CAR_Public/160519.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Thursday, May 19, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 100



                            Headlines


21VIANET GROUP: Says Shareholder Action at Preliminary Stage
3JT ENTERPRISES: Initial Status Conference Set for June 28
4 FRENDZ: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Under-Processing
ADRIAN ROQUE: "Vara" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
ADT CORPORATION: Faces Investors Suit Over Prime Security Merger

ADVANCE STORES: "Bradix" Suit Moved to E.D. La.
ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Vazquez" Suit
AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Meat And Poultry Products
ALASKA AIR: "Zwang" Suit Seeks to Block Virgin America Acquisition
ALEXANDER COUNTY: Housing Authority Sued in S.D. Ill.

ALIAGED DINING: Faces "Aguilar" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defends Anti-Steering Rules Litigation
AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed
ANTHEM HEALTH: Dismissal of Psychiatric Assoc. Claims Affirmed
API TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Stockholders' Suit

ARIZONA: Sheriff Arpaio, Others in Contempt of Court, Judge Says
AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Ellison" Suit
BA CREDIT: 2nd Circuit Appeal Launched in Cardholder Suit
BLACKBOARD INC: Sued in Ill. Over Automated Telephone Call
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Allen" Sues Over Pradaxa Side Effects

BON-TON DISTRIBUTION: Betty Ratulowski Seeks Class Certification
BP LPC: Mondrian Fund Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Tex.
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Final Allocation Order Entered
CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motion for Summary Judgment Still Pending
CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Greenberg" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

CHEMIX ENERGY: McGarry Seeks Conditional Class Certification
CHINA COMMERCIAL: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Action
CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
CODE REBEL: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over False Financial Results
CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Facing Retirees and Union Action

CORDELL RESTAURANT: "Thackston" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
COREPOWER YOGA: "Osterholt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
CPFL ENERGIA: Unit Defending Suit by Consumer Protection Office
CPFL ENERGIA: Defending Suit by Public Attorney of Caxias do Sul
CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Defending Class Action in Delaware

CSX CORPORATION: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case
CV SCIENCES: Still Defends "Sallustro" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
DA SILVANO CORP: Faces "Bermeo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
DEMI AG INC: Pays Workers Minimum Wage, Calif. Suit Claims
DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over False Financial Status

DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Conditional Class Certification Bid OK'd
DJO FINANCE: Still Defending Pain Pump Litigation in U.S., Canada
DURATA THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Hearing Taken Off Calendar
ECOLAB INC: Certification of Class of Route Sales Managers Sought
EL DORADO HOME: Wins Conditional Certification of Three Classes

ENI SPA: Trial in Class Action v. Saipem at Early Stages
ENNISH CONSTRUCTION: "Zapata" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under NYLL
EPIC SYSTEMS: Certification of Class Sought in "Long" Suit
EPIC SYSTEMS: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Long" Suit
EXPRESS COURIER: Class Certification Sought in "Harris" Suit

FACEBOOK INC: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit in Del.
FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Ap-Fonden" Class Action in Del.
FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Share Issuance
FAMILY SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in "D'Arezzo" Suit
FIRST RATE: "Njoroge" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Relief

FITLIFE BRANDS: Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal
FRENCH CREEK: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA
FWC FUNDING: Faces "Harmon" Suit in C.D. Cal.
GABRIEL ANTMAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 6
GARLAND VENTURES: Recalls Chicken Fried Rice Products

GEOPARK LIMITED: Brasil Unit Defending Class Action
GOLD FIELDS: Judgment on Class Certification Bid Reserved
GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bid for Certification of 2 Classes Denied
GUESS? INC: $5.25MM "Isaguirre" Case Settlement Approved
H & S AUTO: "Samarasinghe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA

HCSB FINANCIAL: Deposited Settlement Sum as Appeal Period Expires
HEARTLAND PAYMENT: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
HERTZ RENTAL: Dismissal of 4th Amended Complaint Sought
HILTON HOTELS: Sued in D.C. Over Employee Retirement Plan
HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Paz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

IDAHO: DOJ Supports Criminal Defendants' Right to Sue
IL GABBIANO MIAMI: Valdo Sulaj Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
INVENTURE FOODS: Westmoreland Cty. Fund Suit Moved to Arizona
KIDRON CORPORATE: Sued in N.Y. Over Transperfect Dissolution
KOOS MANUFACTURING: "Bernal" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code

KRAFT FOODS: 6th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Starbucks Coffee Pods
LA AUTENTICA: Recalls Meat Tamale Products Due to Listeria
LAVIAN LTD: Faces "Williams" Class Action in Calif.
LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
LE CREUSET: Faces "Shapiro" Consumer Class Action in Calif.

LYFT: Agrees to Pay $27-Mil. to Resolve Calif. Drivers' Suit
LIVING ASSISTANCE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Recorded Call
LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Bakon" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity in Herbal Supplements Case
MEDBOX INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held on May 16

MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit in D.N.J.
MERCY HEALTH: Sued in W.D. Okla. Over Pension Plan
MERLEX STUCCO: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Stucco Product
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Owens" Class Action
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal Pending in "Robainas" Action

METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Order in "Fauley" Case Affirmed
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Voshall" Class Action in Calif.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Martin" Class Action in Calif.
METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Lau" Class Action in New York

MIDATECH PHARMA: Class Suit Over DARA BioScience Deal Dropped
MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Genova" Suit in D.N.J.
MILLER AND STEENO: Class Certification Sought in "Strader" Suit
MISSION HOSPITAL: EEOC Sues Over Civil Rights Breach
MONTEREY FINANCIAL: "Brinkley" Suit Moved to S.D. California

MT. FUJI: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
NEW YORK: Governor, et al. Faces "Trowbridge" Class Action
NEW YORK & COMPANY: Sued Over Automated Text Messaging
NEWLINK GENETICS: Investors File Class Suit in Manhattan
NEWPORT CORPORATION: Facing Class Actions Over MKS Merger

OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: "Lohman" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Sought in "Cotner" Suit
OLLIES 42ND: "Rong" Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
OOMA INC: Faces Class Actions Related to 2015 IPO
PELLA CORPORATION: "Zeigler" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2514

PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Apel" Class Action in Calif.
PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Choonoo" Suit in D.N.J.
PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Fully Cooked Chicken Products
PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Sperber" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
PROMOSYNTHESIS LLC: "Henryhand" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code

PROVIDENCE CENTER: Certification of Class of Therapists Sought
QUALITY POLE: "Villalongo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
RADNET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Kavanagh" Class Suit in Calif. Ct.
RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Etienne" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Levy" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

RBC CAPITAL: Defending Against Investor Suits in N.Y., Quebec
RESONANT INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated 2nd Amended Suit
RJ REYNOLDS: $4.75-Mil. Settlement in "Sateriale" Approved
ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Securities Antitrust Litigation
ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Case

ROYAL CANIN: Bid for Certification of Class Denied as Moot
SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in D. Vermont
SENIORSITTERS INC: "Schreckengost" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
SHELL OIL: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
SIGNET JEWELERS: Petition for Certiorari Already Due

SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "Tapia" Suit
SIGNET JEWELERS: Appeal in Delaware Remains Pending
SKY CHEFS: "Donnelly" Suit Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code
SPARK ENERGY: Defending Against "Melville" Class Action
SPARK ENERGY: June 3 Hearing on "Amaya" Class Certification Bid

SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Defending "Marchelos" Complaint in E.D.N.Y.
SPOKEO INC: Split Supreme Court Rejects "Robins" FCRA Appeal
STARBUCKS CORP: Status Hearing in "Pincus" Suit Set for July 14
SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "Rosen" Suit in D.N.J.
SUNRUN INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit Over False Registration Statements

TAILORED BRANDS: Still Defends Lucas-Salerno Class Suit
TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Joint Bid for Conditional Certification Filed
TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Providing Indemnity in "Mathews" Case
U S BANK: "Anderson" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

UNITED STUDENT FUNDS: High Court Won't Hear Student-Loan Case
WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Sheppard" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA
WHOLE FOODS: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Bait & Switch Scheme


                            *********


21VIANET GROUP: Says Shareholder Action at Preliminary Stage
------------------------------------------------------------
21Vianet Group, Inc. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a shareholder class
action lawsuit remains at its preliminary stages.

The Company said, "On September 12, 2014, a putative shareholder
class action lawsuit against our company and our chief executive
officer and chief financial officer, Singh v. 21Vianet Group,
Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-00894 (E.D. Tex.) (the
"Singh Case"), was filed in the United States District Court for
the Eastern District of Texas. On September 17, 2014, another
putative shareholder class action against our company and our
chief executive officer and chief financial officer, Sun v.
21Vianet Group, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 4:14-cv-2677 (S.D.
Tex.) (the "Sun Case"), was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaints in the
Singh Case and Sun Case allege that public filings, press
releases, financial statements and other related disclosures made
by our company during the alleged class period contained material
misstatements and omissions, in violation of the federal
securities laws, and that such public filings, press releases,
financial statements and other related disclosures artificially
inflated the value of our company's ADSs. The complaints in the
Singh Case and Sun Case state that plaintiffs seek to represent a
class of persons who allegedly suffered damages as a result of
their trading activities related to our ADSs from April 21, 2011
to September 10, 2014, and allege violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. Sections
78j(b) and 78t(a), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, 17
C.F.R. Sec. 240.10b-5 (2013)."

"On October 1, 2014, the Sun Case was transferred upon plaintiff's
request to the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Texas. On November 12 and 13, 2014, two alleged
shareholders of our company, respectively filed motions requesting
the court to consolidate the two putative shareholder class action
lawsuits and appoint themselves as lead plaintiffs.

"The action remain[s] at its preliminary stages. We believe the
case is without merit and intend to defend the action vigorously."

The Company is a carrier-neutral internet data center services
provider in China.


3JT ENTERPRISES: Initial Status Conference Set for June 28
----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 12, 2016, in the case entitled
ARcare, Inc. v. 3JT Enterprises, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-04663 (N.D.
Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable Sara L.
Ellis.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Plaintiff's motion for class certification is entered and
      continued;

   -- the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to stay ruling;

   -- the initial status conference in this matter is set for
      June 28, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.;

   -- the parties are directed to review the procedures and
      requirements for this conference on Judge Ellis' Web site
      and to submit the required Initial Status Report by
      June 21.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=amTp8sDP


4 FRENDZ: Recalls Beef Jerky Products Due to Under-Processing
-------------------------------------------------------------
4 Frendz, LLC., a Clarkston, Wash. establishment, is recalling
approximately 497 pounds of beef jerky products due to under-
processing and potential survival of bacterial pathogens in the
products, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The items were produced from Aug. 10, 2015 to April 11, 2016. The
following products are subject to recall:

  --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE
      MESQUITE PEPPER JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-
      1/11/17 and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16."
  --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE
      HONEY JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-1/11/17 a
      and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16."
  --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE
      MESQUITE JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-1/11/17
      and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16."
  --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE
      TERIYAKI JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-1/11/17
      and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16."
  --- 3-oz. VACUUM-PACKED packages containing "SOUTHFORK SAUSAGE
      HOT HONEY JERKY with use by/sell by dates of 5/10/16-
      1/11/17 and packaging dates of 8/10/15-4/11/16."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
M22017" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to retail locations in Idaho and Washington.

The problem was discovered during a comprehensive FSIS Food Safety
Assessment (FSA) inspection performed in the establishment by an
FSIS Enforcement Investigations and Analysis Officer.

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.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers or media with questions about the recall can contact Art
King, Managing Partner, at (509)-751-9888.

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.


ADRIAN ROQUE: "Vara" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Pay Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------
Juan F. Vara and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Adrian Roque, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-21646-KMM (S.D.
Fla., May 10, 2016), seeks unpaid overtime and/or minimum wages
for work performed in excess of 40 hours weekly.

According to the complaint, the Defendant willfully and
intentionally refused to pay Plaintiff's overtime wages as
required by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The Defendant is an owner and/or manager of a business who ran the
day-to-day operations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


ADT CORPORATION: Faces Investors Suit Over Prime Security Merger
----------------------------------------------------------------
The ADT Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 11, 2016, that two
purported stockholders filed putative class action complaints
related to a proposed merger with Prime Security.

On February 14, 2016, The ADT Corporation ("ADT") entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement") with Prime
Security Services Borrower, LLC ("Parent"), Prime Security One MS,
Inc. ("Merger Sub") and, solely for purposes of Article IX
thereof, Prime Security Services Parent, Inc. and Prime Security
Services TopCo Parent, L.P., pursuant to which, upon the terms and
subject to the conditions of the Merger Agreement, Merger Sub will
merge with and into ADT (the "Merger"), with ADT surviving the
Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent.

As disclosed in ADT's definitive proxy statement filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016 (as amended
or supplemented from time to time, the "definitive proxy
statement"), purported stockholders of ADT have initiated legal
actions challenging the Merger. From February 24, 2016 through
March 10, 2016, four lawsuits were filed in the Circuit Court of
the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County,
Florida (the "Florida Actions"). The complaints in the Florida
Actions include claims, among others, for breach of fiduciary duty
against the individual directors, alleging that the ADT directors
violated the duties of loyalty, good faith, due care, and/or
disclosure owed to ADT stockholders. On April 8, 2016, the
plaintiffs in each of the Florida Actions filed notices
voluntarily dismissing each of those actions.

On March 24, 2016 and April 4, 2016, two purported stockholders
filed putative class action complaints, respectively styled MSS
12-09 Trust v. Thomas Colligan, et al., Case No. 12133 and Peter
Roy v. The ADT Corporation, et al., Case No 12160 (the "Delaware
Actions"), in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
asserting claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the
individual ADT directors. Plaintiffs seek an order finding the
directors liable for breaching their fiduciary duties based on the
claim that the definitive proxy statement fails to disclose
certain allegedly material information necessary to permit ADT
stockholders to cast a fully informed vote on the proposed merger
transaction. Plaintiff Peter Roy also filed motions seeking
expedited discovery and a preliminary injunction.

ADT believes that the Florida Actions and the Delaware Actions are
without merit and that no further disclosure is required to
supplement the definitive proxy statement under applicable laws.
However, to eliminate the burden, expense and uncertainties
inherent in such litigation, and without admitting any liability
or wrongdoing, ADT has determined to make certain supplemental
disclosures to the definitive proxy statement as set forth below.
Plaintiffs in the Delaware Actions have agreed to withdraw and /
or agreed not to file motions seeking expedited discovery and a
preliminary injunction in connection with the filing of these
supplemental disclosures. Nothing in these supplemental
disclosures shall be deemed an admission of the legal necessity or
materiality under applicable laws of any of the disclosures set
forth herein.

ADT and the other named defendants have vigorously denied, and
continue to vigorously deny, that they have committed any
violation of law or engaged in any of the wrongful acts that were
alleged in the Florida Actions or the Delaware Actions.


ADVANCE STORES: "Bradix" Suit Moved to E.D. La.
-----------------------------------------------
Walter Bradix IV, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Advance Stores Company,
Incorporated, doing business as Advance Auto Parts, the Defendant,
Case No. 16-03839, was removed from Civil District Court for
Orleans Parish, Louisiana, to the U.S. District Court for the
Eastern District Court of Louisiana (New Orleans). The
Eastern District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-04902 to the
proceeding.

Advance Stores wholesales and retails automotive parts and
maintenance items.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.

The Defendant is represented by:

          Tyler J. Rench, Esq.
          JONES WALKER (NEW ORLEANS)
          Place St. Charles
          201 St. Charles Ave., 49th Floor
          New Orleans, LA 70170
          Telephone: (504) 582 8336
          E-mail: trench@joneswalker.com


ADVOCATE HEALTH: Class Certification Sought in "Vazquez" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled CHRISTY VAZQUEZ, on behalf of
herself, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. ADVOCATE HEALTH CARE NETWORK, an Illinois Non-profit
Corporation, and EHS HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICE, INC., d/b/a
ADVOCATE AT HOME AND ADVOCATE HOME HEALTH SERVICES, an Illinois
Nonprofit Corporation, Case No. 1:16-cv-05200 (N.D. Ill.) asks the
Court to:

   (1) order conditional certification of the Action as a
       representative collective action pursuant to the Fair
       Labor Standards Act and Section 216(b) of the Labor Code,
       on behalf of all home health infusion and pediatric nurses
       ("Infusion RNs") who were paid on a hybrid "per visit" and
       hourly basis, were not paid overtime compensation for time
       worked in excess of 40 hours in given workweeks, and who
       worked for the Defendants dating back three (3) years from
       the date of notice until the present;

   (2) order court-facilitated notice of the Action to the FLSA
       Class in the proposed form;

   (3) order the Defendants to produce a computer-readable data
       file containing the names, addresses, e-mail addresses,
       telephone numbers, dates of employment, social security
       numbers, and dates of birth of the FLSA Class; and

   (4) authorize the Plaintiffs to send notice, at their expense,
       by U.S. First Class mail and email to all members of the
       FLSA Class to inform them of their right to opt-in to the
       lawsuit.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=6PBEMOOy

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James B. Zouras, Esq.
          Ryan F. Stephan, Esq.
          Teresa M. Becvar, Esq.
          STEPHAN ZOURAS, LLP
          205 North Michigan Avenue, Suite 2560
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 233-1550
          Facsimile: (312) 233-1560


AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Meat And Poultry Products
----------------------------------------------------
Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc., with establishments in Fort Worth, Texas;
Los Angeles, Calif.; Carthage, Mo.; and Portland, Ore., is
recalling approximately 47,112,256 pounds of not-ready-to-eat meat
and poultry products that may be adulterated with Listeria
monocytogenes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety
and Inspection Service (FSIS) announced.

The heat-treated, not fully cooked, not shelf stable meat and
poultry items were produced on various dates between May 1, 2014
and May 1, 2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 14.2-oz packages containing "Tai Pei Chicken Fried Rice"
      with best-by dates ranging from 01/02/2015 to 10/27/2017.
  --- 14.2-oz packages containing "Tai Pei Pepper Beef" with
      best-by dates ranging from 11/02/2015 to 10/19/2017.
  --- 12-oz packages containing "Tai Pei Combination Fried Rice"
      with best-by dates ranging from 11/06/2015 to 10/27/2017.
  --- 12-lb cases containing 32-oz packages of "Fred's JalapeĀ¤o,
      Corn & Bacon Cornbread Pop" with product code 0945137.
  --- 2-lb boxes containing "InnovASIAN Cuisine CHICKEN FRIED
      RICE" with best-by dates ranging from 5/15/2015 to
      4/09/2017.
  --- 20-oz packages containing "Trader Joe's Chicken Fried Rice"
      with case codes ranging from 261231 to 281211.
  --- 18-oz. bags containing "InnovASIAN Cuisine CHICKEN FRIED
      RICE" with best-by dates ranging from 05/01/2015 to
      04/29/2017.
  --- 18-oz. and 24-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai
      Orange Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from
      5/12/2015 to 3/18/2017.
  --- 20-oz. packages containing "HyVee chicken fried rice" with
      best-by dates ranging from 7/11/2015 to 3/03/2017.
  --- 20-oz. packages containing "First Street Chicken Fried
      Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 7/11/2015 to
      3/15/2017.
  --- 54-oz. packages containing "Yakitori Chicken with Japanese-
      Style Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 6/28/2015
      to 5/2/2017.
  --- 18-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Chicken Fried
      Rice" with best-by dates ranging from 8/11/2015 to
      3/18/2017.
  --- 18-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Hibachi
      Seasoned Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging
      from 8/11/2015 to 11/16/2016.
  --- 18-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai Spicy Hibachi
      Seasoned Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates ranging
      from 8/13/2015 to 11/16/2016.
  --- 18-oz. and 24-oz. packages containing "Simmering Samurai
      General Tso's Chicken Fried Rice" with best-by dates
      ranging from 8/18/2015 to 12/26/2016.
  --- 1.53-kg packages containing "Arroz Frito Estilo Japones Con
      Pollo Yakitori" with best-by dates ranging from 1/22/2016
      to 1/03/2017, exported to Mexico.
  --- 1.53-kg packages containing "Yakitori Chicken with
      Japanese-Style Fried Rice (Poulet Yakitori Avec Riz Frit A
      La Japonaise)" with best-by dates ranging from 1/21/2016 to
      3/7/2017, exported to Canada.
  --- 30-oz. packages containing "Daily Chef Chicken Poblano
      Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 8/10/2015 to
      1/25/2016.
  --- 12.5-lbs packages containing "Golden Tiger SANTA FE BRAND
      CHICKEN EGG ROLLS" with packaging dates between 8/22/2014
      to 11/6/2015.
  --- 6.25-lb packages cases containing "Jade Mountain SOUTHWEST
      CHICKEN EGG ROLL TWISTS" with packaging dates between
      6/3/2014 to 3/23/2016.
  --- 30-oz packages containing 30 pieces of "Petite Cuisine
      CHICKEN POBLANO Hand Made Firecrackers" with packaging
      dates between 7/15/2014 to 1/15/2016.
  --- 6.25-lbs. cases containing "Golden Tiger Firecracker
      Southwest Brand Chicken" with packaging dates between
      6/2/2014 to 3/23/2016.
  --- 7.5-lbs. packages containing "Posada Southwest Brand
      CHICKEN EMPANADA" with packaging dates between 5/12/2014 to
      3/8/2016.
  --- 8-oz packages containing 8 pieces of "The Original
      Appetizer Company CHICKEN POBLANO Handmade Appetizers
      (Firecracker) with packaging date of 11/4/2014.
  --- 30-oz packages containing 30 pieces of "Petite Cuisine
      SOUTHWEST CHICKEN Handmade Firecrackers" with packaging
      dates between 10/9/2014 to 11/6/2014.
  --- 8-oz packages containing 8 pieces of "Taste of Inspirations
      Chicken Poblano Firecrackers" with packaging dates between
      8/12/2015 to 2/26/2016.
  --- 6.89 kg. cases containing packages of "Golden Tiger
      SOUTHWEST SPICY CHICKEN SPRING ROLLS" with packaging dates
      between 5/7/2014 to 3/31/2016.
  --- 8-oz. packages containing "archer farms Chicken Poblano
      Firecrackers" with packaging dates between 7/15/2014 to
      3/21/2016.
  --- 1.15-kg packages of "Molly's Kitchen Mini Chicken Pot Pie
      Empanadas" with packaging dates between 6/4/2014 to
      1/7/2015.
  --- 7.5-lb packages of "CASA SOLANA SOUTHWEST BRAND CHICKEN
      EMPANADA MADE IN CALIFORNIA" with packaging dates between
      11/4/2014 to 2/16/2016.
  --- 15-lbs packages of "Perkins SOUTHWEST STYLE CRISPY ROLL"
      with a packaging date of 3/11/2015 and date code 5255070.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
21225," "EST. 9281," "EST. 1623A" or "EST. 18356" inside the USDA
mark of inspection. These items were shipped nationwide and to
Canada and Mexico.

The problem was discovered when Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. was
notified by CRF Frozen Foods that its frozen vegetables used in
Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. products were involved in a recall. CRF
Frozen Foods of Pasco, Washington voluntarily recalled frozen
fruit and vegetable items due to an illness outbreak of
listeriosis. There have been no confirmed reports of illness or
adverse reactions due to consumption of Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc.'s
products.

The CRF Frozen Foods' recall can be found at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm498841.htm.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects
older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant
women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these
risk groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Members of the media with questions regarding the recall can
contact Paul Taylor, Ajinomoto Windsor's General Counsel, at 909-
477-4800. Consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc.'s Consumer Affairs at (855) 742-
5011.

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.


ALASKA AIR: "Zwang" Suit Seeks to Block Virgin America Acquisition
------------------------------------------------------------------
Henry Zwang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. C. David Cush, Donald J. Carty, Samuel
K. Skinner, Cyrus F. Freidheim, Jr., Stephen C. Freidheim, Evan M.
Lovell, Robert A. Nickell, John R. Rapaport, Stacy J. Smith,
Jennifer L. Vogel, Paul D. Wachter, Alaska Air Group, Inc., Alpine
Acquisition Corp., and Does 1-25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case
No. CIV538604 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin the
Defendants from further breaching their fiduciary duties in their
pursuit of a sale of Virgin America Inc. at an unfair price
through an unfair process that was tilted in favor of Alaska
Airlines (proposed acquisition).

According the complaint, on April 4, 2016, Defendants issued a
press release announcing that the Board had agreed to sell Virgin
America to Alaska Airlines. Alaska Airlines will acquire all of
the outstanding common stock of Virgin America for $ 57 per share
in cash (proposed consideration), in a transaction valued at
approximately $4 billion. The proposed acquisition undervalues
Virgin America and is marred with preclusive deal protections that
effectively prevent Virgin America from receiving a superior
offer.

Alaska Air is an airline holding company based in SeaTac,
Washington. It owns two certificated airlines operating in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          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


ALEXANDER COUNTY: Housing Authority Sued in S.D. Ill.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Alexander County Housing
Authority. The case is captioned Paul Lambert, Mary Holder,
William Frey, Pamela Purdiman, Shameka Nelson, and Kimberly
Simelton, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Alexander County Housing Authority,
an Illinois municipal corporation, and James Wilson, the
Defendant, Case No. 3:16-cv-00513-MJR-PMF (S.D. Ill., May 10,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Michael J. Reagan.

Alexander County is a county located in the U.S. state of North
Carolina. As of the 2010 census, the population was 37,198. Its
county seat is Taylorsville. Housing Authority provides safe
decent sanitary affordable housing for low and very-low income
families, the elderly and persons with disabilities.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Christopher J. Wilmes, Esq.
          Hughes Socol et al.
          70 West Madison Street, Suite 4000
          Chicago, IL 60602
          Telephone: (312) 604-2636
          Facsimile: (312) 604-2637
          E-mail: cwilmes@hsplegal.com


ALIAGED DINING: Faces "Aguilar" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Aliaged Dining, Inc. The case is
captioned Jose Aguilar and Jose Pinto, on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Aliaged Dining,
Inc., doing business as Aged Restaurant & Bar; A & A Food
Enterprises, LLC, doing business as Aged Restaurant & Bar; Puneet
P. Singh, also known as aka Paul Singh; Akbarali B. Himani, also
known as aka Mike Himani; and Bruno Musthafa Babaci, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02369 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Aliaged Dining is a modern, American cuisine located in the heart
of Forest Hills, with a selection of steaks, seafood and paired
with lovely wines.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


AMERICAN EXPRESS: Still Defends Anti-Steering Rules Litigation
--------------------------------------------------------------
American Express Credit Account Master Trust said in its Form
10-K Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
March 28, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that
American Express Company is vigorously defending against those
claims in the case, In re: American Express Anti-Steering Rules
Antitrust Litigation.

In 2010, the Department of Justice, along with Attorneys General
from Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii (Hawaii has since withdrawn its
claim), Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri,
Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, Tennessee,
Texas, Utah and Vermont filed a complaint in the U.S. District
Court for the Eastern District of New York against American
Express Company, MasterCard International Incorporated and Visa,
Inc., alleging a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust
Act (the "DOJ case"). The complaint included allegations that
provisions in the Company's merchant agreements prohibiting
merchants from steering a customer to use another network's card
or another type of general-purpose card ("anti-steering" and "non-
discrimination" contractual provisions) violate the antitrust
laws. The complaint sought a judgment permanently enjoining the
Company from enforcing its non-discrimination contractual
provisions. The complaint did not seek monetary damages.

Following a non-jury trial in the DOJ case, the trial court found
that the challenged provisions were anticompetitive and on April
30, 2015, the court issued a final judgment entering a permanent
injunction. Following the Company's appeal of this judgment, on
December 18, 2015, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
stayed the trial court's judgment as well as related matters
before the trial court pending the issuance of its appellate
decision.

In addition to the DOJ case, individual merchant cases and a
putative class action, collectively captioned In re: American
Express Anti-Steering Rules Antitrust Litigation (II), are pending
in the Eastern District of New York against the Company alleging
that its anti-steering provisions in merchant card acceptance
agreements violate U.S. antitrust laws. The individual merchant
cases seek damages in unspecified amounts and injunctive relief.
These matters, including a trial previously scheduled in the
individual merchant cases, have been stayed pending resolution of
the appeal in the DOJ case.

Individual merchants have initiated arbitration proceedings
raising similar claims concerning the anti-steering provisions in
the Company's card acceptance agreements and seeking damages. The
Company is vigorously defending against those claims.

           "Marcus" Case to Proceed After DOJ Appeal

American Express Credit Account Master Trust also disclosed that
further proceedings in the case by Marcus Corporation are
anticipated after resolution of the appeal in the DOJ case.

In July 2004, the Company was named as a defendant in a putative
class action filed in the Southern District of New York and
subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of New York,
captioned The Marcus Corporation v. American Express Company, et
al., in which the plaintiffs allege an unlawful antitrust tying
arrangement between certain of the Company's charge cards and
credit cards in violation of various state and federal laws. The
plaintiffs in this action seek injunctive relief and an
unspecified amount of damages.

In December 2013, the Company announced a proposed settlement of
the Marcus case and the putative class action challenging its
anti-steering provisions. The settlement, which provides for
certain injunctive relief for the proposed classes, received
preliminary approval in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York.

On August 4, 2015, the court denied final approval of the
settlement; further proceedings are anticipated after resolution
of the appeal in the DOJ case.

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


AMERICAN INTERCONTINENTAL: Bid for Class Certification Dismissed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 11, 2016, in the case entitled
Amy Mauer v. American Intercontinental University, Inc., et al.,
Case No. 1:16-cv-01473 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held
before the Honorable Sara L. Ellis.

The minute entry states that pursuant to a stipulation, the
Plaintiff's motion for class certification is dismissed without
prejudice.  The status date set for May 11, 2016, is stricken and
reset to September 8, 2016, for ruling on motions to dismiss.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=SozO2Cwb


ANTHEM HEALTH: Dismissal of Psychiatric Assoc. Claims Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
Adam Klasfeld, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
psychiatrists celebrated the Second Circuit's "watershed" decision
last year opening insurers to liability for discriminating against
mental health treatment, but a new ruling shows the floodgates are
not open to all plaintiffs.

On May 13, the federal appeals court affirmed dismissal of similar
claims by the American Psychiatric Association.

Along with related trade groups and doctors, the APA had accused
Anthem and its subsidiary Wellpoint of skimping on mental health
and substance-abuse care.

The lawsuit, filed three years ago in Connecticut, quoted remarks
to Congress by U.S. Rep. Patrick Kennedy, when introducing the
Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act of 2008.

"Access to mental health services is one of the most important and
most neglected civil rights issues facing the nation," the Rhode
Island Democrat had said. "For too long, persons living with
mental disorders have suffered discriminatory treatment at all
levels of society."

