CAR_Public/160531.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

              Tuesday, May 31, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 108




                            Headlines


3M COMPANY: "Bhatia" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns
ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Louisiana
ADECCO USA: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Silva" Suit Claims
AIR & LIQUID: Faces "August" Suit in New Jersey Court
AIRBNB: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action in Washington D.C.

AIR INDIA: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $12.5 Million
AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Frozen Food Items Due to Listeria
ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Moot Class Action Claims
AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: Court Allows Plaintiffs to Choose Class
ALPHABET INC: Faces Derivative Suit Over Antitrust Charges

ARIZONA: Prisons Ordered to Improve Inmate Health Care Quality
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Adams" Suit Over FCRA Violation
BELGIUM: Inmates to File Class Action Over Poor Living Conditions
BESTAR INC: Recalls Juvenile Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard
BLUE BUFFALO: Judge Approves $32MM Class Action Settlement

CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Awaits Certification of Class Action
CANADA: Settles B.C. MSP Class Action for $7.5 Million
CAPITAL BUILDING: Settles Janitors' Wage Theft Class Action
CARAMEL FACTORY: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Milk & Soy
CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking "Enea" Class Allegations Upheld

CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Class Action Goes to Arbitration
CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Class Action Appeal Pending
CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Namdar" Action Says
CJ DANNEMILLER: Recalls Roasted Sunflower Kernels Due to Listeria
COMMUNITY COALITION: "Brewer" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

COX COMMUNICATIONS: Timely Notice of Removal Debars Reinstatement
CYTRX CORPORATION: $4-Mil. Class Settlement Has Final Approval
DAKOTA STYLE: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Favors Disabled Children
DYNAMIC PET: Sued Over "Needlike Shards" in Ham Bone for Dogs

E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Class Action Appeal to Continue
E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Rayner" Class Action
EEG INC: Judge Ruled on the Parties' Motions in "Mitchell" Suit
ELWYN: "Byrd" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
ELWYN: "Tate" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

ES FOODS: Recalls Meal Break Products Due to Sunflower Seeds
FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants Bid for Attorneys' Fees in "Bohannon"
FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Private Scanning Message Suit
FAST RIG SUPPORT: Stipulated Judgment in "Mazzarella" Affirmed
FIFTH THIRD: July 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set

FINISH LINE: Settlement in "Arreola" Case Has Final Approval
FIRST MERCURY: Appeals Panel Expresses Concern on Junk TCPA Suits
FIRST NATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Davis" Suit Claims
FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morris" Suit Claims
FIRST SOURCE: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria

FITBIT: Study Shows Gadget Heart Rate Readings Inaccurate
FORD MOTOR: Summary Judgment Granted in Part in "Daniel" Suit
FRONTIER COMMS: Customers Fight Bid to Arbitrate False Ad Claims
FRONTIER CO-OP: Recalls Organic Hojicha Tea Due to Salmonella
GENERAL MILLS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cheerios Labeling Suit

GENERAL MOTORS: Unveils Fuel Economy Claims Compensation Plan
GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Backlash Over Mileage Misstatements
GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Asian Salad Kits Due to Allergens
GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Pending
GRETNA, LA: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Enforcement Ordinance

HICKORY HARVEST: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products
HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: In Class Action Settlement Talks
HMSHOST: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria
HY-VEE: Recalls Fried Rice Products Due to Listeria
HY-VEE INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria

ILLINOIS: Mental Health Overhaul Begins Following Settlement
INDIANA: AHA Taps Barnes & Thornburg to Defend Class Action
INTERLINE BRANDS: Judge Trims "Ajose" Class Suit
JAKARTA: Governor Won't Hinder Luar Batang Class Action
JONES FINANCIAL: Motion to Transfer "Ezersky" Denied

JORGE GARCIA: Homeowners File Class Action Over Property Damage
JP MORGAN: "Friedman" Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed
KROGER CO: Recalls Organic Mixed Vegetables Due to Listeria
LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Settlement Has Final Okay
LYFT INC: Faces "Zamora" Class Suit in N. District California

MCCALL FARMS: Recalls Frozen Yellow Cut Corn Due to Listeria
MDL 2159: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Moved to July 8
MDL 2551: Court Says NHL's Bid to Dismiss Injury Suit "Premature"
MDL 2583: Judge Narrows Claims in Customer Data Breach Suit
MDL 2641: "Fraser-Johnson" Suit Remanded to Delaware

MDL 2641: "Wolfe" Suit Remanded to Mahoning County
MEDICAL RECORDS: Court Refuses to Enforce Class Action Waiver
MONTERO FARMS: Recalls Orange Habanero Peppers Due to Salmonella
NAPLES, FL: Faces Age, Sex Discrimination Class Action
NAT'L BROADCASTING: Biggest Loser Contestants Mull Class Action

NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Maine Woman Files Debt Collection Class Action
NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two Ex-Players Remove Name from Concussion Suit
NAVISTAR INT'L: Court Vacates Findings in "Whitfield"
NEVADA: Suit Filed Over Automobile Medical Payments
NEWLINK GENETICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against "Castillo" Action
ONEOK INC: Settlement Reached in Gas Index Pricing Litigation
PAPA JOHN'S: Recalls Oriental Salad Products Due to Listeria
PERRIGO CO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in N.J.
PG&E CORP: 32 Complaints Filed in Connection With Butte Fire

PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Metal Halide Lamps Due to Burn Hazard
PONTIAC, IL: Court Severs RLUIPA Claim From "Coleman" Suit
PRECISION CASTPARTS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Pollution
PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Cranberry Nut and Seed Mix Due to Listeria
QUAKER OATS: Recalls Quinoa Granola Bars Due to Sunflower Kernels

RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
RICOH INDIA: InGovern Says Class Action Suit Should Be Taken
RIXSON OF MONROE: Recalls Exterior Gate Closers
ROCKWELL INT'L: Settles Rocky Flats Class Action for $375MM

ROYAL COACHMAN: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
SEMPRA ENERGY: 138 Cases Filed Related to Gas Leak
SENECA COAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
SHAPIRO BROWN & ALT: "Burke" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
SOS TELECOM: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sildenafil

SPRINGFIELD, MA: Public Schools Sued Over ADA Violations
SPROUTS FARMERS: "Castellano" Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Cal
ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Underfunded Pension Plan
STAHLBUSH ISLAND: Updates Green Bean Packages Recall
STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Pagoaga" Suit in California Court

SUNOPTA INC: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall
SYNAPSE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal of Subscription
TD BANK: Pulls Plug on Penny Arcade Coin-Counting Machines
TD BANK: "Spector" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey
TOSHIBA CORP: Court Dismisses "Stoyas" Securities Action

TRANSNET: Court Tosses Bulk of Exceptions to Pensioners' Claims
TREEHOUSE FOODS: Expands Sunflower Kernel Product Recall
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lyft Drivers File Class Action in California
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Drivers' Wage Class Suit in Arizona
ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Recalls Amino Gold Supplements Due to Milk

UNITED FURNITURE: Previously Reached Agreement Not Honored
UNITED KINGDOM: Hearing Scheduled for Mau Mau Insurgency Suit
UNITED NATURAL: Recalls Walnuts and Walnut-Containing Products
VENDING NUT: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products Due to Listeria
VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "Jenkins"

WATER HEATING: Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Risk
WCD KITCHEN: Recalls Kale & Edamame Salad Due to Salmonella
WELL CARE: Recalls Unexpired Sterile Compounded Products
WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Char" Suit Remanded to Cal. Super.
WILLMOTT FORESTS: Court Refuses to Approve Settlements

WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: "Bennti" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay

* Alabama Legislation Blunts Impact of Lisk ADTPA Ruling
* Australia's Class Action Landscape Evolving, Fed. Cases Steady
* Class Action Lawyers See Spike in Wage-and-Hour Litigation
* Frederick County Financial Advisers React to New Fiduciary Rule
* Illinois Biometric Law Sparks Wave of Privacy Class Actions

* Labor Protections Need for Independent Contractors, Warren Says
* New CFPB Rules No Major Impact on Local Community Banks


                            *********


3M COMPANY: "Bhatia" Sues Over Defective Dental Crowns
------------------------------------------------------
Vikram Bhatia, D.D.S., Jeffrey Chen, D.D.S., Bruce Sherrill,
D.D.S., Brookhaven Dental Associates, P.C., Johns Creek Dental
Associates, P.C., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. 3M Company, Defendant, Case No. 0:16-cv-
01304 (D. Minn., May 16, 2016) seeks temporary and permanent
enjoinment of 3M from selling Lava Ultimate products for use in
crowns; applicable statutory and civil penalties; pre-judgment and
post-judgment interest; attorney fees and costs and such other or
further relief resulting from breach of express/implied warranty
and for violation of the Minnesota Uniform Deceptive Trade
Practices Act and Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act.

Plaintiffs are dental practitioners who purchased defective dental
crowns from 3M. Lava Ultimate failed to affix to the crown as it
flexes when under pressure through recommended bonding or
cementation procedures.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Daniel C. Hedlund, Esq.
      Daniel E. Gustafson, Esq.
      Amanda M. Williams, Esq.
      David A. Goodwin, Esq.
      Eric S. Taubel, Esq.
      GUSTAFSON GLUEK PLLC
      Canadian Pacific Plaza
      120 South 6th Street, Suite 2600
      Minneapolis, MN 55402
      Telephone: (612) 333-8844
      Facsimile: (612) 339-6622
      E-mail: dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com
              dhedlund@gustafsongluek.com
              awilliams@gustafsongluek.com
              dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com
              etaubel@gustafsongluek.com

          - and -

      Warren T. Burns, Esq.
      Will Thompson, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      500 North Akard, Suite 2810
      Dallas, TX 75201
      Telephone: (469) 904-4550
      Facsimile: (469) 444-5002
      E-mail: wburns@burnscharest.com
              wthompson@burnscharest.com

          - and -

      Korey A. Nelson, Esq.
      BURNS CHAREST LLP
      365 Canal Street, Suite 1170
      New Orleans, LA 70130
      Telephone: (504) 799-2845
      Facsimile: (504) 881-1765
      E-mail: knelson@burnscharest.com

          - and -

      Charles D. Gabriel, Esq
      CHALMERS PAK, BURCH & ADAMS, LLC
      North Fulton Satellite Office
      5755 North Point Parkway, Suite 96
      Alpharetta, GA 30097
      Tel: (678) 735-5903
      Fax: (678) 735-5905
      Email: cdgabriel@cpblawgroup.com

          - and -

      David S. Corwin, Esq.
      Bradley A. Winters, Esq.
      Vicki L. Little, Esq.
      SHER CORWIN WINTERS LLC
      190 Carondelet Plaza, Suite 1100
      St. Louis, Mo. 63105
      Tel: (314) 721-5200
      Fax: (314) 721-5201
      E-mail: dcorwin@scwstl.com
              bwinters@scwstl.com
              vlittle@scwstl.com


ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE: Faces TCPA Class Action in Louisiana
---------------------------------------------------------
The Louisiana Record reports that a Lafayette man alleges a debt
collector reported a disputed debt on his credit report.

Earl R. Roberts filed a class-action complaint on April 25 in the
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against
Accounts Receivable Management Professional Services LLC and Alex
Briscoe, also known as Marcus Briscoe, alleging that they violated
the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges he informed the
defendants on June 10, 2015, that he did not owe the purported
debt.  The suit states that on June 12, 2015, he began receiving
numerous emails from the defendants in an attempt to collect and
requested the defendants to stop contacting him.

In July 2015, the suit states that the defendants credit reported
the alleged debt but did not report that the debt is disputed by
the plaintiff.  As a result, the plaintiff alleges he incurred a
higher interest rate when he purchased a car.

The plaintiff holds Accounts Receivable Management Professional
Services LLC and Alex Briscoe responsible because the defendants
allegedly never sent notice of his right to dispute and/or request
validation, called him on his cellphone even after his counsel
revoked any consent that he may have previously provided them and
used an automated voice mail message.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensation for
actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney fees, all costs
and expenses and for any and all other relief the court may deem
appropriate.  He is represented by Keren E. Gesund of Gesund &
Pailet LLC in Metairie.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana Case
number 6:16-cv-00555


ADECCO USA: Illegally Terminates Employees, "Silva" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cesar Silva, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Adecco USA, Inc., Empire Container Corporation, and
Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No. BC620148 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 11,
2016), arises out of the Defendants' unlawful practice of
terminating employees without prior notice.

Adecco USA, Inc. operates a staffing and recruiting company
located at 10151 Deerwood Park Blvd Building 200 Jacksonville,
Florida.

Empire Container Corporation manufactures premier corrugated
packaging, point of purchase displays, custom corrugated boxes and
folding cartons.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      THE NOURMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Blvd
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 553-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


AIR & LIQUID: Faces "August" Suit in New Jersey Court
-----------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Air & Liquid
Systems Corporation, As Successor-by-merger to Buffalo Pumps,
Inc.; CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc., Successor By Merger to
CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric Corporation;
Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and as Successor to Tappan and
Copes-Vulcan; Fmc Corporation, On Behalf of Its Former Chicago
Pump & Northern Pump Businesses; Foster Wheeler, L.L.C.

The case is captioned Martin August and Pauline August, H/W v. Air
& Liquid Systems Corporation, As Successor-by-merger to Buffalo
Pumps, Inc.; CBS Corporation f/k/a Viacom Inc., Successor By
Merger to CBS Corporation, f/k/a Westinghouse Electric
Corporation; Electrolux Home Products, Inc. and as Successor to
Tappan and Copes-Vulcan; FMC Corporation, On Behalf of Its Former
Chicago Pump & Northern Pump Businesses; Foster Wheeler, L.L.C.,
Case No. L-002784-16 (N.J. Super. Ct., May 11, 2016).

Air & Liquid Systems Corporation is an industrial equipment
supplier headquartered at 1680 S Livernois Rd, Rochester Hills, MI
48307.

CBS Corporation is a mass media corporation focused on commercial
broadcasting, publishing, and television production, with most of
its operations in the United States.

Electrolux Home Products, Inc. manufactures and markets home
appliances in North America.

Fmc Corporation chemical manufacturing company headquartered in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      F. Alexander Eiden, Esq.
      WEITZ & LUXENBERG
      200 Lake Drive East, Suite 205
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08002
      Telephone: (856) 755-1115


AIRBNB: Faces Race Discrimination Class Action in Washington D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Gillian Edevane, writing for Mashable, reports that an African-
American man who claims he was subjected to race-based
discrimination while using Airbnb slapped the company with a
proposed class action in a Washington D.C. federal court on
May 17, alleging that the company has routinely violated the Fair
Housing Act and the civil rights of people of color.

The complaint alleges that 25-year-old Gregory Seldon was denied
accommodation in Philadelphia in March 2015 due to his race.

Court documents state that he was looking for housing while
planning a weekend getaway with friends, and turned to Airbnb as a
cost-friendly option.  At the time, his Airbnb profile was linked
to his Facebook, so it displayed his profile picture, race,
education and age when he requested housing.

He claims an Airbnb host rejected his initial application but
subsequently accepted the same application when Mr. Seldon
re-applied using profiles imitating white men, one under the name
"Jessie" and another under the name "Todd."

The complaint also claims that the company "shamed Selden for
speaking out" when he complained about the discriminatory
practices.

The host agent balked at his claims and instead told Mr. Seldon
that "people like [him] were simply victimizing [himself],"
according to court documents.

Mr. Seldon is seeking injunctive relief and unspecified damages as
part of the class action.

This is not the first time Airbnb has been accused of not doing
enough on discrimination.

Mr. Seldon's story gained attention earlier this year when it
helped inspire the viral hashtag #AirbnbWhileBlack, in which a
flood of Twitter users shared stories about negative experiences
using the house-sharing app and website.

That conversation also builds on a 2014 Harvard study that found
"requests from guests with distinctively African-American names
are roughly 16% less likely to be accepted than identical guests
with distinctively white names."

For its part, Airbnb has emphatically denied that it condones
racism or discriminatory practices.  The company's anti-
discrimination policy states that it prohibits "content that
promotes discrimination, bigotry, racism, hatred, harassment or
harm against any individual or group, and we require all users to
comply with local laws and regulations."

Airbnb's director of public affairs reiterated the company's anti-
discrimination policy in an email to Mashable.

"While we do not comment on pending litigation, we strongly
believe that racial discrimination is unacceptable and it flies in
the face of our mission to bring people together," wrote
Nick Papas. ". . . We are taking aggressive action to fight
discrimination and eliminate unconscious bias in our community."

Mashable has reached out to Mr. Seldon's attorney for comment.


AIR INDIA: Settles Antitrust Class Action for $12.5 Million
-----------------------------------------------------------
Global Trade reports that Air India and Air New Zealand, the last
two defendants remaining among nearly three dozen air carriers
sued for antitrust violations, have agreed to settlements of $12.5
million and $35 million, respectively.

Those settlements bring the decade-long class action litigation to
a conclusion.  The plaintiffs' cumulative recoveries in the air
cargo shipping services litigation exceed $1.2 billion.

"After more than a decade of relentless effort, we are pleased to
add these final settlements to our existing recoveries and achieve
justice for those impacted by the defendants' alleged
anticompetitive practices," said Hollis Salzman, an attorney with
the Robins Kaplan law firm and co-lead counsel for the plaintiff
class.

Many of the world's largest airlines were named in the civil class
action lawsuit, which was scheduled for trial in September of 2016
in a federal court in New York.

The legal action was originally brought in February 2006 over an
alleged global conspiracy to artificially inflate the price of air
cargo services.  Eight years later, the plaintiffs had accumulated
settlements $750 million.  A year after that, total recoveries
topped $1 billion.

In October 2014, a federal magistrate recommended the
certification of a class of direct purchasers.  In July 2015, the
court certified the class.  In August of last year, the court
denied the remaining defendants' motions to dismiss the case
without trial and set a court date for September.

Earlier this year, Polar Air and Air China settled with the
plaintiffs, leaving Air India and Air New Zealand as only
remaining defendants.

In criminal antitrust probes running parallel to the civil case,
21 different air cargo providers pleaded guilty and have agreed to
criminal fines of more than $1.8 billion.

The Air India and Air New Zealand settlements are subject to final
approval by the court.  The civil litigation, titled In re Air
Cargo Shipping Services Antitrust Litigation, is pending before
the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New
York in Brooklyn.


AJINOMOTO WINDSOR: Recalls Frozen Food Items Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. is voluntarily recalling various Not-
Ready-To Eat frozen food items due to the potential for these
products to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. This
voluntary action is being undertaken in cooperation with the US
Food and Drug Administration because the recalled products contain
vegetables that are part of the recent CRF Frozen Foods recall.

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems.  Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

No illnesses to date have been reported to Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc.
for the products involved in this voluntary recall.

Products covered by this voluntary recall were distributed in the
U.S., Canada and Mexico, and include only those products listed
below currently in distribution and for sale.  Specific product
names and product information are listed below.  We have modified
the listing because we have identified five items that we
determined are not impacted by the recall and have removed them
from our list.

Other products regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) that contain meat and poultry products are also affected by
this recall and are subject to another recall announcement issued
from that agency. No other Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. retail or food
service-branded products are impacted by this voluntary recall.

Ajinomoto Windsor, Inc. is working with our customers to remove
the products from store shelves and distribution. Consumers who
have purchased these items are advised to discard them or return
them to the store where originally purchased.

Consumers with questions should call our Consumer Affairs Hotline
at (855) 742 - 5011, open between 7 AM to 5 PM PDT, Monday through
Sunday.

For media inquiries please contact Paul Taylor at (909) 477-4800.

We will be contacting our customers regarding specific lot codes
and shipments that are impacted by this recall.

  Product #    Description:                      Pack Size
  ---------    ------------                      ---------
  229650       WAHOO-BATTERED VEGGIE FRIES       6/2 lb. bags
  241120       FRED'S BATTERED CORN NUGGET       6/2 lb. bags
  241550       PONDEROSA BATTERED SWEET CORN     6/2 lb. bags
               NUGGET
  241620       GOLDEN VALUE BATTERED CORN        4/3 lb. bags
               NUGGET
  241720       FRED'S SPICY BREADED CORN NUGGET  6/2 lb. bags
               w/JALAPENO
  672685       MOLLY'S KITCHEN BATTERED SWEET    6/2 lb. bags
               CORN NUGGETS
  673692       MOLLY'S KITCHEN BATTERED          6/2 lb. bags
               VEGETABLE STICKS
  864964       MOLLY'S KITCHEN SPICY BREADED     6/2 lb. bags
               CORN NUGGET w/JALAPENO
  82070        TAI PEI MADE TO ORDER GARDEN      8/18 oz. pails
               VEGETABLE RICE
  82072        TAI PEI PDQ SHRIMP FRIED RICE     9/12 oz. pails
  7007700806   TAI PEI SHRIMP FRIED RICE         8/12 oz. pails
  7007701048   VIP-CORN CUT                      12/16 oz.
  7007701065   VIP-QP PETITE PEAS                12/16 oz.
  7007701248   VIP-CORN CUT                      12/32 oz.
  7007706448   VIP-STEAMWORKS ORGANIC SWEET      6 pk./24 oz.
               CORN
  7007706464   VIP-STEAMWORKS ORGANIC PEAS       6 pk./24 oz.
  7007706476   VIP-STEAMWORKS ORGANIC MIXED      6 pk./24 oz.
               VEGETABLES

  7007706548   VIP-STEAMWORKS SWEET CUT CORN     12 pk./12 oz.
  7007706576   VIP-STEAMWORKS MIX VEGETABLES     12 pk./12 oz.
  56857        OLD PARK SOUTHWEST VEGETABLE      162 ct./1.5 oz.
               SPRING ROLL
  5650053      AJINOMOTO VEGETABLE FRIED RICE    9 ct./3 lb. bags
  5650203      MINH VEGETABLE FRIED RICE         4 ct./3 lb. bags
  5650213      JADE MOUNTAIN VEGETABLE FRIED     4 ct./3 lb. bags
               RICE
  5650233      TRADER JOE'S VEGETABLE FRIED      24/1 lb. bags
               RICE
  5650243      FIRST STREET VEGETABLE FRIED RICE 12/1 lb. bags
  5650263      HY VEE FRIED RICE-VEGETABLE       12/1 lb. bags
  5650273      AJINOMOTO VEGETABLE FRIED RICE    9/3 lb. bags
  275720       Fred's Battered Green Beans       6/2 lb. bags
               (limited to date code 0945280
               on the master case)
  671850       Molly's Kitchen Battered Green    6/2 lb. bags
               Beans (limited to date code
               0945280 on the master case)


ALLSTATE INSURANCE: Loses Bid to Moot Class Action Claims
---------------------------------------------------------
Ashley Nakamura, Esq. -- anakamura@mofo.com -- of Morrison &
Foerster LLP, in an article for Lexology, reports that on
April 12, 2016, in Chen, et al. v. Allstate Insurance Co., No. 13-
16816, the Ninth Circuit considered whether an unaccepted offer of
judgment and tender of payment under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 68 to fully settle -- and thereby moot -- a plaintiff's
individual claims would also moot putative class action claims.
Relying on the Supreme Court's recent decision in Campbell-Ewald
Co. v. Gomez, 136 S. Ct. 663 (2016), Judge Raymond C. Fisher,
writing for the panel, held that an unaccepted offer and tender of
payment was not sufficient to moot a plaintiff's class action
claims.

On February 14, 2013, plaintiff Florencio Pacleb filed a class
action complaint against defendant Allstate in the Northern
District of California, alleging he received five phone calls from
Allstate in violation of the Telephone Consumers Protection Act
(TCPA).  In April 2013, Allstate made a Rule 68 offer of judgment
to plaintiff to settle his individual claims, plus injunctive
relief and attorneys' fees and costs.  Allstate deposited $20,000
in full settlement in an escrow account, to be paid to plaintiff
upon entry of a district court judgment.  When the offer elapsed
without a response from plaintiff, Allstate filed a motion to
dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that
because its Rule 68 offer would have satisfied all of plaintiff's
individual claims, his claims were effectively moot.  Allstate
also sought dismissal of plaintiff's class claims, arguing that if
plaintiff's individual claims were mooted, his class claims were
also mooted.  District Court judge Phyllis J. Hamilton denied
Allstate's motion to dismiss, and later granted its motion to
certify the issue for interlocutory appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Campbell-Ewald's Unanswered Question

While the court agreed with Allstate that its offer of judgment
would fully satisfy plaintiff's individual claims, it rejected
Allstate's argument that this mooted plaintiff's class claims. The
court relied on Campbell-Ewald to hold that an unaccepted offer of
judgment to settle individual claims does not moot class action
claims.

Campbell-Ewald left unanswered the question of whether the outcome
would be different if a defendant deposited the full settlement
amount into an account payable to plaintiff, and the court entered
judgment for plaintiff in that amount.  Allstate argued that
because it deposited the full amount of settlement funds --
$20,000 -- into an account payable to plaintiff upon entry of
judgment, plaintiff's individual and class claims were mooted.
Relying on Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081 (9th Cir.
2011), the court held that Allstate's tender of payment was
irrelevant, because even if plaintiff's individual claims were
fully satisfied, an unaccepted Rule 68 offer still would not moot
a class action, as long as the plaintiff could still file a timely
motion for class certification, which he could.

Alternate Reasons to Deny

The Court then offered two alternate reasons why plaintiff's
individual and class claims were not mooted by Allstate's offer of
judgment and deposit of funds into an account payable to
plaintiff.  First, the Court went on to say that even if Pitts
were not controlling, its ruling would not change.  Relying on
Campbell-Ewald, the Court held that a plaintiff is entitled to
decline an offer of judgment on individual claims in order to
pursue relief on behalf of a putative class.  To hold otherwise,
the Court reasoned, would allow defendants to use the mootness
doctrine to "pick off" named plaintiffs and deny them a fair
opportunity to pursue class-wide relief.

Second, the Court held that even if Allstate could moot an entire
class action by mooting a plaintiff's individual claims, here
plaintiff's claims were not mooted because under Campbell-Ewald,
plaintiff must actually receive all the relief to which he is
entitled.  Since Allstate's release of the $20,000 was contingent
on the district court's dismissal, plaintiff had not yet received
funds, and therefore had not received his entitled-to relief.

Takeaway

Judge Chen is one of several post-Campbell-Ewald cases rejecting
defendants' attempts to moot a putative class action by mooting
the named plaintiff's individual claims. See, e.g., Weitzner v.
Sanofi Pasteur, Inc., No. 14-3423, 2016 WL 1359220 (3d Cir. Apr.
6, 2016); Bais Yaakov of Spring Valley v. Graduation Source, LLC,
No. 14-cv-3232 (NSR), 2016 WL 872914, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 7,
2016); Brady v. Basic Research, L.L.C., 312 F.R.D. 304, 306
(E.D.N.Y. 2016). (See our Brady post here).

However, another judge in the Southern District of New York saw
things differently in Leyse v. Lifetime Entertainment Services,
LLC, No. 13 Civ. 574 (AKH), 2016 WL 1253607 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 17,
2016), holding that a defendant's payment of plaintiff's
individual claims plus court costs required entry of judgment.


AUSTRALIAN EXECUTOR: Court Allows Plaintiffs to Choose Class
------------------------------------------------------------
John Nucci, Esq. -- JFNucci@mintz.com -- of Mintz Levin, in an
article for JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that as securities
litigation becomes increasingly globalized, the Mintz Levin
Institutional Investor Class Action Recovery practice is
constantly monitoring and participating in jurisprudential
developments in a number of countries, both alone and through
collaboration with foreign counsel.  For example, in Australia,
where the procedure to consolidate cases is not uniform, some
securities class action cases may overlap, leaving issuers in the
undesirable position of having to defend against claims of
misrepresentation on two fronts.  This scenario recently played
out in New South Wales, where the Court found an interesting and
workable solution to a problem with concurrent class actions in
Smith v. Australian Executor Trustees Limited; and Creighton v.
Australian Executor Trustees Limited.

The Court's decision came in response to the filing of two
parallel class actions brought by the lead plaintiffs in both
Smith and Creighton against Australian Executor Trustees Limited
("AET").  Both cases arose from the collapse of Provident Capital
Limited ("Provident"), for which AET was a trustee.  Each class
was comprised of holders of Provident debentures, who argued that
they suffered losses due to AET's failure to exercise reasonable
diligence in ascertaining the financial position of Provident, and
alleged that AET failed to take steps to adequately protect their
interests.

While the claims of each class arose from the same basic set of
facts, there were several key differences between the classes.
Perhaps most relevantly, the Creighton class was "open," while the
Smith class was "closed."  As a result, every member of the Smith
class was necessarily a member of the Creighton class (but not
vice versa).  The precise legal theories relied on by each class
varied as well, and both classes claimed different losses based on
the date by which each argued AET should have begun to ensure that
a receiver was appointed for Provident.  In addition, counsel for
both classes operated under a different funding framework.

AET, unsurprisingly, was dismayed at the prospect of having to
defend against similar claims twice.  To that end, it argued that
one class should not be permitted to continue, or, in the
alternative, that both proceedings should be consolidated.
Creighton argued that the Smith claim, which was brought later,
should be stayed pending a decision on Creighton's claim.  Smith
argued that both proceedings should continue and be heard together
under an order that evidence in one action would be evidence in
the other.

The Court began with the uncontested notion that it has broad
powers of case management in class action litigation under
sections 166 and 183 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005. Essentially,
the Court has the general power to make orders it believes are
appropriate to ensure justice is done, including an order that one
or more actions no longer continue.  While nothing in the Civil
Procedure Act or any other Australian authority offered explicit
guidance regarding what should be done in this situation, the
Court listed and considered a number of factors relevant to
ordering consolidation, including 1) the experience of the
practitioners; 2) the costs to be incurred by each class; 3) the
terms of the funding for each class; 4) the nature and scope of
the causes of action and legal theories advanced in each claim; 5)
any conflicts of interest; 6) the size and involvement of the
proposed representative plaintiff; 7) the priority of commencement
of the actions; and 8) the status of each action. The Court dealt
with each consideration, but found that most of the factors were
either inapplicable or irrelevant.

The Court agreed with AET that it would be unjust to force AET to
defend against two class actions with overlapping class members;
as such an outcome would essentially force AET to defend the same
claims twice.  Thus, it was faced with three possible solutions to
this case management problem.  It could 1) consolidate the
proceedings; 2) allow only one proceeding to go forward; or 3)
make orders necessary to prevent debenture holders from being
members of more than one class.

The Court immediately ruled out the option of consolidating the
proceedings, particularly where counsel for each class was
uncooperative with each other.  In doing so, the Court showed a
reticence to force a consolidation on class members and counsel
where such an arrangement might lead to legal representation and
strategy that one class -- if not both classes -- did not plan on.
The Court also declined to stay one proceeding, as the Court
believed it would be inappropriate to choose one competing
proceeding over the other where both were properly brought.

As a result, the Court chose the option which would allow it to
perform the smallest amount of case management and decision-making
possible: ordering that members of the Smith class, who were
necessarily members of the Creighton class, could opt out of one
or both classes.  In the event that class members did not opt out,
the Court would order that they had opted out of Creighton. In
other words, a Smith class member could choose to be a member of
either the Smith class or the Creighton class, and in the event
they did not do so, the Court would choose the Smith class for
them.  The actions would then proceed together, with all evidence
in one action also entered in the other.

This result shows a real reluctance of the Australian Court to
exert any more case management over class actions than was
absolutely necessary, despite the fact that the Court had very
broad power to manage the cases as it saw fit.  The Court instead
fashioned a solution which would balance AET's right to not have
to defend a claim by the same plaintiffs twice with the
plaintiffs' right to choose the class, representation, and legal
theories they preferred.  That solution was, essentially, to stay
out of the way as much as possible.  It will be interesting to see
whether other jurisdictions follow the "hands off" approach of the
Court in Smith/Creighton going forward.


ALPHABET INC: Faces Derivative Suit Over Antitrust Charges
----------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that members of the
Alphabet Inc. board have been hit with a civil suit in California
state court accusing them of "recklessly" exposing the company to
billions in antitrust fines in the European Union.

The lawsuit, filed on May 23 by Robbins Arroyo partner
Brian Robbins, comes after the European Commission in late
April announced its preliminarily finding that Alphabet subsidiary
Google Inc. broke EU antitrust rules by bundling apps on its
Android mobile operating system.

Pre-loading Google apps on Android disadvantages developers of
competing mobile software, the commission says, although Google
has argued that consumers have a wide array of choices just a
couple of clicks away.  A Google spokesman declined to comment on
the case.

The suit, a derivative action filed in the name of an Alphabet
stockholder, alleges that Alphabet's board plowed ahead with those
practices knowing that the company was at risk for massive
regulatory penalties.  Under EU law, it notes, the company could
be on the hook for 10 percent of its global revenue -- or $7.4
billion.

"Since at least November 2010, Alphabet's board was aware that EU
regulators were formally investigating the company's European
business practices . . . . Nevertheless, the individual defendants
permitted Alphabet's unlawful and anticompetitive Android
practices to continue unabated for years," states the complaint,
filed in San Mateo County Superior Court.

The suit names as defendants Alphabet executives Larry Page,
Sergey Brin, Eric Schmidt and other board members including
John Doerr, a venture capitalist with Kleiner Perkins Caufield &
Byers.  The lawsuit accuses the defendants of violating their
fiduciary responsibility, wasting corporate assets and unjustly
enriching themselves.

It asks the court to award damages and to order the company to put
forward a reform plan for a stockholder vote, including a proposal
to overhaul Android's licensing and bundling practices.


ARIZONA: Prisons Ordered to Improve Inmate Health Care Quality
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a judge in a class-action
lawsuit that protests the quality of health care in Arizona's
prisons has ordered the state to improve medical and mental health
services for inmates after attorneys who won a settlement in the
case complained that officials were dragging their feet in making
required changes.

The order on May 20 from U.S. Magistrate Judge David Duncan
requires the state to come up with a plan for meeting settlement
requirements that set deadlines for when inmates are given
medications and seen by health providers.

Attorneys who represented the prisoners contend that the state's
prisons haven't improved since the October 2014 settlement, saying
Arizona has dramatically inflated its compliance figures and
failed to carry out many requirements called for by the agreement.

They cited a medical expert who said a 59-year-old man at a Yuma
prison with end-stage liver disease had died from complications
from a massive infection.  The expert said the prisoner's requests
for medical attention weren't heeded despite his claim that he was
bleeding in his legs and that his lesions were swarmed by flies.

"My best hope is that the state acknowledges the gravity of the
problem and also acknowledges that the solution to the problem is
more clinical staff," said Don Specter, one of the attorneys for
the inmates.  "They are way understaffed and can't provide
adequate care until they get more staff."

The Arizona Department of Corrections didn't immediately respond
to a request for comment on May 20.

The settlement was won on behalf of 33,000 Arizona inmates after
some complained that their cancer went undetected or they were
told to pray to be cured after begging for treatment.

As part of the settlement, state officials agreed to seek more
money from the Legislature to increase health care staffing, offer
cancer screenings to certain prisoners, follow requirements in
treating patients with chronic diseases and provide more out-of-
cell time to prisoners kept in isolation cells.

Lawmakers gave the Department of Corrections an additional $6.6
million in health care funding last year in response to the
settlement.

The lawsuit against Arizona Corrections Director Charles Ryan and
another prison official alleged the failure of medical staff at
one prison to diagnose the metastasized cancer of one inmate
resulted in his liver enlarging to the belly size of a pregnant
woman at full term.

It said another inmate with a history of prostate cancer had to
wait more than two years for a biopsy, and nothing was done for a
prisoner who suffered from depression and told staff members he
was suicidal before he killed himself.

Prison officials have denied the allegations and didn't
acknowledge any wrongdoing when making the settlement.

The prisoners weren't seeking money damages and instead asked for
a court order declaring that Arizona's prisons violated
constitutional guarantees against cruel and unusual punishment.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces "Adams" Suit Over FCRA Violation
-------------------------------------------------------
Sean Adams and Janaka Adams, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Bank of America,
Corporation, a Delaware Corporation and Does 1-10, inclusive,
Defendant(s), Case No. 3:16-cv-01178-H-BLM (S.D. Cal., May 16,
2016), seeks actual and punitive damages, civil penalties,
injunctive relief, attorney fees and costs, and other and further
relief for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act and the
California Consumer Credit Reporting Agencies Act.

Plaintiffs filed for bankruptcy protection in the United States
Bankruptcy Court and received a discharge of debt including that
with the Defendant. Plaintiffs allege that Bank of America, under
false pretenses and/or without a permissible purpose, obtained
each Plaintiff's personal credit information.

Bank of America Corporation is a Delaware corporation with
headquarters at 100 North Tryon Street, Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Deborah L. Raymond, Esq.
     LAW OFFICES OF DEBORAH L. RAYMOND
     445 Marine View Avenue, Suite 120
     Del Mar, CA 92014
     Tel: (858) 481-9559
     Fax: (858) 724-0747
     Email: draymondlaw@gmail.com

            - and -

     James A. Francis, Esq.
     John Soumilas, Esq.
     David A. Searles, Esq.
     FRANCIS & MAILMAN, P.C.
     Land Title Building, Suite 1902
     100 South Broad Street
     Philadelphia, PA 19110
     Telephone: (215) 735-8600
     Facsimile: (215) 940-8000
     Email: jfrancis@consumerlawfirm.com
            jsoumilas@consumerlawfirm.com
            dsearles@consumerlawfirm.com


BELGIUM: Inmates to File Class Action Over Poor Living Conditions
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sputnik reports that inmates of correctional facilities in
Brussels and the Belgian region of Wallonia intend to file a class
action against the Belgian authorities due to a sharp
deterioration in their living conditions caused by the ongoing
prison guards strike, a local law firm said on May 19.

According to Arnauts law firm, the exact number of prisoners who
will join the lawsuit is yet unknown, as its office continues to
receive phone calls from inmates.

Prison guards in Belgium have been on strike for 24 days in a
stand against an increase in the retirement age and staff shortage
issues that have led to extra shifts.

As a result of the strike, inmates have been deprived of regular
access to showers, walks and phone calls, which has led to riots
and several suicide attempts.

In recent weeks, courts have ordered Belgium to pay fines of up to
10,000 euros (some $11,300) over the deteriorating detention
conditions.


BESTAR INC: Recalls Juvenile Dressers Due to Entrapment Hazard
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bestar Inc., of Canada, announced a voluntary recall of about 26
Juvenile dressers (in addition, about 250 were sold in Canada).
Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise
instructed.  It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a
recalled consumer product.

The recalled dressers are unstable, posing a serious tip-over and
entrapment hazard that can result in death or serious injuries to
children.

This recall involves Bestar Dream Dressers. The dressers are
juvenile five-drawer dressers sold as part of the Juvenil four-
piece children's bedroom set. The dressers were sold in the colors
brown and white. The dressers are 48 inches high, 30 inches wide
and 16 inches deep, and weigh about 108 lbs. They have a melamine
resin surface and the drawer handles have a matte chrome finish.
The brown dresser is model number 49250-1152 and the white dresser
is model number 49250-1117. The model number is on the box and the
brochure. Both dressers have UPC number 63753045292 on the box and
the brochure.

None reported in the United States.  Health Canada has received
one report of a child in Canada receiving cuts and bruises from a
dresser that tipped over without a restraint strap attached.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/48Trv5

The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold Online
at appliancesconnection.com, Cymax.com and Wayfair.com from June
2014 through October 2015 for about $300.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled dressers and
place the furniture into areas that children cannot access.
Contact Bestar for a free repair kit containing two boards that
the consumer can attach to the back of the unit, screws, a metal
bracket tip-over restraint, a power drill and drill bit, new feet
for the dresser, new installation instructions and warning labels.
Bestar is offering free in home installation to any consumer who
needs help installing the repair kit. If a consumer is unable or
unwilling to install the repair kit, Bestar will pick up the
dresser and provide a full refund of the purchase price.


BLUE BUFFALO: Judge Approves $32MM Class Action Settlement
----------------------------------------------------------
Lisa Brown, writing for St. Louis Post-Dispatch, reports that
thousands of customers who bought mislabeled Blue Buffalo pet food
products will get a refund after a federal judge approved a $32
million settlement in St. Louis on May 19.

Connecticut-based Blue Buffalo admitted that some of its dog and
cat food contained poultry byproduct meal even though its bags and
marketing materials said they did not contain the ingredient.

"The company never had any intent to sell any product that was
mislabeled," Steven Zalesin, Blue Buffalo's attorney, said in
court on May 19.

Blue Buffalo maintains that it was defrauded by a supplier,
Wilber-Ellis Co., that provided the poultry byproduct meal and
mislabeled some of the ingredients shipped to its customers.

Several customers filed a lawsuit in federal court in St. Louis in
October 2014 seeking class action status, alleging Blue Buffalo's
True Blue Promise was misleading and that they paid a premium
price for the company's products based on the false information.
Blue Buffalo's True Blue Promise states its products don't contain
poultry byproducts or preservatives.

On May 19, U.S. District Judge Rodney Sippel approved a settlement
that gives Blue Buffalo customers who filed a claim up to $100 for
those without a receipt and up to $2,000 for those with a receipt
for products purchased between May 7, 2008 and Dec. 18, 2015.

More than 100,000 customers filed claims by the April 14 deadline.
The judge also approved attorney's fees and expenses for 25
percent of the settlement, or $8 million.

"We are very pleased that the judge analyzed the settlement and
confirmed our understanding that it provides a good result for the
class," said Scott Kamber, an attorney representing customers who
filed the lawsuit.  "This lawsuit goes a long way to demonstrating
an interest by consumers' attorneys and consumers that companies
are held accountable."

St. Louis-based Nestle Purina PetCare, the nation's largest pet
products company, sued Blue Buffalo in federal court in May 2014,
accusing Blue Buffalo of lying to customers about its use of
ingredients.

In that lawsuit, which remains pending, Purina alleged Blue
Buffalo's advertising falsely claimed Blue Buffalo's products were
superior to those of competitors, including Purina, and did not
contain chicken or poultry byproducts.

"We are pleased pet parents will finally see some resolution from
Blue Buffalo over the false statements they made about the
ingredients used in their pet foods," said Purina spokesman Keith
Schopp, calling it the largest pet food class action settlement on
record.  "We believe it's unfortunate that it took more than a
year after Blue Buffalo admitted their advertising was false --
and more than two years after Purina discovered these issues and
sued Blue Buffalo in a separate case -- to see Blue Buffalo take
responsibility and have this case settled."


CANADA: Ex-RCMP Officer Awaits Certification of Class Action
------------------------------------------------------------
Estefania Duran, writing for CKNW, reports that a former RCMP
officer who allegedly suffered years of sexual harassment while
working in Alberta, is still waiting for a class-action lawsuit to
be certified.

Krista Carle is one of the hundreds of female Mounties who claim
they've suffered harassment on the job.

"Madam Justice Gropper still hasn't rendered her decision yet.
We're hopeful maybe in the next month or so."

She has been waiting for an answer since 2011, but she says
they're not ready to give up.

"You see a lot of awful things in policing and I guess you expect
better behavior from members that you work with, and it's
disappointing and it definitely takes a toll on you.  At this time
there's over five hundred women involved in the class action
lawsuit in B.C. alone, and those numbers grow weekly."

She says unless the culture changes, complaints will continue to
surface.

"It still bothers me.  I would've loved to have stayed in for 25
to 30 years, but I simply had to get out of the organization
because it was making me sick."

Former RCMP Corporal Catherine Galliford reached an out-of-court
settlement in her sexual harassment lawsuit at the beginning of
May.


CANADA: Settles B.C. MSP Class Action for $7.5 Million
------------------------------------------------------
Katherine Dedyna, writing for Times Colonist, reports that a
proposed $7.5 million settlement has been reached in a class-
action lawsuit launched by a Cowichan emergency physician for
treatment fees denied by the province to doctors who cared for
patients not covered by the B.C. Medical Services Plan.

Dr. James Halvorson has fought for more than 18 years, making
scores of trips to the Lower Mainland, sometimes for days, to keep
the issue alive with the legal team handling the case.

"I'm very pleased with the co-operative approach the government is
taking in getting this thing wrapped up," Dr. Halvorson, 57, said
on May 20.  "It was delayed for an inordinate amount of time."

