 and $30 on $110
tickets.

The new lawsuit asks for an injunction to stop the city and
Redflex from issuing tickets and, ultimately, seeks refunds and
damages for those who have been cited.

The suit says the system is illegal and unconstitutional for a
number of reasons.

It claims the system violates the state constitution's guarantee
of due process because a cited driver's liability is determined by
a company with a financial interest in issuing tickets and because
the citations are handled in an administrative hearing that's
outside the law.

The suit says the city is required by law to prove any allegations
through a sworn affidavit from a law enforcement officer and to
provide a neutral, unbiased arbiter.

"When administrative hearings were held, the only evidence
presented consisted of an unsworn statement conclusively stating
that a violation had occurred and video and photographs taken by
the device," the lawsuit says.  "This failed to satisfy even the
(city) ordinance's own meager procedure for imposition of a
monetary penalty."

The lawsuit also contends the practice of obscuring the face of
the driver in photos makes the system unconstitutional because the
owner of a vehicle can be charged with a moving violation even
though someone else may have been driving the car, putting the
burden of proof on the accused.

"This impairs the cited owner's ability to establish the identity
of the actual driver and results in a financial benefit to the
city and Reflex," the suit states.

The lawsuit also contends the Legislature never granted Gretna the
authority to adjudicate moving violations in an administrative
hearing.

Gretna officials could not be reached for comment.

The suit, which contends that as many as 70,000 tickets may have
been issued since the Redflex system began in Gretna, will be
heard by Judge Henry Sullivan, who also presided over the lawsuits
filed against the parish.


REGENCY GP: Brief in "Dieckman" Appeal Due June 10
--------------------------------------------------
Adrian Dieckman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Regency GP LP, Regency GP
LLC, Energy Transfer Equity, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.,
Energy Transfer Partners, GP, L.P., Michael J. Bradley, James W.
Bryant, Rodney L. Gray, JOHN W. McReynolds, Matthew S. Ramsey and
Richard Brannon, the Defendants-Appellees, Case No. 208,2016 (Del.
Sup. Ct., April 26, 2016), is an appeal filed before the Supreme
Court of the State of Delaware from a lower court decision in a
class action with Case No. 11130-CB (Ct of Chancery, March 29,
2016).

Appellant Adrian Dieckman opening brief is due June 10, 2016.

In March 2016, Chancellor Andre Bouchard of the Delaware Court of
Chancery granted Defendants' motion to dismiss in the case
captioned, ADRIAN DIECKMAN, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. REGENCY GP LP, REGENCY GP LLC,
ENERGY TRANSFER EQUITY, L.P., ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, L.P.,
ENERGY TRANSFER PARTNERS, GP, L.P., MICHAEL J. BRADLEY, JAMES W.
BRYANT, RODNEY L. GRAY, JOHN W. McREYNOLDS, MATTHEW S. RAMSEY and
RICHARD BRANNON, Defendants, Case No. 11130-CB (Del. Ch.).

The action involves the acquisition of Regency Energy Partners LP
by an affiliated entity for approximately $11 billion in a unit-
for-unit merger that closed in April 2015. Plaintiff is a former
unitholder of Regency. His primary claim is that Regency's general
partner favored the interests of its affiliates to the detriment
of Regency's unaffiliated unitholders in agreeing to an unfair
merger price and thus breached the contractual requirement in the
limited partnership agreement that the general partner act in good
faith.

Critical to the case, the Regency limited partnership agreement
eliminated all fiduciary duties and replaced them with a
contractual governance scheme. By eliminating all fiduciary
duties, Regency's limited partnership agreement extinguished the
common law duty of disclosure that exists under Delaware law.

Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a
claim for relief. They argue that the merger is shielded from
judicial review by operation of the safe harbors involving the use
of a conflicts committee and the approval by the unaffiliated
unitholders.

Plaintiff counters that the conflicts committee itself was
conflicted, that those conflicts were not adequately disclosed to
Regency's unitholders, and that the unitholder approval safe
harbor was ineffective because it could not be invoked by an
uninformed vote.

A copy of Chancellor Bouchard's Memorandum Opinion dated March 29,
2016, is available at http://is.gd/1UHH8Cfrom Leagle.com.

Adrian Dieckman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated is represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          James J. Sabella, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000
          E-mail: sgrant@gelaw.com
                  jsabella@gelaw.com

               - and -

          Mark Lebovitch, Esq.
          Jeroen van Kwawegen, Esq.
          Alla Zayenchik, Esq.
          BERNSTEIN LITOWITZ BERGER & GROSSMAN LLP
          1285 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10019
          Telephone: (212) 554 1400
          E-mail: markl@blbglaw.com
                  jeroen@blbglaw.com
                  alla.zayenchik@blbglaw.com

               - and -

          Mark C. Gardy, Esq.
          James S. Notis, Esq.
          GARDY & NOTIS, LLP
          126 E. 56th Street, 8th Floor
          Telephone: (212) 905 0509
          E-mail: www.gardylaw.com
                  jnotis@gardylaw.com

Appellees Regency GP LP, Regency GP LLC, Energy Transfer Equity,
L.P., Energy Transfer Partners, L.P., Energy Transfer Partners,
GP, L.P., Michael J. Bradley, Rodney L. Gray, John W. McReynolds,
and Matthew S. Ramsey are represented by:

          Rolin P. Bissell, Esq.
          Tammy L. Mercer, Esq.
          YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
          Rodney Square
          1000 N. King Street
          Wilmington, DE 19801
          Telephone: (888) 395 7576
          E-mail: rbissell@ycst.com

               - and -

          Michael Holmes, Esq.
          Manuel Berrelez, Esq.
          Elizabeth Brandon, Esq.
          Craig Zieminski, Esq.
          VINSON & ELKINS LLP
          2001 Ross Ave., Ste. 3700
          Dallas, TX 75201
          E-mail: www.velaw.com

Appellees Richard Brannon and James W. Bryant are represented by:

          David J. Teklits, Esq.
          D. McKinley Measley, Esq.
          MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP
          1201 N. Market Street
          Wilmington, DE 19899
          Telephone: (302) 658 9200
          E-mail: dteklits@mnat.com
                  mmeasley@mnat.com

               - and -

          M. Scott Barnard, Esq.
          Michelle A. Reed, Esq.
          Matthew V. Lloyd, Esq.
          AKIN GUMP STRAUSS HAUER & FELD LLP
          1111 Louisiana Street, 44th Fl.
          Houston, TX 77002
          Telephone: (713) 220 5800
          Facsimile: (713) 236 0822
          E-mail: sbarnard@akingump.com
                  mreed@akingump.com
                  mvlloyd@akingump.com


ROADVIEW INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for July 28
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned BRANNON HOLMES and ANTHONY McMAHAN,
Plaintiffs, v. ROADVIEW, INC., Defendant, No. 15-cv-4-jdp (W.D.
Wis.), Judge James D. Peterson granted the parties' joint motion
for preliminary approval of their settlement agreement.

The settlement provides a fund of $155,000 total for plaintiffs,
all members of the collective action who opted in, and all members
of the proposed class unless they opt out.  The total amount
includes attorney fees and costs, which are capped at 33 percent
of the fund.  The settlement also provides that the class
representatives will receive $5,000 in addition to their share of
the fund. The rest of the class is to receive payments from the
fund unless they opt out.

Judge Peterson appointed Hawks Quindel, S.C. as class counsel
settlement administrator, and Brannon Holmes and Anthony McMahan
as class representatives.  The judge also granted Hawk Quindel's
petition for attorney fees and costs.  The final fairness hearing
is scheduled for July 28, 2016 at 9:00 a.m.

A full-text copy of Judge Peterson's April 14, 2016 opinion and
order is available at http://is.gd/CgVVd8from Leagle.com.

In this lawsuit, Brannon Holmes and Anthony McMahan alleged that
defendant Roadview, Inc. underpaid them, and other similarly
situated employees, for their overtime work, in violation of the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and in violation of Wisconsin
state law.  A stipulated conditional certification for the FLSA
collective action has already been approved by the court.

Brannon Holmes, Anthony McMahan, Plaintiffs, represented by
Caitlin Marie Madden, Hawks Quindel Ehlke & Perry, S.C. & David C.
Zoeller, Hawks Quindel, S.C..

Roadview, Inc., Defendant, represented by Robert J. Kasieta --
rjkasieta@kasieta.com -- Kasieta Legal Group, LLC & Mark Baruch
Hazelbaker, Hazelbaker & Associates, S.C.


SACRAMENTO, CA: "Tanskley" Suit May Proceed in Forma Pauperis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of California granted plaintiff's
request to proceed in forma pauperis in the case captioned, MOODY
WOODROW TANKSLEY, Plaintiff, v. COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 2:16-cv-0024-TLN-KJN PS (E.D. Cal.).

Plaintiff alleges that, on December 18, 2015, he requested police
on the K Street mall in Sacramento, California to call an
ambulance for plaintiff because of an infection in his foot, and
plaintiff was ultimately taken to the emergency room at U.C. Davis
hospital. Plaintiff claims that, after his arrival at the
hospital, he was verbally threatened and harassed by hospital
police, and that the medical staff told him to leave the hospital
without medical treatment.

Plaintiff states that he is pursuing some type of 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983 class action lawsuit against Sacramento County and the U.C.
Davis hospital (and their respective staffs), and seeks
$5,000,000.00 in damages, among other relief.

In the motion, Plaintiff requested leave to proceed in forma
pauperis pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1915.

In her Order dated March 24, 2016 available at http://is.gd/I6qgvE
from Leagle.com, Judge Newman found that it is appropriate to
grant plaintiff an opportunity to amend the complaint in light of
plaintiff's pro se status, and because it is at least conceivable
that plaintiff could allege additional facts to potentially state
a 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 claim.

The Court directed plaintiff to file either a first amended
complaint in accordance with the order or a notice of voluntary
dismissal of the action without prejudice.