The Mental Health Parity Act sought to ensure comparable coverage
for mental and physical illnesses, but psychiatric associations
say the statute suffers from lax enforcement.

When the Second Circuit revived a similar class action by the New
York State Psychiatric Association against UnitedHealth Group, the
group's lawyer hailed it as a "major" ruling that patched a
perceived loophole in the statute.

NYSPA's success stemmed from the court's finding of "no serious
dispute" that the association had standing to sue "in its own
right."

In affirming dismissal of the APA's case May 13, the Second
Circuit found that the group could not sue on behalf of its
members and patients.

Supreme Court precedent shows the court "cannot expand the
congressionally created statutory list of those who may bring a
cause of action by importing third-party prudential
considerations," the 25-page ruling states.

This is so, according to the ruling, despite "policy reasons
[that] might support allowing physicians to bring suit on behalf
of patients with mental health and substance use disorders in the
absence of statutory authorization for such an action."
U.S. Circuit Judge Judge John Walker wrote the decision for a
three-judge panel.

Anthem has not returned a telephone request for comment.

The APA's president Renee Binder complained that the ruling would
further disenfranchise its patients.

"Discrimination against our patients is a pervasive and pressing
problem, and we believe it needs to be addressed in a coordinated,
systematic fashion," Binder said in an email. "We disagree with
this ruling because, it means the patients, who are already
disenfranchised, have to fight on a claim-by-claim basis.
Psychiatry will continue to advocate for the interests of our
patients, explore options for appeal, and implement strategies to
end barriers to care."

The case is captioned, AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, on behalf
of its members and their patients, et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants,
V. ANTHEM HEALTH PLANS, INC., et al. Defendants-Appellees., No.
14-3993-cv (2nd Cir.)


API TECHNOLOGIES: MOU Reached in Stockholders' Suit
---------------------------------------------------
API Technologies Corp. said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, that the
parties to the pending stockholder class action lawsuits have
entered into a memorandum of understanding.

On February 28, 2016, API Technologies Corp. (the "Company"), RF1
Holding Company ("Parent") and RF Acquisition Sub, Inc., a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger Sub"), entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger (the "Merger Agreement"). Upon the
terms and subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement, Merger Sub will merge with and into the Company, with
the Company continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly-
owned subsidiary of Parent (the "Merger").

In connection with the Merger, three purported class action
complaints have been filed on behalf of the stockholders against
the Company, members of the board of directors, J.F. Lehman &
Company, Parent and Merger Sub in the Circuit Court for the Ninth
Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida (the "Circuit
Court"). The three complaints are captioned as follows: Smith v.
API Technologies Corp. et. al., 2016-CA-001988-O (Cir. Ct. Fl.);
Marcus v. API Technologies Corp. et. al., 2016-CA-002257-O (Cir.
Ct. Fl.); and Strougo v. API Technologies Corp. et. al., 2016-CA-
002629-O (Cir. Ct. Fl.) (actions filed March 2, 2016, March 14,
2016, and March 24, 2016, respectively, and collectively, the
"Stockholder Actions").

In its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on April 12, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
February 29, 2016, API Technologies said a motion to consolidate
three stockholder class actions is pending.

On April 13, 2016, the parties to the Stockholder Actions entered
into a memorandum of understanding (the "MOU") reflecting an
agreement in principle to resolve the Stockholder Actions. Subject
to completion of certain confirmatory discovery by counsel to the
plaintiffs, the MOU stipulates that the parties will enter into a
stipulation of settlement. The stipulation of settlement will be
subject to customary conditions, including court approval. In the
event that the parties enter into a stipulation of settlement, a
hearing will be scheduled at which the settlement contemplated by
the MOU will be submitted to the Circuit Court for approval. If
the settlement is finally approved by the Circuit Court, the
Stockholder Actions will be dismissed with prejudice. As part of
the settlement, the defendants deny all allegations of wrongdoing
and deny that the disclosures in the Definitive Information
Statement on Schedule 14C filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission by the Company on March 28, 2016 ("Definitive
Information Statement") were inadequate but have agreed to provide
supplemental disclosures. The settlement will not affect the
timing of the Merger or the amount of consideration to be paid in
the Merger.

The Company believes that no further supplemental disclosure is
required under applicable laws; however, to avoid the risk of the
Stockholder Actions delaying or adversely affecting the Merger and
to minimize the expense of defending such actions, the Company has
agreed, pursuant to the terms of the MOU, to make certain
disclosures that supplement and revise those contained in the
Definitive Information Statement.

API Technologies Corp. designs, develops, and manufactures
systems, subsystems, modules, and components for RF microwave,
millimeterwave, electromagnetic, power, and security applications,
as well as provides electronics manufacturing for technically
demanding, high-reliability applications.


ARIZONA: Sheriff Arpaio, Others in Contempt of Court, Judge Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Warmerdam, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that a federal judge in Arizona found Maricopa County Sheriff Joe
Arpaio and three of his top officials in contempt of court on
Friday for disobeying orders meant to curtail racial profiling in
the sheriff's department.

The ruling stems from a 2007 class action against Arpaio and the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office claiming officers in the agency
racially profiled Latinos and unlawfully detained them during
crime-suppression sweeps.

U.S. District Judge G. Murray Snow issued a preliminary injunction
in 2011 that prohibited sheriff's officers from illegally
targeting Latinos. He followed that up with a court order in 2013,
instructing Arpaio and the sheriff's office to take a number of
steps to prevent racial profiling.

The six-term sheriff has acknowledged violating the judge's orders
by letting his officers conduct immigration patrols 18 months
after Snow barred them. He also took responsibility for his
department's failure to turn over traffic-stop video evidence
before trial.

May 13 ruling brings an end to a lengthy proceeding that started a
year ago when Snow began a series of hearings to determine whether
Arpaio and his aides flouted the judge's orders.

In his 162-page decision, Snow found that Arpaio and three of his
deputies "have engaged in multiple acts of misconduct,
dishonestly, and bad faith with respect to the plaintiff class and
the protection of its rights. They have demonstrated a persistent
disregard for the orders of this court, as well as an intention to
violate and manipulate the laws and policies regulating their
conduct as they pertain to their obligations to be fair,
'equitable and impartial' with respect to the interests of the
plaintiff class."

Snow held Arpaio in contempt on three counts and Chief Deputy
Jerry Sheridan in contempt on two counts, and cited retired Chief
Brian Sands and Lt. Joe Sousa on one count each.

Although Arpaio has maintained that his violations were not
willful, the judge found that Arpaio's contempt "was both knowing
and intentional."

Snow based his ruling on the violation of three instructions: not
turning over video evidence that had been required before the
racial-profiling trial; continuing to enforce an immigration law
the judge had banned; and Sheridan's failure to quietly collect
evidence after the trial, as ordered by Snow.  Snow said that
Arpaio "knowingly ignored the court's order because he believed
that his popularity resulted, at least in part, from his
enforcement of immigration laws."

In 2011, immediately after the judge had issued the preliminary
injunction, Arpaio issued a statement saying, "I will continue to
enforce illegal immigration laws." Three months later, the
sheriff's department issued another statement saying, "Arpaio
remains adamant about the fact that his office will continue to
enforce both state and federal illegal immigrations laws as long
as the laws are on the books."

These statements indicate that Arpaio was aware of the preliminary
injunction but nevertheless continued to enforce all federal
immigration laws, Snow said.

The sheriff department's Human Smuggling Unit violated the
preliminary injunction by continuing to arrest, detain and
transport immigrants to Immigration and Customs Enforcement or the
Border Patrol when it could not charge them for committing any
state or federal crime.

Officers "used race as one factor among others in determining whom
it would stop" and "detained persons for unreasonable periods of
time to investigate their immigration status," Snow said.

At least 157 people were turned over to ICE or Border Patrol as a
result of the unit's street-interdiction operations after the
injunction was issued, the judge said.

When those who were targeted complained about their treatment, the
department failed to conduct a thorough investigation and let
officers remain in control of investigations in which they
themselves had conflicts, Snow said.

"Ultimately, few persons were investigated; even fewer were
disciplined. The discipline imposed was inadequate. The only
person who received a suspension --for one week --was also granted
a raise and a promotion," the judge said.

When it came to evidence for the trial, the sheriff's office
withheld documents they were obligated to produce and lied about
the existence of the documents in an attempt to justify their
concealment, Snow said.

In addition, Arpaio and Sheridan "made multiple intentional
misstatements of fact while under oath" during the evidentiary
hearing, the judge said.

Arpaio and his office face a range of potential sanctions,
including fines, restitution for those who were illegally detained
during the prohibited immigration patrols, and tighter oversight
of daily operations.

The judge set a hearing for May 31 on the possible penalties.  He
noted that the court will at that time "determine if it will refer
any matters for criminal contempt."

Cecillia Wang, director of the ACLU's Immigrants' Rights Project,
said that Arpaio's "recalcitrance ends here."

"Strong remedies are needed to protect the community's rights,
starting with internal investigations that root out and punish
misconduct. Willing or not, the sheriff will be made to comply
with the law," she said.

Arpaio's team of attorneys, including John Masterson, Joseph
Popolizio and Justin Ackerman with Jones, Skelton & Hochuli,
issued a statement saying they are analyzing the judge's lengthy
decision and plan to file a responsive memorandum.

"Despite disagreeing with some of the court's findings, the
Maricopa County Sheriff's Office will continue to work the court
appointed monitor, the ACLU and plaintiffs to comply with the
court's orders, as it has since January 2014," the statement said.

The case captioned, Manuel de Jesus Ortega Melendres, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated; et al., Plaintiffs,
and United States of America, Plaintiff-Intervenor  v. Joseph M.
Arpaio, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Maricopa County,
Arizona; et al., Defendants, No. CV-07-2513-PHX-GMS (D. Ariz.).


AUTOZONE INC: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Ellison" Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
AutoZone, Inc., asks the Court for an order decertifying the class
represented by Plaintiffs Jimmy Ellison and Martha Doland in the
multidistrict litigation titled In re: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND
HOUR EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES LITIGATION, MDL No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB
(N.D. Cal.).

The Court certified a rest break class of more than 20,000 of
AutoZone's non-exempt employees in California based on the
Plaintiffs' argument that a single written rest break policy was
sufficient to create the common questions and answers necessary to
try the Case as a class action.  The Plaintiffs argued that
because AutoZone's rest break policy failed to include the words
"or major fraction thereof," AutoZone failed to authorize and
permit rest breaks for shifts between 3.5 and 4 hours and between
6 and 8 hours.

Michael E. Brewer, Esq., at Littler Mendelson, P.C., in Walnut
Creek, California -- mbrewer@littler.com -- contends that the
evidence developed has established that there was no company-wide
policy or practice, and no common proof that would establish
whether AutoZone fail to authorize and permit required rest
periods based on the written policy.  He notes that an alleged
defective written rest break policy does not allow for a common
answer at the exclusion of other evidence.

Indeed, Mr. Brewer argues, the evidence gathered since
certification demonstrates that in practice, class members were
authorized and permitted compliant rest breaks.  He contends that
the Plaintiffs have failed to establish any common method of
proving otherwise as there is no record of rest breaks.

A hearing to consider the Motion is set for June 17, 2016, at
10:00 a.m.  Trial is set for October 17, 2016.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=1jBRi8nE

Autozone, Inc. (Ellison and Doland matters) is represented by:

          Michael E. Brewer, Esq.
          Gregory G. Iskander, Esq.
          Jeffrey J. Mann, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          Treat Towers
          1255 Treat Boulevard, Suite 600
          Walnut Creek, CA 94597
          Telephone: (925) 932-2468
          E-mail: mbrewer@littler.com
                  giskander@littler.com
                  jmann@littler.com

               - and -

          Alison J. Cubre, Esq.
          LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
          333 Bush Street, 34th Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1940
          Facsimile: (415) 399-8490
          E-mail: acubre@littler.com

Autozone, Inc. (Ellison matter only) is represented by:

          Michael A. Hoffman, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          E-mail: mhoffman@arenahoffman.com


BA CREDIT: 2nd Circuit Appeal Launched in Cardholder Suit
---------------------------------------------------------
BA Credit Card Funding, LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the plaintiffs in
the cardholder action have appealed a decision dismissing their
state law claims to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.

In 2005, a group of merchants filed a series of putative class
actions and individual actions directed at interchange fees
associated with Visa and MasterCard payment card transactions.
These actions, which were consolidated in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York under the caption In Re
Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Anti-Trust
Litigation ("Interchange"), named Visa, MasterCard and several
banks and bank holding companies, including Bank of America
Corporation ("BAC"), as defendants.  Plaintiffs alleged that
defendants conspired to fix the level of default interchange rates
and that certain rules of Visa and MasterCard related to merchant
acceptance of payment cards at the point of sale were unreasonable
restraints of trade under the Sherman Act.  Plaintiffs sought
unspecified damages and injunctive relief.

On October 19, 2012, defendants, including BAC, settled the
matter.  The settlement provides for, among other things, (i)
payments by defendants to the class and individual plaintiffs
totaling approximately $6.6 billion, allocated proportionately to
each defendant based upon loss-sharing agreements; (ii)
distribution to class merchants of an amount equal to 10 basis
points of default interchange across all Visa and MasterCard
credit card transactions for a period of eight consecutive months,
which period began on July 29, 2013, which otherwise would have
been paid to Visa and MasterCard issuers, including BAC, and which
effectively reduces credit interchange for that period of time;
and (iii) modifications to certain Visa and MasterCard rules
regarding merchant point of sale practices.

The court granted final approval of the class settlement agreement
on December 13, 2013.  Several class members appealed the court's
order approving the settlement to the U.S. Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, which held oral argument on September 28,
2015.

On July 28, 2015, certain objectors to the class settlement filed
motions asking the district court to vacate or set aside its final
judgment approving the settlement, or in the alternative, to grant
further discovery, in light of communications between one of
MasterCard's former lawyers and one of the lawyers for the class
plaintiffs. The defendants and the class plaintiffs filed
responses to the motions on August 18, 2015 and the objectors
filed replies on September 2, 2015. The court has not set oral
argument.

Following approval of the class settlement agreement, a number of
the class members opted out of the settlement.  The cash portion
of the settlement was adjusted downwards as a result of these opt
outs.  As a result of various loss-sharing agreements from the
main Interchange litigation, BAC remains liable for any settlement
or judgment in opt-out suits where it is not named as a defendant.
BAC is currently named as a defendant in one of the opt-out suits
brought by merchant class members, as well as in a putative class
action filed by cardholders in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of California, alleging claims under the Sherman
Act and under California state law.  All of the opt-out suits
filed to date, as well as the cardholder action, have been
consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
of New York.

On July 18, 2014, the court denied defendants' motion to dismiss
the complaints filed by the merchant class members who opted out
of the settlement, and on November 26, 2014, the court granted
defendants' motion to dismiss the Sherman Act claim in the
cardholder action, but declined to accept supplemental
jurisdiction over the state law claims.

In the cardholder action, the parties moved for reconsideration of
the court's November 26, 2014 decision, and on February 26, 2016,
the court granted defendants' motion, finding the court had
supplemental jurisdiction, dismissing plaintiffs' state law
claims, and denying plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration. The
plaintiffs have appealed the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Second Circuit.


BLACKBOARD INC: Sued in Ill. Over Automated Telephone Call
----------------------------------------------------------
Rafael Valladares, individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated individuals, the Plaintiff, v. Blackboard,
Inc., a Delaware corporation, and Blackboard Connect, Inc., a
North Carolina corporation, the Defendants, Case No. 2016-CH-06482
(Ill. Chancery Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to stop Defendants'
unlawful practice of transmitting unauthorized, automated
telephone calls and text messages to individuals' cellular
telephones, and to obtain redress for all persons injured by their
conduct.

According to the complaint, the Defendants violated federal law by
making unauthorized telephone calls featuring a prerecorded or
artificial voice and transmitting unauthorized, automated text
messages to the cellular telephones of individuals throughout the
nation (wireless spam).

Blackboard provides automated calling services to school districts
and other entities throughout the country.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Myles McGuire, Esq.
          Evan M. Meyers, Esq.
          Paul T. Geske, Esq.
          MCGUIRE LAW, P.C.
          55 W. Wacker Drive, 9th Fl.
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 893 7002
          E-mail: mmcguire@mcgpc.com
                  emeyers@mcgpc.com
                  pgeske@mcgpc.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: "Allen" Sues Over Pradaxa Side Effects
------------------------------------------------------------
Claude Ray Allen, individually, as next of kin and as personal
representative of the estate of Betty Jean Miles-Allen, deceased,
Plaintiff, v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH, Defendants, Case No. HHD-
CV-16-6067804-S (Conn. Super., April 28, 2016), seeks compensatory
and punitive damages, costs and such other relief for violation of
the Connecticut Product Liability Act.

Plaintiff's Decedent Betty Jean Miles-Allen ingested Pradaxa (R)
75mg twice a day for treatment of non-valvular atrial fibrillation
and allegedly suffered gastrointestinal bleeding as a result.

Boehringer is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of
business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut 06877.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Tel. 203-610-6393
      Fax. 203-610-6399
      Email: neal@urymoskow.com

             - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Tel: 630-232-6333
      Fax: 630-845-8982
      Email: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BON-TON DISTRIBUTION: Betty Ratulowski Seeks Class Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled BETTY RATULOWSKI, on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. BON-TON DISTRIBUTION, LLC, doing business
as CARSON PIRIE SCOTT; BON-TON STORES, INC.; and JOHN DOES 1-10,
Case No. 1:16-cv-05172 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to enter an
order determining that the action, alleging claims under the
Telephone Consumer Protection Act, may proceed as a class action
against the Defendants.

Plaintiff brings the claim on behalf of two classes:

   (1) The first class consists of (a) all persons (b) who, on or
       after a date four years prior to the filing of this
       action, (c) were sent text message calls by either of the
       defendants (d) with respect to whom defendants have no
       evidence of express consent; and

   (2) The second class consists of (a) all persons with Illinois
       area codes (b) who, on or after a date 3 years prior to
       the filing of this action, (c) were sent text message
       calls by either of the defendants (d) with respect to whom
       defendants have no evidence of express consent.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Emiliya G. Farbstein, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, LLC
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379


BP LPC: Mondrian Fund Suit Transferred from S.D.N.Y. to S.D. Tex.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mondrian Global Equity Fund, L.P., Mondrian International Equity
Fund, L.P., Mondrian Focused International Equity Fund, L.P.,
Mondrian All Countries World Ex-US Equity Fund, L.P., and Mondrian
Group Trust, the Plaintiffs, v. BP PLC, BP America Inc., BP
Exploration & Production Inc., Anthony B. Hayward, Robert W.
Dudley, Carl-Henric Svanberg, and William Castell, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02719, was transferred from the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District Court of New York, to the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Houston). The
Southern Texas District Court assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-01307 to
the proceeding.

The action, brought by four Delaware limited partnerships and
ERISA-complaint group trust established under applicable United
States ERISA and tax laws, seeks recovery of the purchased BO
ordinary shares on the London Stock Exchange during the period of
February 7, 2007 through June 25, 2010.

BP is one of the world's leading integrated oil and gas companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew L Tuccillo, Esq.
          Jeremy Alan Lieberman, Esq.
          Jessica Dell, Esq.
          Marc Gross, Esq.
          Pomerantz LLP
          600 Third Avenue, 20th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 661 1100
          E-mail: mltuccillo@pomlaw.com


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Final Allocation Order Entered
-----------------------------------------------
Judge Gene E.K. Pratter of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennyslvania on May 11, 2016, entered an allocation
order in the Direct Purchaser Putative Class Action in the Egg
Antitrust Litigation.

Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended February 27, 2016, that since September 25,
2008, the Company has been named as one of several defendants in
numerous antitrust cases involving the United States shell egg
industry.  In some of these cases, the named plaintiffs allege
that they purchased eggs or egg products directly from a defendant
and have sued on behalf of themselves and a putative class of
others who claim to be similarly situated.  In other cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased shell eggs and egg
products directly from one or more of the defendants but sue only
for their own alleged damages and not on behalf of a putative
class.  In the remaining cases, the named plaintiffs are
individuals or companies who allege that they purchased shell eggs
indirectly from one or more of the defendants -- that is, they
purchased from retailers that had previously purchased from
defendants or other parties -- and have sued on behalf of
themselves and a putative class of others who claim to be
similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The direct purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.  In November 2014, the Court approved
the Company's settlement with the direct purchaser plaintiff class
and entered final judgment dismissing with prejudice the class
members' claims against the Company.

On January 29, 2016, the direct purchaser plaintiffs filed a
motion for an order approving their proposed allocation of the
Company's net settlement fund to authorized claimants.

The Court previously certified this Settlement Class:

     All persons and entities that purchased Shell Eggs and Egg
     Products in the United States directly from any Producer,
     including any Defendant, during the Class Period from
     January 1, 2000 through the date on which the Court enters
     an order preliminarily approving the Agreement and
     certifying a Class for Settlement  purposes.

          (a) Shell Egg SubClass

              All individuals and entities that purchased Shell
              Eggs in the United States directly from any
              Producer, including any Defendant, during the Class
              Period from January 1, 2000 through the date on
              which the Court enters an order preliminarily
              approving the Agreement and certifying a Class for
              Settlement purposes.

          (b) Egg Products SubClass

              All individuals and entities that purchased Egg
              Products produced from Shell Eggs in the United
              States directly from any Producer, including any
              Defendant, during the Class Period from January 1,
              2000 through the date on which the Court enters an
              order preliminarily approving the Agreement and
              certifying a Class for Settlement purposes.

Excluded from the Class and SubClasses are Defendants, Other
Settling Defendants, and Producers, and the parents, subsidiaries
and affiliates of Defendants, Other Settling Defendants, and
Producers, all governmental entities, as well as the Court and
staff to whom this case is assigned, and any member of the Court's
or staffs immediate family.

In a Feb. 3, 2016 Order, Judge Pratter certified a class of shell
egg purchasers as:

     All individuals and entities that purchased shell eggs
     produced from caged birds in the United States directly
     from Defendants during the Class Period from September 24,
     2004 through December 31, 2008.

Excluded from the Class are the Defendants, their co--
conspirators, and their respective parents, subsidiaries, and
affiliates, as well as any government entities. Also excluded from
the Class are purchasers of "specialty" shell eggs (such as
"organic," "certified organic," "free range," "cage free",
"nutritionally enhanced," or "vegetarian fed") and purchasers of
hatching eggs, which are used by poultry breeders to produce
breeder stock or growing stock for laying hens or meat.

These entities were appointed as class representatives:

     T.K. Ribbing's Family Restaurant, LLC;
     John A. Lisciandro d/b/a/Lisciandro's Restaurant;
     Eby-Brown Company LLC; and
     Karetas Foods, Inc.

These individuals are appointed as class counsel to the shell egg
class:

     Mindee J. Reuben -- mreuben@litedepalma.com --
     Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC;

     Michael D. Hausfeld -- mhausfeld@hausfeld.com --
     Hausfeld LLP;

     Stanley D. Bernstein -- Bernstein@bernlieb.com --
     Bernstein Liebhard LLP; and

     Stephen D. Susman -- ssusman@susmangodfrey.com --
     Susman Godfrey LLP.

In Monday's Allocation Order, the Court directed the Claims
Administrator, Garden City Group, LLC, to allocate the Net
Settlement Fund, after payment of expenses authorized under the
Settlement Agreement and as approved by the Court, including to
the Claims Administrator, and adjustment for the payment of
attorneys' fees and expenses previously authorized by the Court to
the Settlement SubClasses, defined as the members of the
Settlement Subclasses who did not timely and validly exclude
themselves from the Settlement in accordance with the requirements
set forth in the Notice or as otherwise approved by the Court, as
follows:

                                  Shell Egg        Egg Products
   Settlement SubClass             SubClass            SubClass

   Percentage Allocation             67.76%               32.24%
   from Settlement Fund

   Total Amount Claimed    $25,058,716,445      $11,920,317,188
   by SubClass

GCG is directed to make payments from each SubClasses' Individual
Settlement Fund to Authorized Claimants as follows: Each
Authorized Claimant who files a valid, sworn, and timely Claim
Form and who submits documents that the Claims Administrator
determines are valid proof of purchase and purchase price shall be
entitled to a payment from the Individual Settlement Fund(s) for
which they are eligible in the amount of approximately 0.04% of
their actual purchase price of each Settlement Product, or a total
sum of $25, whichever is greater.

A copy of the Order is available at https://is.gd/0a1BPO


CAL-MAINE FOODS: Motion for Summary Judgment Still Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 28, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended February 27, 2016, that in the Egg
Antitrust Litigation, Indirect Purchaser Putative Class Action,
the Court has not ruled on motions for summary judgment.

Since September 25, 2008, the Company has been named as one of
several defendants in numerous antitrust cases involving the
United States shell egg industry.  In some of these cases, the
named plaintiffs allege that they purchased eggs or egg products
directly from a defendant and have sued on behalf of themselves
and a putative class of others who claim to be similarly situated.
In other cases, the named plaintiffs allege that they purchased
shell eggs and egg products directly from one or more of the
defendants but sue only for their own alleged damages and not on
behalf of a putative class.  In the remaining cases, the named
plaintiffs are individuals or companies who allege that they
purchased shell eggs indirectly from one or more of the defendants
-- that is, they purchased from retailers that had previously
purchased from defendants or other parties -- and have sued on
behalf of themselves and a putative class of others who claim to
be similarly situated.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation consolidated all of
the putative class actions (as well as certain other cases in
which the Company was not a named defendant) for pretrial
proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania court has organized the
putative class actions around two groups (direct purchasers and
indirect purchasers) and has named interim lead counsel for the
named plaintiffs in each group.

The indirect purchaser putative class cases were consolidated into
In re: Processed Egg Products Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:08-md-
02002-GP, in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.

On April 20-21, 2015, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on the
indirect purchaser plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

On July 2, 2015, the Company filed and joined several motions for
summary judgment that sought either dismissal of the entire case
or, in the alternative, dismissal of portions of the case.

On July 2, 2015, the indirect purchaser plaintiffs filed motions
for summary judgment seeking dismissal of certain affirmative
defenses based on statutory immunities from federal and state
antitrust laws. The Court heard oral argument on the motions for
summary judgment on February 22 and 23, 2016.

The Court has not ruled on these motions.

On September 18, 2015, the Court denied the indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' motion for class certification of 21 separate classes
seeking damages under the laws of 21 states, holding that the
plaintiffs were not able to prove that their purported method for
ascertaining class membership was reliable or administratively
feasible, that common questions would predominate, or that their
proposed class approach would be manageable in a single trial.

In addition to barring any right to pursue a class monetary remedy
under state law, the Court also denied indirect purchaser
plaintiffs' request for certification of an injunctive-relief
class under federal law.  However, the court allowed the indirect
purchaser plaintiffs to renew their motion for class certification
seeking a federal injunction.  The plaintiffs filed their renewed
motion to certify an injunctive-relief class on October 23, 2015.

The Company joined the other defendants in opposing that motion on
November 20.  The plaintiffs filed their reply memorandum on
December 11, 2015.

The plaintiffs requested oral argument on their renewed motion for
injunctive class certification.  The plaintiffs also filed a
petition with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit, asking the court to hear an immediate appeal of the trial
court's denial of the motion to certify 21 state-law damages
classes.

On December 3, 2015, the Third Circuit entered an order staying
its consideration of the plaintiffs' request for an immediate
appeal of the damages-class ruling pending the trial court's
resolution of the plaintiffs' renewed motion to certify an
injunctive-relief class.


CENTRAL CREDIT: Faces "Greenberg" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Central Credit Services LLC. The
case is captioned Aaron Greenberg and Niche Greenberg, on behalf
of themselves and all other similarly situated consumers, the
Plaintiffs, v. Central Credit Services LLC, formerly known as
Veldos, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02350 (E.D.N.Y., May
10, 2016).

Central Credit provides collections and customer services to
businesses in the United States and internationally.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

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


CHEMIX ENERGY: McGarry Seeks Conditional Class Certification
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit captioned SHANE MCGARRY and GILBERT
CANTU, Individually and On Behalf of All Similarly Situated
Persons v. CHEMIX ENERGY SERVICES, LLC, Case No. 2:15-CV-0496
(S.D. Tex.), file with the Court their opposed motion for
conditional class certification and notice.

The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify the class of:

     All individuals who are employed by or have been employed by
     Chemix Energy Services, LLC at any time since December 11,
     2012 as operators (including operators, operator assistants,
     chemical operators, and operator/supervisors) who were paid
     a base salary and a day-rate/job bonus, with no overtime
     compensation ("Putative Class Members").

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=YPje8F59

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Vijay A. Pattisapu, Esq.
          Josef F. Buenker, Esq.
          THE BUENKER LAW FIRM
          2030 North Loop West, Suite 120
          Houston, TX 77018
          Telephone: (713) 868-3388
          Facsimile: (713) 683-9940


CHINA COMMERCIAL: Settlement Reached in Shareholder Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
China Commercial Credit, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for
the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has
reached a settlement in principal of a shareholder class action
complaint and is in the process of exchanging documentation.

The Company said, "On August 6, 2014, a purported shareholder
Andrew Dennison filed a putative class action complaint in the
United States District Court District of New Jersey (the "N.J.
district court") relating to a July 25, 2014 press release about
the Company's progress in recovering a significant portion of the
$5.4 million the Company paid in the first quarter of 2014 on
behalf of loan guarantee customers.

The action, Andrew Dennison v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et
al., Case No. 2:2014-cv-04956, alleges that the Company and its
current and former officers and directors Huichun Qin, Long Yi,
Jianming Yin, Jinggen Ling, Xiangdong Xiao, and John F. Levy
violated the federal securities laws by misrepresenting in prior
public filings certain material facts about the risks associated
with its loan guarantee business.

On October 2, 2014, purported shareholders Zhang Yun and Sanjiv
Mehrotra (the "Yun Group") asserted substantially similar claims
against the same defendants in a putative class action captioned
Zhang Yun v. China Commercial Credit, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:14-
cv-06136 (D. N.J.). Neither complaint states the amount of damages
sought."

"On or about October 6, 2014, Dennison, the Yun Group and another
purported shareholder, Jason Stark, filed motions to consolidate
the cases, be appointed as lead plaintiff and to have their
respective counsel appointed as lead counsel. On October 31, 2014,
the N.J. district court entered an order consolidating the cases
under the caption "In re China Commercial Credit Inc. Securities
Litigation" and appointing the Yun Group as lead plaintiff ("Class
Plaintiff") and the Yun Group's counsel as lead counsel.