Doctors' bills submitted to the B.C. Medical Services Commission
were denied for patients who were in arrears with their MSP
premiums, had never enrolled in the plan or were not residents of
B.C., said Arthur Grant, one of a team of Vancouver-based lawyers
who worked on the case.

The notice of proposed settlement applies to any B.C. doctor who
billed on a fee-for-service basis from July 23, 1992 to April 30,
1996.

"It's been a long hard battle, for Dr. Halvorson and for us,"
Mr. Grant said.  "I want to emphasize he has stood by us and the
case throughout the whole path -- not an easy thing.

"I'm really glad that we're bringing this to an end and that the
doctors are going to get some recognition of their work."

The class action was certified against the commission and the B.C.
Attorney General on behalf of the Ministry of Health on
July 12, 2012, requesting compensation for "unjust enrichment" by
the province in not paying doctors for their work.

Lawyers for both sides entered into the settlement agreement
subject to the approval by B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elaine Adair
on July 11.  She will decide whether the proposal is "fair,
reasonable" and in the best interests of the doctors.  If
approved, the $7.5 million settlement will be binding on doctors
who apply as "full and final satisfaction" of the class members'
claims.

"This is a settlement, not an admission of liability," Mr. Grant
said.  However, he views it a "an important recognition" of
doctors' efforts on behalf of people who did not have health care
coverage.

Most doctors encountered some rejected claims as a result of B.C.
policies at the time, Mr. Grant said.  But the rate was far higher
for emergency-room doctors and plastic surgeons -- presumably
performing emergency treatment -- who had no way of checking
whether the people they treated had MSP coverage, he added.

If the proposal goes through, the amount of compensation MDs will
get will depend on how many doctors apply.

"We are really hopeful that the message gets out to many doctors -
- many of whom are retired now," Mr. Grant said.  "The whole idea
here is to acknowledge the contribution that physicians made
during that time period to British Columbia's medicare system,
without compensation."

The Ministry of Health said in a statement that since June 30,
1996, when B.C. changed its Medicare Protection Act, MSP became
mandatory for residents.  "A person can no longer have their MSP
coverage cancelled because their premiums are in arrears. . . .
So, in any situation, a person with MSP coverage would be
treated."

In emergencies, all people are treated regardless of their status,
for example non-residents of B.C., or their ability to pay.  In
non-emergency situations, non-residents are advised how much
treatment will cost and make an informed decision on whether they
wish to be treated or not.

The ministry said the province "strongly supports the use of
alternative dispute resolution in civil cases," noting that after
mediation in late 2015, the tentative agreement to settle the
claim with doctors was reached.  It did not respond as to why it
continued legal action for so many years before mediation.

"We've been in court so many times on this," Mr. Grant said.  "The
first certification hearing lasted eight days, which we lost in
2000.  We went to a four-day appeal and we won that in 2003 in the
B.C. Court of Appeal."

The $7.5-million proposal includes $2.5 million in legal fees for
Mr. Grant and many others who worked on the case.  Many documents
were not available until late in the game, he said, and a lot of
discoveries were made as they went along.  "It's occupied a lot of
my time and a lot of other people's time," Mr. Grant said.

B.C. now requires all residents to enrol in the MSP. People other
than seniors with adjusted net incomes above $30,000 pay full
premiums of $900 per year for a single person or $1,800 for a
family.

B.C. is the only province that requires people to pay premiums for
medical care. Other provinces roll payments into the tax system.


CAPITAL BUILDING: Settles Janitors' Wage Theft Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Angie Wieck, writing for Inforum, reports that janitors who are
sub-contracted to clean the Herberger's store in the Moorhead
Center Mall are now eligible to submit wage theft claims as part
of a $425,000 class-action lawsuit settlement against Capital
Building Services Group in Minnesota.

Workers will be allowed to review pay stubs and potentially file
claims for back wages and damages.

The janitors were assisted by the Minnesota Workers Center Centro
de Trabajadores Unidos en la Lucha.  According to a CTUL news
release, the organization has helped secure over $2 million in
back wages for working families in Minnesota.

Wage theft has been a problem for janitors who clean retail chains
in recent years.  A similar case was won in 2015 against Kinco
Services, the company that oversaw the cleaning of Kohl's, Home
Depot and other stores in the Twin Cities.  In that case, workers
complained of having to work up to 35 hours a week off the clock.

Claims should be submitted by Thursday, May 26, to Adam Hansent,
4600 IDS Center, 80 8th St. S., Minneapolis, MN 55402.


CARAMEL FACTORY: Recalls Chocolate Products Due to Milk & Soy
-------------------------------------------------------------
The Caramel Factory, LLC of Batesville, MS, is recalling the
following products for undeclared allergens:

Chocolate covered candies with undeclared milk and soy
  --- white and dark chocolate cashew turtles and tortoises
  --- white and dark chocolate pecan turtles and tortoises
  --- white and dark chocolate pecan krispie clusters
  --- white and dark chocolate peanut clusters
  --- white and dark chocolate cashew clusters

MS molded chocolate
  --- sugar free milk chocolate peanut cluster
  --- sugar free milk chocolate cashew cluster

Candies with undeclared milk and/or soy
  --- fudge
  --- pecan fudge
  --- peanut butter fudge
  --- sea salt caramel fudge
  --- salt water taffy

Rice Krispcicles
  --- Candies with undeclared tree nuts, soy, and/or milk
      pralines

Baked Goods with undeclared tree nuts, soy, milk, and wheat
cocoons

Candy with undeclared eggs and milk
  --- sugar free salt water taffy

Chocolate coated baked Goods with undeclared eggs, soy, wheat
and/or milk
  --- White Trash
  --- Oreos

Rice Krispcicles
  --- chocolate covered Twinkies
  --- chocolate covered pretzels

Baked goods with undeclared eggs, soy, wheat and/or milk
  --- caramel sugar cookies
  --- caramel cakes

Baked goods with undeclared eggs, tree nuts, soy, wheat and/or
milk
  --- turtle brownies
  --- praline cookies

People who have allergies to peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, soy,
and/or wheat run the risk of serious or life-threatening allergic
reaction if they consume these products.

These retail products were distributed from our retail store in
Batesville, MS prior to May 11, 2016.

The products are packaged, clear plastic packages with the name of
each product.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that these
products were distributed in packaging that did not declare these
allergens

Consumers who have purchased any of these products are urged to
return any unused product to us for a full refund. Consumers with
questions may contact the company at 1-662-563-9900, Monday
through Friday, 9:30 AM to 4:30 PM.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/Y0ALSP


CAREER EDUCATION: Order Striking "Enea" Class Allegations Upheld
----------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeals court
has upheld a lower court ruling striking class allegations in the
case, Enea, et al. v. Career Education Corporation, California
Culinary Academy, Inc., SLM Corporation, and Sallie Mae, Inc.

Plaintiffs filed this putative class action in the Superior Court
State of California, County of San Francisco, on or about June 27,
2013. Plaintiffs allege that California Culinary Academy ("CCA")
materially misrepresented the placement rates of its graduates,
falsely stated that admission to the culinary school was
competitive and that the school had an excellent reputation among
restaurants and other food service providers, represented that the
culinary schools were well-regarded institutions producing skilled
graduates who employers eagerly hired, and lied by telling
students that the school provided graduates with career placement
services for life. The class purports to consist of persons who
executed Parent Plus loans or co-signed loans for students who
attended CCA at any time between January 1, 2003 and December 31,
2008. Plaintiffs seek restitution, damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss and to strike class action
allegations on October 31, 2013. A hearing on the motions was
conducted on March 14, 2014. Thereafter, the Court issued two
separate orders granting the motion to strike the class
allegations and the motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking leave to file a third amended
complaint and/or for reconsideration of the Court's orders. On May
9, 2014, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion to reconsider its
order striking the class allegations and granted plaintiffs leave
to file a third amended complaint as to some, but not all, of
plaintiffs' claims. On May 15, 2014, plaintiffs appealed the
Court's ruling with respect to the motion to strike the class
allegations. On February 4, 2016, the appellate court affirmed the
trial court's order striking the class allegations and the case
has since been remitted back to the trial court for further
proceedings as to the seven named plaintiffs.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Surrett" Class Action Goes to Arbitration
------------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeals court
has sent the case, Surrett, et al. v. Western Culinary Institute,
Ltd. and Career Education Corporation, to arbitration.

On March 5, 2008, a complaint was filed in Portland, Oregon in the
Circuit Court of the State of Oregon in and for Multnomah County
naming Western Culinary Institute, Ltd. ("WCI") and the Company as
defendants. Plaintiffs filed the complaint individually and as a
putative class action and alleged two claims for equitable relief:
violation of Oregon's Unlawful Trade Practices Act ("UTPA") and
unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on April
10, 2008, which added two claims for money damages: fraud and
breach of contract. Plaintiffs allege WCI made a variety of
misrepresentations to them, relating generally to WCI's placement
statistics, students' employment prospects upon graduation from
WCI, the value and quality of an education at WCI, and the amount
of tuition students could expect to pay as compared to salaries
they could expect to earn after graduation. WCI subsequently moved
to dismiss certain of plaintiffs' claims under Oregon's UTPA; that
motion was granted on September 12, 2008. On February 5, 2010, the
Court entered a formal Order granting class certification on part
of plaintiff's UTPA and fraud claims purportedly based on
omissions, denying certification of the rest of those claims and
denying certification of the breach of contract and unjust
enrichment claims. The class consists of students who enrolled at
WCI between March 5, 2006 and March 1, 2010, excluding those who
dropped out or were dismissed from the school for academic
reasons.

Plaintiffs filed a fifth amended complaint on December 7, 2010,
which included individual and class allegations by Nathan Surrett.
Class notice was sent on April 22, 2011, and the opt-out period
expired on June 20, 2011. The class consisted of approximately
2,600 members. They are seeking tuition refunds, interest and
certain fees paid in connection with their enrollment at WCI.

On May 23, 2012, WCI filed a motion to compel arbitration of
claims by 1,062 individual class members who signed enrollment
agreements containing express class action waivers. The Court
issued an Order denying the motion on July 27, 2012. On August 6,
2012, WCI filed an appeal from the Court's Order and on August 30,
2012, the Court of Appeals issued an Order granting WCI's motion
to compel the trial court to cease exercising jurisdiction in the
case. The oral argument on the appeal was heard on May 9, 2014 and
on January 21, 2016, the appellate court reversed the trial court
and held that the claims by the 1,062 individual class members
should be compelled to arbitration.


CAREER EDUCATION: "Wilson" Class Action Appeal Pending
------------------------------------------------------
Career Education Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that an appeal is
pending in the case, Wilson, et al. v. Career Education
Corporation.

The Company said, "On August 11, 2011, Riley Wilson, a former
admissions representative based in Minnesota, filed a complaint in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The
two-count complaint asserts claims of breach of contract and
unjust enrichment arising from our decision to terminate our
Admissions Representative Supplemental Compensation ("ARSC") Plan.
In addition to his individual claims, Wilson also seeks to
represent a nationwide class of similarly situated admissions
representatives who also were affected by termination of the
plan."

"On October 6, 2011, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
On April 13, 2012, the Court granted our motion to dismiss in its
entirety and dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state
a claim. The Court dismissed this action with prejudice on May 14,
2012.

"On June 11, 2012, plaintiff filed a notice of appeal with the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit appealing the final
judgment of the trial court. Briefing was completed on October 30,
2012, and oral argument was held on December 3, 2012. On August
30, 2013, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court's ruling
on plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim but reversed and remanded
for further proceedings on plaintiff's breach of contract claim.

"On September 13, 2013, we filed a petition for rehearing to seek
review of the panel's decision on the breach of contract claim and
for certification of question to the Illinois Supreme Court, but
the petition was denied.

"The case now is on remand to the district court for further
proceedings on the sole question of whether CEC's termination of
the ARSC Plan violated the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing. The parties have completed fact discovery as to the issue
of liability. On March 24, 2015, we filed a motion for summary
judgment which the court granted on December 18, 2015. Plaintiff
filed his notice of appeal on January 16, 2016."


CAVALRY PORTFOLIO: Illegally Collects Debt, "Namdar" Action Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Asaf Namdar, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-
02381-RJD-LB (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Cavalry Portfolio Services, LLC owns and operates a debt
collection firm in New York.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CJ DANNEMILLER: Recalls Roasted Sunflower Kernels Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------------
C. J. Dannemiller Co. is recalling SunOpta 50# bags and 30# cases
of roasted sunflower kernels roasted and salted, and sunflower
kernels roasted no salt because they have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria. Listeria is an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled Sun Opta Roasted Sunflower kernels - roasted and
salted and Sun Opta Roasted No Salt were distributed in the
following states: AR, VA, IN, MI in bulk packaging between Feb.22,
2016 and May 17, 2016.

The product comes in a 50 lb, White paper bag marked with the lot
codes: 8B6M17, 8D6M12, 8D6M11. Lot code is located on the top
center of the bag or in a 30 lb. brown corrugated case with MFG
DATE of 3/21/16 or 3/28/16. MFG DATE is on the product label.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

(Listeria is an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women. For more information, please visit the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention's website at www.cdc.gov.)

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased 50 lbs. bags of the recalled product
are urged to return them to the place of purchase for a full
refund. Consumers with questions may contact the company at 1-800-
624-8671 M-F 8:00 am - 5:00 pm. EST.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/oPHpKK


COMMUNITY COALITION: "Brewer" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Cierra Brewer, Carla Brown and Cynthea Gonzalez individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated who consent to their
inclusion in a collective action, Plaintiffs v. Community
Coalition for Children and Youth, Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-01221-
SCB-JSS (M.D. Fla., May 16, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid wages
and overtime pay under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Community Coalition for Children and Youth, Inc., is a non-profit
Florida corporation with its principal place of business located
at 2531 9th Avenue West, Bradenton, Florida 34205. It does
business as New Path Academy, a day care and schooling program for
children with four locations throughout the Bradenton and Tampa
Bay area.

Brewer was employed as a kitchen aide and finance assistant,
working at all of the Defendant's locations.

Brown and Gonzalez worked as a day care employees at Defendant's
East Center, located at 2601 711 Avenue East, Bradenton, Florida
34208.

Plaintiffs claim to have been denied overtime pay.

The Defendants are represented by:

     Amiee R. Buckman, Esq.
     Yardley D. Buckman II, Esq.
     BUCKMAN & BUCKMAN, PA
     2023 Constitution Blvd
     Sarasota, FL 34231
     Tel: (941) 923-7700
     Fax: (941) 923-7736
     Email: attorney@buckmanandbuckman.com


COX COMMUNICATIONS: Timely Notice of Removal Debars Reinstatement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Cormac J. Carney of the Central District of
California, Southern Division, denied plaintiff's motion to remand
in the case BILL TAYLOR, Plaintiff, v. COX COMMUNICATIONS
CALIFORNIA, LLC, et al., Defendants, Case No.: CV 16-01915-
CJC(JPRx) (C.D. Cal.)

Bill Taylor filed a case against Cox Communications California,
LLC and Cox Communications, Inc. in state court in 2012. Taylor
alleges causes of action for violations of a number of sections of
the California Labor Code, as well as unfair business practices
under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Essentially, Plaintiff
argues that Cox systematically underpaid its field technicians --
employees who travel to customers' residences to install and
repair TV and internet services.

On November 28, 2012, defendants removed the matter to the present
court. Defendants' notice of removal argued that the class's
aggregated claims actually summed to more than $24,000,000, and
that the present court had original jurisdiction pursuant to the
Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA).

Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing that in light of the First
Amended Complaint's express pleading that the CAFA amount-in-
controversy requirement was not met, defendants were required to
prove to a legal certainty that there was actually more than
$5,000,000 in controversy. The court granted plaintiff's motion to
remand.

Litigation proceeded in state court, and the state court recently
certified a class of field technicians who participated in a
program called "Home Start," in which they were permitted to take
their field vehicles home with them at night rather than return
them to defendants' garage. Plaintiff argues that this arrangement
violates California labor laws.

Defendants again removed, indicating that following class
certification, they consulted their records to determine whether
the potential claims for field technicians who participated in the
Home Start program totaled more than $5,000,000.00, finding that
they did. They now argue that because the first amended complaint
does not state grounds for removal, and because they were never
served with any other paper that indicates grounds for removal,
they were entitled to remove at any time provided that they
presented adequate evidence. Plaintiff moved to remand.

A copy of Judge Carney's order dated May 18, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/vbHzJPfrom Leagle.com.

Bill Taylor, Plaintiff, represented by John Glugoski -- Matthew
Righetti -- matt@righettilaw.com -- at Righetti Glugoski PC

Defendants, represented by Michael T Campbell --
mcampbell@sheppardmullin.com -- Paul Berkowitz --
pberkowitz@sheppardmullin.com -- Thomas R Kaufman --
tkaufman@sheppardmullin.com -- at Sheppard Mullin Richter and
Hampton LLP


CYTRX CORPORATION: $4-Mil. Class Settlement Has Final Approval
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge George H. King of the Central District of
California granted final approval of a $4 million class action
settlement in the case entitled IN RE CYTRX CORPORATION SECURITIES
LITIGATION, Case No. CV 14-1956-GHK (PJWx) (C.D. Cal.)

CytRx said in its Form 10-K Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on March 11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2015, that "On June 13, 2014, three purported
securities class action lawsuits pending against us and certain of
our officers and directors in the United States District Court for
the Central District of California were consolidated in the matter
of In re CytRx Corporation Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-
GHK (PJWx) (the "Federal Class Action"), and lead plaintiff and
lead counsel were appointed. On October 1, 2014, plaintiffs filed
a consolidated amended complaint on behalf of all persons who
purchased or otherwise acquired our publicly traded securities
between November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, against us, certain
of our officers and directors, a freelance writer, and certain
underwriters, including Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer & Co., LLC,
Aegis Corp., and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC."

"The complaint alleges that certain of the defendants violated the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and
misleading statements in press releases, promotional articles, SEC
filings and other public statements. The complaint further alleges
that certain of the defendants violated the Securities Act of 1933
by making materially misleading statements and omitting material
information in our shelf Registration Statement on Form S-3 filed
with the SEC on December 6, 2012 and Prospectus Supplement under
Rule 424(b)(2) filed with the SEC on January 31, 2014. These
allegations arise out of our alleged retention of The DreamTeam
Group and MissionIR, external investor and public relations firms
unaffiliated with us, as well as our December 9, 2013 grant of
stock options to certain board members and officers. The
consolidated amended complaint seeks damages, including interest,
in an unspecified amount, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees,
and any equitable, injunctive, or other relief that the court may
deem just and proper.

"On December 5, 2014, we and the individual defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the complaint. The Court was scheduled to hear
argument on this motion on March 2, 2015. On February 25, 2015,
the Court took this motion under submission and took the hearing
off calendar. On July 13, 2015, the Court issued an order granting
in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss filed by us,
the individual defendants and the underwriters. On August 7, 2015,
the plaintiffs amended their complaint and on September 8, 2015,
the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, in part.
On October 23, 2015, the Court took the motion to dismiss under
submission and, as a result of the settlement of the case . . .
the motion to dismiss has not been ruled on by the Court.

"On April 3, 2014, a purported class action lawsuit was filed
against us and certain of our officers and each of our directors,
as well as certain underwriters, in the Superior Court of
California, County of Los Angeles, captioned Rajasekaran v. CytRx
Corporation, et al., BC541426. The complaint purports to be
brought on behalf of all shareholders who purchased or otherwise
acquired our common stock pursuant or traceable to our public
offering that closed on February 5, 2014. The complaint alleges
that defendants violated the federal securities laws by making
materially false and misleading statements in our filings with the
SEC. The complaint seeks compensatory damages in an unspecified
amount, rescission, and attorney's fees and costs.

"On October 14, 2014, the Court granted the parties' joint ex
parte motion to stay this proceeding pending resolution of motions
to dismiss in the related federal action, In re CytRx Corporation
Securities Litigation, 2:14-CV-01956-GHK (PJWx).  On December 29,
2015, as a result of the parties informing the Court that the
settlement of the Federal Class Action also resolved the claims
and allegations in the Rajasekaran case, the Superior Court deemed
the case closed.

"On December 10, 2015, we announced that we had reached an
agreement to settle the federal consolidated securities class
action and filed a Stipulation of Settlement with the Court. A
hearing on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary approval of the
settlement was held on January 11, 2016. The agreement contains no
admission of liability or wrongdoing and includes a full release
of CytRx and the current and former directors and officers in
connection with the allegations. The settlement is subject to
definitive documentation, shareholder notice, and Court approval.
The terms of the agreement provide for a settlement payment to the
class of $4,000,000, of which at least $3,500,000 will be paid by
our insurance carriers.

"We will also issue the equivalent number of shares of our common
stock to the class of $4,500,000 at the prevailing stock price at
the time of the Court's final approval of the settlement
agreement, but not less than a minimum of 1,200,000 shares and not
more than a maximum of 1,800,000 shares.  On January 9, 2016, the
Court preliminarily approved the settlement, and set a settlement
fairness hearing for final approval of the settlement for May 9,
2016."

The settling parties are: Lead Plaintiff Deepak Gupta and
defendants CytRx Corporation, Steven A. Kriegsman, John Y. Caloz,
David J. Haen, Louis J. Ignarro, Joseph Rubinfeld, Shirley Selter
as representative for Marvin S. Selter, Richard L. Wennekamp,
Thomas Michael Meyer, Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer & Co. Inc., Aegis
Capital Corp., and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC.

Chief District Judge King grants final approval of the settlement
as set forth in the stipulation as it meets the criteria for final
settlement approval. The settlement is fair, adequate, and
reasonable, appears to be the product of arm's-length and informed
negotiations and treats all class members fairly.

Chief District Judge King finds, for purposes of settlement only,
that the proposed class satisfies the applicable standards for
certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

The class consists of all persons and entities who purchased or
otherwise acquired the publicly traded securities of CytRx between
November 20, 2013 and March 13, 2014, inclusive. Chief District
Judge King certifies lead plaintiff Deepak Gupta as class
representative for the class and appoints lead counsel Kahn Swick
& Foti, LLC as class counsel for the class.

The court awards lead plaintiff Deepak Gupta a service award of
$4,375 as fair and reasonable compensation for his services. The
court directs payment of up to $250,000 to the claims
administrator, Gilardi & Co. LLC. The court grants an award of
attorneys' fees in the amount of $2,125,000 of the cash and stock
settlement fund, representing 25% of the settlement fund, plus
interest earned on this amount at the same rate as the settlement
fund. The couurt grants $48,179.47 in litigation expenses, plus
interest earned on this amount at the same rate as the settlement
fund.

CytRX is a biopharmaceutical research and development company
specializing in oncology.

A copy of Chief District Judge King's judgment and order dated May
18, 2016 is available at http://goo.gl/J0YR84from Leagle.com.

Bangzheng Chen, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm PA; Ramzi Abadou --
Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP

Deepak Gupta, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Ramzi Abadou --
Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- Alexander L Burns -- Melinda A
Nicholson -- Michael J Palestina -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP;
Elaine Chang -- echang@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray

Victor Perri, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situted, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Elaine Chang --
echang@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray; Ramzi
Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti
LLP; Howard G Smith -- at Law Offices of Howard G Smith

Hyun Dong Kim, Individually and on Behalf of All Others Similarly
Situated, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray; Ramzi
Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti
LLP

Mitchell Kahn, Brent Reed and Gordon NiedermayerMovants,
represented by Ramzi Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at
Kahn Swick and Foti; Patrice L Bishop -- pbishop@ssbla.com -- at
Stull Stull and Brody

Michael D Gore, Movant, represented by Evan Jason Smith --
esmith@brodsky-smith.com -- at Brodsky and Smith LLC; Ramzi
Abadou-- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP

Kisuk Cho, Movant, represented by Laurence M Rosen --
lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The Rosen Law Firm PA; Ramzi Abadou
-- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti LLP

John Corbitt, Movant, represented by Elaine Chang --
echang@glancylaw.com -- Lionel Zevi Glancy --
lglancy@glancylaw.com -- Robert Vincent Prongay --
RProngay@glancylaw.com -- at Glancy Prongay and Murray; Ramzi
Abadou -- Ramzi.Abadou@ksfcounsel.com -- at Kahn Swick and Foti
LLP

The CytRx Investor Group, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon
-- peterb@hbsslaw.com -- Reed R Kathrein -- reed@hbsslaw.com -- at
Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP; Betsy C Manifold --
manifold@whafh.com -- at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman and Herz
LLP

CytRx Investor Group II, Movant, represented by Peter E Borkon --
peterb@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagen Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP

Cytrx Corporation, Defendant, represented by Alexander Robert
Safyan -- asafyan@pswlaw.com -- Clifford H Pearson --
cpearson@pswlaw.com -- at Pearson Simon Warshaw LLP

Steven A. Kriegsman, Defendant, represented by Allen L Lanstra --
allen.lanstra@skadden.com -- Peter Bradley Morrison --
peter.morrison@skadden.com -- Thomas Jerome Nolan --
thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- at Skadden Arps Slate Meagher and Flom
LLP

John Y. Caloz, David J. Haen, Louis J. Ignarro, Shirley Selter,
Joseph Rubinfeld and Richard L. Wennekamp, Defendants, represented
by Thomas Jerome Nolan -- thomas.nolan@skadden.com -- at Skadden
Arps Slate Meagher and Flom LLP

Thomas Michael Meyer, Defendant, represented by Steven M Goldsobel
-- at Law Office of Steven M Goldsobel APC

Jefferies LLC, Oppenheimer & Co., Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- John
Warren Rissier -- warren.rissier@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan
Lewis and Bockius LLP

Aegis Capital Corporation and H.C. Wainwright & Co., LLC,
Defendants, represented by Charlene Sachi Shimada --
charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com -- John Warren Rissier --
warren.rissier@morganlewis.com -- Lucy Han Wang --
lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- at Morgan Lewis and Bockius LLP


DAKOTA STYLE: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall
------------------------------------------------------
Dakota Style Foods, Inc. of Clark, South Dakota has expanded its
voluntary recall to include 15,158 cases of sunflower kernels
because it has the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals
may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

The sunflower kernels were distributed to 34 customers nation-wide
and are sold through retail outlets.

The products involved are Dakota Style 16 ounce Roasted and Salted
Sunflower Kernels, 3.5 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels,
32 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 4 ounce Savory
Bacon Sunflower Kernels, 8 ounce Savory Bacon Sunflower Kernels
and 4 ounce Salted Caramel Sunflower Kernels that were shipped by
Dakota Style Foods, Inc. between February 15, 2016 and May 17,
2016. The affected lots are identified by lot codes 8B6M02,
8B6M09, 8B6M17, 8B6M18, 8B6M24, 8B6M25, 8C6M02, 8C6M08, 8C6M10,
8C6M28, 8C6M31 and 8D6M01. The consumer packages are plastic
packages bearing the company logo and product name with the lot
code located on the back right hand panel of the consumer package.

No illnesses have been confirmed to date. The expanded recall
resulted from notice by SunOpta, one of Dakota Style's sunflower
kernel suppliers, that SunOpta expanded a voluntary recall of
certain lots of sunflower kernels. Dakota Style has identified the
lots that may have included ingredients received from SunOpta and
is actively working to return all affected products.

Consumers who have purchased Dakota Style 16 ounce Roasted and
Salted Sunflower Kernels, 3.5 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower
Kernels, 32 ounce Roasted and Salted Sunflower Kernels, 4 ounce
Savory Bacon Sunflower Kernels, 8 ounce Savory Bacon Sunflower
Kernels or 4 ounce Caramel Sunflower Kernels with lot code 8B6M02,
8B6M09, 8B6M17, 8B6M18, 8B6M24, 8B6M25, 8C6M02, 8C6M08, 8C6M10,
8C6M28, 8C6M31 or 8D6M01, located on the back right-hand panel of
the consumer package, are urged to return the package to the place
of purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may
contact the company at 1-800-446-2779 between 8:30 am and 5 pm
CST, Monday through Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/CAqr2t


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: Judge Favors Disabled Children
----------------------------------------------------
District Judge Royce C. Lamberth of the District of Columbia
entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs in the case DL, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., Defendants, Civil
Case No. 05-1437 (RCL)(D.D.C.)

In order to achieve its aim, the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA) provides federal funding to states, including
the District of Columbia (District), on the condition that they
establish policies and procedures to ensure that free appropriate
public education (FAPE) is available to disabled children.

Plaintiffs are former preschool-age children in the District with
various disabilities, alleges that defendants have systemically
failed to provide, or failed to timely provide, special education
and related services to them and other children, in violation of
the IDEA, 20 U.S.C. Section 1400 et seq., section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 794(a), and District of
Columbia law. The plaintiffs have been divided into four
subclasses and brought claims that correspond to distinct
requirements of the IDEA. More specifically, plaintiffs' claims
relate to the District's alleged failures to identify substantial
numbers of children who are in need of special education and
related services, timely evaluate children for special education
and related services, timely issue eligibility determinations for
special education and related services, and provide smooth and
effective transitions for children from Part C to Part B services.

In 2010, the court found that the District's policies were
inadequate to meet its obligations under the IDEA and that they
violated section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, which prohibits
discrimination on the basis of disability in programs receiving
federal funding.  After hearing the evidence at trial, the court
found that the District's prior liability extended to April 6,
2011. To remedy the violations, the court then issued a structural
injunction, which included programmatic requirements and numerical
goals that would remain in effect until the District demonstrated
sustained compliance.

After the trial but before the court issued its final decision,
the Supreme Court decided Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which
clarified the proper interpretation of the commonality requirement
for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
23(a)(2). Immediately following Wal-Mart, the defendants sought to
decertify the consolidated plaintiff class, arguing that it was
too broadly defined to satisfy FRCP 23(a)(2)'s commonality
requirement, which the court rejected.

After the Court denied defendants' motion to decertify the class,
the District filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit and ultimately
prevailed. The D.C. Circuit vacated the Court's original order on
class certification grounds, which as a result effectively and
entirely vacated the court's various findings of liability. The
Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.

On remand from the D.C. Circuit, the court certified four
subclasses. After the subclasses were certified, plaintiffs
submitted a second amended complaint, alleging violations of the
IDEA, Rehabilitation Act, and DC law specific to each subclass.
The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment in 2014. The
court partially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment,
finding that the District was liable for violating the IDEA and
District law for the period up to April 6, 2011. The court did not
grant plaintiffs summary judgment on their Rehabilitation Act
claims for that same period. In addition to partially ruling for
plaintiffs, the court also partially ruled for defendants on
summary judgment.

The remainder of plaintiffs' claims went to trial. The claims fell
into two categories and relate to two distinct time periods.
First, plaintiffs allege that the District has violated the IDEA
and District law from April 6, 2011 through the present by failing
to adequately identify preschool-age disabled children for the
purpose of offering them special education and related services
(subclass 1); failing to timely issue eligibility determinations
for special education and related services for preschool-age
children (subclass 3); and failing to provide a smooth and
effective transition from the early intervention program under
Part C of the IDEA to preschool special education and related
services under Part B by the child's third birthday (subclass 4).

Second, plaintiffs claim that the District violated the
Rehabilitation Act for the period up to March 22, 2010 by failing
adequately to identify preschool-age disabled children for the
purposes of offering them special education and related services
(subclass 1); failing timely to evaluate preschool-age children
for special education and related services (subclass 2); failing
timely to issue eligibility determinations for special education
and related services for preschool-age children (subclass 3); and
failing to provide a smooth and effective transition from the
early intervention program under Part C of the IDEA to preschool
special education and related services under Part B by the child's
third birthday (subclass 4); and that the District acted in bad
faith or gross misjudgment as to each subclass.

Judge Lamberth entered judgment in favor of plaintiffs and finds
the District liable for violating the IDEA, District law, and the
Rehabilitation Act, and entitled plaintiffs to declaratory and
injunctive relief.

A copy of Judge Lamberth's memorandum opinion and findings of fact
and conclusion of law dated May 18, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/IQjG2qfrom Leagle.com.

DL, FD, TAMEKA FORD, JB, LEAH BLAND, FREDERICK DAVY, MONICA DAVY,
TF, ANGELIQUE MOORE, Plaintiffs, represented by Bruce J. Terris
-- bterris@tpmlaw.com -- Todd A. Gluckman -- tgluckman@tpmlaw.com
-- at TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP; Cyrus Mehri at MEHRI &
SKALET, PLLC; Margaret A. Kohn -- Margaret.Kohn07@gmail.com -- at
LAW OFFICE OF MARGARET KOHN

HW, TIMOTHY LANTRY, ARLETTE MANKEMI, KERIANNE PIESTER, TL, RONALD
WISOR, XY, BRYAN YOUNG, TAMMIKA YOUNG,  Plaintiffs, represented by
Bruce J. Terris -- bterris@tpmlaw.com -- Todd A. Gluckman --
tgluckman@tpmlaw.com -- at TERRIS, PRAVLIK & MILLIAN, LLP; Cyrus
Mehri at MEHRI & SKALET, PLLC

TIMOTHY LANTRY, Plaintiff, Pro se

ARLETTE MANKEMI, Plaintiff, Pro se

KERIANNE PIESTER, Plaintiff, Pro se

RONALD WISOR, Plaintiff, Pro se

BRYAN YOUNG, Plaintiff, Pro se

TAMMIKA YOUNG, Plaintiff, Pro se

Defendants, represented by Chad Wayne Copeland, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Daniel Albert
Rezneck, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, Matthew Robert Blecher,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Robert C. Utiger, DC OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL & Samuel C.
Kaplan -- skaplan@bsfllp.com -- BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP


DYNAMIC PET: Sued Over "Needlike Shards" in Ham Bone for Dogs
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Dynamic Pet Products' and
Frick's Meat Products' Real Ham Bone for Dogs produces "extremely
hazardous . . . needlelike shards" that can hurt dogs, a class
action claims in Independence, Mo. Jackson County Court.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: Briefing in Class Action Appeal to Continue
--------------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that briefing in a
class action appeal is scheduled to continue through 2016.

On April 30, 2013, a putative class action was filed by John
Scranton, on behalf of himself and a class of persons similarly
situated, against E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE
Securities in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa
Clara, pursuant to the California procedures for a private
Attorney General action. The complaint alleged that the Company
misrepresented through its website that it would always
automatically exercise options that were in-the-money by $0.01 or
more on expiration date. Plaintiffs allege violations of the
California Unfair Competition Law, the California Consumer
Remedies Act, fraud, misrepresentation, negligent
misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case has been
deemed complex within the meaning of the California Rules of
Court, and a case management conference was held on September 13,
2013. The Company's demurrer and motion to strike the complaint
were granted by order dated December 20, 2013. The Court granted
leave to amend the complaint.

A second amended complaint was filed on January 31, 2014. On March
11, 2014, the Company moved to strike and for a demurrer to the
second amended complaint.

On October 20, 2014, the Court sustained the Company's demurrer,
dismissing four counts of the second amended complaint with
prejudice and two counts without prejudice. The plaintiffs filed a
third amended complaint on November 10, 2014. The Company filed a
third demurrer and motion to strike on December 12, 2014.

By order dated March 18, 2015, the Superior Court entered a final
order sustaining the Company's demurrer on all remaining claims
with prejudice. Final judgment was entered in the Company's favor
on April 8, 2015. Plaintiff filed a Notice of Appeal April 27,
2015. Briefing is scheduled to continue through 2016. The Company
will continue to defend itself vigorously in this matter.


E*TRADE FINANCIAL: To Defend Against "Rayner" Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
E*TRADE Financial Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for
the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company
continues to defend against "Rayner" class action lawsuit.

On March 26, 2015, a putative class action was filed in the U.S.
District Court for the Northern District of California by Ty
Rayner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
naming E*TRADE Financial Corporation and E*TRADE Securities as
defendants. The complaint alleges that E*TRADE breached a
fiduciary duty and unjustly enriched itself in connection with the
routing of its customers' orders to various market-makers and
exchanges. Plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, declaratory
relief, restitution, disgorgement of payments received by the
Company, and attorneys' fees.

By stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend indefinitely the
due date for a response to the claim. The Company will continue to
defend itself vigorously in this matter.


EEG INC: Judge Ruled on the Parties' Motions in "Mitchell" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Joseph H. McKinley of the Western District of
Kentucky, Louisville Division, ruled on the parties' motions in
the case ROCHELLE MITCHELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. EEG, INC. d/b/a
Empire Beauty School, Defendant, Civil Action No. 3:15CV-00903-JHM
(W.D. Ky.)

Plaintiffs, Rochelle Mitchell, Leidre Avery, Cynthia Tobin, Miesha
Rae Newby, Kee-Sha Boyd, Tasha Blakey, Jamerica English, Rosita
Lewis, and Denco Clayton attended Empire Beauty School (EEG) in
Louisville, Kentucky. The nine students signed different versions
of the enrollment agreement. The enrollment agreements allow
either party to elect to proceed in arbitration before the
American Arbitration Association (AAA).

Plaintiffs commenced a putative class action against EEG by filing
a complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court on November 24, 2015,
for breach of contract, breach of implied contract, fraud, civil
conspiracy, violation of the Kentucky Consumer Protection Act,
violation of KRS Section 165A.310 and KRS Section 446.070, and
violation of Kentucky's Antitrust Statute KRS Section 367.175. EEG
removed the case to the present court on December 23, 2015.

EEG moves to compel arbitration and to stay or dismiss the lawsuit
pending alternative dispute resolution proceedings. EEG elected to
proceed in arbitration pursuant to the enrollment agreements. EEG
maintains that the plaintiffs are required to submit to
arbitration every claim asserted in the lawsuit, including any
challenge to the validity or enforceability of the arbitration
agreements that plaintiffs raise in their response to the motion
to compel. Plaintiffs also filed a motion to compel arbitration.

Chief District Judge McKinley granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to compel arbitration, and to dismiss or stay
the action pending resolution of plaintiffs' claims in
arbitration. Plaintiffs' motion for a hearing regarding the motion
to compel arbitration is denied.

Specifically, the case is stayed and arbitration is compelled
regarding all plaintiffs' claims except with regard to the
Rochelle Mitchell's claims against EEG. The matter is referred to
the Magistrate Judge for the purpose of fashioning a limited
discovery plan regarding Mitchell's claim that her signature on
the enrollment agreement was a forgery.

A copy of Chief District Judge McKinley's memorandum opinion and
order dated May 18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/MFwMfu
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Nader G. Shunnarah, Esq.
     239 S 5th #1800
     Louisville, KY 40202
     Telephone: 502-587-7919

EEG, Inc., Defendant, represented by Caroline L. Pieroni --
caroline.pieroni@dinsmore.com -- R. Kenyon Meyer at Dinsmore &
Shohl LLP


ELWYN: "Byrd" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Leroy Byrd, Andre Stevenson, and
Tyreesha Abdussabur, on behalf of themselves, individually, and
all others similarly situated v. Elwyn, Case No. 160400064, was
removed from the Common Pleas Philadelphia to the United States
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02275-GJP to
the proceeding.

The case asserts employment discrimination.

Elwyn is a Human Services organization, serving disabled and
disadvantaged individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Frederick Robinette, Esq.
      POST & POST LLC
      920 Cassatt Rd Suite 102
      200 Berwyn Park Suite 102
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 913-3034
      E-mail: jrobinette@postandpost.com


The Defendant is represented by:

     John P. Gonzales, Esq.
     MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
     2000 Market St Suite 2300
     Philadelphia, PA 19103
     Telephone: (215) 575-2871
     E-mail: jpgonzales@mdwcg.com


ELWYN: "Tate" Class Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
-----------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Terrell Tate, on behalf of
himself, individually, and all others similarly situated v. Elwyn,
Case No. 160401019, was removed from the Common Pleas Philadelphia
to the United States District Court Eastern District of
Pennsylvania (Philadelphia). The District Court Clerk assigned
Case No. 2:16-cv-02276-NIQA to the proceeding.

The case asserts a claim for violation of the Family and Medical
Leave Act.

Elwyn is a Human Services organization, serving disabled and
disadvantaged individuals.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Frederick Robinette, Esq.
      POST & POST LLC
      920 Cassatt Rd Suite 102
      200 Berwyn Park Suite 102
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (484) 913-3034
      E-mail: jrobinette@postandpost.com


The Defendant is represented by:

      John P. Gonzales, Esq.
      MARSHALL DENNEHEY WARNER COLEMAN & GOGGIN
      2000 Market St. Suite 2300
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 575-2871
      E-mail: jpgonzales@mdwcg.com


ES FOODS: Recalls Meal Break Products Due to Sunflower Seeds
------------------------------------------------------------
E S Foods of Woodbury, NY is recalling 3700 cases of the following
Meal Breaks items containing individually packed Sunrich Natural
Sunflower Kernels (Roasted & Salted), Net Wt 1 oz., because the
sunflower seeds have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes:

  Meal Breaks                 Lot #    Best Used By     Item #
  -----------                 -----    ------------     ------
Cheese Stick w/ Beef Stick    6111     11/11/16         61406
                              6124     09/02/16
                                       12/10/16
Cheese Sauce                  6126     03/01/17         61410
Cheese Stick                  6112     12/09/16         61418
Chips & Dip                   6116     12/01/16         61419
Lime Bean Dippers             6112     10/26/16         61420
Cheese Cup                    6116     01/15/17         61430
Frosted Flakes w/Cheese       6112     09/19/16         61438
Stick
Cinnamon Pop Tarts            6112     12/10/16         61439
PBJ w/Milk                    6125     01/11/17         61602
Tuna Salad w/Milk             6126     02/09/17         61603
BBQ Chicken w/Milk            6125     02/09/17         61605

Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Meal Breaks were distributed in CA, KS, KY, TN, TX, UT, VA, WA
and WI to foodservice distributors, food banks, and school meal
programs, between the dates of April 21 and May 13, 2016.

Products are packed in a master case, and that master case
contains the product code number, product description, "Best Used
By" Date, and lot code.

No illnesses have been reported to date.

The potential for contamination was noted after we received
notification from SunOpta, our sunflower kernel supplier,
pertaining to positive Listeria monocytogenes results.

Customers who have purchased any of the affected products must
contact E S Foods to arrange for product retrieval. If customers
have further distributed any of these items, please immediately
contact your accounts, advise them of the recall situation, and
have them return their outstanding recalled stocks to you and
maintain and share your record of the retrieval of these items.
Customers with questions may contact E S Foods at 516-682-5484,
Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm, ET.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/Iz1tAL


FACEBOOK INC: Court Grants Bid for Attorneys' Fees in "Bohannon"
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GLYNNIS BOHANNON, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
FACEBOOK, INC., Defendant, Case No. 12-cv-01894-BLF (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted the plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees as modified.

The parties have settled the class action with agreement by
Facebook to bring its refund practices and policies into
compliance with the California Family Code, update the relevant
language in its terms, and dedicate an internal queue to refund
requests for in-app purchases made by U.S. minors and agreement by
the plaintiffs to release their, but no other class member's,
claims.  The parties have agreed on all but attorneys' fees,
costs, and incentive payments to the plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs
sought $1.5 million in attorneys' fees, $29,115.66 in costs, and
$10,000 in incentive payments.

Judge Freeman granted the motion, but modified it so that
the plaintiffs shall recover attorneys' fees in the amount of
$922,092, costs in the amount of $29,115.66, and incentive
payments in the amount of $5,000 for each of I.B. And J.W.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's May 23, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/CyNMVi from Leagle.com.

                           *     *     *

In a separate Order also dated May 23, 2016, the Court directed
the Plaintiffs to advise the Court of whether or not a minor's
compromise is required for the release of the named minor
Plaintiffs' rights.

At the hearing on the parties' motion for settlement approval, the
Court expressed several concerns with the submitted draft.
Following the hearing, the parties submitted a revised version for
approval.  The Revised Agreement addresses all but one of the
Court's concerns -- whether or not a minor's compromise is
necessary prior to resolution of this case.

Plaintiffs were directed to submit a response of no more than 3
pages explaining why such a compromise is or is not required by no
later than May 26, 2016.

A copy of the Court's Order is available at https://is.gd/81f7iE
from Leagle.com.