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Sued in N.D.N.Y. Over Toxic Substances
----------------------------------------------------------------
Bryan Schrom and Kary Schrom, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Saint-Gobain
Performance Plastics Corp., And Honeywell International Inc. f/k/a
Allied-Signal Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00476-GTS-TWD
(N.D.N.Y., April 25, 2016), seeks recovery from Defendants for
injuries, damages and losses suffered by the Plaintiffs, as a
result of exposure to introduction of Perfluorooctanoic acid
(PFOA) and other toxic substances into the drinking water of
Hoosick Falls.

According to the complaint, throughout the operational history of
the Facility, Defendants have caused the release of hazardous and
toxic substances, including but not limited to PFOA, into the
surrounding environment. These releases have contaminated the
surface water and groundwater in the Village of Hoosick Falls. The
harm directly and proximately caused by Defendants includes
property damages and personal injuries.

PFOA, also known as C8 and perfluorooctanoate, is a synthetic
perfluorinated carboxylic acid and fluorosurfactant. One
industrial application is as a surfactant in the emulsion
polymerization of fluoropolymers.

Saint-Gobain Performance provides innovative product solutions,
flexible tubing, gaskets & seals, hoses & fittings, and pumps.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Hunter Shkolnik, Esq.
          Paul J. Napoli, Esq.
          Patrick J. Lanciotti, Esq.
          NAPOLI SHKOLNIK PLLC
          1301 Avenue of the Americas, 10th Floor
          New York, NY, 10019
          Telephone: (212) 397 1000
          E-mail: hunter@napolilaw.com
                  pnapoli@napolilaw.com
                  planciotti@napolilaw.com

               - and -

          John K. Powers, Esq.
          Laura M. Jordan, Esq.
          Adam P. Powers, Esq.
          POWERS AND SANTOLA, LLP
          39 North Pearl St.
          Albany, NY, 12207
          Telephone: (518) 465 5995
          E-mail: jpowers@powers-santola.com
                  ljordan@powers-santola.com
                  apowers@powers-santola.com


SAKUMA BROTHERS: Settlement Fairness Hearing Set for July 8
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Marsha J. Pechman of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Washington granted preliminary
approval of the settlement in the case captioned, ANA LOPEZ
DEMETRIO and FRANCISCO EUGENIO PAZ, individually and on behalf of
NO. 2:13-cv-01918-MJP all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs,
v. SAKUMA BROTHERS FARMS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:13-cv-01918-
MJP (W.D. Wash.).

Plaintiffs have applied for an order preliminarily approving the
settlement of the instant action as stated in the Stipulation of
Settlement and Release Regarding Certified Question Claims filed
on March 20, 2016. The Stipulation of Settlement is the result of
arm's-length negotiations between experienced attorneys who are
familiar with class action litigation in general and with the
legal and factual issues of this case in particular.

In her Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/ejAmxV
from Leagle.com, Judge Pechman found the Stipulation of Settlement
as fair, reasonable and adequate and certified the settlement
class of "All migrant and seasonal employees of Sakuma who
performed piece-rate fruit harvest work for Sakuma in Washington
in -- or 2015." The Court appointed Marc C. Cote and Toby J.
Marshall of Terrell Marshall Law Group PLLC and Daniel G. Ford of
Columbia Legal Services as Class Counsel and approved as to form
and content, the Class Notice and the manner of distribution.

Fairness hearing is set on July 8, 2016 at 2:00 p.m.

Ana Lopez Demetrio and Francisco Eugenio Paz are represented by
Marc C. Cote, Esq. -- mcote@terrellmarshall.com -- and Toby James
Marshall, Esq. -- tmarshall@terrellmarshall.com -- TERRELL
MARSHALL LAW GROUP PLLC

          - and -

     Daniel G. Ford, Esq.
     COLUMBIA LEGAL SERVICES
     101 Yesler Way #300
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Tel: (206)464-1122

Sakuma Brothers Farms Inc. is represented by Adam S. Belzberg,
Esq. -- adam.belzberg@stoel.com -- STOEL RIVES


SCENIC TOURS: Disputes Class Action Claims Over River Cruises
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Australian Associated Press reports that three years after
their European holidays were hit by flooding, more than 1200
people have taken Australian travel company Scenic Tours to court.

A class-action lawsuit against the company began in the NSW
Supreme Court on April 26, with travellers who paid for places on
13 river cruises scheduled to begin in May and June 2013 arguing
that they were forced to swap their deluxe lodgings for
"substandard accommodation" and bus travel.

Alister Abadee, acting for the plaintiffs, said Scenic documents
suggested the company knew heavy rain could interrupt tours, and
considered cancelling cruises. But instead, tourists who expected
to travel by river and enjoy on-board accommodation endured coach
rides and inferior hotels, he said.  "The consumers did not pay
for a backpackers' Contiki tour," Mr. Abadee said.

However, Scenic Tours has argued that the weather was beyond its
control, and that the terms and conditions to which passengers
signed up included an acknowledgment that the company could vary
cruise itineraries "due to high or low water levels (or)
flooding".

The case continues.


SONOMA, CA: Court Nixes Defendants' Defenses in Strip Search Case
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Jon S. Tigar of the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California granted Plaintiffs' Motion
to Strike Defendants' Affirmative Defenses from Defendants' Joint
Answer in the case captioned, MYRAH MARTINEZ, et al., Plaintiffs,
v. COUNTY OF SONOMA, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-01953-JST
(N.D. Cal.).

Plaintiffs, four individuals who were housed at the Valley of the
Moon Children's Home for various periods of time between 1995 and
2014, filed a Class Action Complaint on April 30, 2015, alleging
that Defendants have subjected Plaintiffs to a host of abuses,
including regular strip searches, daily searches of their
belongings, restriction of access to their cell phones, physical
restraint, being locked into rooms, being prevented from
contacting family and friends, and being denied the right to
private telephone conversations.

On May 8, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (FAC).
Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the FAC, which motion the
Court granted in part and denied in part with leave to amend on
September 14, 2015. On September 30, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a
Second Amended Complaint (SAC). Defendants filed a Motion to
Dismiss and a Motion to Strike the SAC, which motion the Court
granted in part and denied in part on January 4, 2016.

Defendants then jointly filed an Answer to the SAC on January 19,
2016. On February 9, 2016, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to Strike
Defendants' Answer arguing that Defendants have failed to plead
sufficient factual allegations regarding each of their purported
affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs further argue that Affirmative
Defense Nos. 1 (failure to state a claim), 2 (failure to
mitigate), 7 (the Rooker-Feldman doctrine), 10 (no private right
of action), 11 (no properly pleaded class), and 12 (reservation of
right to include additional affirmative defenses) are not legally
cognizable as affirmative defenses.

In his Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/RpnRoG
from Leagle.com, Judge Tigar strikes the affirmative defenses Nos.
2-4 and 6-10 without prejudice because they are devoid of any
factual allegations, which would put Plaintiffs on notice for the
basis of these affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Mark E. Merin, Esq.
     Paul Hajime Masuhara, III, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF MARK E. MERIN
     1010 F St #300,
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Tel: (916)443-6911

County of Sonoma is represented by:

     Bonnie A. Freeman, Esq.
     Michael D. Senneff, Esq.
     SENNEFF FREEMAN & BLUESTONE, LLP
     50 Old Courthouse Square # 401
     Santa Rosa, CA 95404
     Tel: (707)526-4250


SOUTHWEST AIRLINES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Get Addt'l $450K Fees
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that after
beating back an appeal of the settlement agreement that granted
them more than $1.6 million in fees, the attorneys who represented
a group of people who brought a class action against Southwest
Airlines for refusing to honor drink vouchers will not get all the
additional fees they requested for their work on the appeal.

But after a Chicago federal judge signed off on an increase in
fees, they will still get much more than peanuts.

On April 25, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly awarded
additional attorney fees of more than $450,000 to the group of
plaintiffs' lawyers.  This would come on top of the more than $1.6
million in fees the judge had already approved from the original
settlement for the attorneys.  According to federal court records,
the plaintiffs were represented by a group that included class
action trial lawyer Joseph Siprut and others at the Siprut P.C.
firm in Chicago, as well as Stephen C. Jarvis, of Wawrzyn LLC, of
Chicago, and Gregg M. Barbakoff, of the firm of Maurice Wutscher
LLP, of Chicago.

Judge Kennelly's award of additional compensation comes as the
latest step in years of litigation over the case.

The matter was first taken to federal court in November 2011, when
Siprut filed suit on behalf of named plaintiff Adam Levitt, listed
as a resident of Cook County.

According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs demanded Southwest Airlines
pay customers who had held vouchers for free in-flight alcoholic
beverages.  The court documents noted Southwest had liberally
distributed the vouchers to business class customers, some of whom
would stockpile the vouchers, which had no expiration date, for
use on future flights.

However, the company stopped honoring the vouchers in 2010,
triggering the years-long litigation over the matter.

Eventually, the two sides reached a settlement agreement.  Under
the deal, Southwest agreed to reissue new drink coupons, which
would be good for one year, to all class members who filed claims.
Southwest also agreed to pay $15,000 each to Levitt, and fellow
lead plaintiff Herbert C. Malone, who was added to the case in
December 2011.

However, the settlement deal also allowed for attorney fees of as
much as $3 million for plaintiffs' lawyers.  Judge Kennelly,
however, awarded fees of about $1.65 million.

After the deal was announced, two class members objected to the
terms, saying they believed the attorney fee award was far too
high, particularly in relation to the small award granted to class
members.

On appeal, however, a panel of the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of
Appeals upheld the settlement deal and Judge Kennelly's fee award,
and remanded the case back to Judge Kennelly to decide whether
Siprut and his fellow plaintiffs' lawyers should receive yet more
fees for their work on the appeal.

Back at district court, the plaintiffs' lawyers asked Judge
Kennelly to award additional fees, taking advantage of the appeal
to request as much as possible of the potential $3 million allowed
by the settlement deal.

Judge Kennelly determined additional fees were "appropriate"
following the appeal.

"Though plaintiffs were not completely successful on appeal, they
obtained a favorable ruling on the primary arguments made by the
objectors against approval of the settlement and the fee award,"
Judge Kennelly said.  "These are matters of considerable
significance, particularly in view of the fact that the appeal
involved a significant legal issue on which, at the time of this
Court's decision, the only appellate precedent was adverse."