"On November 18, 2014, the Yun Group and the Company, which at
that point was the only defendant served, entered into a
stipulation to transfer of the case to the Southern District of
New York. On December 18, 2014, Mr. Levy, who had by then been
served, joined in the stipulation. On December 29, 2014, the N.J.
district court entered an order transferring the action. The
transfer was effected on January 22, 2015, and assigned docket
number 1:15-cv-00557-ALC (S.D.N.Y.).

"Under the schedule stipulated by the parties, the Yun Group was
to file an amended complaint within 60 days of the date that the
transfer was effected, and the defendants' date to answer or move
was within 60 days of that filing. On April 7, 2015, the Class
Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Class Action Complaint (the
"CAC"). The CAC also asserts securities law claims against
defendants Axiom Capital Management, Inc., Burnham Securities Inc.
and ViewTrade Securities, Inc. (collectively, the "Underwriter
Defendants"). The CAC alleges that the Company engaged in a
fraudulent scheme by engaging in undisclosed and improper lending
practices and made misleading representations regarding its
underwriting policies, the loan portfolio quality, the loan loss
allowance, compliance with U.S. GAAP and its internal control
systems.

"In accordance with the Court's procedures, the Company and Mr.
Levy and the Underwriter Defendants requested a Pre-Motion
Conference in anticipation of filing a motion to dismiss the CAC,
which was held on June 25, 2015. At the conference, the Court
adjourned the date to answer or move in order to provide the Class
Plaintiff with time to serve certain overseas defendants. After
the conference, the Class Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed Jianming
Yin, Jinggen Ling and Xiangdong Xiao from the action, and Long Yi
agreed to waive service, which left Huichun Qin as the sole
remaining defendant to serve. The case remains stayed pending
service of Huichun Qin.

"On or about February 4, 2016, the Company, Mr. Levy, Mr. Li and
the plaintiffs reached a settlement in principal and are in the
process of exchanging documentation. Under the terms of the
proposed agreement, CCCR will pay defendants $200,000 cash, plus
$25,000 towards the cost of notice to the class, and issue 750,000
CCCR shares to the class. The settlement will be subject to court
approval."

China Commercial Credit, Inc., is a financial services firm
operating in China.


CITISTAFF SOLUTIONS: Faces "Gonzalez" Suit in Cal. Super. Ct.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jorge Gonzalez, an individually and on behalf of himself and other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Citistaff Solutions,
Inc., a California corporation, and Does 1-30., the Defendant,
Case No. BC620115 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to
recover civil penalties under Labor Code against Defendant for
failure to provide wage statements.

CitiStaff provides Human Relations solutions.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
          15300 Ventura Blvd., Suite 207
          Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
          Telephone: (310) 773 0823
          Facsimile: (310) 861 0389
          E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com


CODE REBEL: Sued in S.D.N.Y Over False Financial Results
--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Springer, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Code Rebel Corporation,
Arben Kryeziu, and Reid Dabney, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
03492 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover compensable
damages caused by Defendants' violations of federal securities
laws, and pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, Code Rebel filed on April 14, 2016, a
Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015, with the
Securities Exchange Commission, containing materially false and/or
misleading statements which misrepresented and failed to disclose
adverse facts pertaining to the Company's business, operational
and financial results, that were known to Defendants or recklessly
disregarded by them.

Code Rebel is a software and information technology services (IT)
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, New York 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


CONSTELLIUM N.V.: Facing Retirees and Union Action
--------------------------------------------------
Constellium N.V. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 18, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that during the third quarter
of 2012, the Group implemented certain plan amendments that had
the effect of reducing benefits of the participants in the
Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood Retiree Medical and Life
Insurance Plan. In February 2013, five Constellium retirees and
the United Steelworkers union filed a class action lawsuit against
Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC in a federal district
court in West Virginia, alleging that Constellium Rolled Products
Ravenswood, LLC improperly modified retiree health benefits.

The Group believes that these claims are unfounded, and that
Constellium Rolled Products Ravenswood, LLC had a legal and
contractual right to make the applicable modification.

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


CORDELL RESTAURANT: "Thackston" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Thackston, 7545 Spring Lake Dr., Bethesda, MD 20817, and
Jana Wilson, 7545 Spring Lake Dr., Bethesda, MD 20817, the
Plaintiffs, v. Cordell Restaurant, Associates, LLC, 4922 Cordell
Avenue, Bethesda, MD 20814; Gabriel Coulon, 3604 Littledale Road,
Kensington, MD 20895; Robert Coulon, 17906 Chatterly Terrace,
Germantown, Md 20874; and Christopher Sansone, 5276 Pooks Hill
Road, Bethesda, Md 20814, the Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01395-
TDC (D. Md., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation and damages under the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA), the Federal and State law and the common law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were paid by Defendants
an hourly wage below the required minimum wage of $3.63 and $4.00
in January 2015. In every two-week period, the Plaintiffs were
allegedly paid for a lesser number of hours than they actually
worked. The Plaintiffs' paychecks reflected zero pay for any given
2-week period, despite working in excess of 40 hours per week in
certain pay periods.

Cordell Restaurant delivers boutique fine dining experiences for
corporate and business.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven C. Kahn, Esq.
          Clifford J. Scharman n, Esq.
          KAHN & SCHARMAN, LLC
          401 E. Jefferson Street, Suite 201
          Rockville, MD 20850
          Telephone: (301) 455 6462
          E-mail: cjscharman@msn.com


COREPOWER YOGA: "Osterholt" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Zuri Osterholt, on behalf of herself and all other similarly
situated persons, the Plaintiff, v. Corepower Yoga, LLC, the
Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-05089 (N.D. Ill., May 10, 2016), seeks
to recover unpaid wages, liquidated damages, punitive damages, and
attorney's fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

According to the complaint, CorePower claims to provide a world
class experience for everyone and preaches that its teachers are a
huge part of the CorePower experience. However, while CorePower
has built a highly successful and profitable business, its
teachers are "over-stretched" and not being paid for many of the
duties they are required to perform as employees. CorePower fails
to compensate its employees for actual hours worked, including for
essential and integral job duties such as preparing to teach
classes, developing and practicing their sequences, compiling
music playlists, communicating with customers, and reading and
writing work related e-mails.

Power Yoga provides yoga practice services. It offers bootcamp,
livelean, lifestyle programs, yogi training, and yoga retreat
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven A. Hart, Esq.
          Brian H. Eldridge, Esq.
          Carter D. Grant, Esq.
          SEGAL McCAMBRIDGE SINGER & MAHONEY, LTD.
          233 South Wacker Drive
          Willis Tower-Suite 5500
          Chicago, IL 60606
          Telephone: (312) 645-7800
          Facsimile: (312) 645-7711
          E-mail: shart@hmelegal.com
                  beldridge@hmelegal.com
                  cgrant@hmelegal.com


CPFL ENERGIA: Unit Defending Suit by Consumer Protection Office
---------------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that CPFL Paulista is a
defendant in a class action suit commenced by the Consumer
Protection Office (Promotoria de Defesa do Consumidor) of Campinas
in the State of Sao Paulo, seeking to suspend the tariff
adjustment authorized by Agencia Nacional de Energia Eletrica), or
ANEEL for 2009.

The Company said, "The claim against us was rejected by the court
of first instance, but the Consumer Protection Office appealed the
decision.  The tariff adjustment remains in force until a ruling
on appeal is made.  We believe that the risk of loss in these
proceedings is possible and therefore have not recorded any
accounting provision in this respect."


CPFL ENERGIA: Defending Suit by Public Attorney of Caxias do Sul
----------------------------------------------------------------
CPFL Energia S.A. said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is subject
to legal proceedings relating to the authorization of certain of
our Hydroelectric Power Plants.  These proceedings include a class
action suit commenced by the office of the Federal Public Attorney
of the Municipality of Caxias do Sul, challenging the validity of
the environmental license for the Rio das Antas hydroelectric
complex and seeking an injunction to prevent construction of the
plants.  The request for an injunction was denied by the lower
court and the appeal court, but confirmation of the appeal court
decision has been outstanding since 2012.  The Company believes
that the likelihood of loss is remote.


CRYO-CELL INTERNATIONAL: Defending Class Action in Delaware
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cryo-Cell International, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that a class action
complaint was filed on January 20, 2016, in the Court of the
Chancery of the State of Delaware against the Company and certain
current officers and directors of the Company (Case No. 11915-
VCG). The complaint alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and is
seeking appropriate injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment
against defendants that a certain provision of the Company's
Amended and Restated Bylaws, as amended through September 22, 2014
is in violation of Section 141(k) of the Delaware General
Corporation Law. The Company believes the litigation is without
merit and intends to defend the litigation vigorously. The
Company's maximum deductible under its Directors and Officers
insurance policy for this claim is $500,000.


CSX CORPORATION: Still Defends Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Case
------------------------------------------------------------
CSX Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 25, 2016, that the Company continues
to defend against the fuel surcharge antitrust litigation.

In May 2007, class action lawsuits were filed against CSXT and
three other U.S.-based Class I railroads alleging that the
defendants' fuel surcharge practices relating to contract and
unregulated traffic resulted from an illegal conspiracy in
violation of antitrust laws. In November 2007, the class action
lawsuits were consolidated in federal court in the District of
Columbia, where they are now pending. The suit seeks treble
damages allegedly sustained by purported class members as well as
attorneys' fees and other relief. Plaintiffs are expected to
allege damages at least equal to the fuel surcharges at issue.

In June 2012, the District Court certified the case as a class
action. The decision was not a ruling on the merits of plaintiffs'
claims, but rather a decision to allow the plaintiffs to seek to
prove the case as a class. The defendant railroads petitioned the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for permission to
appeal the District Court's class certification decision. In
August 2013, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision vacating the class
certification decision and remanded the case to the District Court
to reconsider its class certification decision. The District Court
remand proceedings are underway and a class certification hearing
is expected to occur later this year. The District Court has
delayed proceedings on the merits of the case pending the outcome
of the class certification remand proceedings.

CSXT believes that its fuel surcharge practices were arrived at
and applied lawfully and that the case is without merit.
Accordingly, the Company intends to defend itself vigorously.
However, penalties for violating antitrust laws can be severe, and
an unexpected adverse decision on the merits could have a material
adverse effect on the Company's financial condition, results of
operations or liquidity in that particular period.


CV SCIENCES: Still Defends "Sallustro" Class Action in S.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
CV Sciences, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company continues to
defend against a class action lawsuit filed by Tanya Sallustro.

On April 23, 2014, Tanya Sallustro filed a purported class action
complaint (the "Complaint") in the Southern District of New York
(the "Court") alleging securities fraud and related claims against
the Company and certain of its officers and directors and seeking
compensatory damages including litigation costs. Ms. Sallustro
alleges that between March 18-31, 2014, she purchased 325 shares
of the Company's common stock for a total investment of $15,791.

The Complaint refers to Current Reports on Form 8-K and Current
Reports on Form 8-K/A filings made by the Company on April 3, 2014
and April 14, 2014, in which the Company amended previously
disclosed sales (sales originally stated at $1,275,000 were
restated to $1,082,375 --reduction of $192,625) and restated
goodwill as $1,855,512 (previously reported at net zero).

Additionally, the Complaint states after the filing of the
Company's Current Report on Form 8-K on April 3, 2014 and the
following press release, the Company's stock price "fell $7.30 per
share, or more than 20%, to close at $25.30 per share." Subsequent
to the filing of the Complaint, six different individuals filed a
motion asking to be designated the lead plaintiff in the
litigation.

On March 19, 2015, the Court issued a ruling appointing Steve
Schuck as lead plaintiff.  Counsel for Mr. Schuck filed a
"consolidated amended complaint" on September 14, 2015.

On December 11, 2015, the Company filed a motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint. After requesting several
extensions, counsel for Mr. Schuck filed an opposition to the
motion to dismiss on March 21, 2016. The Company's reply brief is
due April 25, 2016. Management intends to vigorously defend the
allegations and an estimate of possible loss cannot be made at
this time.


DA SILVANO CORP: Faces "Bermeo" Suit in S.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Da Silvano Corp. The case is
captioned Edgar Bermeo, Hidajet Krasniqi, Rodolfo Aparicio, Juan
Cortez, Carlos Mayancela, Javier Molina, Wilson Rojas, Angel
Romero, and Marco Solorzano, on behalf of themselves and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Da Silvano Corp., doing
business as Da Silvano Restaurant, and Silvano Marchetto, the
Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03491 (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Da Silvano is one of New York City's Italian restaurants located
on the border of the West Village and SoHo.

The Plaintiffs appear pro se.


DEMI AG INC: Pays Workers Minimum Wage, Calif. Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Demi Ag Inc. pays workers 32
cents per raisin tray, which is less than minimum wages, 14 Latino
farmworkers say in a federal class action in Fresno, Calif.


DEUTSCHE BANK: Sued in S.D.N.Y. Over False Financial Status
-----------------------------------------------------------
James Ranson, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Deutsche Bank Aktiengesellschaft,
Stefan Krause, Juergen Fitschen, Anshuman Jain, John Cryan, and
Marcus Schenc, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03495 (S.D.N.Y.,
May 10, 2016), seeks to recover compensable damages caused by
Defendants' violations of the federal securities laws, and to
pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Exchange Act).

According to the complaint, the Defendants made false and/or
misleading statements and/or failed to disclose that: (1) Deutsche
Bank has serious and systemic failings in its controls against
financing terrorism, money laundering, aiding against
international sanctions, and committing financial crimes; (2)
Deutsche Bank's internal control over financial reporting and its
disclosure controls and procedures were not effective; and (3) as
a result, Deutsche Bank's public statements were materially false
and misleading.

Defendant Deutsche Bank provides investment, financial, and
related products and services worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Phillip Kim, Esq.
          Laurence M. Rosen, Esq.
          THE ROSEN LAW FIRM, P.A.
          275 Madison Avenue, 34th Floor
          New York, NY 10016
          Telephone: (212) 686 1060
          Facsimile: (212) 202 3827
          E-mail: lrosen@rosenlegal.com
                  pkim@rosenlegal.com


DIVERSIFIED CONCRETE: Conditional Class Certification Bid OK'd
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Carl J. Barbier granted the Plaintiff's motion for
conditional class certification, judicial notice, and for
disclosure of the names and addresses of potential opt-in
plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled PEDRO LEON v. DIVERSIFIED
CONCRETE LLC, ET AL., Case No. 2:15-cv-06301-CJB-MBN (E.D. La.).

The Action is brought by Mr. Leon on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated to recover allegedly unpaid overtime
wages for work he performed for the Defendants.

Judge Barbier also ordered that that Notice will be sent to the
following: "All individuals who worked or are working for
Diversified Concrete, LLC, during the previous three years and who
are eligible for overtime pay pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 207, and who did not receive full overtime
compensation."

The Court further ordered that the Defendants will have 14 days
from the entry of the Order to produce the full names, dates of
employment, and last known addresses of all potential opt-in
plaintiffs.  The time period within which potential opt-in
plaintiffs may opt-in is 90 days.  The 90-day opt-in period
will begin to run on the date that the Defendants provide a
complete list of the names, dates of employment, and last known
addresses of all potential opt-in plaintiffs.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=pevga05z


DJO FINANCE: Still Defending Pain Pump Litigation in U.S., Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------
DJO Finance LLC said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is currently
a defendant in one U.S. case and a lawsuit in Canada related to
Pain Pump Litigation which has been granted class action status
for a class of approximately 45 claimants.

The Company said, "Over the past 9 years, we were named in
numerous product liability lawsuits in the U.S. involving our
prior distribution of a disposable drug infusion pump product
(pain pump) manufactured by two third-party manufacturers that was
distributed through our Bracing and Vascular segment. We currently
are a defendant in one U.S. case and a lawsuit in Canada which has
been granted class action status for a class of approximately 45
claimants."

"We discontinued our sale of these products in the second quarter
of 2009. These cases have been brought against the manufacturers
and certain distributors of these pumps. All of these lawsuits
allege that the use of these pumps with certain anesthetics for
prolonged periods after certain shoulder surgeries or, less
commonly, knee surgeries, has resulted in cartilage damage to the
plaintiffs. Except for the payment by the Company of policy
deductibles or self-insured retentions, our products liability
carriers in three policy periods have paid the defense costs and
settlements related to these claims, subject to reservation of
rights to deny coverage for customary matters, including punitive
damages and off-label promotion.  We have engaged in settlement
discussions with the Canadian plaintiffs and have reached an
agreement in principal to settle these claims with a payment in
the first quarter of 2017 in an amount that is covered in part by
the remaining limits under the insurance policy for the applicable
reporting period, with the balance to be paid by the Company,
which amount is not material to the Company's financial position
or the results of its operations."


DURATA THERAPEUTICS: May 16 Hearing Taken Off Calendar
------------------------------------------------------
Allergan Plc said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the quarterly
period ended March 25, 2016, that the court has taken the May 16,
2016 hearing off the Court's calendar in the case, In re Durata
Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholders Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No.
10222-VCL.

On March 16, 2016, the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware
(the "Court") entered an order, pursuant to a stipulation,
dismissing with prejudice as to the named plaintiffs only the
action entitled In re Durata Therapeutics, Inc. Stockholders
Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 10222-VCL, in which certain
stockholders of Durata Therapeutics, Inc. ("Durata") had asserted
claims of breach of fiduciary duty against the former directors of
Durata and aiding and abetting those breaches of fiduciary against
Durata and W.C. Holding, Inc. and Delaware Merger Sub, Inc., two
subsidiaries of Allergan plc, in connection with the acquisition
of Durata by Allergan, which at the time was known as Actavis plc.
The claims had been asserted on behalf of a purported class of all
stockholders of Durata excluding the defendants and their
relatives, representatives and affiliates (the "Proposed Class"),
but the Court made no ruling on certification of the Proposed
Class, and any claims of members of the Proposed Class (other than
the named plaintiffs) were dismissed without prejudice. The Court
set a hearing on May 16, 2016 at 2:00 p.m., in the New Castle
County Courthouse, located at 500 North King Street, Wilmington,
DE 19801, for consideration of an anticipated application by
plaintiffs in this action and similar actions filed in Illinois
state court for an award of attorneys' fees and expenses.

On March 31, 2016, plaintiffs and defendants agreed that Allergan
or one of its subsidiaries would pay $150,000 to lead plaintiffs'
counsel in satisfaction of all plaintiffs' claims for attorneys'
fees and expenses.

On April 11, 2016, the Court entered an order, pursuant to a
stipulation, taking the May 16, 2016 hearing off the Court's
calendar, and no further proceedings are expected. The Court has
not been asked to review, and will not pass judgment on, the
agreed payment of plaintiff's attorneys' fees and expenses.


ECOLAB INC: Certification of Class of Route Sales Managers Sought
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned STEVEN SCHNEIDER,
individually and on behalf all others similarly situated v.
ECOLAB, INC., Case No. 14-cv-1044 (N.D. Ill.), asks the Court to
certify the action as a class action against the Defendant, and
grant the Plaintiff leave instanter to file a memorandum in
support of the motion six pages over the 15-page limit.

On March 11, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an Amended Class Action
Complaint, which alleges a claim on a class-wide basis for the
Defendant's alleged violation of the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
Fair and the Illinois Wage Payment Collections Act.  The IWPCA
claim was subsequently dismissed.

The putative class identified in the Plaintiff's Amended Complaint
consists of all Illinois citizens and all persons who were
employed in Illinois, who during the relevant statute of
limitations: (1) were employed by Ecolab as Route Sales Managers,
and (2) who worked more than forty hours in a workweek, but did
not receive overtime pay.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=Ggbung87

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Vincent L. DiTommaso, Esq.
          Peter S. Lubin, Esq.
          Andrew C. Murphy, Esq.
          DITOMMASO LUBIN P.C.
          17W220 22nd Street, Suite 410
          Oakbrook Terrace, IL 60181
          Telephone: (630) 333-0000
          E-mail: acm@ditommasolaw.com

               - and -

          Terrence Buehler, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICE OF TERRANCE BUEHLER
          55 W. Wacker Drive Suite 1400
          Chicago, IL 60601
          Telephone: (312) 372-2209
          E-mail: tbuehler@touhylaw.com


EL DORADO HOME: Wins Conditional Certification of Three Classes
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Susan O. Hickey entered an order in the lawsuit styled
TRACI MORGAN, et al. v.  EL DORADO HOME CARE SERVICES, LLC, et
al., Case No. 1:16-cv-01007-SOH (W.D. Ark.).

Judge Hickey granted the Plaintiffs' motion for conditional class
certification and court-authorized notice as to separate Defendant
El Dorado Home Care Services, LLC only.  The classes conditionally
certified are:

     (a) All registered nurses who worked for South Arkansas Home
         Health between the period of February 1, 2013 to the
         date on which the Court grants conditional certification
         and who were classified as exempt from the Fair Labor
         Standards Act's overtime pay requirements;

     (b) All licensed practical nurses who worked for South
         Arkansas Home Health between the period of February 1,
         2013 to the date on which the Court grants conditional
         certification and who were classified as exempt from the
         Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay requirements;
         and

     (c) All certified occupational therapy assistants who worked
         for South Arkansas Home Health between the period of
         February 1, 2013 to the date on which the Court grants
         conditional certification and who were classified as
         exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act's overtime pay
         requirements.

The notices and consent to join form are approved.  Defendant El
Dorado Home Care Services, LLC is directed to provide potential
class members' contact information within seven days of the Order
to be used for the sole purposes provided in the Stipulation.

Upon receipt of the contact information of the potential class
members, Judge Hickey ruled that the Plaintiffs will have 60 days
to distribute Notice and file all Consent to Join forms.

Judge Hickey noted that the Order does not address the Plaintiffs'
motion for conditional certification as to separate Defendant
Community Health Services Professional Services Corporation (now
known as CHSPSC, LLC) or any other entity or person.

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


ENI SPA: Trial in Class Action v. Saipem at Early Stages
--------------------------------------------------------
Eni SpA said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that the trial in a class action lawsuit is
still in the early stages.

With Resolution No. 18949 of June 18, 2014, the Italian Securities
and Exchange Commission (Consob) fined Eni's former subsidiary
Saipem euro 80,000 for the alleged delay in the issue of a profit
warning, which was published on January 29, 2013. On July 28,
2014, Saipem filed an appeal against this resolution to the Court
of Appeal of Milan, Italy, but it was rejected by the Court in its
ruling of December 11, 2014. Therefore, Eni filed a recourse
against the Court of Appeal's decision to the Italian Third Degree
Court.

On April 28, 2015, Saipem was served with a notice of a class
action before the Court of Milan. The Company was sued by 64
institutional investors, claiming compensation amounting to euro
174 million, for damage allegedly incurred following the purchase
of Saipem shares in the period between February 13, 2012 and June
14, 2013. Saipem appeared before a Judge, contesting entirely all
the claims. The company objected the inadmissibility of the claims
and stated that, in any case, those claims are groundless. The
trial is still in the early stages.

Besides that, in relation to the alleged delay in giving timely
financial information to the market, in 2015, the Company received
a number of out-of-court claims, as well as requests for
mediation. The requests for which a mediation was sought but not
successfully obtained amount to approximately euro 193 million.
The Company denied any responsibility in relation to those out-of-
court claims and requests for mediation. Up to date, neither the
out-of-court claims nor the requests for mediation have turned
into legal proceedings.

Eni SpA engages in oil & gas exploration, development and
production, marketing of gas, electricity and LNG, power
generation, refining and marketing of petroleum products and,
commodity trading.


ENNISH CONSTRUCTION: "Zapata" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Under NYLL
-------------------------------------------------------------
Saul Zapata, Fabian Duarte, Juan Felipe Ramirez, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Ennish
Construction Corp.; Solid Development Group Inc.; Barry Rafferty;
Eamon Loughran; and any other related entities, the Defendants,
Case No. 153910/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to New York Labor
Law (NYLL).

According to the complaint, beginning in May 2010 and continuing
through the present, Defendants have engaged in a policy and
practice of requiring their employees to regularly work in excess
of 40 hours per week, without providing proper overtime
compensation as required.

Ennish Construction supplies quality construction work for small
and large projects from creative conception to final completion.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Brett R. Cohen, Esq.
          Jeffrey K. Brown, Esq.
          Michael A. Tompkins, Esq.
          LEEDS BROWN LAW, P.C.
          One Old Country Road, Suite 347
          Carle Place, NY 11514
          Telephone: (516) 873 9550


EPIC SYSTEMS: Certification of Class Sought in "Long" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit entitled LONG, D., individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. EPIC SYSTEMS
CORPORATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-00081-bbc (W.D. Wisc.), moves the
Court for an order granting class certification pursuant to Rule
23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The Plaintiff also asks the Court to appoint Hawks Quindel, S.C.,
and Habush Habush & Rottier S.C. as class counsel, and to appoint
her as class representative.  The Plaintiff further asks the Court
to approve her proposed notice attached as an exhibit to the
Declaration of David C. Zoeller filed in support of the Motion.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=PfcU5slL

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -


          HABUSH HABUSH & ROTTIER S.C.
          Daniel A. Rottier, State Bar No. 1016998
          Jason J. Knutson, State Bar No. 1035801
          Breanne L. Snapp, State Bar No. 1091474
          James R. Jansen, State Bar No. 1010325
          150 East Gilman Street, Suite 2000
          Madison, WI 53703
          Telephone: (608) 255-6663
          Facsimile: (608) 255-0745
          E-mail: rottier@habush.com
                  jknutson@habush.com
                  bsnapp@habush.com
                  jjansen@habus.com


EPIC SYSTEMS: Seeks Decertification of Class in "Long" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Epic Systems Corporation seeks decertification of the Plaintiff's
Fair Labor Standards Act collective action styled LONG, D.,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v.
EPIC SYSTEMS CORPORATION, Case No. 3:15-cv-00081-bbc (W.D. Wisc.).

Ms. Long was employed by Epic in its Technical Communications
group.  She alleges that she and a putative class of Tech Comm
employees were misclassified as exempt from overtime wages under
state and federal laws.  The Parties previously stipulated to
conditional certification of the collective action claims and
Court-authorized notice, and 14 others have submitted notices of
consent to join the lawsuit.

The Defendant contends that the Plaintiffs cannot meet the
requirements for collective adjudication of their claims because
resolution of those claims requires a series of individualized
determinations that cannot be satisfied through representative
proof.  Specifically, Epic points out, due to the dissimilarities
in the work performed by each of the Plaintiffs, the fundamental
question in this case -- whether each individual performed work
that is exempt or non-exempt from earning overtime wages -- cannot
be answered on the collective basis that the Plaintiffs urge.

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

The Defendant is represented by:

          Noah A. Finkel, Esq.
          Andrew Scroggins, Esq.
          SEYFARTH SHAW LLP
          131 South Dearborn Street, Suite 2400
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 460-5000
          E-mail: nfinkel@seyfarth.com
                  ascroggins@seyfarth.com


EXPRESS COURIER: Class Certification Sought in "Harris" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit styled JAMES HARRIS, RICK KETCHAM
and ADAM MANSKE, Each Individually and on Behalf of All Others
Similarly Situated v. EXPRESS COURIER INTERNATIONAL, INC., Case
No. 5:16-cv-5033-TLB (W.D. Ark.), filed their second motion for
conditional certification of collective action, for disclosure of
potential opt-in plaintiffs' contact information, and to send
Court-approved notice.  The Plaintiffs ask the Court to certify
this class under Section 216 of the Fair Labor Standards Act:

     Each individual who (a) worked for Express Courier
     International, Inc. ("Express"), as a driver, courier, or
     owner-operator any time after February 11, 2013, (b) never
     subcontracted any of his or her work for Express, and (c)
     contracted directly with Express under Express's standard
     "Owner-Operator Agreement.

The Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant fails to pay them and all
others similarly situated minimum and overtime wages as required
by the FLSA and Arkansas Minimum Wage Act.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=i6MuOixG

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Joshua West, Esq.
          Josh Sanford, Esq.
          SANFORD LAW FIRM, PLLC
          One Financial Center
          650 South Shackleford, Suite 411
          Little Rock, AR 72211
          Telephone: (501) 221-0088
          Facsimile: (888) 787-2040
          E-mail: west@sanfordlawfirm.com
                  josh@sanfordlawfirm.com


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Amalgamated Bank Suit in Del.
-------------------------------------------------
Amalgamated Bank, as Trustee for the LongView LargeCap 500 Index
Fund, LongView LargeCap 500 Index VEBA Fund, LongView LargeCap
1000 Growth Index Fund, LongView Quantitative LargeCap Fund,
LongView Quantitative LargeCap VEBA Fund, and LongView Broadmarket
3000 Index Fund, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Andreessen,
Erskine B. Bowles, Dr. Susan Desmond-Hellman, Reed Hastings, Jan
Koum, Peter A. Thiel, and Facebook, Inc., the Defendants, Case No.
12317-VCL (.Del. Chancery Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to enjoin
stockholder vote on the reclassification and the consummation of
the reclassification, which was announced on April 27, 2016, that
will create a non-voting class of Facebook stock that will be paid
out as a dividend in the ratio of two Class C shares for every
Class A and Class B share.

According to the complaint, the reclassification is a self-
interested transaction intended to multiply by a factor of three
the voting power of the high-voting shares held and controlled by
Facebook's founder, CEO and Chairman, Mark Zuckerberg as compared
to the economic interest of the shares. This will give Zuckerberg
the ability to divest most of his economic interest in Facebook
while retaining absolute voting control of the Company.
Zuckerberg's primary reason for divesting the overwhelming
majority of his economic interest -- to fund a charitable
organization he founded with his wife, Dr. Priscilla Chan -- while
admirable, is irrelevant to the issue of whether it passes muster
under Delaware law.

The reclassification is scheduled for a stockholder vote at
Facebook's June 20, 2016 annual meeting. Zuckerberg alone has the
voting power to approve the reclassification. In the event that
the reclassification is consummated, Plaintiffs seek to recover
damages from the Defendants for their breaches of fiduciary
duties.

Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables
people to connect, share, discover, and communicate each other on
mobile devices and personal computers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Stuart M. Grant, Esq.
          Cynthia A. Calder, Esq.
          Joseph L. Christensen, Esq.
          GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.
          123 Justison Street
          Wilmington, Delaware 19801
          Telephone: (302) 622 7000
          Facsimile: (302) 622 7100


FACEBOOK INC: Faces "Ap-Fonden" Class Action in Del.
----------------------------------------------------
Sjunde Ap-Fonden, individually, and on behalf of all those
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl
Sandberg, Marc L. Andreessen, Erskine B. Bowles, Susan
Desmondhellmann, Reed Hastings, Jan Koum, Peter A. Thiel, and
Facebook, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 12318-VCL (Del. Chancery
Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks, among other things, both preliminary
and permanent injunctive relief, and damages to remedy the harm
the minority Class A stockholders will sustain as a result of
reclassification, which was announced on April 27, 2016, that will
create a non-voting class of Facebook stock that will be paid out
as a dividend in the ratio of two Class C shares for every Class A
and Class B share.