Glynnis Bohannon, J. W., Julie Wright, Plaintiffs, represented by
John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law P.C., Curtis Brooks Cutter, Cutter
Law, P.C. & Daniel B. Edelman -- edelman@kmblegal.com -- Katz,
Marshall and Banks LLP, pro hac vice.

I. B., Plaintiff, represented by John R. Parker, Jr., Cutter Law
P.C., Benjamin Gordon Edelman, Attorney of the Law, pro hac vice,
Curtis Brooks Cutter, Cutter Law, P.C. & Daniel B. Edelman, Katz,
Marshall and Banks LLP, pro hac vice.

Facebook, Inc., Defendant, represented by Whitty Somvichian --
wsomvichian@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Benjamin Hansel Kleine --
bkleine@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Kristine Anne Forderer --
kforderer@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & Michael G. Rhodes --
rhodesmg@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


FACEBOOK INC: Court Certifies Private Scanning Message Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
Russell Brandom, writing for The Verge, reports that Facebook may
have violated federal privacy laws by scanning private messages,
according to a lawsuit certified for class action on May 18 in
Northern California District Court.  The allegations center around
Facebook's practice of scanning and logging URLs sent through the
site's private messaging system.  Those scans serve a number of
purposes, including anti-malware protection and industry-standard
searches for child pornography, but may also be used for marketing
purposes.

The plaintiffs allege that Facebook routinely scans those URLs for
advertising and other user-targeting data -- and claim that by
maintaining those records in a searchable form, Facebook is
violating both the Electronic Communications Privacy Act and
California Invasion of Privacy Act.  Facebook disputes that
private messages are scanned in bulk, and maintains the URL data
is anonymized and only used in aggregate form.

Through the discovery process, the plaintiffs have gained
significant access to Facebook source code and engineers, although
many of the resulting exhibits are still under seal. The available
court records strongly suggest that the company maintains a
persistent record of the links sent in private messages.  As the
plaintiffs' attorneys put it, "the records that Facebook creates
from its users' private messages, and which are stored
indefinitely, may be put to any use, for any reason, by any
Facebook employee, at any time."

It's unclear how easily those records could be traced back to the
person who sent the message.  In a response motion, Facebook
described the records as "more akin to The New York Times
publishing a list of bestselling books . . . the anonymized and
aggregated data is used to indicate the popularity of
information."  Describing the collection of that data as a privacy
violation constitutes "a technical attack on basic elements of
computer programming," the company argued.

A technical analysis performed on behalf of the plaintiffs seems
to contradict Facebook's description of the records.  According to
that analysis, each messaged URL is stored in a private message
database dubbed "Titan," which shows the date and time a message
was sent, along with the user IDs of both the sender and the
recipient. (Titan may also refer to a particular brand of graph
database software.) The analysis provides a specific data query
that a Facebook employee could enter to identify anyone who sent
or received a URL-linked private message during the period
specified by the lawsuit.  In a response, Facebook lawyers
described the analysis as "speculative."

Without access to the source code, it's difficult to assess how
effective Facebook's anonymization was.  But in the case of the
2012 version of the system, there seems to have been at least some
internal ambiguity surrounding the data.  Private messages were
meant to increase the Like Count without identifying the source of
the Like -- but it's unclear how robust that system was. In one
email exchange describing the 2012 system for converting URLs sent
in messages to Likes, a Facebook employee said, "we have
intentionally not proactively messaged what this number is since
it's kind of sketchy how we construct it."

The May 18 certification rules out any monetary damages, so while
the court could prohibit Facebook from conducting similar scans in
the future, the plaintiffs won't receive any payout as a result of
the ruling.  In a statement, a Facebook spokesperson applauded
that finding.  "We agree with the court's finding that the alleged
conduct did not result in any actual harm and that it would be
inappropriate to allow plaintiffs to seek damages on a class-wide
basis," the statement reads.  "The remaining claims relate to
historical practices that are entirely lawful, and we look forward
to resolving those claims on the merits."

The company's practices have changed significantly over time.  In
2012, it was revealed that Facebook was increasing a link's Like
count each time it was sent in a private message, an incident that
plaintiffs take as evidence that the data is tied to a user's
profile.  According to Facebook testimony, the practice was
discontinued shortly after it was revealed.

While the company is no longer using private messaging data to
boost Like counts, the plaintiffs allege Facebook hasn't stopped
collecting URLs from private messages.  "Facebook's source code
not only reveals that Facebook continues to acquire URL content
from private messages, but that it also continues to make use of
the content it acquires," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote in a
recent motion.

The majority of information on Facebook is intentionally shared,
and as a result can be stored indefinitely and used to target
content and advertisements without any legal implications.  But
links sent in private messages are, by definition, private, and
any persistent record that a person had privately shared a
specific link -- to a medical clinic or political organization,
for instance -- would pose an obvious privacy concern.

It still remains to be seen whether the link-logging system at any
point violated ECPA or CIPA, but the path is now cleared for the
case to proceed.  The plaintiffs are due to file an amended
complaint by June 8th, ahead of a scheduling conference at the end
of the month.


FAST RIG SUPPORT: Stipulated Judgment in "Mazzarella" Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ALPHONSE MAZZARELLA, v. FAST RIG SUPPORT,
LLC; FIRST AMERICANS SHIPPING AND TRUCKING, INC., Appellants, No.
15-3116 (3rd Cir.), the United States Court of Appeals, Third
Circuit affirmed the district court's stipulated judgment
requiring the trucking companies, Fast Rig Support, LLC and First
Americans Shipping and Trucking, Inc. to pay the plaintiffs
overtime.

The Third Circuit councluded that the district court correctly
determined that the defendants have not met their burden to show
that the Motor Carrier Act exemption to the overtime provisions in
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and Pennsylvania Minimum Wage
Act (PMWA) applies.

A full-text copy of the Third Circuit's May 23, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/6AhFit from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs, including Alphonse Mazzarella, worked for the
defendants as truck drivers.  They transported water to hydraulic
fracking sites within Pennsylvania.  Mazzarella asserted that he
and his coworkers often worked more than forty hours in a week,
but were paid overtime only for work performed above forty-five
hours per week, in violation of the overtime provisions of the
FLSA and PMWA.

William E. Vinsko, Jr., Esq, 253 South Franklin Street, Wilkes-
Barre, PA 18701, Counsel for Appellant.

Mark J. Gottesfeld, Esq., R. Andrew Santillo, Esq., Peter D.
Winebrake, Esq., Winebrake & Santillo, 715 Twinning Road, Suite
211, Twinning Office Center, Dresher, PA 19025, Counsel for
Appellee.


FIFTH THIRD: July 11 Class Action Settlement Fairness Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The following release was issued by RG/2 Claims Administration
LLC, as Claims Administrator, on behalf of Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP and Gainey McKenna& Egleston:

DUDENHOEFFER, ET AL. V. FIFTH THIRD BANCORP, ET AL.
Civil Action No. 1:08-CV-538-SSB
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO,
WESTERN DIVISION

TO:  All Persons (EXCLUDING DEFENDANTS AND THEIR IMMEDIATE FAMILY
MEMBERS) WHO WERE PARTICIPANTS IN OR BENEFICIARIES (INCLUDING
ALTERNATE PAYEES) OF THE FIFTH THIRD BANCORP 401K SAVINGS PLAN
FORMERLY KNOWN AS THE FIFTH THIRD BANCORP MASTER PROFIT SHARING
PLAN ("PLAN") AT ANY TIME BETWEEN JULY 19, 2007 AND January 15,
2016 (THE "CLASS PERIOD") AND WHOSE PLAN ACCOUNT INCLUDED
INVESTMENTS IN FIFTH THIRD STOCK.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY.  A FEDERAL COURT AUTHORIZED
THIS NOTICE.

A Settlement has been preliminarily approved by a federal court in
a class action lawsuit against Fifth Third Bancorp ("Fifth Third"
or the "Company"), and certain individuals, including former
officers and directors of Fifth Third, alleging breaches of
fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
of 1974, as amended ("ERISA").  The lawsuit is referred to herein
as the "Action."  This Settlement will provide for a Settlement
Amount of $6,000,000 (Six Million U.S. Dollars) to the Plan, minus
Court-approved attorneys' fees and expenses, costs of
administering the Settlement, and Case Contribution Awards to the
Named Plaintiffs, as well as certain structural changes (i.e.,
Plan amendments) to the Plan as described more fully in the
Settlement Agreement, without any admission of wrongdoing or fault
by any of the Defendants.  The Settlement Amount will be allocated
pursuant to the Court-approved Plan of Allocation to Plan
participants who were invested in Fifth Third Stock in their Plan
accounts during the Class Period.  The United States District
Court for the Southern District of Ohio authorized this Notice.  A
final approval hearing (the "Final Approval Hearing") will be held
on July 11, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Sandra S.
Beckwith, United States District Court Judge to determine, among
other things (as set forth in the Parties' proposed Final Approval
Order):  (1) whether the proposed Settlement should be granted
final approval; (2) whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is
fair, reasonable, and adequate; (3) whether Class Counsel's
request for an award of attorneys' fees, expenses and for Case
Contribution Awards to the Named Plaintiffs relating to their
representation of the Settlement Class should be approved; and (4)
whether the Action and the claims of the members of the Settlement
Class against Defendants should be dismissed with a direction to
the Clerk of the Court to enter final judgment, finding that there
is no just reason for delay of enforcement or appeal of the Order
as set forth in the Settlement Agreement filed with the Court.
The Final Approval Hearing will be held at the United States
District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, Western
Division, Potter Stewart United States Courthouse, 100 East Fifth
Street, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, Room 810 or such other courtroom
as the Court may designate.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class as defined above, your
rights may be affected by the proposed Settlement and release of
Parties and claims, as set forth in the Settlement Agreement.  The
Defendants and their Immediate Family Members are excluded from
the Settlement.

You do not have the right to exclude yourself from the Settlement
in this case, but you do have the right to object by writing to
the Court.  Any objection to the Settlement, must be filed with
the clerk of the Court and served upon each of the following law
firms no later than 5:00 p.m. on June 20, 2016, at the addresses
listed below:

CLERK
Clerk of the Court
United States District Court for the Southern
District of Ohio,
Western Division
Potter Stewart United
States Courthouse
Rom 103
100 East Fifth Street
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

CLASS COUNSEL
Edward W. Ciolko
Mark K. Gyandoh
KESSLER TOPAZ
MELTZER & CHECK, LLP
280 King of Prussia Rd
Radnor, PA 19087
Telephone: (610) 667-7706
Facsimile: (610) 667-7056

Thomas J. McKenna
Gregory M. Egleston
GAINEY McKENNA &
EGLESTON
440 Park Avenue South
5th Floor
New York, NY  10016
Telephone: (212) 938-1300
Facsimile: (212) 938-0383

DEFENDANTS' COUNSEL
James E. Burke
KEATING MEUTHING &
KLEKAMP PLL
One East 4th Street
Suite 1400
Cincinnati, OH  45202
Telephone: (513) 579-6428
Facsimile: (513) 579-6457

If the Settlement is approved by the Court and you are a member of
the Settlement Class, you will receive any Settlement payment you
are entitled to receive under the Settlement Agreement without
having to file a claim.

If you are a member of the Settlement Class and have not yet
received the Class Notice, or if you want more information
regarding anything in this Publication Notice, you may obtain such
information by visiting www.FifthThirdERISAsettlement.com  calling
toll-free 855-979-7127, by writing to Class Counsel listed above
or sending an email to FifthThirdERISAsettlement@ktmc.com

DO NOT CONTACT THE COURT, THE CLERK'S OFFICE, THE COMPANY, OR
DEFENDANTS REGARDING THIS NOTICE.  THEY WILL NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER
YOUR QUESTIONS.

DATED: May 19, 2016
By Order of the United States District Court, Southern District of
Ohio


FINISH LINE: Settlement in "Arreola" Case Has Final Approval
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge S. James Otero granted final approval of the class
settlement and the request for attorneys' fees, costs, and class
representative service payments in the case, HERIBERTO ARREOLA, an
individual, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. THE FINISH LINE, INC., and DOES 1 through 50,
inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-00171-SJO-PJW (C.D. Cal.),

No Class Members objected to the Settlement.

Rust Consulting is awarded up to $33,000 for their services as
Settlement Administrator, pursuant to the terms set forth in the
Settlement.

Class Representative Heriberto Arreola is awarded $5,000 as a
Class Representative service payment pursuant to the terms set
forth in the Settlement.

Class Counsel is awarded $187,500 or 25% of the gross settlement
sum, as attorneys' fees.

Class Counsel is awarded $10,662.85 in litigation costs incurred
in prosecuting this case.

The proposed PAGA penalties of $5,000 ($3,750.00 to the LWDA and
$1,250.00 to the Class) are approved.

The case is dismissed with prejudice, each side to bear its own
costs and attorneys' fees except as provided by the Settlement and
this Order.

A copy of the Court's May 23 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LELf8A from Leagle.com.

The Finish Line, Inc., Defendant, represented by Scott J Witlin
-- scott.witlin@BTLaw.com -- and Steve L Hernandez --
steve.hernandez@BTLaw.com -- at Barnes and Thornburg LLP.


FIRST MERCURY: Appeals Panel Expresses Concern on Junk TCPA Suits
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dana Herra and Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record,
report that a panel of state appellate justices could have simply
found an insurer wasn't obligated to pay to cover a $4 million
settlement reached to end a lawsuit brought by a suburban
engineering firm that claimed it had received so-called "junk fax"
advertisements.  But the justices used the occasion to also send a
message to the lawyers it says are responsible for a
"proliferation" of potential junk class action lawsuits under the
federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act, brought in many cases,
the justices said, only to help lawyers get paid.

"We must express our concern with the policies implicated by the
proliferation of TCPA class actions," the justices wrote.  "These
cases are not about how insureds face ruinous liability . . . they
have everything to do with compensating the lawyers of the class."

On May 18, a three-justice panel of the Illinois First District
Appellate Court ruled on an appeal of Cook County Circuit Court
Case No. 11-CH-28513.

In this case, Rolling Meadows-based CE Design Ltd. had claimed
First Mercury Insurance Company, of Southfield, Mich., owed it
more than $4 million.  CE Design had settled an earlier lawsuit
against First Mercury's client Nationwide Security Services Inc.,
in which CE had claimed Schaumburg-based Nationwide had violated
the TCPA by sending unsolicited junk faxes advertising its
services.

The lawsuit against Nationwide came as part of a litany of TCPA
lawsuits brought over nearly a decade by CE Design through its
attorney, Brian J. Wanca, of Rolling Meadows.  According to Cook
County court records and Chicago federal court records,
engineering firm and Wanca partnered on more than 90 junk fax
class action lawsuits filed in Cook and Lake counties, alleging
TCPA violations against a number of companies.

Illinois corporation records indicate Wanca also served as CE
Design's registered corporate agent.  Records indicate CE Design
voluntarily dissolved in March 2016. John Pezl of Lake Zurich was
most recently listed as CE Design's president.

In the case referenced in the most recent state appellate
decision, the settlement agreement between CE Design and
Nationwide Security attempted to hold First Mercury Insurance
responsible to pay $4 million, even though the insurer had not
been party to the settlement and had opposed the offer.  As part
of the settlement, CE was assigned Nationwide's rights under the
policy, and allowed to ask the courts to order First Mercury to
fund the settlement.  When CE attempted to collect, however, a
Cook County judge sided with the insurer.

The appellate justices also sided with First Mercury.  In its
analysis, the panel said each of the 3,671 fax recipients in the
class was entitled to $500 damages under the TCPA.  But since the
total claims amount is over the $1 million advertising injury
limit in the policy held by Nationwide, First Mercury is not
obligated to indemnify its client, the justices said.

Justice Terrence J. Lavin wrote the court's opinion, and Justice
Mary Anne Mason and Justice James Fitzgerald Smith concurred.

In its opinion, however, the justices included a section titled,
"Policy Reasons Supporting Affirmance."

In this case, damages were calculated by multiplying the number of
faxes sent by the TCPA's statutory damages award of $500 per fax,
plus an additional $500 per fax in punitive damages.  But the
attorneys were well aware, more than five years after the
offending faxes were sent, that only a handful of people were
likely to come forward and join the class, justices said.

"Class attorneys, however, all too often aim to solidify a fund
via the settlement negotiations in order to satisfy their hefty
fee petition," they wrote.

The justices suggested the courts hearing such class actions
should insist lawyers go forward with the claims process with the
caveat that allowed claims would be satisfied from insurance.
After the claims deadline has passed, courts and insurers can
better assess the insured's liability -- "a sum which would
predictably be a fraction of the settlement amount," the justices
wrote -- and the court can then turn its attention to attorney's
fees.

In the First Mercury case, the insurer arranged for independent
counsel for Nationwide in the underlying lawsuit, expressing an
opinion from the beginning that the damages CE was seeking were
not covered under its policy.  The policy has a $500 per claim
deductible and a limit of $1 million in liability for property
damage and $1 million for advertising injury. The policy did not
cover punitive damages.

However, the two parties to the lawsuit went on to settle for more
than $4 million, as the TCPA allows penalties that can triple the
statutory damages.  The settlement expressly noted that the
defendant could not pay $500 per fax and the only "meaningful
source of recovery" was from First Mercury.

First Mercury was represented in the action by attorneys with the
firm of Tressler LLP, of Chicago.


FIRST NATIONAL: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Davis" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Bobbi Davis, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 4:16-
cv-00338-O (N.D. Tex., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. is a collection agency
specializing in the collection of older debt.

      Jarrett L. Ellzey Jr., Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY LLP
      Galleria Tower 1
      2700 Post Oak Blvd Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (888) 350-3931
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com

         - and -

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

          - and -

      Mark A. Alexander, Esq.
      MARK A. ALEXANDER PC
      5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E
      Addison, TX 75001
      Telephone: (972) 364-9700
      Facsimile: (972) 239-2244
      E-mail: mark@crb-law.com


FIRST NATIONAL: Illegally Collects Debt, "Morris" Suit Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Florence Morris, on behalf of herself and others similarly
situated v. First National Collection Bureau, Inc., Case No. 3:16-
cv-01139-BAS-JMA (S.D. Cal., May 12, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

First National Collection Bureau, Inc. owns and operates a debt
collection firm in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


FIRST SOURCE: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------
FIRST SOURCE of Tonawanda, NY, is recalling the following items
because they have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes:

  --- 15 LBS Alpine Valley Fitness Mix with lot code BD 161021
  --- 15 LBS Alpine Valley Yogurt Fruit/Nut Mix with lot code BD
      161261
  --- Alpine Tub "Roasted & Salted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25oz
      with Best By 03-24-17
  --- Alpine Tub "Roasted & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25oz
      with Best By 3-23-17, 3-30-17, 5-3-17
  --- Wegmans square tub "Fitness Mix" 20oz with Best By 12-24-16
  --- Wegmans square tub "Sunshine Cranberry Delight" 20oz with
      Best By 12/15/16, 1-7-17, 2-9-17
  --- 15 LBS Alpine Valley Sunshine Cranberry Delight with Lot
      Code BD 161021 and BD 161261
  --- Flave Fitness Mix 8oz with Best By 4-20-17 and 05-02-17
  --- Flave Tropical Trail Mix 8oz with Best By 4-20-17
  --- Flave Oriental Mix 6oz with Best By 3-10-17 and 4-21-17
  --- Flave Sunflower Seeds 7.5oz with Best By 4-20-17
  --- Gonzo 2 Go "Sunshine Cranberry Delight" 4.5oz with Best By
       2-10-17
  --- Gonzo 2 Go "Fitness Mix" 5oz with Best By 1-7-17
  --- Stewarts Sunshine Cranberry Delite 5oz with Best By 1-18-17
  --- Tops square tub "Roasted & Unsalted Sunflower Kernels"
      10.25 with Best By 3-30-17, 5-3-17
  --- Tops square tub "Roasted & Salted Sunflower Kernels" 10.25
      with Best By 1-28-17

Listeria monocytogenes, is an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The recalled items were distributed in the following states via
retail stores: IN, LA, MA, MD, MI, NJ, NY, PA,VA, WV & SC, between
3/11/2016 and 5/21/2016.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after we received
notification from our sunflower kernel supplier SunOpta pertaining
to positive Listeria monocytogenes results.

Consumers who have purchased any of these items are urged to
destroy the product. If customers have further distributed any of
these items, please immediately contact your accounts, advise them
of the recall situation, and have them return their outstanding
recalled stocks to you and maintain and share your record of the
destruction of these items. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at 1 (716) 389-0264, Monday - Friday, 8am - 5pm, ET.


FITBIT: Study Shows Gadget Heart Rate Readings Inaccurate
---------------------------------------------------------
Simon Sharwood, writing for The Register, reports that scientists
have tested a pair of wearable fitness gadgets from Fitbit and
found they get heart rates wrong by as much as 25 beats per
minute.

The study was commissioned by law firm Lieff Cabraser, which is
running a class action against Fitbit over inaccurate heart rate
readings.

The study didn't use a colossal sample -- just 43 people were
tested -- and only tested subjects once.

In those tests the subjects were hooked up to an
electrocardiograph known to produce valid readings, then provided
with a Fitbit Charge HR on one wrist and the Fitbit Surge on the
other.  Authors Edward Jo, PhD and Brett A. Dolezal, PhD did not
place the same device on the dominant wrist, to avoid bias.

Participants were then asked to undertake 65 minutes of exercise
and once the numbers had been crunched the authors concluded that
"the PurePulse(TM) technology embedded in the Fitbit optical
sensors does not accurately record heart rate, and is particularly
unreliable during moderate to high intensity exercise."  The pair
therefore conclude that FitBit kit has "significant limitations .
. . for biometric monitoring during exercise . . . cannot be used
to provide a meaningful estimate of a user's heart rate."

The authors don't say why, only offering speculation that there's
a problem with FitBit's algorithms rather than the
photoplethysmography technology used to do the measurements.

This study will scare the many athletes -- serious competitors and
weekend warriors alike -- who aim to train at certain heart rates.
If the devices over-report heart rates, users will have trained at
lower heart rates than they wanted to achieve. If the devices
under-report, users may be straining to reach heart rates beyond
their optimal peak levels.  Which can end badly.

Either way, it's not hard to see why there's a class action in the
works.

Fitbit's been in touch, through its PT firm, with a statement that
says, in part, that the study "lacks scientific rigor and is the
product of flawed methodology . . . and was conducted with a
consumer-grade electrocardiogram - not a true clinical device, as
implied by the plaintiffs' lawyers."  The statemetn also contend
"there is no evidence the device used in the purported 'study' was
tested for accuracy."

Fitbit "stand[s] behind our heart-rate monitoring technology and
all our products, and continue to believe the plaintiffs'
allegations do not have any merit.  We are vigorously defending
against these claims, and will resist any attempts by the
plaintiffs' lawyers to leverage a settlement with misleading
tactics and false claims of scientific evidence."


FORD MOTOR: Summary Judgment Granted in Part in "Daniel" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge William B. Shubb of the Eastern District of
California granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
for summary judgment in the case MARGIE DANIEL, ROBERT McCABE,
MARY HAUSER, DONNA GLASS, and ANDREA DUARTE, individually and on
behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs,
v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, Defendant, Civ. No.
2:11-02890 WBS EFB (E.D. Cal.)

Plaintiffs Margie Daniel, Robert McCabe, Mary Hauser, Donna Glass,
and Andrea Duarte are individuals who purchased new Ford Focus
vehicles in California between 2005 and 2011. Plaintiffs allege
that those vehicles have a rear suspension alignment/geometry
defect that leads to premature tire wear, which in turn leads to
safety hazards such as decreased control in handling, steering,
and stability, as well as the threat of catastrophic tire failure.

Plaintiffs brought claims for violation of the California Legal
Remedies Act (CLRA), Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1750-1784, violation
of California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL), Cal. Bus. & Prof.
Code Sections 17200-17210, breach of implied warranty under the
Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, Cal. Civ. Code Sections 1790-
1795.8, breach of warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,
15 U.S.C. Sections 2301-2312 and breach of express warranty under
California Commercial Code section 2313.

In an order dated June 7, 2013, the court granted Ford's motion
for summary judgment on all claims and entered final judgment in
its favor. Plaintiffs successfully appealed the order and the
Ninth Circuit reversed the court's decision on all claims.

Having unsuccessfully defended judgment in its favor on appeal,
Ford moves for summary judgment on the grounds that the Ninth
Circuit did not examine the duty to disclose, actual damages,
statutorily-required notice, statute of limitations, equitable
restitution, and sufficiency of the evidence of tire wear.

Hauser, Glass, and Duarte do not oppose entry of judgment in favor
of Ford on all of their claims. Daniel opposes Ford's motion for
summary judgment.

Judge Shubb denied defendant's motion for summary judgment as to
Daniel and granted as to all remaining plaintiffs. Plaintiff shall
file a renewed motion for class certification within 30 days of
the date the order is signed.

A copy of Judge Shubb's memorandum and order dated May 17, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/Xtx2g0from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by John B. Thomas -- jthomas@hicks-
thomas.com -- Eric Grant -- grant@hicks-thomas.com -- at Hicks
Thomas, LLP; James Allen Carney -- acarney@cbplaw.com -- at Carney
Bates & Pulliam, PLLC

Ford Motor Company, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, represented
by David M George -- dgeorge@dykema.com -- at Dykema Gossett LLP

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Fred J. Fresard --
ffresard@dykema.com -- Tamara A. Bush -- tbush@dykema.com -- at
Dykema Gossett LLP

Ford Motor Company, a DelDefendant, represented by Dennis R. Kiker
-- at LeClair Ryan

Ford Motor Company, Defendant, represented by Janet L Conigliaro
-- jconigliaro@dykema.com -- John Mark Thomas --
jthomas@dykema.com -- Krista L Lenart -- klenart@dykema.com -- at
Dykema Gossett PLLC; Norman C. Hile -- nhile@orrick.com -- at
Orrick Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP


FRONTIER COMMS: Customers Fight Bid to Arbitrate False Ad Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Eyre, writing for Charleston Gazette-Mail, reports that
Frontier Communications customers who've sued the company for
falsely advertising Internet speeds are asking the West Virginia
Supreme Court to allow the case to proceed.

"We hope the Supreme Court will finally grant us our day in court,
so we can get finally get West Virginia out of the digital dark
ages," said Michael Sheridan, a Frontier customer in Greenbrier
County suing the Internet provider.

For 18 months, Frontier has argued that its customers agreed to
"terms and conditions" that require the two sides to settle
disputes through arbitration -- not in a court of law.

"We strongly believe that arbitration provides for quick and fair
resolution of consumer complaints, tailored to each consumer,"
Frontier spokesman Andy Malinoski said.

But Frontier's customers allege the company "buried" the
arbitration provisions on its website -- a site they never
visited. Frontier also included the terms in a monthly bill, but
in print so minuscule that nobody saw it, customers say.

Frontier customers urged the Supreme Court to reject the company's
efforts to dismiss the class-action lawsuit that alleges Frontier
failed to provide the high-speed Internet services it advertises.

In December, Lincoln Circuit Judge Jay Hoke rejected Frontier's
push to toss the lawsuit and force customers to settle their
disputes through arbitration -- a process that limits claims for
damages to $10,000.  Customers stand to gain significantly more in
damages through a jury verdict or settlement.

Frontier appealed Judge Hoke's decision to the Supreme Court,
characterizing its arbitration terms as "friendly" to customers
and saying the judge's ruling showed "hostility" toward such
proceedings.

"We believe the controlling decisions on this issue from the U.S
Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
support Frontier's position in this matter," Mr. Malinoski said.

In a response filed with the Supreme Court, Frontier customers
argue they never agreed to arbitrate their disputes over Internet
service. They never signed a contract with the company. They never
agreed to Frontier's terms and conditions.

"Frontier's position is that consumers are obliged to be on alert
at all times -- diligently reviewing the fine print on each and
every page of promotional material received -- for the possibility
that they may be waiving their rights by doing nothing at all,"
Frontier's customers said in the legal brief.

Frontier has asserted it repeatedly informed customers about the
arbitration terms on monthly bills and on the company's website.
Customers suing the company had a chance to cancel their Internet
service but never did, according to Frontier.

"In addition to the terms and conditions appearing on our website,
we sent a printed hard copy of our terms and conditions to each of
the plaintiffs with his or her bill," Mr. Malinoski said. "Also, a
message printed directly on the bill itself notified them of the
terms and conditions, including the consumer-friendly arbitration
process."

In October 2014, Frontier customers sued the company, alleging
Frontier "throttles back" its Internet service and provides speeds
slower than advertised.  Frontier never notified customers about
the practice, according to the complaint.

Customers reiterated those complaints in their Supreme Court
filing.

"Frontier's practice of overcharging and simultaneously failing to
provide the high-speed, broadband level of service it advertises
has created high profits for Frontier but left West Virginia
Internet users in the digital dark age," the legal brief states.

Frontier has said that the handful of customers suing the company
got the Internet service they paid for.

The Hurricane law firm Klein, Sheridan & Glazer and the Charleston
law firm Bailey & Glasser are representing Frontier's disgruntled
customers.


FRONTIER CO-OP: Recalls Organic Hojicha Tea Due to Salmonella
-------------------------------------------------------------
Frontier Co-op is voluntarily recalling its Organic Hojicha Tea
due to potential to be contaminated with Salmonella, an organism
which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Healthy persons infected with Salmonella often experience
fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody), nausea, vomiting and
abdominal pain. In rare circumstances, infection with Salmonella
can result in the organism getting into the bloodstream and
producing more severe illnesses such as arterial infections (i.e.,
infected aneurysms), endocarditis and arthritis.

To date, no illnesses have been associated with these products.

The recalled products were sold nationwide between the dates of
December 13, 2014 - April 21, 2016. A list of affected product
lots is listed below. On foil bulk packages, the four-digit lot
code will follow the item number (#2920) on the front label
directly above the UPC code.

  Brand      Item       Affected   UPC               Size
  -----      Number     Lots       ---               ----
             ------     -------
  Frontier   2920       4338       0-89836-02920-1   1 lb.
  Co-op                 5096                         (16 oz)
                        5191
                        5289
                        6042

The raw material received by Frontier Co-op, which tested positive
for Salmonella is being recalled by our supplier. Given that
Salmonella may be present, Frontier Co-op is immediately
initiating this recall.

Consumers should not consume these products and should either
throw away any remaining products or return to the point of
purchase for a refund.

Please contact Frontier Co-op with any questions or to inquire
about replacement or reimbursement at 1-800-669-3275 Monday
through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central time.

Founded in 1976 and based in Norway, Iowa, Frontier Co-op offers a
full line of natural and organic products under the Frontier Co-
op, Simply Organic(R) and Aura Cacia(R) brands. Products include
culinary herbs, spices and baking flavors; bulk herbs and spices;
and natural and organic aromatherapy products. Frontier's goal is
to provide consumers with the highest-quality organic and natural
products while supporting and promoting social and environmental
responsibility. For more information, visit Frontier Co-op's
website at www.frontiercoop.comdisclaimer icon.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/eiuivY


GENERAL MILLS: Fails in Bid to Dismiss Cheerios Labeling Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that General Mills can't duck the
bulk of a class action claiming that the company sold Cheerios
labeled as gluten-free that were not, due to a processing error at
one facility, a federal judge in Sacramento has ruled.

The case captioned, JACKLYN HADDIX, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MILLS, INC.;
GENERAL MILLS SALES, INC.; GENERAL MILLS OPERATIONS, LLC, and DOES
1-50, Defendants, No. 2:15-cv-02625-MCE-AC (E.D. Cal.).


GENERAL MOTORS: Unveils Fuel Economy Claims Compensation Plan
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eric Needs, writing for Legal Reader, reports that GM unveils plan
to compensate owners on fuel economy claims, and is expected
compensate about 130,000 individual U.S. SUV owners that had
inflated fuel economy labels.

On May 20 the Detroit automaker said it was temporarily halting
sales of nearly 60,000 new 2016 U.S. SUVs as the vehicles' labels
overstated their fuel efficiency. GM plans to compensate owners
for the difference in miles per gallon, announcing the program in
the coming week, said sources.

Once the correct labels arrived at the dealership GM resumed sales
on May 21.

It is expected that GM will over a cash compensation program to
address the additional costs of driving based on the lower that
expected fuel economy.

GM Canada is expected to offer a similar compensation program,
though it is not clear how many owners are impacted.

GM has sold about 170,000 2016 SUVs in the United States, with
about 130,000 in retail sales which will qualify for the
compensation program.  The remaining vehicles were sold to rental
car, commercial and fleet buyers, and how GM will address those
owners is unclear.

A GM spokesman declined to confirm the program.

In a statement on May 18, GM said that there was a 1-2 miles per
gallon overstatement that was the result of improper calculations.
It said the inclusion of new emissions related hardware in the
2016 Chevrolet Traverse, GMC Acadia and Buick Enclave SUVs require
new emissions testing, though the fuel economy data from these
tests were not captured in calculations made for EPA fuel economy
labels.  The discovery of the error was found as GM engineers were
working on the 2017 model year labels.

A Florida owner of a 2016 Chevrolet Traverse filed a class-action
suit on May 17 in the U.S. District Court in Detroit against GM on
behalf of owners who bought vehicles with overstated fuel economy
ratings.

On May 20, the Environmental Protection Agency spokeswoman said it
has asked GM "to provide all relevant information to the agency."

The incident follows a multitude of issues in recent years
involving the auto industry overstating vehicle fuel efficiency.

Mitsubishi Motor Corp admitted in April to overstating the fuel
economy of four car models sold in Japan.

In 2014, the Korean carmaker Hyundai Motor Co and its affiliate
Kia Motors Corp agreed to pay $350 million in penalties to the
U.S. government for overstating fuel economy rating in about 1.2
million vehicles.

In June 2014, Ford Motor Co lowered fuel economy ratings on six
models, and agreed to reimburse owners for the difference.


GENERAL MOTORS: Faces Backlash Over Mileage Misstatements
---------------------------------------------------------
Marc Stern, writing for Automotive News, reports that if there is
one thing that is certain about General Motors' mileage faux pas -
- the Monroney Misstep -- it is simply that the automaker's timing
was pretty poor.  Even though it may have been caused by a
clerical error, its recent mileage misstatement comes at a time
when everything that is said by an automaker is examined,
re-examined, checked again and then re-checked.  And, after all of
that double-checking is completed, still no one believes the
result.

Can you blame people for having doubts about veracity? After all,
in the last four years, there have been six major mileage
restatements that have resulted or may result in at least $200
million in payments and penalties to consumers and the government.
No one is likely to give GM a pass or the benefit of the doubt.

The mileage misstatements have played out against a backdrop of
the Volkswagen Dieselgate scandal where the automaker admitted it
cheated on emissions testing.  The automaker implemented the
cheating program when it found that its EA189 2.0-liter four-
cylinder engine, couldn't pass the rigorous U.S. testing cycle.

In order to pass, Volkswagen knowingly implemented the so-called
"defeat switch" strategy where a piece of computer code was
inserted into the engine management software stack.  The routine
turned on emissions equipment when the car's computer system
sensed a test was taking place and turned it off afterward.  In
reality, the only time the vehicles honestly met U.S standards was
when the cheating software kicked in.  Otherwise -- nearly 100
percent of the time -- the engine operated in a mode that kept
mileage and peformance up, while the emissions profile tanked.

So, while General Motors has said that the whole bad mileage
sticker issue was the result of a clerical or like error and while
it has already agreed to pay aggrieved owners from $450 to $1,000,
the public is looking at the automaker with a very jaundiced eye.
Indeed, GM is even feeling the effects of one of its own major
recalls -- the ignition switch issue -- where it was revealed that
the automaker knew about the problem a full decade before a major
recall effort was mounted. It was a decade in which that very
problem caused at least 124 deaths and about 2,300 injuries.

All of the foregoing has combined to yield an atmosphere of
general consumer doubt that spreads beyond an individual carmaker.
Now, when General Motors says that a clerical error caused the
Monroney Misstep, people tend to take that explanation with a
grain of salt. (GM's whole explanation says the clerical error
occurred when engineers changed the pollution control hardware for
the 2016 models and recalculated the ratings, those ratings never
made it to the EPA or into GM's sales brochures and other
marketing materials due to the miscue.)

If things were normal, people would likely have taken GM's word at
face value, said Automotive News on May 21.  After all, most would
reason, the automaker was seriously bruised by the ignition-switch
recall campaign and it had nothing to gain by falsifying the
mileage data.  Indeed, it would stand to reason that GM would have
even more reason to keep its house in order.

GM says that it told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as
soon as it discovered the error.  And, with lightning-fast speed -
- for the auto industry -- 10 days, the automaker rolled out its
compensation plan.

However, things are not normal in the auto business.  The normal
level of cynicism with which most people hold the industry has
deepened to a high level of mistrust.  People just cannot get away
from the six major fuel restatements that have occurred in the
last four years -- Hyundai-Kia (two names, one company), Ford
(twice), Mercedes-Benz, Mitsubishi and GM - Dieselgate and even
GM's ignition-switch recall.  Each incident has combined to create
a cloud over the industry and a climate of mistrust so that even
if an automaker can prove itself blameless, there will still be
lingering doubts.

The social media reaction to GM's explanation ranged from a
sarcasm to skepticism.  The level of distrust that is being
displayed is mirrored in a groundswell of discontent among owners
of older crossovers -- Acadias, Enclaves and Traverses -- who are
now questioning the mileage figures on their own vehicles.  No
less a publication that Consumer Reports has chimed in with an
item that questions the mileage numbers of those old crossovers.
The same report also called GM's explanation of its Monroney
Misstep into question.

"Whether there is a clerical error or deceit, the issue is where
consumers are being told something that's wrong," Jake Fisher, the
publication's director of testing, says.  "It's not just fuel
economy and emissions.  What if there is a clerical error on
safety? What if a vehicle didn't really pass a certain crash test?
There needs to be trust."

The latest major miscue from GM isn't expected to cost the
automaker much.  Wire service reports put the cost at $100
million, a slight amount when you are a business whose revenue
runs into the multi-billions.  In fact, GM says, the Monroney
Misstep will not "materially impact our financial results." The
comment came from the automaker on May 20.  The plan will give
135,000 owners a choice, extended warranty or debit card.  The
card will carry from $450 to $900, depending on whether the
vehicle was leased or purchased. No decision has been made yet on
the 30,000 to 35,000 fleet sales.

GM is still awaiting word from the EPA as to whether there will be
a fine or not and one class-action lawsuit has been filed.


GIANT EAGLE: Recalls Asian Salad Kits Due to Allergens
------------------------------------------------------
A precautionary recall of three cases (containing 6 salads each)
of 6.25 ounce The Farmers Market Chopped Asian Salad Kit with
Product Code G126B22 and Use-by Date of May 20, 2016 has been
issued due to possible exposure to undeclared allergens (soy,
almonds, wheat). The product, manufactured by Fresh Express, was
marketed and distributed by Giant Eagle Inc.

Giant Eagle has already retrieved all but three individual salad
kit bowls and prevented them from being offered for sale. The
three remaining salad kit bowls were distributed to a Giant Eagle
store in Coraopolis, Pennsylvania. No other Giant Eagle or Fresh
Express salad products are included in this recall. No illnesses
are reported.

The precautionary recall was necessitated when it was discovered
incorrect labels had been applied to a small quantity of the salad
kits. In some individuals the consumption of an undisclosed
allergen could be life-threatening.

Fresh Express and Giant Eagle take all matters of food safety very
seriously, including the issue of allergens. Fresh Express is
coordinating with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration regarding
this isolated event.

Consumers in possession of the recalled salad should discard it. A
refund is available where purchased. With questions, consumers may
contact the Fresh Express Consumer Response Center toll-free at
(800) 242-5472 during the hours of 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. Eastern Time
or Giant Eagle Customer Care at (800) 553-2324 during the hours of
9 a.m. to 9 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday.

The Farmers Market Chopped Asian Salad Kit, 6.25 ounce bowl
Product Code of G126B22 and Use-By Date of May 20 located on the
bottom label of the package

Distribution: Three individual salad kit bowls were distributed to
Giant Eagle grocery store, Coraopolis, Pennsylvania

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/evFH71


GLOBUS MEDICAL: Silverstein Litigation Pending
----------------------------------------------
Globus Medical, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company still
defends the Silverstein Litigation.

The Company said, "On September 28, 2015, a putative securities
class action lawsuit was filed against us and certain of our
officers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. Plaintiff in the lawsuit purports to represent a
class of our stockholders who purchased shares between February
26, 2014 and August 5, 2014. The complaint purports to assert
claims under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange
Act of 1934, as amended, and seeks damages in an unspecified
amount, attorney's fees and other relief. We believe the
allegations to be unfounded, and intend to defend our rights
vigorously. The probable outcome of this litigation cannot be
determined, nor can we estimate a range of potential loss.
Therefore, in accordance with authoritative guidance on the
evaluation of loss contingencies, we have not recorded an accrual
related to this litigation."


GRETNA, LA: Faces Class Action Over Traffic Enforcement Ordinance
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Carrie Bradon, writing for Louisiana Record, reports that a class-
action lawsuit filed against the city of Gretna and a traffic
enforcement system claims that a particular ordinance is unlawful.

Michael Brantley Jr. and Theodore Traigle, individually and on
behalf of others similarly situated, filed a suit against the city
of Gretna and Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. in the 24th Judicial
District Court on April 22.

According to the claim, the plaintiffs were made to pay fines in
accordance with an ordinance created to enforce the punishment of
traffic violations caught by cameras.  The suit states that the
ordinance is unlawful in its requirements and in direct
contradiction to the due process outlined in Article 1 of the
Louisiana Constitution.

The defendant is accused of unlawful enforcement of the ordinance.

The plaintiffs are seeking an unspecified amount in damages and to
enjoin the defendants in enforcing the ordinance and the
collection of fines.  They are represented by Gordon L. James,
Robert M. Baldwin and G. Adam Cossey of Hudson, Potts and
Bernstein LLP in Monroe. The case has been assigned to Division M
Judge Henry G. Sullivan Jr.

The 24th Judicial District Court Case number 760182


HICKORY HARVEST: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products
--------------------------------------------------
Hickory Harvest Foods, under advice from its sunflower kernel
supplier, SunOpta, is expanding their recall of a limited number
of products that have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women. These recalled items are in
addition to the items recalled on May 4, 2016.

The additional products were packaged at, or distributed from
Hickory Harvest between the dates of April 20, 2016 and May 18,
2016. Shipments were to the following states: AR, AZ, CA, CT, FL,
IL, IN, KY, LA, MA, MD, Ml, MO, NC, NM, NY, OH, OK, OR, PA, TX,
and VA. No illnesses have been reported to date, but in an
abundance of caution Hickory Harvest is recalling all affected
products.