However, he said the amount being requested by Siprut and his
colleagues in the case -- an amount the judge pegged at more than
$1.3 million -- was far too high.  He particularly noted he
believed the number of hours the plaintiffs' lawyers had estimated
they worked on the appeal -- 970 hours -- to be "grossly
excessive."

"One is left with the overall impression that the fee petition
boils down to this," the judge said.  "Some of the originally
hoped-for $3 million that Southwest agreed not to oppose is still
on the table, and plaintiffs' counsel are trying to find a way to
get the rest of it."

Instead, the judge said an additional fee amount of a little more
than $458,000 -- an amount about one-third of what the judge had
estimated Siprut and his group had requested -- would be more
"appropriately awarded."

Objectors to the class action settlement were represented in the
case by attorneys with the Competitive Enterprise Institute's
Center for Class Action Fairness, of Washington, D.C., the firm of
Williams Montgomery & John, of Chicago, and the Law Offices of
Darrell Palmer, of Carlsbad, Calif.


STARBUCKS: Sued for Allegedly Overfilling Cold Drinks with Ice
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal lawsuit claims
Starbucks regularly overfills its cold drinks with ice instead of
using the advertised amount of coffee or other liquid in its
plastic cups.

The lawsuit was filed in Chicago on behalf of Stacy Pincus, a
local woman who accuses Starbucks of misleading consumers.  The
lawsuit alleges that an iced beverage advertised at 24 ounces
contains about 14 ounces of fluid, and that ice isn't a fluid or
beverage.

"A Starbucks customer who orders and pays for a cold drink
receives much less than advertised -- often nearly half as many
fluid ounces," the lawsuit states, adding that the practice is "by
design and corporate practice and procedure."

Starbucks said the lawsuit is without merit.

"Our customers understand and expect that ice is an essential
component of any 'iced' beverage," Starbucks spokesperson Jaime
Riley said May 2.  "If a customer is not satisfied with their
beverage preparation, we will gladly remake it."

The lawsuit seeks class-action status, which could allow it to
cover customers for the last decade.  Among other things, the
lawsuit seeks damages, restitution and attorneys' fees.


STATE FARM: Sued in S.D. Cal. for Invasion of Privacy
-----------------------------------------------------
Alyssa Reyes, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
Company, the Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-01022-L-JLB (S.D. Cal.,
April 26, 2016), seeks damages, injunctive relief, and any other
available legal or equitable remedies, resulting from the illegal
actions of the Defendant in monitoring and/or recording a
telephone conversation of Plaintiff without the knowledge or
consent of Plaintiff, in violation of California's Invasion of
Privacy Act, California Penal Code, thereby invading Plaintiff's
privacy.

According to the complaint, Defendant called from telephone number
844-292-8615. There was no prerecorded or oral recording
advisement provided to Plaintiff at the outset of this telephone
call.  Plaintiff did not hear intermittent beeping sounds during
the call that may have alerted Plaintiff that the call was being
monitored and/or recorded. Plaintiff was unaware that Defendant
was recording the call at the time. The telephone conversation
lasted approximately one minute.

State Farm is a nationwide provider of automobile insurance.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Daniel G. Shay, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF DANIEL G. SHAY
          409 Camino Del Rio South, Ste 101B
          San Diego, CA 92108
          Telephone: (619) 222 7429
          Facsimile: (866) 431 3292
          E-mail: DanielShay@SanDiegoBankruptcyNow.com


SUBARU OF AMERICA: "O'Neill" Sues over Defective Lighting
---------------------------------------------------------
Kathleen O'Neill, individually, and on behalf of other members of
the general public similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. Subaru of
America, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02774. (C.D. Cal. April
22, 2016), seeks enjoinment from further deceptive distribution,
sales and lease, compensatory, exemplary and statutory damages,
including interest, pre-judgment and post-judgment interest,
attorney fees and costs pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act and the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.

The 2010-2011 Subaru Outback exterior lighting bulbs allegedly
fail prematurely and frequently and worsens when the vehicle
exterior lighting system is placed in auto mode, as recommended by
Subaru.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Jordan L. Lurie, Esq.
     Robert K. Friedl, Esq.
     Tarek H. Zohdy, Esq.
     Cody R. Padgett, Esq.
     Karen L. Wallace, Esq.
     CAPSTONE LAW APC
     1840 Century Park East, Suite 450
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Telephone: (310) 556-4811
     Facsimile: (310) 943-0396
     Email: Jordan.Lurie@capstonelawyers.com
            Robert.Friedl@capstonelawyers.com
            Tarek.Zohdy@capstonelawyers.com
            Cody.Padgett@capstonelawyers.com
            Karen.Wallace@capstonelawyers.com


SWIFT TRANSPORTATION: Court Apprves Class Notice, Distribution
--------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Benjamin H. Settle of the United States District
Court for the Western District of Wisconsin granted a renewed
motion for approval of class notice and class notice distribution
plan in the case captioned, TROY SLACK, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
SWIFT TRANSPORTATION CO. OF ARIZONA, LLC, Defendant, Case No. C11-
5843BHS (W.D. Wash.).

On November 20, 2013, the Court certified a class. On February 18,
2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant motion requesting approval of a
class notice and distribution plan.

Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Eric Dublinski, Richard
Erickson, Sean Forney, Jacob Grismer, Timothy Helmick, Henry
Ledesma, Scott Praye, Gary Roberts, Troy Slack, Dennis Stuber, and
Robert Ulrich's renewed motion for approval of class notice and
class notice distribution plan.

In his Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/hqzYtG
from Leagle.com, Judge Settle agreed with Plaintiffs that the
proposed class notice is the best notice practicable to clearly
and concisely apprise potential class members of the requirements
of Rule 23(c)(2)(B) and that that the plan is reasonable and
should be approved.

Plaintiffs are represented by Deborah M. Nelson, Esq. --
nelson@nelsonboydlaw.com -- and Jeffrey D. Boyd, Esq. --
boyd@nelsonboydlaw.com -- NELSON BOYD PLLC, Jeniphr A.E.
Breckenridge, Esq. -- jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- and Steve W. Berman,
Esq. -- steve@hbsslaw.com -- HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP,  &
Robert J. Camp, Esq. -- rcamp@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS,
CHILDS, QUINN & PANTAZIS, LLC

Swift Transportation Co. of Arizona, LLC is represented by David
W. Wiley, Esq. -- dwiley@williamkastner.com -- Jeffrey M. Wells,
Esq. -- jwells@williamkaster.com -- and Sheryl D.J. Willert, Esq.
-- swillert@williamkastner.com -- WILLIAMS KASTNER


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Patel" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to N.D. Cal.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mitesh Patel, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. TerraForm Global, Inc., SunEdison,
Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, Carlos
Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC,
Barclays Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG
Pactual US Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko
Securities Americas, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak
Mahindra, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. CIV536788, was removed
from San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, San Francisco Division. The
Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02272 to the
proceeding.

The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased shares of TerraForm
Global's common stock that were issued pursuant to the Company's
Registration Statement and Prospectus in connection with its July
31, 2015 initial public offering. The Complaint further alleges
that the Registration Statement and IPO Prospectus contained
material misstatements and/or omissions in violation of the
Securities Act of 1933.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.
SunEdison is a global renewable energy development company. Brian
Wuebbels is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of SunEdison.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Laurence M Rosen
          The Rosen Law Firm. P.A.
          355 South Grand Avenue, Suite 2450
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 785 2610
          Facsimile: (213) 226 4684
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com

               - and -

          Brett Hammon, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858 6000
          Facsimile (650) 858 6100
          E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Patrick D. Robbins, Esq.
          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Daniel C. Lewis, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5994
          Telephone: (415) 616 1210
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: probbins@shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com
                  daniel.lewis@shearman.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. Cal.
--------------------------------------------------
Simon Fraser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Brian Wuebbels, TerraForm Global, Inc.
SunEdison, Inc., Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier, Ahmad
Chatila, and Martin Truong, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan
Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce,
Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG
Pactual US Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko
Securities Americas, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak
Mahindra, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. CIV535963, was removed
from San Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California. The Northern District Court
assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-02273-LHK to the proceeding.

The complaint alleges that on August 4, 2015, TerraForm Global
filed with the SEC its Prospectus, which forms part of the IPO
Registration Statement that was declared effective on July 31,
2015. TerraForm Global sold 45,000,000 shares of Class A common
stock at an offering price of $15 per share in connection with the
IPO and received net proceeds of approximately $620 million. The
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff purchased securities issued in
connection with TerraForm Global's IPO. The Plaintiff claimed that
the Registration Statement and IPO Prospectus were materially
false and misleading and/or omitted to state other material facts
necessary to make the statements made in the Registration
Statement not misleading in violation of the Securities Act of
1933. On April 21, 2016, SunEdison filed a voluntary petition for
bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Code in the United States
Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. This
action is related to the SunEdison Bankruptcy Case.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.
SunEdison is a global renewable energy development company. Brian
Wuebbels is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of SunEdison.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kano S. Sams II, Esq.
          ProngayLionel Zevi Glancy, Esq.
          Robert Vincent Prongay, 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: esams@glancylaw.com
                  lglancy@glancylaw.com
                  rprongay@glancylaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Sara B. Brody, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP
          555 California Street, Suite 2000
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 772 1200
          Facsimile: (415) 772 7400
          E-mail: sbrody@sidley.com

               - and -

          Brett Hammon, Esq.
          WILMER CUTLER PICKERING
          HALE AND DORR LLP
          950 Page Mill Road
          Palo Alto, CA 94304
          Telephone: (650) 858 6000
          Facsimile (650) 858 6100
          E-mail: Brett.Hammon@wilmerhale.com

               - and -

          Patrick D. Robbins, Esq.
          Adam S. Hakki, Esq.
          Daniel C. Lewis, Esq.
          SHEARMAN & STERLING LLP
          Four Embarcadero Center, Suite 3800
          San Francisco, CA 94111-5994
          Telephone: (415) 616 1210
          Facsimile: (415) 616 1199
          E-mail: probbins@shearman.com
                  ahakki@shearman.com
                  daniel.lewis@shearman.com


TERRAFORM GLOBAL: "Fraser" Suit Moved to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------
Simon Fraser, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Terraform Global, Inc., SunEdison,
Inc., Brian Wuebbels, Carlos Domenech Zornoza, Jeremy Avenier,
Ahmad Chatila, Martin Truong, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Morgan Stanley & Co.
LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Deutsche Bank Securities Inc., BTG Pactual US
Capital LLC, Itau BBA USA Securities, Inc., SMBC Nikko Securities
Americas, Inc., SG Americas Securities, LLC, and Kotak Mahindra,
Inc., the Defendants, Case no. CIV535963, was removed from the San
Mateo Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California (San Francisco). The Northern District
Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02273 to the proceeding.