According to the complaint, since the Company's initial public
offering (IPQ) in May 2012, the Company has had a dual-class stock
structure consisting of Class A common stock (Class A Stock),
which is entitled to one vote per share, and Class B common stock
(Class B Stock), which is entitled to ten votes per share. This
structure allowed Zuckerberg to continue to control Facebook even
while selling off most of his equity in the Company. Zuckerberg
beneficially owns 76.4% of the Company's 548,638,840 outstanding
shares of Class B Stock and 3,999,241 shares (0.17%) of the
2,311,052,873 outstanding shares of Class A Stock. Together with
his irrevocable voting proxy over 8.9% (48,892,913 shares) of the
Class B Stock, Zuckerberg controls 60.1 % of the total voting
power of all outstanding shares of Class A and Class B Stock.
Facebook's Restated Certificate of Incorporation (certificate)
provides that except in specified circumstances not applicable
here, "the holders of shares of Class A Common Stock and Class B
Common Stock shall at all times vote together as a single class on
all matters (including the election of directors) submitted to a
vote." Accordingly, Zuckerberg controls the Facebook stockholder
vote on virtually all matters, including the election of all
directors.

Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables
people to connect, share, discover, and communicate with each
other on mobile devices and personal computers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

     Lee D. Rudy, Esq.
     Eric L. Zagar, Esq.
     Matthew A. Goldstein, Esq.
     KESSLER TOPAZ MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
     280 King of Prussia Road
     Radnor, PA 19087
     Telephone: (610) 667 7706

           - and -

     Michael Hanrahan, Esq.
     Paul A. Fioravanti Jr., Esq.
     Eric J. Juray, Esq.
     PRICKETT, JONES & ELLIOTT, P.A.
     1310 N. King Street
     Wilmington, DE


FACEBOOK INC: Faces Suit in Delaware Over Share Issuance
--------------------------------------------------------
The Employee Retirement System of the City of Providence,
individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
The Plaintiff, v. Mark Zuckerberg, Marc Andreesseen, Peter Thiel,
Reed Hastings, Susan Desmond-Hellmann, Erskine Bowles, Sheryl
Sandberg, Jan Koum, and Facebook, Inc., the Defendants,
Case No. 12306 (Del. Chancery Ct., May 6, 2016), asks the Court to
enjoin Facebook from implementing share issuance.

According to the complaint, by approving and declaring advisable
charter amendments that will facilitate the issuance of a massive
number of non-voting shares to current stockholders (share
issuance), Facebook's board of directors has agreed to give future
control over Facebook to its founder and current controlling
stockholder, Mark Zuckerberg.

Facebook operates as a mobile application and Website that enables
people to connect, share, discover, and communicate with each
other on mobile devices and personal computers worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Jeffrey Block, Esq.
          Jake Walker, Esq.
          Joel Fleming, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal Street, Suite 400
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398 5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com
                  jake@blockesq.com


FAMILY SERVICE: Class Certification Sought in "D'Arezzo" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs in the lawsuit titled DARLENE A. D'AREZZO, STACEY
L. SALYERS and JOSEPH K. REARDON, individually and on behalf of
other similarly situated individuals v. FAMILY SERVICE OF RHODE
ISLAND, INC., alias, Case No. 1:15-cv-00121-M-PAS (D.R.I.), move
for conditional collective certification.  The Plaintiffs also
move for Court facilitation of notice pursuant to Section 216(B)
of the Labor Code.

The Plaintiffs move to conditionally certify a Fair Labor
Standards Act collective action of all current and former
individuals employed by the Defendant as purported Fee-For-Service
Clinicians (or other comparable positions), who were subject to
the following common practices and or policies of the Defendant,
at any time from three years before the filing of this Complaint
to the present: a) Who were paid under a purported "fee for
service" arrangement or other similar arrangement; and, b) Who
were required to perform tasks and/or otherwise perform work not
included within the scope of the work for which "fees for service"
were paid under their contract of employment and for which they
were not compensated.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=IFcjW7KE

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road, Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com


FIRST RATE: "Njoroge" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages & Relief
------------------------------------------------------
Jordyn Njoroge, on behalf of herself, all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. First Rate Staffing Corporation,
a Delaware corporation, Congra Foods, Inc., a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG16815057 (Cal Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, restitution, and related relief, under the Labor Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to provide meal
periods, failed to pay off-the-clock security checks, failed to
pay off-the-clock donning and doffing, failed to provide accurate
wage statements, and failed to pay final wages following
separation of employment.

First Rate provides recruiting and staffing services for temporary
positions in light industrial, distribution center, and assembly
industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setareh, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (3l0) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  thomas@setarehlaw.com


FITLIFE BRANDS: Class Action Stayed Pending Appeal
--------------------------------------------------
FitLife Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a class action lawsuit
has been stayed pending the resolution of an appeal.

On December 31, 2014, various plaintiffs, individually and on
behalf of a purported nationwide and sub-class of purchasers,
filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California, captioned Ryan et al. v. Gencor Nutrients,
Inc. et al., Case No.: 4:14-CV-05682.  The lawsuit includes claims
made against the manufacturer and various producers and sellers of
products containing a nutritional supplement known as Testofen,
which is manufactured and sold by Gencor Nutrients, Inc.
("Gencor").

Specifically, the Ryan plaintiffs allege that various defendants
have manufactured, marketed and/or sold Testofen, or nutritional
supplements containing Testofen, and in doing so represented to
the public that Testofen had been clinically proven to increase
free testosterone levels.  According to the plaintiffs, those
claims are false and/or not statistically proven.  Plaintiffs seek
relief under violations of the Racketeering Influenced Corrupt
Organizations Act, breach of express and implied warranties, and
violations of unfair trade practices in violation of California,
Pennsylvania, and Arizona law.  NDS utilizes Testofen in a limited
number of nutritional supplements it manufactures and sells
pursuant to a license agreement with Gencor.

On February 19, 2015, this matter was transferred to the Central
District of California to the Honorable Manuel Real.  Judge Real
had previously issued an order dismissing a previously filed but
similar lawsuit that had been filed by the same lawyer who
represents the plaintiffs in the Ryan matter.  That related
lawsuit is on appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.  This
matter has been stayed pending the resolution of that appeal.

FitLife Brands, Inc. (the "Company") is a national provider of
innovative and proprietary nutritional supplements for health
conscious consumers marketed under the brand names NDS Nutrition
Products(TM) ("NDS") (www.ndsnutrition.com), PMD(TM)
(www.pmdsports.com), SirenLabs(TM) (www.sirenlabs.com),
CoreActive(TM) (www.coreactivenutrition.com), and Metis
Nutrition(TM) (www.metisnutrition.com) (together, "NDS Products").


FRENCH CREEK: "Phillips" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA
-----------------------------------------------------
Kim Phillips, by her undersigned counsel, individually and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. French
Creek Valley Christian Campus, the Defendant. Case No. 1:16-cv-
00101-BR (E.D. Penn., May 6, 2016), seeks all available relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant has a policy or practice
of failing to compensate Plaintiff for all overtime hours worked.
The Plaintiff routinely worked more than 40 hours per week for the
Defendant.

The Defendant is a Christian-based Child Care Center and
Elementary School in Saegertown, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kenneth J. Hardin II, Esq.
          HARDIN THOMPSON, P.C.
          The Frick Building
          437 Grant Street, Suite 620
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 315 7195
          Facsimile: (412) 315 7386
          E-mail: kenhardin@hardinlawpc.net


FWC FUNDING: Faces "Harmon" Suit in C.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Fish and Wildlife Conservation
(FWC) Funding. The case is captioned Matthew Harmon, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. FWC
Funding and Does 1-20, inclusive, and each of them, Case No. 2:16-
cv-03216 (C.D. Cal., May 10, 2016).

The Florida Constitution authorizes the FWC Commission to enact
rules and regulations regarding the state's fish and wildlife
resources.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


GABRIEL ANTMAN: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Set for Sept. 6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 13, 2016, in the case styled
Regina McCary v. Gabriel B Antman, et al., Case No. 1:15-cv-08275
(N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the Honorable
Manish S. Shah.

The minute entry states that:

   -- for the reasons stated in open court, the Plaintiff's
      motion for preliminary approval of class action settlement
      is granted in part;

   -- the parties are directed to submit a proposed approval
      order and a class notice, with the Court's revisions, to
      proposed_order_shah@ilnd.uscourts.gov by May 16, 2016;

   -- class notice will be issued on June 13, 2016;

   -- objections or exclusions to the settlement are due on
      August 12, 2016;

   -- the fee petition must be submitted 30 days prior to
      objections;

   -- final approval hearing is set for September 6, 2016, at
      11:00 a.m.;

   -- Plaintiff's early class certification motion is terminated
      as moot; and

   -- Defendants' oral request to withdraw the appearance of
      Corinne Heggie is granted, and Corinne Heggie is terminated
      as counsel of record for the Defendants.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=VY7x5pZc


GARLAND VENTURES: Recalls Chicken Fried Rice Products
------------------------------------------------------
Garland Ventures LTD, a Garland, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 114,870 pounds of chicken fried rice products that
may be adulterated with Listeria monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The heat-treated, not fully cooked, not shelf stable chicken fried
rice products were produced on various dates between Sept. 24,
2015 and Mar. 23, 2016. The following products are subject to
recall:

  --- 20 oz. pail boxes containing AllFresh Foods "ANJOY Chicken
      Fried Rice."

Case Codes associated with the "ANJOY Chicken Fried Rice" product
are as follows: 092415, 092915, 100215, 101325, 101615, 102015,
102715, 110315, 110615 and 032316.

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "P-31993"
inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were shipped to
retail distributor locations in Colorado, Georgia, Missouri, and
Utah.

The problem was discovered when Garland Ventures LTD was notified
by their supplier of vegetable fried rice, Ajinomoto Windsor Inc.,
that frozen foods involved in CRF Frozen Foods' recall were
incorporated in their products. CRF Frozen Foods of Pasco,
Washington voluntarily recalled frozen vegetable items due to an
illness outbreak of listeriosis.  There have been no confirmed
reports of illness or adverse reactions due to consumption of
Garland Ventures' products.

The CRF Frozen Foods' recall can be found at
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm498841.htm.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects
older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant
women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these
risk groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Robert Cocat, Garland Ventures LTD, General Manager, at
(972) 485-8878.

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.


GEOPARK LIMITED: Brasil Unit Defending Class Action
---------------------------------------------------
GeoPark Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that in Brazil, GeoPark
Brasil is a party to a class action filed by the Federal
Prosecutor's Office regarding a concession agreement of
exploratory Block PN-T-597, which the ANP initially awarded
GeoPark Brasil in the 12th oil and gas bidding round held in
November 2013. The Brazilian Federal Court issued an injunction
against the ANP and GeoPark Brasil in December 2013 that
prohibited GeoPark Brasil's execution of the concession agreement
until the ANP conducted studies on whether drilling for
unconventional resources would contaminate the dams and aquifers
in the region. On July 17, 2015, GeoPark Brasil, at the
instruction of the ANP, signed the concession agreement, which
included a clause prohibiting GeoPark Brasil from conducting
unconventional exploration activity in the area. Despite the
clause containing the prohibition, the judge in the case concluded
that the concession agreement should not be executed. Thus,
GeoPark Brasil requested that the ANP comply with the decision and
annul the concession agreement, which the ANP's Board did on
October 9, 2015. The annulment reverted the status of all parties
to the status quo ante, which maintains GeoPark Brasil's right to
the block.


GOLD FIELDS: Judgment on Class Certification Bid Reserved
---------------------------------------------------------
Gold Fields Limited said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court in South Africa
has reserved judgment on a request for class certification.

The principal health risks associated with Gold Fields' mining
operations in South Africa arise from occupational exposure to
silica dust, noise, heat and certain hazardous chemicals. The most
significant occupational diseases affecting Gold Fields's
workforce include lung diseases (such as silicosis, tuberculosis,
a combination of the two and chronic obstructive airways disease
("COAD") as well as noise induced hearing loss ("NIHL"). The
Occupational Diseases in Mines and Works Act, 78 of 1973 ("ODMWA")
governs the compensation paid to mining employees who contract
certain illnesses, such as silicosis. In 2011, the South African
Constitutional Court ruled that a claim for compensation under
ODMWA does not prevent employees from seeking compensation from
their employer in a civil action under common law (either as
individuals or as a class). While issues such as negligence and
causation need to be proved on a case by case basis, it is
possible that such ruling could expose Gold Fields to claims
related to occupational hazards and diseases (including
silicosis), which may be in the form of a class or similar group
action. If Gold Fields were to face a significant number of such
claims and the claims were suitably established against it, the
payment of compensation for the claims could have a material
adverse effect on Gold Fields' results of operations and financial
condition. In addition, Gold Fields may incur significant
additional costs arising out of these issues, including costs
relating to the payment of fees, levies or other contributions in
respect of compensatory or other funds established (if any) and
expenditures arising out of its efforts to resolve any outstanding
claims or other potential action.

During 2012 and 2014, two court applications were served on Gold
Fields and its subsidiaries (as well as other mining companies) by
various applicants purporting to represent classes of mine workers
(and, where deceased, their dependants) who were previously
employed by or who are employees of, amongst others, Gold Fields
or any of its subsidiaries and who allegedly contracted silicosis
and/or tuberculosis.

These are applications in terms of which the court is asked to
certify a class action to be instituted by the applicants on
behalf of the classes of affected people. According to the
applicants, these are the first and preliminary steps in a process
where, if the court were to certify the class action, the
applicants will in the second stage, bring an action wherein they
will attempt to hold Gold Fields and other mining companies liable
for silicosis and/or tuberculosis and the resultant consequences.
The applicants contemplate dealing in the second stage with what
the applicants describe as common legal and factual issues
regarding the claims arising for the whole of the classes. If the
applicants are successful in the second stage, they envisage that
individual members of the classes could later submit individual
claims for damages against Gold Fields and the other mining
companies. These applications do not identify the number of claims
that could be instituted against Gold Fields and the other mining
companies or the quantum of damages the applicants may seek.

Gold Fields has opposed the applications.

The two class actions were consolidated into one application on
October 17, 2014. In terms of the consolidated application, the
court is asked to allow the class actions to be certified. The
consolidated application was heard during the weeks of 12 and 19
October 2015. Judgment has been reserved.

If certification is granted, it will be the first step in a
process whereby the applicants will, on behalf of the class or
classes, seek to hold Gold Fields and the other mining companies
liable for silicosis and/or tuberculosis and the resultant
consequences. Any such claims will be defended.


GOODMAN MANUFACTURING: Bid for Certification of 2 Classes Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Harvey E. Schlesinger entered an order in the lawsuit
titled PB PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC., JANET HELM, JIMMY JEWELL,
DEBORAH L. WAGNER, and STANLEY H. WAGNER, individually and on
behalf of all others similarly situated v. GOODMAN MANUFACTURING
COMPANY, LP. GOODMAN GLOBAL, INC., and GOODMAN COMPANY, L.P., Case
No. 3:12-cv-l366-HES-JBT (M.D. Fla.):

   * denying the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification;

   * granting the Defendants' motion to exclude the opinions of
     Paul J. Sikorsky;

   * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike the
     Plaintiffs' trial expert disclosures; and

   * denying as moot the Defendants' motion to strike the
     supplemental declaration of Paul J. Sikorsky in further
     support of the Plaintiffs' motion for class certification.

The Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Class Certification in March
2015, seeking to certify both a damages class and an injunctive
and declaratory relief class pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.  The proposed Damages Class is defined
as:

     All individuals and entities in the State of Florida that
     own or owned real property in which a Goodman Unit (under
     the Goodman or Amana brand names) containing copper
     evaporator coil was installed from July 1, 2006 to the
     present and who suffered damages as a result of having to
     repair and/or replace their Goodman Products due to leakage
     of refrigerant.

The Injunctive and Declaratory Relief Class is defined as:

     All individuals and entities in the State of Florida that
     own real property in which a Goodman Unit (under the Goodman
     or Amana brand names) containing copper evaporator coil was
     installed from July 1, 2006 to the present.

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=ACpIM0oV


GUESS? INC: $5.25MM "Isaguirre" Case Settlement Approved
--------------------------------------------------------
Guess?, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has issued a
final order and judgment approving a class action settlement.

On August 25, 2006, Franchez Isaguirre, a former employee of the
Company, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles alleging violations by the Company of
California wage and hour laws. The complaint was subsequently
amended, adding a second former employee as an additional named
party. The plaintiffs purport to represent a class of similarly
situated employees in California who allegedly had been injured by
not being provided adequate meal and rest breaks. The complaint
seeks unspecified compensatory damages, statutory penalties,
attorney's fees and injunctive and declaratory relief.

On June 9, 2009, the Court certified the class but immediately
stayed the case pending the resolution of a separate California
Supreme Court case on the standards of class treatment for meal
and rest break claims. Following the Supreme Court ruling, the
Superior Court denied the Company's motions to decertify the class
and to narrow the class in January 2013 and June 2013,
respectively.

The Company subsequently petitioned to have the Court's decision
not to narrow the class definition reviewed. That petition was
ultimately denied by the California Supreme Court in April 2014.

In July 2015, the parties entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding to settle the matter for $5.25 million, subject to
certain limited offsets. The Court issued a final order and
judgment approving the settlement in February 2016.


H & S AUTO: "Samarasinghe" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gamini Samarasinghe, individually and in behalf of all other
persons similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. H & S Auto Repair
Center Inc. and Humair M. Shaikh, jointly and severally, jointly
and severally, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-02360 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid or underpaid minimum wages
and overtime compensation, statutory damages, injunctive relief,
and such other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act
(FLSA), the N.Y. Lab. Law, the Minimum Wage Act, and Wage Theft
Prevention Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff and putative party
plaintiffs have had substantially similar jobs, and compensation
and have been subject to the Defendants' common policies and
practices of willfully violating the FLSA.

H & S Auto is a full-service auto repair shop in Lincoln,
Nebraska.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          John M. Gurrieri, Esq.
          Brandon D. Sherr, Esq.
          Justin A. Zeller, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF JUSTIN A. ZELLER, P.C.
          277 Broadway, Suite 408
          New York, N.Y. 10007-2036
          Telephone: (212) 229 2249
          Facsimile: (212) 229 2246
          E-mail: jmgurrieri@zellerlegal.com
                  bsherr@zellerlegal.com
                  jazeller@zellerlegal.com


HCSB FINANCIAL: Deposited Settlement Sum as Appeal Period Expires
-----------------------------------------------------------------
HCSB Financial Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, that on
April 1, 2016, the statutory appeals period ended for the final
approval order confirming the previously announced class action
settlement agreement between the Company, the Bank, James R.
Clarkson, Glenn Raymond Bullard, Ron Lee Paige, Sr., and Edward
Lewis Loehr, Jr., the President and Chief Executive Officer,
former Senior Executive Vice President, Executive Vice President,
and Chief Financial Officer of the Company and the Bank,
respectively, and Jan W. Snyder, Acey H. Livingston, and Mark
Josephs, on behalf of themselves and as representatives of a class
of similarly situated purchasers of the Company's subordinated
debt notes (Case No. 2014-CP-26-00204). No appeals were filed, and
therefore, the class action settlement was final as of such date.

On April 11, 2016, pursuant to the terms of the class action
settlement agreement, the Company deposited approximately $2.4
million into a trust account with counsel for the class members.
The approximately $2.4 million represents 20% of the principal of
subordinated debt notes issued by the Company, and class members
will receive 20% of their notes in exchange for a full and
complete release of all claims that were asserted or could have
been asserted in the class action lawsuit.

Also on April 11, 2016, the Company settled, pursuant to
previously executed binding settlement agreements, with all
subordinated debt noteholders who opted out of the class action
settlement. These settlements constituted the full satisfaction of
the principal and interest owed on, and require the immediate
dismissal of all pending litigation related to, the respective
subordinated debt notes. In each case, the Company and the Bank
also obtained a full and complete release of all claims asserted
or that could have been asserted with respect to the subordinated
debt notes.


HEARTLAND PAYMENT: MOU Reached in Merger Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------
Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. said in its Form 8-K Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016,
that the parties in a class action related to the Company's merger
with Global Payments Inc., have entered into a Memorandum of
Understanding (the "MOU").

On December 15, 2015, Heartland Payment Systems, Inc. ("Heartland"
or the "Company") entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger
(the "Merger Agreement") with Global Payments Inc., a Georgia
corporation ("Global Payments"), Data Merger Sub One, Inc., a
Delaware corporation and wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments ("Merger Sub One"), and Data Merger Sub Two, LLC, a
Delaware limited liability company and wholly owned subsidiary of
Global Payments ("Merger Sub Two").  Pursuant to the terms and
subject to the conditions set forth in the Merger Agreement,
Global Payments will acquire the Company by way of two mergers.
First, Merger Sub One will merge with and into the Company, with
the Company continuing as a wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments.  Second, the Company will merge with and into Merger Sub
Two immediately following the initial merger, with Merger Sub Two
surviving the second merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Global
Payments.

As disclosed in the definitive proxy statement/prospectus dated
March 23, 2016 and mailed to Heartland stockholders on or about
March 24, 2016 (the "Proxy Statement/Prospectus"), Heartland, the
Heartland Board of Directors, Global Payments, Merger Sub One and
Merger Sub Two have been named as defendants in a putative class
action lawsuit challenging the proposed mergers (the "Action").
The Action was filed in the New Jersey Superior Court, Mercer
County, Civil Division, and is captioned Kevin Merchant v.
Heartland Payment Systems, et al., L-45-16 (filed January 8,
2016).  The complaint alleges, among other things, that the
directors of Heartland breached their fiduciary duties to
Heartland stockholders by agreeing to sell Heartland for
inadequate consideration, agreeing to improper deal protection
terms in the merger agreement and failing to properly value
Heartland.  In addition, the complaint alleges that Heartland,
Global Payments, Merger Sub One and Merger Sub Two aided and
abetted these purported breaches of fiduciary duty.  Plaintiff
seeks, among other things, an injunction barring the mergers,
rescission of the mergers or rescissory damages to the extent they
have already been implemented, and an award of damages and
attorneys' fees.

On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff Kevin Merchant filed an amended
complaint that further alleged that the February 5, 2016
preliminary proxy statement contained materially misleading
statements and omissions.

On April 12, 2016, solely to avoid the costs, disruption and
distraction of further litigation, and without admitting the
validity of any allegations made by Plaintiff, Heartland and
Global Payments reached an agreement to settle the Action.

On April 12, 2016, the parties to the Action entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding (the "MOU") to document the terms and
conditions for settlement of the Action.  The MOU contemplates
that Heartland will make certain supplemental disclosures relating
to the Mergers, all of which are set forth below.  Although the
defendants each have denied, and continue to deny, the allegations
in the Action and believe that no supplemental disclosure is
required, in order to avoid the burden and expense of further
litigation, Heartland agreed to make such supplemental disclosures
in accordance with the terms of the MOU.

The proposed settlement of the Action is subject to confirmatory
discovery and customary conditions, including court approval
following notice to the Company's stockholders.  A hearing will be
scheduled at which the Superior Court of Mercer County, New Jersey
will consider the fairness of the proposed settlement.  If the
proposed settlement is finally approved by the court, it will
release all claims that were or could have been brought
challenging any aspect of the proposed Mergers or the Merger
Agreement and any disclosure made in connection therewith, under
terms that will be disclosed to stockholders before final approval
of the proposed settlement.  There can be no assurance that the
court will approve the proposed settlement contemplated by the
MOU.  In such event, the proposed settlement may be terminated and
the defendants would vigorously defend against the allegations in
the Action.


HERTZ RENTAL: Dismissal of 4th Amended Complaint Sought
-------------------------------------------------------
Hertz Rental Car Holding Company, Inc. said in an exhibit to
Amendment No. 2 to Form 10 General Form For Registration Of
Securities filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission that
Hertz Holdings is seeking dismissal of the fourth amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice in the case, In re Hertz
Global Holdings, Inc. Securities Litigation.

In November 2013, a purported shareholder class action, Pedro
Ramirez, Jr. v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al., was commenced
in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey naming
Hertz Holdings and certain of its officers as defendants and
alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint
alleged that Hertz Holdings made material misrepresentations
and/or omissions of material fact in its public disclosures during
the period from February 25, 2013 through November 4, 2013, in
violation of Section 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder.
The complaint sought an unspecified amount of monetary damages on
behalf of the purported class and an award of costs and expenses,
including counsel fees and expert fees.

In June 2014, Hertz Holdings responded to the amended complaint by
filing a motion to dismiss. After a hearing in October 2014, the
court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss the complaint. The
dismissal was without prejudice and plaintiff was granted leave to
file a second amended complaint within 30 days of the order.

In November 2014, plaintiff filed a second amended complaint which
shortened the putative class period such that it was not alleged
to have commenced until May 18, 2013 and made allegations that
were not substantively very different than the allegations in the
prior complaint.

In early 2015, this case was assigned to a new federal judge in
the District of New Jersey, and Hertz Holdings responded to the
second amended complaint by filing another motion to dismiss. On
July 22, 2015, the court granted Hertz Holdings' motion to dismiss
without prejudice and ordered that plaintiff could file a third
amended complaint on or before August 22, 2015.

On August 21, 2015, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint.
The third amended complaint included additional allegations and
expanded the putative class period such that it was alleged to
span from February 14, 2013 to July 16, 2015.

On November 4, Hertz Holdings filed its motion to dismiss.
Thereafter, a motion was made by plaintiff to add a new plaintiff,
because of challenges to the standing of the first plaintiff. The
court granted plaintiffs leave to file a fourth amended complaint
to add the new plaintiff, and the new complaint was filed on March
1, 2016. Hertz Holdings moved to dismiss the fourth amended
complaint in its entirety with prejudice on March 24, 2016.

Hertz Holdings believes that it has valid and meritorious defenses
and it intends to vigorously defend against the complaint, but
litigation is subject to many uncertainties and the outcome of
this matter is not predictable with assurance. It is possible that
this matter could be decided unfavorably to Hertz Holdings.
However, Hertz Holdings is currently unable to estimate the range
of these possible losses, but they could be material to the
Company's consolidated financial condition, results of operations
or cash flows in any particular reporting period.


HILTON HOTELS: Sued in D.C. Over Employee Retirement Plan
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Valerie R. White, 700 Decatur St. NE,
Washington DC 20017; Eva Juneau, 730 Gordon Ave., Reno NV 89509;
Peter Betancourt, 1270 Wilshire Circle East, Pembroke Pines, FL
33027, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan, 7930
Jones Branch Drive, Suite 1100, McLean, VA 22102; Hilton
Worldwide, Inc., 7930 Jones Branch Drive, Suite 1100, McLean, VA
22102; Global Benefits Administrative Committee; Mary Nell
Billings; S. Ted Nelson; Casey Young; and unnamed members of the
Global Benefits Administrative Committee, 755 Crossover Ln,
Memphis, TN 38117, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00856 (D.D.C.,
May 6, 2016), the plaintiffs seek to enforce their rights to
receive vested retirement benefits in accordance with the District
Court's decisions in a related case, Kifafi, et al., v. Hilton
Hotels Retirement Plan, et al., C.A. 98-1517 (D.D.C.), and the
standards set forth in Employee Retirement Income Security Act
(ERISA) and the Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan.

The Plaintiffs allege that by requiring improperly long periods of
service to become vested in retirement benefits, Hilton Hotels has
not maintained its pension plan according to the standards
required by ERISA and the District Court's decisions in Kifafi.

Hilton Hotels is an international chain of full service hotels and
resorts and the flagship brand of Hilton Worldwide.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Stephen R. Bruce, Esq.
          Allison C. Pienta, Esq.
          STEPHEN R. BRUCE LAW OFFICES
          1667 K Street, N.W., Suite 410
          Washington, D.C. 20006
          Telephone: (202) 289 1117
          E-mail: stephen.bruce@prodigy.net
                  acaalim@verizon.net


HOUSLANGER & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Paz" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Houslanger & Associates, P.L.L.C.
The case is captioned Orit Paz, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Houslanger &
Associates, P.L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02335
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Houslanger is a debt-collection law firm.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791 4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791 4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


IDAHO: DOJ Supports Criminal Defendants' Right to Sue
-----------------------------------------------------
Philip A. Janquart, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that the Justice Department has filed a friend-of-the-court brief
in the Idaho Supreme Court in support of criminal defendants'
right to sue for violations of their Sixth Amendment right to
counsel.

The DOJ said in its brief filed May 11, that criminals who can't
afford an attorney and who have effectively been denied adequate
representation should be allowed sue before their trial begins,
rather than waiting until later to bring their claims.

"This country is dedicated to the idea that every single person is
entitled to equal justice under the law, regardless of wealth or
prominence," U.S. Attorney General Loretta E. Lynch said in a
statement May 12. "The right to adequate counsel is an essential
safeguard of our commitment to equal justice --and it is the
responsibility of the states to protect that right, to uphold that
principle, and to ensure that every defendant has access to
competent counsel."

The DOJ stepped in following an Idaho state court's decision in
Tucker et al. v. State of Idaho et al., which held that the
plaintiffs could not bring a prospective claim for constructive
denial of counsel prior to conviction.

Four criminal defendants awaiting trial or sentencing brought the
class action. They claim there is a "systemic failure" in Idaho's
public-defender system to provide adequate representation to
criminal defendants, resulting in the "constructive denial of
counsel for indigent criminal defendants in violation of the Sixth
and 14th Amendments."

The plaintiff claim that the state's systemic failure has led to
the "wholesale absence of counsel in initial appearances,
resulting in plaintiffs' inability to argue for reduced bail and,
consequently unnecessary or extended pretrial detention."

It has also led to a lack of investigation of their cases, the
inability to meet or communicate with their assigned lawyer, the
failure to file motions on their behalf and a "lack of funds to
retain necessary experts to challenge the prosecution's
allegations," the plaintiffs claim.

Tucker, for example, claims that his court-appointed attorney
never showed up to his initial appearance in which bail was set at
$40,000, resulting in a three-month stay in jail.

He says he saw his attorney three times, for a total of 20
minutes, during that period. He adds that he made over 50
unsuccessful attempts to reach his attorney by phone and that no
meaningful investigation of his case was performed.