Recalled retail items were sold in packaged bags and deli tubs and
are marked with Best By Dates located on the front or back of the
packages. Listed below are details regarding the additional
recalled items:

  Product               Size      UPC                Best By Date
  Description           ----      ---                ------------
  -----------
  Big Y Cranberry Nut   20 oz     0-18894-00457-8    02/09/17
  Trail
  Hickory Harvest       7 oz      0-36232-06136-6    02/04/17
  Cranberry Fitness
  Car Cup
  Hickory Harvest       7 oz      0-36232-07716-9    02/03/17
  Roasted Salted                                     02/05/17
  Sunflower Kernel Car
  Cup
  Hickory Harvest       11 oz     0-36232-07702-2    05/02/17
  Roasted Salted
  Sunflower Kernel      5.5 oz    8-55993-20018-6    04/20/17
  Amish Farms Roasted
  Salted Sunflower
  Kernel
  Raylicious Roasted    1.5 oz    8-55291-00192-8    05/20/17
  Salted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Liberty Roasted       3 oz      6-08819-35672-3    05/02/17
  Salted Sunflower                                   05/21/17
  Kernels                                            05/25/17
  Sheetz Roasted        3.5 oz    7-59465-00784-9    04/20/17
  Salted Sunflower                                   04/25/17
  Kernels                                            05/02/17
                                                     05/03/17
  Hickory Harvest       6 oz      0-36232-00511-7    01/20/17
  Sweet and Salty                                    01/21/17
  Trail Car Cup

Previously recalled items from press release dated May 4, 2016:

  Product               Size      UPC                Best By Date
  Description           ----      ---                ------------
  -----------
  Hickory Harvest       10 oz     0-36232-07703-9    11/18/16
  Roasted Salted                                     01/07/17
  Sunflower Kernel                                   01/08/17
  Hickory Harvest       10 oz     0-36232-07707-9    11/16/16
  Roasted No Salt                                    01/21/17
  Sunflower Kernel
  Hickory Harvest       7 oz      0-36232-07716-9    11/25/16
  Roasted Salted                                     12/29/16
  Sunflower Kernel
  Hickory Harvest       11 oz     0-36232-07702-2    01/11/17
  Roasted Salted
  Sunflower Kernel
  Hickory Harvest       5 oz      0-36232-07704-6    11/25/16
  Roasted Salted                                     12/28/16
  Sunflower Kernel                                   12/29/16
  IM Good Roasted       1.6 oz    7-93724-80218-9    04/29/17
  Salted Sunflower
  Kernel
  Sheetz Roasted Salted 3.5 oz    7-59465-00784-9    03/01/17
  Sunflower Kernel
  Raylicious Roasted    1.5 oz    8-55291-00192-8    04/14/17
  Salted Sunflower                                   04/15/17
  Kernel
  Liberty Roasted       3 oz      6-08819-35672-3    04/16/17
  Sunflower Kernel                                   04/29/17
  Heinens Roasted       10 oz     0-36232-07703-9    12/28/16
  Salted Sunflower
  Kernel
  Heinens Roasted No    10 oz     0-36232-07707-7    01/21/17
  Salted Sunflower Kernel                            12/15/16
  Amish Farms Roasted    5.5 oz   8-55993-20018-6    02/25/17
  Salted Sunflower Kernel

Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who
purchased these products may take them back to the store where
they purchased them for a refund or simply discard them.

Consumers seeking information may email askus2@hickoryharvest.com
or call 1-800-448-6887 Monday through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm
Eastern Time.

Retailers and wholesale customers should check their inventories
and shelves to confirm that none of the products are present or
available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse inventories.
Please contact Hickory Harvest at askus2@hickoryharvest.com to
arrange for disposal or return of the product.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Company provided the following statement:

"We are dedicated to producing the highest quality and safest
snacks for our customers, as their safety is our top priority.
Therefore, we are following the advice of our supplier and issuing
a voluntary recall on certain sunflower kernel products that are
potentially contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes. Fortunately,
there have been no consumer illnesses reported. Hickory Harvest
Foods is working with its customers and the FDA to ensure the
products are removed from commerce as quickly as possible."

Hickory Harvest Foods, Inc., The Good Snack People, offers the
largest selection of healthy and salty snacks in a variety of
packaging options. Hickory Harvest Foods sells wholesale product
under its own brand, the I.M. Good Snacks brand as well as private
brands to grocery stores/mass retail, convenience/travel stores,
distributors, food manufacturers, gift companies and fundraising
organizations. Located in Akron, Ohio since 1972, the company has
a proud history of retaining long-time employees that are
dedicated to producing the best quality in the industry.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/bpHAgC


HIGHVELD SYNDICATION: In Class Action Settlement Talks
------------------------------------------------------
Ryk van Niekerk, writing for Moneyweb, reports that property mogul
Nic Georgiou and the executive of the Highveld Syndication Action
Group (HSAG) have started informal discussions regarding a
potential settlement that would avert a drawn-out class action
lawsuit.

The first meeting was held in April in Mossel Bay, but no official
proposal emerged.

It has also become apparent that Elna Visagie and Herman Lombaard,
two of the most hardworking and passionate advocates against
Orthotouch and Georgiou in recent years, are now working for
Orthotouch, apparently for monthly salaries as high as R100 000.

From various communications with Ms. Visagie and Mr. Lombaard it
is evident that they are also trying to facilitate a settlement as
they are concerned that a drawn-out lawsuit would not be in the
best interest of investors.

Informal discussions

Helgard Hancke, one of the representatives of HSAG, confirmed that
Georgiou attended the Mossel Bay meeting without legal
representation.

Jacques Theron of Theron and Partners, the legal firm driving the
class action, who was also present during this meeting, said
another meeting was scheduled for this week.

Both however emphasized that the negotiations are at a very early
stage.

Mr. Georgiou's response

Mr. Georgiou refused to comment on these developments, citing
Moneyweb's apparent bias against the company.  "Due to the fact
that your reporting has consistently been biased against us, we
have long since taken the view that anything we comment on will
only be used or abused in an endeavor to cause us damage."


HMSHOST: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------
HMSHost of Bethesda, Maryland is recalling multiple brands of
trail mix, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The Cape Cod Cranberry Trail Mix, 7 oz., was sold under the brand
names Fresh Attractions, 1897, Ciao, Farmers Market, Grounded In,
La Tapenade, Marche, MKT, Pronto, PZA, The Local, and Urban Market
in stores in the following markets: Arizona, California, Florida,
Illinois, Massachusetts, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,
Pennsylvania, Texas, and West Virginia.

The trail mix has a UPC code of 2050000142000 and a use by date
from 4/5/16 to 9/17/16.

HMSHost was recently notified by one of its snack manufacturers,
Woodstock Farms Manufacturing, that during their routine testing,
the presence of Listeria monocytogenes was revealed in two lots of
walnuts used in one of its trail mixes. To take every precaution,
HMSHost has removed this product from stores and is initiating a
recall of its 7 oz. Cape Cod Cranberry Trail Mix.

The manufacturer has reported that there are no known illnesses to
date from the ingredient in question; however, we ask that you do
not consume this product. Consumers who wish to receive a refund
for unused portions may return it to the store for a full refund
or contact customerservice@hmshost.com or call 1-877-672-7467. Our
phone lines are manned 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/NGNOyF


HY-VEE: Recalls Fried Rice Products Due to Listeria
---------------------------------------------------
Hy-Vee, Inc., based in West Des Moines, Iowa, is voluntarily
recalling its frozen Hy-Vee Vegetable Fried Rice and frozen Hy-Vee
Chicken Fried Rice products across its eight-state region due to
possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria
monocytogenes is an organism, which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can cause miscarriages
and stillbirths among pregnant women.

To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with this
product.

The frozen Hy-Vee Vegetable Fried Rice product being recalled was
sold in 1 lb. bags with the UPC number 000007545012530 and with a
"use by" date of Nov. 5, 2017, or earlier. The frozen Hy-Vee
Chicken Fried Rice product being recalled was sold in 20 oz. bags
with the UPC number 0075450125290 and with a "use by" date of Nov.
5, 2017, or earlier. These products were sold at Hy-Vee stores in
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, South
Dakota and Wisconsin between July 24, 2014, and May 12, 2016. Out
of an abundance of caution, Hy-Vee is recalling these two products
from all of its stores.

The potential for contamination was discovered after Ajinomoto
Windsor, Hy-Vee's supplier, announced they were recalling specific
frozen foods due to the potential for Listeria monocytogenes. No
other Hy-Vee food items are impacted by this recall.

Customers who purchased this product should discard it or return
it to their local Hy-Vee store for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Hy-Vee Customer Care
representatives 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-800-772-
4098.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/USfpxb


HY-VEE INC: Recalls Trail Mix Products Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------
Hy-Vee, Inc., based in West Des Moines, Iowa, is voluntarily
recalling six trail mix products across its eight-state region due
to possible contamination with Listeria monocytogenes. The
products include Hy-Vee Caramel Cashew Honey Crunch Trail Mix, Hy-
Vee Dark Chocolate Cranberry Trail Mix, Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix,
Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix To Go, Hy-Vee Berry Trail Mix and Hy-Vee
Santa Fe Trail Mix. Listeria monocytogenes is an organism, which
can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young
children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune
systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term
symptoms such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea,
abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria monocytogenes infection can
cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

To date, no illnesses have been reported in connection with these
products.

Out of an abundance of caution, Hy-Vee is recalling the following
products from all of its stores:

  --- Hy-Vee Caramel Cashew Honey Crunch Trail Mix - sold in 24
      oz. bags with the UPC number 75450040586 and with a "best
      by" date of April 5, 2017
  --- Hy-Vee Dark Chocolate Cranberry Trail Mix - sold in 24 oz.
      bags with the UPC number 75450041354 and with a "best by"
      date of April 14, 2017
  --- Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix - sold in 26 oz. bags with the
      UPC number 75450016796 and with a "best by" date of April
      5, 2017, and April 15, 2017
  --- Hy-Vee Mountain Trail Mix To Go - sold in 1.75 oz. bags
      with the UPC number 75450040739 and with a "best by" date
      of March 23, 2017
  --- Hy-Vee Berry Trail Mix - sold in 7 oz. bags with the UPC
      number 75450040593 and with a "best by" date of March 19,
      2017
  --- Hy-Vee Santa Fe Trail Mix - sold in 6.5 oz. bags with the
      UPC number 75450041101 and with a "best by" date of March
      31, 2017

The potential for contamination was discovered after Hy-Vee's
supplier, SunOpta, announced they were recalling specific lots of
sunflower kernels due to the potential for Listeria monocytogenes.
The initial recall was limited to sunflower kernel products
produced at SunOpta's Crookston, Minnesota, facility; however, the
recall was recently expanded to all products produced at the
facility between Feb. 20 and April 20.
Customers who purchased this product should discard it or return
it to their local Hy-Vee store for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact Hy-Vee Customer Care
representatives 24 hours a day, seven days a week at 1-800-772-
4098.

Hy-Vee, Inc. is an employee-owned corporation operating 240 retail
stores across eight Midwestern states with sales of $9.3 billion
annually. Hy-Vee ranks among the top 25 supermarket chains and the
top 50 private companies in the United States. Supermarket News,
the authoritative voice of the food industry, has honored the
company with a Whole Health Enterprise Award for its leadership in
providing services and programs that promote a healthy lifestyle.
For more information, visit www.hy-vee.comdisclaimer icon.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/hLAsKf


ILLINOIS: Mental Health Overhaul Begins Following Settlement
------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that Illinois' top corrections
official says an overhaul has begun of prison mental health
programs following a settlement in a class-action lawsuit.

Illinois Department of Corrections Director John Baldwin tells The
(Bloomington) Pantagraph he wants the state to be a national
model.  Mr. Baldwin says Gov. Bruce Rauner is committed to making
funding available.

The agreement in a 2007 class-action lawsuit calls for new
treatment units at the Logan, Pontiac and Dixon prisons as well as
in Joliet.  The cost has been estimated at $90 million, including
staffing.  U.S. District Judge Michael Mihm approved the
settlement earlier this month.

Jennifer Vollen-Katz of the John Howard Association, a Chicago
group monitoring Illinois prisons, says she is pleased with the
priority Mr. Baldwin has placed on mental health since his
appointment in August.


INDIANA: AHA Taps Barnes & Thornburg to Defend Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Ken de la Bastide, writing for the Herald Bulletin, reports that
based on the advice of its insurance carrier, the Anderson Housing
Authority has hired Indianapolis law firm Barnes & Thornburg to
represent it in a federal lawsuit.

The Fair Housing Center of Central Indiana and two tenants filed a
class-action lawsuit against AHA, citing sexual harassment, racial
discrimination and health problems related to conditions that the
management failed to address at Westvale Manor.

Among the common complaints, according to the lawsuit: Water
leaks, mold pests and inadequate maintenance of the apartments.

AHA attorney Bill McCarty informed commission members on May 18
that Michael Palmer with Barnes & Thornburg has been retained to
handle the case.

Mr. McCarty said the case is in the preservation of documents
phase, adding all the documents have been preserved.

"He (Palmer) is working on a response and asked for additional
time," Mr. McCarty said.  "Another request for additional time
would not be a surprise."

Mr. McCarty said the insurance company requested that Mr. Palmer
handle the case because of his past experience with public housing
litigation.

During the meeting, Charles Weatherly Jr., executive director of
the AHA, said the city confirmed it will provide $42,000 for
repairs to Westvale Manor.

Weatherly said the funds will be used to make major repairs, in
particular the roof.  He said the housing authority will be
reimbursed by the city through Community Development Block Grant
funds.

"We have to provide proof the work was done," he said.

The work is expected to be started when $160,000 in capital
improvement funds are received from U.S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development.

Commission members were informed that 18 of the 134 units at
Westvale Manor are currently vacant.  Mr. Weatherly said 13 of the
tenants were moved to the subsidized Section 8 housing program.

AHA has also been approved for $25,000 to hire a housing counselor
through CDBG funds.

Mr. Weatherly said AHA has applied for a $250,000 HUD grant to
fund the housing counselor position for three years.

The grant would cover the cost of salaries and benefits.

Mr. Weatherly said the counselor would help residents obtain
available services in the community.


INTERLINE BRANDS: Judge Trims "Ajose" Class Suit
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Kevin H. Sharp of the Middle District of Tennessee,
Nashville Division granted in part and denied in part defendant's
motion to dismiss in the case JACQUELINE D. AJOSE, KATHY SMITH,
SHARON KURTZ, PATRICIA EVERETT, JAMES L. BOYLAND, AND KATHY
DUTTON, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. INTERLINE BRANDS, INC., Defendant, No. 3:14-cv-1707
(M.D. Tenn.)

Interline Brands is a direct marketer and distributor of a broad
line of products, including plumbing supplies. Interline does not
manufacture the products it sells but instead uses third-party
manufacturers to provide it with the products it distributes in
the United States. Among the products distributed by Interline is
a DuraPro brand toilet connector. Interline purchased the toilet
connectors from China, first via third-party supplier Lynx, Ltd.
and later, after 2005, via third-party supplier MTD (USA) Corp.
(MTD). MTD manufactured the Toilet Connectors based on Interline's
design specifications.

The named plaintiffs Jaclyn Ajose of Pennsylvania, Kathy Smith of
Colorado, Sharon Kurtz of Texas, Patricia Evett and Kathy Dutton
of Arizona, and James L. Boyland of Florida, seek to represent
themselves and a class of others who are similarly situated.
Plaintiffs allege that Interline distributed toilet connectors
with uniformly defective plastic coupling nuts. Plaintiffs also
allege that Interline knew of the defects in the toilet connectors
yet failed to publicly disclose that the connectors carried a
significant risk of causing catastrophic water damage to property.

Plaintiffs brought seven causes of action. A Strict Liability-
Design Defect and Failure to Warn claim (Count I), a Declaratory
Judgment Act claim (Count II), a Florida Deceptive and Unfair
Trade Practices Act claim (Count III), a Colorado Consumer
Protection Act claim (Count IV), an Unjust Enrichment claim (Count
V), a Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act claim (Count
VI) and a Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability claim
(Count VII). They filed suit in August 2014 and amended their
complaint in August of the following year.

Interline made a request to transfer the case to the Middle
District of Florida but was denied. Interline seeks to dismiss the
bulk of plaintiffs' claims, and alleges that the FAC only meets
the pleading standard with respect to portions of Count I.
Otherwise, Interline asserts, the rest of Count I and all of
Counts II through VII must be dismissed for failure to state a
claim.

Judge Sharp granted in part and denied in part defendant's motion
to dismiss. Plaintiffs' Strict Liability and Declaratory Judgment
Act claims remain wholly intact. The FDUTPA claim will be
dismissed as to all plaintiffs except plaintiff Boyland, whose
FDUTPA claim survives. The CCPA and unjust cnrichment claims will
be dismissed. The implied breach of warranty claims (Counts VI and
VII) will be dismissed as to the Arizona and Florida plaintiffs,
but will survive for the Colorado, Texas, and Pennsylvania
plaintiffs.

A copy of Judge Sharp's memorandum dated May 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/BR5DMkfrom Leagle.com.

Jacquelyn D. Ajose, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony D. Shapiro
-- tony@hbsslaw.com -- at Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP;
Charles J. Kocher -- ckocher@smbb.com -- at Saltz, Mongeluzzi,
Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.; Daniel E. Gustafson --
dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Donald L.
Perelman -- dperelman@finekaplan.com -- Gerard A. Dever --
gdever@finekaplan.com -- at Fine, Kaplan & Black, P.C.; Gregory F.
Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- at Greg Coleman Law; James
Gerard Stranch, IV -- gerards@BSJFirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch
& Jennings, PLLC

Jacquelyn D. Ajose, represented by Jeniphr Breckenridge --
jeniphr@hbsslaw.com -- Hagens, Berman, Sobol, Shapiro, LLP

Jacquelyn D. Ajose, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph J. Tabacco,
Jr. -- jtabacco@bermandevalerio.com -- Todd A. Seaver --
tseaver@bermandevalerio.com -- Berman DeValerio; Patrick Howard
-- phoward@smbb.com -- Simon B. Paris -- sparis@smbb.com -- at
Saltz, Mongeluzzi, Barrett & Bendesky, P.C.; Raina Borrelli --
rborrelli@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek, PLLC; Seamus
T. Kelly -- seamusk@BSJFirm.com -- Branstetter, Stranch &
Jennings, PLLC; Amy E. Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Edward
A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- at Wexler Wallace LLP; Glen
L. Abramson -- gabramson@bm.net -- Jeffrey L. Osterwise --
josterwise@bm.net -- Shanon J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- at
Berger & Montague, P.C.; Joseph G. Sauder -- at Chimicles &
Tikellis LLP; Joseph B. Kenney -- jbk@mccunewright.com -- Matthew
D. Schelkopf -- mds@mccunewright.com -- at McCune Wright LLP

Interline Brands, Inc., Defendant, represented by David O. Batista
-- batistad@gtlaw.com -- Timothy A. Kolaya -- kolayat@gtlaw.com --
Hilarie Bass -- bassh@gtlaw.com -- Mark A. Salky --
salkym@gtlaw.com -- at Greenberg Traurig LLP; John Roy Tarpley --
jtarpley@lewisthomason.com -- at Lewis, Thomason, King, Krieg &
Waldrop, P.C.


JAKARTA: Governor Won't Hinder Luar Batang Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Destrianita Kusumastuti, writing for TEMPO.CO, reports that
Jakarta Governor Basuki "Ahok" Tjahaja Purnama has admitted he
will not get in the way on Yusril Ihza Mahendra and Luar Batang
residents's plan of filing a class action lawsuit on him (Ahok).
However, Mr. Ahok hopes that the lawsuit would not hinder the
development of Luar Batang.

"Go ahead.  If they want to file a class action lawsuit.  But
don't let the PAM [regional water company] case happened again.
You filed a class action lawsuit that hindered development, the
process took so long that halted the development.  And if you
lose, you won't get punished," Mr. Ahok said on May 23 at the City
Hall. "It should be noted by the people, that your action will
only hinder the development," he said.

Yusril Ihza Mahendra, the defense lawyer of Luar Batang residents,
said he will have a class action lawsuit prepared in a week's time
against Jakarta administration and bring it to the State
Administrative Court (PTUN).

The lawsuit is against Jakarta administration that failed to issue
either a decree or warrant of eviction in Luar Batang Village
eviction. Yusril has accused Ahok of intentionally omitting the
issuance of a decree to avoid a lawsuit as happened to Bidaracina
residents.

Even though he cannot file a lawsuit over the issuance of a
warrant, the constitutional law expert considered that a class
action can be filed against the Governor, based on the State
Administrative Law.


JONES FINANCIAL: Motion to Transfer "Ezersky" Denied
----------------------------------------------------
The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. said in its Form 10-K
Report filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March
11, 2016, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, that the
Supreme Court of Missouri has denied plaintiff's application to
transfer the case, Daniel Ezersky, individually and on behalf of
all others similarly situated.

On March 14, 2013, Edward Jones was named as a defendant in a
putative class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of St. Louis
County, Missouri. The petition alleged that Edward Jones breached
its fiduciary duties and was unjustly enriched through the use of
an online life insurance needs calculator that plaintiff claims
inflated the amount of insurance he needed. The plaintiff sought
damages on behalf of Missouri residents who purchased certain life
insurance products from Edward Jones between March of 2008 and the
present, including: actual damages, or alternatively, judgment in
an amount equal to profits gained from the sale of term, whole
life or universal life insurance to plaintiff/damages class;
punitive damages; injunctive relief; costs, including reasonable
fees and expert witness expenses; and reasonable attorneys' fees.

On August 18, 2014, Edward Jones filed a motion for summary
judgment, which was subsequently granted by the Court. Plaintiff
filed a notice of appeal, and the Missouri Court of Appeals for
the Eastern District affirmed summary judgment on October 20,
2015.

On January 26, 2016, the Supreme Court of Missouri denied the
plaintiff's application to transfer the case.

The Jones Financial Companies, L.L.L.P. is a registered limited
liability limited partnership organized under the Missouri Revised
Uniform Limited Partnership Act.  The Partnership's principal
operating subsidiary, Edward D. Jones & Co., L.P., is a registered
broker-dealer in the U.S. and one of Edward Jones' subsidiaries is
a registered broker-dealer in Canada.


JORGE GARCIA: Homeowners File Class Action Over Property Damage
---------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Office of Mark A. Ticer on May 16 disclosed that thousands
of Texas homeowners who have been victimized by severe weather may
also be victims of a wide-ranging conspiracy involving door-to-
door solicitors, public insurance adjusters and attorneys,
according to a class-action lawsuit filed in Dallas.

The lawsuit claims that individuals, companies and law firms
purportedly representing residents with property damage insurance
claims are actually operating a pyramid scheme to collect unlawful
and fraudulent fees that can make completing the repairs almost
impossible.

According to court documents, the scheme typically begins when a
door-to-door solicitor working on behalf of a roofing contractor
claims that his company can get the homeowner's insurance company
to pay for property damage, such as a new roof.  After the initial
insurance payment arrives, the solicitor keeps the funds and
brings in a so-called "public adjuster" to inspect the home and
seek additional payment from the insurance company, charging a fee
of 10 percent of the total claim plus other expenses.

The solicitor also tells the homeowner that a lawyer must be hired
to get still more payments from the insurance company, adding a 25
percent to 40 percent fee for any recovery.  Having never met or
even spoken with the homeowner, the attorney then files a lawsuit
against the insurer without the homeowner's knowledge, agrees to a
mediation, and settles the matter without the approval of or
consultation with the homeowner.  When a settlement check finally
arrives, the payment often is not enough to pay for roof repairs
because of deductions to cover the fees and expenses of the
attorney, public adjuster and solicitor.

"This is a very real and deceitful scheme that is carried out in
this state every day by those who are supposed to be helping
homeowners, not ripping them off," says attorney Mark Ticer, who
represents Dallas resident Juan Guerra in the lawsuit.

Mr. Guerra initially was approached in 2014 by a representative of
Arlington-based roofing contractor Lampcorp, who said the company
could handle his insurance claim for a new roof.
Mr. Guerra then turned over the payment from his insurer to
Lampcorp, which demanded that Mr. Guerra hire Arlington-based
National Claims Negotiators LLC, a public adjusting firm, and the
San Antonio law firm of Speights & Worrich to obtain additional
payments from Mr. Guerra's insurer.

Mr. Guerra still has not received the new roof he was initially
promised by the solicitor, nor have the insurance proceeds taken
by Lambcorp been returned to him.

"This lawsuit is bringing to light an elaborate web of
conspirators and con artists who are lining their pockets at the
expense of innocent and unsuspecting homeowners, with a goal of
bringing accountability, honesty and integrity back into the
system," says attorney Van Shaw of the Law Offices of Van Shaw in
Dallas, co-counsel for Mr. Guerra and the proposed class.

Mr. Ticer and Mr. Shaw say the lawsuit also exposes a troubling
increase in Texas of an illegal practice called barratry, which
includes the improper solicitation of potential cases by
individuals not associated with the lawyer handling the matter.

"Such conduct is unfortunately becoming increasingly common, but
Texas law provides victims of barratry a private right of action
against the violating lawyers," says Mr. Ticer.

The case is Guerra v. Jorge Garcia, Vivian Armas, et al., No. DC-
15-03338, in the 134th District Court in Dallas.

The Law Office of Mark A. Ticer -- http://www.ticerlawfirm.com--
handles disputes with all types of insurance coverage, including
employee benefits related to ERISA, medical insurance, liability
insurance and homeowners coverage, as well as legal malpractice,
expert witness testimony, and consumer law matters.


JP MORGAN: "Friedman" Suit Over Madoff Ponzi Scheme Dismissed
-------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge John G. Koeltl of the Southern District of New
York, granted defendants' motion to dismiss in the case RICHARD
FRIEDMAN and CARLA HIRSCHORN, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. JP MORGAN
CHASE & CO., JP MORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES
LLC, and J.P. MORGAN SECURITIES LTD.; JOHN HOGAN and RICHARD
CASSA, Defendants, No. 15-cv-5899 (JGK) (S.D.N.Y.)

Richard Friedman and Carla Hirschorn on behalf of investors in
Bernard L. Madoff's Ponzi scheme brought a case against JP Morgan
Chase & Co., JP Morgan Chase Bank, J.P. Morgan Securities LLC, and
J.P. Morgan Securities, Ltd., and two JP Morgan employees, John
Hogan and Richard Cassa.

JP Morgan Chase is a financial holding company incorporated under
Delaware law with its principal place of business in New York. The
other JP Morgan defendants are subsidiaries of JP Morgan Chase:
(1) JP Morgan Chase Bank has its principal place of business in
Ohio; (2) J.P. Morgan Securities LLC is organized under Delaware
law and is the principal non-bank subsidiary of JP Morgan Chase;
(3) J.P. Morgan Securities Ltd. is organized under English law and
is the investment banking arm of JP Morgan Chase in the United
Kingdom. John Hogan is a JP Morgan employee who held several
positions in which he oversaw the risk of Chase's Investment
Bank's credit business, rising to the level of Chief Risk Officer
and later Chairman of Risk for all JP Morgan Chase. Richard Cassa
was the sponsor or Client Relationship Manager for one of the
Madoff and BLMIS accounts from 1993 to March 2008 when he retired.

Plaintiffs' class complaint allege that JP Morgan was aware, or
should have been aware, that Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff
Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) were not conducting a legitimate
investment advisory business because JP Morgan had access to
BLMIS's bank accounts and would have realized that BLMIS was not
using customer funds to execute trades.

The plaintiffs filed the action in the District of New Jersey,
alleging that the defendants were actively complicit in the
illegal conduct of Madoff and Bernard L. Madoff Investment
Securities LLC. The case was transferred to the Southern District
of New York on July 28, 2015. The defendants moved to dismiss all
the claims.

A copy of Judge Koeltl's opinion and order dated May 18, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/Ojwbi4from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by Helen Davis Chaitman --
hchaitman@chaitmanllp.com -- Lance Gotthoffer --
lgotthoffer@chaitmanllp.com -- at Chaitman LLP; Julie Gorchkova
-- Peter W. Smith -- Vincenzo Maurizio Mogavero --
vmogavero@bplegal.com -- at Becker & Poliakoff, LLP

Defendants, represented by Alan S. Naar -- anaar@greenbaumlaw.com
-- at GREENBAUM, ROWE, SMITH & DAVIS, LLP; John F Savarese --
JFSavarese@wlrk.com -- Emil A. Kleinhaus -- EAKleinhaus@WLRK.com
-- Stephen R. DiPrima -- SRDiPrima@wlrk.com -- at Wachtell,
Lipton, Rosen & Katz


KROGER CO: Recalls Organic Mixed Vegetables Due to Listeria
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Kroger Co.(NYSE: KR) said it is recalling Simple Truth Organic
Mixed Vegetables because a supplier indicated the product may be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which could
result in severe illness to those individuals who may consume this
product.  No customer illnesses have been reported to date.
Stores operating under the following names are included in this
recall:  Kroger, Jay-C, Dillons, Bakers, Gerbes, King Soopers,
City Market, Fry's, Fred Meyer, Ralphs, QFC and Smith's. This
product was sold in the following states: Alabama, Alaska,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi,
Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina,
Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,
Washington, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kroger has removed this item from store shelves and initiated its
customer recall notification system that alerts customers who may
have purchased recalled Class 1 products through register receipt
tape messages and phone calls.

Kroger is recalling the following items:

  Product          UPC             Codes            Size
  -------          ---             -----            ----
  Simple Truth     0001111036738   Sell By Date:    10 oz.
  Organic Mixed                    December 2016
  Vegetables                       and Jan 2017

Customers who have purchased the above product should not consume
it and should return them to a store for a full refund or
replacement.

Customers who have questions may contact Kroger at 1-800-KROGERS,
Monday through Friday 8:00 am to 12:00 am EDT and Saturday through
Sunday 8:00 am to 9:00 pm EST.

Every day, the Kroger Family of Companies makes a difference in
the lives of eight and a half million customers and 431,000
associates who shop or serve in 2,778 retail food stores under a
variety of local banner namesdisclaimer icon in 35 states and the
District of Columbia. Kroger and its subsidiaries operate an
expanding ClickList offering -- a personalized, order online, pick
up at the store service -- in addition to our 2,231 pharmacies,
784 convenience stores, 323 fine jewelry stores, 1,387 supermarket
fuel centers and 38 food production plants in the United States.
Kroger is recognized as one of America's most generous companies
for its support of more than 100 Feeding America food bank
partners, breast cancer research and awareness, the military and
their families, and more than 145,000 community organizations
including schools. A leader in supplier diversity, Kroger is a
proud member of the Billion Dollar Roundtable.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/1sivvD


LOS ANGELES, CA: "Garcia" Settlement Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL GARCIA on behalf of himself and
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. LOS ANGELES COUNTY
SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT, a public entity, et al., Defendants, Case
No. CV 09-8943-DMG (SHx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dolly M. Gee granted
the plaintiff's motion for final approval of a class action
settlement agreement with the Los Angeles Unified School District
and motion for award of attorney's fees and expenses related to
class settlement.

Judge Gee found the class settlement agreement with Los Angeles
Unified School District is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all
respects.  The judge also granted the class counsel an award of
fees and expenses of $184,000 as compensation for their work on
the lawsuit and as provided for in the settlement agreement with
the Los Angeles Unified School District.

A full-text copy of Judge Gee's May 20, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/a9S0fz from Leagle.com.

Michael Garcia, represented by Daniel Mumford Perry --
dperry@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley & McCloy LLP, Delilah G
Vinzon -- dvinzon@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed Hadley And McCloy,
Linda S Dakin-Grimm -- ldakin-grimm@milbank.com -- Milbank Tweed
Hadley and McCloy LLP & Anna Mercedes Rivera, Disability Rights
Legal Center.

Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, Leroy Baca, The County of
Los Angeles, represented by Justin W Clark -- jclark@lbaclaw.com
-- Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC & Paul B Beach --
pbeach@lbaclaw.com --  Lawrence Beach Allen and Choi PC.

Los Angeles County Office of Education, represented by Adam Jason
Newman -- anewman@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo,
Carlos M Gonzalez -- cgonzalez@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya
Ruud & Romo, Karen Elaine Gilyard -- kgilyard@aalrr.com --
Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo PC, Marlon C Wadlington --
mwadlington@aalrr.com -- Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud and Romo,
Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of Education & Jennifer
Anne Williams, Los Angeles County Office of Education.

Darlene P. Robles, represented by Adam Jason Newman, Atkinson
Andelson Loya Ruud & Romo, Carlos M Gonzalez, Atkinson Andelson
Loya Ruud & Romo, Karen Elaine Gilyard, Atkinson Andelson Loya
Ruud & Romo PC, Marlon C Wadlington, Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud
and Romo & Vibiana Andrade, Los Angeles County Office of
Education.

Ramon C. Cortines, Los Angeles Unified School District,
represented by Barrett K Green -- bgreen@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, Daniel L Gonzalez -- dlgonzalez@littler.com -- Littler
Mendelson, Diane H Pappas, Los Angeles Unified School District,
Donald A Erwin, Los Angeles Unified School District & Mampre R
Pomakian, Los Angeles Unified School District.

Hacienda La Puente Unified School District, Barbara Nakaoka,
represented by Jack Byron Clarke, Jr. -- jack.clarke@bbklaw.com
-- Best Best and Krieger.

The California Department of Education, Defendant, represented by
Ismael A Castro, Office of Attorney General of California & Julie
Weng-Gutierrez, CAAG - Office of the Attorney General.

Jack O'Connell, Defendant, represented by Ismael A Castro, Office
of Attorney General of California, Glenda N Reager, CAAG & Julie
Weng-Gutierrez, Office of the Attorney General.


LYFT INC: Faces "Zamora" Class Suit in N. District California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Lyft, Inc.

The case is captioned Alex Zamora and Rayshon Clark, on behalf of
themselves and all those similarly situated v. Lyft, Inc., Case
No. 4:16-cv-02558-KAW (N.D. Cal., May 13, 2016).

Lyft, Inc. is a transportation network company based in San
Francisco, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jahan C. Sagafi, Esq.
      OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP
      One Embarcadero Center
      38th Floor
      San Francisco, CA 94111-3339
      Telephone: (415) 638-8800
      Facsimile: (415) 638-8810
      E-mail: jsagafi@outtengolden.com


MCCALL FARMS: Recalls Frozen Yellow Cut Corn Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the CRF Frozen Foods recall, McCall Farms Incorporated
is notifying consumers that it is recalling Piggly Wiggly brand
frozen Yellow Cut Corn due to the potential risk that it may
contain Listeria monocytogenes. McCall Farms was notified by its
supplier, CRF Frozen Foods, of this potential contamination. No
other McCall Farms products have been affected by this recall.
Listeria monocytongenes is an organism which can cause mild to
severe illness and sometimes be fatal to persons who consume
contaminated food. People at greatest risk are newborn infants,
the elderly and those with weakened immune systems. Although
healthy individuals may suffer short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headaches, abdominal pain, stiffness and nausea,
Listeria infections can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among
pregnant women.

Further information about the CRF Frozen Foods recall can be found
on the FDA website at:
http://www.fda.gov/safety/recalls/ucm499406.htm

Piggly Wiggly has been notified of this issue and has removed all
potentially affected products from its stores.

The recall applies to:

  --- Piggly Wiggly brand Frozen Yellow Cut Corn in a 2 lb bag
      UPC number: 4129075181
      Lot Code: CORN0J14FXA

In the event a consumer has this product, they are urged not to
consume it and to dispose of it properly.
McCall Farms takes food safety very seriously and apologizes for
any concern and inconvenience that this incident may have caused.
For additional information contact McCall Farms consumer affairs
line at: 1-800-277-2012 from 8am - 5pm Eastern.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/aur5uX


MDL 2159: Hearing on Motion to Decertify Moved to July 8
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case, In Re: AUTOZONE, INC., WAGE AND HOUR EMPLOYMENT
PRACTICES LITIGATION, Case No. 3:10-md-02159-CRB (N.D. Cal.),
Judge Charles Breyer entered a stipulation extending plaintiff's
opposition as well as the hearing date on defendant's motion to
decertify.

AutoZone, Inc. filed a Motion to Decertify on May 13, 2016.  The
Plaintiffs' Opposition was due on May 27, 2016, however, the
deposition of Ali Saad, Defendant's rebuttal witness, was not set
until May 27, and it is Plaintiffs' position that the deposition
of Dr. Saad is necessary to properly oppose Defendant's Motion to
Decertify.

The parties agree that:

     a. Plaintiffs shall file and serve their Opposition by June
10, 2016;

     b. Defendant shall file and serve its reply brief by June 20,
2016; and

     c. The hearing date on Defendant's Motion, currently on
calendar for June 17, 2016, at 10:00 a.m., is vacated and reset to
July 8, 2016, at 10:00 a.m.

A copy of the Stipulation is available at https://is.gd/QP15Xg
from Leagle.com.

Jimmy Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Joseph Sokolowski
-- Andrew.Sokolowski@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Bevin Elaine Allen
Pike -- Bevin.Pike@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Joseph Drexler,
Jr. -- Robert.Drexler@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Daniela Saspe --
Daniela.Saspe@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Jonathan Sing Lee --
Jonathan.Lee@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Katherine Ward Kehr --
katherine.kehr@capstonelawyers.com -- Marc Primo, Initiative Legal
Group APC -- MPrimo@InitiativeLegal.com -- Matthew Thomas
Theriault -- Matthew.Theriault@CapstoneLawyers.com -- at Capstone
Law APC, Monica Balderrama, Initiative Legal Group APC, Raul Perez
-- Raul.Perez@Capstonelawyers.com -- Rebecca Labat --
Rebecca.Labat@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Robert Kenneth Friedl --
Robert.Friedl@CapstoneLawyers.com -- and Stan Karas --
Stan.Karas@CapstoneLawyers.com -- Capstone Law APC.

Ellison is also represented by:

     Mark R. Thierman, Esq.
     Thierman Buck, LLP
     7287 Lakeside Dr.
     Reno, NV 89511-76520
     Tel: 775-284-1500
          1-877-99LABOR
     Fax: 775-703-5027

Silvia Escobar, Plaintiff, represented by Mark R. Thierman,
Thierman Buck, LLP; and:

     Aldon Louis Bolanos, Esq.
     The Law Office of Aldon Bolanos
     700 E St
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Tel: (916) 446-2800

Haydee Escalante, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Gregg Lander, Esq.
     Kevin Todd Barnes, Esq.
     Law Offices of Kevin T. Barnes
     5670 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 1460
     Los Angeles, CA 90036-5614
     Tel: 323-302-9675
     Fax: 323-549-0101

          - and -

     Giuseppe Joseph Antonelli, Esq.
     Janelle Christine Carney, Esq.
     Law Office of Joseph Antonelli
     14758 Pipeline Ave.
     Suite E, 2nd Floor
     Chino Hills, CA 91709
     Tel: 909-393-0223
     E-mail: jantonelli@antonellilaw.com

Lynnetta Ellison, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Morris Nazarian, Esq.
     Law Offices of Morris Nazarian
     1875 Century Park E #1790
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: 877-225-4529

Mark Sanchez, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Mark Yablonovich, Esq.
     Christopher Richard Pantel, Esq.
     Joseph Steven Hoff, Esq.
     Law Offices of Mark Yablonovich
     1875 Century Park E # 700
     Los Angeles, CA 90067
     Tel: 310-286-0246

          - and -

     Patrick Joseph Clifford, Esq.
     Selman Breitman, LLP
     11766 Wilshire Boulevard, Sixth Floor
     Los Angeles, CA 90025
     Tel: 310-445-0800

Drake Price, Plaintiff, represented by Alan Harris --
HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Christina Marie Nordsten --
cnordsten@harrisandruble.com -- David Covington Garrett --
dgarrett@harrisandruble.com -- and Priya Mohan --
pmohan@harrisandruble.com -- at Harris and Ruble.

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.
          Amy C. Hirsh, Esq.
          Ronald D. Arena, Esq.
          ARENA HOFFMAN, LLP
          44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1200
          San Francisco, CA 94104
          Telephone: (415) 433-1414
          E-mail: mhoffman@arenahoffman.com


MDL 2551: Court Says NHL's Bid to Dismiss Injury Suit "Premature"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Susan Richard Nelson of the District of Minnesota
denied defendants' motion to dismiss in the case entitled In re:
National Hockey League Players' Concussion Injury Litigation, MDL
No. 14-2551 (SRN/JSM) (D. Minn.)

The National Hockey League (NHL) is an unincorporated association
that operates the major professional hockey league in North
America and that consists of separately-owned member teams in
various States and Canada.

Plaintiffs are retired NHL players who allege that the NHL is
responsible for the pathological and debilitating effects of brain
injuries caused by concussive and sub-concussive impacts sustained
during their professional careers.

According to plaintiffs, former NHL players signed up to play
hockey knowing that they might get injured and dinged, but they
did not sign up for avoidable brain damage. Plaintiffs allege
that, unbeknownst to them, decades' worth of scientific evidence
links brain trauma to long-term neurological problems, and that
NHL knew or should have known of the evidence but did not
sufficiently protect the players or inform them of the dangers of
repeated brain trauma. Various submissions of the parties were
filed under seal.

The NHL filed a motion to dismiss master complaint based on Labor
Law Preemption, seeking dismissal of plaintiffs' claims under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). NHL also filed a motion
to stay further discovery pending resolution of its motion to
dismiss master complaint.

Judge Nelson denied defendant's motion to dismiss as it is
premature and denied defendant's motion to stay as moot. The
parties must show cause ten days from the date of the order why
the order should not be unsealed, and to specify any portion
warranting redaction.

A copy of Judge Nelson's memorandum opinion and order dated May
18, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/jWcZR8from Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs' Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel, Plaintiff, represented
by Bradley C Buhrow -- brad.buhrow@zimmreed.com -- Brian C
Gudmundson -- brian.gudmundson@zimmreed.com -- Charles S Zimmerman
-- charles.zimmerman@zimmreed.com -- David M Cialkowski --
david.cialkowski@zimmreed.com -- Hart L Robinovitch --
hart.robinovitch@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed PLLP; Janine D
Arno -- jarno@rgrdlaw.com -- Kathleen L Douglas --
kdouglas@rgrdlaw.com -- Leonard B. Simon -- lens@rgrdlaw.com --
Mark J. Dearman -- mdearman@rgrdlaw.com -- Stuart A Davidson, --
SDavidson@rgrdlaw.com -- at Robbin Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP;
Stephen G. Grygiel -- sgrygiel@mdattorney.com -- Steven D.
Silverman -- ssilverman@mdattorney.com -- William N. Sinclair --
bsinclair@mdattorney.com -- at SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN &
WHITE

Plaintiffs' Liaison Counsel, Plaintiff, represented by J Scott
Andresen -- sandresen@bassford.com -- Jeffrey D. Klobucar --
jklobucar@bassford.com -- Lewis A Remele, Jr. --
lremele@bassford.com -- at Bassford Remele, PA

Plaintiffs' Executive Committee, Plaintiff, represented by Brian D
Penny -- penny@lawgsp.com -- Mark S Goldman -- goldman@lawgsp.com
-- at Goldman Scarlato & Karon, PC; Bryan L Bleichner --
bbleichner@chestnutcambronne.com -- Christopher P Renz --
crenz@chestnutcambronne.com -- Jeffrey D Bores --
jbores@chestnutcambronne.com -- at Chestnut Cambronne, PA; Daniel
E Gustafson -- dgustafson@gustafsongluek.com -- David A Goodwin --
dgoodwin@gustafsongluek.com -- Joshua J Rissman --
jrissman@gustafsongluek.com -- at Gustafson Gluek PLLC; David I
Levine -- at The Levine Law Firm; James W Anderson --
janderson@heinsmills.com -- Vincent J Esades --
vesades@heinsmills.com -- at Heins Mills & Olson, PLC; Katelyn I
Geoffrion -- Thomas A Demetrio -- TAD@CorboyDemetrio.com --
William T Gibbs -- WTG@CorboyDemetrio.com -- at Corboy & Demetrio;
Michael R Cashman -- mcashman@hjlawfirm.com -- Richard M. Hagstrom
-- rhagstrom@hjlawfirm.com -- at Hellmuth & Johnson, PLLC; Robert
K Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal
Nauen PLLP; Thomas Joseph Byrne -- tbyrne@nbolaw.com -- at
Namanny, Byrne & Owens, APC; Wm Dane DeKrey --
Dane.DeKrey@zimmreed.com -- at Zimmerman Reed, LLP

National Hockey League, Defendant, represented by Aaron D Van Oort
-- aaron.vanoort@FaegreBD.com -- Daniel J Connolly --
daniel.connolly@FaegreBD.com -- Joseph M Price --
joseph.price@FaegreBD.com -- Linda S Svitak --
linda.svitak@FaegreBD.com -- at Faegre Baker Daniels LLP; Adam M.
Lupion -- alupion@proskauer.com -- Joseph Baumgarten --
jbaumgarten@proskauer.com -- at PROSKAUER ROSE, LLP; Geoffrey M.
Wyatt -- geoffrey.wyatt@skadden.com -- James A. Keyte --
james.keyte@skadden.com -- Jessica D Miller --
jessica.miller@skadden.com -- John Herbert Beisner --
john.beisner@skadden.com -- Matthew Michael Martino --
matthew.martino@skadden.com -- Matthew Stein -- Michael H Menitove
-- michael.menitove@skadden.com -- Shepard Goldfein --
shepard.goldfein@skadden.com -- at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom, LLP

The Chubb Corporation, Respondent, represented by Peter H Walsh
-- peter.walsh@hoganlovells.com -- at Hogan Lovells US LLP.