TerraForm Global is a globally diversified owner of clean power
generation assets in attractive, high-growth emerging markets.
SunEdison is a global renewable energy development company. Brian
Wuebbels is the Executive Vice President and Chief Financial
Officer of SunEdison.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


TGI FRIDAYS: NJ Appeals Court Reverses Rulings in Beverage Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Joseph L. Yannotti of the New Jersey Superior Court,
Appellate Division, reversed the trial court's orders of December
23, 2014 and February 13, 2015, and dismissed plaintiffs' cross-
appeal in the case captioned, DEBRA DUGAN, ALAN FOX, and ROBERT
CAMERON on behalf of themselves and all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Respondents/Cross-Appellants, v. TGI FRIDAYS, INC.,
CARLSON RESTAURANTS WORLDWIDE, INC., on behalf of themselves and
all others similarly situated, Defendant-Appellant/Cross-
Respondents, Case No. A-3485-14T3 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

On January 12, 2010, Dugan filed a putative class-action complaint
against TGIF alleging that the restaurant chain violated the
Consumer Fraud Act (CFA), N.J.S.A. 56:8-1 to-184, and the Truth in
Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA), N.J.S.A.
56:12-14 to-18, by: (1) failing to list prices for beer, mixed
drinks, and soft drinks on its restaurant menus; and (2) engaging
in an unconscionable commercial practice by charging different
prices for the same beverage, depending upon where in the
restaurant the beverage was served. The proposed defendant class
consisted of the thirty-eight TGIF restaurants in New Jersey, some
of which are corporate-owned, and some of which were are operated
as a franchise of TGIF.

In June 2010, TGIF filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The
judge entered an order denying the motion which was later granted
by the Supreme Court and summarily remanded the matter to the
court for consideration of TGIF's interlocutory appeal. The
affirmed the trial court's order in an unpublished opinion.
In November 2014, plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the class
definition for purposes of preparing notices to class members.
Plaintiffs sought to remove the requirement that the class member
"relied upon" TGIF's menu, and to define the class as any customer
who purchased an unpriced beverage during the relevant time
period. The judge granted the motion and found that the class
members need not show reliance to pursue claims under the Consumer
Fraud Act (CFA) and Truth in Consumer Contract Warranty and Notice
Act (TCCWNA). On December 23, 2014, the judge entered an order
approving the notices for class members. The order also changed
the definition of the class to include: "All persons who visited a
TGI Friday's restaurant in New Jersey that is owned by TGI
Friday's (i.e. company owned store) from January 12, 2004 to July
14, 2014, and purchased an offered but unpriced soda, beer or
mixed drink."

In January 2015, TGIF filed a motion to reconsider class
certification and decertify the class or, in the alternative, to
revise the class definition. By order entered February 13, 2015,
the judge denied the motions. The judge ordered class notification
to begin on February 20, 2015.

On appeal, TGIF argues that the trial court erred by denying its
motion to reconsider class certification and decertify the class
because plaintiffs failed to meet the requirements for maintaining
a class action under the court rules. In the alternative, TGIF
argues that the trial court erred by refusing to revise the
definition of the class to require that each class member has read
TGIF's menu before purchasing an unpriced beverage.

In their cross-appeal, plaintiffs argue that the trial court erred
by limiting the class to persons who purchased unpriced beverages
at TGIF's company-owned restaurants; excluding purchasers of
coffee, tea and miscellaneous beverages from the class; and
excluding persons who purchased unpriced soda, beer and mixed
drinks after July 14, 2014.

In his Opinion dated March 24, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/aGZp4Bfrom Leagle.com, Judge Yannotti held that with
respect to the claims under the CFA, the trial court erroneously
found that issues of fact common to members of the class
predominate over issues that affect individual class members and
by allowing these claims to be maintained as a class action.

The matter is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings
on plaintiffs' individual claims.

Rebekah R. Radatz is represented by Stephen M. Orlofsky, Esq. --
Orlfsky@BlankRome.com -- David C. Kistler, Esq. ---
Kistler@BlankRome.com -- Jeffrey L. O'Hara, Esq. ---
Ohara@BlankRome.com -- and Matthew S. Schultz, Esq. ---
Schultz@BalnkRome.com -- BLANK ROME, LLP

Federal National Mortgage Association is represented by:

     Sander D. Friedman, Esq.
     Wesley G. Hanna, Esq.
     LAW OFFICE OF SANDER D. FRIEDMAN, LLC
     125 North Route 73
     West Berlin, NJ 08091
     Tel: (856)988-7777


THAXTON INVESTMENT: "DeBenedetto" Wages Suit Has Conditional Cert
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of the United States District
Court for the District of South Carolina granted conditional
certification of a collective action in the case captioned, Roger
DeBenedetto, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. Thaxton Investment Corporation, Southern
Management Corporation, Southern Finance of South Carolina, Inc.
d/b/a Southern Finance, Quick Credit, Covington Credit, SoCo
Finance, Defendants, Case No. 6:15-cv-02475-MGL (D.S.C.).

Plaintiff Roger DeBenedetto, on behalf of himself and all others
similarly situated, has specifically alleged that the Defendants'
bonus policy violated the "fixed salary" requirement of the Fair
Labor Standards Act's Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) and/or said bonus
policy resulted in Defendants improperly calculating his overtime
wages under the FWW.

Plaintiff filed a Motion for Conditional Certification. He seeks
to certify a class of "All individuals who worked as an Assistant
Manager at any SMC branch office between October 1, 2014 and
August 1, 2015 and who were compensated pursuant to the
fluctuating workweek method and both earned a bonus and worked
overtime hours during the same month."

In her Order dated March 23, 2016 available at http://is.gd/AyhVci
from Leagle.com, Judge Lewis approved the conditional
certification and the form and method of notice to all similarly
situated class members.

Notice and Consent Form is to be sent to all current and former
workers of Defendants to allow them to opt-in to the lawsuit and
shall use the service of Third Party Administrator (TPA),
Simpluris, Inc., to handle distribution of Notice and Consent
Form. Defendants shall pay all fees and costs of TPA. Sixty-five
(65) days upon entry of the Order, the TPA shall send a report to
counsel for the parties, showing all activity of the TPA in the
action, redacting the names and contact information of all
putative class members who did not opt-in to the lawsuit.

Roger DeBenedetto is represented by:

     John G. Reckenbeil, Esq.
     Lawrence Everett McNair, III, Esq.
     JOHN RECKENBEIL LAW OFFICE
     215 Magnolia St.
     Spartanburg, SC 29306
     Tel: (864)582-5472

Thaxton Investment Corporation is represented by George Alfred
Reeves, III, Esq. -- greeves@laborlawyers.com -- and Michael
Dennis Carrouth, Esq. -- mcarrouth@laborlawyers.com -- FISHER AND
PHILLIPS


TOTAL RENAL: Blumenthal Nordrehaug Files Wage Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
The San Francisco employment law lawyers at Blumenthal, Nordrehaug
and Bhowmik filed a proposed class action Complaint against Total
Renal care, Inc. ("Renal") for allegedly failing to provide their
hourly California employees with the legally required meal and
rest periods.  The lawsuit also claims that Renal manipulated time
records to avoid paying all overtime worked by their California
employees.  The Total Renal Care lawsuit, Case No. CGC-16-550847
is currently pending in San Francisco County Superior Court.

The lawsuit filed against Total Renal Care claims that the company
failed to accurately "record and pay Plaintiff and other
California Class Members for the actual amount of time these
employees worked, including overtime worked."  Under the
California Labor Code, an employee who is classified as
non-exempt and is paid on an hourly basis must be paid overtime
wages for time worked in excess of eight hours in a workday and
time worked over forty hours in a workweek.

The Complaint also alleges that the employees working for Renal in
California were not always able to take their meal and rest breaks
in accordance with the California Labor Code before their fifth
hour of work.  California law requires employers to provide their
non-exempt employees paid on an hourly basis with thirty minute
meal periods before the employee works five hours.

For more information about the class action lawsuit filed against
Total Renal Care please contact Attorney Nicholas De Blouw at
(866) 771-7099.

Blumenthal, Nordrehaug and Bhowmik is a San Francisco employment
law firm that dedicates its practice to helping employees, fight
back against unfair business practices, including violations of
the California Labor Code and Fair Labor Standards Act.  The law
firm has employment law offices located in San Francisco,
Sacramento, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Diego.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Fraud Class Action Can Go to Trial
----------------------------------------------------
Fox News and The Associated Press report that a New York judge
decided on April 26 that a fraud case against Donald Trump over
his former school for real estate investors will go to trial --
raising the possibility that the Republican presidential primary
front-runner could testify during campaign season.

New York County Supreme Court Judge Cynthia Kern made the decision
at a hearing on April 26, though it remains unclear whether the
case will be weighed at a jury trial -- which is what Trump's team
is seeking.  Trump attorney Jeffrey Goldman said it's possible the
trial could be held this fall, and Trump could testify.

In the case, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman, a
Democrat, has accused Trump and others of misleading thousands of
students over the school.

Mr. Schneiderman alleges that Trump University was unlicensed
since it began operating in 2005 and promised lessons with real
estate experts hand-picked by Trump, only one of whom had ever met
him.  The attorney general said the school used "bait-and-switch"
tactics, inducing students to enroll in increasingly expensive
seminars.