The plaintiffs claim that thousands of indigent criminal
defendants have had similar experiences across Idaho. They say the
problem is rooted in deficiencies that include: caseloads that far
exceed the national standards; insufficient funding; a lack of
oversight, training and performance standards; lack of
independence from local boards of commissioners who control
hiring, firing and funding; and the use of "fixed-fee" contracts
that "create incentives for appointed attorneys to spend as little
money and time as possible on indigent clients' cases, despite the
fact that such contracts are prohibited by Idaho code."

The plaintiffs sued Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter and seven
members of the Idaho Public Defense Commission in state court.
They sought declaratory relief and an injunction requiring the
state to develop a plan to implement a working statewide system of
public defense that complies with the Constitution.

The state moved to dismiss the complaint and the state court
granted the motion on Jan. 20. The court held that the plaintiffs'
claims "are not justiciable for three reasons: that plaintiffs
lack standing, the case is not ripe and the relief plaintiffs
request would require the court to invade the province of the
Legislature."

The court ruled that the plaintiffs could not bring a prospective
civil claim for constructive denial of council.

The DOJ rejected the state court's findings, citing in part Avery
v. Alabama, which held that "if appointed counsel is denied the
opportunity 'to confer, to consult with the accused and to prepare
his defense' then the appointment of counsel becomes 'a sham and
nothing more than a formal compliance with the Constitution's
requirement that an accused be given the assistance of counsel."

The case is now before the Idaho Supreme Court, which will
consider whether the claims can proceed.

In its brief, the Justice Department cites Gideon v. Wainwright,
which held that criminal defendants are entitled to adequate
representation regardless of whether they have the money to pay
for an attorney.

"The criminal justice system works well only when indigent
defendants are adequately represented," U.S. Attorney Wendy Olson
of the District of Idaho said. "The Constitution guarantees this
right. The purpose of this brief is to ensure that indigent
defendants in Idaho have a meaningful legal tool to effectuate
that constitutional right when the provision of public defense is
failing on a system-wide level."

A similar brief was filed in the Pennsylvania Supreme Court in
Kuren et al. v. Luzerne County et al. in September 2015. The court
has yet to make a ruling in that case.


IL GABBIANO MIAMI: Valdo Sulaj Seeks Certification of FLSA Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit captioned VALDO SULAJ, on his own
behalf and on behalf of others similarly situated v. IL GABBIANO
MIAMI, LLC, a Florida limited liability company, JUAN PEREZ, an
individual, and GINO MASCI, an individual, Case No. Case No. 1:16-
cv-21239-UU (S.D. Fla.), moves to certify the proposed collective
action pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act and facilitate
notice to potential class members.

The Plaintiff seeks collective-action certification of this class
of similarly situated persons:

     All persons who worked for Defendants as servers and
     bartenders at their restaurant Il Gabbiano during the three
     (3) years preceding this lawsuit and who, as a result of
     Defendants' policy of requiring tipped employees to pool
     tips with employees who do not customarily and regularly
     receive tips, earned less than the applicable minimum
     regular and overtime wage for one or more weeks during the
     Relevant Time Period.

The Complaint seeks damages for the Plaintiff and others similarly
situated for violations of the FLSA.  Specifically, the Plaintiff
alleges he and Class Members were forced to participate in a
mandatory and invalid tip pool scheme in which tipped employees,
specifically servers and bartenders, shared their tips with non-
tipped employees, specifically management.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=wDwLbd5t

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Robert W. Brock II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF LOWELL J. KUVIN
          17 East Flagler Street, Suite 223
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 358-6800
          Facsimile: (305) 358-6808
          E-mail: robert@kuvinlaw.com


INVENTURE FOODS: Westmoreland Cty. Fund Suit Moved to Arizona
-------------------------------------------------------------
Westmoreland County Employee Retirement Fund, a public pension
fund, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
the Plaintiff, v. Inventure Foods Inc., a foreign corporation,
Terry McDaniel, individual, Steve Weinberger, individual, Capital
Foods, LLC, a foreign limited liability company, William Blair &
Company, L.L.C., a foreign limited liability company, Canaccord
Genuity, a foreign corporation, and Roth Capital Partners, a
foreign partnership, the Defendants, was removed from the Maricopa
County Superior Court, Case No., CV2016-002718, to the U.S.
District Court for the District of Arizona. The Arizona District
Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01410-SPL to the proceeding.

Inventure Foods manufactures and markets healthy/natural and
indulgent specialty snack food products.

Westmoreland Employee Retirement Fund is represented by:

          Patrick J. McGroder III
          Lincoln Combs
          Shannon L. Clark
          Paul L. Stoller
          GALLAGHER & KENNEDY, P.A.
          2575 East Camelback Road
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-9225
          Telephone.: (602) 530 8000
          Facsimile: 602.530.8500
          E-mail: pjm@gknet.com
                  lincoln.combs@gknet.com
                  slc@gknet.com
                  paul.stoller@gknet.com

               - and -

          Kimberly M. Donaldson Smith, Esq.
          Christina Donato Saler, Esq.
          CHIMICLES & TIKELLIS LLP
          361 West Lancaster Avenue
          Haverford, PA 19041
          Telephone: (610) 642 8500
          Facsimile: (610) 649 3633
          E-mail: kimdonaldsonsmith@chimicles.com
                  cdsaler@chimicles.com

Inventure Foods Inc., Terry McDaniel, and Steve Weinberger are
represented by:

          Mark A. Nadeau, Esq.
          Laura Sixkiller, Esq.
          DLA PIPER LLP (US)
          2525 East Camelback Road, Suite 1000
          Phoenix, AZ 85016-4232
          Telephone: (480) 606 5100
          Facsimile (480) 606 5101
          E-mail: mark.nadeau@dlapiper.com
                  laura.sixkiller@dlapiper.com

William Blair & Company, L.L.C., Canaccord Genuity Inc. and
Roth Capital Partners, LLC are represented by:

          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          Charlene S. Shimada, Esq.
          Lucy Wang, Esq.
          One Market, Spear Street Tower
          San Francisco, CA 94105
          Telephone: (415) 442 1000
          Facsimile: (415) 442 1001
          E-mail: lucy.wang@morganlewis.com
                  charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Lee Stein, Esq.
          Anne M. Chapman, Esq.
          MITCHELL STEIN CAREY, PC
          One Renaissance Square
          2 North Central Avenue, Suite 1900
          Phoenix, AZ 85004
          Telephone: (602) 358 0292
          Facsimile: (602) 358 0291
          E-mail: anne@mitchellsteincarey.com
                  Lee@mitchellsteincarey.com


KIDRON CORPORATE: Sued in N.Y. Over Transperfect Dissolution
------------------------------------------------------------
Shirley Shawe, derivatively on behalf of Transperfect Global,
Inc., and Transperfect Translations International, Inc. the
Plaintiff, v. Kidron Corporate Advisors LLC, Mark B. Segall, John
and Jane Does 1-10, whose true names are unknown, the Defendants,
and Transperfect Global, Inc., and Transperfect Translations
International, Inc., the Nominal Parties, Case No. 652482/2016
(N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks to redress for the wrongs
committed by Defendants while directing and advising the Company's
Director and Officer, Elizabeth Elting, on actions that
constituted breaches of her fiduciary duties to the Company.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and
intentionally aided and abetted Ms. Elting in manufacturing
deadlock at the Company as a part of a strategy to cause the
Company's dissolution in violation of her fiduciary duties. In
2012, with an eye toward selling her shares and ending her
relationship with the Company, Ms. Elting began to insist that
large amounts of the Company's profits be distributed to her
without regard to the well-being, working capital requirements, or
continued growth and development of the Company.

Kidron Corporate is a full service boutique investment bank
specializing in cross-border emerging growth companies.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Martin P. Russo, Esq.
          GUSRAE KAPLAN NUSBAUM PLLC
          120 Wall Street, 25th Floor
          New York, NY 10005
          Telephone: (212) 269 1400
          Facsimile: (212) 809 5449
          E-mail: mrusso@gusraekaplan.com


KOOS MANUFACTURING: "Bernal" Suit Seeks Relief Under Labor Code
-------------------------------------------------------------
Josefa Bernal, an individual, on her own behalf and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Koos
Manufacturing, Inc., a California corporation; and Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619753 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
6, 2016), seeks relief as may be necessary to restore to the
Plaintiffs the money and property which Defendants have acquired,
or of which Plaintiff and the Class have been deprived by unfair
and unlawful business practices of the Defendants, pursuant to the
Labor Code and the Industrial Commission Wage Orders.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs were employed as an
employee paid on a piece rate basis by the Defendants and were not
properly paid for time worked and did not receive accurate wage
statements.

Koos Manufacturing is a premier denim jeans manufacturer in Los
Angeles.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Kevin A. Lipeles, Esq.
          Thomas H. Schelly, Esq.
          LIPELES LAW GROUP, APC
          880 Apollo Street, Suite 336
          El Segundo, CA 90245
          Telephone: (310) 322 2211
          Facsimile: (310) 322 2252
          E-mail: kevin@kallaw.com


KRAFT FOODS: 6th Cir. Dismisses Suit Over Starbucks Coffee Pods
---------------------------------------------------------------
Lorraine Bailey, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Kraft did not have to ensure the continued availability of
Starbucks single-serve coffee pods when it partnered with
Starbucks to sell its Tassimo single-cup coffee brewer, the Sixth
Circuit ruled, dismissing a consumer class action.

When Pamella Montgomery bought a Tassimo single-cup coffee machine
made by Kraft Foods, the machine bore a sticker reading,
"Featuring Starbucks Coffee."

Shortly thereafter, however, Kraft's business relationship with
Starbucks went sour. Starbucks coffee pods, also called T-Discs,
compatible with the machine became increasingly difficult to find
and eventually disappeared.

Other coffeemakers, including Maxwell House and Gevalia, still
make coffee pods compatible with the machine.

But Montgomery was dissatisfied with her purchase, and sought to
represent a class in Michigan, accusing Kraft and Starbucks of
violating the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, and breach of
express and implied warranty.

A federal judge refused to certify the class, dismissed
Montgomery's warranty claims, and approved an offer by the
defendants to pay Montgomery $250 on her consumer claim, plus
$6,800 in attorneys' fees. Montgomery had sought $180,000 in fees
and costs.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed Monday out of Cincinnati.

"To properly plead a breach-of-express-warranty claim then,
Montgomery needed to allege that she was in privity with
defendants," Judge Deborah Cook said, writing for the three-judge
panel. "She didn't; her complaint acknowledged that she bought her
Tassimo from a Fred Meijer grocery store, not directly from
defendants."

The opinion notes that there is no claim by Montgomery that her
Tassimo is inoperable, nor that the brewer failed to live up to
its promise to make a "perfectly brewed cup" of Starbucks coffee
at the time she purchased the machine.

"Though Montgomery insists that the outer-box statements warrant
the 'continued availability' of Starbucks T-Discs, we find no
error by the district court in not reading that promise into the
box-labeling," Cook said.

The case caption PAMELLA MONTGOMERY, on behalf of herself and for
the  benefit of all with the common or general interest, any
persons injured, and all others similarily situated, Plaintiff-
Appellant, v. KRAFT FOODS GLOBAL, INC., a Delaware Corporation;
STARBUCKS CORPORATION, a Washington Corporation, Defendants-
Appellees., No. 15-1283 (6th Cir.)

A copy of the Sixth Circuit's decision dated May 16 is available
at https://is.gd/Vd6c74 from Leagle.com.

Aaron M. Panner -- apanner@khhte.com -- Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.


LA AUTENTICA: Recalls Meat Tamale Products Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------
La Autentica Foods, LLC., a Hialeah, Fla. establishment, is
recalling approximately 117,350 pounds of meat tamale products
that may be adulterated with Listeria Monocytogenes, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The heat-treated, not fully cooked, not shelf stable tamale in
corn husk items were produced from Sept. 4, 2015 to April 26,
2016. The following products are subject to recall:

  --- 20-oz. PLASTIC BAG packages containing four pieces of "GOYA
      FOODS TAMAL EN HOJA TAMAL IN CORN HUSK with use by/sell by
      dates 02/2017-09/2017 of and packaging dates of 9/28/15-
      4/5/16."
  --- 30-oz. PLASTIC BAG packages containing six pieces of
      "QUIRCH FOODS TAMAL CUBANO EN SU HOJA CUBAN TAMALE WRAPPED
      IN CORN HUSK WITH DICED PORK with use by/sell by dates of
      02/2017-10/2017 and packaging dates of 9/28/2015-
      4/11/2016."
  --- 20-oz. PLASTIC BAG packages containing four pieces of "LA
      MILPA TAMALES CUBANOS ESTILO CASERO CUBAN STYLE TAMALES
      WITH PORK with use by/sell by dates of 05/2017-10/2017 and
      packaging dates of 11/5/2015-4/26/2016."
  --- 15.5-lb. BOX packages containing fifty pieces of "LA MILPA
      TAMALES WRAPPED IN CORN HUSK with use by/sell by dates
      09/2016-04/2017 and packaging dates of 9/4/2015-4/14/2016."
  --- 15.5-lb. BOX packages containing forty pieces of "LA MILPA
      TAMALES ESPECIAL WRAPPED IN CORN HUSK with use by/sell by
      dates of 09/2016 and packaging dates of 9/15/2015-
      4/13/2016."

The products subject to recall bear establishment number "EST.
11154" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped to a retail and restaurant locations in Florida and New
Jersey.

The problem was discovered during an FDA recall of frozen corn
contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes. There have been no
confirmed reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these
products.

Consumption of food contaminated with Listeria Monocytogenes can
cause listeriosis, a serious infection that primarily affects
older adults, persons with weakened immune systems, and pregnant
women and their newborns. Less commonly, persons outside these
risk groups are affected.

Listeriosis can cause fever, muscle aches, headache, stiff neck,
confusion, loss of balance and convulsions sometimes preceded by
diarrhea or other gastrointestinal symptoms. An invasive infection
spreads beyond the gastrointestinal tract. In pregnant women, the
infection can cause miscarriages, stillbirths, premature delivery
or life-threatening infection of the newborn. In addition, serious
and sometimes fatal infections in older adults and persons with
weakened immune systems. Listeriosis is treated with antibiotics.
Persons in the higher-risk categories who experience flu-like
symptoms within two months after eating contaminated food should
seek medical care and tell the health care provider about eating
the contaminated food.

FSIS and the company are concerned that some product may be frozen
and in consumers' freezers.

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.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the product is no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

FSIS advises all consumers to reheat ready-to-eat product until
steaming hot.

Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Mr. Fabrice Riviere, President, at (786)-409-3779.

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.


LAVIAN LTD: Faces "Williams" Class Action in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Williams, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Lavian Ltd. d/b/a Dermelect
Cosmeceuticals, a New York corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive,
the Defendants, Case No. BC619687 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016),
seeks statutory remedies provided by the California Penal Code.

According to the complaint, in May, 2015, while located in
California, the Plaintiff called Defendant from a wireless
telephone. The Plaintiff spoke to an employee/customer service
representative of Defendant who identified herself as "Cheryl."
The Plaintiff was not aware that the call was being recorded. The
Defendant also did not, at any point during the telephone
conversation with Defendant's customer service representative,
advise the Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. The
Plaintiff did not give either express or implied consent to the
recording.

Lavian is a perfume & cosmetics company in Great Neck, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

LAYNE CHRISTENSEN: Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed
-----------------------------------------------------
Layne Christensen Company said in its Form 10-F Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that "on April 17, 2013, an
individual person filed a purported class action suit against
three of our subsidiaries and two other companies supposedly on
behalf of all lessors and royalty owners from 2004 to the present.
The plaintiff essentially alleges that Layne and two other
companies allocated the market for mineral leasing rights and
restrained trade in mineral leasing within the state of Kansas.
The plaintiff seeks certification as a class and unquantified
damages.  On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed
the suit without prejudice."


LE CREUSET: Faces "Shapiro" Consumer Class Action in Calif.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Cara Shapiro, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Le Creuset of America, Inc., and Does
1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619576 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 6, 2016), is a consumer class action that arose from the
Defendant's violations of the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and the
California Civil Code.

According to the complaint, the Defendant accepts credit cards in
payment for merchandise. The Defendant then creates a buying
history and run individual mailing lists in order to market their
products or solicit customers and sell such data to direct
marketing specialists or other third parties.

The Defendant operates stores throughout the United States which
offer cookware and other kitchen accessories. As of May 2016,
Defendant operated seventy-four signature retail and outlet stores
in the United States, including eight outlet stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zev B. Zysman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF ZEV B. ZYSMAN
          15760 Ventura Boulevard, 16th Floor
          Encino, CA 9l436
          Telephone: (818) 783 8836
          Facsimile: (818) 783 9985
          E-mail: zev@zvsmanlawca.com


LYFT: Agrees to Pay $27-Mil. to Resolve Calif. Drivers' Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Proctor, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported
that Lyft has agreed to pay $27 million to settle a class action
filed by California drivers, after a federal judge in San
Francisco rejected a proposed $12.5 million settlement.

The 2013 suit claims that Lyft drivers in California should be
classified as employees rather than independent contractors, and
that the misclassification allows Lyft to avoid paying employment
benefits and reimbursement for gas and vehicle maintenance.

Lyft agreed to settle the lawsuit in January, and settlement
negotiations were based on Lyft-supplied data including the
company's driver population through June 2015.  That data
supported an estimate of $64 million as the most that drivers
could claim for expense reimbursement. But Lyft later provided
updated driver population numbers through February 2016 which
increased the potential expense reimbursement claim to $126
million.

At a March hearing, U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria said he did
not understand why the case's maximum recovery value should not be
the higher figure.

Kristin Sverchek, Lyft's general counsel, said in a statement
about the revised settlement amount that "in light of Lyft's
growth, we agreed to update the resolution in a way that both
increased monies paid to drivers and helped preserve their
flexibility to control when, where and for how long they drive on
the platform."

Under the new $27 million settlement, the plaintiff drivers will
receive more than double what they would have under the initial
deal, the drivers' attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan said in a
statement.

"We are proud to have reached this new agreement, which will
provide significant payments to Lyft drivers who have put a lot of
their time into this company," Liss-Riordan said.

Although the settlement does not give the drivers employee status,
Liss-Riordan said that the agreement "provides a fair resolution
of the case, will get money into the pockets of drivers now and
will provide them greater job security."

A hearing on the revised settlement is scheduled for June.


LIVING ASSISTANCE: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Recorded Call
-------------------------------------------------------------
Erika Santos, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Living Assistance Services, Inc., a
Delaware corporation; and Does 1-10, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC619688 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks statutory
remedies provided in the California Penal Code.

According to the complaint, in July, 2015 while located in
California, the Plaintiff called Defendant from a wireless
telephone. The Plaintiff spoke to an employee/customer service
representative of Defendant who identified himself as "Barbara".
The Plaintiff was not aware that the call was being recorded. The
Defendant also did not, at any point during the telephone
conversation with Defendant's customer service representative,
advise Plaintiff that the call was being recorded. Plaintiff did
not give either express or implied consent to the recording. After
completing her call, Plaintiff learned that Defendant records all
incoming telephone calls but does not disclose this to every
caller, and did not disclose this to the Plaintiff.

Living Assistance Services provides senior care & home care
services in Toronto.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


LTD FINANCIAL: Faces "Bakon" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against LTD Financial Services, L.P. The
case is captioned Hindy Bakon, on behalf of herself and all other
similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. LTD Financial
Services, L.P., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02348 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 10, 2016).

LTD Financial is a debt collector.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MDL 2619: Twinlab Providing Indemnity in Herbal Supplements Case
----------------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., is providing indemnity and
defense with respect to certain of the claims in the case, In re:
Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation,
Twinlab said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015.

In re: Herbal Supplements Marketing and Sales Practice Litigation,
MDL No. 2619, Case No. 1:15-cv-5070, U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. The Company is not a party to this
matter, which joined in a multidistrict litigation a number of
purported class actions arising from allegations raised by a state
attorney general claiming that DNA barcoding testing conducted on
behalf the attorney general indicated that certain herbal
supplement products did not contain the herbal ingredients stated
on the label.

The Company does, however, pursuant to contractual obligations
provide indemnity and defense with respect to certain of the
claims in this litigation. The defendants in this litigation
believe that the claims alleged by the plaintiffs are meritless
and are defending this matter vigorously.


MEDBOX INC: Final Settlement Approval Hearing Held on May 16
------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. District Court for Central District of California was
scheduled to consider final approval of the $1,850,000 settlement
reached in the class action lawsuit by Josh Crystal against
Medbox, Inc., and certain past and present members of the
Company's Board.

Notis Global, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that on January 21, 2015,
Josh Crystal on behalf of himself and of all others similarly
situated filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for Central District of California against Medbox, Inc., and
certain past and present members of the Board (Pejman Medizadeh,
Bruce Bedrick, Thomas Iwanskai, Guy Marsala, and C. Douglas
Mitchell). The suit alleges that the Company issued materially
false and misleading statements regarding its financial results
for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the
interim financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief of
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all
damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23,
2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related
cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v.
Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead
plaintiff. On July 27, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015.

On January 18, 2015, Ervin Gutierrez filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.
The suit alleges violations of federal securities laws through
public announcements and filings that were materially false and
misleading when made because they misrepresented and failed to
disclose that the Company was recognizing revenue in a manner that
violated US GAAP. The plaintiff seeks relief for compensatory
damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all damages sustained
as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23, 2015, the Court issued
an Order consolidating the three related cases in this matter:
Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v. Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v.
Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead plaintiff. On July 27, 2015,
Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Complaint. The Company has
entered into a Stipulation and Agreement of Settlement on October
16, 2015.

On January 29, 2015, Matthew Donnino filed a class action lawsuit
in the U.S. District Court for Central District of California. The
suit alleges that the Company issued materially false and
misleading statements regarding its financial results for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2013 and each of the interim
financial periods that year. The plaintiff seeks relief for
compensatory damages and reasonable costs and expenses or all
damages sustained as a result of the wrongdoing. On April 23,
2015, the Court issued an Order consolidating the three related
cases in this matter: Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., Gutierrez v.
Medbox, Inc., and Donnino v. Medbox, Inc., and appointing a lead
plaintiff. On July 27, 2015 Plaintiffs filed a Consolidated
Amended Complaint. The Company has entered into a Stipulation and
Agreement of Settlement on October 16, 2015.

On October 16, 2015, solely to avoid the costs, risks, and
uncertainties inherent in litigation, the parties to the class
actions entered into settlements that collectively effect a global
settlement of all claims asserted in the class actions and the
derivative actions. The global settlement provides, among other
things, for the release and dismissal of all asserted claims. The
global settlement is contingent on final court approval,
respectively, of the settlements of the class actions and
derivative actions. If the global settlement does not receive
final court approval, it could have a material adverse effect on
the financial condition, results of operations and/or cash flows
of the Company and their ability to raise funds in the future.

Class Settlement

On December 1, 2015, Medbox and the class plaintiffs in Josh
Crystal v. Medbox, Inc., et al., Case No. 2:15-CV-00426-BRO
(JEMx), pending before the United States District Court for the
Central District of California (the "Court") notified the Court of
the settlement. The Court stayed the action pending the Court's
review of the settlement and directed the parties to file a
stipulation of settlement.

On December 18, 2015, plaintiffs filed the Motion for Preliminary
Approval of Class Action Settlement that included the stipulation
of settlement. On February 3, 2016, the Court issued an Order
granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The settlement
provides for notice to be given to the class, a period for opt
outs and a final approval hearing.

The principal terms of the settlement are:

     * a cash payment to a settlement escrow account in the amount
of $1,850,000 of which $150,000 will be paid by the Company and
$1,700,000 will be paid by the Company's insurers;

     * a transfer of 2,300,000 shares of Medbox common stock to
the settlement escrow account, of which 2,000,000 shares would be
contributed by Medbox and 300,000 shares by Bruce Bedrick;

     * the net proceeds of the settlement escrow, after deduction
of Court-approved administrative costs and any Court-approved
attorneys' fees and costs would be distributed to the Class; and

     * releases of claims and dismissal of the action.

By entering into the settlement, the settling parties have
resolved the class claims to their mutual satisfaction. However,
the final determination is subject to approval by the Federal
Courts. Defendants have not admitted the validity of any claims or
allegations and the settling plaintiffs have not admitted that any
claims or allegations lack merit or foundation. If the global
settlement does not receive final court approval, it could have a
material adverse effect on the financial condition, results of
operations and/or cash flows of the Company and their ability to
raise funds in the future.

Notis Global provides specialized services to the hemp and
marijuana industry.  Effective January 28, 2016, the Company
changed its legal corporate name from Medbox, Inc., to Notis
Global, Inc.


MERCANTILE ADJUSTMENT: Faces "Gutierrez" Suit in D.N.J.
-------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Mercantile Adjustment Bureau,
LLC. The case is captioned Norma Gutierrez on behalf of herself
and those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercantile
Adjustment Bureau, LLC, and John Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case
No. 2:16-cv-02580-ES-MAH (D.N.J., May 6, 2016). The Assigned Judge
is Hon. Esther Salas.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MERCY HEALTH: Sued in W.D. Okla. Over Pension Plan
--------------------------------------------------
Sally Sanzone, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mercy Health; the Mercy Health
Benefits Committee; John and Jane Does 1-10, members of the Mercy
Health Benefits Committee; the Mercy Health Stewardship Committee;
John and Jane Does 11-20, members of the Mercy Health Stewardship
Committee; John and Jane Does 21-40, the Defendants, Case No.
5:16-cv-00478-D(W.D. Okla., May 6, 2016), seeks an order requiring
Mercy to comply with the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, (ERISA) and afford the Class all the protections of ERISA
with respect to Mercy's defined benefit pension plans.

According to the complaint, the case concerns whether Mercy
properly maintains its pension plans under ERISA. Mercy allegedly
fails to do so, to the detriment of over 40,000 employees.

Mercy Health, by and through its subsidiaries and/or affiliates,
operates a healthcare conglomerate in Oklahoma, Missouri, Kansas,
and Arkansas and provides healthcare services in the communities
it serves.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          James P. Woodruff, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 North Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235 1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239 2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  jpw@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Laura R. Gerber, Esq.
          Lynn Lincoln Sarko, Esq.
          Havila C. Unrein, Esq.
          Ron Kilgard, Esq.
          KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.
          1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200
          Seattle, WA 98101-3052
          Telephone: (206) 623 1900
          Facsimile: (206) 623 3384
          Email: lgerber@kellerrohrback.com
                 lsarko@kellerrohrback.com
                 hunrein@kellerrohrback.com
                 rkilgard@kellerrohrback.com

               - and -

          Karen L. Handorf, Esq.
          Michelle Yau, Esq.
          Scott Lempert, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS
          & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
          Suite 500, West Tower
          Washington, DC 20005
          Telephone: (202) 408 4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408 4699
          E-mail: khandorf@cohenmilstein.com
                  myau@cohenmilstein.com
                  slempert@cohenmilstein.com


MERLEX STUCCO: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Stucco Product
----------------------------------------------------------
Fernando Sandoval; Gloria Sandoval; John Alms; and Christine Alms,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals,
the Plaintiff, v. Merlex Stucco, Inc., a California Corporation;
and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. BC619322 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks damages due to Defendants'
negligent representations regarding its stucco products, under the
Consumers Legal Remedies Act, the California Unfair Competition
Law, and the California False Advertising Law.

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs brought this class
action on behalf of all persons that purchased and had their homes
stuccoed with Merlex Stucco product. The stucco indirectly sold to
Plaintiffs between March 1, 2014 and June 2, 2014 contained
significant quantities of iron, which resulted in rust spots
appearing throughout the new stucco application on Plaintiff's
homes.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Larry Kent, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF LARRY KENT
          3553 Atlantic Ave.
          Long Beach, CA 90807
          Telephone: (562) 426 2258
          Facsimile: (562) 426 2058

               - and -

          Joshua Bordin-Wosk, Esq.
          Eduardo Martorell, Esq.
          Olga G. Pefla, Esq.
          BORDIN MARTORELL LLP
          Howard Hughes Center
          6100 Center Drive, Suite 1130
          Los Angeles, CA 90045
          Telephone: (323) 457 2110
          Facsimile: (323) 457 2120
          E-mail: JBordin-Wosk@Bordirilvlartorell.com
                  EMartorell@BordinMartorell.com
                  Opena@BordinMartorell.com


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Owens" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the case, Owens v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
(N.D. Ga., filed April 17, 2014).

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is a defendant in a lawsuit
related to its use of retained asset accounts, known as Total
Control Accounts, as a settlement option for death benefits.

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
all persons for whom Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
established a TCA to pay death benefits under an ERISA plan. The
action alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's use of
the TCA as the settlement option for life insurance benefits under
some group life insurance policies violates Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company's fiduciary duties under ERISA. As damages,
plaintiff seeks disgorgement of profits that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company realized on accounts owned by members of the
putative class. The court denied Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss the complaint.

The Company intends to defend this action vigorously.

                           *     *     *

The Mandatory Scheduling Conference set for March 8, 2016, was
continued to April 26, 2016 at 3:30 p.m. in Courtroom 9, before
Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone.

On May 9, a Notice of Settlement, contingent upon execution of a
settlement agreement by all parties, was filed by Arthur Owens;
and on May 10, a Notice of Settlement of Third Party Claims was by
Metropolitan Life.

Arthur Owens, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Tanya E. Moore, Esq.
     Moore Law Firm, P.C.
     332 N 2nd St
     San Jose, CA 95112
     Tel: 408-271-6600

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant, represented by
Joseph W. Strella, Jr. -- jstrella@clappmoroney.com -- Clapp,
Moroney, Vucinich, Beeman & Scheley.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal Pending in "Robainas" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal is pending in
the Reinsurance Litigation, Robainas, et al. v. Metropolitan Life
Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., December 16, 2014)

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums on life insurance
policies issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009
through 2014 (the "Policies"). Two similar actions were
subsequently filed, Yale v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y.,
January 12, 2015) and International Association of Machinists and
Aerospace Workers District Lodge 15 v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(E.D.N.Y., February 2, 2015). Both of these actions were
consolidated with the Robainas action.

The consolidated complaint alleges that Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory annual
statements that certain reinsurance transactions with affiliated
reinsurance companies were collateralized using "contractual
parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly misrepresented its
financial condition and the adequacy of its reserves. The lawsuit
sought recovery under Section 4226 of the New York Insurance Law
of a statutory penalty in the amount of the premiums paid for the
Policies.