CTV and Dennis Lang, Movants, represented by Mark R Anfinson -- at
Anfinson Law Office


MDL 2583: Judge Narrows Claims in Customer Data Breach Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., of the Northern District of
Georgia, Atlanta Division granted in part and denied in part
defendant's motion to dismiss in the case entitled IN RE: THE HOME
DEPOT, INC., CUSTOMER DATA SECURITY BREACH LITIGATION MDL Docket
No. 2583, No. 1:14-md-2583-TWT (N.D. Ga.)

Between April 2014 and September 2014, The Home Depot, Inc. (Home
Depot), was the subject of one of the largest retail data breaches
in history.

Hackers stole the personal and financial information of
approximately 56 million Home Depot customers across the country,
sold the information on the internet to thieves who made large
numbers of fraudulent transactions on credit and debit cards
issued to Home Depot customers. Between September 1, 2014, and
September 7, 2014, the credit and debit card information of the
Home Depot's customers was made available for sale on a black-
market website, Rescator.cc.

The plaintiffs are a putative class of financial institutions that
issued and owned payment cards compromised by the data breach, as
well as associations of credit unions whose members have been
damaged by the data breach. The putative financial institution
class alleges that it has been damaged by having to reimburse
customers for the fraud losses suffered due to the data breach as
well as by other costs such as having to reissue payment cards.
The putative class brings claims for negligence and negligence per
se, as well as violation of eight state-specific consumer
protection statutes. The putative class also seeks injunctive and
declaratory relief. The association plaintiffs do not sue as a
class. They seek only equitable relief.

Home Depot moves to dismiss all the claims by both the putative
class and the association plaintiffs.

Judge Thrash granted in part and denied in part the financial
institution plaintiffs' consolidated class action complaint.

A copy of Judge Thrash's opinion and order dated May 17, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/p1HSDVfrom Leagle.com.

In Re: The Home Depot, Inc., Customer Data Security Breach
Litigation, represented by Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC

Northeastern Engineers Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff,
represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com
-- W. Pitts Carr -- pcarr@wpcarr.com -- at W. Pitts Carr and
Associates, PC; Kent M. Williams -- at Williams Law Firm; Michael
E. Jacobs -- at Michael E. Jacobs Law & Consulting LLC; Robert J.
Gralewski, Jr. -- bgralewski@kmllp.com -- at Kirby McInerney LLP;
Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP

Pittsfield Cooperative Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C.
Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- Thomas A. Withers --
twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- Craig A. Gillen --
cgillen@gwllawfirm.com -- at Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC; Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com
-- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin
-- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; Edwin
J. Kilpela -- ekilpela@carlsonlynch.com -- Gary F. Lynch --
glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP

Phenix-Girard Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo
-- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at
Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at
Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin --
ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; James
Benjamin Finley -- BFinley@TheFinleyFirm.com -- MaryBeth Vassil
Gibson -- MGibson@TheFinleyFirm.com -- at The Finley Firm, P.C.;
Jere L. Beasley -- jere.beasley@beasleyallen.com -- Larry Apaul
Golston, Jr. -- larry.golston@beasleyallen.com -- W. Daniel Miles,
III -- dee.miles@beasleyallen.com -- Andrew E. Brashier --
andrew.brashier@beasleyallen.com -- at Beasley Allen Crow Methvin
Portis & Miles; John Raymond Bevis -- bevis@barneslawgroup.com --
at The Barnes Law Group, LLC
Kelsey O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented John Raymond Bevis --
bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- Roy E. Barnes --
roy@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC; Gregg
Michael Barbakoff -- Gregory W. Jones -- Joseph J. Siprut --
jsiprut@siprut.com -- at Siprut, PC

First Financial Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C.
Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- Thomas A. Withers --
twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- Craig A. Gillen --
cgillen@gwllawfirm.com -- at Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC; Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com
-- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin
-- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP
First Choice Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony C. Lake -- aclake@gwllawfirm.com -- Thomas A. Withers --
twithers@gwllawfirm.com -- Craig A. Gillen --
cgillen@gwllawfirm.com -- at Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC; Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com
-- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin
-- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; Gary F.
Lynch -- glynch@carlsonlynch.com -- Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP; Eric N. Linsk -- rnlinsk@locklaw.com -- Heidi M. Silton --
hmsilton@locklaw.com -- Karen Hanson Riebel --
khriebel@locklaw.com -- Kristen G. Marttila --
kgmarttila@locklaw.com -- Richard A. Lockridge --
ralockridge@locklaw.com -- Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- at Lockridge Grindal Nauen

Southern Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented
by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com -- W. Pitts
Carr -- pcarr@wpcarr.com -- at W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC;
Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott &
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP; Eric H. Zagrans -- eric@zagrans.com -- at Zagrans Law
Firm, LLC; James J. Pizzirusso -- jpizzirusso@hausfeld.com --
Swathi Bojedla -- sbojedla@hausfeld.com -- at Hausfeld, LLP

Gary Lowenthal, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis --
bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- Roy E. Barnes --
roy@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law Group, LLC; Darren W.
Penn -- darren@hpllegal.com -- James M. Evangelista --
jim@hpllegal.com -- Jeffrey R. Harris -- jeff@hpllegal.com --
David James Worley -- david@hpllegal.com -- at Harris Penn Lowry
LLP; Gary S. Graifman -- Robert A. Lubitz -- Kantrowitz, Goldhamer
& Graifman, P.C.; Howard Theodore Longman -- hlongman@ssbny.com --
Jason Robert D'Agnenica -- jasondag@ssbny.com -- Patrick  Slyne --
pkslyne@ssbny.com -- at Stull Stull & Brody; Sara Saffran, Barbara
Saffran, Robert Vandertoorn, Douglas Hinton, Plaintiffs,
represented by John Raymond Bevis --bevis@barneslawgroup.com --
Roy E. Barnes -- roy@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law
Group, LLC; Laurence Rosen -- lrosen@rosenlegal.com -- at The
Rosen Law Firm; Lauren S. Antonino -- at The Antonino Firm, LLC

Profinium, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Leslie J. Bryan --
lbryan@dsckd.com -- Everette L. Doffermyre, Jr. --
edoffermyre@dsckd.com -- Kenneth S. Canfield --
kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles,
LLC; Ranse M. Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP; Joseph P. Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com --
at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP

Salisbury Bank and Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by
Alexander Dewitt Weatherby -- aweatherby@wpcarr.com -- W. Pitts
Carr -- pcarr@wpcarr.com -- at W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC;
David R. Scott -- david.scott@scott-scott.com -- Joseph P.
Guglielmo -- jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- Stephen J. Teti --
steti@scott-scott.com -- Erin Green Comite -- ecomite@scott-
scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP; Ranse M.
Partin -- ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP
American Bank of Commerce, KC Police Credit Union and Suncoast
Credit Union, Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph P. Guglielmo --
jguglielmo@scott-scott.com -- at Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP; Kenneth S. Canfield -- kcanfield@dsckd.com -- at Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC; Ranse M. Partin --
ranse@conleygriggs.com -- at Conley Griggs Partin, LLP; John E.
Suthers -- jes@sutherslaw.com -- at Suthers Law Firm; Richard L.
Coffman -- rcoffman@coffmanlawfirm.com -- at Coffman Law Firm

Firefighters Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C.
Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Daniel E. Gustafson, Gustafson
Gluek PLLC, Daniel C. Hedlund, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, pro hac vice,
Joseph C. Bourne, Gustafson Gluek PLLC, Patrick T. Egan, Berman
DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, pro hac vice,Thomas A.
Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen
Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP.

Vince Murphy, Plaintiff, represented by Jason R. Doss, The Doss
Firm, LLC, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Katrina
A. Carroll, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, LCC, Kyle A. Shamberg, Lite,
DePalma, Greenberg, LCC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group,
LLC.

Kleinbank, Plaintiff, represented by Brian M. Sund, Morrison Sund
PLLC, David R. Woodward, Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C., Everette L.
Doffermyre, Jr., Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC,
Jackson D. Bigham, Morrison Sund PLLC, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield
& Knowles, LLC, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Vincent J.
Esades, Heins Mills & Olson P.L.C.,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott &
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Leslie J. Bryan, Doffermyre Shields
Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin,
LLP.

Michele Jhingoor, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow,
Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M.
Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn
Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David
James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes
Law Group, LLC.

Bruce Holdridge, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow,
Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M.
Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn
Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David
James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes
Law Group, LLC.

Scott McGiffid, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow,
Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M.
Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn
Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David
James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes
Law Group, LLC.

James M. Burden, Plaintiff, represented by Cornelius P. Dukelow,
Abington Cole, Darren W. Penn, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, James M.
Evangelista, Harris Penn Lowry LLP, Jeffrey R. Harris, Harris Penn
Lowry LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, David
James Worley, Harris Penn Lowry LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes
Law Group, LLC.

Edda Hernandez, Plaintiff, represented by Gregory W. Jones,
Siprut, PC, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Joseph
J. Siprut, Siprut, PC, Katrina A. Carroll, Lite, DePalma,
Greenberg, LCC, Kyle A. Shamberg, Lite, DePalma, Greenberg, LCC,
Rachel Soffin, Morgan & Morgan, PA & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law
Group, LLC.

Savings Institute Bank and Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented
by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC,
David R. Scott, Scott & Scott, LLC, pro hac vice, E. Kirk Wood,
Wood Law Firm, LLC,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP, Stephen J. Teti, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law,
LLP, W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC,Erin Green
Comite, Scott & Scott, LLC, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP.

Amalgamated Bank, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew N. Friedman,
Cohen Milstein Hausfeld & Toll, pro hac vice, Ranse M. Partin,
Conley Griggs Partin, LLP, Sally M. Handmaker, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC,Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP & Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC.

Animas Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony C. Lake,
Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Edwin J. Kilpela, Carlson Lynch Sweet
& Kilpela, LLP, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP,
pro hac vice,Jamisen Etzel, Carlson Lynch Sweet & Kilpela,
LLP,Thomas A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Craig A.
Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott &
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP.

Claude Garner, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert Brent Irby, McCallum, Hoaglund, Cook
& Irby, LLP, Todd L. Lord, Law Office of Todd L. Lord, William
Gregory Dobson, Lober, Dobson & Desai, LLC & Roy E. Barnes, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Gulf Coast Bank & Trust Company, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony
C. Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Arthur M. Murray, Murray Law
Firm, Korey A. Nelson, Murray Law Firm, Stephen B. Murray, Jr.,
Murray Law Firm, Stephen B. Murray, Sr., Murray Law Firm, Thomas
A. Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC,Craig A. Gillen, Gillen
Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys
at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield &
Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP.

Walid Khalaf, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC,
Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Tina Wolfson,
Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group,
LLC.

Jasmin Gonzalez, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC,
Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Tina Wolfson,
Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group,
LLC.

Steve O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, Robert R. Ahdoot, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC,
Theodore Walter Maya, Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC, Tina Wolfson,
Ahdoot and Wolfson, APC & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group,
LLC.

Michael J Marko, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey
Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy
E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Luis Araujo, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey
Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy
E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.
Kitaisha Araujo, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey
Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC & Roy
E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Gary Gilchrist, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle, Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP, Darren T. Kaplan, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP,
John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, John Austin Moore,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law
Group, LLC.

Travis Russell, Plaintiff, represented by Barrett J. Vahle, Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP, Darren T. Kaplan, Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP,
John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC, John Austin Moore,
Stueve Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice, Norman E. Siegel, Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP, pro hac vice & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law
Group, LLC.

Allen Mazerolle, Plaintiff, represented by David Andrew Bain, Law
Offices of David A. Bain, LLC, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law
Group, LLC, Kenneth G. Gilman, Gilman Law, LLP & Roy E. Barnes,
The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Cattaraugus County School Employees Federal Credit Union,
Plaintiff, represented by Alexander Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts
Carr and Associates, PC, Brian C. Gudmundson, Zimmerman Reed,
P.L.L.P., Charles S. Zimmerman, Zimmerman Reed, P.L.L.P., pro hac
vice,W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Joseph P.
Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Kenneth S.
Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M.
Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP.

Alexandra O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis,
The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C.
Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Jason O'Brien, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C.
Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Mary Gorman, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C.
Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Mary Hope Griffin, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis,
The Barnes Law Group, LLC, Paul C. Whalen, Law Offices of Paul C.
Whalen, P.C. & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Todd Burris, Plaintiff, represented by Bartley K. Hagerman, Mehr
Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC, Erik David Peterson, Mehr Fairbanks
Trial Lawyers, PLLC,John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC,
M. Austin Mehr, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC,Philip G.
Fairbanks, Mehr Fairbanks Trial Lawyers, PLLC & Roy E. Barnes, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Jeffrey Hartman, Plaintiff, represented by Francis J. Flynn, Carey
Danis & Lowe, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC,
Tiffany M. Yiatras, Carey & Danis & Lowe & Roy E. Barnes, The
Barnes Law Group, LLC.

First National Bank, USA, Plaintiff, represented byAlexander
Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, W. Pitts Carr,
W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott &
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP.

Charles E. Chorman, Plaintiff, represented by John Raymond Bevis,
The Barnes Law Group, LLC, John A. Yanchunis, Morgan & Morgan,
P.A., pro hac vice & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Shonna Earls, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard, Girard &
Green, pro hac vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Jennifer
Lynn McIntosh, Girard Gibbs, LLP,John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes
Law Group, LLC, Linh G. Vuong, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Matthew B.
George, Girard Gibbs, LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group,
LLC.

John Holt, Sr., Plaintiff, represented by Daniel C. Girard, Girard
& Green, pro hac vice, Eric H. Gibbs, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Jennifer
Lynn McIntosh, Girard Gibbs, LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes
Law Group, LLC, Linh G. Vuong, Girard Gibbs, LLP, Matthew B.
George, Girard Gibbs, LLP & Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group,
LLC.

Joseph Moran, Plaintiff, represented by Jason M. Lindner, Stueve
Siegel Hanson, LLP, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law Group, LLC
& Roy E. Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Daniel Durgin, Plaintiff, represented by David Pastor, Pastor Law
Office, LLP, pro hac vice, John Raymond Bevis, The Barnes Law
Group, LLC, Preston W. Leonard, Leonard Law Office, PC & Roy E.
Barnes, The Barnes Law Group, LLC.

Sound Community Bank, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony C. Lake,
Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers &
Lake, LLC, David Slade, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Deborah M.
Nelson, Nelson Boyd, PLLC, James Allen Carney, Jr., Carney Bates &
Pulliam, PLLC, Jeffrey D. Boyd, Nelson Boyd, PLLC,Joseph Hank
Bates, III, Carney Bates & Pulliam, PLLC, Thomas A. Withers,
Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott,
Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre Shields
Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs Partin,
LLP.

Hudson City Savings Bank, Plaintiff, represented byAnthony C.
Lake, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC, Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut
Cambronne, PA, Craig A. Gillen, Gillen Withers & Lake, LLC,
Francis J. Rondoni, Chestnut Cambronne PA, Gary F. Lynch, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, pro hac vice, Heidi M. Silton,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen, pro hac vice, Jamisen Etzel, Carlson
Lynch Sweet & Kilpela, LLP, Jeffrey D. Bores, Chestnut Cambronne,
PA, Karen Hanson Riebel, Lockridge Grindal Nauen, pro hac vice,
Karl L. Cambronne, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, pro hac vice,Thomas A.
Withers, Gillen, Withers & Lake, LLC, Joseph P. Guglielmo, Scott &
Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP,Kenneth S. Canfield, Doffermyre
Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M. Partin, Conley Griggs
Partin, LLP.

ANECA Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented byAlexander
Dewitt Weatherby, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Francis J.
Rondoni, Chestnut Cambronne PA, W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and
Associates, PC, Bryan L. Bleichner, Chestnut Cambronne, PA, Joseph
P. Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP, Kenneth S.
Canfield, Doffermyre Shields Canfield & Knowles, LLC & Ranse M.
Partin, Conley Griggs Partin, LLP.

Pamela Lee, Rebecca McGehee, William Lambert, Ronald Castleberry,
Brenda Blough, Sandra Sowell, Catherine Adams, Katherine Holmes,
Samuel Welch, Glenda Fuller, Kent Coulson, Lawrence Elledge,
Brandyon Brantley, Matthew Forrester, David Erisman, Royce
Kitchens, Brion Reilly, Larry Flores, Ronald Levene, Nathanial
Newton, Marilyn Geller, Gilda Wynne, Mario Tolliver, Joshua
Michener, Richard Bergeron, Kristine Larson, Nicholas Hott, Sandra
McQuiag, Doug Travers, John Simon, Inocencio Valencia, Laureen
Anyon, Kelli LoBello, Raina Rothbaum, Linda Werak, Ivonda
Washington, Pauline Cuff, Danny Champion, Scott Pelky, James
Hansen, Michael Snow, Sandra Smith, Julian Metter, Stephen Sadler,
Carlton Smith, Alma Pineda, Paula Ridenti, Mary Stenart, DeAnn
Feiselman, Scott Ferguson, Dennis Borrell, Kim Barrett, Lindsay
Wirth,

Martha Brantley, Bridgette Moody, Plaintiffs, represented by John
Raymond Bevis -- bevis@barneslawgroup.com -- at The Barnes Law
Group, LLC

Greater Chautauqua Federal Credit Union, Plaintiff, represented by
W. Pitts Carr, W. Pitts Carr and Associates, PC, Joseph P.
Guglielmo, Scott & Scott, Attorneys at Law, LLP & Ranse M. Partin,
Conley Griggs Partin, LLP.

The Home Depot, Inc., Defendant, represented by Cari K. Dawson --
cari.dawson@alston.com -- Kristine McAlister Brown --
kristy.brown@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP; Catherine
Elizabeth Murillo -- emurillo@burnslev.com -- Robert D. Friedman -
- rfriedman@burnslev.com -- at Burns & Levinson, LLP; Cheryl A.
Sabnis -- csabnis@kslaw.com -- James Andrew Pratt --
apratt@kslaw.com -- Kevin M. Dinan -- kdinan@kslaw.com -- Phyllis
Buchen Sumner -- psumner@kslaw.com -- Sidney Stewart Haskins, II -
- shaskins@kslaw.com -- L. Joseph Loveland, Jr. --
jloveland@kslaw.com -- King & Spalding, LLP; Daniel E. Danford --
ddanford@stites.com -- at Stites & Harbison PLLC

The Home Depot U.S.A., Inc., Defendant, represented by Cari K.
Dawson -- cari.dawson@alston.com -- Kristine McAlister Brown --
kristy.brown@alston.com -- James Charles Grant --
jim.grant@alston.com -- at Alston & Bird LLP; Cheryl A. Sabnis --
csabnis@kslaw.com -- Kevin M. Dinan -- kdinan@kslaw.com -- Phyllis
Buchen Sumner -- psumner@kslaw.com -- L. Joseph Loveland, Jr. --
jloveland@kslaw.com -- Paul Allan Straus -- pstraus@kslaw.com --
at King & Spalding, LLP; Alfred J. Saikali
-- asaikali@shb.com -- Daniel Brandon Rogers -- drogers@shb.com --
Eileen Tilghman Moss -- at Shook Hardy & Bacon; Andrew J. Knight,
II -- ajknight@mppkj.com -- Charles M. Trippe, Jr. --
cmtrippe@mppkj.com -- Moseley, Pritchard, Parrish, Kinght & Jones;
Carmelite M. Bertaut -- cbertaut@stonepigman.com -- at Stone,
Pigman, Walther, Wittmann, LLC; George Robert Dougherty -- at
Grippo & Elden; Russell K. Scott -- rks@greensfelder.com -- at
Greensfelder, Hemker & Gale, P.C.; Vickie E. Turner -- at Wilson
Turner Kosmo, LLP


MDL 2641: "Fraser-Johnson" Suit Remanded to Delaware
----------------------------------------------------
Judge David G. Campbell granted the plaintiffs' motion to remand
the case captioned IN RE: BARD IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY
LITIGATION This Order Relates to: Bianca Fraser-Johnson, et al.,
Plaintiffs, v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., Defendants, MDL No. 2641,
No. CV-16-00336-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.).  The case shall be remanded to
Delaware's New Castle County Superior Court.

A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's May 23, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/griLvJ from Leagle.com.

On September 23, 2015, the plaintiffs filed the action against the
defendants in Delaware's New Castle County Superior Court.  On
October 23, 2015, the defendants C.R. Bard, Inc. and Bard
Peripheral Vascular, Inc. (collectively "Bard") removed the case
to federal court in the District of Delaware.  On October 29,
2015, Bard requested an order severing the plaintiffs' claims
against it from claims against the nondiverse defendants, and
remanding the claims against the nondiverse defendants to Delaware
state court.  On February 4, 2016, the United States Judicial
Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the plaintiffs' case
from the District of Delaware to the District of Arizona for
inclusion in the multi-district litigation.  On March 12, 2016,
the plaintiffs' filed their motion to remand the case to Delaware
state court.

Bianca Fraser-Johnson, Michael Johnson, Plaintiffs, represented by
John A Dalimonte, Karon & Dalimonte, Richard A Zappa, Young
Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP, Neilli M Walsh, Young Conaway
Stargatt & Taylor LLP & Timothy E Lengkeek, Young Conaway Stargatt
& Taylor LLP.

C R Bard Incorporated, Bard Peripheral Vascular Incorporated,
Defendants, represented by Diana Rabeh -- drabeh@reedsmith.com --
Reed Smith LLP.

Christiana Care Health Services Incorporated, Christiana Care
Health Systems Incorporated, Thomas Bauer, Cynthia Heldt,
Defendants, represented by John D Balaguer --
balaguerj@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams & Christine
Kane -- kanec@whiteandwilliams.com -- White & Williams.


MDL 2641: "Wolfe" Suit Remanded to Mahoning County
--------------------------------------------------
Ronald Wolfe, Plaintiff, v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al., Defendants,
Case No. CV-16-00786-PHX-DGC (D. Ariz.), is remanded to the
Mahoning County Court of Common Pleas.

The case was previously consolidated in the matter, IN RE: BARD
IVC FILTERS PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION, MDL No. 2641.

A copy of the Court's May 23 Order is available at
https://is.gd/LQM4Fp from Leagle.com.


MEDICAL RECORDS: Court Refuses to Enforce Class Action Waiver
-------------------------------------------------------------
Peter J. Kreher and Frank P. Trapani, writing for The Legal
Intelligencer, report that in Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu v.
Medical Records Online, -- A.3d --, 2016 (Apr. 22, 2016), the
New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division refused to enforce
an arbitration clause and class action waiver for lack of
consideration where one party to the purported agreement merely
agreed to comply with a pre-existing legal duty.  This article
discusses the decision and its implications.

Facts of the Case
Under federal and New Jersey law, patients have a right to inspect
and obtain copies of their medical records.  Any fee assessed by a
medical provider for providing the records must be based on the
provider's actual cost of producing the records.
The plaintiff in Bernetich was a New Jersey plaintiff-side
personal injury law firm that requested the medical records of one
of its clients.  In response to the request, Medical Records
Online (MRO) -- which processes medical records requests on behalf
of medical providers -- sent Bernetich, Hatzell & Pascu an invoice
for $204.19.  The invoice stated that (1) pre-payment of the full
amount was required before it would release the records; (2) all
disputes related to the production of the records must be resolved
by arbitration; and (3) any arbitration must be brought on an
individual basis, rather than as a class action.  The invoice also
stated that the recipient should contact MRO if it had any
questions regarding the invoice.  Bernetich Hatzell paid the
invoice, and then filed a proposed class action against MRO,
alleging that the amounts it charged exceeded its actual costs of
the produced records.

MRO moved to compel arbitration based on the arbitration clause in
its invoice.  The trial court denied MRO's motion on the ground
that the invoice did not comply with the New Jersey Supreme
Court's ruling in Atalese v. U.S. Legal Services Group, 219 N.J.
430 (2014), which requires arbitration clauses to put plaintiffs
on notice, with sufficient clarity and prominence, that they are
waiving their right to proceed in court.  MRO appealed the trial
court's decision.

Appellate Division's Ruling
The Appellate Division upheld the trial court's ruling, but on
different grounds.  First, the Appellate Division rejected MRO's
contention that providing the medical records constituted
sufficient consideration to make the arbitration agreement in its
invoice enforceable.  As the Appellate Division explained, MRO had
a pre-existing legal duty to provide the requested medical
records, and merely complying with a pre-existing legal duty does
not qualify as consideration sufficient to support an enforceable
contract.  Because MRO did nothing other than comply with a pre-
existing legal duty, there was no consideration to support the
arbitration clause MRO included in its invoice, rendering it
unenforceable.

Second, the Appellate Division rejected MRO's alternative argument
that Bernetich Hatzell had surrendered its right to contest the
arbitration clause by failing to object to it prior to paying the
invoice.  A waiver, the court explained, requires a voluntary
relinquishment of a known right.  Because MRO demanded payment
before it would release the records, which Bernetich Hatzell's
client had a legal right to obtain, "there was nothing
'voluntary'" about the firm's decision to pay for the records.

Implications
Mandatory arbitration clauses with class action waivers are
becoming commonplace, and the U.S. Supreme Court has shown a
willingness to enforce them, even where it would be economically
infeasible to pursue a claim on an individual basis.  The
Bernetich decision, however, highlights one way that arbitration
clauses (and class action waivers) can be challenged.  It is a
bedrock principle of contract law that parties must exchange
consideration to create an enforceable contract.  Based on the
Bernetich decision, complying with a pre-existing legal duty may
not be sufficient to create that consideration.  Thus, plaintiffs'
counsel should examine whether any arbitration agreement in their
case was supported by adequate consideration or was, instead,
imposed by a defendant that was merely complying with one of its
pre-existing duties.  Conversely, businesses and employers that
are seeking to rely on arbitration clauses should ensure that they
are providing sufficient consideration to support them, rather
than merely doing what the law already requires them to do.


MONTERO FARMS: Recalls Orange Habanero Peppers Due to Salmonella
----------------------------------------------------------------
Montero Farms of McAllen, Texas is recalling Orange Habanero
Peppers, because they have the potential to be contaminated with
Salmonella, an organism which can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

Orange Habanero Peppers were shipped to Indianapolis, Indiana and
to McAllen, Texas from April 28 2016 to present.

The product comes in 8 pound cardboard boxes marked with lot
#41142-41143 on the top. In total 154 boxes are being recalled.

No illnesses have been reported to date in connection with this
problem.

The potential for contamination was noted after routine testing by
the FDA.

Production of the product has been suspended while FDA and the
company continue their investigation as to the source of the
problem.

Consumers who have purchased any Orange Habanero Peppers from the
lots #41142-41143 are urged to return them to the place of
purchase for a full refund. Consumers with questions may contact
the company at (956) 686-8959 Monday thru Friday between 9am to
7pm central time.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/HNOJZG


NAPLES, FL: Faces Age, Sex Discrimination Class Action
------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a federal class action lawsuit
says the City of Naples used an unwritten policy of targeting
older female workers for termination when the city discriminated
against and fired three veteran female employees.

The Naples Daily News reports Susan Fabbrini, Karen Kateley and
Jill Orstad claim they were victims of a years-old practice at the
city to fire older female employees under the framework of
"reorganization" or a "reduction of force."

The lawsuit claims after Ms. Fabbrini and Ms. Kateley were
abruptly fired from their lengthy tenures with the city's building
department last year, the department made new hires of younger,
less-qualified workers.

City officials declined to discuss the details of the case and
will have 20 days to respond.


NAT'L BROADCASTING: Biggest Loser Contestants Mull Class Action
---------------------------------------------------------------
Maureen Callahan and Danika Fears, writing for New York Post,
report that "The Biggest Loser" is a big fat failure -- and it's
time for NBC to do away with the extreme-dieting show, disgusted
former contestants say.

"The show needs to be done, canceled, destroyed," Season 2's
Suzanne Mendonca told The Post on May 22.

"They look at us like we're failures today, but we were not going
to succeed.  They threw us away like yesterday's garbage," she
said on the day The Post revealed allegations that some of the
show's workers pushed illegal diet pills on contestants while
encouraging them to starve themselves.

Season 3's Kai Hibbard also called for an end to the reality show,
which has run for 17 seasons.

"The show should've been canceled 10 years ago," the ex-contestant
said.

She said she hopes a recent National Institutes of Health study on
the show will bring change.  The study suggested contestants often
regain lost weight because their metabolic rates were permanently
damaged after being on the show.

"To continue this body-shaming physically and psychologically
damaging monstrosity with future contestants in light of this
current study and others is irresponsible and unconscionable," Ms.
Hibbard said.

Ms. Mendonca said she and about 10 to 15 other former contestants
are shopping around for a lawyer to bring a class-action lawsuit
against the show.

"Nobody should be able to get away with this stuff," she said.

Ms. Hibbard said such a lawsuit wouldn't be "unreasonable," but
asked, "How do you put a price on a permanently damaged metabolism
and the long term psychological repercussions?"

In the May 22 Post, Ms. Mendonca said that contestants were
encouraged to go to extreme lengths to shed pounds, and that five
people were taken to the hospital in her season after passing out.

A source close to the production said show trainer Bob Harper and
an assistant doled out Adderall and pills with FDA-banned ephedra
extract to contestants to help them lose weight.

Joelle Gwynn, of Season 7, said the show's doctor, Rob Huizenga,
told them it was "up to us to take them."

Mr. Harper said in a statement May 22 that the claims are
"absolutely false and are in direct conflict with my lifelong
devotion to health and fitness."

"Safety is paramount in my training regimen, and, while demanding,
my approach has always focused on the overall well-being of
contestants," he said.

Mr. Huizenga has also denied the claims, saying contestants are
told "there is zero tolerance for any weight-loss drugs."

The show's producers said illegal substances are prohibited, and
"the safety and well-being of our contestants is, and always has
been, paramount."


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Maine Woman Files Debt Collection Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judy Harrison, writing for Bangor Daily News, reports that when
Jane C. Forrester Winne's federal student loans were dismissed
after she became disabled because of complications from diabetes
in 2011, she believed all the money she borrowed between 1980 and
2008 to attend the University of Maine had been accounted for and
that she was free and clear of debt.

Three years later, Forrester Winne, 64, of Orono began getting
letters and phone calls from collection agencies for private loans
from which she maintains neither she nor the university ever
received money.

Last year, two student loan collection entities sued the
nontraditional student in Penobscot County Superior Court over the
private loans.  Both lawsuits were dismissed, but the collection
calls continued, she said on May 17 in her modest Orono kitchen.

"It has been haunting, overwhelming, draining and has taken so
many years of my life force away from me," Forrester Winne said of
how the efforts to collect a debt she doesn't believe she owes and
does not have the means to pay have affected her.

Since she began taking classes at the university in 1983,
Forrester Winne has earned bachelor's and master's degrees and
completed all her course work toward a Ph.D. in systems theory as
it relates to the ability of societies to adapt in order to
survive climatic changes.

Earlier this month, Forrester Winne, now legally blind and
confined to a wheelchair, sued nine out-of-state entities,
including banks, collection agencies and a Massachusetts law firm,
alleging they have violated the federal and state Fair Debt
Collection Practices acts and Truth in Lending laws.  The 27-page
complaint dated May 2 asks U.S. District Judge George Singal to
issue an injunction ordering the defendants to stop calling and
mailing Forrester Winne in an effort to collect a debt to which
they are not entitled.

Forrester Winne's attorney, Cynthia Dill of Portland, is seeking
class action status for the lawsuit.  Ms. Dill estimated in the
complaint that the two separate student loan trusts that sued
Forrester Winne last year claimed to have issued private loans to
686 Maine students totaling nearly $7 million in 2004 and 2005,
the same years the trusts claimed Forrester Winne received loans.
The lawsuits, which were dismissed after Dill threatened to
counter sue, claimed Forrester Winne borrowed $20,000 each year
but that by 2015 the total owed was nearly $80,000 because of
accrued interest, the lawyer said on May 20.

"I think that students completed paperwork not knowing some loans
were private and some public," Ms. Dill said on May 17.  "In this
case, my client may have completed the paperwork but did not get
loan proceeds and neither did the universtiy on her behalf."

Forrester Winne said she filled out paperwork for loans at the
financial aid office at the university never knowing whether the
money that paid her tuition was from federal or private sources.

Private loans account for an estimated 7 to 10 percent of the
$1.27 trillion student debt that was outstanding last year, but
private borrowing is on the rise, according to a New York Times
story published in September.

Unlike other debts, neither federal nor private loans can be
forgiven through the bankruptcy process, according to Dill.
Federal loans can be dismissed if the borrower dies or becomes
permanently disabled, as Forrester Winne did.

Complicating the matter, according to Dill, is how bad and
uncollectable student debt was bundled and resold in a manner
similar to the actions that led to the home mortgage crisis.

"That's the reason there are so many defendants in Forrester
Winne's case," the attorney said.

Erin Reczek, an attorney associated with one of the defendants,
Abrahamsen Ratchford, the law firm with an office in Amesbury,
Massachusetts that sued Forrester Winne in Bangor District Court
last year, declined on May 20 to comment on the federal lawsuit as
her firm has not received it yet.

Efforts to determine who is representing the other defendants were
unsuccessful on May 20.  Attorneys have not yet entered their
appearances because the complaint has not been served, according
to information posted on the court's electronic case filing
system.

Similar lawsuits filed this year against the same defendants
Forrester Winne has sued are pending in federal court in South
Carolina, California, Pennsylvania, Georgia and Florida, according
to the results of a search using the Public Access to Court
Electronic Records system.

Last year, President Barack Obama advocated for and won changes in
the way federal student loans that are in default are collected,
allowing more students to access loan rehabilitation programs
overseen by the U. S. Department of Education, according to Diana
Nichols, president of Gold Key Consulting, who wrote an article
published on CNBC's website last year.  Ms. Nichols said that 70
percent of college graduates, like Forrester Winne, paid their
tuition with student loans.

"I always thought I would get to a point where I would be able to
pay these back and it wouldn't be a hindrance," Forrester Winne
said on May 17.

Forrester Winne grew up in Washington County, dropped out of high
school and often worked three jobs, including digging clams,
tipping for wreath companies and waitressing.  As she became
involved in environmental issues, Forrester Winne realized she
needed an education to be able to understand and discuss them.

"The American public aspires to education, not just to get a well-
paying job but to have knowledge, to enliven their minds and to be
effective in helping to find solutions and ways to solve the
problems that we are having, now especially," Forrester Winne said
on May 17.  "I think that the lure of education is strong.

"Students in this country, like me, are constantly under the
oppression of trying to figure out how to pay our student loans,
which we would [willingly] do," she said.  "A lot of them these
days, including me, are just wondering where does this all go now
after the financial crisis and everything else."

In addition to Abrahamsen Ratchford, the defendants in the lawsuit
are National Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-1, National
Collegiate Student Loan Trust 2005-3, U.S. Bank National
Association, Transworld Systems, Inc., VCG Securities Inc., PNC
Bank, Charter One Bank and Turnstile Capital Management.


NAT'L COLLEGIATE: Two Ex-Players Remove Name from Concussion Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Wogenrich, writing for The Morning Call, reports that two
former two former Penn State players have removed their names from
a class-action concussion lawsuit against the university, NCAA and
Big Ten Conference, with one saying he never agreed to be a
plaintiff at all.

Eric Ravotti, a former Penn State linebacker and defensive end,
filed a notice of dismissal on May 18 seeking to be removed from
the suit "with prejudice."  Mr. Ravotti said in an interview that
he planned legal action against the law firm handling the cases,
calling claims made on his behalf false.

"They obviously fabricated my involvement to file it,"
Mr. Ravotti said of Edelson PC, the Chicago law firm that filed
the suit.  "It's still surreal that somebody would do this to me."

Mr. Ravotti's withdrawal, along with that of former Penn State
safety James Boyd, complicated the suit, one of six that former
college players filed against the NCAA and some conferences
regarding concussion diagnoses and treatments.


NAVISTAR INT'L: Court Vacates Findings in "Whitfield"
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge Richard L. Young granted in part the motion for entry of
final judgment filed by Matthew Whitfield in his lawsuit against
International Truck and Engine Corporation, f/k/a Navistar
International Corporation.

Whitfield alleges that Navistar discriminated against him on the
basis of his race when it failed to hire him as an electrician, in
violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
section 2000e et seq., and 42 U.S.C. section 1981.  The matter
ultimately proceeded to a bench trial, and the court held that
Whitfield had failed to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence,
that Navistar discriminated against him.  Whitfield appealed to
the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed in part,
reversed in part, and remanded.

Judge Young vacated the district court's previous Findings of Fact
and Conclusions of Law to the extent that they are inconsistent
with the Seventh Circuit's opinion.  Judge Young further vacated
the court's Final Judgment and granted in part Whitfield's Motion
for Entry of Final Judgment.  Whitfield's motion was granted in
part because the court only resolves the issue of liability.

Judge Young said, "Having considered the Seventh Circuit's
opinion, the court now holds that Navistar is liable to Whitfield
under both Title VII and Section 1981 for refusing to hire him
because of his race. This holding is based upon the following
facts: (1) Whitfield met the qualifications for the open
electrician position; (2) Navistar hired several white
electricians with less experience while Whitfield's application
was pending; (3) Whitfield's personnel file contained a cover page
with the word "black" on it; and (4) Navistar failed to articulate
a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for not hiring Whitfield.
A rational jury presented with these facts would find that
Whitfield was the victim of unlawful discrimination. There is no
need to hold a new trial."

Whitfield filed on June 5, 2015, the motion for entry of final
judgment in his favor based upon the Seventh Circuit's opinion.
The parties subsequently conducted informal settlement
negotiations, but those efforts were unsuccessful. In a telephonic
status conference, the district court indicated that it would
issue a decision on liability and then allow the parties an
opportunity to attend a settlement conference with the Magistrate
Judge.

In addition to establishing liability, Judge Young discussed the
issue of damages to assist the parties in their settlement
efforts.  Judge Young noted that Whitfield seeks back pay with
compounded interest in the amount of $1,815,107.37, lost pension
benefits in the amount of $23,000.00, compensatory damages in an
amount determined by the court, punitive damages in an amount
determined by the court that is "at least an amount equal to the
back pay and compensatory damages awarded," costs, and attorneys'
fees.  He contends that no deductions from the back pay award are
appropriate because: (1) Navistar failed to elicit testimony
regarding interim earnings at trial, and (2) Navistar failed to
carry its burden of proving a failure to mitigate damages.
Navistar does not discuss damages at all in its Response brief.
Whitfield then contends that Navistar waived the issue.  In
essence, Whitfield argues that the court should ignore the fact
that he was earning an income while attempting to get hired by
Navistar, and provide him with the full salary he claims he would
have earned at Navistar from 1998-2008.

"This the court cannot do," Judge Young said.

Regardless of Navistar's alleged trial error and waiver, Title
VII, Judge Young explained, expressly requires the court to deduct
interim earnings from a back pay award: "Interim earnings or
amounts earnable with reasonable diligence by the person or
persons discriminated against shall operate to reduce the back pay
otherwise allowable." 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000e-5(g)(1).  Judge Young
also cited Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach,
523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998) ("[T]he mandatory 'shall' . . . normally
creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.").

According to Judge Young, granting Whitfield's request for back
pay would confer an unjust windfall, which runs afoul of Congress'
intent.  The back pay award Whitfield seeks goes far beyond making
him whole because he would effectively have earned two salaries
for a period of ten years.

The case is captioned GREG ALLEN, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, f/k/a NAVISTAR
INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION Defendant, No. 1:02-cv-00902-RLY-TAB
(S.D. Ind.).

A full-text copy of Judge Young's May 23, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/PdwuZW from Leagle.com.

GREG ALLEN, Plaintiff, represented by Cynthia H. Hyndman --
chyndman@robinsoncurley.com -- ROBINSON CURLEY & CLAYTON PC, pro
hac vice, Fay Clayton -- fclayton@robinsoncurley.com -- ROBINSON
CURLEY & CLAYTON, pro hac vice, Kevin W. Jent --
kjent@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC,
pro hac vice, Richard D. Hailey, RAMEY & HAILEY, Rocco Calamusa,
Jr. -- rcalamusa@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN &
PANTAZIS LLC, pro hac vice, Russell W. Adams --
radams@wigginschilds.com -- WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIS LLC,
pro hac vice & Samuel Fisher -- sfisher@wigginschilds.com --
WIGGINS CHILDS QUINN & PANTAZIAS LLC, pro hac vice.

INTERNATIONAL TRUCK AND ENGINE CORPORATION, Defendant, represented
by Harold R. Bickham -- harold.bickham@btlaw.com -- BARNES &
THORNBURG LLP, Jeanine R. Kerridge -- jeanine.kerridge@btlaw.com
-- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, John R. Maley -- john.maley@btlaw.com
-- BARNES & THORNBURG LLP, Laurence H. Levine, pro hac vice & Mark
S. Mester -- mark.mester@lw.com -- LATHAM & WATKINS LLP.

NORTH AMERICAN SECURITY SOLUTIONS, INC., Interested Party,
represented by Terence Leslie Fague -- fague@coollaw.com --
COOLIDGE WALL WOMSLEY & LOMBARD, pro hac vice.


NEVADA: Suit Filed Over Automobile Medical Payments
---------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that The Nevada Public Employees'
Benefits Program illegally subrogates automobile medical payments
against its members, a class action claims in Reno, Nev. Washoe
County Court.


NEWLINK GENETICS: July 11 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, on May 18 disclosed that a class action lawsuit has
been commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York on behalf of purchasers of NewLink
Genetics Corporation (NewLink or the "Company") securities during
the period between September 17, 2013 and
May 9, 2016, inclusive (the "Class Period").  Investors with
losses in excess of $100,000 who wish to become proactively
involved in the litigation have until July 11, 2016 to seek
appointment as lead plaintiff.

If you wish to choose counsel to represent you and the Class, you
must apply to be appointed lead plaintiff and be selected by the
Court.  The lead plaintiff will direct the litigation and
participate in important decisions including whether to accept a
settlement for the Class in the action.  The lead plaintiff will
be selected from among applicants claiming the largest loss from
investment in NewLink securities during the Class Period.  Members
of the Class will be represented by the lead plaintiff and counsel
chosen by the lead plaintiff.  No class has yet been certified in
the above action.

The complaint accuses the defendants of violations of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 by virtue of the defendants'
failure to disclose during the Class Period that algenpantucel-L,
the Company's pancreatic cancer treatment, was ineffective and
potentially harmful to patients.

According to the complaint, following the May 9, 2016 Company
announcement that algenpantucel-L did not meet the main goal in
the Company's Phase 3 IMPRESS study and patients treated with
algenpantucel-L lived for a median of 27.3 months compared to a
median survival of 30.4 months for patients treated with standard
therapy, suggesting that patients were actually harmed by
algenpantucel-L, the value of NewLink shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in NewLink securities
purchased on or after September 17, 2013 and held through the
revelation of negative information during and/or at the end of the
Class Period and would like to learn more about this lawsuit and
your ability to participate as a lead plaintiff, without cost or
obligation to you, please visit our website at
http://www.browerpiven.com/currentsecuritiescases.html
You may also request more information by contacting Brower Piven
either by email at hoffman@browerpiven.com or by telephone at
(410) 415-6616.  Brower Piven also encourages anyone with
information regarding the Company's conduct during the period in
question to contact the firm, including whistleblowers, former
employees, shareholders and others.

Attorneys at Brower Piven have extensive experience in litigating
securities and other class action cases and have been advocating
for the rights of shareholders since the 1980s.  If you choose to
retain counsel, you may retain Brower Piven without financial
obligation or cost to you, or you may retain other counsel of your
choice.  You need take no action at this time to be a member of
the class.


NOODLES & COMPANY: Defending Against "Castillo" Action
------------------------------------------------------
Noodles & Company said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that Carrie Castillo,
Anastassia Letourneau and Jacquelyn Myhre, former employees of the
Company, filed on March 10, 2016, a purported collective and class
action lawsuit against the Company alleging violations of the Fair
Labor Standards Act and Illinois and Minnesota wage laws (the
"Labor Laws") in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of Illinois. The plaintiffs filed the case on their
behalf and on behalf of all assistant general managers employed by
the Company since January 5, 2013 whom the Company classified as
exempt employees, and they allege that the Company violated the
Labor Laws by not paying overtime compensation to its assistant
general managers. The plaintiffs are seeking, on behalf of
themselves and members of the putative class, unpaid overtime
compensation, liquidated damages and available penalties under
applicable state laws, a declaratory judgment, an injunction, and
attorneys' fees and costs.