Trump has denied any wrongdoing. He has said it was "a terrific
school" with 98 percent approval ratings by its students.

Mr. Schneiderman had sued Trump and the school, which changed its
name to the Trump Entrepreneur Initiative before it closed in
2010, for $40 million.  The lawsuit seeks restitution and damages
for more than 5,000 students nationwide, including 600 New
Yorkers, who paid up to $35,000 each.

A New York court earlier had refused to throw out the fraud
lawsuit.

Trump filed complaints with the state's ethics commission in 2013,
four months after the lawsuit was filed, alleging
Mr. Schneiderman pursued it to wring out campaign contributions
from Trump's daughter Ivanka.  The commission dropped the
complaint after a review.  Mr. Schneiderman denied it, and his
campaign returned the $500 donation Ivanka Trump had made in 2012.

Mr. Trump's fellow Republican candidates have attacked him over
litigation against the school, including a class-action suit in
California.  Mr. Trump criticized the judge in that case.


TWIN ARCHES: Court Grants Conditional Cert. in Employee Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Robert E. Blackburn of the United States District
Court for the District of Colorado granted Plaintiffs' Motion for
Conditional Collective Action Certification and for Judicial
Notice to Class Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 216(b)B in the case
captioned, MARISOL SARDINA, also known as Alejandra Arredondo,
COLUMBA RODRIGUEZ, also known as Anabel Echeverria, MARGARITA
HERRERA, also known as Jessica Gonzalez, ALBERTO ECHEVERRIA, also
known as Jesus F. Gonzalez, ANGELICA LU BLANCA AVILA, also known
as Rosa Medina, PATRICIA ALEJANDRE GARCIA, also known as Ana
Moncada, JESSICA MORALES TAVERA, MARIA QUINONES M., also known as
Karime Dominguez, ROSAURA ZAVALA, also known as Alejandra
Gutierrez, Individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TWIN ARCHES PARTNERSHIP, LTD., LORENA
ESTRADA, and CLIFF PETE, in their individual and corporate
capacities, Defendants, Case No. 15-CV-00054-REB-KLM (D. Colo.).

The plaintiffs allege that they are non-exempt hourly cooks,
trainers, cashiers and maintenance workers who perform work on
behalf of the defendants at a McDonald's restaurant operated by
the defendants at 245 South Main Street in Longmont, Colorado.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs and other employees of
the defendants who are situated similarly were/are not properly
paid for all work performed for their employer, including
overtime. In addition, the plaintiffs allege that the defendants
failed properly to maintain daily work records for their
employees, in violation of the FLSA.

The plaintiffs seek to pursue a collective action under the Act on
behalf of themselves and other similarly situated current and
former employees of the defendants.

In his Memorandum Opinion dated March 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/MOkC3Pfrom Leagle.com, Judge Blackburn found that
the allegations in the complaint constitute substantial
allegations that the plaintiffs and other employees of the
defendants were together the victims of a single decision, policy,
or plan of the defendants. He also approved the Notice of
Collective Action Lawsuit because it generally provides adequate
notice to potential plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs are represented by Colleen Therese Calandra, Esq. --
ccalandra@ramosinjuryfirm.com -- and Jessica L. Derakhshanian,
Esq. --- jderakhshanian@ramosinjuryfirm.com -- RAMOS LAW, LLC

Twin Arches Partnership, Ltd. is represented by Darin L.
Mackender, Esq. --- dmackender@laborlawyers.com -- and Kaitlin E.
Fox, Esq. -- kfox@laborlawyers.com -- FISHER & PHILLIPS, LLP


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: "Lamour" Sues Over Unpaid Minimum, OT Wages
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jean Edner Lamour, an Individual, Plaintiff, v. Uber Technologies,
Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21449-JEM (S.D. Fla., April 22,
2016), seeks compensatory damages, costs and expenses of this
action together with reasonable attorneys' fees and expert fees as
a result of Defendant's failure to pay minimum wage and overtime
compensation pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Uber is a car service that provides drivers who can be hailed and
dispatched through a mobile phone application. It is a Delaware
corporation with principal place of business located in San
Francisco. Plaintiff is an Uber driver.

Uber has classified its drivers as independent contractors, thus
denying them the basic benefits due an employee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gerald F. Richman, Esq.
      Adam M. Myron, Esq.
      Josh L. Spoont, Esq.
      RICHMAN GREER PA
      One Clearlake Center, Suite 1504
      250 Australian Avenue South
      West Palm Beach, FL 33401
      Tel: (561) 803-3500
      Fax: (561) 820-1608
      Email: grichman@richmangreer.com

           - and -

      Stephen J. Schultz, Esq.
      SLOVAK BARON EMPEY MURPHY & PINKNEY LLP
      2240 Fifth Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Tel: 619.501.4540
      Email: schultz@sbemp.com

           - and -


      Thomas G, Schultz, Esq.
      LSRCF LAW, PLLC
      1111 Brickell Ave. 02200
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: 305.760.8544
      Fax: 305.356.5720
      Email: Tschultz@LSRCF.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Reaches Settlement with Blind Riders
-------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Uber and advocates for the blind
have reached a lawsuit settlement in which the ride-hailing
company agrees to require that existing and new drivers confirm
they understand their legal obligations to transport riders with
guide dogs or other service animals, an advocacy group announced
on April 30.

The National Federation of the Blind said on April 30 that Uber
will also remove a driver from the platform after a single
complaint if it determines the driver knowingly denied a person
with a disability a ride because the person was traveling with a
service animal.

The settlement resolves a lawsuit filed in 2014 in federal court
that alleges Uber discriminates against passengers with service
dogs.  The lawsuit said Uber drivers refused to take passengers
with dogs and in one case locked the passenger's service dog in
the trunk.

Federal law requires taxis and other private transportation
services to carry a disabled passenger's service animal.

"Access to reliable and effective transportation is critical to
the ability of blind people to live the lives we want," said
Mark A. Riccobono, president of the National Federation of the
Blind.  "Uber and similar services can be a great asset to the
blind when they are fully and equally available to us."

Uber will also spend $225,000 to deploy people with the National
Federation of the Blind and its California affiliate to evaluate
the company's compliance with the settlement, the group said.

Under the agreement, Uber does not admit any liability, and it
denies that it has violated any laws.

"Our goal at Uber is to make transportation options more
accessible to all individuals, including those who are blind,
low-vision or have other disabilities," the company said in a
statement.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Driver Class Action Settlement Big Win
---------------------------------------------------------
Eric Newcomer and Kartikay Mehrotra, writing for Bloomberg news,
report that Uber has agreed to shell out at as much as $100
million to drivers in California and Massachusetts to settle a
class-action lawsuit.  For many startups, a payout of that size
would be a big setback. But some seasoned Uber drivers consider it
a victory for the ride-hailing company.

Ezra Dubroff, an Uber driver in Los Angeles since November 2013,
had hoped the case would go to trial and set a legal precedent. He
and other drivers say the settlement folded on the suit's central
claim -- that Uber drivers should be classified as employees, not
independent contractors, entitled to such protections as a minimum
wage, Social Security and health benefits.

Instead, he says, the deal is being interpreted as a big win for
Uber -- a contention widely shared by analysts who say the outcome
is a significant boost for the company and the so-called gig
economy.  In the court of public opinion, Mr. Dubroff says,
"People think this is done with and that Uber is right."

Shannon Liss-Riordan, who represented about 385,000 drivers,
defends the settlement as "extremely significant" and says she
could have lost at trial in Uber's hometown of San Francisco.  And
even had she won, the company almost certainly would have
appealed.  "I would have loved to take this case to trial," she
says.  "Given the risks we were facing and what we achieved, that
would not have been responsible."

Drivers have already filed objections to the settlement, which the
judge still needs to approve.

Not all drivers are as disappointed as Mr. Dubroff. John Domingo,
who estimates that he's driven more than 70,000 miles for Uber,
believes an outright victory could have killed Uber's business if
the company had been forced to convert its drivers into employees.
But Domingo says, "The attorney kind of sold out."

Some drivers say Ms. Liss-Riordan should have held out for more
money, which they consider a trifling sum for a company recently
valued at $62.5 billion.  Uber has agreed to pay an initial $84
million, which could rise to $100 million if the company goes
public and reaches a valuation of at least $90 billion or so.  How
much each driver receives will depend, in part, on how many ask
for a cut.  If all do, based on a $100-million payout,
Ms. Ms. Liss-Riordan estimates they'll get $1,950 apiece. (As much
as a quarter of the settlement could be swallowed up by legal
fees.)

Kendrick Lewallen signed up for Uber back in June of 2014.  If he
winds up receiving less than $2,000, he says, "Uber basically won
this lawsuit.  If it's that low, I think it's kind of ridiculous
because we've been working so hard and for so long. We deserve a
little bit more."

Ms. Liss-Riordan says the most active drivers could receive more
than $8,000.  But to get such a sum, they would have had to opt
out of an arbitration clause recently added to their contracts.
The clause excludes drivers from participating in class-action
lawsuits.

The drivers won several non-monetary concessions from Uber.  Chief
among them: The company will no longer ban them for failing to
accept new fares--what the company calls deactivation.

"As we've grown we've gotten a lot right--but certainly not
everything," Uber Chief Executive Officer Travis Kalanick wrote in
a blog post.  "This new deactivation policy is an important step
forward when it comes to working with drivers.  But there's more
to do, which is why I'm excited about some other improvements we
have planned for the not too distant future.  Stay tuned."

As part of the settlement, drivers also will be allowed to form an
association.  And Uber acknowledged it allows tipping, though
gratuities aren't included in the mobile application.