On October 9, 2015, the court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss the consolidated complaint, finding
that plaintiffs lacked Article III standing because they did not
allege any concrete injury as a result of the alleged conduct.
Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second Circuit Court of
Appeals.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Appeal in "Intoccia" Case Pending
----------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal is pending in
the case, Intoccia v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April
20, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action on behalf of
themselves and all persons and entities who, directly or
indirectly, purchased, renewed or paid premiums for Guaranteed
Benefits Insurance Riders attached to variable annuity contracts
with Metropolitan Life Insurance Company from 2009 through 2015
(the "Annuities"). The court consolidated Weilert v. Metropolitan
Life Ins. Co. (S.D.N.Y., April 30, 2015) with the Intoccia case,
and the consolidated, amended complaint alleges that Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company inadequately disclosed in its statutory
annual statements that certain reinsurance transactions with
affiliated reinsurance companies were collateralized using
"contractual parental guarantees," and thereby allegedly
misrepresented its financial condition and the adequacy of its
reserves. The lawsuits seek recovery under Section 4226 of the New
York Insurance Law of a statutory penalty in the amount of the
premiums paid for Guaranteed Benefits Insurance Riders attached to
the Annuities. The Court granted Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company's motion to dismiss, adopting the reasoning of the
Robainas decision. Plaintiffs appealed this decision to the Second
Circuit Court of Appeals.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Order in "Fauley" Case Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Intermediate
Appellate Court on March 23, 2016, affirmed the trial court's
order in the case, Fauley v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., et
al. (Circuit Court of the 19th Judicial Circuit, Lake County,
Ill., July 3, 2014).

Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit against defendants, including
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company and a former MetLife financial
services representative, alleging that the defendants sent
unsolicited fax advertisements to plaintiff and others in
violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, as amended by
the Junk Fax Prevention Act, 47 U.S.C. Sec. 227. The court issued
a final order certifying a nationwide settlement class and
approving a settlement under which Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company has agreed to pay up to $23 million to resolve claims as
to fax ads sent between August 23, 2008 and August 7, 2014.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Voshall" Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend vigorously the case, Voshall v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles,
April 8, 2015).

Plaintiff filed this putative class action lawsuit on behalf of
himself and all persons covered under a long-term group disability
income insurance policy issued by Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company to public entities in California between April 8, 2011 and
April 8, 2015. Plaintiff alleges that Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company improperly reduced benefits by including cost of living
adjustments and employee paid contributions in the employer
retirement benefits and other income that reduces the benefit
payable under such policies. Plaintiff asserts causes of action
for declaratory relief, violation of the California Business &
Professions Code, breach of contract and breach of the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Martin" Class Action in Calif.
------------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the case, Martin v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,
(Superior Court of the State of California, County of Contra
Costa, filed December 17, 2015).

Plaintiffs filed this this putative class action lawsuit on behalf
of themselves and all California persons who have been charged
compound interest by Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in life
insurance policy and/or premium loan balances within the last four
years. Plaintiffs allege that Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
has engaged in a pattern and practice of charging compound
interest on life insurance policy and premium loans without the
borrower authorizing such compounding, and that this constitutes
an unlawful business practice under California law. Plaintiff
asserts causes of action for declaratory relief, violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law and Usury Law, and unjust
enrichment. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief,
restitution of interest, and damages in an unspecified amount.


METROPOLITAN LIFE: Defending "Lau" Class Action in New York
-----------------------------------------------------------
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (A Wholly-Owned Subsidiary of
MetLife, Inc.) said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
defend the case, Lau v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. (S.D.N.Y.
filed, December 3, 2015)

This putative class action lawsuit was filed by a single defined
contribution plan participant on behalf of all ERISA plans whose
assets were invested in Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's
"Group Annuity Contract Stable Value Funds" within the past six
years. The suit alleges breaches of fiduciary duty under ERISA and
challenges the "spread" with respect to the stable value fund
group annuity products sold to retirement plans. The allegations
focus on the methodology Metropolitan Life Insurance Company uses
to establish and reset the crediting rate, the terms under which
plan participants are permitted to transfer funds from a stable
value option to another investment option, the procedures followed
if an employer terminates a contract, and the level of disclosure
provided. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, as
well as damages in an unspecified amount. The Company intends to
defend this action vigorously.


MIDATECH PHARMA: Class Suit Over DARA BioScience Deal Dropped
-------------------------------------------------------------
Midatech Pharma Plc said in its Form 20-F Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Delaware Court of
Chancery has entered a Stipulation and Order Concerning
Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal of a class action lawsuit.

On December 4, 2015, Midatech acquired DARA BioSciences, Inc.
("DARA") through a merger transaction (the "Merger") in which the
stockholders of DARA Biosciences, Inc. received (i) American
depositary shares ("Depositary Shares") representing the ordinary
shares of Midatech, nominal value 0.005p per share (the "Ordinary
Shares") and (ii) contingent value rights which represents the
right to receive contingent payments if specified milestones are
achieved within agreed time periods. Immediately following the
closing of the Merger, DARA became a wholly owned subsidiary of
Midatech and changed its named to "Midatech Pharma US Inc."
("Midatech US").

In connection with the acquisition of DARA, DARA, its individual
Board of Directors, Midatech and two of its Delaware subsidiaries
formed solely to facilitate the merger, were named as defendants
in purported class action lawsuits brought by alleged DARA
stockholders challenging DARA's proposed merger with Midatech.
Three stockholder actions were filed in the Court of Chancery of
the State of Delaware, (Steve Schnipper v. David J. Drutz, et al.,
C.A. No. 11194-VCG, filed June 23, 2015; Matthew Quinn v. DARA
BioSciences, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 11217-VCG, filed on June 26,
2015; and Eric Edwards v. David J. Drutz, et al., C.A. No. 11262-
VCG, filed on July 8, 2015) and one stockholder action was filed
in the Superior Court in Wake County, North Carolina (Jacob
Presson v. DARA BioSciences, Inc., et al., C.A. 15-CV-009775,
filed on July 27, 2015) (the "North Carolina Complaint"). On
August 21, 2015, the plaintiff in the Schnipper action filed an
amended complaint (the "Schnipper Amended Complaint").

On September 15, 2015, the Delaware Court of Chancery issued an
order consolidating all of the Delaware actions into one matter,
In re DARA BioSciences Stockholder Litigation, Cons. C.A. 11194-
VCG (the "Consolidated Delaware Action"), and designated the
Schnipper Amended Complaint as the operative complaint. On October
1, 2015, the Superior Court in Wake County, North Carolina entered
an order staying the North Carolina Complaint at the request of
the parties.

The stockholder actions generally alleged, among other things,
that (i) each member of DARA's Board of Directors breached his or
her fiduciary duties to DARA and its stockholders by authorizing
the sale of DARA to Midatech, (ii) the merger does not maximize
value to DARA stockholders; and (iii) Midatech, its subsidiaries,
and DARA aided and abetted the breaches of fiduciary duty
allegedly committed by the members of the DARA Board of Directors.
In addition, the Consolidated Delaware Action alleged that
Midatech's Registration Statement on Form F-4 filed August 11,
2015 omitted or misstates certain material information. The
stockholder actions sought class action certification and
equitable relief, including judgments enjoining the defendants
from consummating the merger on the agreed-upon terms.

On January 5, 2016, the Delaware Court of Chancery entered a
Stipulation and Order Concerning Plaintiffs' Voluntary Dismissal
of the Action and Plaintiffs' Counsel's Anticipated Application
for an Award of Attorneys' Fees and Expenses (the "Dismissal
Order").  Pursuant to the Dismissal Order, the Consolidated
Delaware Action was dismissed with prejudice as to the named
plaintiffs and without prejudice as to the other members of the
purported class.  The Dismissal Order also provides that the Court
of Chancery will retain jurisdiction to determine whether
plaintiffs' counsel is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees and
expenses based on plaintiffs' argument that certain supplemental
disclosures made by DARA were made in response to Plaintiffs'
allegations that Midatech's Registration Statement on Form F-4
filed August 11, 2015 omitted or misstated certain material
information.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Faces "Genova" Suit in D.N.J.
---------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Midland Credit Management, Inc.
The case is captioned Rocco Genova, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. MCM also known as Midland
Credit Management, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02630-KM-
MAH (D.N.J., May 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. Kevin
McNulty.

MCM helps consumers resolve past-due debt obligations. The Company
provides flexible payment plans and financial education tools.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Yitzchak Zelman, Esq.
          MARCUS ZELMAN, LLC
          1500 Allaire Avenue, Suite 101
          Ocean, NJ 07712
          Telephone: (347) 526 4093
          Facsimile: (732) 298 6256
          E-mail: yzelman@marcuszelman.com


MILLER AND STEENO: Class Certification Sought in "Strader" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiff in the lawsuit styled MAURICE STRADER, on behalf of
plaintiff and a class v. MILLER AND STEENO, P.C., RONALD C.
MILLER; LVNV FUNDING, LLC; RESURGENT CAPITAL SERVICES, L.P.; and
ALEGIS GROUP LLC, Case No. 16-cv-5199 (N.D. Ill.), seeks
certification of two classes over alleged violation of the Fair
Debt Collection Practices Act.

The two classes Plaintiff seeks to certify are defined as:

     (1) The LVNV class consists of (a) all individuals (b)
         against whom Arrow Financial Services, LLC ("Arrow")
         obtained a judgment (c) which LVNV claims or purports to
         have acquired (d) where any attempt was thereafter made
         to collect the judgment (e) without notifying the
         individual of the involvement of LVNV; and

     (2) The Miller class consists of (a) all individuals (b)
         against whom party A obtained a judgment (c) which party
         B claims or purports to have acquired (d) where any
         attempt was thereafter made to collect the judgment by
         Miller and Steeno (e) without notifying the individual
         of the involvement of party B.

The Plaintiff further asks that Edelman, Combs, Latturner &
Goodwin, LLC be appointed counsel for the classes.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Daniel A. Edelman, Esq.
          Cathleen M. Combs, Esq.
          James O. Latturner, Esq.
          Cassandra P. Miller, Esq.
          EDELMAN, COMBS, LATTURNER & GOODWIN, L.L.C.
          20 S. Clark Street, Suite 1500
          Chicago, IL 60603
          Telephone: (312) 739-4200
          Facsimile: (312) 419-0379
          E-mail: dedelman@edcombs.com


MISSION HOSPITAL: EEOC Sues Over Civil Rights Breach
----------------------------------------------------
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, representing complainants
Christine Bolella, Melody Mitchell and Titus Robinson,
Plaintiff(s), v. Mission Hospital, Inc., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
CV-00118 (W.D. N.C., April 28, 2016), seeks permanent injunction
enjoining Defendant from continuing their discriminatory policies
and practice.  The suit also seeks complainant's back pay with
prejudgment interest, affirmative relief necessary to eradicate
the effects of the unlawful employment practices, compensation for
past and future pecuniary losses resulting from the unlawful
employment practices, punitive damages for Bolella, Mitchell,
Robinson and Kouns and such further relief pursuant to the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and 1991.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is a government agency
charged with the administration, interpretation, and enforcement
of civil rights. Christine Bolella, Melody Mitchell and Titus
Robinson each filed a charge with Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission alleging civil rights violations by Mission Hospital.
Defendant has maintained a Staff Immunization Policy that requires
employees to receive a flu vaccination annually. Bolella, Mitchell
and Robinson requested an exception because of religious beliefs.
This was denied and became grounds for their termination.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      P. David Lopez, Esq.
      James L. Lee, Esq.
      Gwendolyn Young Reams, Esq.
      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
      131 M Street, N.E.
      Washington, D.C. 20507

               - and -

      Lynette A. Barnes, Esq.
      Kara Gibbon Haden, Esq.
      Stephanie M. Jones, Esq.
      EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY COMMISSION
      Charlotte District Office
      129 West Trade Street, Suite 400
      Charlotte, N.C. 28202
      Telephone: 704.954.6471
      Facsimile: 704.954.6412
      Email: stephanie.jones@eeoc.gov


MONTEREY FINANCIAL: "Brinkley" Suit Moved to S.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
Tiffany Brinkley, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. DOE No. 1 Monterey Financial Services,
LLC, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. 37-02013-
00071119-CU-MC-NC, was removed from Superior Court of California,
County of San Diego, to the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of California (San Diego). The Southern District Court
assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01103-WQH-WVG to the proceeding. The
Assigned Judge is Hon. William Q. Hayes.

Monterey Financial is a full-service factoring company with
services in consumer financing, debt recovery and loan servicing.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Patrick N. Keegan, Esq.
          KEEGAN & BAKER, LLP
          6156 Innovation Way
          Carlsbad, CA 92009
          Telephone: (760) 929 9303
          Facsimile: (760) 929 9260
          E-mail: pkeegan@keeganbaker.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Matthew Orr, Esq.
          Call & Jensen APC
          610 Newport Center Drive, Suite 700
          Newport Beach, CA 92660
          Telephone: (949) 717 3000
          Facsimile: (949) 717 3100
          E-mail: morr@calljensen.com


MT. FUJI: Faces "Lin" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
--------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Mt. Fuji Japanese Cuisine NY Inc.
The case is captioned Yun Lin, individually and on behalf of all
other employees similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Mt. Fuji
Japanese Cuisine NY Inc., Sum Sun Cheng, Tom Cheng, Sum Choi
Cheng, John or Jane Does 1-10, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02367 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Mt. Fuji specializes in Japanese and American foods and catering
services for weddings, corporate meetings and bridal showers.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


NEW YORK: Governor, et al. Faces "Trowbridge" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Andrew Cuomo. The case is
captioned Christopher Trowbridge, Michael Torres, Ronnie Pagan,
Juan Ortiz, individually and on behalf of a class of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Andrew Cuomo, in his
official capacity as the Governor of the State of New York; Janet
DiFiore, in her official capacity as Chief Judge of the State of
New York and Chief Judicial Officer of the Unified Court System;
Lawrence Marks, in his capacity as Chief Administrative Judge of
the Unified Court System, the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-03455-
GBD (S.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon. George B.
Daniels.

Andrew Mark Cuomo is an American politician serving as the 56th
Governor of New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Gary Solomon Lee, Esq.
          James Andrew Newton e, Esq.
          Jennifer Kay Brown, Esq.
          Katie Louise Viggiani, Esq.
          Ruti Smithline, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER
          1290 Avenue of the Americas
          New York, NY 10104
          Telephone: (212) 468-8000
          Facsimile: (212) 468-7900
          E-mail: gary.lee@mofo.com
                  jnewton@mofo.com
                  jbrown@mofo.com
                  kviggiani@mofo.com
                  rsmithline@mofo.com

               - and -

          Douglas Edward Lieb, Esq.
          Ilann M. Maazel, Esq.
          Matthew D. Brinckerhoff, Esq.
          EMERY CELLI BRINCKERHOFF & ABADY, LLP
          600 Fifth Avenue 10th Floor
          New York, NY 10020
          Telephone: (212) 763 5000
          E-mail: dlieb@ecbalaw.com
                  imaazel@ecbalaw.com
                  mbrinckerhoff@ecbalaw.com

               - and -

          Scott Duffield Levy, Esq.
          THE BRONX DEFENDERS
          860 Courtlandt Ave.
          Bronx, NY 11238
          Telephone: (718) 838-7833
          Facsimile: (718) 508-3547
          E-mail: scottl@bronxdefenders.org


NEW YORK & COMPANY: Sued Over Automated Text Messaging
------------------------------------------------------
Sheila Powell, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. New York & Company, Inc.; New York &
Company Stores, Inc., the Defendants, Case No. 1:16-cv-00855-
TSC(D.D.C., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages, injunctive
relief, and declaratory relief from the illegal actions of
Defendants.

According to the complaint, the Defendants sent unauthorized
automated text messages to Plaintiff's cellular phone in violation
of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA).

Defendants retail women's clothing through over 500 nationwide
stores and online.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Jody Burton, Esq.
          LEMBERG LAW, LLC
          43 Danbury Road
          Wilton, CT 06897
          Telephone: (203) 653 2250
          Facsimile: (203) 653 3424


NEWLINK GENETICS: Investors File Class Suit in Manhattan
--------------------------------------------------------
Josh Russell, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that
shareholders of Newlink Genetics claim in court the Iowa-based
drug company lied to them about the effectiveness of their
pancreatic cancer treatment to sell its shares at inflated prices.

In a federal class action filed May 12, in Manhattan, lead
plaintiff Trevor Abramson claims the company made misleading
statements in press releases, SEC filings, and quarterly and
annual reports intended to convince shareholders no safety issues
had been associated with their pancreatic cancer treatment,
algenpantucel-L, which was in Phase 3 clinical trials during a
class period extending from September 2013 to May 9, 2016.

Among numerous examples, Abramson cites a press release NewLink
issued in March 2014, in which the company stated "In any case, it
is reassuring that no unexpected safety issues or other concerns
were raised by the independent data safety monitoring committee."

On May 9, 2016, however, NewLink announced that algenpantucel-L
did not meet the main goal in the Phase 3 IMPRESS clinical study.
Patients treated with algenpantucel-L lived for a median of 27.3
months in the company's Phase 3 trial, compared to median survival
of 30.4 months for patients treated with standard therapy.

These results suggested that patients were in fact harmed by
NewLink's treatment, the complaint says.

The algenpantucel-L immunotherapy was supposed to stimulate
patients' immune systems to react to cancer cells and kill them,
but failed to do so in the Phase 3 clinical trial.

Following the news of the drug's failure, NewLink's stock price
fell $5.05, or 30.61%, to close at $11.45 on May 10, 2016.

Abramson, who purchased 200 shares of the company's stock at just
over $23 per share, accuses NewLink Genetics of two counts of
violations of the Exchange Act, Section 10(b) and Section
20(a).NewLink was founded in 1999 and is headquartered in Ames,
Iowa. It trades on the NASDAQ under the ticker symbol "NLNK."

In 2015, NewLink was tapped to provide Ebola vaccine candidate for
a large clinical trial in Liberia.

Representatives of NewLink Genetics referred Courthouse News to a
PR firm which declined to comment.

Abramson and class are represented by Jeremy Lieberman at
Pomerantz LLP in New York.


NEWPORT CORPORATION: Facing Class Actions Over MKS Merger
---------------------------------------------------------
Newport Corporation said in its Form 8-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, that as
disclosed in the Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") on February 23,
2016 by Newport Corporation (the "Company"), on February 22, 2016,
the Company entered into an Agreement and Plan of Merger (the
"Merger Agreement") with MKS Instruments, Inc., a Massachusetts
corporation ("Parent"), and PSI Equipment, Inc., a Nevada
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent ("Merger
Sub").  The Merger Agreement provides for the merger of Merger Sub
with and into the Company (the "Merger"), with the Company
surviving the Merger as a wholly owned subsidiary of Parent,
subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Merger
Agreement.

As disclosed in the Proxy Statement, on March 9, 2016, a putative
class action lawsuit captioned Dixon Chung v. Newport Corp., et
al., Case No. A-16-733154-C, was filed in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's stockholders. On March 25, 2016, the plaintiff in the
Chung action filed an amended complaint, which added certain
allegations, including that the Proxy Statement omitted material
information.  Also on March 25, 2016, a second putative class
action complaint captioned Hubert C. Pincon v. Newport Corp., et
al., Case No. A-16-734039-B, was filed in the District Court,
Clark County, Nevada, on behalf of a putative class of the
Company's stockholders. Both putative class action lawsuits relate
to the Merger Agreement.

On March 30, 2016, plaintiff in the Pincon action filed a motion
seeking expedited discovery, which defendants opposed.  On March
31, 2016, plaintiff in the Pincon action filed a motion seeking to
consolidate the Pincon action with the putative class action
complaint with the Chung action and to appoint counsel for
plaintiff in the Pincon action as lead counsel.

At a hearing on these motions on April 14, 2016, the Court
partially allowed the motion seeking expedited discovery.  The
Court also granted the motion to consolidate the Pincon and Chung
actions and appointed counsel in the Pincon action as lead
counsel.  Finally, the Court established a briefing schedule for
plaintiffs' anticipated motion for preliminary injunction and
scheduled a hearing on plaintiffs' anticipated motion for
preliminary injunction for April 25, 2016.

The Company believes that the claims asserted in the complaints
have no merit and the Company, Parent, Merger Sub and the named
directors intend to defend vigorously against these claims.


OAKHURST INDUSTRIES: "Lohman" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Lohman, as an individual and on behalf of all similarly
situated employees, the Plaintiff, v. Oakhurst industries d/b/a
Freund Baking Co. and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant, Case
No. BC619694 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks relief against
Freund for failure to provide meal and rest periods or
compensation in lieu, and for failure to provide accurate itemized
wage statements upon payment of wages pursuant to the Labor Code
and Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC) Wage Order.

The Plaintiff further seeks equitable remedies in the form of
declaratory relief and injunctive relief, and relief under the
Business and Professions Code Sections for unfair business
practices.

According to the complaint, the Defendant failed and/or refused to
implement a policy and practice to pay any Plaintiff Class 1
hour's pay at the employees' regular rate of pay as premium
compensation for its failure to provide rest and/or meal periods
or to provide such rest and/or meal periods within the statutory
time frame as a result of their scheduling policy.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin Mahoney, Esq.
          Morgan Glynn, Esq.
          MAHONEY LAW GROUP, APC
          249 E. Ocean Blvd., Ste. 814
          Long Beach, CA 90802
          Telephone: (562) 590 5550
          Facsimile: (562) 590 8400
          E-mail: kmahoney@mahoney-law.net
                  mglynn@mahoney-law.net


OKLAHOMA: Class Certification Sought in "Cotner" Suit
-----------------------------------------------------
Robert Eugene Cotner asks the Court to certify the lawsuit
captioned Robert Eugene Cotner v. Carl Bear, Holly Baker, Joe
Allbaugh, Mary Fallin and Does, Case No. 5:2016cv00195 (W.D.
Okla.).  The lawsuit alleges violations of prisoners' civil
rights.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=cEc6EKTU


OLLIES 42ND: "Rong" Suit Seeks Minimum & Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------
Xiao Rong, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Ollies 42ND LLC d/b/a Ollie's Sichuan
Restaurant, Tsu Y. Wang, Isabell Yuet Ming Ng a.k.a Angie, Chih
Chou Yu, E Feng Lee, Jen Hwa Kao, Mel Lee Law, John Doe and Jane
Doe l-10, Defendants, Case No. 652547/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 10,
2016), seeks to recover minimum wages, overtime wages, spread of
hours compensation, damages for failure to provide wage
statements, liquidated damages, interest, costs, and attorneys'
fees for systematic and class-wide violations of the New York
Labor Law (NYLL) and the New York Codes, Rules and Regulations.

According to the complaint, the Defendants failed to maintain
accurate records of the hours Plaintiff worked, failed to pay
Plaintiff minimum wages, and failed to pay Plaintiff appropriately
for any hours worked over 40, whether at the straight rate of pay,
or for any additional overtime premium.

Defendants own, operate, and/or control a restaurant located in
West 42nd Street, New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          William Brown, Esq.
          HANG & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
          136-18 39th Avenue, Suite 1003
          Flushing, NY 11354
          Telephone: {718) 353 8588
          Facsimile: {718) 353 6288


OOMA INC: Faces Class Actions Related to 2015 IPO
-------------------------------------------------
Ooma, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on April 12, 2016, for the fiscal year
ended January 31, 2016, that Michael Barnett filed on January 14,
2016, a purported stockholder class action in the San Mateo County
Superior Court of the State of California (Case No. CIV536959)
against Ooma, certain of its officers and directors, and certain
of the underwriters of the Company's Initial Public Offering on
July 17, 2015 (the "IPO"). Since that time two additional
purported class actions making substantially the same allegations
against the same defendants were filed, and the Company expects
these additional complaints to be consolidated with the Barnett
complaint.

The Company said, "The complaints purport to be brought on behalf
of all persons who purchased shares of common stock in our IPO in
reliance upon the Registration Statement and Prospectus we filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC"). The
complaints allege that Ooma and the other defendants violated the
Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act") by
issuing the Registration Statement and Prospectus, which the
plaintiffs allege contained material misstatements and omissions
in violation of Sections 11, 12(a)(2) and 15 of the Securities
Act. The plaintiffs seek class certification, compensatory
damages, attorneys' fees and costs, rescission or a rescissory
measure of damages, equitable and/or injunctive relief, and such
other relief as the court may deem proper."

"Ooma believes that the plaintiffs' claims are without merit and
we are vigorously defending against the Securities Litigations and
will continue to do so. However, litigation is unpredictable and
there can be no assurances that we will obtain a favorable final
outcome or that we will be able to avoid unfavorable preliminary
or interim rulings in the course of litigation that may
significantly add to the expense of our defense and could result
in substantial costs and diversion of resources.  Based on our
current knowledge, we have determined that the amount of any
material loss or range of any losses that are reasonably possible
to result from the Securities Litigations are not reasonably
estimable."

Ooma is a provider of innovative communications solutions and
other connected services to small business, home, and mobile
users.


PELLA CORPORATION: "Zeigler" Suit Consolidated in MDL 2514
----------------------------------------------------------
Harold Zeigler, husband, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, and Bonnie Zeigler, wife, on behalf of
herself and on behalf of all others similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Pella Corporation, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-
00406, was removed from the U.S. District Court for the Western
District Court of Michigan, to the U.S. District Court for the
District Court of South Carolina (Charleston). The South Carolina
District Court assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-01472-DCN to the
proceeding.

The Zeigler case is consolidated in MDL No. 2514, re: Pella
Corporation Architect and Designer Series Windows Marketing, Sales
Practices and Products Liability Litigation. The lead case is
2:14-mn-00001-DCN. The Assigned Judge is Honorable David C.
Norton.

The Pella Corporation is a window and door manufacturer company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Mark E. Hills, Esq.
          Varnum LLP (Grand Haven)
          233 Washington Ave., Ste. 205
          Grand Haven, MI 49417
          Telephone: (616) 846 7100
          E-mail: mehills@varnumlaw.com


PERFORMANCE SPORTS: Faces "Apel" Class Action in Calif.
-------------------------------------------------------
Performance Sports Group Ltd. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended February 29, 2016, that on March 18,
2016, Brian Apel, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against the
Company and certain of its current and former executive officers
in the United States District Court for the Central District of
California.

The Company said, "The complaint alleges that we and certain of
our current and former executive officers made false and/or
misleading statements and failed to disclose material adverse
facts about our business, operations, prospects and performance in
violation of Sections 10(b) (and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The plaintiff seeks
unspecified damages, as well as costs, attorneys' fees, and other
unspecified relief. We intend to vigorously defend this matter."


PHILLIPS & COHEN: Faces "Choonoo" Suit in D.N.J.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Phillips & Cohen Associates, Ltd.
The case is captioned Barrat Choonoo, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Phillips & Cohen
Associates, Ltd. and John Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02581-SDW-SCM (D.N.J., May 6, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon.
Susan D. Wigenton.

Phillips & Cohen delivers measurably superior collection services
across a host of industries and service sectors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


PILGRIM'S PRIDE: Recalls Fully Cooked Chicken Products
------------------------------------------------------
Pilgrim's Pride Corp., a Waco, Texas establishment, is recalling
approximately 5,176,844 pounds of fully cooked chicken products
that may be contaminated with extraneous materials, the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS) announced.

The scope of this recall expansion now includes a variety of
chicken products that may be contaminated with extraneous metal
materials. The chicken products were produced on various dates
between May 6, 2015, and Dec. 3, 2015. The following products are
subject to recall:

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a General Tso's Sauce"
      with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016, 7/10/2016, and
      8/6/2016 and packaging dates of 5/6/2015, 7/10/2015, and
      8/6/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 2 - 5-lb clear bags of "Sweet
      Georgia Brand Fully Cooked Breaded Diced Chicken Meat" with
      a use by/sell by date of 5/6/2016 and a packaging date of
      5/6/2015.

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Sweet Sriracha Glaze"
      with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016 and 8/6/2016 and
      packaging dates of 5/6/2015 and 8/6/2015.

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 7.15-lb clear bags of "Fully
      Cooked Seasoned Chicken Leg Meat Strips With Teriyaki
      Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 12/3/2016 and 8/10/2016
      and packaging dates of 12/3/2015 and 8/10/2015.

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Japanese Cherry
      Blossom Sauce" with use by/sell by dates of 5/6/2016 and
      8/6/2016 and  packaging dates of 5/6/2015 and 8/6/2015.

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 7.15 lb clear bags of "73002
      Green Dragon Fully Cooked Seasoned Chicken Leg Meat Strips
      with New Orleans Brand Sauce" with a use by/sell by date of
      08/10/2016; and a packaging date of 08/10/2015.;

  --- 42.9-lb boxes containing 6 - 5-lb clear bags of chicken and
      6 - 2.15-lb sauce packets of "Green Dragon Fully Cooked
      Breaded Diced Chicken Leg Meat With a Tangerine Sauce" with
      a use by/sell by date of 8/6/2016 and a packaging date of
      8/6/2015.

On April 26, 2016, Pilgrim's Pride Corp recalled approximately
4,527,300 pounds of fully cooked chicken nuggets produced on
various dates from Aug. 21, 2014 to March 1, 2016. The following
products are subject to recall:

  --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6145 Gold Kist
      Farms Menu Right Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken
      Nuggets Breaded Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use
      by/sell by dates of 05/28/2016, and 04/27/2016 and
      packaging dates of 05/28/2015 and 04/27/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6253 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Strip
      Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of
      04/27/2016 and 08/06/2016, and packaging dates of
      04/27/2015 and 08/06/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6353 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Breakfast
      Chicken Patties" with use/by sell by dates of 09/17/2016
      and 09/21/2016 and packaging dates 09/17/2015 and
      09/21/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "6654 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Homestyle Breaded Chicken
      Patty" with use by/sell by dates of 05/11/2016, 06/05/2016,
      and 08/21/2015, and packaging dates of 05/11/2015,
      06/05/2015, and 08/21/2014.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "66660 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Hot & Spicy Breaded Chicken
      Patty" with use by/sell by date of 07/18/2016 and packaging
      date of 07/18/2015.