This case is at an early stage, and the Company is therefore
unable to make a reasonable estimate of the probable loss or range
of losses, if any, that might arise from this matter. The Company
intends to vigorously defend this action. The Company has filed a
motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court
for The District of Colorado, where a similar case was filed in
February 2016.


ONEOK INC: Settlement Reached in Gas Index Pricing Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
ONEOK, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that in March 2016, the Company reached an
agreement in principle to settle the claims alleged against it and
its affiliates, ONEOK Energy Services Company, L.P. and Kansas Gas
Marketing Company, in the putative class action lawsuits that
claimed damages resulting from alleged market manipulation or
false reporting of prices to gas index publications by the Company
and others: Learjet, Arandell, Heartland Regional Medical Center,
and NewPage.

"We anticipate a motion for preliminary approval of the proposed
settlement will be filed in May 2016. The amount we expect to pay
to settle these cases is not material to our results of
operations, financial position or cash flows and is expected to be
paid with cash on hand," the Company said.

"This agreement in principle to settle does not apply to the
Sinclair or Reorganized FLI cases, previously reported in our
Annual Report. We expect that future charges, if any, from the
ultimate resolution of these matters will not be material to our
results of operations, financial position or cash flows."


PAPA JOHN'S: Recalls Oriental Salad Products Due to Listeria
------------------------------------------------------------
Phoenix Arizona, Papa John's Salad and Produce, Inc. is
voluntarily recalling Oriental Salad with Sesame Ginger Dressing
due to possible Listeria monocytogenes contamination. This
voluntary action is being undertaken in cooperation with the US
Food and Drug Administration because the recalled products contain
sunflower kernels that are part of the recent SunOpta sunflower
kernel recall expansion.

SunOpta's recall can be found at:
http://www.fda.gov/Safety/Recalls/ucm502184.htm

Listeria monocytogenes is an organism that can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain, and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

No illnesses as of 5/21/16 have been reported to Papa John's
Salads and Produce for the products involved in this voluntary
recall.

Products covered by this voluntary recall were distributed in the
following states AZ, CA, ID, MT, ND, NM, OR, WY. Specific retail
stores affected include Albertson's, Safeway, Bashas', and Food 4
Less.

  Brand                Container    UPC          Sell by Date
  -----                Size         ---          ------------
                       ---------
Albertsons/Safeway     10 oz.       78279602691   5/18, 5/19,
Oriental Salad with                               5/20, 5/21,
Sesame Ginger Dressing                            5/22, 5/23,
Bashas                                            5/24, 5/25
Oriental Salad with    10 oz.       78279602691   5/18, 5/ 19,
Sesame Ginger Dressing                            5/20, 5/21,
                                                  5/22, 5/23,
                                                  5/24
Food 4 Less            13 oz.       78279602840   5/18, 5/ 19,
Oriental Salad with                               5/20, 5/21,
Sesame Ginger Dressing                            5/22, 5/23,
                                                  5/24, 5/25

Papa John's Salads and Produce, Inc. is working with our customers
to remove the products from store shelves and distribution.
Consumers who have purchased these items are advised to discard
them or return them to the store where originally purchased. The
sell by date is located on the left side for the 10 oz. package
and top side for the 13 oz. package.
Media and consumers with questions regarding the recall can
contact Brandy Rousselle, Consumer Relation's Manager, at (480)
894-6885 ext. 125. The line is monitored between 8:00 AM and 5:00
PM, 7 days a week.

We have already contacted our customers regarding specific lot
codes and shipments that were impacted by this recall.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/CoroQ0


PERRIGO CO: Faces Shareholder Class Action in N.J.
--------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Perrigo Co. rejected a $235
per share buyout offer from nonparty Mylan a year ago, and the
price sank below $99 in April this year, a class action claims in
Newark Federal Court.


PG&E CORP: 32 Complaints Filed in Connection With Butte Fire
------------------------------------------------------------
PG&E Corporation and Pacific Gas and Electric Company said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 4, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that in connection with the Butte fire, approximately 32
complaints have been filed to date against the Utility and its
vegetation management contractors in the Superior Court of
California in both the County of Calaveras and the County of San
Francisco, involving approximately 1,300 individual plaintiffs and
their insurance

On April 28, 2016, Cal Fire released its report of the
investigation of the origin and cause of the "Butte fire," the
wildfire that ignited and spread in Amador and Calaveras Counties
in Northern California in September 2015.  Cal Fire's report
concluded that the wildfire was caused when a Gray Pine tree
contacted the Utility's electric line which ignited portions of
the tree, and determined that the failure by the Utility and its
vegetation management contractors to identify certain potential
hazards during its vegetation management program ultimately led to
the failure of the tree.

In a press release also issued on April 28, 2016, Cal Fire
indicated that it will seek to recover firefighting costs in
excess of $90 million from the Utility.

In connection with the Butte fire, approximately 32 complaints
have been filed to date against the Utility and its vegetation
management contractors in the Superior Court of California in both
the County of Calaveras and the County of San Francisco, involving
approximately 1,300 individual plaintiffs and their insurance
companies.  In response to plaintiffs' and the Utility's requests,
the California Judicial Council has authorized the coordination of
all cases in the Superior Court of California, Sacramento County.
Plaintiffs have begun to present to the Utility claims seeking
early resolution of preference cases (individuals who due to their
age and/or physical condition are not likely to meaningfully
participate in a trial under normal scheduling).  The number of
complaints may increase in the future.

An initial case management conference was held on April 22, 2016
and the next case management conference is currently scheduled for
May 24, 2016.

In connection with this matter, the Utility may be liable for
property damages without having been found negligent, through the
theory of inverse condemnation.  In addition, the Utility may be
liable for fire suppression costs, personal injury damages, and
other damages if the Utility were found to have been negligent.

As a result of the Cal Fire report, additional investigations and
proceedings may be opened, the outcome of which PG&E Corporation
and the Utility are unable to predict.


PHILIPS LIGHTING: Recalls Metal Halide Lamps Due to Burn Hazard
---------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Philips Lighting North America Corp., of Somerset, N.J., announced
a voluntary recall of about 87,000 Metal Halide Lamps. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The outer bulbs can shatter, resulting in hot internal pieces of
glass falling from the lamps, posing a burn and laceration hazard.

This recall involves the Philips Energy Advantage Ceramic Metal
Halide Lamps model CDM330. They are designed as energy efficient
replacements for traditional 400W quartz metal halide lamps
installed in magnetic ballasts and intended for use in high-
ceiling industrial, retail and commercial applications. The lamps
were sold in both clear and coated versions. Each lamp includes an
etching, located either at the base of the lamp or on the ovoid of
the lamps, that displays the relevant date code, along with
Philips' name, wattage (330W) and the model (CDM330). Affected
lamps can be identified with one of the following date codes:

  Date Code         Month/Year
  ---------         ----------
  1E                May 2011
  1F                June 2011
  1G                July 2011
  1H                August 2011
  1J                September 2011
  1K                October 2011
  1L                November 2011
  1M                December 2011

Each lamp includes an etching, located either at the base of the
lamp or on the ovoid of the lamps, that displays the relevant date
code, along with Philips' name, wattage (330W) and the model
(CDM330).

The firm has received two reports of lamps shattering. No injuries
have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/0tGyhc

The recalled products were manufactured in USA and sold at
Electrical supply distributors from May 2011 through June 2012 for
about $40.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled lamps and
contact Philips for a free replacement.


PONTIAC, IL: Court Severs RLUIPA Claim From "Coleman" Suit
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CARLTON COLEMAN, # M-03859, Plaintiff, v. T.
SCOTT KEEN, and JOHN R. BALDWIN, Defendants, Case No. 16-cv-234-
NJR (S.D. Ill.), Judge Nancy J. Rosenstengel ruled on two motions
filed by the plaintiff: a motion to reconsider the threshold merit
review order and a motion for leave to file an amended complaint.

Carlton Coleman, who is currently incarcerated at Robinson
Correctional Center, filed a pro se civil rights action on January
8, 2016, in the Central District of Illinois.  He complained that
several officials at Pontiac Correctional Center, where he was
previously confined, refused to provide him with a kosher diet in
accordance with his religious beliefs.  He raised civil rights
claims pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983, seeking damages for
violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights and
requested injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA).

In an order dated March 3, 2016, United States District Judge
Harold A. Baker determined that Coleman's claim for injunctive
relief (to be provided with a kosher diet, which is still being
denied him) must be transferred to the Southern District of
Illinois, because the plaintiff's current prison is located in the
judicial district for the Southern District of Illinois. Several
Defendants, including Godinez (former IDOC Director), Pfister
(Pontiac Warden), and Kennell (Pontiac Chaplain) were dismissed
from the action.

Coleman sought reconsideration of the merit review order of March
3, 2016, asserting that the order did not include any review of
the merits of his First and Fourteenth Amendment claims against
the Pontiac officials, thus the dismissal of Defendants Godinez,
Pfister, and Kennell was in error.

Jude Rosenstengel ordered that Coleman's claim under the RLUIPA
for injunctive relief (to be provided with a kosher diet at
Lawrence) be administratively severed from the original case
transferred to her court from the Central District of Illinois.
The severed case shall remain in the Southern District of
Illinois, while the remainder shall be transferred back to the
Central District of Illinois, in order for that court to address
the pending motion to reconsider the merit review/case management
order (Doc. 10).

Coleman also sought to amend his complaint to add his current
warden and chaplain as defendants, raise certain medical claims,
include a claim for denial of access to the courts, and to seek
class action status.

Judge Rosenstengel granted Coleman's motion to amend in part,
insofar as he shall have 35 days in which to submit a proper
amended complaint.  The judge also denied in part, in that the
motion itself is not effective to alter the original complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenstengel's May 23, 2016 memorandum
and order is available at https://is.gd/mGt9vk from Leagle.com.


PRECISION CASTPARTS: Faces Class Action Over Toxic Air Pollution
----------------------------------------------------------------
KOIN 6 News reports that two people who live within a mile of
Precision Castparts have filed a class action lawsuit against the
company for allegedly emitting toxic air pollution from its
Southeast Portland facility.

The lawsuit filed by Brian and Rodica Resendez, who have lived
near Precision Castparts' facility on Southeast Harney Drive near
Johnson Creek since 2005, claims the company releases toxic
materials, including arsenic and nickel, into the air.

The suit, which is filed "individually and on behalf of a class of
similarly situated persons," said the toxic emissions threaten
neighbors' health and has reduced outdoor activity, such as
gardening.

They want Precision Castparts to stop its toxic emissions,
"remediate its environmental contamination" and pay damages to the
people in the class.

Precision Castparts spokesperson Jay Khetani told KOIN 6 News, "We
do not comment on pending litigation.  We are looking forward to
our community meeting on the 25th."

Precision Castparts makes parts for airplanes, among other things,
and employs nearly 2,800 people in the Portland area.

The Department of Environmental Quality recently began monitoring
the air around the plant after a Department of Forestry study
found high levels of arsenic and nickel.

Air monitors were installed to look for metals including lead,
cobalt and cadmium.

At an April 19 meeting with the Milwaukie City Council, Precision
Castparts said it doesn't use arsenic.

"We feel really good about the strong emission controls that we
have," Precision Castparts' Aaron Johnson said.  "We know what
alloys and components we use."

The plant is investing $17 million in new pollution controls,
including a $4 million storm water filtration system.


PUBLIX SUPER: Recalls Cranberry Nut and Seed Mix Due to Listeria
----------------------------------------------------------------
Publix Super Markets is issuing a voluntary recall for cranberry
nut and seed mix because it may be adulterated with Listeria
monocytogenes. Publix received notification of the potential
contamination from the walnut supplier, Woodstock Farms, after
routine testing was completed. The 7.05 ounce plastic containers
of prepackaged cranberry nut and seed mix were sold at Publix
retail produce departments in Florida, Georgia, South Carolina,
Alabama, Tennessee and North Carolina with a UPC of 41415-34986
and with use by dates August 7, 2016 through August 30, 2016.
Consumption of products containing Listeria monocytogenes can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infection in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

"As part of our commitment to food safety, potentially impacted
product has been removed from all store shelves," said Maria
Brous, Publix media and community relations director. "To date,
there have been no reported cases of illness. Consumers who have
purchased the products in question may return the product to their
local store for a full refund. Publix customers with additional
questions may call our Consumer Relations department at 1-800-242-
1227 or by visiting our website at www.publix.comdisclaimer icon.
Customers can also contact the US Food and Drug Administration at
1-888-SAFEFOOD (1-888-723-3366)."

Publix is privately owned and operated by its 179,500 employees,
with 2015 sales of $32.4 billion. Currently Publix has 1,113
stores in Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Tennessee, South Carolina and
North Carolina. The company has been named one of Fortune's "100
Best Companies to Work For in America" for 19 consecutive years.
In addition, Publix's dedication to superior quality and customer
service is recognized among the top in the grocery business.


QUAKER OATS: Recalls Quinoa Granola Bars Due to Sunflower Kernels
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Quaker Oats Company, a subsidiary of PepsiCo, Inc., announced
a voluntary recall of a small quantity of Quaker Quinoa Granola
Bars after an ingredient supplier was found to have distributed
sunflower kernels that may be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes (L.mono). There have been no reported illnesses to
date. However, Quaker is initiating the voluntary recall in an
abundance of caution to protect public health.

Listeria monocytogenes (L.mono) is an organism, which can cause
serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or
elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although
healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as
high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

While the vast majority of potentially affected Quaker products
were withheld from ever reaching retail shelves, the products
being recalled were distributed nationwide and are as follows:

  --- 6.1 ounce boxes of Quaker Quinoa Granola Bars Chocolate Nut
      Medley with UPC code 30000 32241 and Best Before Dates of:
      10/16/2016, 10/17/2016
  --- 6.1 ounce boxes of Quaker Quinoa Granola Bars Yogurt, Fruit
      & Nut with UPC 30000 32243 and Best Before Dates of:
      10/10/2016, 10/11/2016

Pictures of the products listed above will be available on
www.quakeroats.com.

At this time there are no other Quaker products involved in this
situation. The company is working closely with the Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) to further investigate this issue, but in the
meantime is taking these actions out of commitment to and concern
for consumers.

Consumers who have purchased either of the above products are
urged to dispose of or return them to the place of purchase for a
full refund. They can also direct any questions to 800-856-5781,
Monday - Friday, 8:30 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (EST), or find more
information at www.quakeroats.com.


RCI PLBG: Faces "Faulkner" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Dwayne Faulkner, individually, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. RCI PLBG, Inc. and Affinity Human Resources,
LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02393 (E.D.N.Y., May 11, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

RCI PLBG, Inc. operates a plumbing company located at 555 Ave of
the Americas, New York, NY 10011.

Dwayne Faulkner is a pro se plaintiff.


RECEIVABLES PERFORMANCE: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sonya Seamster, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v. Receivables Performance Management LLC, Case No. 3:16-
cv-01298-D (N.D. Tex., May 11, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendants' practice of using an artificial and prerecorded voice
to deliver a message without prior express consent of the called
party.

Receivables Performance Management LLC operates an accounts
receivable management headquartered at 0816 44th Avenue W,
Lynnwood, WA 98036.
The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Jarrett L. Ellzey Jr., Esq.
      William Craft Hughes, Esq.
      HUGHES ELLZEY LLP
      Galleria Tower 1
      2700 Post Oak Blvd Suite 1120
      Houston, TX 77056
      Telephone: (888) 350-3931
      Facsimile: (888) 995-3335
      E-mail: jarrett@crafthugheslaw.com
              craft@hughesellzey.com

         - and -

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

        - and -

     Mark A. Alexander, Esq.
     MARK A ALEXANDER PC
     5080 Spectrum Drive, Suite 850E
     Addison, TX 75001
     Telephone: (972) 364-9700
     Facsimile: (972) 239-2244
     E-mail: mark@crb-law.com


RICOH INDIA: InGovern Says Class Action Suit Should Be Taken
------------------------------------------------------------
Amrit Raj, writing for live mint, reports that proxy advisory firm
InGovern has sought government-appointed directors on the board of
Ricoh India, the local unit of the Japanese company in which
auditors have pointed out several accounting inconsistencies.

InGovern said the onus is on the Securities and Exchange Board of
India, or Sebi, to intervene in the matter as "a pro-active
regulator" rather than a "passive one".  It also requested for
more than "one government-appointed member" on the board of Ricoh
India.

"Class action suit should be taken. At the end of the day, they
(the government) did it in the Satyam case.  Government-appointed
directors should be there on the board.  Not one director but all
the directors," said Shriram Subramanian, managing director of
InGovern.

"Sebi should take suo moto cognisance of the case.  They should
investigate.  They are responsible for the integrity of the
capital market," he added.

Ricoh India started as a joint venture between India's RPG Group
and Japan's Ricoh Co. Ltd in 1993.  In 1998, the company was
reincorporated with 76% ownership by the Japanese firm and the
rest by the Indian public.  BSE Ltd in an 18 March notice said
that, pursuant to a Sebi circular, Ricoh India along with four
other companies would be shifted to the "Z" group with effect from
March 28 because of non-compliance with listing norms for two
consecutive quarters.

Since then, the company's stock has plunged, declining from Rs.569
on March 18 to Rs.283.60 on May 20.  On May 13, the company filed
a police complaint saying it has detected massive financial
irregularities and fraud in the company after a forensic
investigation revealed "wrongdoing".

The forensic audit was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC),
which had been contracted by Amarchand Mangaldas & Co. for the
job.  Ricoh India had appointed BSR & Co. as its auditors and the
latter sought a "review of certain transactions" conducted by some
of the company executives, The Times of India reported on  May 13.
S.S. Kothari Mehta & Co. also conducted an enquiry, but its
findings were not agreed upon with BSR.

"Most importantly, the entire replacement of auditors raises a lot
of doubt.  They also could not figure out.  It was not clear
whether the parent company knew about the issue.  If they knew it,
they should have immediately informed the stock exchanges,"
Subramanian of InGovern said.

Following this, Ricoh India's managing director and chief
executive Manoj Kumar, chief financial officer Arvind Singhal and
chief operating officer Anil Saini were sent on leave.

The company board has promoted A.D. Rajan as the new managing
director and chief executive. He was earlier chief strategy
officer and senior vice-president.

A public relations executive at Ricoh declined to comment on the
story.  "We have nothing more to share than we have put out in
public," she said.

India Ratings and Research said the company started rating Ricoh
India in 2014, and since then, Ricoh Japan had demonstrated
financial support to Ricoh India by fund infusions through non-
convertible debentures of Rs.200 crore and commercial papers of
Rs.270 crore in fiscal year 2015.

India Ratings put the firm on Rating Watch Negative on March 16,
2016, on account of delays in results for the second and third
quarters of fiscal 2016.

Ricoh India's rating largely reflected the operational linkages
and financial support from Ricoh Japan.  According to India
Ratings, Ricoh Japan's linkages were reflected in the following:

Ricoh Japan holds a 73.6% stake in the company.  Ricoh Japan had
increased its stake in the company and also tried to gain greater
control.

Ricoh Japan had its nominees on the board and played a key role in
the appointment of the senior management, having deputed its
employees as senior management in the past.

Ind-Ra had also considered that the parent, Ricoh Japan, was known
for following very standards of high corporate governance.

Ricoh India's bankers were largely foreign banks and a large
percentage of Ricoh India's borrowings were provided by them.  "In
our discussions with bankers it was highlighted that the bankers
to Indian entity drew comfort from Ricoh Japan."

The rest of Ricoh India's debt was funded by Ricoh Japan.

"Now on 18 May 2016 the company has advised that its accounts do
not reflect true and fair picture and it suspects a fraud. The
auditors of the company have also suspected the financial
numbers," the India Ratings spokesperson said.

"We are trying to get in touch with Ricoh Japan to get greater
clarity and we could shortly hold an rating committee to discuss
these developments," he added.


RIXSON OF MONROE: Recalls Exterior Gate Closers
-----------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Rixson, of Monroe, N.C, a brand of Yale Security Inc. Yale
Security is owned by Assa Abloy, announced a voluntary recall of
about 130 Exterior Gate Closers. Consumers should stop using this
product unless otherwise instructed.  It is illegal to resell or
attempt to resell a recalled consumer product.

The gate closer mechanism can break and eject metal pieces
including the spring or it can spray oil, posing a risk of injury.

This recall involves the Exterior Gate Closer Model 1350. The
affected gate closer is affixed to external gates and has a body
that is approximately 6.5 inches long, with a sliding arm that is
about 3 feet in width when extended. The unit is marked on the
side of the body with "MAB/ASSA ABLOY." The recall only includes
units produced between January 2014 and December 2015. The unit's
production date is stamped on the side of the gate closer body in
a "week/year" format and can be accessed by removing the body's
plastic housing.

The firm has received 15 reports worldwide of mechanisms breaking
and ejecting metal objects, including three in the U.S. No
injuries have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/oL6VjV

The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at
Wholesale and hardware distributors from April 2015 through
November 2015 for about $460.

Consumers should immediately stop using the gate and contact
Rixson for information on safely removing the arm from the gate
closer and returning for a free replacement gate closer. Rixson is
contacting consumers who bought the recalled product directly.


ROCKWELL INT'L: Settles Rocky Flats Class Action for $375MM
-----------------------------------------------------------
John Aguilar, writing for Denver Post, reports that thousands of
homeowners who lived downwind of the former Rocky Flats nuclear
weapons plant and the operators of the controversial facility have
settled a lawsuit to the tune of $375 million, more than a quarter
century after the legal action was first filed.

The settlement, which must be approved by a federal judge, brings
to an end a 26-year legal saga that began when homeowners living
east of Rocky Flats accused the plant's operators, Rockwell
International Corp. and Dow Chemical Co., of devaluing their
properties due to plutonium releases from the plant.

The lawsuit, which included as many as 15,000 homeowners in an
area largely encompassing neighborhoods surrounding Standley Lake,
was first filed in 1990.

In court papers filed on May 18, the lawsuit was described as
"quite possibly the largest docket of any District of Colorado
case to date."

"Both sides are satisfied with the settlement," Merrill Davidoff,
lead attorney for the plaintiffs, told The Denver Post on May 19.

According to court filings, the plaintiff class includes all those
who "as of June 7, 1989" -- the day after the FBI raided the plant
-- owned property in the affected area.  Anyone who sold their
property before that date and anyone who purchased property after
that date would not qualify.

Mr. Davidoff -- who confirmed the settlement amount, which was not
listed in court documents -- said final approval by a federal
judge and establishment of a claims filing process for homeowners
could be "months away."

William Schierkolk, listed as one of the representatives in the
class-action suit, said he moved to his property on Alkire Street
in 1975 because "it looked like a nice place to live."

Mr. Schierkolk, 84, said he knew many people who worked at Rocky
Flats during its operational years, from 1952 to 1992.  And he
heard from many neighbors who tried selling their homes that the
value of their property had dropped significantly.

Of the settlement, Mr. Schierkolk said, "It's been a long time."

"I was thinking we no longer had justice in this country," he
said.

Rachelle Schikorra, a spokeswoman for Dow Chemical, said her
company's share of the settlement total is $131.25 million.  The
U.S. Department of Energy, which oversaw the plant, ultimately is
expected to pay that bill, she said.

"The U.S. Department of Energy authorized the settlement, and Dow
fully expects to be indemnified for the full cost of the
settlement," she said.  "This settlement resolves 26 years of
litigation, and Dow believes this settlement is the right decision
for the company and its shareholders."

Rockwell, which will pay $243.75 million of the total, said in a
news release on May 19 that it too "expects to be paid or
reimbursed for the full cost of the settlement."

"Under Rockwell International's contract and federal law, it is
entitled to indemnification by the DOE for the settlement amount,"
it said.

The company, which was acquired by Boeing in 1996, said it doesn't
expect the bulk of the settlement monies to be paid out to
homeowners until June or July 2017.

The DOE released a statement to The Post on May 19.

"While the Department of Energy was not a party to the case, the
department is pleased that the parties have reached a settlement
resolving long-standing litigation between property owners in the
vicinity of the former Rocky Flats plant and Dow Chemical Company
and Rockwell International Corporation, DOE's former contractors
at the plant," the statement said.

The agreement, reached late on May 18, puts to an end a case --
dubbed Cook et al. vs. Rockwell International -- that has been
through multiple bends and turns in federal court.

In 2006, a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and a federal
judge awarded them $926 million.  But in 2010, that award was
thrown out by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which ruled
that the jury reached its decision on faulty instructions that
incorrectly stated the law.

The 6,500-acre Rocky Flats, 16 miles northwest of Denver, opened
in 1952 to manufacture plutonium triggers for the nation's nuclear
arsenal.  Dow operated the plant until 1975, when Rockwell took it
over and ran it until 1989.

It formally was shuttered in 1992 and underwent a $7 billion
cleanup that concluded in 2005.  It is now a national wildlife
refuge, although a 1,300-acre core area where weapons production
occurred remains a Superfund site and off limits to the public.

In 1992, Rockwell settled with the Justice Department and pleaded
guilty to 10 violations of the Clean Water Act and federal
hazardous-waste laws, including illegal storage of hazardous
wastes.  The company paid $18.5 million in fines.


ROYAL COACHMAN: Class Action Settlement Gets Preliminary Court OK
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The Associated Press reports that a Grant County judge has given
preliminary approval to a settlement in a class action lawsuit
filed by mobile homeowners against their landlord in central
Washington.

The lawsuit alleges that Royal Coachman Mobile Home Park, in the
town of Royal City, double billed tenants for utilities starting
in September 2014 when new management took over.

Attorneys for the homeowners, Columbia Legal Services, say under
the settlement, homeowners will receive a full refund of $53,000.
Rent increases will also be limited until January 2020, the park
will remain open for at least five years and a plain language
rental agreement will be offered in English and Spanish under the
settlement.

The plaintiff's attorneys say the double billing violates the
Mobile Home Landlord Tenant Act and Washington's Consumer
Protection Act.


SEMPRA ENERGY: 138 Cases Filed Related to Gas Leak
--------------------------------------------------
Sempra Energy, San Diego Gas & Electric Company and Southern
California Gas Company said in their Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 4, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that as of April 28, 2016,
138 lawsuits have been filed related to the Aliso Canyon Natural
Gas Storage Facility Gas Leak.

In October 2015, SoCalGas discovered a leak at one of its
injection and withdrawal wells, SS25, at its Aliso Canyon natural
gas storage facility, located in the northern part of the San
Fernando Valley in Los Angeles County. The Aliso Canyon facility
has been operated by SoCalGas since 1972. SS25 is more than one
mile away from and 1,200 feet above the closest homes. It is one
of more than 100 injection and withdrawal wells at the storage
facility.

As of April 28, 2016, 138 lawsuits have been filed (134 in Los
Angeles County Superior Court, 2 in San Diego County Superior
Court, and 2 in the United States District Court for the Southern
District of California) against SoCalGas, some of which have also
named Sempra Energy, and, in derivative and securities law claims
on behalf of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas, certain officers and
directors of Sempra Energy and/or SoCalGas. These various lawsuits
assert causes of action for negligence, strict liability, property
damage, fraud, nuisance, trespass, breach of fiduciary duties, and
violation of federal securities laws, among other things, and
additional litigation may be filed against us in the future
related to this incident. Many of these complaints seek class
action status, compensatory and punitive damages, injunctive
relief, and attorneys' fees.

The Los Angeles City Attorney and Los Angeles County Counsel have
also filed a complaint on behalf of the people of the State of
California against SoCalGas for public nuisance and violation of
the California Unfair Competition Law. The California Attorney
General, acting in her independent capacity and on behalf of the
people of the State of California and the CARB, joined this
lawsuit. The complaint, which as amended includes the California
Attorney General, adds allegations of violations of California
Health and Safety Code sections 41700, prohibiting discharge of
air contaminants that cause annoyance to the public, and 25510,
requiring reporting of the release of hazardous material, as well
as California Government Code section 12607 for equitable relief
for the protection of natural resources. The complaint seeks an
order for injunctive relief, to abate the public nuisance, and to
impose civil penalties.

The SCAQMD also filed a complaint against SoCalGas seeking civil
penalties for alleged violations of several nuisance-related
statutory provisions arising from the leak and delays in stopping
the leak. That suit seeks up to $250,000 in civil penalties for
each day the violations occurred.

On February 2, 2016, the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office
filed a misdemeanor criminal complaint against SoCalGas seeking
penalties and other remedies for alleged failure to provide timely
notice of the leak pursuant to California Health and Safety Code
section 25510(a), Los Angeles County Code section 12.56.030, and
Title 19 California Code of Regulations section 2703(a), and for
violating California Health and Safety Code section 41700
prohibiting discharge of air contaminants that cause annoyance to
the public.

The costs of defending against these civil and criminal lawsuits
and cooperating with these investigations, and any damages,
restitution, and civil and criminal fines, costs and other
penalties, if awarded or imposed, could be significant and to the
extent not covered by insurance, or if there were to be
significant delays in receiving insurance recoveries, could have a
material adverse effect on SoCalGas' and Sempra Energy's cash
flows, financial condition and results of operations.


SENECA COAL: Sued Over Failure to Provide Termination Notice
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Conn, Austin Tilley and Nelson Saddler, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Seneca Coal
Resources, LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-04331 (S.D.W.V., May 11, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide notice
prior to termination.

Seneca Coal Resources, LLC is in the business of producing
metallurgical coal.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kyle G. Lusk, Esq.
      LUSK & BRADFORD
      220 North Fayette Street
      Beckley, WV 25801
      Telephone: (304) 255-5628
      Facsimile: (304) 255-7071
      E-mail: luskandbradford@lumos.net

         - and -

      M. Vance McCrary, Esq.
      Mary E. Olsen, Esq.
      THE GARDNER FIRM PC
      210 South Washington Avenue, P. O. Drawer 3103
      Mobile, AL 36652
      Telephone: (251) 433-8100
      Facsimile: (251) 433-8181

         - and -

      Matthew A. Bradford, Esq.
      KYLE G. LUSK & ASSOCIATES
      220 North Fayette Street
      Beckley, WV 25801
      Telephone: (304) 255-5628
      Facsimile: (304) 255-7071

         - and -

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


SHAPIRO BROWN & ALT: "Burke" Settlement Deal Has Final Okay
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the civil cases captioned FLOYD RONALD BURKE, Plaintiff, v.
SHAPIRO, BROWN & ALT, LLP, et al., Defendants. R. DANTE DECAPRI,
Plaintiff, v. LAW OFFICE OF SHAPIRO, BROWN & ALT, LLP, Defendant,
Civil Nos. 3:14cv838 (DJN), 3:14cv201 (DJN) (E.D. Va.), Judge
David J. Novak granted the plaintiffs' motion for final approval
of class action settlement, for attorney's fees, expenses, and
service award pursuant to the settlement agreement.

The settlement agreement provided for a settlement fund of
$112,500 to settle the FDCPA claims on a class basis.

Judge Novak also approved the class counsel's request for an
attorneys' fee award of $150,000.00, as well as a $3,000 service
award to each of the named plaintiffs.

A full-text copy of Judge Novak's May 17, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/ZBP6kl from Leagle.com.

On March 21, 2014, R. Dante DeCapri commenced a class action on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that
the defendant Law Office of Shaprio Brown & Alt, LLP (SBA)
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA) by (1)
failing to include "by the debt collector" or similar language in
the required component of the 30-day validation notice disclosure
in violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(3); (2) contradicting
and creating confusion in its section 1692g(a)(3) disclosure in
violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692g(a)(4); (3) using a false
representation or deceptive means to collect a debt by omitting
the "by debt collector" or similar language in the required
component of the 30-day validation notice disclosure in violation
of 15 U.S.C. 1692e(10); (4) falsely stating that if the debtor
chooses to dispute the debt he must do so within 30 days, in
violation of 15 U.S.C. section 1692e(10); and (5) omitting the "in
writing" requirement from the statement of the consumer's rights
in violation of 15 U.S.C. 1692E(10).

On the same date, Floyd Ronald Burke also commenced a class action
on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, similarly
alleging that SBA violated the FDCPA.

Floyd Ronald Burke, Plaintiff, represented by Kristi Cahoon Kelly
-- kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com -- Kelly & Crandall PLC, Leonard
Anthony Bennett -- leonard@clalegal.com -- Consumer Litigation
Associates, Andrew Joseph Guzzo -- aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com --
Kelly & Crandall PLC, Dale Wood Pittman, The Law Office of Dale W.
Pittman, P.C. & Susan Mary Rotkis -- susan@clalegal.com --
Consumer Litigation Associates.

Shapiro, Brown & Alt, LLP, Professional Foreclosure Corporation,
Defendants, represented by Bizhan Beiramee --
bbeiramee@beiramee.com -- Beiramee Law Group PC, John C. Lynch --
john.lynch@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP & Megan E.
Burns -- megan.burns@troutmansanders.com -- Troutman Sanders LLP.


SOS TELECOM: Recalls Dietary Supplements Due to Sildenafil
----------------------------------------------------------
SOS Telecom, Inc. of Bayside, NY is voluntarily recalling all lots
of the following products to the consumer level because these
products were tested by the FDA and found to contain Sildenafil,
and analogs of Sildenafil.  Sildenafil is a PDE-5 Inhibitor which
is the active ingredient in an FDA-approved drug for erectile
dysfunction (ED), making this tainted dietary supplement and
unapproved drug. Sildenafil is not listed on the product labels.

  --- Tiger-X (Lot No: 9236999; Best use by: 12/16/2016): 1
      capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box.
  --- Ninja-X (Lot: 7920888; Best Use by: 6/31/2018) 1 capsules
      per pack / 24 single packs per box.
  --- Ginseng Power-X (Lot: 7788965; Best use by: 10/15/2018) 1
      capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box.
  --- Super Samurai-X (Lot No: 7920499; Best use by: 10/15/2016)
      1 capsules per pack / 24 single packs per box.

Risk Statement: This undeclared active ingredient poses a threat
to consumers because Sildenafil may interact with nitrates found
in some prescription drugs such as nitroglycerin and may lower
blood pressure to dangerous levels. Consumers with diabetes, high
blood pressure, high cholesterol, or heart disease often take
nitrates. Additionally, the product may cause side effects, such
as headaches and flushing.

These products were marketed as dietary supplements for male
sexual enhancement. The products are packaged in accordance with
the respective identifiers listed above. All lots of the specified
products sold by SOS Telecom, Inc. are included in this recall.

The products were sold through numerous retailers, including
convenience stores and gas stations. SOS Telecom, Inc. is
notifying its customers by issuing a press release and by direct
notification via email.

Consumers and retailers that have any of these above mentioned
products should stop using and/or distributing this product
immediately and arrange return of the products to: Attn: RECALL
NOTICE SOS Telecom, Inc. 202-28 45th Ave., Bayside, NY 11361

Consumers with questions regarding this voluntary recall can
contact SOS Telecom, Inc. by email at sosphonecard@yahoo.com
and/or calling at 718-908-0206, Monday - Friday, 9:00 am to 10:30
am and 5:00 pm to 7:30 pm.  Consumers should contact their
physician or healthcare provider if they have experienced any
problems that may be related to taking or using these drug
products.

Adverse reactions or quality problems experienced with the use of
this product may be reported to the FDA's MedWatch Adverse Event
Reporting program either online by Complete and submit the report
online: www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm

This recall and market action are being conducted with the
knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/zGDSLg


SPRINGFIELD, MA: Public Schools Sued Over ADA Violations
--------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy C. Fox, writing for Boston Globe, reports that a federal
lawsuit alleges that Springfield Public Schools violates the
Americans with Disabilities Act by placing more than 200 students
with emotional disabilities in schools that provide sub-par
education and that worsen their mental health.

The civil suit, filed two years ago but currently seeking class-
action status, alleges that segregating the students in three day
schools -- an elementary, middle, and high school -- drives many
to drop out and pushes some into the justice system, according to
court documents.

It claims the schools subject the students, who struggle to
regulate their emotions and behaviors, to inappropriate physical
force and isolation in padded rooms.  The suit also alleges that
students face suspensions for minor offenses, threats of arrest,
and actual arrests by police.

The Americans with Disabilities Act requires the district to
integrate the students into Springfield's neighborhood schools,
alongside peers without disabilities, and provide staff in those
schools to address their behavior issues, the lawsuit says.

"We believe that we can prove to the court that students with
emotional disabilities or with mental health disabilities and
behavioral problems can be educated in neighborhood schools if the
schools provide them with appropriate school-based behavioral
supports," said Robert D. Fleischner, the lead attorney for the
plaintiffs.

One of those plaintiffs is the Disability Law Center, an
independent group based in Boston and empowered by the federal
government to protect the rights of the disabled.

Stanley J. Eichner, litigation director for the law center, said
Springfield's public day schools provide students who have
emotional disabilities with "inadequate and inappropriate
services."

"The damage and harm is being stuck in a dead-end program that's a
dumping ground," Mr. Eichner said.

A district spokeswoman said she could not comment on the claims
because the lawsuit is ongoing.

The suit, filed in 2014 by the mother of a teenage student then at
Public Day Middle School alleges the district "denies hundreds of
children with a mental health disability equal educational
opportunity and the opportunity to be educated with their peers
without a disability."

Another Springfield mother, who asked that her family not be named
because her son still attends the Public Day Middle School, said
it has been more effective in addressing the 14-year-old's
behavioral issues than his previous school in Springfield.

But she said she is concerned that he is falling behind
academically because he typically has homework only one night a
week and teachers do not encourage him to work hard.

"They would push them to do their schoolwork more," at the
mainstream middle school her son previously attended, the mother
said.

"Here, I don't think they really care about academics at all.  . .
. Where he was before, in the regular school system, he was
getting homework every day."

"The damage and harm is being stuck in a dead-end program that's a
dumping ground."

Quote Icon
Her son is set to move to a mainstream high school as he enters
ninth grade next fall, she said.

"Education is not the primary mission of the Public Day School,
and students make little academic progress there," the plaintiffs
claim in court filings.

A Globe review of last year's MCAS scores found that 82 percent of
students at Springfield Public Day High School scored either
"needs improvement" or "warning/failing" in 10th-grade math,
compared with 53 percent of 10th-grade students across the
Springfield district.

Statewide, only 21 percent of 10th-graders scored in the two
lowest tiers on the math test.

The Public Day High School's scores for the English portion of the
MCAS were not available.

The lawsuit has been making its way through the US District Court
and attorneys for the plaintiffs are currently seeking class
action status, which will allow them to represent all students --
about 233 -- at the public day schools, Mr. Fleischner said.

A final resolution in the case is likely months, if not years,
away, and it is possible the student whose family brought the suit
will graduate before it concludes.

Mr. Fleischner said the suit will continue either way.

"We have been spectacularly impressed by the fortitude and love
that our clients' families have showed," Mr. Fleischner said.
"Everyone we represent wants their child educated in an integrated
neighborhood school."


SPROUTS FARMERS: "Castellano" Data Breach Suit Removed to S.D. Cal
------------------------------------------------------------------
Nancy Castellano, an individual, on behalf of herself and all
others similarly-situated employees of Defendants, Plaintiff, v.
Sprouts Farmers Market, Inc., SFM, LLC and Does 1 through 5,
Inclusive, Defendants, Case No. 37-02016-00011845-CU-NP-CTL (Cal.
Super, April 8, 2016), is removed to the United States District
Court Southern District of California on May 16, 2016, under Case
No. 3:16-cv-01184-JLS-JLB.

Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to properly safeguard and
protect their personal identifiable information resulting from a
data breach.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicole R. Roysdon, Esq.
      GRAHAMHOLLIS APC
      3555 5th Ave, Suite 200
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Tel: (619) 692-0800
      Fax: (619) 692-0822
      Email: nroysdon@grahamhollis.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Tanya L Forsheit, Esq.
      BAKER & HOSTELER, LLP
      11601 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1400
      Los Angeles, CA 90025
      Tel: (310) 820-8800
      Fax: (310) 820-8859
      Email: tforsheit@bakerlaw.com


ST JOSEPH'S HEALTHCARE: Faces Suit Over Underfunded Pension Plan
----------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Lynne Barker, Anne Marie Dalio and Dorothy Flar, individually
and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. St. Joseph's Healthcare System, Inc., St. Joseph's
Hospital and Medical Center, St. Joseph's Regional Medical Center
Pension Plan Committee and John Does 1-20, Case No. 2:16-cv-02748-
JLL-JAD (D.N.J., May 16, 2016), seeks revision of their benefit
plan managed by the Defendants to comply with the regulations of
the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974; disgorgement
of any profits accumulated resulting from fiduciary breaches;
civil monetary penalties; declaratory and injunctive relief;
attorney fees and expenses, as provided by ERISA.

Defendant St. Joseph's Hospital and Medical Center, by and through
its subsidiaries and/or affiliates operates a healthcare
conglomerate in New Jersey and provides healthcare services in the
communities it serves.

Garbaccio is a vested participant in the St. Joseph's Hospital and
Medical Center Pension Plan.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

          - and -

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


STAHLBUSH ISLAND: Updates Green Bean Packages Recall
----------------------------------------------------
This updated press release includes two items:

The correct telephone number: 541-757-1497.
The correct best by date 12/2016 for lot #14328001.

Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. (SIFI) of Corvallis, Ore., is
voluntarily recalling 10 oz. Stahlbush(R) IQF Green Bean retail
packages because it has the potential to be contaminated with
Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can cause serious and
sometimes fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly
people, and others with weakened immune systems. Although healthy
individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms such as high
fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and
diarrhea, listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The product was distributed throughout the United Stated and
Canada. The green beans were packaged for Stahlbush Island Farms,
Inc. by a co-packer into 10 oz. Stahlbush(R) IQF Green Bean paper
retail packages. Product is frozen and has the UPC code 6 38882
00053 7.

The lot numbers are found on the back of the package and the
affected lot numbers and best by dates are:

  --- #16034001, with a "best buy" code date of 02/03/18.
  --- #15097001, with a "best buy" code date of 04/07/17.
  --- #14328001, with a "best buy" code date of 12/2016.
  --- #15362001, with a "best buy" code date of 12/28/17.
  --- #14310002, with a "best buy" code date of 11/06/16.

No other Stahlbush(R) products are affected by this recall. No
illnesses have been reported to date in connection with affected
Stahlbush(R) products.

The recall was initiated after SIFI was notified by the supplier
of the green beans that the supplier had issued a recall of the
green beans.

Consumers who have purchased IQF green beans affected by the
recall should not consume the product and are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a full refund.

Consumers with questions may contact the company at
customerservice@stahlbush.com or call (541) 757-1497, open 9 am
through 5 pm PDT, Monday through Friday.

Stahlbush Island Farms, Inc. apologizes for any inconvenience
experienced by our valued consumers and retail customers.

"We take the safety of our products very seriously," states
William Chambers, President and CEO of SIFI. "Immediately after
being notified by our supplier that their green beans had been
recalled by them, we took action to identify the products
implicated in the recall and we discontinued shipment of all
affected product. We are working quickly with distributors and
retailers to remove the product from shelves and eliminate risk to
consumers."

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/aird9w


STEPHENS INSTITUTE: Faces "Pagoaga" Suit in California Court
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Stephens
Institute d/b/a Academy of Art University.

The case is captioned Matthew Pagoaga v. Stephens Institute d/b/a
Academy of Art University, Case No. CGC 16 551952 (Cal. Super.
Ct., May 11, 2016).

Stephens Institute is a private, coeducational research university
located in Hoboken, New Jersey.


SUNOPTA INC: Expands Sunflower Kernel Products Recall
-----------------------------------------------------
As a precaution, SunOpta expanded its voluntary recall of a
limited number of sunflower kernel products that have the
potential to be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune systems. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The initial recall was limited to sunflower kernel products
produced at SunOpta's Crookston, Minn. facility between the dates
of February 1, 2016 and February 19, 2016.  The expanded recall
includes products produced February 20, 2016 through April 21,
2016, the date on which the facility ceased production of the
products.  No illnesses have been confirmed related to the
consumption of this product.