Still, according to Harry Campbell, who runs a popular blog for
Uber drivers, the settlement "really is a big win for Uber.
Obviously drivers looking to be reclassified as employees are the
losers."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiffs' Lawyers Challenge Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------
Daniel T. Rockey, Esq. of Bryan Cave LLP, in an article for
Lexology, reports that Uber's recently announced $100 million
settlement to resolve the O'Connor v. Uber Technologies, Inc.
class action, in which plaintiffs sought an order deeming them
employees, rather than independent contractors, already faces
objections from an unlikely source -- plaintiffs' attorneys
leading other putative class actions against Uber that would be
resolved under the terms of the settlement.  Among those objecting
are Andrew P. Lee, counsel in the In re Uber FCRA Litigation and
various other attorneys prosecuting employment or worker's
compensation claims against Uber in other courts. The hearing on
the O'Connor plaintiffs motion for approval of the settlement is
currently set for June 4, 2016.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Settlement to Provide Clarity on Tipping
-----------------------------------------------------------
ABC Radio, writing for wtop, reports that Uber's recent class-
action settlement includes a small proposed shift in the app's
tipping policy that could lead to changes for both drivers and
passengers.

On April 21, ride-sharing service Uber announced an up to $100
million settlement for class-action lawsuits in California and
Massachusetts, which cover 385,000 drivers.  The proposed
settlement, "recognizes that drivers should remain as independent
contractors, not employees."  As part of the terms of the
agreement, Uber drivers will be able to solicit cash tips from
passengers directly or post a sign in their cars that tips aren't
included in the fare.

Under the settlement, Uber won't have to provide the signage for
cars, according to Shannon Liss-Riordan, the lead counsel for the
Uber drivers in these lawsuits.  But, she added, "The plan is
there will be consistent-looking signs."

The change in Uber's stance on tipping won't be official until the
settlement is approved by a judge; a preliminary approval hearing
is scheduled for June 2, and it may take months until it is
finalized, she said.  But, it's possible passengers will see signs
before then.

"I don't expect Uber will be cracking down on drivers with signs
before the final approval," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.

Currently, the Uber app does not mention that tips are not
included, nor are signs posted in the cars.  Though passengers may
not know that tips would be appreciated, Uber drivers may give
lower-than-usual ratings to passengers who don't tip.  The
settlement will not add tipping within the Uber app, but
passengers may be more aware that tips are not included and can
offer cash.

"I think this is going to make a substantial difference in
drivers' livelihood and day-to-day income, because passengers will
start to tip," Ms. Liss-Riordan said.

The proposed settlement terms about tipping are a shift from
Uber's current tone. On its website, Uber tells passengers: "You
don't need cash when you ride with Uber.  Once you arrive at your
destination, your fare is automatically charged to your credit
card on file -- there's no need to tip."

When asked if Uber drivers may rate passengers lower than usual if
they don't tip, Ms. Liss-Riordan said, "I think when you
participate in a service transaction there are certain cultural
norms. The nice thing to do is leave them a tip, though you don't
have to."

Uber did not respond to ABC News' request for further comment.

In addition to how drivers may rate passengers based on tipping,
passengers and Uber itself gives ratings to drivers.  Too many
poor ratings or too many declines to pick up passengers from a
driver can lead to deactivation.  But there hasn't been an
official policy until now.

On April 21, Uber posted a statement about the settlements saying
that it now has a policy explaining when and how the company bars
drivers from using the app and a process to appeal those
decisions.

"For example, we don't have a policy explaining when and how we
bar drivers from using the app, or a process to appeal these
decisions. At our size that's not good enough.  It's time to
change," Uber CEO Travis Kalanick wrote on the Uber website on
April 25.  "So we've published a driver deactivation policy for
the first time.  It will apply across the United States, and our
goal is to roll out similar policies globally over time."


UNITED STATES: Flint Residents Sue EPA Over Lead Water Crisis
-------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Lange, writing for Fox 2, reports that the people of Flint
join forces to take on the EPA.  They're filing a new class action
lawsuit seeking $220 million in damages over the lead water
crisis.

It has been called a "failure at all levels of government" but
this latest class action complaint takes aim at the Environmental
Protection Agency.

"They are responsible for what happened, they could have prevented
a number of the injuries to our clients," said attorney Michael
Pitt.

Mr. Pitt, one of the attorneys filing this class action complaint
against the Environmental Protection Agency -- accusing it of
negligence failing to protect the people of Flint -- seeking $220
million in damages.

"Their job is to be the watchdog," said Jan Burgess, who filed a
complaint with the EPA in Oct. 2014 -- just six months after the
switch to the Flint River -- alleging serious wrongdoing once she
found out General Motors was refusing to use the water because it
was corroding their equipment.

"I felt it was a really, really serious issue," Mr. Burgess said.
"I got a response from them that was just nothing but I don't know
- I guess I'd call it verbal vomit."

Mr. Burgess had already complained to the city but was told to
contact the EPA who didn't contact her for a year and a half. Long
after one of the EPA's own investigators had discovered the lead
problem -- and tried to sound the alarms.

"We met with EPA investigators April 9th and they apologized for
dropping the ball," Mr. Pitt said.

"It was disgusting then and it's still disgusting," Mr. Burgess
said. "Somebody needs to be watch-dogging the watchdogs because
obviously there were not doing their jobs."

The current complaint was filed on behalf of more than 500
residents of Flint, but 250 more will be added.  A spokesperson
for the EPA says they are reviewing the complaint.


UNITEDHEALTH GROUP: Court Tosses "Merrick" ERISA Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Edgardo Ramos of the United States District Court
for the Southern District of New York granted Defendants' motion
to dismiss in the case captioned, TIMOTHY MERRICK, D.C. d/b/a
ALIVE & WELL CHIROPRACTIC, JOSHUA I. KANTOR, D.C., JASON PIKEN,
D.C. d/b/a INNATE CHIROPRACTIC OF MANHATTAN, and CRAIG FISHEL,
D.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. UNITEDHEALTH GROUP INCORPORATED, UNITEDHEALTHCARE,
INC., UNITEDHEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC., OPTUM INC., and
OPTUMHEALTH, INC., Defendants, Case No. 14Civ.8071(ER) (S.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs Timothy Merrick, D.C. (Merrick), Joshua Kantor D.C.
(Kantor), Jason Piken, D.C. (Piken), and Craig Fishel D.C.
(Fishel) are chiropractors who provide chiropractic services to
patients covered under United healthcare plans governed by
Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). On
October 7, 2014, Plaintiffs filed their Complaint against
UnitedHealth Group Incorporated, UnitedHealthcare, Inc.,
UnitedHealthcare Services, Inc., Optum, Inc., and OptumHealth,
Inc. (collectively, Defendants or United), asserting violations of
the ERISA.

Plaintiffs allege that they have standing to sue for ERISA
benefits as plan designated beneficiaries, or as assignees
asserting ERISA claims on behalf of Covered Patients as
participant designated beneficiaries, or assignees of their
patients.  Specifically at issue in the instant motion are Covered
Patients' alleged assignments of their ERISA benefits to out-of-
network Plaintiffs, Kantor, Piken and Fishel, samples of which are
attached to the Amended Complaint.

On January 22, 2015, United was granted leave to file motions to
compel arbitration of Plaintiff Merrick's claims and to dismiss
the claims of the other three out-of-network Plaintiffs. On
February 27, 2015, United filed the two motions. On April 29,
2015, Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint. At a conference held
before this Court on June 24, 2015, United was granted leave to
file the instant motion to dismiss the out-of-network Plaintiffs'
claims.

United now moves to dismiss Kantor, Piken, and Fishel.

In his Opinion and Order dated March 25, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/gz6EmEfrom Leagle.com, Judge Ramos found that United
did not waive, nor is United estopped from relying on the anti-
assignment provision. Because the anti-assignment provision is
valid and enforceable, Plaintiffs lack statutory standing to bring
these claims.

Plaintiffs are represented by Peter R. Kahana, Esq. --
pkahana@bm.net -- and Russell David Paul, Esq. -- rpaul@bm.net --
BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. & Steven Lawrence Bloch, Esq. --
sbloch@baileyglasser.com -- BAILEY & GLASSER, LLP

UnitedHealthcare, Inc. is represented by Brian David Boyle, Esq.
-- bboyle@omm.com -- Danielle Carim Gray, Esq. --- dgray@omm.com
-- Gregory Frederick Jacob, Esq. -- gjacob@omm.com -- Meaghan
Vergow, Esq. -- mvergow@omm.com -- and Sloane Ackerman, Esq. --
sackerman@omm.com -- O'MELVENY & MYERS LLP


US NONWOVENS: Court Decertifies Class in "Mendez" Wages Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Magistrate Judge Steven I. Locke of the United States District
Court for the Eastern District of New York granted Defendants'
motion for decertification in the case captioned, EFRAIN DANILO
MENDEZ a/k/a EFRAIN D. MENDEZ-RIVERA, ADRAILY ALBERTO COISCOU,
FERNANDO MOLINA a/k/a JORGE LUIS FLORES LARIOS, SIRYI NAYROBIK
MELENDEZ, RENE ALEXANDER OLIVIA, DANIEL SANTE, RAMIRO CORDOVA, and
JUAN FLORES-LARIOS, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. U.S. NONWOVENS CORP., SAMUEL
MEHDIZADEH a/k/a SOLOMON MEHDIZADEH, SHERVIN MEHDIZADEH, and RODY
MEHIDIZADEH, Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-00031-RLY-MPB
(E.D.N.Y.).

Plaintiffs commenced the action on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, seeking unpaid overtime compensation
from Defendants U.S. Nonwovens Corp. (Nonwovens), Samuel
Mehizadeh, Shervin Mehdizadeh, and Rody Mehdizadeh (collectively
Individual Defendants, together with Nonwovens, Defendants)
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), as
amended, 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et seq. and New York Labor Law
(NYLL).

Plaintiffs are current and former employees of Defendant
Nonwovens, a New York corporation that operates facilities in
Brentwood and Hauppauge, New York. The eight named Plaintiffs
worked at Nonwovens during various time periods in several
different positions. All were paid hourly.  Of the eight named
Plaintiffs, five -- Mendez, Molina, Melendez, Oliva, and Cordova
-- assert claims under the FLSA on behalf of themselves and the
"FLSA Collective."

On November 15, 2013, prior to the amended complaint, Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification was granted. The FLSA
Collective included "all non-exempt workers employed by defendant
U.S. Nonwovens in the State of New York from November 14, 2009 to
the present (the FLSA Collective)."  Pursuant to the conditional
certification order, the parties submitted an amended notice form
that was approved by the Court, with revisions, on April 24, 2014,
and notice was sent to FLSA Collective members. On March 12, 2014,
subsequent to conditional certification but before the notice was
sent to the proposed collective, Plaintiffs amended their
complaint. The Amended Complaint added a federal cause of action
under the FLSA for failure to timely pay overtime pursuant to 29
CFR Sec. 778.106 as well as an additional state law claim.

After discovery was completed, the parties filed two motions:
Defendants' motion to decertify the collective action and
Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class action pursuant to Rule 23
of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

In his Order dated March 31, 2016 available at http://is.gd/Ug6YSb
from Leagle.com, Judge Locke concluded that the policies
identified by Plaintiffs do not, on their face, violate the FLSA,
and Plaintiffs have failed to identify any unlawful de facto or
informal company-wide practice that was uniformly applied to the
Plaintiffs. The disparate facts underlying Plaintiffs' claims, the
existence of defenses available to Defendants that vary by
individual Plaintiff, and interests of fairness all weigh against
allowing the case to proceed as a collective action.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Steven John Moser, Esq.
     STEVEN J. MOSER, PC
     3 School St #207B,
     Glen Cove, NY 11542
     Tel: (516)671-1150

U.S. Nonwovens Corp. is represented by Michael Craig Schmidt, Esq.
-- mschmidt@cozen.com -- COZEN O'CONNOR


VECTREN CORP: Court Trims Claims "Gray" Suit
--------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Richard L. Young of the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ruled on
Vectren Corp.'s Motion for Judgment on Pleadings in the case
captioned, DONALD B. GRAY, BRIAN GATEWOOD, MICHAEL GEORGE, TODD
ROBERTSON, KEVIN KIRKWOOD, MICHAEL SINGER, LARRY EBERHARD, RANDY
SIMON, DENNIS GLANCY, MARK BOUCHIE, WILLIAM HOKE, LANA RIDDLE,
JOHN MINNETTE, MICHAEL DUGAN, JAMES TENBARGE, PATRICK TYRING, and
JAMES PECKENPAUGH, on their own behalf and on behalf of a class of
persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. VECTREN CORPORATION
COMBINED NON-BARGAINING RETIREMENT PLAN and VECTREN CORPORATION,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-CV-00031-RLY-MPB (S.D. Ind.).

As part of the merger of the Pension Plan for Salaried Employees
of Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company (SIGECO Plan) into
the Vectren Corporation Combined Non-Bargaining Retirement Plan
(Vectren Plan), Plaintiffs, all of whom were SIGECO Plan
participants immediately before the plan merger, were offered the
choice of having their future benefits under the Vectren Plan
calculated using either the formula that had applied to them under
the traditional SIGECO Plan or the applicable cash balance formula
under the Vectren Plan. Plaintiffs, as well as the proposed class,
were all required to make their election by June 23, 2000.
Plaintiffs chose to have their future benefits calculated under
the Vectren Plan's cash balance formula and the results of that
choice, they allege, have been financially devastating.

Plaintiffs commenced the Class Action Complaint on March 12, 2015.
In Count I, Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants, Vectren
Corporation and the Vectren Plan, breached their fiduciary duties
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) by: (1)
making misleading or false statements in material circulated prior
to Plaintiffs' election in 2000 and in Summary Plan Descriptions
(SPDs) issued in 2003 and 2010; (2) omitting material information
Plaintiffs needed in order to properly evaluate the risks of the
Vectren Plan; and (3) failing to protect Plaintiffs' accrued
benefits. In Count II, Plaintiffs allege that Vectren illegally
"cut back" their protected benefits in violation of ERISA Sec.
204(g), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1054(b).

On July 10, 2015, Vectren filed a Motion for Judgment on the
Pleadings. Vectren argues that Plaintiffs' breach of fiduciary
duty claim is barred by the applicable statute of limitations
under ERISA Sec. 413, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 1113. Vectren also argues
that Plaintiff's illegal "cut back" claim should be dismissed
because the claim is time-barred by the applicable statute of
limitations and Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.

In his Entry dated March 29, 2016 available at http://is.gd/tfq6RY
from Leagle.com, Judge Young held that:

     -- having considered the pleadings, the documentary
submissions that are a part of the pleadings, and the applicable
law, Count I should not be dismissed at this stage of the
proceedings; and

     -- the plain language of the post-merger plan expressly
preserved all of Plaintiffs' accrued benefits under the SIGECO
formula. Count II should therefore be dismissed.

Plaintiffs are represented by:

     Kyle Frederick Biesecker, Esq.
     BIESECKER DUTKANYCH & MACER, LLC
     411 Main St
     Evansville, IN 47708
     Tel: (812)496-3071

          - and -

     Todd C. Barsumian, Esq.
     BARSUMIAN LAW
     5455 Old Indiana 261
     Newburgh, IN 47630
     Tel: (812)618-1744

          - and -

     Lane C. Siesky, Esq.
     Karolina Viehe, Esq.
     SIESKY & VIEHE, PC
     4424 Vogel Rd #305
     Evansville, IN 47715
     Tel: (812)402-7700

Vectren Corporation is represented by Andrew J. Miroff, Esq. --
drew.miroff@icemiller.com -- Derek R. Molter, Esq. --
derek.molter@icemiller.com -- and Marc W. Sciscoe, Esq. --
tara.sciscoe@icemiller.com -- ICE MILLER LLP


WACHOVIA MORTGAGE: Summary Judgment in "Hayes" Suit Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------
Judges Douglas M. Fasciale and Christine M. Nugent of the New
Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed trial court's
order granting summary judgment in the case captioned, LAURIE JANE
HAYES, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WACHOVIA MORTGAGE, FSB, f/k/a WORLD
SAVINGS BANK, and FRANKLIN FIRST FINANCIAL, LTD. Defendants-
Respondents, and ALLWOOD TITLE AGENCY, INC., Defendant, Case No.
A-5913-13T4 (N.J. Super. App. Div.).

Plaintiff Laurie Jane Hayes retained Franklin First Financial
(Franklin), a mortgage broker, to assist in refinancing her
mortgage. After discussions with Franklin, plaintiff chose to
refinance with the Wachovia "Pick-a-Payment" mortgage product, and
executed a note secured by a mortgage on her property in October
2007. Allwood Title Agency (Allwood) acted as plaintiff's agent at
the closing. In March 2008, plaintiff defaulted on the note
allowing Wachovia to exercise its foreclosure rights set forth in
the mortgage. Plaintiff was unsuccessful in obtaining a loan
modification.

In August 2007, a class action lawsuit was filed against Wachovia
in the United States District Court for the Northern District of
California, alleging that various aspects of the "Pick-a-Payment"
loan product violated state and federal laws. While the class
action lawsuit was pending, plaintiff filed the underlying
complaint in the Law Division against Wachovia Mortgage, Franklin,
and Allwood Title Agency.

Wachovia successfully removed the Law Division case to the United
States District Court for the District of New Jersey. The District
Court dismissed Count Six, and remanded the case to the Law
Division. Wachovia moved to dismiss the complaint, and the motion
judge granted the motion in part, dismissing Count Five, but
denied the motion as to the remainder of the amended complaint.
After the completion of discovery, Wachovia moved for summary
judgment, which Franklin later joined. The motion judge granted
Wachovia's motion for summary judgment on the grounds that all
claims against Wachovia were barred by the settlement. The motion
judge also partially granted Franklin's motion for summary
judgment on Counts One, Four, Five, and Six, and scheduled
plaintiff's CFA and LLA claims against Franklin for trial.

The trial judge heard oral argument on Franklin's motions in
limine and renewed summary judgment on the eve of trial. The trial
judge found that plaintiff did not make a prima facie showing that
Franklin violated the CFA or LLA, and granted summary judgment to
Franklin.

On appeal, plaintiff contends that the court (1) erred in granting
summary judgment to Franklin on the CFA claim, and (2) improperly
granted summary judgment to Wachovia because her suit was not
barred by the settlement.

In the Per Curiam dated March 29, 2016 available at
http://is.gd/RDzfi1from Leagle.com, Judges Fasciale and Nugent
found that the trial court properly granted summary judgment and
that Plaintiff fails to establish any fraudulent act committed by
Franklin or any ascertainable loss caused by Franklin. Plaintiff's
acceptance of the settlement payment in the class action precluded
her claims against Wachovia, and that her remaining arguments are
without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written
opinion.

Laurie Jane Hayes is represented by:

     Abigail D. Kahl, Esq.
     Joshua W. Denbeaux, Esq.
     DENBEAUX & DENBEAUX
     366 Kinderkamack Rd,
     Westwood, NJ 07675
     Tel: (201)664-8855

Franklin First Financial Ltd. is represented by Thomas J. Monroe,
Esq. -- tmonroe@certilmanbalin.com -- CERTILMAN BALIN ADLER &
HYMAN, LLP


WAL-MART STORES: High Court Won't Hear Wage Class Action Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Karen Kidd, writing for PennRecord, reports that timing likely
played its part in the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision to not
hear an appeal in a $187.6 million Pennsylvania class action case
involving Wal-Mart, an attorney representing the class says.

Robert Peck, president of the Center for Constitutional Litigation
and class counsel in Braun v. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., said he can't
be sure why the U.S. Supreme Court denied
Wal-Mart's petition for certiorari in hopes of overturning a lower
court's decision in the wage-and-hour case.

After all, the high court annually receives more than 9,000
petitions and generally grants less than a hundred, without a word
of explanation about those cases turned away.

"Even so, we can surmise that having just decided a case a few
weeks earlier on the basis that a corporation that fails to keep
records required by law cannot complain when those records are
recreated through extrapolation of existing records," Mr. Peck
said.

"In Braun, Wal-Mart stopped keeping records specifically because
it realized that the records could subject it to liability to its
workers.  The trial judge had instructed the jury that it was
permitted to take an adverse inference from the decision to stop
keeping legally required records and to use the class expert's
statistical extrapolation of the rest breaks that had gone unpaid.