  --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "69160 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty
      Fritters" with use/by sell by dates of 08/19/2016 and
      09/25/2016, and packaging dates of 8/19/2015 and
      09/25/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "70340 Pierce
      Chicken Fully Cooked Breaded Chicken Tenderloins" with a
      use by/sell by dates of 09/28/2016, 09/25/2016, and
      11/09/2016, and packaging dates of 09/28/2015, 09/25/2015,
      and 11/09/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing of 5-lb clear bags of "612100 Gold
      Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Nuggets
      Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of
      07/11/2016, 11/09/2016, and 11/25/2016 and packaging dates
      of 07/11/2015, 11/09/2015, and 11/25/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "615300 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken
      Nuggets Nugget Shaped Chicken Patties" with use by/ sell
      by dates of 10/08/2016, 10/09/2016, 10/03/2016, 10/20/2016,
      11/24/2016, 10/01/2016, 10/16/2016, 10/14/2016, and
      packaging dates of 10/08/2015, 10/01/2015, 10/16/2015,
      10/09/2015, 10/03/2015, 10/20/2015, 11/24/2015, and
      10/14/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "625300 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken
      Strip Shaped Chicken Patties" with a use by/sell by date of
      10/16/2016, and a packaging date of 10/16/2015.

  --- 20-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "633100 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Breakfast
      Chicken Breast Patties with Rib Meat" with a use by/sell by
      date of 10/03/2016, and a packaging date of 10/03/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "662100 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Breaded Chicken Patties"
      with use by/sell by dates of 10/07/2016 and 08/13/2016, and
      packaging dates of 10/07/2015 and 08/13/2015.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "665400 Gold Kist
      Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Home-style Breaded Chicken
      Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/06/2016,
      07/24/2016, 07/01/2016, 07/25/2016, 08/29/2016, 09/12/2016,
      12/02/2016, 12/21/2016, and packaging dates of 10/06/2015,
      07/24/2015, 07/01/2015, 07/25/2015, 08/29/2016, 09/12/2016,
      12/02/2016, 12/21/2016.

  --- 30-lb boxes containing of 5-lb clear bags of "666600 Gold
      Kist Farms Fully Cooked Whole Grain Hot & Spicy Breaded
      Chicken Patties" with use by/sell by dates of 10/08/2016,
      09/29/2015, 09/30/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015,
      09/29/2015, 09/30/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "92105 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      BREAST NUGGETS BREADED NUGGET SHAPED CHICKEN PATTIES WITH
      RIB MEAT" with a use/by sell by date of 05/28/2016, and a
      packaging date of 05/28/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "92430 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED BREADED CHICKEN TENDERLOINS"
      with use by/sell by dates of 09/28/2016, 11/09/2016, and
      packaging dates of 09/28/2016, 11/09/2016.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "93406 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN POPCORN STYLE
      CHICKEN PATTY FRITTERS" with a use by/sell by date of
      05/28/2016 and a packaging date of 05/28/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "94208 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN HOT AND SPICY
      BREADED CHICKEN PATTY" with a use by date of 07/18/2016 and
      a packaging date of 07/18/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96965 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      NUGGETS NUGGET SHAPED CHICKEN PATTIES" with a use by/sell
      by date of 10/14/2016 and a packaging date of 10/14/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96971 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      BREAST PATTIES WITH RIB MEAT" with a use by/sell by date of
      10/08/2016 and a packaging date of 10/08/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96973 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN BREADED CHICKEN
      PATTIES" with use by/sell by dates of 07/24/2016,
      07/01/2016, 12/02/2016, 09/12/2016, and packaging dates of
      07/24/2015, 07/01/2015, 12/02/2015, 09/12/2015.

  --- 10-lb boxes containing 5-lb clear bags of "96978 Sweet
      Georgia Brand FULLY COOKED WHOLE GRAIN HOT AND SPICY
      BREADED CHICKEN PATTIES" with use by/sell by dates of
      10/08/2016 and 9/30/2016, and packaging dates of 10/08/2015
      and 9/30/2016.

Additional information on production dates and case codes can be
found here.

On April 7, 2016, Pilgrim's Pride Corp recalled approximately
40,780 pounds of fully cooked chicken nuggets produced on Oct. 5,
2015. The following product is subject to recall:

  --- 20-lb. cardboard boxes containing two, 10-lb. clear plastic
      bags of fully cooked chicken nuggets labeled as "GOLD KIST
      FARMS Fully Cooked Whole Grain Popcorn Style Chicken Patty
      Fritters" with package codes 5278105021, 5278105022,
      5278105023, 5278105000, and 5278105001.

The products subject to recall bears establishment number "EST.
20728" inside the USDA mark of inspection. These items were
shipped for institutional use nationwide. According to Pilgrim's
Pride Corp. records, schools have purchased products through the
company's commercial channels.

The problem was first discovered after the firm received several
consumer complaints regarding plastic contamination of the chicken
nuggets. The firm notified FSIS personnel of the issue on April 6,
2016. FSIS personnel identified more affected product types and
dates of production after investigating additional consumer
complaints of foreign material contamination received by the
recalling firm.

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 the recalled products are urged not
to consume them. These products should be thrown away or returned
to the place of purchase.

FSIS routinely conducts recall effectiveness checks to verify
recalling firms notify their customers of the recall and that
steps are taken to make certain that the products are no longer
available to consumers. When available, the retail distribution
list(s) will be posted on the FSIS website at
www.fsis.usda.gov/recalls.

Consumers with questions about the recall can contact James Brown,
Consumer Relations Manager, at (800) 321-1470. Media with
questions about the recall can contact Cameron Bruett, Head of
Corporate Affairs, at (970) 506-7801.

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.


PORTFOLIO RECOVERY: Faces "Sperber" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Portfolio Recovery Associates,
L.L.C. The case is captioned Meyer Sperber, on behalf of himself
and all other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v.
Portfolio Recovery Associates, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No.
1:16-cv-02346 (E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Portfolio Recovery Associates is a large debt collection company
that specializes in buying delinquent credit accounts.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


PROMOSYNTHESIS LLC: "Henryhand" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Code
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Arriane Henryhand, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Promosynthesis LLC, a Minnesota
limited liability corporation; Office Depot, Inc., a Delaware
corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
RG16814763 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, restitution, and liquidated relief, pursuant to the Labor
Code.

The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendants have failed to provide
them with meal periods, failed to provide them with rest periods,
failed to pay premium wages for unprovided meal and/or rest
periods, failed to pay overtime wages, failed to reimburse them
for all necessary business expenses, and failed to timely pay them
all of their final wages following separation of employment.

The Defendant is a labor contractor company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Shaun Setarah, Esq.
          Thomas Segal, Esq.
          SETAREH LAW GROUP
          9454 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 907
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (310) 888 7771
          Facsimile: (310) 888 0109
          E-mail: shaun@setarehlaw.com
                  tomas@setarahlaw.com


PROVIDENCE CENTER: Certification of Class of Therapists Sought
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Plaintiffs ask the Court for conditional certification of the
proposed Fair Labor Standards Act collective action styled DARLENE
A. D'AREZZO, OLIVIA M. HOWARD, and JOELLE A. DEPEYROT,
individually and on behalf of other similarly situated individuals
v. THE PROVIDENCE CENTER, INC., alias, Case No. 2015-120-M-LDA
(D.R.I.).  The Plaintiffs also move for Court facilitation of
notice pursuant to Section 216(B) of the Labor Code.

The proposed collective action is brought on behalf of all current
and former individuals employed by the Defendant as purported Fee-
For-Service Therapists (or other comparable positions), who were
subject to these common practices and or policies of the
Defendant, at any time from three years before the filing of the
Complaint to the present: a) Who were paid under a purported "fee
for service" arrangement or other similar arrangement; and, b) Who
were required to perform tasks and/or otherwise perform work not
included within the scope of the work for which "fees for service"
were paid under their contract of employment and for which they
were not compensated.

A copy of the Motion is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=tq9Q3K8D

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
          SINAPI LAW ASSOCIATES, LTD.
          2374 Post Road, Suite 201
          Warwick, RI 02886
          Telephone: (401) 739-9690
          Facsimile: (401) 739-9040
          E-mail: ras@sinapilaw.com


QUALITY POLE: "Villalongo" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Francisco Villalongo, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Quality Pole Inspection &
Maintenance, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 6:16-cv-00025(S.D.
Tex., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover all unpaid wages; overtime
compensation for all hours worked over 40 in a workweek at the
applicable time-and-a-half rate; equal amount as liquidated
damages; reasonable attorney's fees, costs, and expenses; and
other relief, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

According the complaint, the Defendant's compensation policy
violates the FLSA's mandate that non-exempt employees, such as
Plaintiff and Class Members, be compensated at one and one-half
times their regular rate of pay for each hour worked over 40 hours
in a week.

Quality Pole provides inspection, maintenance, and GIS reporting
for wooden, concrete, and metal poles and tower.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          MARTIN A. SHELLIST
          RICARDO J. PRIETO
          SHELLIST LAZARZ SLOBIN LLP
          11 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1515
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 621 2277
          Facsimile: (713) 621 0993
          E-mail: mshellist@eeoc.net
                  rprieto@eeoc.net


RADNET MANAGEMENT: Faces "Kavanagh" Class Suit in Calif. Ct.
------------------------------------------------------------
Anne Kavanagh, an individual and others similarly situated, the
Plaintiff, v. Radnet Mangement, Inc., a business entity, exact
form unknown, and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC619966 (Cal.
Super. Ct., May 10, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages,
injunctive relief, and any other remedy, under the Labor Code.

According to the complaint, the fact that Plaintiff was required
to attend physiotherapy appointments during work hours apparently
did not sit well with the Employer Defendants. Specifically, Ms.
Wasserman harassed and discriminated against Plaintiff due to her
disability, this included, but was not limited to: telling
Plaintiff she could not use sick time for physiotherapy; and
telling Plaintiff that if she takes more time off for therapy,
then she will be fired.

The Defendant is engaged in operating medical diagnostic imaging
facilities in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Timothy B. Sottile, Esq.
          SOTTILE & BALTAXE
          4360 Park Terrace Drive, Suite 140
          Westlake Village, CA 91361
          Telephone: (818) 889 0050
          Facsimile: (818) 889 6050


RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Etienne" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
-------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC.
The case is captioned Esther Etienne, as assignee of individually
and on behalf of all others similarly, the Plaintiff, v. Reliant
Capital Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02359
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Reliant Capital is a full service account receivable management
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


RELIANT CAPITAL: Faces "Levy" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Reliant Capital Solutions, LLC.
The case is captioned Rivkah Levy, on behalf of herself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. Reliant
Capital Solutions, LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02366
(E.D.N.Y., May 10, 2016).

Reliant Capital is a full service account receivable management
company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Adam Jon Fishbein, Esq.
          483 Chestnut Street
          Cedarhurst, NY 11516
          Telephone: (516) 791 4400
          Facsimile: (516) 791 4411
          E-mail: fishbeinadamj@gmail.com


RBC CAPITAL: Defending Against Investor Suits in N.Y., Quebec
-------------------------------------------------------------
United States Short Oil Fund, LP said in its Form 10-K Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24,
2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that RBC
Capital Markets, LLC is defending a pending putative class action
initially filed in November 2013 in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York.

On July 31, 2015, RBC Capital Markets, LLC was added as a new
defendant in a pending putative class action initially filed in
November 2013 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York. The action is brought against multiple
foreign exchange dealers and alleges collusive behavior, among
other allegations, in foreign exchange trading. The action is in
its initial stages as it relates to the new defendants, including
RBC Capital Markets, LLC.

On September 11, 2015, a class action lawsuit was filed in the
Ontario Superior Court of Justice and a motion for authorization
of a class action was filed in the Quebec Superior Court, both on
behalf of an alleged class of Canadian investors, against Royal
Bank of Canada, RBC Capital Markets, LLC and a number of other
foreign exchange dealers. The Canadian class actions allege that
the defendants conspired to manipulate the prices of currency
trades and are in their initial stages.

Based on the facts currently known, it is not possible to predict
the ultimate outcome of the Foreign Exchange Matters or the timing
of their ultimate resolution.


RESONANT INC: Seeks Dismissal of Consolidated 2nd Amended Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Resonant Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company has filed a
motion to dismiss the consolidated second amended complaint.

The Company said, "Beginning on March 17, 2015, three putative
class action lawsuits were filed in the United States District
Court for the Central District of California, naming us, Terry
Lingren and John Philpott as defendants. The three lawsuits were
consolidated into a single putative class action, In re Resonant
Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No. 15-cv-01970 SJO (VBKx), and
the court appointed co-lead plaintiffs."

"On September 26, 2015, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated
complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal securities
laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the underwriter
of our May 29, 2014 IPO. On November 30, 2015, we filed a motion
to dismiss the plaintiffs' Consolidated Amended Complaint. In an
order dated February 8, 2016, the court granted our motion to
dismiss, but granted the plaintiffs leave to file a second amended
complaint.

"On February 23, 2016, the plaintiffs filed a consolidated second
amended complaint purporting to assert claims under the federal
securities laws against us, Terry Lingren, John Philpott, and the
underwriter of our May 29, 2014 IPO. The plaintiffs purport to be
acting on behalf of a class consisting of purchasers or acquirers
of our common stock between November 6, 2014 and April 2, 2015, or
the Class Period, as well as a class of persons or entities who
purchased or acquired our shares in (or traceable to) our IPO.

"The plaintiffs allege that, as a result of the defendants'
allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions
concerning our business, operations, prospects and performance,
our common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout
the Class Period. The plaintiffs seek compensatory damages and
fees and costs, among other relief, but have not specified the
amount of damages being sought in the action.

"On March 22, 2016, we filed a motion to dismiss the consolidated
second amended complaint. It is not known when the court will rule
on the motion."


RJ REYNOLDS: $4.75-Mil. Settlement in "Sateriale" Approved
----------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal judge in Los
Angeles approved a $4.75 million settlement of a class action
accusing R.J. Reynolds Tobacco of failing to honor its promise
that smokers could exchange "Camel Cash" certificates for
merchandise.

The case captioned, AMANDA SATERIALE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. R.J.
REYNOLDS TOBACCO CO., Defendant, CASE No. CV 09 08394 CAS
(SSx)(C.D. Cal.).

A copy of Judge Christina S. Snyder's Final Judgment dated May 5
is available at https://is.gd/CmVTwD from Leagle.com.

Attorneys for Defendant R.J. Reynolds:

     Marc K. Callahan, Esq.
     John A. Vogt, Esq.
     Ann T. Rossum, Esq.
     JONES DAY
     3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 800
     Irvine, CA 92612.4408
     Telephone: +1.949.851.3939
     Facsimile: +1.949.553.7539
     E-mail: javogt@jonesday.com

          - and -

     Geoffrey K. Beach, Esq.
     Howell A. Burkhalter, Esq.
     WOMBLE CARLYLE SANDRIDGE & RICE LLP
     One West Fourth Street
     Winston-Salem, NC 27101
     Telephone: (336) 721-3504
     Facsimile: (336) 733-8437
     E-mail: hburkhalter@wcsr.com


ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Securities Antitrust Litigation
---------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc remains a defendant in the US
Treasury securities antitrust litigation, according to Royal
Bank's Form 20-F Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on March 24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December
31, 2015.

Beginning in July 2015, numerous class action antitrust complaints
were filed in US federal courts against a number of primary
dealers of US Treasury securities, including RBS Securities Inc.
The complaints allege that the defendants rigged the US Treasury
securities auction bidding process to deflate prices at which they
bought such securities and colluded to increase the prices at
which they sold such securities to plaintiffs. The complaints
assert claims under the US antitrust laws and the Commodity
Exchange Act on behalf of persons who transacted in US Treasury
securities or derivatives based on such instruments, including
futures and options. On 8 December 2015, all pending matters were
transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern
District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings.


ROYAL BANK: Still Defends Interest Rate Swaps Antitrust Case
------------------------------------------------------------
The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc remains a defendant in the
interest rate swaps antitrust litigation, it said in its Form 20-F
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
24, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

On 25 November 2015, RBS plc and other members of the Group, as
well as a number of other interest rate swap dealers, were named
as defendants in a class action antitrust complaint filed in the
United States District Court for the Southern District of New
York. A similar complaint was filed in the United States District
Court for the Northern District of Illinois on 18 February 2016.
The complaints allege that the defendants violated the US
antitrust laws by restraining competition in the market for
interest rate swaps through various means and thereby caused
inflated bid-ask spreads for interest rate swaps, to the alleged
detriment of the plaintiff class. RBS anticipates moving to
dismiss the claims asserted in these matters.


ROYAL CANIN: Bid for Certification of Class Denied as Moot
----------------------------------------------------------
The Clerk of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Illinois made a docket entry on May 13, 2016, in the case entitled
Shaun Fauley v. Royal Canin U.S.A., Inc., et al., Case No. 1:15-
cv-02170 (N.D. Ill.), relating to a hearing held before the
Honorable Elaine E. Bucklo.

The minute entry states that:

   -- Defendants' motion to modify stay is denied;

   -- Plaintiff's amended "Damasco" motion for class
      certification is denied as moot; and

   -- status hearing is set for May 31, 2016, at 9:30 a.m.

A copy of the Notification of Docket Entry is available at no
charge at http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=5Lbmq6Dl


SAINT-GOBAIN PERFORMANCE: Faces "Sullivan" Suit in D. Vermont
-------------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics
Corporation. The case is captioned James D. Sullivan, Leslie
Addison, Sharyn Jones, and Bishop Robin Hood Greene, individually,
and on behalf of a Class of persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Corporation, the
Defendant, Case No. 5:16-cv-00125-gwc (D. Vt., May 6, 2016). The
assigned Judge is Hon. Geoffrey W. Crawford.

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

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David F. Silver, Esq.
          BARR, STERNBERG, MOSS,
          LAWRENCE & SILVER, P.C.
          507 Main Street
          Bennington, VT 05201
          Telephone: (802) 442 6341
          Facsimile: (802) 442 1151
          E-mail: dsilver@barrsternberg.com

               - and -

          Emily J. Joselson, Esq.
          James W. Swift, Esq.
          Langrock Sperry & Wool, LLP
          111 South Pleasant Street
          P.O. Drawer 351
          Middlebury, VT 05753-0351
          Telephone: (802) 388 6356
          Facsimile: (802) 388 6149
          E-mail: ejoselson@langrock.com
                  jswift@langrock.com

               - and -

          Patrick J. Bernal, Esq.
          Robert E. Woolmington, Esq.
          WITTEN, WOOLMINGTON,
          CAMPBELL & BERNAL, P.C.
          4900 Main Street
          P.O. Box 2748
          Manchester Center, VT 05255
          Telephone: (802) 362 2560
          Facsimile: (802) 362-7109
          E-mail: pjb@wittenetal.com
                  rew@wittenetal.com

               - and -

          Timothy M. Andrews , Esq.
          BARR, STERNBERG, MOSS,
          LAWRENCE & SILVER, P.C.
          507 Main Street
          Bennington, VT 05201
          Telephone: (802) 442-6341
          Facsimile: (802) 442-1151
          E-mail: tandrews@barrsternberg.com


SENIORSITTERS INC: "Schreckengost" Suit Seeks Damages Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------------
Gioia Schreckengost and individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Seniorsitters, Inc.,
Defendant, the Plaintiff, v. the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-
00566-CRE (W.D. Penn., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover damages from
harms arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), the
Pennsylvania Minimum Wage Act (PMWA), and the Pennsylvania Wage
Payment & Collection Law (PWPCL).

According to the complaint, the Plaintiffs are entitled to unpaid
overtime wages which the Defendant willfully refused to pay for
all hours worked over 40 per week during their employment with
Defendant.

Seniorsitters helps elderly person's daily living needs including
meals, shopping, hygiene, housekeeping, transportation and safety.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Elizabeth Pollock-Avery, Esq.
          Nelson D. Berardinelli, Esq.
          KRAEMER, MANES & ASSOCIATES LLC
          US Steel Tower
          600 Grant St., Suite 660
          Pittsburgh, PA 15219
          Telephone: (412) 626 5565
          E-mail: ep@lawkm.com
                  nb@lawkm.com


SHELL OIL: "Reynolds" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
---------------------------------------------------------
James Reynolds, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Shell Oil Company, the Defendant,
Case No. 4:16-cv-01276 (S.D. Tex., May 6, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and other damages, pursuant to the Fair Labor
Standards Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, Shell Oil pays some its workers a flat
amount for each day they work. Although these workers regularly
work more than 40 hours a week, Shell does not pay them overtime.

Shell is a United States-based subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell, a
multinational major oil company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          FIBICH, LEEBRON, COPELAND
          BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON
          1150 Bissonnet St.
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751 0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751 0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fibichlaw.com


SIGNET JEWELERS: Petition for Certiorari Already Due
----------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that SJI's Petition for
Certiorari was due for filing on April 29, 2016.

On September 23, 2008, the US Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission ("EEOC") filed a lawsuit against SJI in the US District
Court for the Western District of New York. The EEOC's lawsuit
alleges that SJI engaged in intentional and disparate impact
gender discrimination with respect to pay and promotions of female
retail store employees from January 1, 2003 to the present. The
EEOC asserts claims for unspecified monetary relief and non-
monetary relief against the Company on behalf of a class of female
employees subjected to these alleged practices. Non-expert fact
discovery closed in mid-May 2013.

In September 2013, SJI made a motion for partial summary judgment
on procedural grounds, which was referred to a Magistrate Judge.
The Magistrate Judge heard oral arguments on the summary judgment
motion in December 2013.

On January 2, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued his Report,
Recommendation and Order, recommending that the Court grant SJI's
motion for partial summary judgment and dismiss the EEOC's claims
in their entirety. The EEOC filed its objections to the Magistrate
Judge's ruling and SJI filed its response thereto. The District
Court Judge heard oral arguments on the EEOC's objections to the
Magistrate Judge's ruling on March 7, 2014 and on March 11, 2014
entered an order dismissing the action with prejudice.

On May 12, 2014, the EEOC filed its Notice of Appeal of the
District Court Judge's dismissal of the action to United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The parties fully briefed
the appeal and oral argument occurred on May 5, 2015.

On September 9, 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit issued a decision vacating the District Court's
order and remanding the case back to the District Court for
further proceedings. SJI filed a Petition for Panel Rehearing and
En Banc Review with the United States Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit, which was denied on December 1, 2015.

On December 4, 2015, SJI filed a motion to stay the Mandate of the
Second Circuit pending SJI's filing of a Petition for Writ of
Certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States.

On December 5, 2015, the District Court referred the case to
Magistrate Judge Michael J. Roehmer for pretrial and to hear and
report on dispositive motion proceedings.

On February 5, 2016, SJI filed with the Supreme Court of the
United States an application for extension to file its Petition
for Certiorari. On February 9, 2016, the application was granted.

SJI's Petition for Certiorari was due for filing on April 29,
2016.

SJI denies the allegations of the Claimants and EEOC and has been
defending these cases vigorously. At this point, no outcome or
possible loss or range of losses, if any, arising from the
litigation is able to be estimated.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Court Certifies 2 Classes in "Tapia" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Naomi Tapia moves to certify two classes of hourly
employees in her lawsuit against Defendant Zale Delaware Inc. for
alleged violations of California's labor laws and the federal Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA).  District Judge Cynthia Bashant of the
Southern District of California grants the motion.  The Court
finds that Plaintiff has demonstrated that common questions of law
and fact predominate over individual issues, such that a class
action is a superior method for adjudicating the State law claims.
Plaintiff has also met the standard to conditionally certify a
class under the FLSA.

Plaintiff seeks to certify a California class of 1,600 current and
former hourly, nonexempt employees. Plaintiff identifies six
issues: (1) failure to pay overtime compensation; (2) failure to
provide wage statements that accurately state the overtime rate;
(3) failure to provide a timely meal period, alteration of
records, and failure to pay the statutory penalty; (4) unlawful
meal period policy; (5) unlawful rest period policy; and (6) a
derivative claim for former employees.

Plaintiff also seeks to certify a nationwide class of 20,000
retail workers, based on her allegation that Defendant failed to
pay overtime wages in violation of the FLSA.

Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that prior to the acquisition
of Zale Corporation, it was a defendant in three purported class
action lawsuits, Tessa Hodge v. Zale Delaware, Inc., d/b/a
Piercing Pagoda which was filed on April 23, 2013 in the Superior
Court of the State of California, County of San Bernardino; Naomi
Tapia v. Zale Corporation which was filed on July 3, 2013 in the
US District Court, Southern District of California; and Melissa
Roberts v. Zale Delaware, Inc. which was filed on October 7, 2013
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los
Angeles.

All three cases include allegations that Zale Corporation violated
various wage and hour labor laws. Relief is sought on behalf of
current and former Piercing Pagoda and Zale Corporation's
employees. The lawsuits seek to recover damages, penalties and
attorneys' fees as a result of the alleged violations.

Without admitting or conceding any liability, the Company reached
an agreement to settle the Hodge and Roberts matters for an
immaterial amount. Final approval of the settlement was granted on
March 9, 2015 and the settlement was implemented.

On April 1, 2015, Plaintiff filed Plaintiff's Notice of Motion and
Motion for Class Certification in the Naomi Tapia v. Zale
Corporation litigation. On May 22, 2015, the Company filed
Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification under Fed.R.Civ.Proc. 23 and Collective Action
Certification under 29 U.SC. Sec.216(b). Plaintiff filed her Reply
Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Class
Certification on June 3, 2015.

A copy of the Court's April 6 Order is available at
https://is.gd/3C2yJJ from Leagle.com.

Naomi Tapia, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Eric K. Yaeckel, Esq.
     Lara Ann Prodanovich, Esq.
     Clint S. Engleson, Esq.
     Sullivan Law Group, LLP
     2330 Third Avenue
     San Diego, CA 92101
     Telephone: (619) 702-6760

Zale Delaware Inc., Defendant, represented by Holger C Grossman
Besch -- hbesch@seyfarth.com -- Brian Patrick Long --
bplong@seyfarth.com -- Kristen Michelle Agnew --
kagnew@seyfarth.com -- and Michael F. Marino, III --
mmarino@seyfarth.com -- Seyfarth Shaw LLP, pro hac vice.


SIGNET JEWELERS: Appeal in Delaware Remains Pending
---------------------------------------------------
Signet Jewelers Limited said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that an appeal in the Supreme
Court of the State of Delaware in the litigation challenging the
company's acquisition of Zale Corporation remains pending.

Five putative stockholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Company's acquisition of Zale Corporation were filed in the Court
of Chancery of the State of Delaware: Breyer v. Zale Corp. et al.,
C.A. No. 9388-VCP, filed February 24, 2014; Stein v. Zale Corp. et
al., C.A. No. 9408-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Singh v. Zale Corp.
et al., C.A. No. 9409-VCP, filed March 3, 2014; Smart v. Zale
Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9420-VCP, filed March 6, 2014; and Pill v.
Zale Corp. et al., C.A. No. 9440-VCP, filed March 12, 2014
(collectively, the "Actions"). Each of these Actions was brought
by a purported former holder of Zale Corporation common stock,
both individually and on behalf of a putative class of former Zale
Corporation stockholders.

The Court of Chancery consolidated the Actions on March 25, 2014
(the "Consolidated Action"), and the plaintiffs filed a
consolidated amended complaint on April 23, 2014, which named as
defendants Zale Corporation, the members of the board of directors
of Zale Corporation, the Company, and a merger-related subsidiary
of the Company, and alleged that the Zale Corporation directors
breached their fiduciary duties to Zale Corporation stockholders
in connection with their consideration and approval of the merger
agreement by failing to maximize stockholder value and agreeing to
an inadequate merger price and to deal terms that deter higher
bids. That complaint also alleged that the Zale Corporation
directors issued a materially misleading and incomplete proxy
statement regarding the merger and that Zale Corporation and the
Company aided and abetted the Zale Corporation directors' breaches
of fiduciary duty.

On May 23, 2014, the Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs' motion
for a preliminary injunction to prevent the consummation of the
merger.

On September 30, 2014, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint
asserting substantially similar claims and allegations as the
prior complaint. The amended complaint added Zale Corporation's
former financial advisor, Bank of America Merrill Lynch, as a
defendant for allegedly aiding and abetting the Zale Corporation
directors' breaches of fiduciary duty. The amended complaint no
longer named as defendants Zale Corporation or the Company's
merger-related subsidiary. The amended complaint sought, among
other things, rescission of the merger or damages, as well as
attorneys' and experts' fees.

The defendant's motion to dismiss was heard by the Court of
Chancery on May 20, 2015.

On October 1, 2015, the Court dismissed the claims against the
Zale Corporation directors and the Company. On October 29, 2015,
the Court dismissed the claims against Bank of America Merrill
Lynch.

On November 30, 2015, plaintiffs filed an appeal of the October 1,
2015 and October 29, 2015 decisions of the Court of Chancery,
which is pending with the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware.
At this point, no outcome or possible loss or range of losses, if
any, arising from the litigation is able to be estimated.


SKY CHEFS: "Donnelly" Suit Seeks Damages Under Cal. Labor Code
--------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Donnelly, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sky Chefs, Inc., a Delaware business
entity, the Defendant, Case No. CIV538561 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6,
2016), seeks restitution, damages, civil penalties, and attorneys'
fees and costs, pursuant to the California Labor Code.

According to the complaint, Donnelly worked for the Defendant for
nearly 15 years, from October 12, 2000 to June, 2015, as the
regional Human Resources Manager for the San Jose and San
Francisco areas. The Defendant allegedly exhibited a pattern,
practice, and uniform administration of illegal corporate policies
with respect to employee compensation.

Sky Chefs is a global leader in airline catering.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Alan Harris, Esq.
          Priya Mohan, Esq.
          HARRIS & RUBLE
          655 North Central Avenue, 17th Floor
          Glendale, CA 91203
          Telephone: (323) 962 3777
          Facsimile: (323) 962 3004
          E-mail: aharris@harrisandruble.com
                  pmohan@harrisandruble.com


SPARK ENERGY: Defending Against "Melville" Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company intends to
file a response to class action complaint in due course in the
case, John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy
Gas, LLC.

John Melville et al v. Spark Energy Inc. and Spark Energy Gas, LLC
is a purported class action filed on December 17, 2015 in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
alleging, among other things, that (i) sales representatives
engaged as independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC
engaged in deceptive acts in violation of the New Jersey Consumer
Fraud Act, (ii) Spark Energy Gas, LLC breach its contract with
plaintiff, including a breach of the covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Plaintiffs are seeking unspecified compensatory and
punitive damages for the purported class, injunctive relief and/or
declaratory relief, disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and
attorneys' fees.


SPARK ENERGY: June 3 Hearing on "Amaya" Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
Spark Energy, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 24, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that a court has set a
hearing date of June 3, 2016 to hear any Motion for Class
Certification that Plaintiffs may file in the case, Arturo Amaya
et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC.

Arturo Amaya et al v. Spark Energy Gas, LLC is a purported class
action filed on May 22, 2015 in the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California alleging, among other
things, that certain door-to-door sales representatives engaged as
independent contractors for Spark Energy Gas, LLC allegedly
engaged in deceptive practices in violation of the California
Civil Code, California Unfair Competition Law, California False
Advertising Law and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act
while marketing Spark Energy Gas, LLC's gas services to consumers
in California.