Recalled retail items were sold in clear printed plastic packages
and are marked with Best By Dates located on the front or back of
the packages. Listed below are details regarding the recalled
items:

  Product        Size    UPC           Lot #      Best By Date
  Description    ----    ---           -----      ------------
  -----------
  Sunrich        1 oz.   810304032122  37216074   14MAR17
  Naturals                             37216075   15MAR17
  Sunflower                            37216076   16MAR17
  Kernel                               37216077   17MAR17
                                       37216078   18MAR17
                                       37216081   21MAR17
                                       37216082   22MAR17
                                       37216083   23MAR17
                                       37216084   24MAR17
                                       37216085   25MAR17
                                       37216088   28MAR17
                                       37216090   30MAR17
                                       37216091   31MAR17
                                       37216092   01APR17
                                       37216095   04APR17
                                       37216096   05APR17
                                       37216098   07APR17
                                       37216099   08APR17
Planters        3 oz.    029000012714  7072A3,    03/13/17
Sunflower                              7072B3,    03/14/17
Kernels                                7072C3     03/15/17
                                       7073A3,    03/16/17
                                       7073B3,
                                       7073C3
                                       7074A3,
                                       7074B3,
                                       7074C3
                                       7075A3

Recalled products were distributed to distribution centers during
the months of March and April 2016 in California, Colorado,
Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana,
Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, North
Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania and Texas and may be
redistributed to other states nationwide.

Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who
purchased these products may take them back to the store where
they purchased them for a refund or simply discard them. Consumers
seeking information may email contactus@sunopta.com or call 1-888-
886-4428 Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Central
Daylight Time.

Retailers and wholesale customers should check their inventories
and shelves to confirm that none of the recalled products are
present or available for purchase by consumers or in warehouse
inventories. Please contact SunOpta at contactus@sunopta.com to
arrange for disposal or return of the product.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).

The Company provided the following statement:

"SunOpta is committed to ensuring consumer safety and providing
quality products and ingredients to customers.  The Company has
completed its root cause analysis and is working with food safety
experts to implement corrective and preventative measures. In an
abundance of caution, SunOpta is voluntarily extending the period
during which it is recalling a limited number of sunflower kernel
products that have the potential to be contaminated with Listeria
monocytogenes."

SunOpta Inc. is a leading global company focused on organic, non-
genetically modified ("non-GMO") and specialty foods. SunOpta
specializes in the sourcing, processing and packaging of organic
and non-GMO food products, integrated from seed through packaged
products; with a focus on strategic vertically integrated business
models. SunOpta's organic and non-GMO food operations revolve
around value-added grain, seed, fruit and vegetable based product
offerings, supported by a global sourcing and supply
infrastructure.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/XD4eWj


SYNAPSE GROUP: Faces Class Suit Over Auto Renewal of Subscription
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that Synapse Group automatically
renews annual magazine subscriptions, a class action claims in San
Diego Superior Court.


TD BANK: Pulls Plug on Penny Arcade Coin-Counting Machines
----------------------------------------------------------
Jim Walsh, writing for Courier-Post, reports that TD Bank has
pulled the plug on its Penny Arcade coin-counting machines, the
bank said on May 19.

TD had suspended its coin-counting service in early April, after a
media report identified inaccuracies in some of the machines. The
Cherry Hill-based bank now faces several proposed class-action
lawsuits on behalf of customers alleging they were short-changed
by the service.

"We have determined it is difficult to ensure a consistently great
experience for our customers," Michael Rhodes, a TD executive,
said in a statement.  "In addition, the usage of our coin-counting
machines has declined steadily over the past few years."

He said the bank "will continue to assess the Penny experience and
intends to appropriately address customer impact."

TD said its policies had called for daily testing of each machine
"with routine and needs-based maintenance" and immediate credits
for customers reporting a problem.  Despite that, the firm said,
it was concerned the machines "may not always meet its standard."

A lawsuit filed in April in federal court in Camden alleged the
machines "have continuously undercounted coins placed in them by
consumers for years and resulted in the loss of millions of
dollars for consumers."

The suit, filed by attorney Stephen DeNittis of Evesham, seeks to
represent people who have used Penny Arcade machines over the past
six years.

It cited tests by a reporter for NBC's "Today" show, which found
incorrect results when $300 in coins were placed in five machines
chosen at random.  Each of the machines undercounted the coins.

TD said it will continue to accept prerolled coins "for deposit
from retail, businesses and nonprofit customers at no additional
charge and provide free coin wrappers."

It said bank personnel would work with "high-volume and business
customers" to identify other solutions to their coin-counting
needs.

TD is one of the country's 10 largest banks, with about 1,300
branches between Maine and Florida.


TD BANK: "Spector" Class Suit Removed to District New Jersey
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned David Spector, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. TD Bank, N.A., Case
No. CAM-L-1722-16, was removed from the Superior Court of Camden
County to the U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-02682-JBS-JS to
the proceeding.

TD Bank, N.A. is a national bank headquartered in Cherry Hill, New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Stephen Patrick Denittis, Esq
      DENITTIS OSEFCHEN, PC
      5 Greentree Centre
      525 Route 73 North, Suite 410
      Marlton, NJ 08053
      Telephone: (856) 797-9951
      Facsimile: (856) 797-9978
      E-mail: sdenittis@denittislaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Susan M. Leming, Esq.
      BROWN & CONNERY, LLP
      360 Haddon Avenue
      Westmont, NJ 08108
      Telephone: (856) 854-8900
      E-mail: sleming@brownconnery.com


TOSHIBA CORP: Court Dismisses "Stoyas" Securities Action
--------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MARK STOYAS; NEW ENGLAND TEAMSTERS &
TRUCKING INDUSTRY PENSION FUND; and AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRIES PENSION
TRUST FUND, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. TOSHIBA CORPORATION, Defendant, Case No.
CV 15-04194 DDP (JCx) (C.D. Cal.), Judge Dean D. Pregerson
granted in part and denied, in part, the plaintiffs' Motion to
Strike the Declaration of Ayumi Wada, and granted the defendant's
Motion to Dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Pregerson's May 20, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/LFpT6A from Leagle.com.

The putative securities class action lawsuit was filed by Mark
Stoyas in June 2015, alleging that the defendant and two of its
former Chief Executive Officers had violated U.S. securities laws
by selling stock with an inflated price caused by the defendants'
false profit reports.  In August 2015, the plaintiff Mark Stoyas
did not oppose the Motion of Automotive Industries Pension Trust
Fund to be appointed Lead Plaintiff.  The Court appointed
Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund as Lead Plaintiff and its
counsel as lead counsel for the class in September 2015.

In December 2015, the plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint
(FAC) that named a new plaintiff, New England Teamsters & Trucking
Industry Pension Fund, and that dismissed the two individual
Defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
4(a)(1)(A)(i).  Pursuant to a stipulation, the Court set a
briefing schedule for the defendant's response to the FAC, which
would be a Motion to Dismiss.  In February 2016, the defendant
filed its Motion to Dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(6), as well as
principles of comity and forum non conveniens.  The defendant also
filed a Request for Judicial Notice (RJN) with twenty-one
exhibits.

The plaintiffs opposed both the RJN and the Motion to Dismiss, as
well as filed a Motion to Strike the Declaration of Ayumi Wada in
support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.

Mark Stoyas, Plaintiff, represented by Laurence M Rosen, The Rosen
Law Firm PA.

Automotive Industries Pension Trust Fund, Plaintiff, represented
by Danielle S Myers -- danim@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman
and Dowd LLP, Darren J Robbins -- darrenr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins
Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, John Hamilton George --
jgeorge@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP, Willow
E Radcliffe -- willowr@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd
LLP & Dennis J Herman -- dennish@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller
Rudman and Dowd LLP.

New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, Plaintiff,
represented by John Hamilton George, Robbins Geller Rudman and
Dowd LLP, Willow E Radcliffe, Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP &
Dennis J Herman, Robbins Geller Rudman and Dowd LLP.

Toshiba Corporation, Defendant, represented by Bryan A Merryman --
bmerryman@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP, Christopher M
Curran -- ccurran@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP, pro hac
vice, Jaime M Crowe -- jcrowe@whitecase.com -- White and Case LLP,
pro hac vice & Owen C Pell -- opell@whitecase.com -- White and
Case LLP, pro hac vice.


TRANSNET: Court Tosses Bulk of Exceptions to Pensioners' Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Siseko Njobeni, writing for IOL, reports a group of Transnet
pensioners scored a significant victory when the North Gauteng
High Court in Pretoria dismissed the bulk of Transnet's exceptions
to their multibillion-rand claim against the company.

The judgment is part of an ongoing legal battle between the state-
owned entity and about 60 000 ex-workers who have instituted a
class action lawsuit, now estimated at more than R80 billion.

The North Gauteng High Court dealt with exceptions raised by
Transnet and the two funds to the pensioners' claim.

"An exception provides a useful mechanism for weeding out cases
without legal merit," North Gauteng High Court Judge Francis
Legodi said.

The decision increases the chances of the matter going to court
for a hearing.  It comes after the South Gauteng High Court
earlier this month ruled in favor of a group of miners and gave
them the go-ahead to launch a silicosis class action against a
number of mining companies.

Three claims

The pensioners are suing the Transport Pension Fund and Transnet
Second Defined Benefit Fund.  They have cited Transnet as the
third defendant in the case.

The pensioners' case rests on three claims -- that the funds
increase the pension benefits by at least 70 percent of the rate
of inflation with effect from 2003; that Transnet pay a R17.1bn
plus interest "legacy debt" to the funds; and that the court
render unlawful and invalid an undertaking by trustees of the
Transport Fund to donate 40 percent of its members' surplus to
Transnet.

The pensioners allege that the donation is unlawful and want
Transnet to pay R309 million plus interest.

Transnet objected to all the demands, and branded them as "vague
and embarrassing", Judge Legodi said.

He dismissed the objections to the pensioners' demand that the
funds should continue with the practice of increasing pensions by
at least 70 percent of inflation, as they had done between 1989
and 2002.

The judge dismissed the objection as "technical and without
substance".

The funds alleged, in their objection, that the pensioners' claim
had no details, including lack of information on who would
determine the pension increase; when such a decision would be
made; and when the pension increase provision would terminate.

The judge said there was "some merit" in the funds' contention.
"Failure to state the period within which the promise will endure
is a material omission."

On the legacy debt, the court ruled in favor of the pensioners. "I
find that there is no merit to the suggestion that (the
pensioners') claim lacks the averment necessary to sustain a cause
of action or that it is bad in law," he said.

Objection dismissed

The judge also dismissed the objection to the pensioners' claim
that Transnet should be liable for repayment of the R309m.  The
court, however, dismissed the pensioners' claim on unfair labor
practice.

"For reliance on unfair labor practice, it must be pleaded that
there was, and that there is still, a relationship between the
employer and employee," Judge Legodi said.

In a statement on their website, the pensioners' lawyers Geyser
and Coetzee Attorneys, said the pensioners' legal team had 14 days
within which to amend their information on those aspects in which
the court upheld Transnet and the funds' objections.

Richard Carr of the Transnet Pensioners Action Group said on
May 20 that they were "extremely" pleased with the judgment.

"At long last, the way is now open for the case to be heard in
court," Mr. Carr said.

Transnet has declined to comment on the ruling.

"The pension class action is the subject of an ongoing court
process.  Transnet, therefore, would prefer not to comment on the
details of the case until the process is concluded," the company
said in a statement.


TREEHOUSE FOODS: Expands Sunflower Kernel Product Recall
--------------------------------------------------------
TreeHouse Foods, Inc. (NYSE: THS) expanded its voluntary recall of
products containing sunflower kernels which may be contaminated
with Listeria monocytogenes (L.mono).

This follows the announcement on May 18, 2016, by our supplier
SunOpta of its expanded recall of sunflower kernels which have the
potential to be contaminated with L. mono.

L.mono is an organism, which can cause serious and sometimes fatal
infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and others
with weakened immune systems. Although healthy individuals may
suffer only short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe
headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria
infection can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant
women.

Product was distributed nationwide through retail stores. The
additional products being recalled as part of the expansion are
listed below. Consumers can find UPC codes and Best By/Date Codes
on each package.

  Description            UPC             Best by Date
  -----------            ---             ------------
  Southern Grove         041498200190    3/28/2017
  Adventure Trail Mix
  Southern Grove         041498131500     3/22/2017
  Chopped Walnuts
  Southern Grove         041498160982     3/24/2017
  Cranberry & Nut
  Trail Mix
  Southern Grove         041498160982     4/15/2017
  Cranberry & Nut
  Trail Mix
  Southern Grove         041498148447     4/4/2017
  Mountain Trail Mix
  Southern Grove         041498148447     4/26/2017
  Mountain Trail Mix
  Southern Grove Nuts,   041498177829     3/23/2017
  Seeds & Raisins Trail
  Mix
  Southern Grove Nuts,   041498177829     4/13/2017
  Seeds & Raisins
  Trail Mix
  Southern Grove Oven    041498132248     3/16/2017
  Roasted Almonds with
  Sea Salt
  Southern Grove PB &    041498211004     3/28/2017
  Pretzel Trail Mix
  Southern Grove PB &    041498211004     4/5/2017
  Pretzel Trail Mix
  Southern Grove         041498206680     3/2/2017
  Roasted & Salted
  Sunflower Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680     3/15/2017
  & Salted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680     3/28/2017
  & Salted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680     4/29/2017
  & Salted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206680     4/29/2017
  & Salted Sunflower
  Kernels  x
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765     4/28/2016
  & Unsalted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765     3/1/2017
  & Unsalted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765     3/14/2017
  & Unsalted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Roasted 041498206765     3/28/2017
  & Unsalted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Southern Grove Sliced  041498121686     3/21/2017
  Almonds
  Southern Grove Sunny   041498202057     3/28/2017
  Cranberry Trail Mix
  Southern Grove Tuscan  041498205379     4/28/2017
  Trail Mix
  Southern Grove Unwind  041498200183     3/28/2017
  Trail Mix
  Amport Foods Cranberry 071725706133     3/18/2017
  Nut Trail Mix
  Amport Foods Cranberry 071725706133     4/14/2017
  Nut Trail Mix
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241412     11/26/2016
  Seeds Roasted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241504     12/2/2016
  Seeds Roasted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241504     12/25/2016
  Seeds Roasted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241504     12/11/2016
  Seeds Roasted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241351     12/3/2016
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241351     12/26/2016
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241351     12/12/2016
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748010     12/26/2016
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748010     12/31/2016
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748010     1/14/2017
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725241405     1/7/2017
  Seeds Roasted & Salted
  Amport Foods Trail Mix 071725741042     4/4/2017
  Raisin & Nut
  Amport Foods
  Chocolatey Nut Trail   071725713124     1/8/2017
  Mix
  Amport Foods Dark      071725712387     1/7/2017
  Chocolate Almond
  Amport Foods Dark      071725711854     1/2/2017
  Chocolate Cranberry
  Trail Mix
  Amport Foods Milk      071725711939     1/7/2017
  Chocolate Peanuts
  Amport Foods Raisin    071725714688     1/14/2017
  & Nut Trail Mix
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748003     12/3/2016
  Seeds Roasted &
  Unsalted
  Amport Foods Sunflower 071725748003     1/6/2017
  Seeds Roasted &
  Unsalted
  Amport Foods Yogurt    071725748034     1/8/2017
  Almonds
  Fresh Finds Dried      411014937907     3/17/2017
  Tropical Mix
  Gold Emblem Roasted    050428353240     1/14/2017
  & Salted Sunflower
  Kernels
  Naturally Select       639277431417     3/23/2017
  Chocolate & Nut Trail
  Mix
  Naturally Select Fruit 639277431455     3/15/2017
  & Nut Trail Mix
  Naturally Select       639277187567     3/24/2017
  Indulgent Trail Mix
  Salted Sunflower       639277286208     2/25/2017
  Seeds in Shell
  distributed by
  Greenbrier             639277286208     2/28/2017
  International, Inc.
  Salted Sunflower
  Seeds in Shell
  distributed by
  Greenbrier International
  Salted Sunflower
  Seeds in Shell         639277286208     3/17/2017
  distributed by
  Greenbrier International
  Salted Sunflower Seeds 639277286208     3/21/2017
  in Shell distributed
  by Greenbrier International
  Salted Sunflower Seeds 639277286208     4/13/2017
  in Shell distributed
  by Greenbrier International
  Family Gourmet         032251046506     3/16/2017
  Tropical Mix
  Clover Valley          071725750167     3/25/2017
  Chocolatey Peanut
  Butter Trail Mix
  Hy-Vee Berry Trail     075450040593     3/19/2017
  Mix
  Hy-Vee Dark Chocolate  075450041354     4/14/2017
  Cranberry Trail Mix
  Hy-Vee Mountain Mix    075450016796     4/5/2017
  Trail Mix
  Hy-Vee Mountain Mix    075450016796     4/15/2017
  Trail Mix
  Hy-Vee Mountain Trail  075450040739     3/23/2017
  Mix
  Hy-Vee Santa Fe Trail  075450041101     3/31/2017
  Mix
  Hy-Vee Caramel Cashew  075450040586     4/5/2017
  Honey Crunch Trail Mix
  K&G Cranberry Trail    708615110489     12/3/2016
  Mix
  Smart Sense Roasted    883967300013     3/16/2017
  Salted Sunflower
  Kernels
  American Importing     071725748003     1/6/2017
  Company, Inc. Roasted
  No Salt Seeds
  Delish Blueberry Nut   049022880641     3/17/2017
  Blend Premium Trail Mix
  Delish Tropical Blend  049022880634     3/17/2017
  Premium Trail Mix
  Nice! Peanut Lovers    049022846524     4/19/2017
  Trail Mix
  Nice! Sunflower Salted 049022832275     4/15/2017
  in Shell
  Delish Almond Berry    049022880627     3/18/2017
  Pistachio Premium Trail
  Mix
  Nature's Harvest Dark  071725749062     3/28/2017
  Chocolate Cranberry
  Trail Mix
  Nature's Harvest       071725711533     12/27/2016
  Southwest Trail Mix
  Nature's Harvest       071725711533     12/30/2016
  Southwest Trail Mix
  Nature's Harvest       071725711533     1/17/2017
  Southwest Trail Mix
  Nature's Harvest
  Sunflower Kernels      071715727510     12/20/2016
  Honey Roasted
  Nature's Harvest       071715727510     1/21/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Honey Roasted
  Nature's Harvest       071725728074     3/31/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Ranch Flavored
  Nature's Harvest       071725728074     4/27/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Ranch Flavored
  Nature's Harvest
  Afternoon Trail Mix    071725728166     1/14/2017
  Nature's Harvest       071725728791     3/16/2017
  Almond Dry Roasted
  Sea Salted
  Nature's Harvest Dark  071725749314     1/6/2017
  Chocolate Covered
  Cashews
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     12/19/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     12/20/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     12/25/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     1/2/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     1/3/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     1/16/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727497     1/20/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Salted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     11/25/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     11/26/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     12/4/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     12/18/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     12/23/2016
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     1/2/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     1/14/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725727503     1/15/2017
  Sunflower Kernels
  Roasted & Unsalted
  Nature's Harvest       071725728203     12/27/2016
  Sweet Nut & Berry
  Munch Trail Mix

No illnesses have been confirmed to date.

Consumers who have purchased any of the above products are urged
to dispose of or return the products to the place of purchase for
a full refund. Consumers with any questions may call
1.800.756.5781, Monday - Friday, 7:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m. (CST).

TreeHouse Foods, Inc. is a manufacturer of packaged foods and
beverages with more than 50 manufacturing facilities across the
United States, Canada and Italy that focuses primarily on private
label products for both retail grocery and food away from home
customers. We manufacture shelf stable, refrigerated, frozen and
fresh products, including beverages and beverage enhancers (single
serve beverages, coffees, teas, creamers, powdered beverages and
smoothies); meals (cereal, pasta, macaroni and cheese and side
dishes); retail bakery (refrigerated and frozen dough); condiments
(pourable and spoonable dressing, dips, pickles, soups and sauces)
and healthy snacks (nuts, trail mix, bars, dried fruits and
vegetables). We have a comprehensive offering of packaging formats
and flavor profiles, and we also offer natural, organic and
preservative free ingredients in many categories. Our strategy is
to be the leading supplier of private label food and beverage
products by providing the best balance of quality and cost to our
customers.

Additional information, including TreeHouse's most recent
statements on Forms 10-Q and 10-K, may be found at TreeHouse's
website, http://www.treehousefoods.com.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Lyft Drivers File Class Action in California
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Blake, writing for The Washington Times, reports that a
class-action lawsuit filed on May 16 against Uber accuses the
ride-share service of using phony shell accounts in hopes of
hurting business for the company's top competitor, Lyft.

Attorneys representing Lyft driver Ryan Smythe and "others
similarly situated" filed the class-action complaint in San
Francisco Superior Court against Uber Technologies Inc. and 100
unnamed entities said to exist as "mere shells and conduits" for
Uber's affairs.

Mr. Smythe began driving for Lyft in September 2014, one month
after accusations starting to surface concerning "Operation SLOG,"
an alleged Uber-sponsored campaign that involved spamming Lyft
drivers with fake ride requests in an effort to drive down
business.

After acquiring internal documents and interviewing several of the
ride-share service's former and current contractors, The Verge
reported in August 2014 that Uber was indeed operating a "sabotage
campaign" in which dummy Lyft accounts were being created with
prepaid cellphones and credit cards and subsequently used to place
fake requests with Lyft drivers.

In the lawsuit, the Lyft driver claim's Uber's alleged operation
amounted to unfair business practices under California law as well
as intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

The complaint said Uber engaged in a "systematic course of
creating fraudulent Lyft accounts from which sham orders were
placed, at least in part to deprive Class members from earning
income in violation of California Business and Professions Code
which prohibits unfair business practice."


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Faces Drivers' Wage Class Suit in Arizona
------------------------------------------------------------
Courthouse News Service reported that a federal class action in
Phoenix accuses Uber of paying drivers less than minimum wage.


ULTIMATE NUTRITION: Recalls Amino Gold Supplements Due to Milk
--------------------------------------------------------------
Ultimate Nutrition Inc. of Farmington, CT, is recalling its
dietary supplement, Amino Gold, because they may contain
undeclared milk in the form of hydrolyzed whey protein. People who
have allergies to milk run the risk of a serious or life-
threatening allergic reaction if they consume these products.
The recalled Amino Gold was distributed nationwide through
distributors, stores, and websites. The affected product is
packaged in purple bottles with a black cap.

The product comes in the following forms:

  Product             Code     Size       UPC Code
  -------             ----     ----       --------
  Amino Gold          #140     250 Cap    0 99071 00140 5
  Capsules/1000mg
  Amino Gold          #120     250 Tab    0 99071 00120 7
  Formula/1000mg
  Amino Gold/1500mg   #110     325 Tab    0 99071 00110 8

No illnesses have been reported to date. The current lots and
expiration dates in the market are; 403122 (exp: 3-17), 405138 (5-
17), 406001 (6-17), 407067 (7-17), 508080 (8-18), 602230 (2-19),
604166 (4-19).

The recall was initiated after it was discovered that the possible
milk-containing product was distributed in packaging that did not
reveal the presence of milk. The investigation as to the cause of
this is ongoing.

Ultimate Nutrition takes all matters of dietary supplement safety
very seriously, including the issue of allergens. Ultimate
Nutrition is coordinating with the U.S. Food and Drug
Administration regarding this isolated event.

Consumers who have purchased Amino Gold are urged to return them
to the place of purchase for a refund. Consumers with questions
may contact the company during normal business hours, Monday
through Friday, 8:00am to 5:00 pm EST at 1-860-409-7100 x115.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/fnU5zm


UNITED FURNITURE: Previously Reached Agreement Not Honored
----------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Sharion Aycock of the Northern District of
Mississippi, Aberdeen Division, denied defendant's motion for
partial summary judgment in the case RACHEL BROWN HEFFERNAN
BRYANT, et al., on behalf of themselves and others similarly
situated PLAINTIFFS v. UNITED FURNITURE INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant, Cause No. 1:13-CV-00246-SA-DAS (N.D. Miss.)

In late 2013, factory workers at United Furniture Industries, Inc.
(UFI) plants filed two separate FLSA cases.  The first is the case
of Carothers v. United Furniture Industries, Inc., No. 1:13-CV-
203-DAS (Carothers), which was also the first to be resolved and
the second, is the current lawsuit. In both actions, UFI employees
sought recovery for unpaid minimum wage and overtime compensation,
as well as certification as a collective action under FLSA Section
16(b).

The magistrate judge in the Carothers, certified the requested
collective action, joined by 495 UFI employees. The magistrate
judge approved a settlement agreement by the parties, and then
entered a final judgment of dismissal on January 23, 2015.
A motion for certification was filed in the current suit. Opposing
the motion and citing the settlement agreement from Carothers, UFI
maintained that the Bryant plaintiffs were precluded from seeking
collective certification, as that right had been foreclosed by the
earlier litigation.

The court found UFI's arguments unavailing because the Bryant
plaintiffs and putative class members had not opted into the
Carothers suit as is required by Section 16(b). A collective
action was conditionally certified, exclusive of any employees who
had participated in Carothers.

By October 14, 2015, after the first phase of the Bryant
certification process, the "notice" or "opt-in" phase, 1,285
current or former UFI employees had joined the conditionally
certified class. As of October 7, 2015, 1,029 of the 1,285
plaintiffs in this case had cashed checks distributed by the
Carothers claims administrator.

UFI filed a motion for partial summary judgment arguing that the
plaintiffs who cashed their checks executed a state-law release of
their FLSA claims and are barred from continuing in the suit.
Plaintiff contends no bona fide dispute as to liability existed
when payment was accepted, and that any such release is
invalidated by the statutory policy of the FLSA.

A copy of Judge Aycock's memorandum opinion dated May 18, 2016 is
available at http://goo.gl/z3rsVZfrom Leagle.com.

Rachel Brown Heffernan Bryant, Plaintiff, represented by:

     W. Howard Gunn, Esq.
     W. HOWARD GUNN & ASSOCIATES
     310 S Hickory St.
     Aberdeen, MS 39730
     Telephone: 662-369-8533

United Furniture Industries, Inc., Defendant, represented by John
M. Creekmore at JOHN M. CREEKMORE, ATTORNEY; Lamar Bradley Dillard
-- Bdillard@mitchellmcnutt.com -- John Samuel Hill --
Jhill@mitchellmcnutt.com -- at MITCHELL, MCNUTT & SAMS


UNITED KINGDOM: Hearing Scheduled for Mau Mau Insurgency Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
Owen Bowcott, writing for The Guardian, reports that compensation
claims for torture, rape, wrongful detention and forced labor
brought by 40,000 Kenyans who allege they were mistreated by
British officials during the Mau Mau insurgency were due to be
heard in the high court in London on May 23.

The lawsuit against the Foreign Office is far larger than a
previous class action brought by survivors of the 1950s colonial-
era independence campaign.  The oldest claimant is aged 91.

Lawyers for the government are expected to make a last-minute
application to delay the long-running case in a dispute over
translation of witness statements.  Approximately 1,500 claimants
have died since the case was launched.

Three years ago the then foreign secretary, William Hague,
announced the UK was paying out œ19.9m in costs and compensation
to more than 5,228 elderly Kenyans who suffered torture and abuse
during the Mau Mau uprising.

The admission came at the end of a test case brought by the law
firm Leigh Day which established that UK courts did have
jurisdiction to hear historical claims brought by those detained
in military camps.

While regretting the "abhorrent violations of human dignity" that
took place in Kenya, Hague did not admit government liability and
indicated it would defend future claims for compensation.  The
latest class action is being coordinated by Tandem Law, a
Manchester-based law firm.  The claimants will be represented in
court by Simon Myerson QC.

The judge, Mr. Justice Stewart, will initially consider 27 test
claims -- including those of two people who have died -- to assess
the range of allegations made by the entire group.  Later this
summer some of the survivors are due to give evidence to the court
via video-link from Nairobi.

The allegations relate chiefly to injuries sustained by claimants
between 1952 and 1961 during the state of emergency declared by
the colonial administration in the face of African resistance to
British rule.  Most of the assaults are said to have taken place
in screening centers, prisons, detention camps and under a program
known as "villagization" in Kenya's central province.

Most of the claimants are from the Kikuyu, Embu and Meru tribes.
The Kenyan government is not involved in the case.

One test claim involves a mother whose daughter allegedly had her
fingers cut off in front of her.  Beatings are said to have been
inflicted regularly on those detained in Manyani, Langata,
Embaffaki and Athi River military camps.

Kenya was finally granted independence in 1963.  The Foreign
Office has in the past argued that the Kenyan government, as the
successor authority, should be liable for the claims.

Unlike the first Mau Mau case, these new claims are not restricted
to those who endured extreme physical violence.  Over the
emergency period, an estimated 90,000 Kenyans were killed or
injured.

Evidence of colonial brutality has emerged belatedly from files
that were kept out of the National Archives for decades.  In June
1957, one letter records, Eric Griffith-Jones, the attorney
general of the British administration in Kenya, wrote to the
governor, Sir Evelyn Baring, detailing the way the regime of abuse
at the colony's detention camps was being refined.

For the abuse to remain legal, Griffith-Jones wrote, Mau Mau
suspects must be beaten mainly on their upper body.  "If we are
going to sin," he wrote, "we must sin quietly."

The lead solicitor at Tandem Law, Freddie Cosgrove-Gibson, said:
"We are disappointed that the British government continue to
dispute the claims on all fronts, especially when they settled
similar claims three years ago.

"During this time at least 1,500 of our clients have sadly passed
away, denying them the opportunity to see justice being done for
the truly awful treatment they suffered during the 1952 Kenyan
emergency.  Every day this number continues to increase."

The Foreign Office declined to comment before the opening of the
trial, which is expected to run on into next year.


UNITED NATURAL: Recalls Walnuts and Walnut-Containing Products
--------------------------------------------------------------
United Natural Trading LLC, d/b/a Woodstock Farms Manufacturing,
Edison, NJ, is voluntarily recalling a limited number of lots of
conventional walnuts and walnut-containing products (see
attachment for products and lot numbers) that were purchased from
Gibson Farms and sold under the Nature's Promise, Woodstock,
Market Basket, and Woodfield Farms brands due to a possible health
risk from Listeria monocytogenes. Listeria monocytogenes is an
organism which can cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in
young children, frail or elderly people, and others with weakened
immune symptoms. Although healthy individuals may suffer only
short-term symptoms such as high fever, severe headache,
stiffness, nausea, abdominal pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection
can cause miscarriages and stillbirths among pregnant women.

The lot numbers are printed on the back of each retail bag. The
walnut and walnut-containing products were shipped to retailers
and distributors in limited quantities throughout the United
States.

The recall was issued as a precaution because a single sample in a
finished product yielded a positive result for Listeria
monocytogenes. The Company is coordinating closely with regulatory
officials and has contacted its customers to ensure that any
remaining recalled products are removed.

No illnesses have been reported in association with the recall and
no other walnuts or products under the brands are being recalled.

Only the specific lot numbers and sell dates identified in the
attachment are included in this recall. Consumers who have any
remaining product with these lot numbers should not consume it,
but rather should discard it. Consumers should retain their store
receipts, packaging reflecting lot numbers or any other proof of
purchase they may have. Retailers and consumers with questions may
call Melissa McCullough at Woodstock Farms Manufacturing customer
service at 732-650-9905, which is open 9:00 am to 5:00 pm (EST)
Monday - Friday.

  Description        Lot      Best By           UPC#
  -----------        Number   Date              ----
                     ------   -------
  Nature's Promise   16082    Best By 9/17/16   8826706612
  Cranberry Trail    16099    Best By 9/17/16   8826706612
  Mix Net Wt.        16117    Best By 9/17/16   8826706612
  12oz.
  Woodstock Walnut   16092    Best By 4/1/17    4256300860
  Halves & Pieces    16106    Best By 4/15/17   4256300860
  Net Wt. 6oz.
  Woodstock Cape     16079    Best By 9/17/16   4256300877
  Cod Cranberry      16091    Best By 9/17/16   4256300877
  Mix Net Wt.        16098    Best By 9/17/16   4256300877
  10oz.              16126    Best By 11/30/16  4256300877
  Market Basket      16083    Best By 3/23/17   4970540809
  Walnuts Raw        16105    Best By 4/14/17   4970540809
  Net Wt. 7oz.
  Market Basket      16106    Best By 9/17/16   4970540832
  Cape Cod
  Cranberry Trail
  Mix Net Wt.
  10oz.
  Woodfield Farms    16112    Best By 4/21/17   7523900194
  Walnuts Halves
  & Pieces Net Wt.
  2.5lbs.
  Nature's Promise   16093    Best By 4/2/17    8826714404
  Walnuts Halves &   16110    Best By 4/19/17   8826714404
  Pieces Net Wt.
  7oz.


Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/HmeJOz


VENDING NUT: Recalls Sunflower Kernel Products Due to Listeria
--------------------------------------------------------------
Vending Nut Company is voluntarily recalling a limited number of
sunflower kernel products that have the potential to be
contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes, an organism which can
cause serious and sometimes fatal infections in young children,
frail or elderly people, and others with weakened immune systems.
Although healthy individuals may suffer only short-term symptoms
such as high fever, severe headache, stiffness, nausea, abdominal
pain and diarrhea, Listeria infection can cause miscarriages and
stillbirths among pregnant women.

The products were packaged and sold at Vending Nut Company's Ft.
Worth, TX facility between the dates of February 24, 2016 and
March 9.

Recalled retail items were sold in clear printed plastic packages
and are marked with pack dates located on the front packages.
Listed below are details regarding the recalled items:

  Poduct    Description    Size    UPC      Lot #     Pack
  ------    -----------    ----    ---      -----     Date
                                                      ----
  Vending   Roasted and    16 oz.  98301-   8B6M02    02/24/16
  Nut       Salted                 00006
  Company   Sunflower

No illnesses have been reported to date.
The recall was initiated after Vending Nut Co. was notified by our
supplier that the sunflower kernels used were recalled due to
possible contamination of Listeria monocytogenes.

Consumers are urged not to consume these products. Consumers who
purchased these products may bring them back to our store for a
refund or simply discard them. Consumers seeking information may
email info@vendingnut.com or call 1-800-429-9260 Monday through
Friday, 8:30 am to 4:30 pm Central Time.

Customers should check their purchased products to confirm that
none of the products are present or available for consumption.
Please contact Vending Nut Co. at info@vendingnut.com to arrange
for disposal or return of the product.

This recall is being conducted with the knowledge of the U.S. Food
and Drug Administration (FDA).


VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL: Court Narrows Claims in "Jenkins"
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned VICTORIA JENKINS, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. F. GLENN AYLOR, et
al., Defendants, Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-00046 (W.D. Va.), Judge
Glen E. Conrad granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendants' motion to dismiss.

Count I was dismissed without prejudice, while Counts II and III
will proceed against all the defendants.

Judge Conrad also denied the defendants' motion to strike portions
of the complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Conrad's May 17, 2016 memorandum opinion
is available at https://is.gd/W8lPJz from Leagle.com.

Victoria Jenkins, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated, filed the action against the defendants
Superintendent F. Glenn Aylor, Central Virginia Regional Jail
Authority, and several employees at the Central Virginia Regional
Jail, alleging that they were deliberately indifferent to her
serious medical condition by denying her access to her
medications.

Victoria Jenkins, Plaintiff, represented by Mitchell J. Rotbert
-- mitch@rotbertlaw.com -- Rotbert Business Law, P.C., pro hac
vice, Robert Olin Wilson, Wilson Law PLC, Uri Nazryan, Rotbert
Business Law, P.C. & James Morton Bowling, IV, St. John Bowling
Lawrence & Quagliana LLP.

F. Glenn Aylor, Central Virginia Regional Jail Authority,
Christine Apple-Figgins, Jasmine Buckner-Jones, Amanda Pitts,
Defendants, represented by James Morton Bowling, IV, St. John
Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP & Francesca Evans Fornari, St.
John Bowling Lawrence & Quagliana LLP.


WATER HEATING: Recalls Gas Water Heaters Due to Fire Risk
---------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Water Heating Technologies Corp., of Pomona, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 14,400 Gas water heaters. Consumers
should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed.  It is
illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer
product.

The water heaters have a space between the burner flange and the
combustion chamber that allows flammable liquids or gases to
contact burning flammable vapors inside the combustion chamber,
posing a risk of fire or explosion.

This recall involves Water Heating Technologies "American
Standard" gas water heaters. The model numbers included in the
recall begin with GN and GSN. The water heaters are white with an
"American Standard" logo printed on the front.  The model number
is printed on a label on the side of the water heater. The water
heaters were sold in 30, 40 and 50 gallon capacities. A complete
list of models and serial numbers can be found on the firm's
website at http://www.americanstandardwaterheaters.com/recall/.

No consumer incidents have been reported.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/DqBvXb

The recalled products were manufactured in Mexico and sold at
Plumbing contractors nationwide from May 2015 through February
2016 for between $400 and $820.

Consumers should immediately stop using the gas water heaters and
call Water Heating Technologies to arrange for a service
technician to inspect, repair or replace the water heater free of
charge.


WCD KITCHEN: Recalls Kale & Edamame Salad Due to Salmonella
-----------------------------------------------------------
WCD Kitchen, LLC of Fontana, California is voluntarily recalling
Trader Joe's Kale & Edamame Salad (UPC 00967112), sold only in the
Midwest, with a "USE BY May 05, 2016 through May 14, 2016",
because the product may be contaminated with Salmonella.  No
illnesses have been reported to date.

Salmonella is an organism that can cause serious and sometimes
fatal infections in young children, frail or elderly people, and
others with weakened immune systems. Healthy persons infected with
Salmonella often experience fever, diarrhea (which may be bloody),
nausea, vomiting and abdominal pain. In rare circumstances,
infection with Salmonella can result in the organism getting into
the bloodstream and producing more severe illnesses such as
arterial infections (i.e., infected aneurysms), endocarditis and
arthritis.

The 3,763 salads possibly affected were distributed to Trader
Joe's stores located in Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky,
Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio and Wisconsin.  No
other lots, products or stores are affected.

The salad is packaged in 10 oz. plastic clamshell and the "Use By"
Date is stickered on the front of the label. See photos below.

The voluntary recall was initiated by WCD Kitchen, LLC immediately
after it was informed by the Kale supplier, Pearson Foods
Corporation, that the Kale tested positive for the food-borne
illness.

Customers who have purchased the Kale & Edamame Salad may return
it to Trader Joe's for a full refund.  Customers with questions
may contact the company at 1-909-574-4140, 8 AM - 4:30 PM, PST,
Monday-Friday.

Pictures of the Recalled Products available at:
https://is.gd/dxqjLP


WELL CARE: Recalls Unexpired Sterile Compounded Products
--------------------------------------------------------
Well Care Compounding Pharmacy, Las Vegas, Nevada is performing a
voluntary statewide recall in Nevada on all unexpired sterile
compounded products due to the Food and Drug Administration's
(FDA) concern over lack of sterility assurance. The recall impacts
all sterile compounded products distributed between 01/01/2016-
04/29/2016.

Administration of a sterile drug product intended to be sterile
that is compromised may result in serious and potentially life-
threatening infections or death.

All recalled products have a label that includes the name Well
Care Compounding Pharmacy, logo, drug name, and expiration date.
If unsure, Customers can call the pharmacy to determine the
expiration date.

We have not received any reports of adverse effects or injuries to
date. We are conducting this recall after an inspection conducted
by the FDA. Customers that have any recalled products should
immediately stop using it and contact the pharmacy to arrange for
the return of any unused product.

Well Care Compounding Pharmacy takes the utmost care to ensure
patient safety and performing this voluntary recall. Customers
with questions regarding this recall can call the pharmacy by
phone (702) 553-2575 Monday through Friday 9am - 6pm PST or email
at info@mywellcarepharmacy.com.

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

Complete and submit the report online:
www.fda.gov/medwatch/report.htm
Regular Mail or Fax: Download form
www.fda.gov/MedWatch/getforms.htm or call 1-800-332-1088 to
request a reporting form, then complete and return to the address
on the pre-addressed form, or submit by fax to 1-800-FDA-0178
For reporting animal adverse drug events, please follow the link
to the FORM FDA 1932a found at:
http://www.fda.gov/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/ReportaProblem/uc
m055305.htm
Well Care Compounding Pharmacy regrets any inconvenience and
disruption due to this recall on its customers, however, the
safety of customers are the primary concern.


WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL: "Char" Suit Remanded to Cal. Super.
----------------------------------------------------------
Judge Fernando M. Olguin remanded to the Superior Court of the
State of California for the County of San Bernardino the case
captioned VERONICA CHAR, Plaintiff, v. WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL LLC,
F/K/A/ WENDY'S INTERNATIONAL, INC., et al., Defendants, Case No.
ED CV 16-0745 FMO (SPx) (C.D. Cal.).

On November 19, 2015, Veronica Char filed a complaint in the
Superior Court of the State of California for the County of San
Bernardino against Wendy's International LLC.  On April 20, 2016,
the defendant removed that action on diversity jurisdiction
grounds pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

Judge Olguin remanded the case for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction pusuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1447(c).

A full-text copy of Judge Olguin's May 23, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/89jykQ from Leagle.com.

Veronica Char, Plaintiff, represented by Matthew Righetti,
Righetti Glugoski PC, Charles A Jones, Jones Law Firm & Kelly
McInerney, Joines Law Firm.

Wendy s International LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark D Kemple
-- kemplem@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP & Ashley Michelle
Farrell -- farrellpicketta@gtlaw.com -- Greenberg Traurig LLP.


WILLMOTT FORESTS: Court Refuses to Approve Settlements
------------------------------------------------------
John Emmerig, Esq., Michael Legg, Esq., and Joshua Kang, Esq., of
Jones Day, in an article for Lexology, report that the Federal
Court of Australia refused to approve class action settlements in
Kelly v Willmott Forests Ltd (in liquidation) (No 4) [2016] FCA
323 due to the settlement imposing a "significant detriment" on
some class members by extinguishing their individual claims or
defenses, without any benefit in exchange and without adequate
notice.

The decision further highlighted the uncertainty in Australian
class actions around the finality of a class action settlement by
adding to the debate on whether a settlement bound class members
in relation to all of their claims, or only claims that formed
part of the common issues.

The judgment drew attention to conflicts of interest that
potentially arise in class actions, including conflicts between
registered and non-participating class members' interests and
between lawyers' interests in receiving legal fees and class
members' interests in minimizing those legal costs.
The judgment reinforces the need for effective notice to class
members and the Court's responsibility to protect class members,
including in relation to the legal fees charged.  The Court also
suggests a further protection through an additional opportunity to
opt out of the class action once the terms of a settlement are
known.

Background -- Claims

The applicants and class members were investors in forestry
plantation managed investment schemes that failed.  Originally
three inter-related class actions were commenced on December 22,
2011 in relation to schemes from 2007, 2008 and 2009.  In one
proceeding, the claims were made against the two companies which
were the responsible entities in the schemes under the
Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) -- Willmott Forests Ltd ("Willmott
Forests") and Bioforest Ltd ("Bioforest") -- and their directors.
In the other two, the claims were made against the lenders -- MIS
Funding No 1 Pty Ltd ("MIS") and the Commonwealth Bank of
Australia Ltd ("CBA") -- which financed some of the investors into
the schemes.  On March 13, 2013, a fourth class action in relation
to a 2010 scheme was commenced against Willmott Forests as
responsible entity, the directors and a further lender, Willmott
Finance Pty Ltd (with MIS and CBA, the "Lenders").

Each scheme was a long-term investment requiring investment over a
period of between 15 and 25 years.  The investor made an upfront,
tax-deductible payment to acquire an interest in a scheme.  No
further fees were payable until a fee based on a percentage of the
proceeds of sale of forest products following harvest was due,
more than 15 years later (deferred fee model). By taking out a
loan to acquire the interest, an investor could increase the tax
benefits associated with the investment.  None of the schemes
survived to the point where the forest plantations were harvested.
On September 6, 2010, receivers and managers were appointed over
the assets and undertakings of Willmott Forests and its wholly
owned subsidiaries, including Bioforest. On March 22, 2011,
Willmott Forests and its subsidiaries were placed into
liquidation.

The claims in the proceedings against the responsible entities and
their directors centered on omissions and misleading statements in
the product disclosure statements ("PDS") that were provided to
investors.  In particular, the PDS did not disclose that the
deferred fee model involved a significant risk because Willmott
Forests had to fund the cost of planting, maintaining and
harvesting the trees before it received any further fees, which
meant it was dependent on the sale of interests in future schemes
to fund its existing obligations.

The failure of the schemes and the responsible entities meant that
investors lost their investment in the schemes, received no return
on the investment and, in some instances, still owed substantial
monies to the Lenders.

Background -- Settlement

The key features of the proposed settlements were:

No compensation or damages is to be paid to the class members in
respect of their losses, and (i) in the case of the 2007/08/09
scheme proceedings, there is no reduction in the outstanding
balances of their loans, but the Lenders grant an extension of
time to make repayments for class members currently in default; or
(ii) in the case of the 2010 scheme proceeding, three options are
provided for the reduction of outstanding loan balances
(representing various trade-offs between delaying payment and
reducing the loan balance).

Amounts are to be paid by the respondents, to be expended on the
pro rata reimbursement of class members who are or were clients of
the lawyers acting in the class action and to refund monies paid
as security for costs or to cover insurance taken out: (i) in the
2007/08/09 scheme proceedings, $3.1 million is to be paid to
partially reimburse a total of $6.086 million in legal costs to
the law firm and approximately $2 million paid to a fund for
security for costs returned to class members who had made
contributions; and (ii) in the 2010 scheme proceeding, $1.408
million is to be paid, $1 million of which is to be expended to
partially reimburse a total of $1.749 million in legal costs and
$408,000 of which is to be expended to pay Amtrust Europe Limited
for an After the Event insurance policy taken out by the applicant
to cover adverse costs.

The applicants in each proceeding will provide binding admissions
on behalf of the class members as to the validity and
enforceability of the loan agreements between the Lenders and
class members ("the binding loan enforceability admissions").
The applicants in each proceeding will agree on behalf of the
class members, that if a class member obtains damages or
compensation in any Third Party Proceeding (as defined) and an
order for contribution is made against a Lender or a related party
in respect of those damages or compensation, the class member will
indemnify the Lender or related party against that order for
contribution ("the indemnity term").  "Third Party Proceeding" is
broadly defined and includes any claim brought by the applicant or
a class member against a person who is not a party to the
Settlement Deed arising out of or relating to their investment in
one or more of the relevant schemes.  This would include financial
advisors who recommended the acquisition of interests in the
Schemes.

The applicants in each proceeding, on their own behalf and on
behalf of the class members, will provide broad releases to the
respondents.

The settlement took place after class members were provided with
the opportunity to opt out as mandated by s 33J of the Federal
Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) and after a "class closure"
process.  Pursuant to the class closure process, orders were made
which provided that class members who did not satisfy the
requirements for registration continued to be class members but
were excluded from seeking any relief in the proceeding or any
benefit from a settlement ("non-participating class members"). One
of the requirements for registration in the 2007/08/09 scheme
proceedings was either to make a contribution to a fund to provide
security for costs or to provide information to show that the
class member was financially unable to do so.  As a result of
these orders, about 77 percent of class members in the 2007/08/09
scheme proceedings (approximately 2,427 persons) and 52 percent of
the class members in the 2010 scheme proceeding (approximately 182
persons) were not permitted to obtain the benefit of the
settlements but were subject to the binding loan enforceability
admissions.

Loss of Individual Defenses -- Res Judicata / Anshun Estoppel

The first reason for refusing the settlement put forward by Murphy
J was the binding loan enforceability admissions.  The admissions
would be significantly detrimental for some class members because
it would preclude them from defending loan enforcement proceedings
by the Lenders on any basis, even in reliance on claims or
defenses that were not pleaded in the class actions and which are
based on a class member's individual or unique circumstances.
Moreover, Murphy J also found that class members were not clearly
informed that if they did not opt out they would be so precluded.
Further, the proposed settlement did not allow class members an
opportunity to opt out at the point of settlement.

It was submitted that the binding loan enforceability admissions
were fair because if the class action proceeded to judgment and
was unsuccessful, the outcome would be the same by reason of
Anshun estoppels or principles of abuse of process.

The effect of a judgment requires resort to the principle of res
judicata, issue estoppel, Anshun estoppel and abuse of process.
The principle of res judicata provides that, where an action has
been brought and proceeds to judgment, no subsequent proceedings
can be maintained on the same cause of action.  In a similar vein,
issue estoppel precludes a party from raising an issue of fact or
law against another where the contrary has already been
established in proceedings between the same parties or their
privies.  A related principle is that of Anshunestoppel, which
precludes parties or their privies from raising in subsequent
proceedings issues of fact or law which should have been raised
and dealt with in the prior litigation.  Considerations similar to
those which underpin Anshun estoppel may also support a preclusive
abuse of process argument.  Abuse of process is "capable of
application in any circumstances in which the use of a court's
procedures would be unjustifiably oppressive to a party or would
bring the administration of justice into disrepute".  In the class
action context, it is also necessary to apply s 33ZB of the
Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 which provides:

A judgment given in a representative proceeding:

must describe or otherwise identify the group members who will be
affected by it; and

binds all such persons other than any person who has opted out of
the proceeding under section 33J.

Murphy J was called on to consider the above principles in the
context of judgments where their application to class actions had
been discussed.  The Great Southern class actions and the
Timbercorp class actions were also claims by investors in failed
agricultural managed investment schemes that included loans to
some of the investors.  The decisions were by Croft J in Clarke v
Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) (No 2) [2012] VSC
338 and Clarke v Great Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation)
[2014] VSC 516 ("Clarke No 4"), by Judd J in Clarke v Great
Southern Finance Pty Ltd (in liquidation) [2014] VSC 569 and by
Robson J in Timbercorp Finance Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Collins and
Tomes [2015] VSC 461 ("Collins and Tomes").

In Clarke No 4, Croft J held that the binding loan enforceability
admissions in that settlement were not unfair to class members
because, upon judgment or settlement, class members would be
barred from asserting any claims or defences that their loan
agreements were unenforceable because of issue estoppel, Anshun
estoppel and abuse of process.  In Collins and Tomes, Robson J
took a different approach.  Robson J found that s33ZB did not
create common law privies but rather "s 33ZB privies" which has an
application similar to issue estoppel but not Anshun estoppel.

Murphy J observed that it was common ground before him that a
judgment or settlement of the class actions would bind class
members to an estoppel in respect of the common claims which were
pleaded, and that a judgment or settlement may bind class members
to an estoppel in respect of common claims that could have been
pleaded in the class actions but were not.  However, his Honour
did not need to decide this issue as the focus was on class
members' individual claims or defenses.  Further, no evidence was
before the Court to allow for determination of whether Anshun
estoppel or abuse of process arose.

Turning to the class members' individual claims or defenses,
Murphy J considered whether class members could or were required
to raise their individual or unique claims or defenses within the
class actions framework. Murphy J found that class members were
not granted standing to make applications under ss 33Q, 33R or 33S
of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.  Rather, these
provisions allow the applicant to seek, or the Court on its own
motion to make, orders for dealing with non-common issues.  A
class member was given standing to seek to replace a
representative party that was an inadequate representative
pursuant to s 33T but it did not apply to the current
circumstances.  More generally, requiring class members to come
forward with non-common issues would undermine the goals of the
class action legislation, namely to promote the efficient
resolution of multiple claims and avoid inconsistent findings.
Murphy J also found that it was not unreasonable for class members
to have not raised their individual claims.  Central to this
finding was that neither the opt out notices nor the lawyers
representing the class members advised them that they would or
might be precluded from advancing individual claims or defenses in
subsequent proceedings.

Incomplete Case Preparation and the Duty of Lawyers

The Court found that there were substantial difficulties in
funding the proceedings which resulted in significant gaps in the
preparation of the cases.  In particular, no independent forensic
accountant was retained to support important elements of the case.
Murphy J found that this was relevant to whether the lawyers for
the applicant were in a position properly to inform the Court as
to the merits of the claims which then informs the fairness and
reasonableness of the settlement.

The incomplete case preparation also was significant in that class
members were not informed that the case had not been adequately
prepared which "might adversely affect prospects of success at
trial or the applicants' lawyers' consideration of the adequacy of
a settlement offer".  Murphy J's reasoning suggested that the
lawyers may not have fulfilled their duties to both their clients
and to class members who had not retained the lawyers.  Murphy J
observed that most of the registered class members entered into a
Retainer Agreement so that a solicitor-client relationship arose
with the effect that the lawyers had a fiduciary duty to act in
their clients' interests, as well as common law duties and
contractual obligations, including "obligations to properly
prosecute their interests, properly prepare the proceedings, and
to inform class members of any circumstances which prevented it
from doing so".  The lawyers, in accepting instructions to act as
the solicitor in "open class" proceedings, also took on the
obligation to act in the interests of all class members, not just
their clients.

As a result, Murphy J formed the view that the settlement should
not be approved unless class members were given an informed
opportunity to opt out of the settlement.

Lawyers' Conflicts of Interest

The Court raised as a concern the existence of potential conflicts
of interest, including conflicts of duty and duty, as a result of
the terms of the settlement.

The first conflict was between the interests of class members who
registered in the class member registration process ("registered
class members") and the interests of "non-participating class
members".  While all class members give up their claims and are
subject to the binding loan enforceability admissions, only the
registered class members receive any benefit in return, being the
modest benefits set out above in each settlement.  Registered
class members may have an interest in accepting the settlement so
as to obtain the benefits on offer.  However, non-participating
class members have no reason for accepting such an offer.  Indeed
their interest was described by Murphy J as being "the proceedings
continuing, at least until a settlement is reached which does not
preclude them from bringing claims or defenses against the
respondents based in their individual or unique circumstances, or
which allows them to opt out of a settlement which they consider
to be unfair".  A duty-duty conflict of interest may then arise
for the lawyers who are required to act in the interests of both
sets of class members.

Murphy J found that the settlements should not be approved until
the conflicts are recognized and properly dealt with.

A further conflict arises for the lawyers in relation to their
interest in receiving legal fees.

Legal Costs

As mentioned above, the applicants' solicitors charged in total
some $7.8 million in legal fees on a fixed fee basis.  Under the
terms of the proposed settlement deed, some $4.1 million of the
settlement amount was to be distributed to reimburse class members
who had paid legal costs on a pro rata basis.  While Murphy J was
not opposed to the reimbursement of legal costs from the
settlement fund, his Honour questioned the reasonableness of the
amount of legal fees charged and ordered that evidence be put
before the Court on the issue.

In so doing, Murphy J rejected the applicants' lawyers' threshold
contention that there was no warrant to consider the
reasonableness of the costs because the settlements did not
provide for the lawyers to receive any amount for legal costs. His
Honour held:

In the present cases I am well satisfied that the Court should
exercise its power to oversee the costs charged to class members.
There is an inherent conflict between the interests of [the
lawyers] in being paid legal costs and the interests of client
class members in minimizing legal costs, or at least in paying
only reasonable costs or only the costs agreed under the Retainer
Agreement.  In the present cases there is a pronounced information
asymmetry between [the firm] and its clients in relation to costs,
and the firm is in a position of particular dominance.

Murphy J went on to explain that each class member client knows
only the fixed fee contributions that he, she or it paid.
Naturally enough, class members are unlikely to have been
interested in ensuring that the legal fees were reasonable
overall.  Further, class members have limited or no insight into
whether the lawyers undertook (properly or at all) the legal work
which underpinned the firm's entitlement to charge costs.  His
Honour also explained that legal costs should be considered as
part of the settlement approval process because the assessment of
the reasonableness of legal fees may affect the real "return" to
class members under the settlements if the lawyers were required
to disgorge any costs that are shown to have been excessive.

The Court was also taken to the approach of Croft J in Clarke No
4.  In that case, the Victorian Supreme Court approved a
settlement in which almost $20 million of the settlement amount
was to be distributed to class members in pro rata reimbursement
of the legal costs they paid.  It was submitted that the authority
in Clarke No 4 should be followed.  Murphy J held, however, that
Clarke No 4 could be distinguished because in Kelly, unlike in
Clarke No 4, there was presently an objection to the
reasonableness of costs and Murphy J could not be satisfied, on
the basis of evidence before him, that the costs were reasonable.
Alternatively, if Clarke No 4 was not distinguishable, Murphy J
declined to follow it.

Opportunity to Opt Out of Settlement

Murphy J raised for consideration the need to allow for a second
opt out opportunity for class members where the first opportunity
to opt out occurred prior to the terms of the proposed settlement
being made available to class members.  Murphy J's suggestion was
aimed at dealing with his view of the unfairness of class members
being subject to the binding loan enforceability admissions in the
context where class members were not informed that they would lose
the ability to raise their individual claims or defenses in the
original opt out notice.

The Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 does not expressly empower
the Court to provide class members an opportunity to opt out of a
settlement, but Murphy J found that such power existed pursuant to
either s 33J(3) or s 33ZF. Section 33J(3) provides:

The Court, on the application of a [class] member, the
representative party or the respondent in the proceeding, may fix
another date so as to extend the period during which a [class]
member may opt out of the representative proceeding.

Section 33ZF allows the Court to make any order which the Court
thinks appropriate to ensure that justice is done in the
proceeding.

Murphy J also made reference to the U.S. position.  The U.S.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, r 23(e)(4) provides:

If the class action was previously certified under Rule 23(b)(3),
the court may refuse to approve a settlement unless it affords a
new opportunity to request exclusion to individual class members
who had an earlier opportunity to request exclusion but did not do
so.

Murphy J also cited with approval the American Law Institute's
Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation, in which it opines
that "as a matter of fairness, a class member should have an
opportunity to opt out after learning about the actual terms of a
settlement".  In the current case, Murphy J found that the the
binding loan enforceability admissions which formed part of the
settlement represented a substantial detriment to class members
and the failure to provide a second opportunity to opt out was
"material" to the refusal to approve the settlement.


WINDHAVEN INSURANCE: "Bennti" Suit Seeks to Recover Overtime Pay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chelsea Bennti, on behalf of herself and similarly situated
employees, Plaintiff, v. Windhaven Insurance Company and Jimmy
Whited, Defendants, Case No. 8:16-cv-01228-SCB-MAP (Fla. Cir., May
16, 2016) seeks to recover unpaid wages and/or overtime,
liquidated damages and attorneys' fees and costs owed under the
Fair Labor Standards Act.

Windhaven Insurance Company is a Florida Corporation owned by
Jimmy Whited. Benni worked for Windhaven as a processor. She
claims to have been denied overtime compensation.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashleigh Renee Shelver, Esq.
      JOHN BALES ATTORNEYS
      625 E Twiggs St Ste 100
      Tampa, FL 33602-3925
      Tel: (813) 823-9100
      Email: ashelver@johnbales.com

          - and -

      Brandon J. Hill
      Wenzel Fenton Cabassa, PA
      1110 N Florida Ave Ste 300
      Tampa, FL 33602-3343
      Tel: (813) 224-0431
      Fax: (813) 229-8712
      Email: bhill@wfclaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Denise M. Heekin
      Michael L. Elkins
      BRYANT MILLER OLIVE, PA, Suite 2200
      1 SE 3rd Ave
      Miami, FL 33131
      Tel: (305) 374-7349
      Fax: (305) 374-0895
      Email: dheekin@bmolaw.com
             melkins@bmolaw.com


* Alabama Legislation Blunts Impact of Lisk ADTPA Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------
Gregory Cook, Esq., of Balch & Bingham LLP, in an article for
JDSupra Business Advisor, reports that the Alabama legislature
recently adopted legislation to prevent class actions in federal
court under the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practice Act ("ADTPA"). As
reported here last summer, the Eleventh Circuit held in Lisk v.
Lumber One Wood Preserving LLC, 792 F.3d 1331 (11th Cir. 2015)
that the ADTPA's prohibition on class actions does not apply in
federal court. Thus, a private plaintiff could bring a class
action under the ADTPA by suing in federal court.  Not
surprisingly, several plaintiff counsel began bringing these
previously unavailable class actions following the Lisk decision.

Like the consumer fraud statutes in many states, the ADTPA gives
private plaintiffs a powerful claim.  The ADTPA covers a broad
swath of conduct - with some exceptions, it literally applies to
any deceptive, misleading, or unconscionable trade practice.  The
statute also eliminates many of the traditional elements of
causation and provides for enhanced damages and attorneys' fees. A
court has discretion to treble any damages award under the ADTPA
upon finding a willful violation.  In states were private party
class actions are allowed, these statutes have been a hotbed of
class action litigation.  Regardless of whether these class
actions have actually deterred consumer fraud, they have certainly
been a boon for plaintiffs' counsel.

Up until Lisk, Alabama had not seen any private-party class
actions under the ADTPA because Ala.Code Sec. 8-10-10(f) expressly
prohibits them: "A consumer . . . bringing an action under [the
ADTPA] may not bring an action on behalf of a class."  The
Eleventh Circuit in Lisk determined that this prohibition was a
procedural rule that only applies in Alabama state courts. Because
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 had no similar prohibition, the
Court held that an ADTPA class action could proceed in federal
court.

The Alabama business community responded by supporting SB 270.
Sponsored by Senator Phil Williams, SB 270 clarified the language
of the ADTPA by stating that the class action prohibit is "a
substantive limitation" and that "allowing a consumer or other
person to bring a class action or other representative action for
a violation of this chapter would abridge, enlarge, or modify the
substantive rights created by [the ADTPA]."  By using this
language, SB 270 directly refutes the Eleventh Circuit's claim
that the class action prohibition is merely procedural.  On
May 12, 2016, Governor Bentley signed Senate Bill 270 into law as
Act No. 2016-407.

In light of this change to the ADTPA, a federal court should no
longer be able to ignore Alabama's class action prohibition,
thereby blunting the impact of Lisk.  Greg Cook and Steven Corhern
of Balch worked with the Business Council of Alabama on this
legislation.


* Australia's Class Action Landscape Evolving, Fed. Cases Steady
----------------------------------------------------------------
Lara Bullock, writing for Lawyers Weekly, reports that the class
action space in Australia is no doubt evolving, but there are
common misconceptions about how this change is happening.

If recent media reports are to be believed, Australia has seen a
sharp rise in the number of class actions filed -- yet on closer
inspection, the reality may be more complex than it seems.

While some research points to a growing number of such matters,
other reports show numbers have held steady at the Federal Court
level where the majority of cases are filed.

Without question, however, changes are happening in other parts of
the class action landscape -- including diversification of
sectors, more availability of funding and the growing influence of
technology.

Questionable quantity

Even among experts, it is difficult to find consensus over whether
class actions are in fact on the rise in Australia.

Last year King & Wood Mallesons partners Moira Saville and Peta
Stevenson -- peta.stevenson@au.kwm.com -- released a report titled
The Review: Class Actions in Australia 2014-2015, where they found
that the number of such matters filed in Australia almost doubled
year on year.

"There has been a relatively constant number of class actions over
the past five years, although 201415 saw a significant uptick in
the number of new actions filed," Ms. Saville says.

The report, which takes into account class action cases filed at
the Federal Court, the NSW Supreme Court and the Victorian Supreme
Court, showed 33 class action suits in the 2014-15 financial year,
compared to 17 in the previous year.

Ms. Saville believes there are a number of factors at play that
may have contributed to this increase.

"There is a level of acceptance of class actions now in the
business and wider community so that people are also more inclined
to consider a class action when something goes wrong," she says.

"The high historic settlement rate of class actions may also
provide an incentive."

On the other hand, there has been little change at the federal
level.  Professor Vince Morabito of Monash University's research
paper, An Empirical Study of Australia's Class Action Regimes,
updated most recently in 2014, indicates there has been no
significant increase in filings at the Federal Court since
Australia introduced the class action regime in 1992.

It's important to note that Professor Morabito's research doesn't
take in to account cases filed at the NSW Supreme Court or the
Victorian Supreme court.

"The research done by Professor Morabito shows the long-term
average just hasn't changed," says ACA Lawyers principal Steven
Lewis.

"Yes, there have been peaks and troughs, but on average over time
you're looking at around 15 new filings a year, and that hasn't
changed for a number of years."

He adds: "You'll always get years when there are more and years
when there are less, but generally speaking there's been no
avalanche of filings."

Plaintiff firms are also quick to dismiss the idea of a pick-up in
class actions.  Maurice Blackburn principal Andrew Watson backs
Professor Morabito's research, and suggests that even these
statistics could be overstated.

"Even that probably overstates the number of class actions because
what that does is count each class action issued as individual
cases.  But on occasions you'll have a number of class actions
issued for a variety of reasons, which have to do with the same
dispute and which are managed effectively as a single case," Mr
Watson says.

Mr. Watson points to the current class action against Volkswagen
as an example of this.

"We've issued three proceedings and there are other proceedings
issued by another firm, but all of those cases are being managed
effectively as one piece of litigation," he says.

"So even though the statistics would count them as individual
cases, the practical consequence of them is that really they're
being managed as one."

Definite diversity

While the question of whether or not the number of class actions
in Australia is rising is still up for debate, what is certain is
that the types of claims being brought are diversifying.

"We're seeing the maturity of the jurisdiction in the sense that
class action firms are doing a wide range of class actions over a
wide range of topics," Mr. Watson says.

"It ranges from disaster-style class actions like the Queensland
floods and Black Saturday bushfire cases, through to product
liability type actions like the Volkswagen case, shareholder
cases, and social justice style or pro bono cases such as the case
on behalf of asylum seekers who were detained on Christmas
Island."

Mr. Watson believes this indicates that the system is functioning
exactly as you would want it, with a wide variety of cases not
skewed heavily in one direction or another.

Mr. Lewis emphasizes that while the types of cases being run are
becoming more diverse, the key areas are remaining the same.

"We are getting a much wider range as people test the limits of
the law," he says. "We're seeing human rights claims for example
or claims against various governments."

He adds: "So the base is widening but the major types of claims
are still the same, and that's securities class actions or actions
relating to financial services and mass torts."

As well as the sectors becoming more diverse, the number of firms
active in the class actions space is rising.

"It's still only a very small number of firms that have the
knowledge and the ability to bring the claims but some firms are
fracturing, people leave and set up new firms and they take with
them the knowledge," Mr. Lewis says.

"You also see some firms bringing actions in the areas that
they're specialists in. It's not for everyone but it's certainly
an area where more firms are becoming active."

Ms. Saville also believes that more commercial firms are becoming
interested in running class actions, as well as international
entrants arriving to take a piece of the class action pie.

"When Piper Alderman brought the class actions against Lehman
Brothers and Standard & Poor's a few years ago, we saw a
'commercial' law firm move in to this space," she says.

"More recently we're seeing new entrants to Australia such as US
law firms Squire Patton Boggs and Quinn Emanuel file actions here,
either on their own or in collaboration with a local firm."

Funding factor

A significant factor contributing to the changing class actions
landscape is the arrival of more litigation funders to the
Australian market.

King & Wood Mallesons partner Peta Stevenson says more than 20
funders are now active in Australia, with 16 involved in current
class actions.

"They are competing for actions and looking for opportunities,"
she says.

Ms. Stevenson suggests litigation funders are also expanding their
horizons, contributing to the diversification of class action
suits.

"In the past the funders tended to stick to securities class
action, but they are now looking beyond to other types of class
action suits."

A drawcard for overseas funders could be Australia's robust class
action regime, both at a federal level and NSW and Victorian state
levels, Mr. Lewis suggests.

"There's an opportunity of cases here, and the funders believe
that it's a good market to be in," he says.

This increase in litigation funders is a positive thing,
Mr. Lewis argues, as it creates a competitive funding market.

"It has had the effect long term of actually being beneficial for
group members, because it is forcing down the commission charged
by funders due to the increased competition," he says.

"So [having] more funders is a better deal for group members for
two reasons: one, it allows more cases to be funded and therefore
potentially go ahead; and two, group members will be paying
ultimately a smaller commission to the funder."

According to Professor Morabito's research, only approximately 40
per cent of cases are funded and the remainder are being run
without a funder.

"The funding approach here is very strict and they'll only fund
cases which they believe have merit," Mr. Lewis says.

This, of course, makes it financially difficult for group members
in suits that are unfunded, which is partly responsible for the
current debate over contingency fees.

Adjusting the bill

Contingency fees -- where law firms charge a percentage of the
winnings -- are not allowed under Australian law. However,
attitudes are beginning to shift.

"I think the historic reasons for not having [contingency fees]
have all fallen away and there's really no proper basis to
prohibit them," Mr. Lewis says.

"The major concern has always been stated to be that contingency
fees would encourage unmeritorious litigation but, like any piece
of litigation, solicitors are officers of the court and their
primary duty is to the court."

Mr. Lewis believes there are already sufficient checks and
balances in the system to ensure that if contingency fees were
introduced they wouldn't be abused, but said further restraints
could be introduced, such as a percentage cap.

Mr. Watson is of the same mindset, seeing it as a question of
equality.  While he believes the growth in litigation funding has
increasingly allowed plaintiffs and defendants to run cases on
equal terms, the next step is introducing contingency fees.

"We think contingency fees can be introduced with appropriate
safeguards, to ensure that there are no outbreaks of unmeritorious
claims," he says, echoing Mr. Lewis's thoughts.

"But we also think that were contingency fees introduced, clients
in class actions would substantially benefit from the competition
that's offered to litigation funding."

Mr. Watson says that if Maurice Blackburn had been able to conduct
class actions on a contingency basis through 25 per cent fee over
the last 10 years or so, the claimant group that the firm
represented across nine funded class actions would have been $90
million better off in a collective sense.

"We think there's a real and palpable economic benefit which will
be delivered to group members in class actions if contingency fees
are introduced and we really think that's one of the key ways in
which the system could be made better," he says.

In December 2014, the Productivity Commission voiced its support
for contingency fees.  The Law Institute of Victoria also threw
its support behind the proposal in March this year.

"We are hopeful that policy makers will embrace the need for
change and introduce contingency fees with appropriate safeguards,
and we think now is the time to do that," Mr. Watson says.

By contrast, Ms. Stevenson is not in favor of allowing firms to
bill in this way.  She is joined by the Law Council of Australia,
which recently decided to back away from a proposal to introduce
contingency fees.

"Those who support the introduction of contingency-fee billing
argue that it promotes access to justice for plaintiffs who cannot
afford to bring a legitimate claim under current billing models,"
Ms. Stevenson says.

"This logic does not translate well into the context of major
class action claims, where private funding is now widely available
in Australia and the claimants often include large institutional
shareholders."

In her view, permitting plaintiff class action lawyers to charge
contingency fees would most likely lead to a further increase in
the number of class actions, and the number of firms active in the
space.

"Although it would enable competition between litigation funders
and plaintiff lawyers by providing increased choice for potential
plaintiffs, it is also likely to increase the number of law firms
trying their hand at class actions," she says.

Ms. Saville adds: "If contingency fees are introduced in
Australia, there is no doubt that class actions will become more
lucrative for plaintiff lawyers."

Looking to the future

Technology is infiltrating everything we do and it's no different
when it comes to the way class actions are pursued.

Kylie Petersen, e.law international's director of consulting and
services, says: "Technology is a factor in all aspects of our
personal and professional lives, and has certainly led to a
substantial increase in the volume of potentially relevant
information for any proceedings."

E-discovery tools have allowed plaintiff lawyers to go through
large documents during the discovery stage, while online
management systems have made communication with members a lot
simpler.

"Technology is a necessary element in the effective management of
class action litigation, rather than being the driver of those
actions per se," Ms. Petersen says.

Ms. Petersen has found technology facilitates the management of
class action data in a way that isn't feasible using traditional,
linear document review and organization techniques.

"This is largely driven by the fact that class action evidence is
typically electronically sourced information and is voluminous,"
she says.

"From this perspective, class action litigation is like any other
large scale litigation, with the added need to also manage data
for the class members."

Like everything these days, data management needs to be cost-
effective for both plaintiff and defendant firms and this cannot
be achieved without the utilization of appropriate technology, she
argues.

On the other hand, Mr. Lewis believes that while important,
technology hasn't had a major impact on the way class action cases
are run.

"It's not as if you have to use technology any differently to the
way you would use it normally in litigation, so it's not a major
driver of any change at this stage," he says.

Mr. Lewis suggests the major change over the last two years has
been the move to online registration, which is particularly
beneficial for class actions involving large sign-ups during the
book build stage.

"Under the Legal Profession Act and various other legislations, a
group member can enter into a retainer and a funding agreement
online now, rather than the old way of having it sent out via mail
or email, scanning it, signing it and sending it back."

He continues: "It can all be done online now, as you would for
your driver's license or your home insurance, it's no different."

Looking to the future, Mr. Lewis believes technology will continue
to be a tool used by all lawyers for all types of litigation,
including class actions, but to what extent it will change the way
class actions are run remains unknown.

While Mr. Lewis's firm, ACA Lawyers, recently secured funding from
JustKapital for their class action against rival law firm Slater
and Gordon, he flagged the outcome of shareholder class actions as
another unknown.  To date, no shareholder class action matter has
gone to a judgment.

"The big issue for both plaintiff and defendant law firms in
shareholder class actions is the issue of causation, or whether
the Australian courts are ready to embrace the concept of indirect
causation, so that's one issue for the future," he says.

Mr. Lewis believes cases are going to become more heavily defended
in the coming years, and while more firms may try to get in on the
action, he says, class actions aren't for everyone.

"Some solicitors without the knowledge and expertise may find the
going very difficult if they try to bring claims without having
properly prepared them," he says.

"I think there's a warning for naive people who think they can
just jump in and run a class action.



* Class Action Lawyers See Spike in Wage-and-Hour Litigation
-------------------------------------------------------------
David Gialanella, writing for New Jersey Law Journal, reports that
ask New Jersey class action practitioners what's keeping them
busy, and the answers of course will vary.  But one topic comes up
consistently: wage-and-hour litigation.

That area, both in state and federal court, "has never been
busier," and it has sustained a high level of activity for three
years or more, according to Christine Amalfe, who chairs the
employment and labor law group at Gibbons in Newark.

Plaintiff-side attorney Kevin Roddy -- kroddy@wilentz.com -- who
co-chairs the class action team at Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer in
Woodbridge, agreed.

"I'm still seeing a lot of wage-and-hour litigation," he said.  "I
think it's continued unabated."

Particularly prominent are employee classification issues -- an
area still in the early stages of a shakeout, according to Ms.
Amalfe, who pointed to last year's ruling by the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit in Hargrove v. Sleepy's LLC.

There, the panel -- relying on a January 2015 interpretation it
solicited from the New Jersey Supreme Court -- remanded a putative
class action and instructed the district court below to apply a
three-part test to determine whether Sleepy's delivery workers are
independent contractors or employees under state law.

"Frankly, after that case was decided, there was a big spike in
New Jersey state law-based misclassification cases," Ms. Amalfe
said.
"Some of the complaints even mention Sleepy's."

One fairly recent example: A New Jersey federal judge last
September approved a settlement requiring Macy's to pay $2.8
million to a class of delivery drivers who claimed they were
improperly classified as independent contractors. (Of that sum,
$933,000 went to plaintiffs lawyers, including Harold Lichten and
Anthony Marchetti Jr.-- who also represented the putative class in
Sleepy's, the Law Journal reported.)

But, according to Ms. Amalfe, delivery drivers make up just one
category of possible class claimants.

The New Jersey Supreme Court "started down the path as to what the
test was," she said.  "That test is very fact-sensitive. How the
facts are going to be applied to the law remains to be seen."
"That's where I think we're going to see new law develop, and
that's going to take a few years. . . . I think you're going to
see cases based on categories of workers."

Salespeople, equipment servicers and outsourced information-
technology professionals all make out possible classes,
Ms. Amalfe said.

Jed Marcus -- jmarcus@bressler.com -- co-chair of the labor and
employment law practice group at Bressler, Amery & Ross in Florham
Park, said "this is a ruling for better or worse that is
applicable to classification issues across all industries."

He mentioned salespeople and call center workers as potential
plaintiffs.


* Frederick County Financial Advisers React to New Fiduciary Rule
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Paige Jones, writing for The Frederick News-Post, reports that
some financial advisers in Frederick County welcomed the U.S.
Department of Labor's new fiduciary rule, which will require those
who provide retirement advice to put their clients' interests
before their own.

The rule, which was announced in April, will not be fully
implemented until January 2018.  It will hold retirement advisers
to the fiduciary standard rather than the current suitability one,
which allows advisers to promote investments deemed suitable, even
if other cheaper options are available.

David Urovsky, founder of Wealth Advisors Group in Frederick,
favored the new rule, saying it will increase transparency and
trust between retirement advisers and clients.  He added the rule
will also benefit investors seeking professional help, saying this
ensures advisers will act in their best interests.

A regulatory impact analysis conducted by the Department of Labor
estimated families with Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs,
would save more than $40 billion over 10 years under the new rule.

However, some critics said the rule does not provide enough
protection for investors, and could lead to an influx of class-
action lawsuits as the rule's meaning becomes defined, according
to an article published in Forbes.

David Morders, a managing partner at Key Financial Group LLC in
Frederick, echoed Mr. Urovsky, saying the new federal rule will
elevate the industry and benefit the local community.

"It's going to affect everyone in a good way," Mr. Morders said.
"It gets all the hidden fees out in the open . . .  and makes it
much more transparent."

The new Department of Labor rule will also require retirement
advisers to disclose conflicts of interest, namely when they get
paid by certain companies after their clients invest with those
specific firms.

Messrs. Urovsky and Morders said they expect the new rule to have
a minimal effect on their companies, both saying their firms
already operate at the fiduciary standard and hold themselves to
that higher standard.

However, Mr. Urovsky said this may have a larger impact on brokers
in the area; some may have to change their policies and
regulations to comply with the Department of Labor's new rule, he
said.

A statement issued in April by LPL Financial, which is associated
with Key Financial Group, said the firm is working toward
compliance and will begin implementing changes as soon as it can.

"In particular, we are encouraged by the increased time frame for
implementation, the ability to easily enter into the Best Interest
Contract with our existing clients, and the freedom to recommend
any assets that are appropriate to help investors save for
retirement," the April 6 press release read.

The Best Interest Contract Exemption, or BICE, will allow
retirement advisers to collect commission on investors' retirement
plans, but the adviser must disclose conflicts and act in the
client's best interest.

Mr. Urovsky said he worried some companies may take advantage of
this exemption, and hoped the federal government develops a way to
enforce and oversee the rule to prevent exploitation.

"That's the hope and my expectation," Mr. Urovsky said.

Mr. Urovsky said he also worried an "unintended consequence" of
the new rule may be that retirement advisers no longer want to
work with younger, smaller investors, given the amount of work
required to meet the fiduciary standard, leaving this demographic
with limited options for professional advice.

For these investors, Mr. Urovsky said he believes there are three
choices.  The first is they could do it themselves, which is "not
as daunting a task as it was 10 to 15 years ago," he said.  The
second would be to turn to robo-advisers.  And the third would be
to find advisers without investment minimums.


* Illinois Biometric Law Sparks Wave of Privacy Class Actions
-------------------------------------------------------------
Eriq Gardner, writing for The Hollywood Reporter, reports that an
Illinois biometric law is sparking a wave of class actions
In entertainment, the fame of one's face is valuable.  So much so
that one Israeli company offers an app called Skakash that allows
its users to point an iPhone camera at a television to reveal the
name of the celebrity on the screen. Elsewhere, insurance
companies take body scans of actors just in case they die in the
middle of production.  There's even a prediction out there that
one day, film studios could forgo the cost of hiring A-list actors
and "license the rights to their scanned faces and paste that data
onto a digital puppet animated by the movements of another actor."

But as the entertainment industry moves into the next frontier,
how might biometric privacy factor?

On May 18, a tech company that's famous for letting its users send
messages that vanish quickly was sued for storing biometric data.
The defendant is Snapchat, and according to a proposed class
action, the company is violating the Illinois Biometric
Information Privacy Act by collecting tens if not hundreds of
millions of "face templates" so that users can add special effects
to their selfies using the "Lenses" feature.

The Illinois law was enacted in 2008 upon the appearance of
finger-scan technologies at grocery stores, gas stations and
school cafeterias.  There was growing concern of how biometric
identifiers could be misused.  In the past year, though, this
statute has captured the attention of class-action attorneys. Much
like the spate of lawsuits targeting entertainment companies over
the Video Privacy Protection Act, there have been a growing number
of class actions over biometric privacy.  And they are proving a
nuisance for defendants.  In April, Shutterfly settled a lawsuit
after a judge refused to accept its argument that the Illinois
law's exemption on photographs left it immune from claims.  Two
weeks ago, a judge rejected Facebook's argument that its terms of
service meant that it was only bound by California and federal
laws. Google is also facing a biometric suit.

And it's not just tech companies.  The Illinois law has already
hit the outer reaches of the entertainment industry.

Last October, video game maker Take-Two Interactive was hit with a
putative class action over its NBA 2K15 and NBA 2K16 games. It's
alleged in the complaint that Take-Two had failed to obtain
informed consent from those using PS4 and Xbox cameras to scan
their facial geometry to create personable basketball player
avatars.  The case is being litigated in New York thanks to a
forum clause in the user agreement, but that's not stopping the
judge from examining whether Take-Two is violating Illinois'
biometric statute by collecting and storing face scans.

Interestingly, a ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court could impact
these lawsuits.  In Spokeo v. Robins, the high court ruled that to
have standing, plaintiffs must show an injury that is both
"concrete and particularized."  In other words, merely showing a
company is storing biometric data might not be enough. There's got
to be concrete harm, whatever that means.  The Supreme Court
kicked it back to a lower appeals court to examine.  Just a day
after it did so, Take-Two told its judge about the Spokeo
development.  Take-Two has a pending motion that's premised on the
argument that because there's no allegation that NBA 2K16 users
have been "aggrieved" by biometric collection, the lawsuit should
be dismissed.

How actors and actresses might use the statute to protect against,
say, Google Glass users identifying them in public through a
facial recognition app is anyone's guess.  And while it might be
premature to say that studios could get in trouble for scanning
actors during production, it's certainly bears watching. Says tech
attorney Venkat Balasubramani, "Entertainment companies that deal
with likeness should definitely be aware of this."


* Labor Protections Need for Independent Contractors, Warren Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Joel Pollak, writing for Breitbart, reports that Sen. Elizabeth
Warren (D-MA) is taking on the companies that make up the "gig
economy" -- though they provide the jobs, and services, that are
increasingly popular among the young, "progressive" Americans who
are the core of Ms. Warren's support.

In a speech to the left-wing New America Foundation, Ms. Warren
argued that -- without killing companies like Uber -- labor
protections needed to be extended to the independent contractors
who form the core of those companies' workforce.

Ms. Warren said:

"It's exciting -- and very hip -- to talk about Uber and Lyft and
Taskrabbit, but the promise and risks of these companies isn't
new. For centuries, technological advances have helped create new
wealth and have increased GDP.  But it is policy -- rules and
regulations -- that will determine whether workers have a
meaningful opportunity to share in that new wealth."

"At the same time that the bargain with workers has become
increasingly one-sided for millions of independent contractors and
hourly employees, yet another part of the basic economic bargain
has also begun to fray.  The safety net -- unemployment insurance,
workers comp, Social Security -- hasn't been updated to fill in
the holes that employers have created.  Temporary workers,
contract workers, seasonal workers, permatemps, and part-time
workers rarely have access to these benefits, which means that the
workers who most need that safety net are least likely to have it.

"The gig economy didn't invent any of these problems.  In fact,
the gig economy has become a stopgap for some workers who can't
make ends meet in a weak labor market. The much-touted virtues of
flexibility, independence, and creativity offered by gig work
might be true for some workers under some conditions, but for
many, the gig economy is simply the next step in a losing effort
to build some economic security in a world where all the benefits
are floating to the top 10%."

Ms. Warren proposed that every worker -- including independent
contractors in the "gig economy" -- be required to pay into Social
Security.  She suggested that every company be required to protect
independent contractors with catastrophic insurance.  And she said
that independent contractors should be entitled to paid leave.
She added that "every worker should have the right to organize --
period.

Ms. Warren did not explain how these policies would work without
raising costs for companies, or making it more difficult for
would-be independent contractors to find opportunities.  Nor did
Warren address the role of regulations in stifling economic growth
and creating downward pressure on middle class employment and
wages over the past several decades.

She did, however, cite Obamacare as a success story for workers
who might not otherwise have health insurance -- though many young
people are electing to pay the IRS an annual fine rather than
purchase gold-plated policies on government websites.

Unions' efforts to organize Uber drivers have proved unsuccessful.
Last month, the company settled class action lawsuits and cleared
the legal pathway for it to treat its drivers as independent
contractors.  Ms. Warren says that those contractors must also be
protected, and that the lack of more widespread protections is
part of what is pushing them to drive for Uber in the first place.


* New CFPB Rules No Major Impact on Local Community Banks
---------------------------------------------------------
David Falchek, writing for The Times-Tribune.com, reports that a
new federal rule that would give bank customers greater ability to
participate in class-action lawsuits drew criticism from the
industry, but local community banks aren't much worried.

Small bank officials say their scale and more folksy approach
keeps them out of court more effectively than crimping the rights
of their customers in small print.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau wants to restore banking
customers' rights to participate in class-action lawsuits by
ending a common banking practice of using binding arbitration, a
clause tucked into fine print on loans, credit cards and other
financial products, in a way to prevent class-action lawsuits.

Most consumers don't bother to read through such agreements and
often don't know they've signed away their right to sue their
bank.

The new rule prohibiting arbitration clauses from barring class-
action suits could go into effect by next year.

Major financial industry lobbying groups have criticized the move,
saying it could cost financial service providers billions of
dollars.  But small bank groups, such as the Independent Community
Bankers of America, don't have a position yet and had to survey
members to get an idea how many use the arbitration clause or see
it as valuable.

When asked, local community bank officials weren't even sure if
binding arbitration was included on basic financial products, such
as checking and savings.  With the exception of boilerplate credit
and debit card contracts and commercial financial products, which
are not affected by the new regulations, retail banking customers
getting basic financial services are not signing away their right
to sue the bank.

But to be sure, bank customers should scrutinize their
applications and contracts or ask a banking officer if they have
an arbitration requirement.

"This rule will affect the very large banks and financial
companies which have a big exposure in the event of a class action
lawsuit," said Chuck Hangen, chief operating officer at ESSA Bank.
"Arbitration is more efficient from the bank's point of view, but
I've been with the bank four years and I'm not aware of someone
suing us over a business practice or having to go to arbitration
with a commercial customer."

Jonathan Grande, vice president of Credit Administration for
Peoples Security Bank, said the impact of the rule won't be very
great on the bank, since it doesn't apply to commercial financial
products.  That's where he feels small banks face the greatest
exposure.

"If we use arbitration clauses, it is limited," he said.  "Maybe
on credit cards, but even that portfolio isn't that great."

Robert Edgerton, chief executive officer of Luzerne Bank, wasn't
sure whether his bank used arbitration clauses.  Small banks use
software packages that offer canned contract language, he said.
Either way, he said the bank can stay out of court by
communication and customer service.

"From time to time, I'll call a customer and calm him down,"
Mr. Edgerton said.  "Customers perceive a call from the president
as a big deal and it shows them that their issue and their
business is important."

In some cases, however, an arbitration clause is an important
component for the bank protecting its assets and shareholders.

Jim Bone, the chief financial officer of First National Community
Bank said the arbitration rule isn't as much about keeping the
bank customer from suing the bank as it is giving the bank a quick
way to make itself whole.  The bank uses the binding arbitration
clause on commercial financial products.

"In a business when things go south -- and they can go south very
quickly -- and, when we've been harmed we want to accelerate the
process in recouping our money," Mr. Bone said.  "We are
interested in getting our money back -- not getting jury awards or
court damages -- so we don't have to go to court."

Even on commercial products, small banks don't always feel the
need for arbitration clauses.  Dunmore-based Fidelity Bank has a
jury trial waiver as part of commercial accounts in the event of a
legal dispute.  The bank doesn't want to be a defendant to face
possible jury damages.

Under the terms of the proposed rule, banks that use binding
arbitration clauses will have to report how many and the outcome.
Up until know, the outcomes were secret.







                            *********

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  * * *