"Wal-Mart asked the Court to hold that the use of such expert
evidence to be a violation of due process.  Given the decision a
few weeks earlier, it did not make sense to revisit that issue in
light of Wal-Mart's decision to stop keeping the records."

The U.S. Supreme Court issued its denial to Wal-Mart on April 4,
only a few weeks after it handed down its decision in Tyson Foods
v. Bouaphakeo.  That ruling affirmed a class action award for Iowa
Tyson Foods workers who alleged they were underpaid.

Just prior to the Tyson decision, legal observers speculated a
victory for workers in the case could lead to a number of changes,
including class action certification.

"We are disappointed the Supreme Court decided not to review our
case," Wal-Mart's Director of National Media Relations and
Corporate Communications Randy Hargrove said in an email.  "While
we continue to believe these claims should not be bundled together
in a class-action lawsuit, we respect the court's decision.  We
will now determine how we move forward in the trial court.

"Most of these claims are over 10 years old.  Walmart has had
strong policies in place to make sure all associates receive their
appropriate pay and break periods.  We have taken additional steps
over the last decade, including enhancing our timekeeping systems
and additional training, to make sure all our associates
understand the importance of those policies and comply with them."

Wal-Mart probably has run out of options in the Braun case, Peck
said.

"While, theoretically, Wal-Mart could petition the Supreme Court
for reconsideration, that type of reconsideration is almost never
granted, and experienced counsel will not take such a meaningless
step," he said.  "As a result, the case is over.  There are no
further appeals."

The Supreme Court's decision lets stand a December 2014 ruling by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which itself affirmed an almost
$188 million judgment against the national retailer.  The 187,979
class member employees in the case alleged they'd been forced to
work through meal and rest breaks -- breaks mandated by
Pennsylvania law and Wal-Mart's own policy.

Expert reports introduced on behalf of the class members revealed
that 40 percent of hourly workers in 12 Pennsylvania Wal-Mart
locations did not receive the number or duration of rest breaks
required under state law and Wal-Mart policy.  Plaintiffs argued
that this finding squared with the results of a prior audit
conducted by Wal-Mart.

Counsel for Wal-Mart has been quoted as saying the national
retailer has since enhanced its timekeeping system and now
provides additional employee training.

Mr. Peck said he could not speak for Wal-Mart's counsel about why
the company appealed to the high court, but he did speculate it
might have been because of a favorable past opinion before the
court.

"Several years ago, Wal-Mart prevailed in the Supreme Court in a
nationwide employment discrimination case, but the Court only
answered one of the two questions Wal-Mart raised in that case,"
Peck said, referring to the 2011 case, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.
Dukes.

"The second question, dealing with due process, which the Court
did not answer, was raised again in Braun.  Wal-Mart might have
thought that, given the earlier decision, this question might also
be answered favorably to them."

Counsel for Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart spokespersons did not respond to
requests for comment.

"I was not surprised that the Supreme Court turned the case down,"
Mr. Peck said.  "I was confident of that result before we filed
our brief in the Supreme Court a year ago, and more confident
after the Court's recent decision."


WELLS FARGO: Must Defend Against "Morgan" Suit
----------------------------------------------
District Judge Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. of the United States
District Court for the District of South Carolina declined to
adopt the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate in the case
captioned, Michael G. Morgan, Plaintiff, v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.
a/k/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage a/k/a Wells Fargo Home Mortgage -
San Antonio, Defendant, Case No. 1:15-4032-JFA (D.S.C.).

Michael G. Morgan sued Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. to enforce an
alleged breach of a class action settlement. Plaintiff claims that
Defendant has violated the terms of a class action settlement
agreement by refusing to modify his $1,300,000 mortgage loan. In
accordance with 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636(b) and Local Civil Rule
73.02(B)(2), D.S.C., the case was referred to the Magistrate
Judge.

The Magistrate Judge assigned to this action prepared a thorough
Report and Recommendation (Report) and opines that the Court
should dismiss the Complaint in the case without prejudice and
without issuance and service of process. The Magistrate further
opined that the Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining
order should be denied as moot. Plaintiff was advised of his right
to object to the Report, which was entered on the docket on
October 21, 2015. On November 8, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Amended
Complaint along with a statement of objection to the Report.

Plaintiff objects to the Magistrate's finding that there is no
federal jurisdiction in the case. Plaintiff argues that the
Amended Complaint cures any jurisdictional deficiencies that were
present in the Plaintiff's original Complaint. Plaintiff's Amended
Complaint expressly alleges that the Court has diversity
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332, and pleads facts that show
existence of that jurisdiction. Specifically, the Amended
Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of Aiken County,
South Carolina, and that Defendant is a Delaware corporation with
its principle place of business in California. The Amended
Complaint further alleges that the matter in controversy -- a
$1,300,000 mortgage loan -- exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive
of interest and costs.

In his Order dated April 1, 2016 available at http://is.gd/5L7Ae2
from Leagle.com, Judge Anderson, Jr. found that the facts pled in
the Amended Complaint cure any jurisdictional deficiency in the
original Complaint.

Michael G. Morgan is represented by:

     Andrew Sims Radeker, Esq.
     HARRISON AND RADEKER
     923 Calhoun St,
     Columbia, SC 29201
     Tel: (803)779-2211


* Class Actions to Test Fiduciary Rule, Attorney Says
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica Karmasek, writing for Legal Newsline, reports that the
U.S. Department of Labor's highly anticipated final fiduciary
rule, designed to help ensure Americans saving for retirement get
sound investment advice, creates an opportunity for plaintiffs
attorneys to test the rule's meaning by filing class action
lawsuits, a Tennessee defense attorney says.

Chris Thorsen -- cthorsen@bradley.com -- a partner in the
Nashville, TN, office of Bradley Arant Boult Cummings who heads
the firm's Business and Securities Litigation Practice Team --
said the DOL's final rule, while well-intentioned, will more than
likely end up hurting investors and attracting plaintiffs
attorneys looking for new business.

"I lived through the mortgage crisis and did enough work with
mortgage servicers," Mr. Thorsen told Legal Newsline, "and this
is, in many ways, very similar.

"In that case, you had so many lawyers filing lawsuits just
because there wasn't any clear guidance, and because it was new,
and because they knew banks and mortgage companies were in a real
state of flux.

"Here, you have something that's completely brand new; there's no
case law to look at.  So what does that mean? It means it'll be
open season, for a period of years, for lawyers to take on these
cases and test the rule's meaning. [Plaintiffs attorneys] know
it'll be expensive for defendants, and they'll take advantage of
that."

In April, the DOL announced its final fiduciary rule, sometimes
referred to as the conflicts of interest rule.  The rule mandates
financial professionals who service individual retirement
accounts, including IRAs and 401(k) plans, to serve the "best
interest" of the savers and disclose conflicts of interest.

Typically, investment brokers get paid when their customers agree
to invest with certain companies.

The rule has been years in the making and was the subject of a DOL
press call in March.  During the call, Secretary of Labor Thomas
Perez called it a win for the middle class.


* One Central Issue in Class Arbitrations Remains Undecided
-----------------------------------------------------------
Jennifer R. Scullion, Esq. of Proskauer reports that despite the
numerous Supreme Court decisions limiting class arbitrations, one
central issue remains undecided: who decides whether an
arbitration agreement permits class arbitration, the courts or the
arbitrators? Entities that want to avoid class arbitration want
the question to be decided by the courts, where the appeal process
ensures at least one level of review.  Leaving the issue in the
hands of an arbitrator only opens up the possibility, however
remote, that the arbitrator will construe an agreement to permit
class arbitration and that the decision may not be effectively
reviewable.

The courts that that have addressed the issue are split as to
whether it's a "gateway" question of "arbitrability" for the
courts to decide under Howsam (S.Ct. 2002) or a question of
interpretation or procedure for arbitrators to decide.  The Sixth,
Third, and, in March, Fourth Circuits each have held that whether
an arbitration agreement permits class arbitration is a question
of "arbitrability" for the courts to decide unless the parties
have "clearly and unmistakably" made the issue one for the
arbitrators.  Other circuits, including the Second and Ninth, have
not yet weighed in.

At least one trial level decision in the Second Circuit, In re A2P
SMS Antitrust Litig., (S.D.N.Y. 2014) squarely holds that the
availability of class arbitration is a "procedural" issue that,
under Howsam, is presumptively within the power of arbitrators to
decide.  In late March, a second district court adopted a
magistrate's decision to the same effect in Rossi (E.D.N.Y. 2016).
The defendants in that action have asked the Second Circuit to
grant immediate, interlocutory review on the issue, including how
it can be consistent with the decision Am. Express Merchants'
Antitrust Litig. (2d Cir. 2009) holding that the enforceability of
a class action waiver is a "gateway" question for the courts.

Importantly, even after the Supreme Court's Stolt-Nielsen (S.Ct.
2010) decision requiring an agreement to permit class arbitration,
caselaw also highlights the potential trap of agreements that
incorporate AAA, JAMS, or other similar organizational rules.
Those rules may be construed to permit class processes and as an
agreement to make the interpretation and application of the rules
-- or of "arbitrability" issues generally -- an issue for the
arbitrators to decide.

For example, in Flynn, a federal court in Hawaii held that, even
if the availability of class arbitration is a question of
"arbitrability" under Howsam, the parties had agreed to submit the
issue to the arbitrators by incorporating the AAA's Commercial
Arbitration rules, which, in turn, automatically invoke the AAA's
Supplementary Rules for Class Arbitrations whenever a class demand
is filed.  The district court was unmoved by the defendant's
argument that the form agreement at issue was drafted before the
AAA promulgated its Supplementary Rules -- underscoring another
danger of incorporating by reference rules that may easily change
over time and without notice.

All of the above counsels strongly in favor of including express
statements that not only disclaim and waive the availability of
class arbitration, but make the construction, application, and
enforcement of the disclaimers and waivers a question to be
resolved solely by the courts, notwithstanding any arbitral rules
otherwise incorporated by reference.


                            *********

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  * * *