On September 29, 2015, Spark Energy Gas, LLC filed a motion to
dismiss the complaint in its entirety and a motion to compel
arbitration in the case of one of the named plaintiffs. Plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages for the
purported class, injunctive relief and/or declaratory relief,
disgorgement of revenues and/or profits and attorneys' fees.

As reported by the Class Action Reporter on April 27, 2016, Judge
Jeffrey S. White denied the motion filed by Spark Energy Gas to
dismiss all claims in the first amended complaint and to compel
arbitration of the claims of plaintiff Barbara Gehrke.  Judge
White granted the plaintiffs' administrative motion to continue
the schedule for the briefing and hearing of the plaintiffs'
motion for class certification.  Judge White found that the
plaintiffs have shown good cause for continuing the class
certification hearing.  Additionally, Judge White agreed with the
plaintiffs that the question of whether to amend the complaint to
substitute proposed plaintiff Gabino Ortiz for deceased plaintiff
Margaret Smith should be resolved prior to briefing on class
certification.

The case is, ARTURO AMAYA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. SPARK ENERGY
GAS, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No. 15-cv-02326-JSW (N.D.
Cal.).

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

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

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


SPENDSMART NETWORKS: Defending "Marchelos" Complaint in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Spendsmart Networks, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on April 15, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the Company is defending
the complaint by Peter Marchelos.

On July 8, 2015, Intellectual Capital Management, LLC dba SMS
Masterminds and SpendSmart Networks, Inc. were named in a
potential class-action lawsuit entitled Peter Marchelos, et al v.
Intellectual Capital Management, et al, filed in the United States
District Court Eastern District of New York relating to alleged
violations of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991. This
litigation involves the same licensee and merchant as the Telford
lawsuit and the same attorneys represent the plaintiffs in this
action. The claim of one of the two plaintiffs was resolved for
$1,701.

The Company believes the Plaintiff's allegations have no merit.

The Company is a national full-service mobile and loyalty
marketing agency that offers a means for small and large business
owners alike to better connect with their consumers and generate
sales.


SPOKEO INC: Split Supreme Court Rejects "Robins" FCRA Appeal
------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
divided Supreme Court on May 16 held that Internet search engines
that post inaccurate information about people cannot be sued
unless the errors cause actual harm.

With their 6-2 ruling, the justice threw out an Ninth Circuit
ruling in favor of a Virginia man who sued Spokeo.com, a search
engine that aggregates information about individuals, after it
posted an online profile about him that was rife with errors.

Thomas Robins claimed the Spokeo profile was wrong about his age,
his level of education, his employment history and his marital
status.  According to his Spokeo profile, Robins' had a graduate
degree, was employed and making serious money, and was married
with children.

In reality, at the time his profile appeared, he was single,
unemployed, and looking for work.

Robins sued Spokeo in 2010, claiming in a class action filed under
the federal Fair Credit Reporting Act that the profile hurt his
job prospects.  The Act which requires consumer reporting agencies
to offer accurate information.

Under its terms, Robins stood to collect damages of up to $1,000
for each error, without having to show they caused him any harm.

U.S. District Judge Otis Wright dismissed Robins's first complaint
for lack of standing, and eventually did the same with an amended
complaint. The judge found that Robins had failed to show that he
had suffered any actual harm.

In February 2014, a Ninth Circuit panel revived the case, holding,
in the words of U.S. Circuit Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain, that "The
statutory cause of action does not require a showing of actual
harm when a plaintiff sues for willful violations," Judge wrote
for the panel.

"When, as here, the statutory cause of action does not require
proof of actual damages, a plaintiff can suffer a violation of the
statutory right without suffering actual damages," he added.

But Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that a
person cannot show an injury simply by claiming a "bare procedural
violation" of the credit reporting statute.

"Congress' role in identifying and elevating intangible harms does
not mean that a plaintiff automatically satisfies the injury-in-
fact requirement whenever a statute grants a person a statutory
right and purports to authorize that person to sue to vindicate
that right," Alito wrote.

Article III standing requires a concrete injury even in the
context of a statutory violation. For that reason, Robins could
not, for example, allege a bare procedural violation, divorced
from any concrete harm, and satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement
of Article III."

But Alito went on to acknowledge, in the very next paragraph of
his opinion, that "the risk of real harm" could be enough.

"For example, the law has long permitted recovery by certain tort
victims even if their harms may be difficult to prove or measure,"
he explained.  "Just as the common law permitted suit in such
instances, the violation of a procedural right granted by statute
can be sufficient in some circumstances to constitute injury in
fact.

"In the context of this particular case, these general principles
tell us two things: On the one hand, Congress plainly sought to
curb the dissemination of false information by adopting procedures
designed to decrease that risk," Alito said. "On the other hand,
Robins cannot satisfy the demands of Article III by alleging a
bare procedural violation. A violation of one of the FCRA's
procedural requirements may result in no harm."

He concluded: "Because the Ninth Circuit failed to fully
appreciate the distinction between concreteness and
particularization, its standing analysis was incomplete. It did
not address the question framed by our discussion, namely, whether
the particular procedural violations alleged in this case entail a
degree of risk sufficient to meet the concreteness requirement."

The ruling is considered a positive development for scores of
social media and technology firms, who feared that lawsuits over
minor mistakes could cost them hundreds of millions in damages.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote a dissent, which Justice Sonia
Sotomayor joined. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring
opinion.

In her dissent Ginsburg said Robins had shown he was harmed
because Spokeo's inaccuracies created the false impression he was
overqualified for work he was seeking or that he might be
unwilling to relocate for a job due to family.

"Robins would not qualify, the Court observes, if he alleged a
'bare' procedural violation . . . one that results in no harm, for
example, "an incorrect zip code," Ginsburg wrote. "Far from an
incorrect zip code, Robins complains of misinformation about his
education, family situation, and economic status, inaccurate
representations that could affect his fortune in the job market.

Quoting from an Amici Curiae brief filed by the Center for
Democracy & Technology, Ginsburg continued:

"Spokeo's inaccuracies bore on Robins' 'ability to find employment
by creating the erroneous impression that he was overqualified for
the work he was seeking, that he might be unwilling to relocate
for a job due to family commitments, or that his salary demands
would exceed what prospective employers were prepared to offer
him.'"

Therefore, she said, " I . . . see no utility in returning this
case to the Ninth Circuit to underscore what Robins' complaint
already conveys concretely: Spokeo's misinformation 'cause[s]
actual harm to [his] employment prospects.'"

A copy of the Supreme Court decision dated May 16 is available at
https://is.gd/C3OOe7 from Leagle.com.

Counsel to Robins:

     JAY EDELSON
     RAFEY S. BALABANIAN
     RYAN D. ANDREWS
     ROGER PERLSTADT
     EDELSON PC
     350 North LaSalle Street, Suite 1300
     Chicago, IL 60654
     Tel: (312) 589-6370

          - and -

     MICHAEL H. PARK
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     3 Columbus Circle, 15th Floor
     New York, New York 10019
     Tel: (212) 247-8006

          - and -

     WILLIAM S. CONSOVOY
     J. MICHAEL CONNOLLY
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     3033 Wilson Blvd, Suite 700
     Arlington, VA 22201
     Tel: (703) 243-9423
     E-mail: will@consovoymccarthy.com

          - and -

     PATRICK STRAWBRIDGE
     CONSOVOY MCCARTHY PARK PLLC
     Ten Post Offi ce Square,
     8th Floor South PMB #706
     Boston, MA 02109
     Tel: (617) 227-0548

Counsel to Spokeo:

     JOHN NADOLENCO
     Mayer Brown LLP
     350 South Grand Ave., 25th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 229-5173

          - and -

     ANDREW J. PINCUS
     ARCHIS A. PARASHARAMI
     STEPHEN LILLEY
     Mayer Brown LLP
     1999 K Street
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 263-3000

          - and -

     DONALD M. FALK
     Mayer Brown LLP
     Two Palo Alto Square
     3000 El Camino Real
     Palo Alto, CA 94306
     Tel: (650) 331-2000

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Pacific Legal Foundation:

     DEBORAH J. LA FETRA
     Pacific Legal Foundation
     930 G Street
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Telephone: (916) 419-7111
     Facsimile: (916) 419-7747
     E-mail: dlafetra@pacificlegal.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae ACA International:

     BRIAN MELENDEZ
     DYKEMA GOSSETT PLLC
     4000 Wells Fargo Center
     90 South Seventh Street
     Minneapolis, MN 55402
     Tel: (612) 486-1589
     E-mail: bmelendez@dykema.com

Counsel to Amicus Curiae Trans Union LLC:

     STEPHEN J. NEWMAN
     JULIA B. STRICKLAND
     JOSEPH E. STRAUSS
     STROOCK & STROOCK & LAVAN LLP
     2029 Century Park East, Suite 1600
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: (310) 556-5800
     E-mail: lacalendar@stroock.com

Counsel to Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America and
the International Association of Defense Counsel as Amici Curiae:

     KATE COMERFORD TODD
     TYLER R. GREEN
     NATIONAL CHAMBER LITIGATION CENTER, INC.
     1615 H Street, NW
     Washington, D.C. 20062

          - and -

     MARY-CHRISTINE SUNGAILA
     SNELL & WILMER L.L.P.
     600 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
     Costa Mesa, CA 92626

          - and -

     ROY T. ENGLERT, JR.
     ARIEL N. LAVINBUK
     ERIC A. WHITE
     ROBBINS, RUSSELL, ENGLERT, ORSECK, UNTEREINER & SAUBER LLP
     1801 K Street, NW, Suite 411L
     Washington, D.C. 20006
     Tel: (202) 775-4500
     E-mail: renglert@robbinsrussell.com

Counsel to Amici Curaie eBay Inc., Facebook, Inc., Google, Inc.,
and Yahoo! Inc., in support of Spokeo:

     FELICIA H. ELLSWORTH
     ERIC F. FLETCHER
     WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
     60 State Street
     Boston, MA 02109

          - and -

     PATRICK J. CAROME
     WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP
     1875 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
     Washington, DC 20006
     Tel: (202) 663-6000
     E-mail: patrick.carome@wilmerhale.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae Experian Information Solutions, Inc., in
support of petitioner:

     DANIEL J. MCLOON
     JONES DAY
     555 South Flower Street, 50th Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90071
     Tel: (213) 489-3939

          - and -

     MEIR FEDER
     RAJEEV MUTTREJA
     JONES DAY
     222 East 41st Street
     New York, NY 10017
     Tel: (212) 326-3939
     E-mail: mfeder@jonesday.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae, Consumer Data Industry Association, in
support of Spokeo:

     ANNE P. FORTNEY
     ALLEN H. DENSON
     HUDSON COOK, LLP
     1020 19th Street, NW, 7th Floor
     Washington, DC 20036
     Tel: (202) 223-6930
     E-mail: afortney@hudco.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae, The National Association of Professional
Background Screeners; The National Consumer Reporting Association;
and Precheck, in support of Spokeo:

     ANDY N. FERGUSON
     4000 Castlerock Rd
     Norman, OK 73072
     Tel: (405) 698-0263
     E-mail: Andy.Ferguson@ANF-Legal.com

          - and -

     CHRISTOPHER A. MOHR
     MEYER, KLIPPER & MOHR, PLLC
     923 15th Street, NW
     Washington, DC 20005
     Tel: (202) 637-0850
     E-mail: chrismohr@mkmdc.com

Counsel for Amici Curiae, New England Legal Foundation and
Associated Industries of Massachusetts, in support of Spokeo:

     Benjamin G. Robbins
     Martin J. Newhouse, President
     New England Legal Foundation
     150 Lincoln Street
     Boston, MA 02111-2504
     Tel: (617) 695-3660
     E-mail: benrobbins@nelfonline.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae, DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar:

     MARY MASSARON ROSS
     HILARY A. BALLENTINE
     PLUNKETT COONEY
     38505 Woodward Ave., Suite 2000
     Bloomfield Hills, MI 48304
     Tel: (313) 983-4801
     E-mail: mmassaron@plunkettcooney.com

          - and -

     J. MICHAEL WESTON
     President of DRI - The Voice of the Defense Bar
     LEDERER WESTON CRAIG, PLC
     118 Third Ave. SE, Suite 700
     P.O. Box 1927
     Cedar Rapids, IA 52406
     Tel: (319) 365-1184
     E-mail: mweston@lwclawyers.com

Counsel for Amicus Curiae, United States:

     MEREDITH FUCHS
     General Counsel
     TO-QUYEN TRUONG
     Deputy General Counsel
     JOHN R. COLEMAN
     Assistant General Counsel
     NANDAN M. JOSHI
     KRISTIN BATEMAN
     Consumer Financial
     Protection Bureau
     Washington, D.C. 20552

          - and -

     DONALD B. VERRILLI, JR.
     Solicitor General
     Counsel of Record
     MALCOLM L. STEWART
     Deputy Solicitor General
     ANTHONY A. YANG
     Assistant to the Solicitor
     General
     Department of Justice
     Washington, D.C. 20530-0001
     E-mail: SupremeCtBriefs@usdoj.gov
     Tel: (202) 514-2217


STARBUCKS CORP: Status Hearing in "Pincus" Suit Set for July 14
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Hon. Thomas M. Durkin ruled that a status hearing is set for
July 14, 2016, at 9:00 a.m., in the lawsuit titled Stacy Pincus v.
Starbucks Corp., Case No. 1:16-cv-04705 (N.D. Ill.).  Judge Durkin
also ruled that a joint status report is to be filed on or before
July 11, 2016.

Counsel for the Plaintiff and for the Defendant that has been
served with process or has appeared at least 28 days before that
Status Hearing Date are ordered to meet not later than 14 days
before the Status Hearing Date to comply with the provisions of
Rules 26(f) and 26(a)(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and the District Court's Local Rule 26.1.

Counsel for the parties are urged to undertake serious settlement
efforts before the scheduled Status Hearing when no major
investment in counsel's time (and client's money) has yet taken
place, Judge Durkin stated.  He added that if such efforts are
unsuccessful, counsel should be prepared to attend the scheduled
Status Hearing to discuss briefly their proposed discovery plan
and other subjects appropriate for inclusion in the scheduling
order as referred to in Rule 16(b).

A copy of the Order is available at no charge at
http://d.classactionreporternewsletter.com/u?f=0jmg39NF


SUMMIT COLLECTION: Faces "Rosen" Suit in D.N.J.
-----------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Summit Collection Services, Inc.
The case is captioned Michael A. Rosen, on behalf of himself and
those similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Summit Collection
Services, Inc., and John Does 1-10, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-
cv-02640-KM-MAH (D.N.J., May 10, 2016). The Assigned Judge is Hon.
Kevin McNulty.

Summit Collection is a small organization in the adjustment and
collection services industry located in Ho Ho Kus, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


SUNRUN INC: Faces "Nunez" Suit Over False Registration Statements
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jackie L. Nunez, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Sunrun Inc., Lynn Jurich,
Bob Komin, Edward Fenster, Jameson Mcjunkin, Gerald Risk, Steve
Vassallo, Richard Wong, Beau Peelle, Efren Omer Atesmen, Reginald
Norris, William Elmore, Foundation Capital VI, L.P., Foundation
Capital Management Co. VI, LLC, Credit Suisse Securities (USA)
LLC, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Merrill
Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, RBC Capital Markets,
LLC, Keybanc Capital Markets Inc., Suntrust Robinson Humphrey,
Inc. and Does 1- 25, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No. CIV538593
(Cal. Super. Ct. May 10, 2016), seeks to pursue remedies under the
Securities Act of 1933.

This securities class action was brought on behalf of all those
who purchased Sunrun common stock pursuant or traceable to
Sunrun's August 5, 2015 initial public stock offering (IPO).
Immediately after NV Energy's filing with the Nevada PUC, Sunrun
rushed to commence its IPO. On or about August 5, 2015, Sunrun,
the Selling Stockholders, the Venture Capital Defendants and the
Underwriter Defendants priced the IPO at $14 per share, filed with
the SEC the final prospectus for the IPO (Prospectus), which forms
part of the Registration Statement, and sold 17.9 million shares
of Sunrun common stock to the investing public. The complaint says
the Registration Statement was negligently prepared and, as a
result, contained untrue statements of material facts or omitted
to state other facts necessary to make the statements made not
misleading, and was not prepared in accordance with the rules and
regulations governing its preparation.

Sunrun is a provider of residential solar electricity.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          James I. Jaconette, Esq.
          ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN DOWD LLP
          600 West Broadway, Suite 1900
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 231 1058
          Facsimile: (619) 231 7423


TAILORED BRANDS: Still Defends Lucas-Salerno Class Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
Tailored Brands, Inc. said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on March 25, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended January 30, 2016, that the Company intends to
vigorously defend against the lawsuit by David Lucas and Eric
Salerno.

On July 9, 2014, David Lucas and Eric Salerno, on behalf of
themselves and all California residents similarly situated, filed
a putative class action Complaint against Jos. A. Bank in the U.S.
District Court for Southern California (Case No. '14CV1631LAB
JLB). The Complaint alleges, among other things, that Jos. A. Bank
violated the California Unfair Competition Law and the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act with its comparative price
advertising, price discounts and free apparel promotions. The
Complaint seeks, among other relief, certification of the case as
a class action, permanent injunction, actual and compensatory
damages, restitution including disgorgement of profits and unjust
enrichment, costs and attorney fees.

"We intend to vigorously defend the case. The range of loss, if
any, is not reasonably estimable at this time. We do not currently
believe, however, that it will have a material adverse effect on
our financial position, results of operations or cash flows," the
Company said.


TUBULAR SOLUTIONS: Joint Bid for Conditional Certification Filed
----------------------------------------------------------------
The parties jointly ask the Court for conditional certification,
as a class action, of the lawsuit entitled RICKY DUCOTE,
Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. TUBULAR
SOLUTIONS, INC., Case No. 4:15-cv-02557 (S.D. Tex.).

Mr. Ducote sued TSI alleging violations of the overtime provisions
of the Fair Labor Standards Act.  Specifically, he alleges TSI
paid day rate with no overtime pay for hours he worked over 40 in
a workweek.  He also alleges that other employees are owed
overtime for the same reasons and, therefore, filed the Case as a
collective action pursuant to Section 216(b) of the Fair Labor
Standards Act.

TSI denies Mr. Ducotes' allegations and alleges it properly paid
him all sums to which he was legally and contractually entitled.

The Parties have agreed to stipulate to conditional certification
of a class consisting of all TSI's:

     Field service employees (including but not limited to
     "Thread Reps," "Torque-Turn Operators," "Thread Inspectors,"
     "Technicians," and other "Service Representatives") who were
     employed within the last 3 years and paid according to TSI's
     "daily rate" pay plan.

The Parties have further agreed that the issuance of an approved
notice is appropriate.  Accordingly, the Parties jointly seek
authorization to send their proposed notice and consent form to
the potential class members and their proposed e-mail distribution
language.

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

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          David I. Moulton, Esq.
          BRUCKNER BURCH PLLC
          8 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1500
          Houston, TX 77046
          Telephone: (713) 877-8788
          Facsimile: (713) 877-8065
          E-mail: rburch@brucknerburch.com

               - and -

          Michael A. Josephson, Esq.
          Andrew W. Dunlap, Esq.
          FIBICH, HAMPTON, LEEBRON, BRIGGS & JOSEPHSON, LLP
          1150 Bissonnet
          Houston, TX 77005
          Telephone: (713) 751-0025
          Facsimile: (713) 751-0030
          E-mail: mjosephson@fhl-law.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          M. Carter Crow, Esq.
          NORTON ROSE FULBRIGHT US LLP
          Fulbright Tower
          1301 McKinney, Suite 5100
          Houston, TX 77010
          Telephone: (713) 651-5218
          Facsimile: (713) 651-5246
          E-mail: Carter.crow@nortonrosefulbright.com


TWINLAB CONSOLIDATED: Providing Indemnity in "Mathews" Case
-----------------------------------------------------------
Twinlab Consolidated Holdings, Inc., pursuant to contractual
obligations, is providing indemnity and defense with respect to
certain of the claims in the case, Amy Mathews v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc. and Wal-Mart Stores Arkansas LLC, Case No. CV-2015-0294, in
the Circuit Court of Independence County, Arkansas, Civil
Division, the Company said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on April 14, 2016, for the
fiscal year ended December 31, 2015.

This purported class action alleges a violation of the Arkansas
Deceptive Trade Practices Act based on the same allegations of the
state attorney general that serve as the basis for the claims in
the Herbal Supplements multidistrict litigation, and seeks
certification of a class of Arkansas residents purportedly
impacted by the allegations. The Company is not a party to this
litigation but provides indemnity and defense with respect to
certain of the claims in this litigation.


U S BANK: "Anderson" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to E.D. Ark.
----------------------------------------------------------
Cleo Anderson and Dottie Anderson, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, the plaintiff, v. U.S. Bank
National Association and U.S. Bancorp, the Defendant,
Case No. 62-CV-16-00075, was removed from St. Francis County
Circuit Court, to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District
Court of Arkansas (Little Rock). The Eastern District Court
assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00245-JM to the proceeding. The Assigned
Judge is Hon. James M. Moody Jr.

U.S. Bank provides commercial banking services for individuals,
businesses, and institutions.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          David A. Hodges, Esq.
          DAVID HODGES LAW OFFICE
          212 Center Street, Suite 500
          Little Rock, AR 72201
          Telephone: (501) 374-2400
          Facsimile: (501) 374 8926
          E-mail: david@hodgeslaw.com

               - and -

          Louis A. Etoch, Esq.
          ETOCH LAW FIRM
          Post Office Box 100
          Helena-West Helena, AR 72342-0100
          Telephone: (870) 338-3591
          Facsimile: (870) 338-7201
          E-mail: louis@etochlaw.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          David L. Williams, Esq.
          KUTAK ROCK LLP
          124 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2000
          Little Rock, AR 72201-3740
          Telephone: (501) 975-3109
          Facsimile: (501) 975-3001
          E-mail: david.williams@kutakrock.com


UNITED COLLECTION: Faces "Neuhaus" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against United Collection Bureau, Inc.
The case is captioned David Neuhaus, on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated consumers, the Plaintiff, v. United
Collection Bureau, Inc., the Defendant, Case No. 1:16-cv-02279
(E.D.N.Y., May 6, 2016).

United Collection provides debt collection and accounts receivable
management services.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


UNITED STUDENT FUNDS: High Court Won't Hear Student-Loan Case
-------------------------------------------------------------
Dan McCue, writing for Courthouse News Service, reported that a
divided Supreme Court on May 16, declined to wade into a dispute
over the rules governing the rehabilitation of student loans after
a default, prompting a sharp rebuke from Justice Clarence Thomas
in dissent.

Bryana Bible, of Ramsey County, Minnesota, obtained a student loan
under the federal Family Education Loan Program and defaulted on
that loan in 2012. Bible immediately entered into a loan
rehabilitation program.

As recounted in her complaint, Bible understood that her loan
would be taken out of default if she made nine on-time payments
within a ten-month period. Typically loan's like Bible's are held
by a guaranty agency. Once the default is removed, it is generally
resold to a commercial lender.

Bible believed that under the terms of the rehabilitation program
approved by the U.S. Department of Education, her payments would
be "reasonable and affordable" in line with her current disposable
income and expenses.  She also stated she took that to mean she
would not be charged collection fees as she made the payments to
bring her loan up to date.

However, she says rather than help her get her student loan back
on track, defendant United Student Aid Funds improperly inflated
the amount she owned by unlawfully imposing collection costs on
each of her nine payments.

Bible claimed she made nine payments of $450 each, from which
United Student Aid Funds allocated $374 to the interest on her
loan, and $76 to the allegedly unauthorized collection costs.

As a result, she said, none of the money she paid was allocated to
paying down the principle of her student loan.

Bible said not only has this made it harder for her to repay her
loan, but that if and when the defendant sold the loan to a
private lender, the loan balance would be at least 18.5 percent
higher than it should be.

All this was done, she contended, because the "improperly
inflated" balance will allow the defendant to receive a higher
price for her loan from a private lender.

Bible filed a class action against United Student Funds in April
2013, but a federal judge ultimately granted the defendant's
motion to dismiss the case. In doing so the court reasoned that
Bible's claims were preempted by the Higher Education Act, which
does not provide a private right of action.

The court also held in the alternative that Bible's claim failed
on its face because both the Higher Education Act and the Federal
Stafford Loan Master Promissory Note, the form governing her loan,
expressly permit the imposition of collection fees against
borrowers who default on their loans.

The court went on to toss a RICO claim Bible had advanced, holding
that he failed to show there was a scheme to defraud her or that
the interstate mails or wires were used to carry out such a
scheme.

A divided Seventh Circuit reversed, concluding that neither of
Bible's claims was preempted by the Higher Education Act. In
regard to her breach of contract claim, the three-judge appellate
panel found there was no conflict between her claim and federal
law.  In fact, it said, Bible's interpretation of the applicable
statutes and regulations was consistent with that of the secretary
of education.  As for RICO claim, the Seventh Circuit said Bible's
allegations were sufficient to allow the case to proceed,

"It remains to be seen whether she can marshal evidence to support
her claim, but that's a matter for further proceedings in the
district court," wrote U.S. Circuit Judge David Hamilton on behalf
of the panel majority.

While the two other members of the panel concurred with Hamilton
to an extent both also expressed reservations, particularly in
regard to the Education Department's interpretation of the rules
regarding collection costs and whether the department's
interpretation should be given deference.

That was the critical question United Student Aid Funds wanted the
Supreme Court to consider. The justice who declined to grant
certiorari did not explain their rationale for doing so.

But Justice Clarence Thomas blasted his colleagues, accusing them
of choosing to sit "idly by" while "[h]e who writes a law" also
"adjudges its violation" -- a line borrowed from an earlier
dissent written by the late Antonin Scalia.

Thomas said in his view, the question of deference to an agency's
interpretation to its own rules as spelled out in two prior
Supreme Court decisions, Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole
Rock & Sand Co., is worthy of review.

"The doctrine of Seminole Rock deference (or, as it is sometimes
called, Auer deference) permits courts to defer to an agency's
interpretation of its own regulation 'unless that interpretation
is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,'" Thomas
wrote.

"Any reader of this Court's opinions should think that the
doctrine is on its last gasp. Members of this Court have
repeatedly called for its reconsideration in an appropriate case,"
he said, adding "The doctrine has metastasized . . . and today
'amounts to a transfer of the judge's exercise of interpretive
judgment to the agency.'"

This case, Thomas said, is emblematic of the failings of Seminole
Rock deference.

"Here, the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit deferred to
the Department of Education's interpretation of the regulatory
scheme it enforces -- an interpretation set forth in an amicus
brief that the Department filed at the invitation of the Seventh
Circuit.

For the reasons stated in Judge Daniel Manion's partial dissent,
"the Department's interpretation is not only at odds with the
regulatory scheme but also defies ordinary English. More broadly,
by deferring to an agency's litigating position under the guise of
Seminole Rock, courts force regulated entities like petitioner
here to 'divine the agency's interpretations in advance,' lest
they 'be held liable when the agency announces its interpretations
for the first time' in litigation," Thomas wrote.

"By enabling an agency to enact 'vague rules' and then to invoke
Seminole Rock to 'do what it pleases in later litigation, the
agency (with the judicial branch as its co-conspirator)
'frustrates the notice and predictability purposes of rulemaking,
and promotes arbitrary government,'" he concluded. "This is the
appropriate case in which to reevaluate Seminole Rock and Auer."

The case is, UNITED STUDENT AID FUNDS, INC. v. BRYANA BIBLE, 578
U. S. ____ (2016)


WEATHERFORD INT'L: "Sheppard" Suit Seeks Relief Under FLSA
----------------------------------------------------------
Mitch Sheppard, individually and on behalf of all persons
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Weatherford international,
LLC f/k/a Weatherford International, Inc., the Defendant, Case No.
4:16-cv-01316 (D. Col., May 10, 2016), seeks all available relief
under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (FLSA), and the laws of
the state of North Dakota.

According to the complaint, Weatherford paid Plaintiff and the
FLSA Class a set salary per week, plus a lump sum payment for
every day they worked in the field, regardless of the number of
hours that Plaintiff and the FLSA Class actually worked.
Weatherford paid Plaintiff and the FLSA Class these payments, even
though Plaintiff and the FLSA Class do not work a fixed regular
number of hours in excess of 40 hours each workweek.

Weatherford maintains its corporate headquarters in Houston,
Texas. The Company provides equipment and services used in the
drilling, evaluation, completion, production, and intervention of
oil and natural gas wells worldwide.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Steven L. Woodrow, Esq.
          Megan L. Lindsey, Esq.
          EDELSON PC
          999 18th Street, Suite 3000
          Denver, Colorado 80202
          Tel: 303.357.4877
          Fax: 312.589.6378
          E-mail: swoodrow@edelson.com
                  mlindsey@edelson.com

               - and -

          Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
          Sarah R. Schalman-Bergen, Esq.
          Alexandra L. Koropey, Esq.
          BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103
          Telephone: (215) 875 3000
          Facsimile: (215) 875 4604
          E-mail: scarson@bm.net
                  sschalman-bergen@bm.net
                  akoropey@bm.net

               - and -

          David A. Hughes, Esq.
          HARDIN & HUGHES, LLP
          2121 14th Street
          Tuscaloosa, AL 35401
          Telephone: (205) 344 6690
          Facsimile: (205) 344 6188
          E-mail: dhughes@hardinhughes.com


WHOLE FOODS: Sued in Cal. Super. Ct. Over Bait & Switch Scheme
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marc Cohen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., a
Texas corporation; Whole Foods Market California, Inc. a
California corporation; and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendants,
Case No. BC619312 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 6, 2016), seeks actual
damages; injunction permanently enjoining Defendant from engaging
in misleading advertising practices; civil penalties; payment of
costs; payment of attorney's fees; interest as permitted by law;
and any other and further relief the court may deem proper.

The lawsuit is about Whole Foods engaging in a classic bait and
switch scheme. Whole Foods markets certain vintages of particular
wines as having a high numerical rating, but when customers
purchase those wines, they are actually given a different wine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Ari Dybnis, Esq.
          Scott C. Glovsky, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SCOTT GLOVSKY, APC
          100 E. Corson Street, Suite 200
          Pasadena, CA 91103
          Telephone: (626) 243 5598
          Facsimile: (866) 243 2243
          E-mail: adybnis@scottglovskylaw.com
                  sglovsky@scottglovskylaw.com


                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *