CAR_Public/160608.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Wednesday, June 8, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 114




                            Headlines


ABENGOA S.A.: Shermans Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
AMATHEON INC: Dairyland Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Pet Food Express' Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Suit Discontinued
ATLAS AIR: Class Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval

B&G FOODS: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Philadelphia City Suit in N.D. Illinois
BARRICK GOLD: Settles Investors' Class Action for $140 Million
BLUE CROSS: Approval of Montana Case Settlement Affirmed
BP PLC: Sept. 13 Deepwater Horizon Claims Filing Deadline Set

BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Faces "Matyosian" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
CALIFORNIA: Deal in "Johnson" Parole Class Action Has Final Okay
CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL: "Hall" Inmate Bid for Class Cert. Denied
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Insurer's Rate Calculation Not Prohibited
CAPIO PARTNERS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

CAROFFER LLC: Court Keeps Discovery Open Through June 17
CAYAN LLC: Capital Bankcard's Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Nixed
CBL & ASSOCIATES: July 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
CBS CORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Sound Recordings Copyright Case
CELESTICA INC: Plaintiffs Fail to Revive Certification Motion

CHATHAM LODGING: Paid Entire Liability for Class Action Claim
CLARK COUNTY, IN: Sued for Denying Feminine Hygiene Products
CLAY & LAND: Sued in Miss. Over RICO Act Violation
CLYDE HILL, WA: New Cingular's Declaratory Action Revived
COACH INC: "Rael" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York

COLLECTIONS BUREAU: Case Management Schedule on "Brown" Suit
COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plotnick Appeals E.D. Virginia Court Ruling
CONAIR CORPORATION: Limits Deposition of "Wilson" Plaintiff
CONWAY PROWASH: Mich. Judge Tosses "Steimel" Suit
CORRECT CARE: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Bishop" Recommended

DA/PRO RUBBER: "Ramos" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Dismisses Class Action
DEBT RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hanuka" Action Claims
DIAMOND 1: Faces "Vallejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
DIGIRAD IMAGING: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime

DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit v. Duke Energy Florida Underway
DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Duke Energy Ohio Suit Approved
ENERGY RECOVERY: Consolidated Stockholder Actions Pending
EPIC SYSTEMS: Class Action Waivers Unenforceable, 6th Cir. Rules

ETSY INC: Still Faces "Altayyar" Action in New York
ETSY INC: Still Faces "Cervantes" and "Weiss" Actions in Calif.
EVERCORE PARTNERS: Briefing Has Yet to Begin in "Coburn" Appeal
EXPRESS FREIGHT: Faces "Connor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
FACEBOOK INC: June 15 Privacy Class Action Status Conference Set

FBR & CO: Waterford Township Action Dismissed
FBR & CO: MLV Still Faces "Goldberg" and "Gaynor" Suits
FCA US: "Faltermeier" Suit Stays in W.D. Montana
FEI CO: Ryan & Maniskas Investigates Breach of Fiduciary Claims
FLOWERS BAKING: Pre-Certification Notices in "Richard" Approved

FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Judge Dismisses Miners' FLSA Suit
FRESH ENTERPRISES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
GENERAL MILLS: Class Action Lacks Commonality, 8th Cir. Rules
GOT CAPITAL: Small Business Owners Lose Class Certification Bid
HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued in Cal. Over Fake-Sale-Price Advertising

HAWAII: Court Issues Order on Class Member Identification
HONEST COMPANY: Court Enters Protective Order in "Michael"
IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
J&B SPARTANBURG: Must Defend Against Wage and Hour Suit
JENKINS WAGNON: "Cordova" Suit Removed to Dist. New Mexico

LENDINGCLUB: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Reports
LYFT INC: Matters to Be Discussed in "Cotter" Oral Argument
LYFT INC: "Prime Time" Pricing Claims May Impact $27MM Settlement
MARATHON OIL: Dismissal of "Vogel" Royalties Suit Upheld
MARRONE BIO: Special Situations to File 3rd Amended Complaint

MDL 2380: Shop-Vac Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
MINNESOTA: Bid to Stay "Daywitt" Suit Denied
MONARCH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shatkin" Suit Claims
NANTKWEST INC: Faces "Wagner" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
NAT'L FOOTBALL: Class Action Lawyers Get Share of Litigation Fees

NIBCO INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Meadow"
NORTH SHORE UNIV. HOSPITAL: "Abdale" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
ONEG CATERERS: Faces "Shrago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
ORAZIO J PETITO: Faces "Petito Sr." Class Suit in New York
ORAZIO J PETITO: Faces "Rocco Petito" Class Suit in New York

ORTHOTOUCH: Investors Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
PARKING SOLUTIONS: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Carr Denied
PENNY NEWMAN: "Palacios" Class Action Deal Has Final Okay
PHOENIX, AZ: Rental Car Companies File Tax Refund Class Action
PTC THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Class Actions Filed in N.J.

RBC CAPITAL: Suit Over Employee Benefits Plan Can Proceed
RESERVES NETWORK: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
RESURGENT CAPITAL: Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 9
RIVERCITY MOTORWAY: Settles IPO Class Action for $121 Million
ROUTE 17: Must Pay $118,000 Judgment to "Mancuso" Plaintiffs

RUCKUS WIRELESS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Olinghouse" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
SAN JOSE, CA: Over $724K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in "Gonzales"
SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Cobran Asks 1st Circuit to Review Ruling
SETERUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Kickback Scheme

SHNY RESTAURANT: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
SKYWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss "Hirst" Suit Granted
SMART CIRCLE: Faces "Gavidia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
SOCIAL SECURITY: Objections Granted in Part in "Walker" Suit
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Dismissal of Diversified Capital Suit

ST. LAWRENCE: Feb. 2017 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 11
SUN RUN: Parties in "Pytel" Class Suit Dispute Remand Bid
SUNOCO INC: No Arbitration for "White"
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Used Aggressive Sales Tactics, Documents Reveal

UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
UBER TECH: Plaintiffs Lawyer to Face Settlement Critics in Hearing
UBER TECH: Judge Throws Tough Questions in Settlement Hearing
UBER TECH: Faces "Spangenberg" Suit in California
UNILIFE CORP: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set

UNITED FEDERAL: Joint Status Report in "Gunter" Due June 14
UNITED STATES: Indian Farmers Set to Get Settlement Payouts
UNIVERSAL REALTY: Sued Over Family and Medical Leave Act Breach
VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Terms to Apply Prospectively, Judge Says
VITA COCO: Faces Class Action Over "Born in Brazil" Label

VIZIO INC: "Walsh" Class Suit Transferred to C.D. California
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Diesel-Related Settlement Talks Ongoing
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gaudet" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
WAYFAIR INC: Court Junks "Dingee" Suit
ZENITH EDUCATION: Faces "Latimer" Class Action in Georgia

ZUFFA LLC: Ordered to Produce Unredacted Milbank Email

* Industry Groups Mull Suit Over Obama's Retirement Rule


                            *********


ABENGOA S.A.: Shermans Appointed as Lead Plaintiff
--------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned MICHAEL FRANCISCO, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. ABENGOA,
S.A., SANTIAGO SEAGE, MANUEL SANCHEZ ORTEGA, BARBARA ZUBIRIA AND
IGNACIO GARCIA ALVEAR, Defendants. DANIEL LAMOUREAUX, Individually
and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v.
ABENGOA, S.A., SANTIAGO SEAGE, MANUEL SANCHEZ ORTEGA, BARBARA
ZUBIRIA AND IGNACIO GARCIA ALVEAR, Defendants, Nos. 15 Civ. 6279
(ER), 15 Civ. 6971 (ER)(S.D.N.Y.), Judge Edgardo Ramos ruled on
three motions from three distinct shareholders or groups of
shareholders of Abengoa, S.A.

In August and September of 2015, two putative class actions were
brought under the federal securities laws against Abengoa and
individual Abengoa executives.  The suits alleged that Abengoa, an
engineering and clean technology company, made materially false
and misleading statements regarding its business and operations.
Specifically, the plaintiffs alleged that Abengoa misrepresented
the company's capital structure and liquidity in reports filed
with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
and in conference calls with financial analysts.  After Abengoa
revealed that it in fact had liquidity and cash flow issues, the
price of Abengoa shares dropped precipitously.

Three motions from three distinct Abengoa shareholders or groups
of shareholders were filed, all seeking consolidation of the two
filed suits.  Each movant also sought appointment as lead
plaintiff and approval of the movant's selected counsel as lead
counsel.  The three movants are: (1) Jesse and Arlette Sherman;
(2) PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund; and (3) Ian Bothwell.

Judge Ramos granted the Shermans' motion, and denied the motions
of Bothwell and Local 675.

Judge Ramos also granted the Shermans' request to appoint Levi &
Korsinsky as lead counsel.

A full-text copy of Judge Ramos's May 24, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/Ym6wUU from Leagle.com.

Jesse and Arlette Sherman, Michael Francisco, Lead Plaintiff,
represented by Adam M. Apton -- aapton@zlk.com -- Levi & Korsinsky
LLP.

Daniel LaMoureaux, Plaintiff, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman
-- jalieberman@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP & Joseph Alexander
Hood, II -- ahood@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP.

PAMCAH-UA Local 675 Pension Fund, Movant, represented by David Avi
Rosenfeld -- drosenfeld@rgrdlaw.com -- Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd LLP.

Ian Bothwell, Movant, represented by Jeremy Alan Lieberman,
Pomerantz LLP.

Abengoa, S.A., Defendant, represented by Timothy E. Hoeffner --
timothy.hoeffner@dlapiper.com -- DLA Piper US LLP.


AMATHEON INC: Dairyland Class Suit Transferred to S.D. Florida
--------------------------------------------------------------
Dairyland Animal Clinic, S.C., A Wisconsin Service Corporation,
Individually and as the Representative of a Class of Similarly-
Situated Persons v. Amatheon, Inc., Nextsource Biotechnology LLC,
and Does 1 - 10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00090, was transferred from
Wisconsin Western to the U.S. District Court Southern District of
Florida (Miami). The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-
cv-21820-KMW to the proceeding.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company located at 4300 SW
73rd Ave #110, Miami, FL 33155.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ryan Michael Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: rkelly@andersonwanca.com


APPLIED UNDERWRITERS: Pet Food Express' Suit Moved to E.D. Cal.
---------------------------------------------------------------
PET FOOD EXPRESS LTD., a California corporation and all those
similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. APPLIED UNDERWRITERS INC., et
al. Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-01539-EMC, pending before the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California will be transferred to the Eastern District of
California, pursuant to a June 1 Stipulation signed by Judge
Edward Chen, a copy of which is available at https://is.gd/uhAOxi
from Leagle.com.

On February 18 2016, Plaintiff filed a Class Action Complaint (the
"Complaint") against defendants Applied Underwriters, Inc.
("Applied"), Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance Company,
Inc. ("AUCRA") and California Insurance Company ("CIC")
(collectively the "Applied Defendants") in Alameda County Superior
Court.  On March 29, 2016, the Applied Defendants removed this
action to the N.D. California Court.

Plaintiff seeks to represent a class of California employers who
purchased an EquityComp(R) workers' compensation program from the
Applied Defendants within four years prior to the filing of the
Complaint.  Plaintiff's Complaint asserts four claims for relief
against the Applied Defendants: violation of California's Unfair
Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200, et seq.),
rescission, declaratory relief and fraud.

Prior to the filing of this action, Shasta Linen Supply, Inc.
filed a putative class action in the United Stated District Court
for the Eastern District of California involving the same workers'
compensation program. In Shasta Linen Supply, Inc. v. Applied
Underwriters, Inc., et al., United States District Court, Eastern
District of California, Case No. 2:16-cv-00158-WBS-AC, Shasta
Linen seeks to represent a class of California employers who
purchased the EquityComp(R) Program.  The matter has been assigned
the Honorable William B. Shubb. The Shasta Linen action was
initially filed in the Eastern District of California on January
26, 2016. Shasta Linen filed a First Amended Class Action
Complaint on April 8, 2016.  The Shasta FAC asserts claims for
relief against the Applied Defendants for violation of
California's Unfair Competition Law (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Sec.
17200, et seq.) and for fraud.

Defendants filed a motion to transfer venue of this action to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1404(a), and in the
alternative to stay or dismiss this action pursuant to the first-
to-file rule.  The Motion to Transfer is scheduled to be heard on
June 23, 2016.

The Applied Defendants moved on the ground that venue for the
instant action would be proper in the Eastern District, that the
Shasta Linen action involves the same factual and legal issues,
many of the same witnesses and evidence as the instant action, and
seeks to certify a class of California employers, and that the
interests of justice support a transfer to avoid the risk of
inconsistent rulings and the unnecessary duplication of effort and
expense.

Separately, the Applied Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff's Complaint, in part, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(6), scheduled to be heard on July 28, 2016.

Plaintiff does not oppose the Applied Defendants' Motion to
Transfer.

By Stipulation, the Parties agree that a transfer to the Eastern
District would serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and that a transfer would promote the interests of justice.

Pet Food Express Ltd., Plaintiff, represented by John Douglas
Moore -- jmoore@hennetzel.com -- Henn, Etzel & Moore.

Applied Underwriters Inc., Defendant, represented by Spencer Young
Kook -- skook@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Barger & Wolen LLP, James
Patrick Schaefer -- james.schaefer@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps
Slate Meagher & Flom LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy --
raoul.kennedy@skadden.com -- Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Shand Scott Stephens -- shand.stephens@dlapiper.com -- DLA
Piper LLP, Travis Richard Wall -- twall@mail.hinshawlaw.com --
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP & John Russell Stedman --
rstedman@mail.hinshawlaw.com -- Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

Applied Underwriters Captive Risk Assurance, Inc., Defendant,
represented by James Patrick Schaefer, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher
& Flom LLP, Raoul Dion Kennedy, Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom
LLP, Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP & John Russell Stedman,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.

California Insurance Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by
Shand Scott Stephens, DLA Piper LLP & John Russell Stedman,
Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP.


ATLANTIC POWER: Quebec Class Suit Discontinued
----------------------------------------------
Atlantic Power Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Superior Court of
Quebec has authorized the discontinuance of a shareholder class
action.

On March 19, 2013, April 2, 2013 and May 10, 2013, three notices
of action relating to Canadian securities class action claims
against the Proposed Defendants were also issued by alleged
investors in Atlantic Power common shares, and in one of the
actions, holders of Atlantic Power convertible debentures, with
the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the Province of Ontario.
On April 8, 2013, a similar claim issued by alleged investors in
Atlantic Power common shares seeking to initiate a class action
against the Proposed Defendants was filed with the Superior Court
of Quebec in the Province of Quebec (the "Canadian Actions").

On August 30, 2013, the three Ontario actions were succeeded by
one action with an amended claim being issued on behalf of
Jacqeline Coffin and Sandra Lowry. This claim named the Company,
Barry E. Welch and Terrence Ronan as Defendants. The Plaintiffs
sought leave to commence an action for statutory misrepresentation
under the Ontario Securities Act and asserted common law claims
for misrepresentation.

The Plaintiffs' motions for leave and certification were heard on
May 20-21, 2015.

On July 24, 2015, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice issued a
decision denying the Plaintiffs' motion for leave and
certification. The Superior Court granted leave to reconstitute a
claim for debenture holders but required that there be a debenture
holder as plaintiff, that the claim be amended and that the
Plaintiffs pay the Defendants partial indemnity costs of
responding to the Plaintiffs' motion.

The Plaintiffs appealed the July 24 decision on leave and
certification to the Ontario Court of Appeal.  The appeal was
subsequently abandoned by the Plaintiffs, and the Ontario action
was dismissed by Order dated December 2, 2015, the Defendants
agreeing not to claim costs from the Plaintiffs.

The proposed Quebec class action was suspended by the Superior
Court of Quebec pending the outcome of the motions for leave and
certification of the Ontario action as a class proceeding. On
April 19, 2016, the Superior Court of Quebec authorized the
discontinuance of the action.

"There were no payments required by the Company.  This follows the
dismissal of the other two proposed securities class actions in
the United States in November 2015 and in Ontario in December
2015, neither of which required any payments by the Company," the
Company said in an exhibit to its Form 8-K Report.

Atlantic Power owns and operates a diverse fleet of power
generation assets in the United States and Canada.


ATLAS AIR: Class Settlement Awaits Final Court Approval
-------------------------------------------------------
Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the settlement
in the class action lawsuit related to alleged pricing practices
is still subject to final court approval.

The Company and Old Polar were named defendants, along with a
number of other cargo carriers, in several class actions in the
United States arising from allegations about the pricing practices
of Old Polar and a number of air cargo carriers. These actions
were all centralized in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York. Polar was later joined as an
additional defendant. The consolidated complaint alleged, among
other things, that the defendants, including the Company and Old
Polar, manipulated the market price for air cargo services sold
domestically and abroad through the use of surcharges, in
violation of United States, state, and European Union antitrust
laws. The suit sought treble damages and attorneys' fees.

On January 7, 2016, the Company, Old Polar, and Polar entered into
a settlement agreement to settle all claims by participating class
members against the Company, Old Polar and Polar. The Company,
Polar, and Old Polar deny any wrongdoing, and there is no
admission of any wrongdoing in the settlement agreement. Pursuant
to the settlement agreement, the Company, Old Polar and Polar have
agreed to make installment payments over three years to settle the
plaintiffs' claims, with payments of $35.0 million paid on January
15, 2016, $35.0 million due on or before January 15, 2017, and
$30.0 million due on or before January 15, 2018, resulting in an
accrual of $65.0 million as of March 31, 2016. The United States
District Court for the Eastern District of New York issued an
order granting preliminary approval of the settlement on January
12, 2016. The settlement is still subject to final court approval.

Atlas Air provides outsourced aircraft and aviation operating
services throughout the world, serving Africa, Asia, Australia,
Europe, the Middle East, North America and South America through:
(i) contractual service arrangements, including those through
which the Company provides aircraft to customers and value-added
services, including crew, maintenance and insurance ("ACMI"), as
well as those through which we provide crew, maintenance and
insurance, but not the aircraft ("CMI"); (ii) cargo and passenger
charter services ("Charter"); and (iii) dry leasing aircraft and
engines ("Dry Leasing" or "Dry Lease").


B&G FOODS: Plaintiff Appeals Ruling to Ninth Circuit
----------------------------------------------------
B&G Foods, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 2, 2016, that a class action
plaintiff has filed an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

B&G Foods has been named as a defendant in a putative class action
lawsuit filed by The Weston Firm on behalf of Troy Walker in
August 2015 in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California.  The lawsuit alleges that our company has
violated California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act and Unfair
Competition Law, with respect to the advertising, marketing and
labeling of certain Ortega taco shells.  Specifically, the
plaintiff alleges, among other things, that the products are
deceptively marketed because the products are labeled "0g trans
fat" on the front of the package and contain partially
hydrogenated oil.  The complaint seeks monetary damages,
injunctive relief and attorneys' fees.

"We have been vigorously defending this lawsuit and believe that
the plaintiff's claims are without merit and that the products are
and have at all times been properly labeled in compliance with
applicable law.  We also believe the claims are moot because,
among other things, we began transitioning away from partially
hydrogenated oil in these products before first being contacted by
The Weston Firm and we no longer use partially hydrogenated oil in
these products," the Company said.

"On February 8, 2016, the court ruled on our motion to dismiss,
dismissing all of the plaintiff's labeling claims and agreeing
with our position that any claim for removal of partially
hydrogenated oil would be moot after B&G Foods has done so.  Under
the court's ruling, the plaintiff's only surviving claims relate
to his alleged use of these products.  These claims have been
stayed, however, pending further guidance from the FDA, which has
already stated that companies may continue to use partially
hydrogenated oil through at least 2018.  The plaintiff has filed
an appeal to the Ninth Circuit.  Based upon information currently
available, we do not believe the ultimate resolution of this
matter will have a material adverse effect on B&G Foods'
consolidated financial position, results of operations or
liquidity."

B&G Foods operates in a single industry segment and manufactures,
sells and distributes a diverse portfolio of high-quality shelf-
stable and frozen foods across the United States, Canada and
Puerto Rico.


BANK OF AMERICA: Faces Philadelphia City Suit in N.D. Illinois
--------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Bank of America
Corporation, Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner
& Smith Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays
Capital Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited,
Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Credit Suisse International, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P., Goldman Sachs International, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., ICAP Capital Markets
LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities Plc, Morgan Stanley,
Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan
Stanley Capital Services LLC, Morgan Stanley Derivative Products
Inc.Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, Morgan Stanley Bank
International Limited, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal
Bank of Scotland PLC, RBS Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC,
UBS AG, and UBS Securities LLC.

The case is captioned City of Philadelphia, On Behalf of Itself
and All Others Similarly Situated v. Bank of America Corporation,
Bank of America, N.A., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith
Incorporated, Barclays PLC, Barclays Bank PLC, Barclays Capital
Inc., BNP Paribas, S.A., Citigroup, Inc., Citibank, N.A.,
Citigroup Global Markets Inc., Citigroup Global Markets Limited,
Credit Suisse AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse Securities
(USA) LLC, Credit Suisse International, Deutsche Bank AG, Deutsche
Bank Securities Inc., The Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman,
Sachs & Co., Goldman Sachs Bank USA, Goldman Sachs Financial
Markets, L.P., Goldman Sachs International, HSBC Bank plc, HSBC
Bank USA, N.A., HSBC Securities (USA) Inc., ICAP Capital Markets
LLC, J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., J.P.
Morgan Securities LLC, J.P. Morgan Securities Plc, Morgan Stanley,
Morgan Stanley Bank, N.A., Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Morgan
Stanley Capital Services LLC, Morgan Stanley Derivative Products
Inc.Morgan Stanley & Co. International plc, Morgan Stanley Bank
International Limited, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc, Royal
Bank of Scotland PLC, RBS Securities Inc., Tradeweb Markets LLC,
UBS AG, and UBS Securities LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-05409 (N.D. Ill.,
May 23, 2016).

The Defendants operate multinational banking and financial
services corporations throughout the United States.

Philadelphia is a pro se plaintiff.


BARRICK GOLD: Settles Investors' Class Action for $140 Million
--------------------------------------------------------------
Nate Raymond, writing for Reuters, reports that Barrick Gold Corp
has agreed to pay $140 million to resolve a U.S. lawsuit accusing
the gold producer of concealing problems at a South American mine
and of fraudulently inflating the company's market value,
according to court papers.

The settlement, disclosed in papers filed on May 31 in Manhattan
federal court, would resolve a class action accusing Barrick of
deceiving investors about environmental problems afflicting its
Pascua-Lama project on the border of Argentina and Chile.

"I am pleased we were able to reach this resolution for
investors," James Hughes, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at the law
firm Motley Rice, said in a statement.

Barrick in a statement confirmed the $140 million accord and said
the value of the settlement is insured.

"Barrick continues to believe that the claims alleged by the lead
plaintiffs in the litigation are unfounded, and under the terms of
the settlement agreement, the company has not accepted any charges
of wrongdoing or liability," the company said.

The settlement, which requires court approval, comes two months
after a federal judge cleared the way for shareholders who bought
or acquired Barrick stock between May 7, 2009 and Nov. 1, 2013 to
pursue the case as a class action.

Barrick bought the Pascua-Lama project in 1994, and had been
counting on it to generate a large percentage of its overall gold
production.

But cost overruns, environmental issues, labor unrest, political
opposition and falling bullion prices contributed to Barrick's
decision on Oct. 31, 2013 to indefinitely halt the project, after
it had already spent more than $5 billion.

Investors in the lawsuit contended Barrick touted Pascua-Lama
during this period as a "world-class project that will contribute
low-cost ounces at double-digit returns," even as it became clear
the project would fall short of expectations.

The lead plaintiffs in the case were Union Asset Management
Holding AG and LRI Invest S.A.

The case is In re: Barrick Gold Securities Litigation, U.S.
District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 13-03851.


BLUE CROSS: Approval of Montana Case Settlement Affirmed
--------------------------------------------------------
The Supreme Court of Montana affirmed the district court's
approval of a proposed settlement agreement in the case captioned
In re BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF MONTANA, INC., n/k/a CARING
FOR MONTANANS, INC., and MONTANA COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATION
INSURANCE LITIGATION. TYSON PALLISTER, KEVIN BUDD, KENNETH WALSH,
MARTIN T. MANGAN, SHIRLEY MANGAN, RAY LEE, and LAURA FORTUNE,
Objectors and Appellants, v. BLUE CROSS AND BLUE SHIELD OF
MONTANA, INC., n/k/a CARING FOR MONTANANS, INC., and MONTANA
COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH ASSOCIATION, Defendants and Appellees, No. DA
15-0458 (Mont.).

The case arose out of claims asserted by multiple persons against
Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Montana, now known as Caring for
Montanans, Inc. (CFM) and Montana Comprehensive Health Association
(MCHA) (collectively "Insurers").  The District Court certified a
class of claimants for settlement purposes only.  The District
Court then held a fairness hearing on a proposed settlement
agreement and approved the settlement.  Several class members
objected to the settlement and appealed to the Supreme Court of
Montana, arguing they should be allowed to conduct further
discovery to ascertain the fairness of the settlement agreement.
The Supreme Court agreed with the objectors and remanded the case
to the District Court for further discovery and a second fairness
hearing.  The District Court allowed further discovery, held a
second fairness hearing, and determined that the same settlement
agreement was fair, reasonable, and adequate. The objectors again
appealed, but the Supreme Court affirmed the District Court.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 24, 2016 opinion is
available at https://is.gd/xPoF3N from Leagle.com.

James G. Hunt -- jim@jghuntlaw.com -- Hunt Law Firm, Helena,
Montana. Jory C. Ruggiero, Domenic A. Cossi, Western Justices
Associates, Bozeman, Montana, for Appellants.

Lawrence A. Anderson -- laalaw@me.com -- Attorney at Law, P.C.,
Great Falls, Montana, for Appellant Laura Fortune.

Jacqueline T. Lenmark, Keller, Reynolds, Drake, Johnson &
Gillespie, P.C., Helena, Montana, for Appellee Montana
Comprehensive Health Association.

Michael F. McMahon, Stefan T. Wall, McMahon, Wall & Hubley, PLLC,
Helena, Montana, for Appellee Caring for Montanans, Inc.

Robert G. McCarthy, McCarthy Law, P.C., Butte, Montana, for Class
Representatives.


BP PLC: Sept. 13 Deepwater Horizon Claims Filing Deadline Set
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fair Fund to Compensate Certain Investors in BP plc American
Depositary Shares

The BP Fair Fund was established by the United States Securities
and Exchange Commission ("SEC") to distribute $525 million in
civil money penalties to investors harmed by BP's material
misrepresentations and omissions regarding the rate at which oil
was flowing into the Gulf of Mexico as the result of the explosion
on the offshore oil rig Deepwater Horizon.  Pursuant to the Plan
of Distribution (the "Plan") approved by the SEC on February 3,
2016, the BP Fair Fund will compensate investors who suffered harm
as a result of purchasing BP American Depositary Shares ("ADS")
through a U.S. securities exchange between
April 26, 2010 and May 26, 2010 and who satisfy the conditions of
the Plan.  The Plan contains a description of all eligibility and
other conditions to participation and can be found at:
www.bpfairfund.com or www.sec.gov

Who is Eligible to Participate in the Fair Fund?
Any person or entity that purchased BP ADS on a U.S. exchange
during the period from April 26, 2010 through May 26, 2010 is
eligible for compensation from the BP Fair Fund subject to certain
other eligibility limitations described in the Plan.

Eligible Security
BP American Depositary Shares - (BP) CUSIP: 055622104

Determination of Eligible Losses
The amount of compensation shall be determined by reference to the
plan of allocation included in the Plan and will vary based on the
exact dates of transactions in BP ADS during the relevant period,
the number of BP ADS purchased and/or sold, and the total dollar
value of eligible claims submitted to BP Fair Fund.

How to Apply?
In order to be eligible for a recovery, you must submit a
completed claim form and supporting documentation on or before the
claims deadline.  The simplest and fastest way to participate is
to file a claim online through the BP Fair Fund website:
www.bpfairfund.com

If for any reason you are not able to utilize our online filing,
you may download and print a copy of the claim form from the
website and mail the completed claim form to the BP Fair Fund at
the address shown below.  You may also ask the Distribution Agent
to mail you a claim form by calling us toll free at
(866) 344-7868, or by sending an email request to
info@bpfairfund.com

Claim Filing Deadline
Claim forms must be postmarked no later than midnight on September
13, 2016.  If you need assistance in completing the claim form,
please contact the Distribution Agent or visit www.bpfairfund.com

APPLY NOW!
BP Fair Fund
P.O. Box 6980
Syracuse, NY 13217-6980
Toll free number: (866) 344-7868


BRIDGESTONE RETAIL: Faces "Matyosian" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Movses Mike Matyosian and Oning Matyosian, individually, and on
behalf of the other members of the general public similarly
situated, and as aggrieved employees pursuant to the Private
Attorneys General Act v. Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC
and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No. BC621145 (Cal. Super. Ct., May
20, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Bridgestone Retail Operations, LLC owns and operates a chain of
auto care and tire stores throughout the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Wimer J. Harris, Esq.
      SCHONBRUN SEPLOW HARRIS & HOFFMAN LLP
      715 Fremont Avenue
      Pasadena, CA 91030
      Telephone: (626) 441-4129
      E-mail: wharris@sdshhlaw.com


CALIFORNIA: Deal in "Johnson" Parole Class Action Has Final Okay
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the parties' joint motion for
final approval of class action settlement in the case captioned
SAM JOHNSON, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiffs, v. JENNIFER SHAFFER, et al., Defendants, No.
2:12-cv-1059 KJM AC P (E.D. Cal.).

The class action lawsuit challenged the constitutionality of the
protocol adopted by California's Board of Parole Hearings' (Board)
Forensic Assessment Division (FAD) for use in the preparation of
psychological evaluations to be considered in determining the
suitability of class members for parole.  The class consists of
California state prisoners who are serving life sentences and are
eligible for parole consideration after having served their
minimum terms.

The settlement negotiated by the parties provides for new risk
assessments for class members every three years, and defendants
have agreed to develop a process by which inmates can submit
formal written objections to factual findings in the risk
assessments.  These changes will be formalized in new regulations
and class counsel will have opportunities to comment on the
proposed regulations before they are adopted.  The agreement also
provides for two presentations to the Board, one on recidivism
rates of long-term offenders, and one on use of one of the risk
assessment tools at issue.  In addition, the agreement provides
that class counsel will be given an opportunity to present expert
testimony to the Board if by the end of calendar year 2016 the
Board proposes any changes in administration of the risk
assessments, including the tools used.  Finally, the agreement
provides for the district court's continuing supervision until
January 1, 2017, or longer if it is demonstrated that material
compliance with the agreement has not been achieved.

Judge Mueller found that although the settlement does not require
use of different risk assessment tools for use with California's
life inmate population, it does incorporate several mechanisms
that address concerns of possible bias in the risk assessment
process and parole decisions based on such risk assessments.

A full-text copy of Judge Mueller's May 26, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/H5NIuT from Leagle.com.

Sam Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Keith Allen Wattley,
UnCommon Law.

Jennifer Shaffer, Matthew Cate, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Cliff Kusaj,
Richard Hayward, Thomas Powers, Defendants, Al Fulbright, Deputy
Defendant, represented by Heather M. Heckler, Office Of The
Attorney General & Jessica Nicole Blonien, Attorney General's
Office of the State of California.


CALIFORNIA CORRECTIONAL: "Hall" Inmate Bid for Class Cert. Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, ALFONSO HALL, Plaintiff, v. D. SMITH, et al.,
Defendants, Case No. 1:15-cv-00860-BAM-PC (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate
Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe denied Plaintiff's motion to certify
the lawsuit as a class action and motion for the appointment of
class counsel.  Plaintiff is appearing pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. Sec.
1983.  On May 27, 2016, Plaintiff filed a motion to certify this
action as a class action. This action proceeds on Plaintiff's
claim against Defendant Smith for excessive force and failure to
decontaminate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. In his motion,
Plaintiff seeks to bring this action on behalf of "the inmates at
the California Correctional Institution and those who may in the
future be housed there."  Plaintiff also seeks the appointment of
counsel to represent the class.

A copy of the Court's May 31 Order is available at
https://is.gd/mSUnvs from Leagle.com.


CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS: Insurer's Rate Calculation Not Prohibited
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justice Steven Z. Perren of the Court of Appeals of California,
Second District, Division Six, affirmed the trial court's judgment
in the case AMALIA CORONA LAMPLE, Plaintiff and Appellant, v.
CALIFORNIA PHYSICIANS' SERVICE, Defendant and Respondent, 2d Civil
No. B259380 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Amalia Corona Lample filed a class action alleging California
Physicians' Service doing business under the name Blue Shield of
California violated California's unfair competition law (UCL).
Lample alleged that Blue Shield charged subscribers to its
preferred provider health care service plans premiums that
exceeded the rate caps provided in sections 1399.805 and 1399.811.
of the Health and Safety Code.

As a health care service plan, Blue Shield is regulated by the
California Department of Managed Health Care (DMHC). The DMHC is
prohibited from setting rates.

Lample alleges the DMHC's interpretation of sections 1399.805 and
1399.811 require the use of a weighted average, and that as a
regulatory agency, the DMHC's interpretation of the statutes is
entitled to judicial deference.

The trial court sustained Blue Shield's demurrer to the complaint
on the ground that Blue Shield is entitled to use the procedures
it employed to date and Lample's procedure is not required by
statute.

The judgment of demurrer was reversed on appeal and on remand the
parties moved for summary judgment or adjudication. The trial
court denied plaintiff's motion and granted the insurer's motion
for summary judgment.

A copy of Justice Perren's opinion dated May 31, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/gKm0nEfrom Leagle.com.

William L. Larson -- Herbert L. Greenberg at Kiesel Boucher
Larson, for Plaintiff and Appellant

Gregory N. Pimstone -- gpimstone@manatt.com -- Craig S.
Bloomgarden -- cbloomgarden@manatt.com -- Joanna S. McCallum --
jmccallum@manatt.com -- at Manatt, Phelps & Phillips, for
Defendant and Respondent

The Court of Appeals of California, Second District, Division Six
panel consists of Acting Presiding Justice Kenneth R. Yegan and
Justices Steven Z. Perren and Tangeman.


CAPIO PARTNERS: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
----------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Hanoka, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Capio Partners, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02582 (E.D.N.Y.,
May 20, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Capio Partners, LLC operates a debt collection firm headquartered
at 2222 Texoma Pkwy # 150, Sherman, TX 75090.

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


CAROFFER LLC: Court Keeps Discovery Open Through June 17
--------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Amos L. Mazzant, III of the Eastern District of
Texas, Sherman Division, granted in part and denied in part
plaintiff's motion to reopen discovery in the case VICTOR
ZILBERMAN v. CAROFFER, LLC, and PEARL TECHNOLOGY HOLDINGS, LLC,
Case No. 4:15-CV-589 (E.D. Tex.).

Victor Zilberman filed a class action complaint against RedBumper,
LLC in the Eastern District of New York alleging a single cause of
action under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

RedBumper filed a letter requesting a pre-motion conference
regarding its anticipated filing of a motion to dismiss for lack
of personal jurisdiction, or, in the alternative, to transfer
venue to the Eastern District of Texas. RedBumper argued that it
had been wrongly named in the suits, as the actions forming the
basis for Zilberman's cause of action were committed by CarOffer,
LLC.

On April 28, 2015, Zilberman filed an amended complaint, in which
he added Pearl Technology Holdings, LLC and CarOffer as party-
defendants. On June 8, 2015, CarOffer filed for bankruptcy and
served the parties with a copy of its bankruptcy petition that
same day.

On July 17, 2015, the case was transferred to the Texas court and
on November 6, 2015, the Texas court entered its scheduling order,
which set Zilberman's deadline to amend pleadings on February 2,
2016, and the parties' deadline to complete discovery as April 26.

On January 20, 2016, Pearl moved to stay discovery and quash
Zilberman's requests, contending that the requests were improper,
premature, and/or overbroad, which the court denied and ordered
the parties to file dispositive motions by February 26.

On February 26, 2016, Pearl filed its motion for summary judgment.
On March 7, Zilberman moved to extend his summary judgment
response deadline by 21 days, which the Court granted on March 14.
On April 4, Zilberman filed another motion for extension of time,
in which he stated that he could not present facts essential to
justify a summary judgment opposition. On April 27, the court
granted the extension, but at that time stated that no further
extensions would be granted.

On March 21, 2016, Zilberman filed its notice of voluntary
dismissal of RedBumper, which the court granted.

On March 31, 2016, Zilberman issued a subpoena to Texas Capital
Bank, N.A. requesting the bank account records of Pearl's various
subsidiaries, including CarOffer, with a return date of April 15.
On April 14, Pearl moved to quash the subpoena, in which Pearl
contended that Zilberman's requests were overbroad and sought
information from subsidiaries that were not parties in the
litigation. On April 29, Pearl moved to withdraw its motion, after
the parties reached an agreement on the issue, which the court
granted on May 3.  Plaintiff received the requested bank account
records from Texas Capital on May 2.

On May 3, 2016, Zilberman filed a motion for extension of time to
complete discovery and to extend deadline to respond to motion for
summary judgment.

Judge Mazzant granted in part and denied in part plaintiff's
motion to reopen discovery and to extend deadline to respond to
motion for summary judgment. The discovery period will remain open
until June 17, 2016 and the deadline for plaintiff's response to
Pearl's motion for summary judgment is continued for one week
following the end of the discovery period, or June 24.

A copy of Judge Mazzant's memorandum opinion and order dated May
31, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/u1lR08from Leagle.com.

Victor Zilberman, Plaintiff, represented by Alicia E Hwang --
ahwang@edelson.com -- Ari J Scharg -- ascharg@edelson.com -- Rafey
S Balabanian -- rbalabanian@edelson.com -- at Edelson PC; William
Craft Hughes -- craft@hughesellzey.com -- at Hughes Ellzey LLP

CarOffer LLC, Defendant, represented by Richard L. Bufkin at The
Bufkin Law Firm, LP; Walter A Herring -- W Herring@munckwilson.com
-- at Munck Wilson Mandala LLP

Pearl Technology Holdings LLC, Defendant, represented by Walter A
Herring -- W Herring@munckwilson.com -- Edwin Andrew Huffman --
thuffman@munckwilson.com


CAYAN LLC: Capital Bankcard's Bid for Interlocutory Appeal Nixed
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chief District Judge Patti B. Saris of the District of
Massachusetts, thwarted an attempt by Capital Bankcard to launch
an appeal from a ruling in the case SOUTH ORANGE CHIROPRACTIC
CENTER, LLC, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. CAYAN LLC d/b/a CAPITAL BANKCARD,
Defendant, Civil Action No.15-13069-PBS (D. Mass.)

South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC  filed a proposed a class
action alleging that Cayan LLC, doing business as Capital
Bankcard, sent unsolicited faxes in violation of the Telephone
Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227.

Capital Bankcard served South Orange with a settlement offer and
an offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
68. Capital Bankcard then moved to dismiss the case as moot.

Soon thereafter, the Supreme Court ruled that an unaccepted offer
of judgment, without more, does not moot a named plaintiff's
claims. Seeking another avenue to mootness, Capital Bankcard then
requested permission to deposit a check with the court and have
the court enter judgment against it, which the court denied on
April 12, 2016.

The court then requested that the parties confer on whether to
certify the court's order for interlocutory review. Capital
Bankcard filed a motion to certify the court's April 12, 2016
order for interlocutory appeal.

Chief District Judge Saris denied Capital Bankcard's motion to
certify the court's April 12, 2016 order of interlocutory appeal.

A copy of Chief District Judge Saris's memorandum and order dated
May 31, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/1YxRKdfrom
Leagle.com.

South Orange Chiropractic Center, LLC, Plaintiff, represented by
Anthony I. Paronich at Broderick Law, P.C.; Edward A. Broderick at
The Law Office of Edward A. Broderick; Matthew P. McCue; Law
Office of Matthew P. McCue

Cayan LLC, Defendant, represented by Harry M. Haytayan, Jr. at
Haytayan & Haytayan, PLLC; Christine M. Reilly --
creilly@manatt.com -- Diana L. Eisner -- DEisner@manatt.com --
Matthew P. Kanny -- mkanny@manatt.com -- at Manatt, Phelps &
Phillips, LLP; Peter E. Ball -- peb@sally-fitch.com -- Ryan M.
Cunningham -- rmc@sally-fitch.com -- at Sally & Fitch LLP


CBL & ASSOCIATES: July 26 Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
-----------------------------------------------------
The securities litigation law firm of Brower Piven, A Professional
Corporation, announces that a class action lawsuit has been
commenced in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Tennessee on behalf of purchasers of CBL & Associates
Properties, Inc. ("CBL" or the "Company") common stock during the
period between August 8, 2013 and May 24, 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 26, 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 CBL 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 certain of the
Company's employees may have provided material non-public
information to Senator Robert Corker and that certain of its
financing arrangements were obtained through fraud and/or
misrepresentation.

According to the complaint, following a May 24, 2016 Wall Street
Journal article reporting that CBL is under investigation by both
the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for allegedly inflating the Company's rental
income and occupancy rates for its properties when providing those
figures to banks while applying for financing arrangements and
that both agencies questioned the relationship between the Company
and Senator Corker, the value of CBL shares declined
significantly.

If you have suffered a loss from investment in CBL common stock
purchased on or after August 8, 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.


CBS CORP: Gets Favorable Ruling in Sound Recordings Copyright Case
------------------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad, writing for The National Law Journal, reports
that CBS has amped up the fight over sound recordings made prior
to 1972 with a rare win in California.

A federal judge in the Central District of California granted
summary judgment on May 30 in a case brought by four recording
companies asserting rights over 174 sample song recordings,
including "All I Have To Do Is Dream" by the Everly Brothers and
Mahalia Jackson's "Go Tell It on the Mountain."  The suit claims
that CBS Corp. and CBS Radio Inc., which operates radio.com, have
been illegally playing the song recordings without a license in
violation of California law.

The ruling is the latest in the battle over who owns the rights to
song recordings made prior the U.S. Copyright Act of 1972.
In his order, U.S. District Judge Percy Anderson found that many
of the recordings at issue were remastered after 1972 and,
therefore, subject to federal copyright law, which preempted the
state law claims in the case.

"We are pleased that the court has ruled that the broadcast of
pre-1972 sound recordings that have been remastered after 1972 is
governed by federal copyright law rather than state law,
especially when original expression has been added during the
remastering process," said CBS attorney Robert Schwartz --
rschwartz@irell.com -- a partner at Los Angeles-based Irell &
Manella, in a prepared statement.

Plaintiffs lawyer Robert Allen -- rallen@mckoolsmith.com -- a
principal at McKool Smith in Los Angeles, did not respond to a
request for comment.

The ruling is the latest turn of events in litigation spawned when
Flo & Eddie Inc., a company owned by two of the founding members
of the 1960s rock group The Turtles, began suing Sirius XM Radio
Inc., Pandora Media Inc. and iHeartMedia Inc. over unpaid
royalties.

In Flo & Eddie's case against Sirius, U.S. District Judge Philip
Gutierrez found in 2014 that California law protected public
performance rights for songs recorded prior to 1972.  In New York,
U.S. District Judge Colleen McMahon rejected a summary judgment
motion in 2014 brought by Sirius, which has appealed.

But last year, U.S. District Judge Darrin Gayles of the Southern
District of Florida granted summary judgment to Sirius in a Flo &
Eddie case addressing Florida law.

ABS Entertainment Inc. filed the case against CBS on Aug. 17.  The
case, which was never certified as a class action, was amended to
include Barnaby Records, Brunswick Record Corp. and Malaco as name
plaintiffs.

CBS has filed a summary judgment motion in another case brought by
ABS and the three other plaintiffs in the Southern District of
New York.  The same plaintiffs also have suits pending against
iHeartMedia and Cumulus Media.


CELESTICA INC: Plaintiffs Fail to Revive Certification Motion
-------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Lockwood, Esq., and W. David Rankin, Esq., of Osler Hoskin &
Harcourt LLP, in an article for Lexology, report that what happens
when a change in the law arguably gives fresh life to a previously
failed certification motion? Justice Perell reminds us in the
latest chapter of the "hyper-litigated" Celestica Inc. proceeding
that the ordinary doctrines of res judicata, issue estoppel, and
abuse of process apply.  Prospective representative plaintiffs
cannot avoid these doctrines "by atomizing the legal question
before the court to find some unexamined atom."  Absent an appeal,
denial of certification is final.

This does not mean, however, that the motions judge is functus
officio.  Justice Perell reminds litigants that although denial of
certification is final, the Class Proceedings Act, 1992 contains
mechanisms for the motions judge to permit the failed class action
to proceed in some other form.

Background

Trustees of the Millwright Regional Council of Ontario Pension
Trust Fund v Celestica Inc. ("Celestica Inc.") is the latest
decision in the nearly decade long dispute over alleged
misrepresentations in Celestica's corporate filings.

In brief, the plaintiffs framed their case both in terms of
statutory misrepresentation claims under Part XXIII.1 of the
Ontario Securities Act, as well as the common law tort of
misrepresentation.

Justice Perell granted leave under Part XXIII.1 and certified one
of the alleged statutory misrepresentations claims as a class
action (denying leave in respect of the other statutory claims).
However, he denied certification of the common law
misrepresentation claims on the basis that a class action would
not be the preferable procedure.

The plaintiffs' partial success vanished with the release of the
Supreme Court's decision in Green.  At the time that Justice
Perell certified the statutory claim, the law according to the
Ontario Court of Appeal was that the plaintiffs' statutory claims
under Part XXIII.1 were not statute-barred.  The Supreme Court
subsequently reversed this position in Green, with the result
being that the plaintiffs' statutory claims were no longer viable
because the limitations period had expired.  Accordingly, the only
claim that was certified by Justice Perell was deemed to be
statute-barred.

In this latest chapter, the plaintiffs responded by moving again
to certify their common law claims.

Issue Estoppel Or Abuse Of Process

Justice Perell refused to entertain the renewed motion to certify
a common law misrepresentation claim.  The original certification
decision had not been appealed, so re-litigating these very same
issues on a renewed certification motion was precluded by the
doctrines of issue estoppel and/or abuse of process.

On the premise that -- between the original decision and the
renewed certification motion -- the Green decision had ruled out
the statutory claims, the plaintiffs argued that this change
resulted in an unanswered question in the original certification
decision: if there were no statutory claims as a viable litigation
alternative, is a class action for the common law claims now the
preferable procedure? Justice Perell did not accept that this
question was "unasked," as he had considered whether a class
action was the preferable procedure for the common law claims,
standing alone.

Moreover, Justice Perell found no injustice to justify exercising
his discretion not to apply issue estoppel.  The plaintiffs "have
had their day in court and they can continue to advance their
individual claim." Justice Perell reminds us that "[a] class
action is not the exclusive route for mass claims" and that
joinder of claims may be an effective way to resolve cases with
multiple plaintiffs.

Lessons Learned

Justice Perell's decision in Celestica Inc. provides a powerful
response to attempts to revive a failed certification motion, even
in the face of a change in law.  Unless appealed, a decision
refusing to certify a class proceeding is a final and binding
decision.  The doctrines of issue estoppel and abuse of process
may be invoked to preclude the plaintiff from revisiting
certification (subject to the motion judge's discretion to not
apply these doctrines).

Although Justice Perell rejected the attempt to revive the
certification motion, he outlined the proper procedural options
available following the denial of certification.  In so doing, he
noted that the motions judge is not functus officio.  If the
plaintiffs seek to continue the action in another form, they
should bring a motion under section 7 of the Class Proceedings
Act, 1992 for orders to "permit the proceeding to continue as one
or more proceedings between different parties."  Justice Perell
expressly left the door open to the plaintiffs in Celestica Inc.
to follow this procedure under section 7, if so advised.


CHATHAM LODGING: Paid Entire Liability for Class Action Claim
-------------------------------------------------------------
Chatham Lodging Trust said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that the Company has paid
entire liability for a class action claim.

An affiliate of the Company was a defendant, along with IHM, in a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court under
the title Martinez et al v. Island Hospitality Management, Inc.,
et al. Case No. 37-2012-00096221-CU-OE-CTL.  The class action
lawsuit related to 15 hotels operated by IHM in the state of CA
and owned by affiliates of the Company, NewINK JV, Innkeepers JV,
and/or certain third parties.  The lawsuit alleged various wage
and hour law violations, including unpaid off-the-clock work,
failure to provide meal breaks and failure to provide rest breaks.
The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, money damages, penalties
and interest. The parties reached a global settlement of the
matter which was approved by the Court on February 5, 2016.

"As of March 31, 2016, we have paid our entire liability for this
claim and therefore, there is zero remaining liability in accounts
payable and accrued expenses," the Company said.


CLARK COUNTY, IN: Sued for Denying Feminine Hygiene Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Lexy Gross, writing for Courier-Journal, reports that a
Jeffersonville woman is suing Clark County and its jail officials
for allegedly denying her feminine hygiene products while booked
temporarily in the "drunk tank."

The class action complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court by
Louisville attorney Laura Landenwich on May 31, claims officials
violated the rights of 36-year-old Melissa Houglin when she was
allegedly ignored by Clark County Jail officers after asking for
"a feminine hygiene product of any kind."

According to online court records, Ms. Houglin was arrested on
Aug. 15, 2014, for a domestic battery misdemeanor and taken to the
Clark County Jail.  She was released six days later, and the state
filed a motion to dismiss the charge against Ms. Houglin earlier
in May.

Public Information Officer Scottie Maples said on May 31 the
Sheriff's Department can't comment on the suit, but said several
changes were made to Clark County Jail policies dealing with
hygiene products before officials were made aware of the suit. Mr.
Maples said they're now available "at all posts" in the jail, in
the commissary and in holding cells.

"We also now issue female inmates undergarments during intake,"
Mr. Maples said.  "This process was also changed prior to knowing
about any lawsuit."

"I had to sit in my own blood for over 36 hours," Ms. Houglin said
at Landenwich's office on May 31. " . . . Not only was I
humiliated, I was embarrassed.  I just want to know that this
isn't going to happen to another female ever again."

Ms. Houglin and other inmates in the holding cell tried to get the
attention of officers but were told to "shut up," according to the
suit.  Eventually, another inmate provided Ms. Houglin with a
tampon, and jail officers ignored her requests until she had been
incarcerated for nearly 24 hours.

"Houglin bled onto the floor where she slept," the suit alleges.

Another inmate provided Ms. Houglin with a towel, the suit says,
and Ms. Houglin removed her clothing and wrapped herself in the
towel.  An officer brought her a new jumpsuit and a single
sanitary napkin.  She wasn't provided with underwear -- making it
difficult for her to use the sanitary napkin -- and wasn't allowed
to shower while in the holding tank, the suit alleges.

"During the course of her incarceration, a psychologist came by
the holding tank where Ms. Houglin was being held.  The
psychologist was disgusted by the condition -- both sight and
smell -- of the cell, and told Defendants to have someone clean it
up," the suit says.

During a four-day menstrual cycle, the jail gave Ms. Houglin three
sanitary napkins and one tampon.  The suit points out that tampon
manufacturers recommend changing tampons at least every four to
eight hours.

The suit says that the jail does not purchase feminine hygiene
products, but instead relies on donations.  Ms. Landenwich said on
May 31 she hasn't seen any actual records of feminine hygiene
product donations to the jail.

It further alleges that the jail doesn't provide underwear for
women, and Ms. Landenwich said jail records show that only 26
pairs of women's underwear were purchased during a two-year
period.  In addition, the complaint says the holding tank is often
overcrowded and women are deprived of access to the shower, "even
when they are there for several days and are ill or menstruating."

According to the Louisville Metro Corrections inmate handbook,
feminine products are distributed to each female living area
daily.

Ms. Landenwich claims in the suit that jail officials invoked
cruel and unusual punishment prohibited under the Eighth Amendment
of the U.S. Constitution.  On May 31 and in the suit, she stressed
the importance of training corrections officers and having
specific policies to address the menstrual cycles of female
inmates.

Ms. Landenwich also discussed the jail's past, which has been
plagued by legal battles, overcrowding issues and alleged
mismanagement.  Mr. Maples noted on May 31 that many of the
defendants are previous Clark County Jail officials, not the
current staff.

In August of last year, a four-month employee of the Clark County
Jail was charged with sexual misconduct after police said he
admitted to having sex with an inmate.  Also in August, a work
crew program for inmates was suspended after police said a former
inmate tried to sneak phones and drugs to those inside the jail.

Jamey Noel, a former Indiana State Police officer and chair of
Clark County's GOP, won the election for sheriff in 2014, after
former Sheriff Danny Rodden signed a plea deal in federal court,
admitting he lied to the FBI about paying a prostitute for oral
sex. He was also part of a federal lawsuit regarding the jail's
drug court treatment program.

Ms. Landenwich said Mr. Noel is included in the suit because, to
her knowledge, no changes in policy, procedures or training have
happened under his watch as sheriff.

The jail has also been host of an A&E Network series, "60 Days
In," which filmed seven "innocent volunteers" undercover in an
attempt by Noel to address issues within the jail.  Mr. Noel told
the Courier-Journal in May that the show sparked the firings of
five corrections officers and four additional resignations.

"We're left with this directionless staff that will decide on a
whim whether or not they'll provide these products to the
inmates," Ms. Landenwich said on May 31.

Ms. Landenwich said she expects additional plaintiffs to join the
class action lawsuit, based on similar allegations that have been
brought to her attention. She also said she doesn't think Clark
County is unique, and jails across the U.S. have faced similar
allegations.

"We know for a fact Melissa isn't the only one," Ms. Landenwich
said.  "This is very embarrassing and sensitive material, so a lot
of people haven't been willing to be the face that gives a voice
to these women siting in these cells."


CLAY & LAND: Sued in Miss. Over RICO Act Violation
--------------------------------------------------
Andrea Mihelic, Most Valuable Personnel, LLC, and other plaintiffs
similarly situated v. Clay & Land Insurance, Inc., Clay & Wright
Insurance, Inc., Louis G. Clay, Jr., Jo Beth Glassco, Debbie
McNeal, and John Does 1-10, Case No. 3:16-cv-00097-NBB-JMV (N.D.
Miss., May 23, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
(RICO) Act.

The Defendants own and operate an insurance company located at 866
Ridgeway Loop Rd #200, Memphis, TN 38120.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Lonnie Marvin Vining, Esq.
      MARVIN VINING, ATTORNEY AT LAW, LLC
      P.O. Box 250
      Monticello, MS 39654-0250
      Telephone: (601) 842-2589
      E-mail: marvinvining@mac.com


CLYDE HILL, WA: New Cingular's Declaratory Action Revived
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS PCS, LLC, a Delaware
limited liability company, Respondent, v. THE CITY OF CLYDE HILL,
WASHINGTON, Petitioner, No. 91978-0 (Wash.), the Supreme Court of
Washington affirmed the Court of Appeals' reversal of the trial
court's dismissal of New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC's action for
declaratory judgment against the City of Clyde Hill.

A full-text copy of the Washington Supreme Court's May 26, 2016
order is available at https://is.gd/4RmKVt from Leagle.com.

On July 6, 2012, Clyde Hill issued a notice of violation (NOV) and
assessed a $293,131 fine against New Cingular based on its
determination that New Cingular violated city code by "making
false statement[s] or representation[s] in or in connection with
utility tax returns submitted and received monthly by the City of
Clyde Hill from November, 2005, through December, 2010."

On April 10, 2013, New Cingular challenged the legality of the
municipal fine in King County Superior Court by filing an action
for declaratory judgment, and asked the court to invalidate the
NOV.  Clyde Hill answered, counterclaimed, and later moved for
summary judgment, arguing that the court did not have trial
jurisdiction to consider the validity of the NOV (a quasi-judicial
decision) under article IV, section 6 of the Washington
Constitution or RCW 2.08.010.

The trial court granted Clyde Hill's motion for summary judgment,
dismissed New Cingular's complaint on the basis that "[New
Cingular] should have sought review by filing a timely petition
for writ of review," and awarded Clyde Hill $293,131.00 plus 12
percent interest per annum. CP at 694. The trial court also
awarded Clyde Hill $47,500.90 in attorney fees.

The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, reinstating New
Cingular's declaratory judgment action.  The Court of Appeals
reasoned that a "complaint for declaratory judgment invokes the
superior court's trial jurisdiction, while a petition for
certiorari invokes the superior court's appellate jurisdiction,"
and both the state constitution and RCW 2.08.010 permit either
option.  The Court of Appeals held that either avenue is
permissible for a service provider to contest the legality of a
municipal fine in superior court, as long as administrative
remedies are first exhausted.

Greg Alan Rubstello -- grubstello@omwlaw.com -- Attorney at Law,
901 5th Ave Ste 3500, Seattle, WA, 98164-2059, Philip Albert
Talmadge, Talmadge/Fitzpatrick/Tribe, 2775, Harbor Ave. Sw., Third
Floor Ste C., Seattle, WA, 98126-2138, Stephanie Ellen Croll,
Stephanie Croll Law, 23916, Se., 46th Pl., Issaquah, WA, 98029-
7581, Counsel for Petitioner(s).

Ryan P. McBride -- mcbrider@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC., Po
Box 91302, 1420, 5th Ave Ste 4200, Seattle, WA, 98111-9402, Scott
M. Edwards -- edwardss@lanepowell.com -- Lane Powell PC., Po Box
91302, 1420, 5th Ave Ste 4200, Seattle, WA, 98111-9402, Counsel
for Respondent(s).

Daniel Brian Heid, City of Auburn, 25, W. Main St., Auburn, WA,
98001-4998, Amicus Curiae on behalf of Washington State
Association of Municipal Attorneys.


COACH INC: "Rael" Class Suit Transferred to S.D. New York
---------------------------------------------------------
Monica Rael, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Coach Inc. and Does 1- 50 inclusive, Case No. 3:16-cv-
00347, was transferred from the United States District Court -
District of California Southern to the U.S. District Court
Southern District of New York (Foley Square). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03773-UA to the proceeding.

Coach Inc. operates a luxury fashion company based in New York
City.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Todd D. Carpenter, Esq.
      CARLSON LYNCH SWEET KILPELA & CARPENTER LLP
      402 West Broadway, 29th Floor
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 756-6994
      Facsimile: (619) 756-6991
      E-mail: tcarpenter@carlsonlynch.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Joseph Duffy, Esq.
      MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
      300 South Grand Avenue
      Twenty-Second Floor
      Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
      Telephone: (213) 612-7378
      Facsimile: (213) 612-2501
      E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com


COLLECTIONS BUREAU: Case Management Schedule on "Brown" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard Seeborg of the Northern District of
California, made a case management scheduling order in the case
MALIK BROWN, Plaintiff, v. COLLECTIONS BUREAU OF AMERICA, LTD,
Defendant Case No. 16-cv-00720-RS (N.D. Cal.)

The deadline to amend the pleadings without seeking leave from the
court shall be August 24, 2016.

Discovery shall be limited as follows: (a) 10 non-expert
depositions per party; (b) 25 interrogatories per party, including
all discrete subparts; (c) a reasonable number of requests for
production of documents or for inspection per party; and (d) a
reasonable number of requests for admission per party.

Discovery disputes will be referred to a Magistrate Judge. After
the parties have met and conferred, the parties shall prepare a
joint letter of not more than 5 pages explaining the dispute. Up
to 12 pages of attachments may be added. The Magistrate Judge to
whom the matter is assigned will advise the parties of how that
Judge intends to proceed. The Magistrate Judge may issue a ruling,
order more formal briefing, or set a telephone conference or a
hearing. After a Magistrate Judge has been assigned, all further
discovery matters shall be filed pursuant to that judge's
procedures.

Plaintiff's motion for class certification shall be heard on May
25, 2017, at 1:30 p.m. in Courtroom 3, 17th Floor, United States
Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, California.

A copy of Judge Seeborg's case management scheduling order dated
May 26, 2016, is available at http://goo.gl/4m3ApTfrom
Leagle.com.

Malik Brown, Plaintiff, represented by Yeremey O. Krivoshey --
ykrivoshey@bursor.com -- Annick Marie Persinger --
apersinger@bursor.com -- Lawrence Timothy Fisher --
ltfisher@bursor.com -- Scott A. Bursor -- scott@bursor.com -- at
Bursor Fisher, P.A.

Collections Bureau of America, LTD, Defendant, represented by Gabe
Peterson Wright -- gwright@hahnlaw.com -- Kyle Thomas Overs --
kovers@hahnlaw.com -- at Hahn Loeser & Parks LLP


COMPUTER SCIENCES: Plotnick Appeals E.D. Virginia Court Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Jeffrey Plotnick and James C. Kennedy, on behalf of
themselves, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in their lawsuit
styled Jeffrey Plotnick v. Computer Sciences Corporation, Case No.
1:15-cv-01002-TSE-TCB, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Virginia at Alexandria.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Sept. 30,
2015, the Action is brought pursuant to the Employee Retirement
Income Security Act on behalf of a class of participants in the
Computer Sciences Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Key
Executives, who retired from employment with CSC before Jan. 1,
2013, to establish their right to benefits under the CSC Plan as
it existed as of their retirement.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffrey Plotnick v. Computer
Sciences Corporation, Case No. 16-1606, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Kira Layne-Schwabe Hettinger, Esq.
          COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC
          1100 New York Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20005-3965
          Telephone: (202) 408-4600
          Facsimile: (202) 408-4699
          E-mail: khettinger@cohenmilstein.com

Defendants-Appellees Computer Sciences Corporation Deferred
Compensation Plan for Key Executives and Computer Sciences
Corporation are represented by:

          Peter David Larson, Esq.
          Andrew George Sakallaris, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
          Washington, DC 20004-0000
          Telephone: (202) 739-5802
          Facsimile: (202) 739-3001
          E-mail: david.larson@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Thomas Anton Linthorst, Esq.
          MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP
          502 Carnegie Center
          Princeton, NJ 08540
          Telephone: (609) 919-6642
          Facsimile: (609) 919-6701
          E-mail: thomas.linthorst@morganlewis.com


CONAIR CORPORATION: Limits Deposition of "Wilson" Plaintiff
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, DELIA WILSON, on Behalf of Herself and All Others
Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. CONAIR CORPORATION, Defendant,
Case No. 1:14-cv-00894-WBS-SAB (E.D. Cal.), Magistrate Judge
Stanley A. Boone approved a stipulation regarding the deposition
of plaintiff.  The parties agree that Conair's second deposition
of plaintiff will be limited as follows:

     (1) The scope of the deposition will be limited to
plaintiff's individual claims for personal injury and the new
class allegations that were added to the First Amended Class
Action Complaint; and

     (2) The deposition was slated to take place on June 6, 2016,
at 9:00 a.m., at the Hotel Indigo Santa Barbara, 121 State Street,
Santa Barbara, CA 93101, which is subject to modification for good
cause and/or upon agreement of the parties, without further order
of the Court and will be limited to four hours of testimony time.

A copy of the Court's May 31 Order is available at
https://is.gd/spu1YD from Leagle.com.

Delia Wilson, Plaintiff, represented by Jennifer L. MacPherson,
Blood Hurst & O'reardon, LLP, Katherine J. Odenbreit --
kodenbreit@mahoney-law.net -- Odenbreit Law, APC, Leslie E. Hurst
-- lhurst@bholaw.com -- Thomas J. O'Reardon, II --
toreardon@bholaw.com -- and Timothy G. Blood -- tblood@bholaw.com
-- at Blood Hurst & O'reardon, LLP.

Conair Corporation, Defendant, represented by Ryan Donald Saba --
rsaba@rosensaba.com -- at Rosen Saba.


CONWAY PROWASH: Mich. Judge Tosses "Steimel" Suit
-------------------------------------------------
In the case, TROY STEIMEL, Plaintiff, v. CONWAY PROWASH, LLC,
PREVENTION FIRE AND SAFETY LLC, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES LLC, and
BARDLEY BEHRENDT, Defendants, No. 1:15-cv-599 (W.D. Mich.),
District Judge Paul L. Maloney granted Defendants' motion for
summary judgment, dismissed Plaintiff's Fair Labor Standard Act
claim and declined to exercise jurisdiction over Plaintiff's state
claim based class action claim.

A copy of the May 31 Judgment is available at https://is.gd/ogyDMk
from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff Troy Steimel is represented by Amy Lynn Marino --
amarino@sommerspc.com -- Jesse Lee Randolph Young --
jyoung@sommerspc.com -- Kevin J. Stoops -- kstoops@sommerspc.com -
- and Neil Bryan Pioch -- NPioch@sommerspc.com -- at Sommers
Schwartz PC.

Defendants Conway Prowash, LLC, Prevention Fire & Safety, LLC,
Conway Professional Services, LLC, Bradley Behrendt are
represented by Matthew S. Disbrow -- mdisbrow@honigman.com -- and
Matthew Edward Radler -- mradler@honigman.com -- at Honigman
Miller Schwartz and Cohn LLP.


CORRECT CARE: Denial of Class Cert. Bid in "Bishop" Recommended
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned HARRY C. BISHOP, III, Plaintiff v. CORRECT
CARE SOLUTIONS LLC, et al., Defendants, No. 2:16-cv-00172-JAW (D.
Me.), Judge John C. Nivison recommended the following to the
district court:

          (1) to deny without prejudice the plaintiff's motion to
              certify class;

          (2) to dismiss as moot the plaintiff's motion to
              expedite ruling on class certification;

          (3) to dismiss the plaintiff's claims based on the
              defendants' medical care and special diet
              practices;

          (4) to dismiss the defendants Correct Care Solutions
              (CCS), Wendy Riebe, Health Services Administrator
              for CCS, and Robert Clinton M.D., Regional Medical
              Director for CCS; and

          (5) to order service on the remaining defendants for
              the remaining claims.

A full-text copy of Judge Nivison's May 24, 2016 recommended
decision is available at https://is.gd/YIvvS8 from Leagle.com.

Harry Bishop III, an inmate in the custody of Maine Department of
Corrections, asserted multiple civil rights claims on his own
behalf and on behalf of others.  Bishop also filed an application
to proceed in forma pauperis, which application the district court
granted.

A preliminary review of Bishop's complaint was deemed appropriate
in accordance with the in forma pauperis statute.  Additionally,
Bishop's complaint was subjected to screening "before docketing,
if feasible or . . . as soon as practicable after docketing,"
because he is "a prisoner seek[ing] redress from a governmental
entity or officer or employee of a governmental entity."


DA/PRO RUBBER: "Ramos" Seeks to Recover Unpaid Overtime Wages
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrea Ramos, an individual, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated v. DA/PRO Rubber, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,
Case No. BC621297 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 20, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages and penalties under California Labor
Code.

DA/PRO Rubber, Inc. is in the business of manufacturing rubber and
plastic products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Paul K. Haines, Esq.
      Tuvia Korobkin, Esq.
      Fletcher W. Schmidt, Esq.
      Andrew J. Rowbotham, Esq.
      HAINES LAW GROUP, APC
      2274 East Maple Ave.
      El Segundo, CA 90245
      Telephone: (424) 292-2350
      Facsimile: (424) 292-2355
      E-mail: phaines@haineslawgroup.com
              tkorobkin@haineslawgroup.com
              fschmidt@haineslawgroup.com
              arowbotham@haineslawgroup.com


DEALERTRACK TECHNOLOGIES: Plaintiff Dismisses Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------
Notice is hereby provided to all persons who held shares of common
stock of Dealertrack Technologies, Inc. ("Dealertrack") on or
after June 11, 2015.

The purpose of this notice is to inform you of recent developments
with respect to the litigation in the Court of Chancery for the
State of Delaware (the "Court") captioned Reiferson v. O'Neil,
C.A. No. 11295-CB (the "Action"), previously described in
securities filings made by Dealertrack, including the plaintiff's
agreement to voluntarily dismiss the Action and an agreement to
pay a total of $200,000 in full satisfaction of plaintiff's
counsels' fees and expenses in the Action.

On June 26, 2015, Dealertrack filed a Solicitation/Recommendation
Statement on Schedule 14D-9 (the "Schedule 14D-9") with the United
States Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") regarding a
tender offer (the "Tender Offer") by Cox Automotive, Inc. ("Cox")
and Runway Acquisition Co. ("Runway") to acquire all outstanding
shares of Dealertrack stock for $63.25 per share in cash, followed
by a short-form merger, pursuant to a Merger Agreement, dated June
15, 2015, by and among Dealertrack, Cox, and Runway (the
"Transaction").

On July 15, 2015, Henry L. Refierson ("Plaintiff"), a stockholder
of Dealertrack, filed a class action complaint in the Court
against Dealertrack's chief executive officer and the members of
Dealertrack's Board of Directors alleging breaches of fiduciary
duty.  Cox and Runway were also named as defendants in the Action
for allegedly aiding and abetting the breaches of fiduciary duty
by the other defendants.  Plaintiff's complaint alleged that the
consideration offered to Dealertrack stockholders in the
Transaction was unfair and inadequate.  Plaintiff's complaint also
identified items that Plaintiff alleged should have been disclosed
to Dealertrack stockholders in the Schedule 14D-9, the purported
absence of which Plaintiff alleged deprived Dealertrack's
stockholders of the ability to make a fully-informed decision on
whether to tender their shares.  Among other things, Plaintiff
sought an injunction preventing completion of the Transaction, the
disclosure of additional facts relating to the Transaction, higher
consideration for Dealertrack's stockholders, and monetary
damages.

On July 18, 2015, as part of a tentative settlement of the Action,
Dealertrack filed Amendment No. 3 to the Schedule 14D-9
("Amendment No. 3") to provide supplemental disclosures addressing
Plaintiff's claims.  These supplemental disclosures pertained to
Dealertrack management's financial projections, the Dealertrack
CEO's employment discussions with Cox, and the Dealertrack board
of directors' financial advisor's fairness opinion.

On September 30, 2015, the Tender Offer expired with Runway
receiving approximately 77.08% of the shares of Dealertrack's
common stock validly tendered and not withdrawn.  On October 1,
2015, the Transaction was completed via a short-form merger.

Thereafter, the parties agreed not to proceed with the proposed
settlement of the Action.  Instead, Plaintiff agreed to
voluntarily dismiss the Action on the basis that it was mooted by
the supplemental disclosures contained in Amendment No. 3.  After
Plaintiff agreed to voluntarily dismiss the Action, Plaintiff's
counsel and Defendants' counsel engaged in arm's-length
discussions regarding the payment of attorneys' fees and
reimbursement of expenses to Plaintiff's counsel.  Cox, or one or
more of its subsidiaries, agreed to pay Plaintiff's counsel a fee
in the amount of $200,000.

On May 31, 2016, the Court entered an order dismissing the Action
with prejudice as to Plaintiff, and without prejudice as to all
other members of the putative class.  In connection with that
order, Cox or one or more of its subsidiaries will pay Plaintiff's
counsel $200,000 in full satisfaction of Plaintiff's counsels'
fees and expenses in the Action.  This payment has not been in any
way approved or ruled upon by the Court.

Plaintiff's counsel are Rigrodsky & Long, P.A. and Levi &
Korsinsky, LLP.

CONTACT:

Levi & Korsinsky, LLP
Shannon L. Hopkins, Esq.
30 Broad Street - 24th Floor
New York, NY 10004
Tel: (212) 363-7500
Toll Free:  (877) 363-5972
Fax: (212) 363-7171
www.zlk.com


DEBT RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Hanuka" Action Claims
--------------------------------------------------------------
Sylvia Hanuka, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-02583
(E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Debt Recovery Solutions, LLC operates a debt collection company
located at 900 Merchants Concourse # 106, Westbury, NY 11590.

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

DIAMOND 1: Faces "Vallejo" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
------------------------------------------------------------
Domingo Vallejo, Jose Castillo, Luis M. Ramirez, on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Diamond 1 Parking Garage, Inc.
d/b/a Diamond Garage, Hand Wash Carwash, and Jacobo Dominguez,
Case No. 1:16-cv-03799 (S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate an automobile parking company
located in New York, New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DIGIRAD IMAGING: Faces "Smith" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Shaun Smith, as an individual, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated and aggrieved employees v. Digirad Imaging
Solutions, Inc., Digirad Corporation, Samia Arram, Michael Keenan,
David Keenan, Matt Molchan and Does 1 through 20, Case No.
RG16816494 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 20, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the
California Labor Code.

The Defendants operate a company that is focused on designing,
developing, manufacturing, maintaining, marketing, and
distributing nuclear imaging systems and radiopharmaceuticals for
nuclear medicine.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas A. Carlin, Esq.
      Brian S. Conlon, Esq.
      Anna Gourgiotopoulou, Esq.
      PHILLIPS, ERLEWINE, GIVEN & CARLIN LLP
      39 Mesa Street, Suite 201
      The Presidio
      San Francisco, CA 94129
      Telephone: (415) 398-0900
      Facsimile: (415) 398-0911
      E-mail: nac@phillaw.com
              bsc@phillaw.com
              agw@phillaw.com


DIVERSIFIED ADJUSTMENT: Illegally Collects Debt, Suit Claims
------------------------------------------------------------
Amy Gimble, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. and Does 1
through 10, inclusive, Case No. 2:16-cv-03518 (C.D. Cal., May 20,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable
means to collect a debt.

Diversified Adjustment Service, Inc. operates an accounts
receivable management and credit reporting agency headquartered at
600 Coon Rapids Blvd NW, Coon Rapids, MN 55433.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Amir J. Goldstein, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF AMIR J GOLDSTEIN
      8032 West Third Street, Suite 201
      Los Angeles, CA 90048
      Telephone: (323) 937-0400
      Facsimile: (866) 288-9194
      E-mail: ajg@consumercounselgroup.com


DUKE ENERGY: Class Suit v. Duke Energy Florida Underway
-------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress
Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that Newton, et al v. FP&L, was filed on February 22,
2016, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of
Florida on behalf of a putative class of Duke Energy Florida and
FP&L's customers in Florida. The suit alleges the State of
Florida's nuclear power plant cost recovery statutes (NCRS) are
unconstitutional and pre-empted by federal law. Plaintiffs claim
they are entitled to repayment of all money paid by customers of
Duke Energy Florida and FP&L as a result of the NCRS, as well as
an injunction against any future charges under those statutes. The
constitutionality of the NCRS has been challenged unsuccessfully
in a number of prior cases on alternative grounds. Duke Energy
Florida's response to the complaint was due May 5, 2016. Duke
Energy Florida cannot predict the outcome of this matter.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


DUKE ENERGY: Settlement of Duke Energy Ohio Suit Approved
---------------------------------------------------------
Duke Energy Corporation, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, Progress
Energy, Inc., Duke Energy Progress, LLC, Duke Energy Florida, LLC,
Duke Energy Ohio, Inc., and Duke Energy Indiana, Inc. said in
their Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended March
31, 2016, that the settlement of a class action lawsuit against
Duke Energy Ohio was approved at a hearing held on April 19, 2016.

In January 2008, four plaintiffs, including individual, industrial
and nonprofit customers, filed a lawsuit against Duke Energy Ohio
in federal court in the Southern District of Ohio. Plaintiffs
alleged Duke Energy Ohio conspired to provide inequitable and
unfair price advantages for certain large business consumers by
entering into nonpublic option agreements in exchange for their
withdrawal of challenges to Duke Energy Ohio's Rate Stabilization
Plan implemented in early 2005.

In March 2014, a federal judge certified this matter as a class
action. Plaintiffs allege claims for antitrust violations under
the federal Robinson Patman Act as well as fraud and conspiracy
allegations under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations statute and the Ohio Corrupt Practices Act.

On October 21, 2015, the parties received preliminary court
approval for a settlement agreement. A litigation settlement
reserve was recorded for the full amount of $81 million and
classified in Other within Current Liabilities on Duke Energy
Ohio's Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as of March 31, 2016.
The settlement was approved at a hearing held on April 19, 2016.

Duke Energy Corporation is an energy company headquartered in
Charlotte, North Carolina, subject to regulation by the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).


ENERGY RECOVERY: Consolidated Stockholder Actions Pending
---------------------------------------------------------
Energy Recovery, Inc. continues to defend the consolidated
stockholder class action lawsuits, it said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2016.

On January 20 and 27, 2015, two stockholder class action
complaints were filed against the Company in the United States
District Court of the Northern District of California, on behalf
of Energy Recovery stockholders under the captions, Joseph
Sabatino v. Energy Recovery, Inc. et al., Case No. 3:15-cv-00265
EMC, and Thomas C. Mowdy v. Energy Recovery, Inc, et al., Case No.
3:15-cv-00374 EMC. The complaints have now been consolidated under
the caption, In Re Energy Recovery Inc. Securities Litigation,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00265 EMC. The complaint alleges violations of
Section 10(b), Rule 10b-5, and Section 20(a) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 based upon alleged public misrepresentations
and seeks the recovery of unspecified monetary damages. The
Company is not able to estimate the possible loss, if any, due to
the early stage of this matter.


EPIC SYSTEMS: Class Action Waivers Unenforceable, 6th Cir. Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------
John T. Roache, Esq. -- john.roache@akerman.com -- of Akerman LLP,
in an article for Lexology, reports that the Seventh Circuit Court
of Appeals held that collective and class action waivers contained
in arbitration agreements with employees are unenforceable and
violate the National Labor Relations Act.  Reaching the opposite
conclusion as the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and siding with
the NLRB, the Seventh Circuit also held that the Federal
Arbitration Act does not alter this outcome.  The arbitration
agreement in question did not allow the employee to opt out, but
the Seventh Circuit suggested that arbitration agreements with
class and collective action waivers would be unenforceable
regardless of the employee's right to opt out.

Employers operating in Illinois should review their arbitration
agreements with counsel and consider the impact of the Seventh
Circuit's ruling on those agreements.  The case is Lewis v. Epic
Systems Corp., No. 15-2997 (7th Cir. May 26, 2016).


ETSY INC: Still Faces "Altayyar" Action in New York
---------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016, that a purported securities class action complaint
(Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc., et al., Docket No. 1:15-cv-02785) was
filed on May 13, 2015, in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of New York against the Company and certain
officers. The complaint was brought on behalf of a purported class
consisting of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise
acquired shares of the Company's common stock from April 16, 2015
through and including May 10, 2015. It asserted violations of
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
based on allegedly false or misleading statements and omissions
with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement.

On October 22, 2015, the court appointed a lead plaintiff and lead
plaintiff's counsel. On January 21, 2016, lead plaintiff filed an
amended class action complaint alleging false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to substantially the same
topics as the original complaint. The amended complaint adds
certain outside directors and underwriters as defendants, expands
the purported class period to be April 16, 2015 to August 4, 2015,
inclusive, and asserts violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15
of the Securities Act of 1933, as well as Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The amended complaint
seeks certification as a class action and unspecified compensatory
damages plus interest and attorneys' fees.

The Company and the named officers and directors intend to defend
themselves vigorously against this action. In light of, among
other things, the early stage of the litigation, the Company is
unable to predict the outcome of this matter and is unable to make
a meaningful estimate of the amount or range of loss, if any, that
could result from an unfavorable outcome.

Etsy operates a marketplace where people around the world connect,
both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique goods.


ETSY INC: Still Faces "Cervantes" and "Weiss" Actions in Calif.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Etsy, Inc., in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period ended
March 31, 2016, that a purported securities class action complaint
(Cervantes v. Dickerson, et.al., Case No. CIV 534768) was filed on
July 21, 2015, in the Superior Court of State of California,
County of San Mateo, against the Company, certain officers,
directors and underwriters. The complaint asserts violations of
Sections 11 and 15 of the Securities Act of 1933.  As in the
Altayyar litigation, the complaint alleges misrepresentations in
the Company's Registration Statement on Form S-1 and Prospectus
with respect to, among other things, merchandise for sale on the
Company's website that may be counterfeit or constitute trademark
or copyright infringement. The complaint seeks certification as a
class action and unspecified compensatory damages plus interest
and attorneys' fees.

On November 5, 2015, another purported securities class action
complaint (Weiss v. Etsy et al., No. CIV 536123) was filed in the
Superior Court of State of California, County of San Mateo. The
Weiss complaint names as defendants the Company and the same
officers, directors and underwriters named in the Cervantes
complaint, and also asserts violations of Sections 11 and 15 of
the Securities Act of 1933 based on allegedly false or misleading
statements or omissions with respect to, among other things,
merchandise for sale on the Company's website that may be
counterfeit or constitute trademark or copyright infringement.

On December 24, 2015, the court consolidated the Cervantes and
Weiss actions. The Company and the named officers and directors
intend to defend themselves vigorously against these consolidated
actions. On February 3, 2016, the court granted the Company's
motion to stay the consolidated actions.

In light of, among other things, the early stage of the
litigation, the Company is unable to predict the outcome of this
matter and is unable to make a meaningful estimate of the amount
or range of loss, if any, that could result from an unfavorable
outcome.

Etsy operates a marketplace where people around the world connect,
both online and offline, to make, sell and buy unique goods.


EVERCORE PARTNERS: Briefing Has Yet to Begin in "Coburn" Appeal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Evercore Partners Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that briefing has not yet
commenced on the appeal by Donna Marie Coburn.

In January 2015, Donna Marie Coburn filed a proposed class action
complaint against Evercore Trust Company ("ETC") in the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia, in which she
purported to represent a class of participants in the J.C. Penney
Corporation Inc. Savings, Profit-Sharing and Stock Ownership Plan
(the "Plan") whose participant accounts held J.C. Penney stock at
any time between May 15, 2012 and the present. The complaint
alleged that ETC breached its fiduciary duties under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act by causing the Plan to invest in
J.C. Penney stock during that period and claimed that the Plan
suffered losses of approximately $300 million due to declines in
J.C. Penney stock.

ETC believes that it has meritorious defenses against the
plaintiff's claims and intends to vigorously defend the action.
ETC is indemnified by J.C. Penney, and ultimately the Plan, for
reasonable attorneys' fees and other legal expenses, which would
be refunded should ETC not prevail.

On April 13, 2015, ETC moved to dismiss the complaint for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and on February
17, 2016, the district court granted ETC's motion to dismiss. On
March 15, 2016, plaintiff noticed an appeal of the district
court's decision. Briefing has not yet commenced on the appeal.


EXPRESS FREIGHT: Faces "Connor" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan Connor, on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated
individuals v. Express Freight Handlers, Inc., James Wissing, and
Brian Shedlick, Case No. 1684CV01628 (Mass. Cmmw., May 23, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime
wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a company providing freight unloading
services to the public.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Charlotte Drew, Esq.
      Raven Moeslinger, Esq.
      Nicholas F. Ortiz, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF NICHOLAS F. ORTIZ, P.C.
      99 High Street, Suite 304
      Boston, MA 02110
      Telephone: (617) 338-9400
      E-mail: cdrew@mass-1egal.com


FACEBOOK INC: June 15 Privacy Class Action Status Conference Set
----------------------------------------------------------------
Tony Mauro, writing for Law.com, reports that an Illinois law that
has proven a major obstacle for companies such as Facebook Inc.
and Google Inc. as they try to expand the use of facial-
recognition technology may soon be weakened.

Illinois State Sen. Terry Link, who first introduced the Illinois
Biometric Information Privacy Act in 2008, on May 26 submitted
amendments that would limit its scope in ways that technology
companies have argued for in litigation under the law.

As currently written, the Illinois statute says biometric scans of
a person's body cannot be performed without explicit consent.
Link's proposed changes would limit the consent requirement to
"data resulting from an in-person process whereby a part of the
body is traversed by a detector or an electronic beam."

That change, if it is approved, would allow tech companies to make
biometric scans from photographs and videos already in existence
that don't require in-person contact.  Facebook's technology scans
photographs and suggests users of the site "tag" a friend who is
identifiable in the image.

The Illinois law is at the heart of a class action in San
Francisco federal district court that challenges the lawfulness of
Facebook's use of facial-recognition technology.  A federal
district judge on May 5, citing the Illinois law, said the case
could move forward.

The proposed amendments alarmed the Edelson team that represents
the Facebook users in the California case.

"It would incredibly weaken the statute at a time when biometrics
are becoming more ubiquitous and the law is more needed than
ever," Christopher Dore -- cdore@edelson.com -- an Edelson partner
in Chicago, said. "Illinois has been way ahead on this."

Mr. Dore said the changes were introduced "under the cover of
darkness" as an amendment in an unrelated piece of legislation
that could be acted on soon.  He claims Facebook and a coalition
of other companies that seek to expand biometrics are behind the
proposed changes.

"We appreciate Sen. Link's effort to clarify the scope of the law
he authored," a Facebook spokesman said in an email.

A spokesman for Sen. Link said on May 27: "The bill is currently
on hold pending further review."

A motion filed in the case by Mayer Brown, which represents
Facebook, argued the Illinois law should not trump California's
legal framework.

"While Illinois does have an interest in applying its laws to its
residents, California has a countervailing interest in 'being able
to assure individuals and commercial entities operating within its
territory that applicable limitations on liability set forth in
the jurisdiction's law will be available to those individuals and
businesses in the event they are faced with litigation in the
future," Facebook's lawyers wrote.

Judge James Donato of the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California ruled against Facebook.

"[I]f California law is applied, the Illinois policy of protecting
its citizens' privacy interests in their biometric data,
especially in the context of dealing with 'major national
corporations' like Facebook, would be written out of existence,"
Donato wrote.

A status conference in the case is set for June 15.


FBR & CO: Waterford Township Action Dismissed
---------------------------------------------
FBR & CO. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that the putative class action lawsuit of
Waterford Township Police & Fire, Retirement System, vs. Regional
Management Corp. et al., pending in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York, was dismissed on
March 30, 2016, in its entirety. The Court ruled that the
operative amended complaint, filed on January 23, 2015, failed to
allege any material misstatements.

As previously disclosed, the Second Amended Complaint asserted
claims against all the underwriters, including FBRCM, under
Sections 11 and 12 of the Securities Act in connection with
offerings in September and December 2013.  In plaintiffs'
opposition to Defendants motions to dismiss, the plaintiffs
requested leave to amend their complaint for a third time, if the
court granted the dismissal.  The court set a May 23, 2016
deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion seeking leave to
amend.  If the plaintiffs fail to make a motion, or the court
denies the motion, the dismissal of the Second Amended Complaint
will be with prejudice.  Regional Management continues to
indemnify all the underwriters, including FBRCM, pursuant to the
operative underwriting agreement.


FBR & CO: MLV Still Faces "Goldberg" and "Gaynor" Suits
-------------------------------------------------------
FBR & CO. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2016, that in November 2015, MLV & Co. LLC
("MLV"), was named a defendant in two putative class action
lawsuits alleging substantially identical claims against the
officers and directors and underwriters of Miller Energy
Resources, Inc. ("Miller"). The lawsuits, styled Goldberg v.
Miller et al., and Gaynor v. Miller et al., are currently pending
in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, and allege claims under Sections 11 and 12 of the
Securities Act against nine underwriters for alleged material
misrepresentations and omissions in the registration statement and
prospectuses issued in connection with 6 offerings (February 13,
2013; May 8, 2013; June 28, 2013; September 26; 2013; October 17,
2013 (as to MLV only) and August 21, 2014) with an alleged
aggregate offering price of approximately $151,000. The plaintiffs
seek unspecified compensatory damages and reimbursement of certain
costs and expenses. Although MLV is contractually entitled to be
indemnified by Miller in connection with this lawsuit, Miller
filed for bankruptcy in October 2015 and this likely will decrease
or eliminate the value of the indemnity that MLV receives from
Miller. The plaintiffs are currently seeking to remand to
Tennessee state court; defendants are vigorously opposing the
remand.


FCA US: "Faltermeier" Suit Stays in W.D. Montana
------------------------------------------------
District Judge Greg Kays of the Western District of Missouri,
Western Division, denied plaintiff's motion in the case DAVID
FALTERMEIER, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, Plaintiff, v. FCA US LLC, Defendant, Case No. 4:15-cv-
00491-DGK (W.D. Mo.)

David Faltermeier initiated an action in the Circuit Court of
Jackson County, Missouri, against FCA US LLC. Faltermeier alleges
that FCA's misrepresentations during a vehicle safety recall have
caused him and all other consumers who have purchased those
vehicles in Missouri since June 4, 2013, an ascertainable
financial loss. Plaintiff maintains FCA has consistently and
affirmatively misrepresented the design, safety, and performance
of Model Year 2002-2007 Jeep Liberty and Model Year 1993-1998 Jeep
Grand Cherokee vehicles from June 4, 2013, to the present.

On June 29, 2015, FCA removed the case to the present court,
alleging jurisdiction based on the Class Action Fairness Act
(CAFA) and bankruptcy-related jurisdiction. The court denied
plaintiff's motion to remand, finding that it had CAFA
jurisdiction. In its analysis, however, the court did not address
plaintiff's argument concerning the availability of alternative
damages under the MMPA.

Plaintiff filed a motion for relief from stay to file motion for
reconsideration and for leave to file sur-reply.

Judge Kays clarifies its earlier order and confirms that it has
subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff's motion is denied. The
stay imposed is lifted and the May 10, 2016 discovery
teleconference was rescheduled for June 1, 2016.

A copy of Judge Kay's order dated May 26, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/37sYzJfrom Leagle.com.

David Faltermeier, Plaintiff, represented by:

     Christopher S. Shank, Esq.
     David Lee Heinemann, Esq.
     Stephen J. Moore, Esq.
     Shank & Moore, LLC
     1968 Shawnee Mission Parkway, Suite 100
     Mission Woods, KS 66205
     Telephone: 816-471-0909

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy Ann Wisniewski, Scott
Harston Morgan, Sharon B. Rosenberg & Stephen A. D'Aunoy


FEI CO: Ryan & Maniskas Investigates Breach of Fiduciary Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is investigating potential claims against the
board of directors of FEI Company ("FEI" or the "Company")
concerning possible breaches of fiduciary duty and other
violations of law related to the Company's efforts to sell the
Company to Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. in a transaction valued
at approximately $4.2 billion.

If you own shares of FEI and would like to learn more about this
class action or if you wish to discuss these matters and have any
questions concerning this announcement or your rights, contact
Richard A. Maniskas, Esquire toll-free at (877) 316-3218 or to
sign up online, visit: www.rmclasslaw.com/cases/feic
You may also email Mr. Maniskas at rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com

Under the terms of the agreement, shareholders of FEI will receive
$107.50 in cash for each share of FEI common stock.

Our investigation concerns possible breaches of fiduciary duty and
other violations of state law by the Board of Directors of FEI or
not acting in the Company's shareholders' best interests in
connection with the sale process.

Ryan & Maniskas, LLP -- http://www.rmclasslaw.com-- is a national
shareholder litigation firm.  Ryan & Maniskas, LLP is devoted to
protecting the interests of individual and institutional investors
in shareholder actions in state and federal courts nationwide.


FLOWERS BAKING: Pre-Certification Notices in "Richard" Approved
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANTOINE RICHARD, ET AL., v. FLOWERS BAKING
CO. OF LAFAYETTE, ET AL, Civil Action No. 6:15-CV-02557 (W.D.
La.), Judge Carol B. Whitehurst granted the Motion for Approval of
Proposed Pre-Certification Communications to Putative Class and
Collective Action Members filed by the defendants, Flowers Baking
Co. of Baton Rouge, LLC, Flowers Baking Co. of New Orleans, LLC,
and Flowers Baking Co. of Tyler, LLC.  Judge Whitehurst also
approved the proposed Amendment to Distributor Agreement and
Arbitration Agreement as to form with the addition of certain
language provided in the judge's order.

A full-text copy of Judge Whitehurst's May 24, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/ilvdLD from Leagle.com.

On October 21, 2016, the plaintiffs filed an action under the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Louisiana Payment of Employees
law, seeking damages for defendants' failure to pay overtime wages
and for improper deductions.  The plaintiffs alleged that they
entered into Distributor Agreements with the Flowers bakeries to
serve as distributors for fresh baked goods.  The Distributor
Agreements defined the plaintiffs' relationships with the Flowers
bakeries as independent contractors.  The plaintiffs alleged that
they were misclassified as independent contractors under federal
law.

Antoine Richard, Darrell Richard, Chris Meche, Kevin Rabeaux, Mark
Louviere, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel Josef Phillips, Durio
McGoffin et al, Steven G Durio, Durio McGoffin et al & Ryan M
Goudelocke, Durio McGoffin et al.

Derby Doucet, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by Ryan M Goudelocke,
Durio McGoffin et al, Daniel Josef Phillips, Durio McGoffin et al
& Steven G Durio, Durio McGoffin et al.

Flowers Foods Inc, Flowers Baking Co of Lafayette L L C, Flowers
Baking Co of Baton Rouge L L C, Flowers Baking Co of Alexandria L
L C, Flowers Baking Co of New Orleans L L C, Defendant,
represented by Gregory Guidry -- greg.guidry@ogletreedeakins.com
-- Ogletree Deakins et al, Calvin Garner Sanford --
garner.sanford@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al, pro
hac vice, Kevin P Hishta -- kevin.hishta@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree Deakins et al, pro hac vice, Margaret Stanten Hanrahan --
maggie.hanrahan@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al, pro
hac vice, Matthew M McCluer -- matthew.mccluer@ogletreedeakins.com
-- Ogletree Deakins et al, Michael O Eckard --
michael.eckard@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins et al &
Michael D Ray -- michael.ray@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree
Deakins et al, pro hac vice.

Flowers Baking Co of Tyler L L C, Defendant, represented by Calvin
Garner Sanford, Ogletree Deakins et al, pro hac vice, Kevin P
Hishta, Ogletree Deakins et al, pro hac vice, Margaret Stanten
Hanrahan, Ogletree Deakins et al, pro hac vice, Matthew M McCluer,
Ogletree Deakins et al, Michael O Eckard, Ogletree Deakins et al &
Michael D Ray, Ogletree Deakins et al, pro hac vice.


FREEPORT-MCMORAN: Judge Dismisses Miners' FLSA Suit
---------------------------------------------------
District Judge Martha Vazquez of the District of New Mexico
granted defendant's motion to dismiss the case WILLIAM EAGLE,
individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons,
Plaintiff, v. FREEPORT-McMORAN, INC., f/k/a FREEPORT-McMORAN
COPPER & GOLD, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant, Civ. No.
2:15-CV-00577-MV-SMV (D.N.M.)

Freeport-McMoRan Inc. is a Delaware corporation, formerly known as
Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc.

William Eagle is a resident of Grant County who was employed as a
miner at Chino Mine. Plaintiff brought an action on behalf of
himself and a putative class defined as all employees of defendant
who worked as miners at the Chino or Tyrone mines in the last
three years who worked over 40 hours in any given week and were
not paid overtime or who were not otherwise compensated for all
hours worked. Plaintiff's claims arise from allegations that
defendant, as the owner and operator of Chino and Tyrone mines,
failed to pay overtime to employees who worked over 40 hours per
week.

Plaintiff pleads three causes of action. First, in Count I,
plaintiff claims that defendant's failure to pay overtime violates
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 29 U.S.C. Sections 201 et
seq. Second, in Count II, plaintiff claims that in New Mexico,
there is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which
attaches to all contracts entered into in the State, and that
defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair
dealing by knowingly failing to pay plaintiff and the other
putative class members overtime as required by the FLSA and by
failing to pay plaintiff and the putative class for the actual
amount of hours worked. Finally, plaintiff claims punitive damages
in Count III, stating that defendant's failures to properly
compensate plaintiff and the putative class members were willful,
wanton, malicious and committed in bad faith with reckless
disregard for plaintiff's rights and the rights of the putative
class members.

On October 26, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion to certify class,
and on November 25, 2015, defendant filed a motion to dismiss
counts II and III of plaintiff's second amended class action
complaint.

Judge Vazquez granted defendant's motion to dismiss count II and
count III of the second amended class action complaint. The court
considers in a separate opinion plaintiff's motion for conditional
class certification under the FLSA with respect to count I

A copy of Judge Vazquez's memorandum opinion dated May 26, 2016,
is available at http://goo.gl/hxjP91from Leagle.com.

William Eagle, Plaintiff, represented by James P. Lyle, Law
Offices of James P. Lyle P.C.

Freeport-McMoRan, Inc., Defendant, represented by George R. McFall
-- george.mcfall@modrall.com -- Jennifer L Bradfute --
jennifer.bradfute@modrall.com -- at Modrall, Sperling, Roehl,
Harris & Sisk, PA


FRESH ENTERPRISES: Has Sent Unsolicited Facsimiles, Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Russell M. Holstein, PH.D., LLC a New Jersey limited liability
company, individually and as the representative of a class of
similarly-situated persons v. Fresh Enterprises, LLC, Triune, LLC
and John Does 1-10, Case No. 2:16-cv-02871-SDW-LDW (D.N.J., May
20, 2016), seeks to put an end to the Defendants' practice of
sending unsolicited facsimiles.

The Defendants own and operate the Baja Fresh Mexican Grill in
East Hanover, New Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew N. Fiorovanti, Esq.
      Michael J. Canning, Esq.
      GIORDANO, HALLERAN & CIESLA
      125 Half Mile Road, Suite 300
      Red Bank, NJ 07701-6777
      Telephone: (732) 741-3900
      Facsimile: (732) 224-6599
      E-mail: mcanning@ghclaw.com
              mfiorovanti@ghclaw.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Wanca, Esq.
      Ryan M. Kelly, Esq.
      ANDERSON + WANCA
      3701 Algonquin Road, Suite 500
      Rolling Meadows, IL 60008
      Telephone: (847) 368-1500
      Facsimile: (847) 368-1501
      E-mail: bwanca@andersonwanca.com
              rkelly@andersonwanca.com


GENERAL MILLS: Class Action Lacks Commonality, 8th Cir. Rules
------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew H. Perellis, Esq., Patrick D. Joyce, Esq., and Craig B.
Simonsen, Esq., of Seyfarth Shaw LLP, in an article for Lexology,
report that the Eighth Circuit found that a class action could not
be sustained in an environmental pollution case because "the class
lacks the requisite commonality and cohesiveness to satisfy Rule
23."

In Karl Ebert v. General Mills, Inc., No. 15-1735 (8th Cir.
May 20, 2016), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth
Circuit found that the District Court erred in certifying a
proposed class of plaintiffs in an environmental pollution case
because "the class lacks the requisite commonality and
cohesiveness to satisfy Rule 23." The case was remanded for
further proceedings at the District Court.

In this its appeal to the Eighth Circuit, General Mills, Inc.,
challenged the District Court's grant of class certification
because each plaintiff will need to prove individualized issues of
injury, causation, and damages.

In the underlying litigation the plaintiffs, all owners of
residential properties in a Minneapolis neighborhood near a
General Mills facility, sued General Mills, alleging that the
company caused trichloroethylene (TCE) to be released onto the
ground and into the environment near the plaintiffs' neighborhood.
The plaintiffs claimed that, as a result of the contamination, TCE
vapors migrated into the surrounding residential area, threatening
the health of the residents and diminishing the value of their
property.

For nearly thirty years, General Mills participated in groundwater
clean-up and remediation efforts in the plaintiffs' neighborhood
under the direction of, and in conjunction with, the federal
government and the State of Minnesota.  In late 2011, in
cooperation with the State of Minnesota, General Mills began to
evaluate the potential of migration of TCE in the form of vapor
from shallow groundwater to the soil above.  As noted by the
District Court, General Mills installed vapor mitigation systems
(VMSs) in 118 homes in the neighborhood.

The plaintiffs first learned of the TCE vapor contamination in
2013, and each of the named plaintiffs received customized VMSs.
Seeking to represent a class, the residents asserted five legal
claims: (1) violation of CERCLA; (2) common law negligence; (3)
private nuisance; (4) willful and wanton misconduct; and (5)
violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.  Personal
injury claims were not included in the complaint, in a deliberate
attempt to avoid class certification problems.

The District Court found that the requirements of Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 23 were satisfied, and certified the proposed
class.  However, the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the
class lacked the requisite commonality and cohesiveness to satisfy
Rule 23.

Specifically, the Eighth Circuit noted that the District Court had
attempted to artificially narrow the issues and the class
membership so as to create class standing by first excluding
personal injury claims and any plaintiffs with identifiable
personal injury claims, and then by limiting claims to whether
injunctive relief would be warranted.  The District Court had
bifurcated the action into two phases.  It first certified a class
under Rule 23(b)(2) to determine whether injunctive relief was
appropriate.  It then set up a second phase under Rule 23(b)(3) to
determine the money-damage portion of the case .

The Eighth Circuit noted that the use of this sort of "hybrid
certification," insulating the (b)(2) class from (b)(3) the money-
damage portion of the case, is "an available approach that is
gaining ground in class action suits."  Newberg on Class Actions
Sec. 4:38.  While Rule 23(b)(3) requires common questions of law
or fact to predominate over questions affecting only individual
members, Rule 23(a)(2) requires only the establishment of a common
question pertaining to an injury suffered by all class members.
In this case, though, the Circuit Court concluded that this action
could not proceed as a class under either Rule 23(b)(2) or Rule
23(b)(3).

As to Rule 23(b)(2), the Eighth Circuit found the central required
element of "cohesiveness" to be lacking.  For relief as a class,
"the relief sought must perforce affect the entire class at once,"
citing Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541, 2558
(2011).  As a result, the Eighth Circuit found that "[i]t is the
disparate factual circumstances of class members that prevent the
class from being cohesive and thus unable to be certified under
Rule 23(b)(2)."

For Rule 23(b)(3), the Eighth Circuit concluded that individual
issues would predominate the inquiry.  Notwithstanding the
District Court's attempt to exclude questions on individualized
exposure, the Eighth Circuit found: "any limitations in the
initial action are, at bottom, artificial or merely preliminary to
matters that necessarily must be adjudicated to resolve the heart
of the matter."


GOT CAPITAL: Small Business Owners Lose Class Certification Bid
---------------------------------------------------------------
P.J. D'Annunzio, writing for The Legal Intelligencer, reports that
a contract term in which a group of small business owners agreed
not to be representatives in class actions has torpedoed any
chance of class certification in their predatory lending case
against the lender, a federal judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kearney of the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania held in Korea Week v. Got Capital that the
plaintiffs' commercial financing contracts with British-based Got
Capital, which was formerly doing business as H-Capital, but
currently uses the name Yalber, agreeing not to serve as lead
plaintiffs in a class action meant just that.

The plaintiffs, who made Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act claims against Got Capital, argued that such an
agreement was unconscionable and cannot be enforced.  But Judge
Kearney wrote in his memorandum that the plaintiffs waived their
rights to be class representatives, and a class could not proceed
without lead plaintiffs.

"After a class certification hearing where we evaluated the
credibility of the only two proffered named plaintiffs and
admitted exhibits including deposition testimony of some, but not
all, named merchant plaintiffs, we find the named plaintiffs
waived their right to bring their claims in a class action and did
not adduce evidence of unconscionability," Judge  Kearney said.
"As each of the named plaintiffs agreed not [to] file a class
action, they cannot now be the named plaintiffs charged with
representing unnamed merchants."

The plaintiffs alleged that Got Capital targeted Asian-American
business communities in the United States and England by
advertising cash advances to merchants that are actually 150 to
200 percent interest short-term loans.  They further claim that
the defendant forced repayment of the loans by cash penalties when
business-owners were late in making payments, causing "fear,
intimidation, pressure, anxiety and emotional stress."

Judge Kearney explained that an agreement is unconscionable when
it presents no meaningful choice.  The plaintiffs claimed that
their lack of bargaining power and their desperation for funding
contributed to the unconscionability of the contract.

Additionally, Judge Kearney said, "plaintiffs place significant
weight on their lack of proficiency in the English language
resulting in their inability to understand the contracts."

However, citing the 2008 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit case of Morales v. Sun Constructors, Judge Kearney said,
"'In the absence of fraud, the fact that an offeree cannot read,
write, speak, or--understand the English language is immaterial to
whether an English-language agreement the offeree executes is
enforceable.'"

Despite their lack of English proficiency, Judge Kearney said
several plaintiffs testified that they had contacted H-Capital, in
English, about their cash advances.  Some also testified that they
had not read the contracts.

But Judge Kearney noted that the plaintiffs could at least
partially communicate in English.

"They communicate, at least partially, in English.  They
understood the terms of the repayment, and met the terms of
repayment," Judge Kearney said.  "They are neither employees nor
consumers suffering under a disproportionate leverage in a
contract negotiation.  Both answered advertisements soliciting
funds from the defendants.  They met the defendants, and even
after experiencing the terms of the financing, continued to
proceed with the financing."

Judge Kearney also turned to the question of whether a class
action waiver outside of an arbitration agreement is enforceable.
The factors to be considered, outlined in Ulit4Less v. FedEx out
of the Southern District of New York, are whether the waiver at
issue is unconscionable under state law, and if not, whether the
statute suggests legislative intent or policy reasons for weighing
against the enforcement of the waiver.

"We find plaintiffs have not shown the class action waiver is
unconscionable.  We also find RICO does not, through legislative
intent, policy, or through the volumes of case law from other
courts, weigh against enforcing the class action waiver.  While we
recognize RICO's remedial purposes, the parties have not shown us,
nor have we found, any reason to interpret RICO as encouraging
class actions.  At best, it may be silent as to the individual
versus collective rights of alleged victims," Judge  Kearney said.

Donald Belsole of Belsole & Kurnos in Morristown, New Jersey, said
he expected the outcome of Kearney's ruling and believed the
waivers would hold up.


HARBOR FREIGHT: Sued in Cal. Over Fake-Sale-Price Advertising
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ted Shimono, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated,
and the general public v. Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc., Case No.
5:16-cv-01052 (C.D. Cal., May 20, 2016), arises out of the
Defendant's comprehensive and consistent fake-sale-price
advertising, specifically by falsely creating in consumers the
impression that "sale priced" merchandise was reduced in price
from the previous retail prices, that advertised "savings" were
real when they were not.

Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc. operates retail stores carrying a
wide range of tools, hardware & other products for the home,
garden & car.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ronald A. Marron, Esq.
      Skye Resendes, Esq.
      William B. Richards, Jr., Esq.
      Michael T. Houchin, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF RONALD A. MARRON
      651 Arroyo Drive
      San Diego, CA 92103
      Telephone: (619) 696-9006
      Facsimile: (619) 564-6665
      E-mail: ron@consumersadvocates.com
              skye@consumersadvocates.com
              bill@consumersadvocates.com
              mike@consumersadvocates.com

         - and -

      David Elliot, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF DAVID ELLIOT
      2028 3rd Avenue
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (858) 228-7997
      E-mail: elliot.david@hotmail.com


HAWAII: Court Issues Order on Class Member Identification
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned E.R.K., by his legal guardian R.K.; R.T.D.,
through his parents R.D. and M.D.; HAWAI'I DISABILITY RIGHTS
CENTER, in a representative capacity on behalf of its clients and
all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, State of Hawai'i, Defendant, Civil No. 10-00436 SOM-KSC
(D. Haw.), Judge Susan Oki Mollway issued an amended order
regarding identification of class members.

Judge Mollway stated that the plaintiffs may obtain directory
information with respect to the individuals on the class member
list from the Department of Education's Electronic Comprehensive
Student Support System (eCSSS) database, or from two public
offices to be selected by the plaintiffs.

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

C. K., R. T. D., R. D., M. D., M. P., N. B., Plaintiffs,
represented by Chrystn K.A. Eads -- ceads@ahfi.com --  Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing, Claire Wong Black -- cblack@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing, Jason H. Kim, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jennifer
Visitacion Patricio, Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Kristin L.
Holland -- kholland@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Louis
Erteschik, Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Matthew C. Bassett,
Hawaii Disability Rights Center & Paul Alston -- palston@ahfi.com
-- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Plaintiff, represented by Jason
H. Kim, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jennifer Visitacion Patricio,
Hawaii Disability Rights Center, Kristin L. Holland, Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing, Matthew C. Bassett, Hawaii Disability Rights Center,
Paul Alston, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing & Michelle N. Comeau --
mcomeau@ahfi.com -- Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing.

E.R. K., Plaintiff, represented by Chrystn K.A. Eads, Alston Hunt
Floyd & Ing, Claire Wong Black, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Jason H.
Kim, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, John P. Dellera, Kristin L. Holland,
Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Louis Erteschik, Hawaii Disability Rights
Center, Matthew C. Bassett, Hawaii Disability Rights Center,
Michelle N. Comeau, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Paul Alston, Alston
Hunt Floyd & Ing & Jennifer Visitacion Patricio, Hawaii Disability
Rights Center.

Department of Education, State of Hawai'i, Defendant, represented
by Adam T. Snow, Department of the Attorney General Education
Division, Carter K. Siu, Department of the Attorney General, Gary
S. Suganuma, Department of the Attorney General Education
Division, Harvey E. Henderson, Jr., Department of the Attorney
General, Holly T. Shikada, Department of the Attorney General,
Kunio Kuwabe, Department of the Attorney General, Ryan W. Roylo,
Department of the Attorney General & Steve K. Miyasaka, Department
of the Attorney General.

Department of Human Service, State of Hawaii, Interested Party,
represented by Candace J. Park, Office of the Attorney General-
State of Hawaii.


HONEST COMPANY: Court Enters Protective Order in "Michael"
----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned SHANE MICHAEL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
HONEST COMPANY, INC., Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-07059-JAK-AGR
(C.D. Cal.), Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg approved the parties'
stipulation and proposed protective order.

The protective order governs with respect to documents, electronic
data, and any other forms of information produced or voluntarily
exchanged in the action by any party or non-parties, including any
"Writings" (as that term is defined in Rule 1001 of the Federal
Rules of Evidence); all discovery contemplated by Rules 26-36 of
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, including responses to all
written discovery requests and demands, deposition testimony and
exhibits, however recorded; and any other written, recorded, or
graphic matters.

A full-text copy of Judge Rosenberg's May 26, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/s40gdc from Leagle.com.

Shane Michael, Plaintiff, represented by Rebecca Anne Peterson --
rapeterson@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP, Brian O
Marty, Hudson Mallaney Shindler and Anderson PC, pro hac vice,
Charles J LaDuca -- charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and
LaDuca LLP, pro hac vice, J Barton Goplerud, Hudson Mallaney
Shindler and Anderson PC, pro hac vice, Jon William Borderud, Law
Offices of Jon Borderud, Michael J Flannery --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert and LaDuca LLP, Robert K
Shelquist -- rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen
PLLP, pro hac vice & Nicholas A Carlin -- nac@phillaw.com --
Phillips Erlewine Given and Carlin LLP.

Jonathan D Rubin, Plaintiff, represented by Conor Hughes Kennedy
-- chk@phillaw.com -- Phillips, Erlewine, Given and Carlin LLP,
Nicholas A Carlin, Phillips Erlewine Given and Carlin LLP, Leonard
B Simon, Law Offices of Leonard Simon PC & Robert K Shelquist,
Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP.

Dreama Hembree, Ethel Lung, Plaintiffs, represented by Robert K
Shelquist, Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Nicholas A Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given and Carlin LLP.

Stavroula Da Silva, Plaintiff, represented by Nicholas A Carlin,
Phillips Erlewine Given and Carlin LLP.

Honest Company, Inc., Defendant, represented by Darcie Allison
Tilly -- dtilly@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP, Matthew D Caplan --
mcaplan@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP & William P Donovan, Jr. --
wdonovan@cooley.com -- Cooley LLP.


IN-N-OUT BURGERS: Doesn't Properly Pay Workers, Action Claims
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lanae Gonzalez, individually and on behalf of other persons
similarly situated v. In-N-Out Burgers and Does 1 through 50,
inclusive, Case No. BC621102 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 20, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure pay all overtime wages
owed to non-exempt employees who earn a "bonus" that corresponds
to an earnings period during which they work overtime; provide
accurate wage statements; and, pay all wages owed upon termination
of employment.

In-N-Out Burgers operates a chain of fast food restaurants
primarily located in California and the Southwest United States
with over 300 locations.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alexander I. Dychter, Esq.
      DYCHTER LAW OFFICES, APC
      1010 Second Ave., Suite
      1835 San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 487-0777
      Facsimile: (619) 330-1827
      E-mail: alex@dychterlaw.com

         - and -

      Walter L. Haines, Esq.
      UNITED EMPLOYEES LAW GROUP, PC
      5500 Bolsa Ave., Suite 201
      Huntington Beach, CA 92649
      Telephone: (562) 256-1047
      Facsimile: (562) 256-1006
      E-mail: admin@uelglaw.com


J&B SPARTANBURG: Must Defend Against Wage and Hour Suit
-------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Mary Geiger Lewis of the District of South
Carolina, Spartanburg Division, denied defendants' motion to
dismiss in the case YONG LE XUE, XING LONG LUO, and YONG JUN FU,
Individually, And On Behalf Of All Other Employees Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. J&B SPARTANBURG LLC d/b/a/RED BOWL ASIAN
BISTRO; WAI LEUNG SIM; ZHI JIE SHAO; JIN HUA ZHENG; HONG GANG BAI;
BI YUN ZHENG; JOHN DOE; and JANE DOE # 1-10, Defendants, Civil
Action No. 7:16-00340-MGL (D.S.C.)

Plaintiffs filed a collective action suit against defendants
pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C. Section 201,
and the South Carolina Payment of Wages Act, S.C. Code Ann.
Section 41-10-10.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss plaintiffs' claims under the
South Carolina Payment of Wages Act seeking overtime compensation
and/or minimum wage by way of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6). Defendants contend that the damages underlying both
plaintiffs' Fair Labor Standards Act and South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act claims are based exclusively on allegations of unpaid
overtime compensation. Defendants propound that plaintiffs' South
Carolina Payment of Wages Act claims are entirely preempted by the
Fair Labor Standards Act because the basis for the South Carolina
Payment of Wages Act claims is allegedly a failure to pay overtime
compensation.

Plaintiffs respond by advancing that the South Carolina Payment of
Wages Act claims are not subject to preemption because the South
Carolina Payment of Wages Act both creates rights and means of
enforcing the rights that are distinctive and unique and provides
additional relief not available under the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

Judge Lewis denied defendants' motion to dismiss.

A copy of Judge Lewis's memorandum opinion and order dated May 26,
2016 is available at http://goo.gl/SjU1Uyfrom Leagle.com.

Plaintiffs, represented by:

     Stephanie H Burton, Esq.
     Gibbes Burton
     308 East Saint John Street
     Spartanburg, SC 29302
     Telephone: 864-327-500
     Facsimile: 864-342-6884

          - and -

     Jian Hang, Esq.
     Hang and Associates
     136-18 39th Ave #1003
     New York, NY 11354
     Telephone: 718-353-8588

Defendants, represented by Charles Edgar McDonald, III --
charles.mcdonald@ogletreedeakins.com -- Lucas James Asper --
lucas.asper@ogletreedeakins.com -- at Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
and Stewart


JENKINS WAGNON: "Cordova" Suit Removed to Dist. New Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Joshua Cordova, on his own
behalf, and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Jody
Jenkins and Jenkins, Wagnon & Young, P.C., Case No. 15cv08299, was
removed from the Second Judicial District Court to the U.S.
District Court District of New Mexico. The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-00460-KBM to the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts claims under the Fair Debt Collection Act.

The Defendants operate a debt collection firm located at 1623 10th
St, Lubbock, TX 79401.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Nicholas H. Mattison, Esq.
      Richard N. Feferman, Esq.
      FEFERMAN & WARREN
      300 Central Ave. SW, Suite 2000W
      Albuquerque, NM 87102
      Telephone: (505) 243-7773
      Facsimile: (505) 243-6663
      E-mail: nmattison@swcp.com
              rfeferman@msn.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Charles J. Vigil, Esq.
      RODEY DICKSON SLOAN AKIN & ROBB, P.A.
      P. O. Box 1888
      Albuquerque, NM 87103
      Telephone: (505) 768-7377
      E-mail: cvigil@rodey.com


LENDINGCLUB: Sued in California Over Misleading Financial Reports
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alton Consulting, LLC, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Lendingclub Corporation, Renaud Laplanche,
Carrie L. Dolan, Daniel T. Ciporin, Jeffrey Crowe, Rebecca Lynn,
John J. Mack, Mary Meeker, John C. (Hans) Morris, Lawrence H.
Summers, Simon Williams, Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC, Goldman, Sachs
& Co., Credit Suisse Securities (USA) LLC, Citigroup Global
Markets Inc., Allen & Company LLC, Stifel, Nicolaus & Company,
Incorporated, BMO Capital Markets Corp., William Blair & Company,
L.L.C., Wells Fargo Securities, LLC, and Does 1- 25, inclusive,
Case No. CV538762 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 20, 2016), alleges that
the Defendants made false and misleading statements, as well as
failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company's
business, operations, and prospects in connection with the
Company' s initial public offering on or about December 11, 2014.

Headquartered at 71 Stevenson Street, Suite 300, San Francisco,
California 94105, Lendingclub Corporation purports to be the
world' s largest online marketplace connecting borrowers and
investors.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Mark C. Molumphy, Esq.
      Alexandra P. Summer, Esq.
      COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
      San Francisco Airport Office Center
      840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
      Burlingame, CA 94010
      Telephone: (650) 697-6000
      Facsimile: (650) 697-0577
      E-mail: mcnolumphy@cpmlegal.com
              asummer@cpmlegal.com


LYFT INC: Matters to Be Discussed in "Cotter" Oral Argument
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, PATRICK COTTER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LYFT, INC., et
al., Defendants, Case No. 13-cv-04065-VC (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that at the hearing on the motion for
preliminary approval of the revised class action settlement, the
parties should be prepared to discuss the following, assuming it
is possible to gather this information in such a short timeframe:

     -- What is the maximum possible restitution value under Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 for Lyft's alleged violations of Cal.
Labor Code Sec. 351 in the period from August 2014 to August 2015,
as described by the Complaint in Zamora v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-cv-
02558-VC?

     -- What is the maximum possible restitution value under Cal.
Bus. & Prof. Code Sec. 17200 for Lyft's alleged violations of Cal.
Labor Code Sec. 351 in the period from August 2015 to the present,
as described by the Complaint in Zamora v. Lyft, Inc., No. 16-cv-
02558-VC?

     -- Would it be feasible and appropriate to allocate a portion
of the existing proposed settlement amount to these claims?

A copy of the Court's June 1, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/VqB5Fm from Leagle.com.

Patrick Cotter, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan --
sliss@llrlaw.com -- and Matthew David Carlson, Lichten & Liss-
Riordan, P.C..

Alejandra Maciel, Plaintiff, represented by Shannon Liss-Riordan,
Lichten & Liss-Riordan, P.C. & Matthew David Carlson, Lichten &
Liss-Riordan, P.C..

Lyft, Inc., Defendant, represented by Zachary W Shine --
zachary.shine@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash,
Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Alexander Barnes Dryer -- adryer@kvn.com --
Keker and Van Nest LLP, Brian Davis Berry --
brian.berry@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C., Michelle Sabrina Ybarra -- mybarra@kvn.com --
Keker & Van Nest LLP, Rachael Elizabeth Meny -- rmeny@kvn.com --
Keker & Van Nest LLP, Robert James Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com
-- Keker & Van Nest LLP, Simona Alessandra Agnolucci --
sagnolucci@kvn.com -- Keker & Van Nest LLP & Thomas Michael
McInerney -- tmm@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash
Smoak & Stewart, P.C..

Alex Zamora, Movant, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi --
jsagafi@outtengolden.com -- OUTTEN & GOLDEN LLP.

Rayshon Clark, Movant, represented by Jahan C. Sagafi, OUTTEN &
GOLDEN LLP.

Steven Price, Interested Party, represented by Douglas Caiafa,
Attorney at Law & Christopher John Morosoff, Law Office of
Christopher J. Morosoff.

Angelica Rose Ferdinand, Objector, represented by Teague Pryde
Paterson -- tpaterson@beesontayer.com -- Beeson Tayer & Bodine.


LYFT INC: "Prime Time" Pricing Claims May Impact $27MM Settlement
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for The Recorder, reports that a federal
judge on May 26 seemed reluctant to sign off on a new $27 million
deal settling an employment class action against Lyft Inc. in
light of new claims about the ride-hailing service's "prime time"
pricing.

At a preliminary approval hearing, U.S. District Judge Vince
Chhabria of the Northern District of California said Lyft drivers
who sued over their status as independent contractors might be
unfairly disadvantaged by a deal that never took into account a
potentially valuable legal claim being raised now by a different
plaintiffs lawyer.

"If they [Lyft] get peace on a claim that the plaintiffs' lawyer
who purports to represent the workers did not consider, then I
think the settlement becomes unreasonable," Judge Chhabria said.

The new wrinkle threatens to scupper the deal negotiated by Boston
plaintiffs lawyer Shannon Liss-Riordan and Lyft's counsel at Keker
& Van Nest.  The settlement figure has more than doubled in size,
from $12.25 million, which Judge Chhabria rejected in April for
being too low.

But it was unclear whether Judge Chhabria was prepared to reject
the revised deal.  Even as he outlined his reservations, the judge
said he was wary of setting a "dangerous precedent" that would
invite eleventh-hour attempts by lawyers to carve up multi-million
dollar settlements so that they could get a piece of the action.

The new claims against Lyft were brought by Jahan Sagafi of Outten
& Golden, a San Francisco-based lawyer who filed suit May 11,
three years after Ms. Liss-Riordan filed her suit, alleging that
Lyft from 2014 onward skimmed a percentage off of the "prime time"
fees riders pay when driver supply is low.

Mr. Sagafi says Lyft represented those fees as tips that would go
to the driver, and that by dipping its hand into that money Lyft
violated California law.  That theory is based on the argument
that Lyft drivers are employees--not contractors--entitled to the
full amount of their tips.  His suit estimates the company's
exposure at roughly $60 million.

While Mr. Sagafi's particular claims were never raised in
Ms. Liss-Riordan's suit, they would be essentially wiped away by
her settlement.  On May 26, Ms. Sagafi made clear that he doesn't
want to blow up that deal, but instead wants to carve out his
claims from the scope of the its release.

Ms. Liss-Riordan is facing another challenge from fellow members
of the plaintiffs bar in a similar case, against Lyft's market-
leading competitor Uber over a $84 million deal, plus at least $21
million in attorney fees.  That hearing was underway on May 26 in
another San Francisco federal courtroom.

Keker partners Rachael Meny -- rmeny@kvn.com -- and James
Slaughter -- rslaughter@kvn.com -- said such a carve-out for Mr.
Sagafi's claims was a non-starter.  The lawyers also said the
notion that Lyft represented the prime time fee as a tip is
"factually incorrect."  Judge Chhabria ordered briefing by May 27.

The judge also held open that he may still see the settlement as
reasonable if presented with arguments that the new claims are
either very weak or not worth much money.  He said his own sense
was that at least some of the claims could be a "slam dunk,"
depending on how Lyft represented the fees, but that the damages
figure was likely "vastly overstated."

Ms. Liss-Riordan -- choosing her words carefully, with Mr. Sagafi
standing right next to her at the podium -- said she believed his
claims would face "factual and legal hurdles."


MARATHON OIL: Dismissal of "Vogel" Royalties Suit Upheld
--------------------------------------------------------
Justice Lisa Fair McEvers of the Supreme Court of North Dakota,
affirmed the trial court's judgment of dismissal in the case Sarah
Vogel, individually and for all those similarly situated,
Plaintiff and Appellant v. Marathon Oil Company, an Ohio
Corporation, Defendant and Appellee, No. 20150154 (N.D.)

Marathon Oil Company operates the Elk USA 11-17H well in Mountrail
County. The well began producing hydrocarbons in 2011 and
continued producing through at least January 2014. Sarah Vogel
owns mineral interests and has received royalties from the oil or
gas produced and sold from the well.

Vogel, individually and on behalf of those similarly situated,
sued Marathon seeking declaratory relief as well as money damages
for failure to pay royalties on flared gas. Vogel alleged Marathon
flared all or some of the gas produced from the well, some of the
gas was flared in violation of N.D.C.C. Section 38-08-06.4,
Marathon owes royalties on the value of the flared gas, and she is
entitled to sue for and recover damages under N.D.C.C. Section 38-
08-06.4. Vogel also sought damages for common law claims of
conversion and waste. Vogel also requested class certification,
alleging Marathon failed to pay royalties for flared gas on 29
wells and claiming the class includes over 100 similarly situated
royalty owners. Vogel later amended her complaint, alleging she
also has a private right of action under the Environmental Law
Enforcement Act, to enforce payment of royalties attributable to
gas flared in violation of N.D.C.C. Section 38-08-06.4.

Marathon answered and subsequently moved to dismiss Vogel's
complaint under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject-
matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted.

The district court granted Marathon's motion to dismiss. The court
stated N.D.C.C. ch. 38-08 provides the Industrial Commission with
very broad authority to regulate and administer oil and gas
related activities in the state, exclusively provides the remedies
Vogel seeks, and Vogel did not exhaust her administrative
remedies.

A copy of Justice McEvers's opinion dated May 31, 2016, is
available at http://goo.gl/HQ1xv8from Leagle.com.

Stephen D. Easton, 1770 Dillon Court, Laramie, Wyo. 82072; Derrick
L. Braaten and JJ William England, 109 North Fourth Street, Suite
100, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4003; Cody L. Balzer, 1302 Cleveland
Avenue, Loveland, Colo. 80537; and Matthew J. Kelly, 1705 West
College Street, Bozeman, Mont. 59715, for plaintiff and appellant
John W. Morrison Jr., P.O. Box 2798, Bismarck, N.D. 58502-2798,
and Adrian A. Miller, P.O. Box 639, Billings, Mont. 59103-0639,
for defendant and appellee

Hope L. Hogan, Office of the Attorney General, 500 North Ninth
Street, Bismarck, N.D. 58501-4509, for amicus curiae State of
North Dakota

The Supreme Court of North Dakota panel consists of Lisa Fair
McEvers, Daniel J. Crothers, Dale V. Sandstrom


MARRONE BIO: Special Situations to File 3rd Amended Complaint
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. granted the plaintiffs' motion to
amend the amended complaint in the case captioned SPECIAL
SITUATIONS FUND III QP, L.P., et al., Plaintiffs, v. MARRONE BIO
INNOVATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 2:14-cv-02571-MCE-KJN
(E.D. Cal.).

The plaintiffs were directed to file their Third Amended Complaint
not later than five days following Judge England's memorandum and
order.

A full-text copy of Judge England's May 26, 2016 memorandum and
order is available at https://is.gd/3K3f0x from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs in the consolidated class action charged the
defendant, Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., certain of its officers
and directors, and its public auditor, Ernst & Young, with
violating federal securities laws (i.e., Section 11 of the
Securities Act of 1933 and Section 10(b) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934).  According to the plaintiffs, they were
defrauded of millions of investment dollars based on the financial
reporting fraud of Marrone Bio and its Chief Operating Officer and
head of sales, defendant Hector Absi.

Special Situations Fund III QP, L.P., Special Situations Cayman
Fund, L.P., David M. Fineman, Plaintiffs, represented by Michael
John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler
LLP.

Kent Oldham, Plaintiff, represented by Robert S Green, Green &
Noblin, P.C..

Marrone Bio Innovations, Inc., Pamela G. Marrone, James B. Boyd,
Donald J. Glidewell, Elin Miller, Ranjeet Bhatia, Pamela Contag,
Tim Fogarty, Lawrence Hough, Joseph Hudson, Les Lyman, Richard
Rominger, Shaugn Stanley, Sean Schickedanz, Defendants,
represented by Judson Earle Lobdell -- jlobdell@mofo.com --
Morrison & Foerster LLP.

Hector Absi, Defendant, represented by John V. McDermott --
jmcdermott@bhfs.com -- Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP, pro
hac vice, Jonathan Charles Sandler -- jsandler@bhfs.com --
Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck & Judson Earle Lobdell, Morrison &
Foerster LLP.

Piper Jaffray & Co., Roth Capital Partners, LLC, Jefferies, LLC,
Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Inc., Defendants, represented by
Charlene Sachi Shimada -- charlene.shimada@morganlewis.com --
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP & Lucy Han Wang --
lucy.wang@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP.

Ernst & Young, LLP, Defendant, represented by Elizabeth Dianne
Mann -- emann@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown LLP & Stanley J Parzen
-- sparzen@mayerbrown.com -- Mayer Brown and Platt, pro hac vice.

Special Situations Cayman Fund, L.P., Special Situations Fund III
QP, L.P., Movant, represented by Lawrence M. Rolnick --
lrolnick@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice,
Michael John McGaughey -- mmcgaughey@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein
Sandler LLP, Steven M. Hecht -- shecht@lowenstein.com --
Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice & Thomas E. Redburn, Jr. --
tredburn@lowenstein.com -- Lowenstein Sandler LLP, pro hac vice.

Marrone Investor Group, Movant, represented by Jon A. Tostrud --
jtostrud@tostrudlaw.com -- Tostrud Law Group, P.C..

United States of America, Movant, represented by Todd A. Pickles,
United States Attorney's Office.


MDL 2380: Shop-Vac Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
---------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: SHOP-VAC MARKETING AND SALES
PRACTICES LITIGATION. THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO ALL CASES, MDL No.
2380, No. 4:12-md-2380 (M.D. Pa.), Judge Yvette Kane granted the
parties' joint motion for preliminary approval of their proposed
settlement agreement, preliminary certification of a nationwide
settlement class, and approval of proposed form of notice.

Plaintiffs Andrew Harbut, Alan McMichael, and Kris Reid filed the
first consolidated amended complaint in the multidistrict
litigation involving the marketing of Shop-Vac brand wet/dry
vacuums on February 19, 2013, and the second consolidated amended
complaint (SCAC) on September 12, 2013.  In the SCAC, Harbut,
McMichael, and Reid alleged, inter alia, that the defendants Shop-
Vac Corporation, Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., and Lowe's HIW, Inc.
made fraudulent and misleading representations about the peak
horsepower and tank capacity of Shop-Vac brand wet/dry vacuums.

In September 2015, the parties reached an agreement in principle
to settle, and continued negotiating until March 2016.

The proposed settlement agreement provides, inter alia, for an
extension of the manufacturer's warranty on the motors of the
Shop-Vac brand wet/dry vacuums by 24 months, requires Shop-Vac to
change how it refers to "peak horsepower" on its marketing
materials, and "alters the existing tank gallon legend" of the
vacuums.  The defendants agreed not to oppose Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, Lax LLP, Lite DePalma Greenberg, LLC, and Milberg LLP's
request for $4,250,000 in attorneys' fees and expenses.  In
exchange thereof, the proposed class settlement would release,
inter alia, all claims that any member of the settlement class has
or may have in the future against the defendants.  The settlement
agreement also provides that counsel may submit to the court an
application "seeking awards to Plaintiffs not to exceed $5,000
each."

A full-text copy of Judge Kane's May 26, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/sLqRIg from Leagle.com.

Emanuele DiMare, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F. Fox, Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Charles E. Schaffer --
cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin, Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, pro hac
vice, Elizabeth J. Goldstein -- egoldstein@dilworthlaw.com --
Dilworth Paxson, Jordan L. Chaikin, Parker Waichman LLP, George V
Granade, Reese Richman LLP, J. Christopher Munley --
cmunley@munley.com -- Munley, Munley & Cartwright, P.C., James J.
Rodgers -- jrodgers@dilworthlaw.com -- Dilworth Paxson LLP &
Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Deborah Blaylock, plaintiff, represented by Adam J. Levitt --
alevitt@gelaw.com -- Grant & Eisenhofer.

Deborah Blaylock, Plaintiff, represented by Brian F. Fox, Levin,
Fishbein, Sedran & Berman, Charles E. Schaffer, Levin, Fishbein,
Sedran & Berman, pro hac vice, Elizabeth J. Goldstein, Dilworth
Paxson, Eric D. Holland -- eholland@allfela.com -- Holland,
Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC, R. Seth Crompton --
scrompton@allfela.com -- Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC,
Randall S. Crompton, Holland, Groves, Schneller & Stolze, LLC,
George V Granade, Reese Richman LLP, J. Christopher Munley,
Munley, Munley & Cartwright, P.C., James J. Rodgers, Dilworth
Paxson LLP & Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Alan McMichael, Plaintiff, represented by Bruce Daniel Greenberg
-- bgreenberg@litedepalma.com -- LITE DEPALMA GREENBERG, LLC,
Elizabeth J. Goldstein, Dilworth Paxson, Adam R. Gonnelli --
agonnelli@faruqilaw.com -- Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Andrei V. Rado,
Milberg LLP, Bonner C Walsh, Walsh, PLLC, George V Granade, Reese
Richman LLP, James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Jennifer S.
Czeisler, Milberg LLP, Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP, Robert
I Lax, Lax LLP, Sanford P. Dumain, Milberg LLP & Scott R.
Foglietta, Milberg LLP.

Andrew Harbut, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Goldstein,
Dilworth Paxson, William J. Pinilis, Pinilis Halpern, LLP, Adam R.
Gonnelli, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, Bonner C Walsh, Walsh, PLLC, George
V Granade, Reese Richman LLP, James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson
LLP, Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP, Robert I Lax, Lax LLP &
Andrei V. Rado, Milberg LLP.

Clay Scott, Plaintiff, represented by George V Granade, Reese
Richman LLP,James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP & Michael R
Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Scott Mahoney, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Goldstein,
Dilworth Paxson, Lisa J. Rodriguez, Nicole M. Acchione, TRUJILLO
RODRIGUEZ & RICHARDS, LLP, Adam R. Gonnelli, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP,
Bonner C Walsh, Walsh, PLLC, George V Granade, Reese Richman LLP,
James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Michael R Reese, Reese
Richman LLP & Sandra G. Smith, Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP.

Igor Selizhuk, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Goldstein,
Dilworth Paxson, Jerrold S. Parker, Parker Waichman Alonso LLP,
George V Granade, Reese Richman LLP, J. Christopher Munley,
Munley, Munley & Cartwright, P.C., James J. Rodgers, Dilworth
Paxson LLP & Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Fred Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Caroline F. Bartlett,
CARELLA BYRNE,Elizabeth J. Goldstein, Dilworth Paxson, Scott A.
George, Seeger Weiss, LLP,Donald A. Ecklund, Carella Byrne Cecchi
Olstein Brody & Agnello Pc, George V Granade, Reese Richman LLP,
J. Christopher Munley, Munley, Munley & Cartwright, P.C., James E.
Cecchi, Carella Byrne Cecchi Olstein Brody & Agnello Pc, James J.
Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP, Jonathan Shub, Kohn, Swift & Graf,
P.C. & Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Charles Kates, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Goldstein,
Dilworth Paxson, Nicholas J Drakulich, The Drakulich Firm APLC,
Robert J Drakulich, Drakulich Firm APLC, George V Granade, Reese
Richman LLP, J. Christopher Munley, Munley, Munley & Cartwright,
P.C., James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP & Michael R Reese,
Reese Richman LLP.

Walt Lavespere, Plaintiff, represented by Douglas Edward Rushton,
Jr., Neblett Beard & Arsenault, Elizabeth J. Goldstein, Dilworth
Paxson, Richard J. Arsenault, Neblett, Beard & Arsenault, George V
Granade, Reese Richman LLP, J. Christopher Munley, Munley, Munley
& Cartwright, P.C., James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP &
Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Debra Johnson, Plaintiff, represented by Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.,
Becnel Law Firm, LLC, Elizabeth J. Goldstein, Dilworth Paxson,
Matthew B. Moreland, Becnel Law Firm, LLC, George V Granade, Reese
Richman LLP, James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP & Michael R
Reese, Reese Richman LLP.

Kris Reid, Plaintiff, represented by Elizabeth J. Goldstein,
Dilworth Paxson,Adam R. Gonnelli, Faruqi & Faruqi LLP, George V
Granade, Reese Richman LLP, James J. Rodgers, Dilworth Paxson LLP,
Michael R Reese, Reese Richman LLP & Andrei V. Rado, Milberg LLP.

Shop-Vac Corporation, Defendant, represented by Michael Lawrence
Mallow, SIDLEY AUSTIN LLP, Michael Brian Shortnacy, Sidley Austin
LLP,Mark D Campbell, Sidley Austin LLP & Thomas G. Collins,
Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney PC.

Lowe's Home Centers, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark D
Campbell, Sidley Austin LLP & Michael Brian Shortnacy, Sidley
Austin LLP.

Lowe's HIW, Inc., Defendant, represented by Mark D Campbell,
Sidley Austin LLP & Michael Brian Shortnacy, Sidley Austin LLP.

Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Defendant, represented by Mark D
Campbell, Sidley Austin LLP, Michael Lawrence Mallow, SIDLEY
AUSTIN LLP & Michael Brian Shortnacy, Sidley Austin LLP.


MINNESOTA: Bid to Stay "Daywitt" Suit Denied
--------------------------------------------
In the case captioned Kenneth S. Daywitt, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
State of Minnesota, et al., Defendants, Case No. 14-cv-4526
(WMW/LIB)(D. Minn.), Judge Wilhelmina M. Wright affirmed the March
4, 2016 Order of the United States Magistrate Judge Leo I.
Brisbois denying the defendants' motion to stay proceedings
pending the resolution of the ongoing class action lawsuit in
Karsjens v. Jesson, No. 11-cv-3659 (DWF/TNL).

Judge Wright held that the defendants failed to demonstrate the
specific hardship or inequity they will suffer if the case is not
stayed and failed to establish that the plaintiffs will not be
prejudiced by a stay.

A full-text copy of Judge Wright's May 24, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/KTwlzB from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs, Kenneth S. Daywitt and Merel E. Bishop, are
individuals civilly committed to the Minnesota Sex Offender
Program (MSOP), and their complaint alleged multiple claims
against the defendants State of Minnesota, Minnesota Department of
Human Services, MSOP, and eight employees of MSOP and the State of
Minnesota in their individual and official capacities.  The
complaint alleged that the defendants have violated and continue
to violate the plaintiffs' rights under the First and Fourteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution, and that the
defendants have interfered and continue to interfere with the
plaintiffs' religious rights, in violation of the Religious Land
Use and Institutionalized Persons Act.

Kenneth S. Daywitt, Merel E. Bishop, Plaintiff, represented by
Zorislav R Leyderman, The Law Office of Zorislav R. Leyderman.

State of Minnesota, Minnesota Sex Offender Program, Lucinda
Jesson, Nancy Johnston, Kevin Moser, Troy Basaraba, Ann Zimmerman,
Scott Benoit, Sara Kulas, Brian Ninneman, Minnesota Department of
Human Services, Defendants, represented by Anthony R Noss.


MONARCH RECOVERY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Shatkin" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Theresa Shatkin, on behalf of herself individually and all others
similarly situated v. Monarch Recovery Management, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-02593 (E.D.N.Y., May 20, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Monarch Recovery Management, Inc. operates a debt collection firm
headquartered at 9350 Ashton Rd # 101, Philadelphia, PA.

Theresa Shatkin is a pro se plaintiff.


NANTKWEST INC: Faces "Wagner" Suit Over Misleading Fin'l Reports
----------------------------------------------------------------
Justin T. Wagner, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Nantkwest, Inc., Patrick Soon-Shiong, Barry
J. Simon, Richard Gomberg, Steve Gorlin, Michael D. Blaszyk,
Henryji, Richard Kusserow, John T. Potts, Jr., Robert Rosen, John
C. Thomas, Jr,, Cambridge Equities L.P., MP 13 Ventures, LLC,
Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated, Citigroup
Global Markets Inc., Jefferies LLC, Piper Jaffray & Co., MLV & Co.
LLC and Does 1-25, inclusive, Case No. BC621292 (Cal. Super. Ct.,
May 20, 2016), alleges that the Defendants made false and
misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material
adverse facts about the Company's business, operations, and
prospects.

NantKwest, Inc. operates a clinical-stage immunotherapy company
located at 3530 John Hopkins Court, San Diego, CA 92121.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James L. Jaconette, Esq.
      ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD, LLP
      655 West Broadway, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 231-1058
      Facsimile: (619) 231-7423
      E-mail: jamesj@rgrdlaw.com


NAT'L FOOTBALL: Class Action Lawyers Get Share of Litigation Fees
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Baxter, writing for The Am Law Daily, reports that like a
pair of lineman sparring in the trenches, the seemingly endless
litigation wars between the National Football League and its
players have continued this year, and the lawyers on both sides
have reaped the benefits.

In February, the NFL revealed in federal tax filings how much it
paid during its most recent fiscal year to Akin Gump Strauss Hauer
& Feld, Covington & Burling and Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton &
Garrison.  In an annual filing with the U.S. Department of Labor
just before the Memorial Day holiday weekend, the Washington,
D.C.-based labor union representing the league's players detailed
its own payments to 16 law firms, including fees for more than a
half-dozen Am Law 100 firms.

Winston & Strawn, which has long served as primary outside counsel
to the National Football League Players Association, won the
lion's share of the outside counsel work by receiving nearly $4.5
million in fees during the one-year period between March 1, 2015,
and Feb. 29, 2016, according to the union's LM-2 filing with the
Labor Department on May 27.  The sum is nearly double what Winston
& Strawn took in from the union a year before.

Jeffrey Kessler, co-chair of the sports law group at Winston &
Strawn and elected co-chairman of the firm last year, just three
years removed from leading a 60-lawyer team to the firm from now-
defunct Dewey & LeBoeuf, serves as the NFLPA's primary outside
counsel.  Kessler, a high-profile sports industry litigator, is
currently part of the legal team assembled by New England Patriots
star quarterback Tom Brady in his ongoing effort to overturn
league-imposed sanctions stemming from the so-called Deflategate
saga.

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which is working with Kessler on Brady's
appeal of a four-game suspension in the Deflategate matter,
received $145,182 for its services to the union last year.  Weil,
Gotshal & Manges, which has also worked closely with Kessler (he
was once an associate and partner at the firm) on NFLPA matters,
took in another $35,570 from the union.

Norton Rose Fulbright, which has handled internal investigations
for the NFLPA on everything from bounty scandals and locker room
bullying issues to domestic violence, was paid $255,358 by the
union last year.  Latham & Watkins, which began taking on more
NFLPA-related work in 2009 after the election of former partner
DeMaurice "De" Smith as the union's executive director, received
$418,472 from the nonprofit organization during its most recent
fiscal year.

After leaving Latham, but before joining the NFLPA, Smith served
as head of the government investigations and white-collar group at
Patton Boggs in Washington, D.C. Smith, who has been outspoken in
his criticism of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell on player
disciplinary issues, was re-elected last year to a third term as
executive director.  The top leadership role saw the former
federal prosecutor take home nearly $2.7 million in total
compensation last year, according to the union's LM-2 filing.

Ira Fishman, who worked with Smith at Patton Boggs, received
$780,540 from the NFLPA last year in his role as managing director
of the union.  Former Latham associate Tuaranna "Teri" Patterson
Smith was paid $312,101 in her role as deputy managing director,
while former Latham and Patton Boggs associate Ahmad Nassar
received $410,715 in his position as president of NFL Players
Inc., the union's licensing and marketing arm.

Thomas DePaso, a former player who became the union's general
counsel in 2012, took home $711,102 in compensation last year.
DePaso's predecessor as in-house legal chief, Richard Berthelsen,
who briefly served as interim executive director of the NFLPA
following the death of Gene Upshaw in 2008, received another
$118,254 in his role as a consultant.  Other in-house lawyers on
the union's payroll are associate general counsel Ned Erlich
($343,727) and Heather McPhee ($370,885), as well as staff counsel
Joe Briggs ($153,693), Tim English ($151,651), Todd Flanagan
($210,843), Caroline Gotshall ($120,400) and Sean Sansiveri
($227,782).

Other outside firms receiving payments from the NFLPA last year
include the Washington, D.C.-based Groom Law Group ($331,412);
Minneapolis-based Berens Miller ($193,356); Boston-based Hemenway
& Barnes ($84,766); Philadelphia's Willig, Williams & Davidson
($60,000); San Francisco-based Altshuler Berzon ($38,648); New
York's Norwick, Schad & Goering ($30,000); Columbus, Ohio-based
Zaino Hall & Farrin ($26,852); Kirkland & Ellis ($26,387); Orrick,
Herrington & Sutcliffe ($17,899); Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
Garrett & Dunner ($12,741); and Andover, Massachusetts-based
Gilbert & Renton ($8,072).

The current collective bargaining agreement between the NFLPA and
New York-based NFL, reached after a five-month lockout in 2011, is
set to expire in 2020.


NIBCO INC: Court Narrows Claims in "Meadow"
-------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CHAD MEADOW, et al., v. NIBCO, INC, No.
3-15-1124 (M.D. Tenn.), Judge Todd J. Campbell granted in part and
denied, in part, the defendant's partial motion to dismiss the
class action complaint.  Judge Campbell ordered as follows:

          -- Chad Meadow's tort and warranty claims are DISMISSED
             without prejudice to being re-asserted as theories
             under his Tennessee Product Liability Act (TPLA)
             claim.

          -- Kenneth McLaughlin's strict liability claim is
             DISMISSED without prejudice to being re-asserted as
             a theory under his Alabama Extended Manufacturers'
             Liability Doctrine (AEMLD) claim.

          -- The breach of express warranty claims of all the
             plaintiffs are DISMISSED.

          -- McLaughlin's claim for breach of implied warranty is
             DISMISSED.

          -- All claims for products liability as to PEX fittings
             are DISMISSED, except for John and Susan Plisko's
             one claim in paragraph 37 of the Complaint.  All
             claims for products liability as to PEX clamps are
             DISMISSED.

          -- All claims for pre-sales failures to warn are
             DISMISSED.

          -- The Plisko's claim for post-sales failures to warn
             are DISMISSED.

          -- To the extent McLaughlin has asserted a claim for
             negligent marketing, that claim is DISMISSED.

          -- Any claims to recover the costs of an allegedly
             defective product itself or the costs of repair or
             replacement of such a product are DISMISSED.

          -- The unjust enrichment claims of McLaughlin and
             Plisko are DISMISSED.

          -- The Plisko's South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices
             Act (SCUTPA) claim is DISMISSED.

          -- Any separate cause of action for declaratory and/or
             injunctive relief is DISMISSED.

The plaintiffs were ordered to file an Amended Complaint by June
15, 2016, alleging only those claims which remain in the action.

A full-text copy of Judge Campbell's May 24, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/Hrc5sv from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs' complaint alleged that Nibco, Inc. manufactures
certain plumbing products ("PEX products") which prematurely
failed and proximately caused damages to the plaintiffs' homes.
Meadow is from Tennessee, the Plisko are from South Carolina, and
McLaughlin is from Alabama.  These plaintiffs purported to bring
the action on behalf of themselves and all individuals and
entities which own or have owned PEX products or structures in
which PEX products have been installed, but no class action has
been certified in this matter.  The plaintiffs' complaint alleged
13 causes of action.

Chad Meadow, John Plisko, Susan Plisko, Kenneth McLaughlin,
Plaintiff, represented by Charles J. LaDuca --
charlesl@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Charles E.
Schaffer -- cschaffer@lfsblaw.com -- Levin Fishbein Sedran &
Berman, Gregory F. Coleman -- greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg
Coleman Law PC, Jacob M. Polakoff -- jpolakoff@bm.net -- Berger &
Montague, P.C., Jonas P. Mann, Audet & Partners, LLP, Lawrence
Deutsch -- ldeutsch@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C., Mark E.
Silvey, Greg Coleman Law PC, Michael Flannery --
mflannery@cuneolaw.com -- Cuneo Gilbert & LaDuca, LLP, Michael
McShane, Audet & Partners, LLP, Robert K. Shelquist --
rkshelquist@locklaw.com -- Lockridge Grindal Nauen PLLP & Shanon
J. Carson -- scarson@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C..

NIBCO, Inc., Defendant, represented by Franco A. Corrado --
franco.corrado@morganlewis.com -- J. Gordon Cooney, Jr. --
gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com -- Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, pro
hac vice, J.A. Felton -- jfelton@lathropgage.com -- Lathrop & Gage
LLP, Jean Paul Bradshaw, II -- jpbradshaw@lathropgage.com --
Lathrop & Gage LLP & John L. Farringer, IV --
jfarringer@srvhlaw.com -- Sherrard Roe Voight & Harbison.


NORTH SHORE UNIV. HOSPITAL: "Abdale" Suit Can't Proceed as Class
----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DENISE R. ABDALE, HELENE BUTLER, PAULETTE
SCHRAMM, CHARLEEN SOLOMON, LENA VETERE, CHARLES BILLUPS, DIANE
PETERMAN, M.D., KATHERINE CROSS, LINDA KIEHL, ELIZABETH CAPORASO,
RICHARD ERTEL AND JARRET AKINS, ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES AND ALL
OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, Plaintiffs, v. NORTH SHORE-LONG ISLAND
JEWISH HEALTH SYSTEM, INC., NORTH SHORE-LONG ISLAND JEWISH MEDICAL
CARE, PLLC, NORTH SHORE-LIJ NETWORK, INC. AND NORTH SHORE
UNIVERSITY HOSPITAL, Defendants, 2367/13 (Supreme Court, Queens
County), the Supreme Court of Queens County denied the plaintiffs'
motion for class action certification pursuant to CPLR 901 and
902, on behalf of plaintiffs and all others similarly situated,
and for pre-certification discovery with respect to the putative
class.

The Court found that the plaintiffs have not satisfied all of the
prerequisites set forth in CPLR 901.

A full-text copy of the Supreme Court's May 26, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/1c5zjU from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs commenced the action on behalf of themselves and
others similarly situated on February 5, 2013 to recover damages
for, among other things, the defendants' "failure to adequately
protect the confidential personal and medical information of their
current and former patients, conduct that ultimately resulted in
identity and medical identity data breaches". The plaintiffs are
13 patients, or relatives of patients, who allegedly received
medical services at medical facilities owned or operated by the
defendants North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Inc.,
North Shore-Long Island Jewish Medical Care, PLLC, North Shore-LIJ
Network, Inc. and North Shore University Hospital.


ONEG CATERERS: Faces "Shrago" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Shrago, Edgars Sermuks, Andrei Karas, Kapars Sagbazjans
and Igor Gnezdilov, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Oneg Caterers Inc. d/b/a Paradise Manor,
Abrahan Leibowits, and Pessy Leibowits, Case No. 508418/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., May 21, 2015), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages, charges purported to be gratuities,
and provide notice and wage statements, in violation of the New
York Labor Law.

The Defendants operate a catering hall accommodating, weddings
birthday parties, and bar/bat mitzvahs.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gennadiy Naydenskiy, Esq.
      NAYDENSKIY LAW GROUP, P.C.
      2747 Cone Island Ave
      Brooklyn, NY 11235
      Telephone: (718) 808-2224
      E-mail: naydenskiylaw@gmail.com


ORAZIO J PETITO: Faces "Petito Sr." Class Suit in New York
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Orazio J.
Petito.

The case is captioned Orazio Petito, Sr., Derivatively on Behalf
of Great Oak Associates Ltd., and all members of said corporation
similarly situated as him v. Orazio J. Petito, Case No.
508414/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May 21, 2016).

Orazio J. Petito operates a home business in Brooklyn, New York.

ORAZIO J PETITO: Faces "Rocco Petito" Class Suit in New York
------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Orazio J.
Petito.

The case is captioned Rocco J. Petito, derivatively on behalf of
Cityview Apartments LLC, and all members of said company similarly
situated as him v. Orazio J. Petito, Case No. 508411/2016 (N.Y.
Sup. Ct., May 21, 2016).

Orazio J. Petito operates a home business in Brooklyn, New York.


ORTHOTOUCH: Investors Obtain Favorable Ruling in Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------------
Fiona Forde, writing for BDlive, reports that the High Court in
Johannesburg has ruled in favor of more than 12,000 aggrieved
investors in the drawn-out Orthotouch case, in which Hans Klopper
is the business rescue practitioner.

The case goes back to September 2011 when the Highveld Syndication
companies fell into a state of business rescue and Mr. Klopper was
appointed to oversee the process.

A short while later, and in a rescue plan facilitated by
Mr. Klopper, property mogul Nic Georgiou, through his company
Orthotouch, agreed to buy some of the syndication properties and
repay the more than 18,300 aggrieved investors their collective
R4.6 billion investment, plus interest.

But the rescue plan floundered and by 2014 the repayments had
dwindled when it became apparent the plan was not feasible.

At that stage more than 12,000 investors had come together to
institute a class action, under the banner Highveld Syndication
Action Group, represented by the law firm Theron & Partners.

However, around the same time a call was made by Orthotouch to
restructure the repayments and a scheme of arrangement was
proposed between Orthotouch and its creditors under section 155 of
the Companies Act.  This was proposed as an alternative to
liquidation.

It now transpires that the agreement was sanctioned at a meeting
attended by only a fraction of the investors, estimated to number
about 3,000.  But Mr. Klopper insisted on May 31 that all
protocols were followed and that the sanction was legitimate.

"But it was brought without our knowledge," claims Helgard Hencke
of Theron & Partners.  "Had we known it was going ahead, we would
have opposed it."

When they tried to, they learned the scheme also prevented
investors from taking any legal action against Orthotouch, of
which Mr. Klopper is a director.

The Highveld Syndication Action Group filed a court application to
set the scheme of arrangements aside, but they were met at every
turn with technical obstacles laid down by Orthotouch.

The recent judgment, handed down on May 25, has cleared their path
and has allowed them to proceed with their application.

"It's just a stepping stone," says Mr. Hancke.  "But we have won
this round and we can now focus on setting the application aside."

Mr. Klopper must provide the court with proof of the required
number of signatures or votes by June 6.


PARKING SOLUTIONS: Bid to Strike Class Allegations in Carr Denied
-----------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge James S. Gwin denies Defendant's motion to strike
Plaintiff's class allegations in the case, ELLIOTT CARR,
Plaintiff, v. PARKING SOLUTIONS, INC., Defendant, Case No. 1:16-
CV-202 (N.D. Ohio).  A copy of the Court's May 31 Opinion and
Order is available at https://is.gd/PPAZ1S from Leagle.com.

Elliot Carr sues Parking Solutions for violations of the Fair
Credit Reporting Act.

Elliot Carr, Plaintiff, represented by Joseph F. Scott --
jscott@ohiowagelawyers.com -- Scott & Winters, Ryan A. Winters &
Thomas A. Downie.

Parking Solutions, Inc., Defendant, represented by Daniel A.
Messeloff -- Daniel.Messeloff@jacksonlewis.com -- Jackson Lewis,
Karina R. Kendrick, Jackson Lewis & Michael J. Kozimor, Jackson
Lewis.


PENNY NEWMAN: "Palacios" Class Action Deal Has Final Okay
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned JESUS PALACIOS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. PENNY
NEWMAN GRAIN, INC., et al., Defendants, No. 1:14-cv-01804-DAD-SAB
(E.D. Cal.), Judge Kimberly J. Mueller granted the unopposed
motion by the named plaintiffs for: (1) the final approval of the
class action settlement, (2) and incentive award, (3) approval of
the cy pres beneficiary, and (4) an award of attorneys' fees and
costs.

Judge Mueller approved the class settlement as follows:

          1. awarding an incentive payment of $10,000 to Edgar
             Torres and $5,000 each to class representatives
             Jesus Palacios, Jose Palacios, Alejandro Herrera
             Aguilar, and Sabas Medina;

          2. approving Central California Legal Services (CCLS)
             as the cy pres beneficiary;

          3. awarding administration costs in the amount of
             $20,000 to the class administrator Gilardi & Co.
             LLC;

          4. approving the California Private Attorneys General
             Act payment of $7,500 to be distributed to the
             California Labor Workforce Development Agency; and

          5. approving attorneys' fees in the amount of
             $150,000.00.

          6. approving reimbursement of costs in the amount of
             $7,018.83.

A full-text copy of Judge Mueller's May 26, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/dqd2hM from Leagle.com.

The named plaintiffs, Jose Palacios, Jesus Palacios, Alejandro
Herrera Aguilar, Edgar Torres, and Sabas Medina, were employees of
the defendants Penny Newman Grain, Inc., Universal Ag Services,
and Juan Zavala.  The plaintiffs worked as non-exempt, hourly
employees in facilities operated by Penny Newman Grain, a leading
merchant in the international market for grains and feed by-
products.

The named plaintiffs alleged the defendants violated the Fair
Labor Standards Act (FLSA), various sections of the California
Labor Code, California Business and Professions Code, and the
California Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA).  These claims
arose from the defendants' alleged failure to pay overtime wages,
provide meal and rest breaks, pay penalties for missed breaks, pay
all wages due on termination, and reimburse plaintiffs for their
out-of-pocket expenses.

Jesus Palacios, Jose Palacios, Alejandro Herrera Aguilar, Edgar
Torres, Sabas Medina, Plaintiffs, represented by Della Barnett,
California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Enrique Martinez,
Law Offices of John E. Hill, John E. Hill, Law Offices of John E
Hill & Rosa Erandi Zamora, California Rural Legal Assistance
Foundation.

Penny Newman Grain, Inc., Defendant, represented by Christina
Cusimano Tillman -- christina.tillman@mccormickbarstow.com --
McCormick Barstow Sheppard Wayte and Carruth LLP & David R.
McNamara -- dave.mcnamara@mccormickbarstow.com -- McCormick
Barstow Sheppard Wayte & Carruth LLP.

Universal Ag Services, Inc., Juan Zavala, Defendants, represented
by Paul J. Bauer -- pbauer@w2blaw.com -- Walter Wilhelm Bauer.


PHOENIX, AZ: Rental Car Companies File Tax Refund Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Christie, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
rental car companies who already have won a court order for the
return of about $150 million in taxes from a fund that pays for
the University of Phoenix stadium are now seeking a refund of a
similar tax collected by the city of Phoenix.

The companies want a refund of money they've paid in sales taxes
over the past four years because a judge in the other case ruled
such taxes can only be used for road maintenance and construction.
Three companies are involved and paid about $200,000, but the city
has collected more than $34 million from its rental car tax since
2012.  The companies' lawyer said the claim could expand into a
class-action case.

The city uses the money to fund its sports facilities, a medical
research facility, convention center and downtown hotel, so losing
it could impact discussions on building new sports facilities in
downtown Phoenix.

The claim filed for the companies by attorney Shawn Aiken comes
nearly 10 months after a Maricopa County judge ordered the state
of Arizona to issue a similar refund from a rental car tax that
funds the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority.  That public
agency uses the money for debt service on bonds that paid for the
University of Phoenix stadium where the Arizona Cardinals play,
spring training venues and youth sports.

Phoenix spokeswoman Julie Watters said on May 31 the city believed
the tax was legal and was evaluating the claim.

"Although the city is still evaluating the three rental-car
companies' claims, we do not expect the court to certify the class
action, and we expect to prevail on the merits of the companies'
individual claims," Ms. Watters said in a statement.

Mr. Aiken said last year's ruling and an earlier one that declared
the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority rental car tax
unconstitutional also applies to the Phoenix rental car tax.  The
2014 ruling found the state Constitution says vehicle taxes must
be directed to road projects.

That case is nearing a final judgment in Maricopa County Superior
Court and both sides have said they expect it to be appealed.
Aiken said no matter how the appeals court rules, the case won't
end there.

"Win, lose or draw, somebody's going to appeal to the Arizona
Supreme Court," he said.

If the city rejects the new claim, Aiken said the companies plan
to sue.  He said his clients can only ask for refunds of four
years of back tax collections, so the claim needed to be filed to
preserve their recovery rights despite the ongoing nature of the
other case.

"The appeal I think is going to succeed, No. 1. And No. 2, it's
been two years since that ruling, so there's no reason to wait and
let the right for refunds to go by the board," Mr. Aiken said.
"The longer that you wait on these things, you lose years of
refunds going by, so there's really no reason to wait."

Three companies are named in the claim, but Aiken said all rental
car companies in Phoenix could be affected. The previous case
involved more than 100 companies.  Although they may recover up to
$150 million plus interest, they won't pass it on to consumers who
paid the tax because legally the companies are the taxpayers, Mr.
Aiken said after last year's ruling.

The Phoenix rental car tax was enacted in 1989 and helped fund
construction of the downtown arena where the Phoenix Suns play.
The so-called "Arena fund" also has been used as security for the
city-owned Sheraton Hotel, facilities for a medical research
facility known as TGen, and the convention center.  The city is
under pressure to build new facilities to replace the existing
Suns facility.

The county tax that funds the Arizona Sports and Tourism Authority
dates from 2000, when voters approved a rental car and hotel tax.
An attorney for the authority has said they disagree with the 2015
ruling and plan to appeal.


PTC THERAPEUTICS: 3 Securities Class Actions Filed in N.J.
----------------------------------------------------------
PTC Therapeutics, Inc. said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended March 31, 2016, that in March 2016, three
purported securities class action lawsuits were commenced in the
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey (one
each on March 3, 10, and 11), naming as defendants the Company,
its Chief Executive Officer, and its Chief Financial Officer,
captioned, respectively, as Hong Wang v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-01224, Kevin Kosin v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc., et
al., No. 16-cv-01383, and Daniel Parker v. PTC Therapeutics, Inc.,
et al., No. 16-cv-01384.

The lawsuits allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) and
Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 in connection
with allegedly false and misleading statements made by the Company
about its business, operations, and prospects as it relates to the
NDA for Translarna for the treatment of nmDMD that the Company
submitted to the FDA in December 2015. The plaintiffs seek, among
other things, compensatory damages for purchasers of the Company's
common stock between May 6, 2014 and February 29, 2016, as well as
attorneys' fees and costs.


RBC CAPITAL: Suit Over Employee Benefits Plan Can Proceed
---------------------------------------------------------
Jacklyn Wille, writing for Bloomberg BNA, reports that a long-
running lawsuit over how to categorize one of RBC Capital Markets
Corp.'s employee benefit plans is moving forward, but not as a
class action (Tolbert v. RBC Capital Mkts. Corp., 2016 BL 169116,
S.D. Tex., No. 4:11-cv-00107, 5/26/16).

The question is a significant one for former RBC workers like
Brenda Tolbert, who allegedly stands to lose about $27,000 in
benefit payments if her lawsuit is unsuccessful.  Ms. Tolbert
argues that RBC's "wealth accumulation plan" is a pension plan
that must comply with the vesting requirements of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act, while RBC contends that the plan
is a "top hat plan" exempt from these requirements.

If RBC prevails, it will have the ability to forfeit the benefits
earned by Tolbert and other participants.

The parties have been litigating this question since 2011.  RBC
scored an early victory by convincing the district court that the
wealth accumulation plan wasn't a pension plan subject to ERISA.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit disagreed and
found the plan to be ERISA-governed in 2014, but it tasked the
district court with deciding whether the plan was nevertheless a
"top hat plan" and thus exempt from many statutory requirements
(136 PBD, 7/16/14).

Unlike the typical pension plan, top hat plans are intended to
provide benefits for a select group of highly paid employees.
Because they benefit a more sophisticated and affluent group of
workers, they're exempt from providing certain worker protections,
such as the ERISA-mandated vesting schedule at issue in this case.

No Class Treatment

Judge Keith P. Ellison of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of Texas considered Tolbert's request to have the lawsuit
certified as a class action.

On May 26, Judge Ellison rejected each of Tolbert's arguments,
finding that she hadn't satisfied any of the class certification
prerequisites of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a).

Judge Ellison also rejected RBC's attempt to have the lawsuit
dismissed.

RBC argued that Ms. Tolbert didn't exhaust her administrative
remedies before filing suit, as is typically required in lawsuits
for benefits under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act.
This held no sway with Judge Ellison, who explained that Tolbert's
lawsuit wasn't best characterized as a claim for ERISA benefits.

In a similar vein, Judge Ellison declined RBC's request to dismiss
the lawsuit as untimely filed.

Gardere Wynne Sewell LLP represents Tolbert.  Morgan Lewis &
Bockius LLP represents RBC.


RESERVES NETWORK: Sued in Ill. Over Failure to Pay Minimum Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Williams and Thelma Garner v. The Reserves Network, Inc.,
Case No. 2016-CH-06975 (Ill. Ch. Ct., May 20, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum wages in
violation of the Illinois Day and Temporary Laborers Services Act.

The Reserves Network, Inc. is in the business of recruiting
temporary laborers and selling their labor for a fee.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Alvar Ayala, Esq.
      Christopher J. Williams, Esq.
      Neil Kelley, Esq.
      WORKERS' LAW OFFICE PC
      53 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 701
      Chicago, IL 60604
      Telephone: (312) 795-9121


RESURGENT CAPITAL: Fairness Hearing Set for Sept. 9
---------------------------------------------------
In the case, GISELLE FRITZ, on behalf of herself and all others
similarly situated, et al., Plaintiffs, v. RESURGENT CAPITAL
SERVICES, LP, et al., Defendants, No. 11-CV-3300 (FB)
(PK)(E.D.N.Y.), Senior District Judge Frederic Block:

     -- preliminarily approves the class action settlement.

     -- grants certification for settlement purposes of the
proposed class and subclasses.

     -- appoints Ahmad Keshavarz, Charles M. Delbaum, and Mattew
Schedler as class counsel.

     -- directs class counsel to mail individual notices to all
class members by June 15, 2016.

Class members shall be permitted to object in writing to class
counsel within 30 days after receiving the notice but no later
than August 1, 2016. A fairness hearing for final approval of the
settlement is scheduled for September 9, 2016, at 11:00 a.m.

A copy of the Court's June 1, 2016 Order is available at
https://is.gd/1KoM2T from Leagle.com.

Giselle Fritz, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The Law
Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz, Charles M. Delbaum, National Consumer
Law Center, pro hac vice & Matthew Austin Schedler, Camba Legal
Services.

Evan Davis, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The Law
Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz.

Jason Spiegel-Grote, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz,
The Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz.

Patricia Casertano, Plaintiff, represented by Ahmad Keshavarz, The
Law Offices of Ahmad Keshavarz.

Resurgent Capital Services, LP, Defendant, represented by Adam
Michael Swanson -- ASwanson@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP &
Kenneth L. Bressler -- KBressler@BlankRome.com -- Blank Rome LLP.

Alegis Group, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam Michael Swanson,
Blank Rome LLP & Kenneth L. Bressler, Blank Rome LLP.

Mel S. Harris and Associates, LLC, Defendant, represented by Brett
A Scher -- bscher@kdvlaw.com -- Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo
LLP & Yale Pollack, Kaufman Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP.

David Waldman, Defendant, represented by Brett A Scher, Kaufman
Dolowich Voluck & Gonzo LLP & Yale Pollack, Kaufman Dolowich
Voluck & Gonzo LLP.

LVNV Funding, LLC., Defendant, represented by Adam Michael
Swanson, Blank Rome LLP & Kenneth L. Bressler, Blank Rome LLP.

Resurgent Capital Services, LLC, Defendant, represented by Adam
Michael Swanson, Blank Rome LLP & Kenneth L. Bressler, Blank Rome
LLP.


RIVERCITY MOTORWAY: Settles IPO Class Action for $121 Million
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jenny Wiggins, writing for The Sydney Morning Herald, reports that
Investors who bought shares in Brisbane's Clem7 tunnel, which went
into receivership in 2011, have won a $121 million payout
following a successful class action lawsuit by Maurice Blackburn
against traffic forecaster AECOM and owner operator, RiverCity
Motorway.

The settlement, which is conditional until it is approved by the
Federal Court and includes costs, has taken more than four years
to secure.

Maurice Blackburn launched the class action in May 2012 on behalf
of investors in RiverCity Motorway's initial public offering.
Shares issued at $1 in 2006 traded at just 7› before the company
went into receivership in 2011 -- less than a year after the Clem7
tunnel opened.

The class action against AECOM Australia, which did the traffic
forecasts for the tunnel, and two RiverCity Motorway companies was
funded by IMF Bentham, which said it would make a $29 million
profit from the proceedings.

The lawsuit, which attracted more than 1000 investors, alleged
that AECOM made its traffic forecasts without "reasonable
grounds", and left information out of its report in RiverCity's
product disclosure statement.

Misleading information

Maurice Blackburn has previously said that RiverCity investors
relied on information in the toll road company's product
disclosure statement, including AECOM's forecasts, when buying
shares and were "misled" into thinking that the tunnel project
would have plenty of traffic.

AECOM and the two RiverCity companies have not admitted any
liability.

AECOM last year settled two other lawsuits brought in the Federal
Court by KordaMentha, RiverCity's receivers, and financial group
Portigon AG (formerly WestLB AG), one of RiverCity's lenders.
RiverCity Motorway, which operated the $2 billion tunnel, floated
in 2006.  But it filed for administration in February 2011 after
the toll road failed to generate enough traffic to pay back its
debts.

Drivers shunned the tunnel even after toll fares were slashed to
encourage residents to use it.  Just 22,000 vehicles a day used
the tunnel in January 2011 -- two thirds less than the 60,000 a
day forecast to use it in the first month of tolling after Clem7's
opening in March 2010.

Queensland Motorways bought the troubled road for $618 million in
debt and equity in 2013.  Queensland Motorways was subsequently
acquired by Transurban in 2014.

Other traffic forecasters have also been successfully sued, with
Arup last year settling a class action brought by IMF in the
Federal Court over its traffic predictions for Brisbane's Airport
Link tunnel.

AMP Capital Investors' lawsuit against traffic forecasters Parsons
Brinckerhoff and Booz Allen over traffic forecasts for Sydney's
Lane Cove tunnel was settled in 2014.


ROUTE 17: Must Pay $118,000 Judgment to "Mancuso" Plaintiffs
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case, LANCE MANCUSO, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MATT TAUBER, et
al., Defendants, Case No. CV 12-10360 FMO (JCx) (C.D. Cal.),
District Judge Fernando M. Olguin granted a motion for default
judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, class members and the
collective action members, and against defendant Route 17
Entertainment, LLC.  Defendant shall pay:

     $118,381.36 to plaintiffs, class members, and collective
                 action members; and

      $31,500.00 to the California Labor Workforce and
                 Development Agency.

Plaintiffs' counsel, Harris & Ruble, is awarded attorney's fees
$67,619.50, and costs in the amount of $1,361.87 from defendant.

Class Representatives Lance Mancuso and Heather Casterlin are each
awarded an incentive award of $2,500.00, to be paid by defendant.

A copy of the Court's May 31, 2016 Judgment is available at
https://is.gd/XRJgsF from Leagle.com.

Lance Mancuso, Plaintiff, represented by D Alan Harris --
HarrisA@harrisandruble.com -- Harris and Ruble & Priya Mohan,
Harris and Ruble.

Heather Casterlin, Plaintiff, represented by D Alan Harris, Harris
and Ruble & Priya Mohan, Harris and Ruble.

Route 17 Entertainment LLC, Defendant, represented by Kristin
Marie Schuh, Law Offices of Kristin M Schuh.


RUCKUS WIRELESS: Faruqi & Faruqi Files Securities Class Action
--------------------------------------------------------------
Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP on May 31 disclosed that it has filed a class
action lawsuit in the United States District Court of Delaware,
case no. 1:16-cv-00340, on behalf of shareholders of Ruckus
Wireless, Inc. ("Ruckus" or the "Company") (NYSE: RKUS) who hold
Ruckus securities and have been harmed by Ruckus's and its board
of directors' (the "Board") alleged violations of Sections
14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(the "Exchange Act") in connection with the proposed sale of the
Company to Brocade Communications Systems, Inc. ("Brocade").

On April 3, 2016, the Company announced it had entered into an
Agreement and Plan of Merger ("Merger Agreement") under which
Brocade would acquire all of the outstanding shares of Ruckus (the
"Proposed Transaction").

The complaint also charges Ruckus and the Board with violations of
SEC Rule 14d-9, 17 C.F.R. Sec. 240.14d-9(d) ("Rule 14d-9").

If you wish to obtain information concerning this action or view a
copy of the complaint, you can do so by clicking here:
www.faruqilaw.com/RKUSnotice

Pursuant to the terms of the Merger Agreement, which was
unanimously approved by the Board, Ruckus shareholders received
$6.45 in cash and 0.75 of Brocade stock per Company share owned.
The complaint alleges that the offer was inadequate, failing to
reflect the Company's positive financial results and prospects, as
reflected in recently issued earning release for the first quarter
2016 and at least one analyst's target price of $15.00 per share.

The complaint also alleges that the Schedule 14D-9
Solicitation/Recommendation Statement ("14D-9") filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") on April 29, 2016
provided materially incomplete and misleading information about
the Company and the Proposed Transaction, in violation of
14(d)(4), 14(e), and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 14d-9.
Specifically, the 14D-9 contains materially incomplete and
misleading information concerning: (i) the background of the
Proposed Transaction; (ii) the Company's internal financial data
forecasts; and (iii) the financial analyses of the Proposed
Transaction performed by the financial advisors involved,
including Morgan Stanley.

Furthermore, according to the complaint, the Merger Agreement
included a non-solicitation provision, matching and information
rights provisions, and a $50 million termination fee which
essentially ensured that a superior bidder would not emerge, as
any potential suitor would be deterred from expending the time,
cost, and effort of making a superior proposal while knowing that
Brocade can easily foreclose a competing bid.

Take Action

Plaintiff is represented by Faruqi & Faruqi, LLP, a law firm with
extensive experience in prosecuting class actions, and significant
expertise in actions involving corporate fraud.  Faruqi & Faruqi,
LLP, was founded in 1995 and the firm maintains its principal
office in New York City, with offices in Delaware, California, and
Pennsylvania.

If you wish to serve as lead plaintiff, you must move the Court no
later than 60 days from May 31, 2016.  Any member of the putative
class may move the Court to serve as lead plaintiff through
counsel of their choice, or may choose to do nothing and remain an
absent class member.  If you wish to discuss this action, or have
any questions concerning this notice or your rights or interests,
please contact:

Juan E. Monteverde, Esq.
FARUQI & FARUQI, LLP
685 3rd Avenue, 26th Floor
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (877) 247-4292 or (212) 983-9330
E-mail: jmonteverde@faruqilaw.com


SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS: Faces "Olinghouse" Suit in E.D. Arkansas
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Samsung
Electronics America Inc.

The case is captioned Aimee Olinghouse, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. Samsung Electronics America
Inc., Case No. 4:16-cv-00279-BSM (E.D. Ark., May 20, 2016).

Samsung Electronics America Inc. supplies consumer electronics and
digital products in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Adam E. Edwards, Esq.
      Gregory F. Coleman, Esq.
      Mark E. Silvey, Esq.
      GREG COLEMAN LAW PC
      800 South Gay Street, Suite 1100
      Knoxville, TN 37929
      Telephone: (865) 522-0049
      Facsimile: (865) 522-0049
      E-mail: adam@gregcolemanlaw.com
              greg@gregcolemanlaw.com
              mark@gregcolemanlaw.com

         - and -

      John A. Yanchunis, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN COMPLEX LITIGATION GROUP
      201 North Franklin Street, Suite 700
      Tampa, FL 33602
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 222-4736
      E-mail: jyanchunis@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Michael Fantini, Esq.
      Shanon J. Carson, Esq.
      BERGER & MONTAGUE P.C.
      1622 Locust Street
      Philadelphia, PA 19103
      Telephone: (215) 875-5704
      Facsimile: (215) 875-4604
      E-mail: mfantini@bm.net
              scarson@bm.net

         - and -

      Randall Keith Pulliam, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      2800 Cantrell Road, Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 321-8500
      Facsimile: (501) 312-8505
      E-mail: rpulliam@cbplaw.com


SAN JOSE, CA: Over $724K in Attorneys' Fees Awarded in "Gonzales"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge Beth Labson Freeman granted, as modified, the plaintiff's
motion for attorneys' fees in the case captioned MARY LOU
GONZALES, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF SAN JOSE, et al., Defendants, Case
No. 13-cv-00695-BLF (N.D. Cal.).

Mary Lou Gonzales brought the lawsuit against the City of San Jose
and several individuals after police officers who were
investigating her son's involvement in a gang-related murder came
to her home, mistook her identity, and arrested her.  After three
years of litigation, the City agreed to pay Gonzales $10,000,
exclusive of attorneys' fees and costs, to resolve all claims and
the parties settled on the eve of trial.  Gonzales then sought a
lodestar award of $685,515 plus a multiplier in attorneys' fees.
The defendants opposed the amount as excessive.

Judge Freeman granted Gonzales' Motion for Attorneys' Fees as
modified, awarding Gonzales attorneys' fees in the amount of
$724,295.

A full-text copy of Judge Freeman's May 26, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/Jw0GRI from Leagle.com.

Mary Lou Gonzales, Plaintiff, represented by M. Jeffrey Kallis,
Law Firm of Kallis and Associates, P.C, Mary Katherine Acquesta
-- macquesta@boglawyers.com -- Bustamante and Gagliasso, Steven
Michael Berki -- sberki@boglawyers.com -- Bustamante & Gagliasso.

City Of San Jose, Yvonne DelaCruz, Mathew Archer, Defendants,
represented by Ardell Johnson, San Jose City Attorney's Office &
Steven B Dippell, Office of the City Attorney.


SAREPTA THERAPEUTICS: Cobran Asks 1st Circuit to Review Ruling
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Mark A. Cobran and Steve Fleischmann, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, filed an appeal from a
court ruling in the consolidated case titled Cobran, et al. v.
Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:14-cv-10201-IT, in
the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, Boston.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on March 28,
2016, purported class action complaints were filed against the
Company and certain of its officers in the District Court on
January 27, 2014, and January 29, 2014.  The complaints were
consolidated into a single action (Corban v. Sarepta, et. al., No.
14-cv-10201).  The Plaintiffs' consolidated amended complaint
sought to bring claims on behalf of themselves and persons or
entities that purchased or acquired securities of the Company
between July 10, 2013, and November 11, 2013.  The consolidated
amended complaint alleged that Sarepta and certain of its officers
violated the federal securities laws in connection with
disclosures related to eteplirsen, the Company's lead therapeutic
candidate for Duchenne muscular dystrophy, and seeks damages in an
unspecified amount.

The appellate case is captioned as Cobran, et al. v. Sarepta
Therapeutics, Inc., et al., Case No. 16-1658, in the United States
Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          William B. Federman, Esq.
          Amanda B. Murphy, Esq.
          FEDERMAN & SHERWOOD
          10205 N. Pennsylvania Avenue
          Oklahoma City, OK 73120
          Telephone: (405) 235-1560
          Facsimile: (405) 239-2112
          E-mail: wbf@federmanlaw.com
                  abm@federmanlaw.com

               - and -

          Peter C. Harrar, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Ave.
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: harrar@whafh.com

               - and -

          Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS
          257 Dedham Street
          Newton, MA 02461
          Telephone: (617) 964-1177
          Facsimile: (617) 332-1223
          E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

Plaintiff Daniel Baradarian is represented by:

          Jason M. Leviton, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal St., Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jason@blockesq.com

Plaintiff Bijesh Amin is represented by:

          Jeffrey C. Block, Esq.
          BLOCK & LEVITON LLP
          155 Federal St., Suite 1303
          Boston, MA 02110
          Telephone: (617) 398-5600
          E-mail: jeff@blockesq.com

Defendants-Appellees Sarepta Therapeutics, Inc., Chris Garabedian,
Sandesh Mahatme and Ed Kaye are represented by:

          Alexia Rhae De Vincentis, Esq.
          Christopher G. Green, Esq.
          Mark David Vaughn, Esq.
          ROPES & GRAY LLP
          800 Boylston St
          Boston, MA 02199-3600
          Telephone: (617) 951-7000
          E-mail: Alexia.DeVincentis@ropesgray.com
                  Christopher.Green@ropesgray.com
                  Mark.Vaughn@ropesgray.com

               - and -

          Michael J. Vito, Esq.
          US SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION
          33 Arch Street, 23rd Floor
          Boston, MA 02110-1424
          Telephone: (617) 573-4581
          E-mail: vitom@sec.gov

Interested Party Brian Heidrich is represented by:

          Adam M. Stewart, Esq.
          SHAPIRO HABER & URMY LLP
          Seaport East
          2 Seaport Ln
          Boston, MA 02210
          Telephone: (617) 439-3939
          E-mail: astewart@shulaw.com

Interested Party Corban Group is represented by:

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

               - and -

          Alan L. Kovacs, Esq.
          LAW OFFICE OF ALAN L. KOVACS
          257 Dedham Street
          Newton, MA 02461
          Telephone: (617) 964-1177
          Facsimile: (617) 332-1223
          E-mail: alankovacs@yahoo.com

               - and -

          Lydia Keaney Reynolds, Esq.
          WOLF HALDENSTEIN ADLER FREEMAN & HERZ LLP
          270 Madison Avenue
          New York, NY 10016-0000
          Telephone: (212) 545-4600
          E-mail: reynolds@whafh.com


SETERUS INC: Faces Class Action Over Alleged Kickback Scheme
------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that
Seterus, one of the country's largest servicers of home mortgages,
has been hit with a class action lawsuit alleging the company has
overcharged its customers for mandatory insurance coverage by
partnering with one insurance provider, who then kicks back a
portion of the purportedly overpriced insurance policies to
Seterus.

On May 24, plaintiff Jolanta Rozwadowska filed the putative class
action in Cook County Circuit Court against Seterus Inc. and QBE
First Insurance Agency over the alleged kickback scheme.

Ms. Rozwadowska is represented in the action by attorney Thomas A.
Zimmerman Jr. and other attorneys with the Zimmerman Law Firm, of
Chicago.

According to the lawsuit, Ms. Rozwadowska, described only as a
resident of Illinois, owns a home in northwest suburban Hoffman
Estates.  The mortgage on that home was serviced by Seterus, the
complaint said.

According to public records, the mortgage on the property was
modified in 2014, and assigned to Fannie Mae.  Seterus serviced
the mortgage on behalf of Fannie Mae.  In 2015, Fannie Mae filed a
foreclosure lis pendens notice with Cook County against the
property, public records said.

While Seterus was servicing Ms. Rozwadowska's mortgage, the
lawsuit said she allowed her home insurance coverage to lapse.
Under the terms of her mortgage contract, this allowed Seterus to
then select a new insurer to cover the property, and force her to
pay for the coverage.

This so-called "force-placed" insurance coverage is standard
practice for Seterus and other home mortgage loan servicers, who
require the insurance to cover their investment against hazards,
the complaint said.

However, while the language of the contract authorizes loan
servicers, like Seterus, in the event of a lapse of coverage, to
purchase "reasonable and appropriate" insurance policies to cover
the home, the lawsuit said Seterus and QBE "have an exclusive
arrangement," under which "QBE First monitors Seterus' mortgage
loan portfolio to identify lapses in coverage or inadequacy of
insurance."

When such lapses are found, the lawsuit said, Seterus allows QBE
to buy the insurance, and Seterus includes the premium in its
borrowers' mortgages.

However, the complaint said in Rozwadowska's case, and in the case
of potentially thousands of others homeowners in Illinois and
elsewhere, Seterus "abused the discretion" granted it under the
mortgage loan agreement, force-placing insurance policies that are
overpriced because, according to the complaint, "a considerable
portion" of the premium charged to borrowers is "kicked back to
Seterus and/or QBE First."

Rozwadowska said Seterus and QBE notified her in February they had
charged her $2,074 for a year of policy insurance, deducting that
amount from her escrow account or adding it to her mortgage loan,
if the amount in escrow was too little.

The lawsuit asked the judge to sign off on creating a class of
plaintiffs including every homeowner on whom Seterus and QBE has
force-placed an insurance policy, as well as a special subclass
limited to Illinoisans whose mortgages were serviced by Seterus
and for whom Seterus also purchased insurance coverage.

The complaint alleged violations of Illinois consumer fraud law
and the federal Truth in Lending Act, as well as breach of
contract and unjust enrichment, among other counts.

The lawsuit asked the court to award actual and punitive damages,
plus attorney fees.


SHNY RESTAURANT: Sued Over Americans with Disabilities Act Breach
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amanie Riley, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. SHNY Restaurant Group, LLC, Case No. 1:16-cv-03778
(S.D.N.Y., May 20, 2016), is brought against the Defendant for
violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

SHNY Restaurant Group, LLC operates a restaurant located at 645
9th Ave., New York, NY 10036-3606.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      C.K. Lee, Esq.
      LEE LITIGATION GROUP, PLLC
      30 East 39th Street, 2nd Floor
      New York, NY 10016
      Telephone: (212) 465-1188
      Facsimile: (212) 465-1181
      E-mail: cklee@leelitigation.com


SKYWEST AIRLINES: Bid to Dismiss "Hirst" Suit Granted
-----------------------------------------------------
Judge John J. Tharp, Jr. granted the defendants' motion to dismiss
the amended complaint in the case captioned ANDREA HIRST, MOLLY
STOVER, and EMILY STROBLE SZE, on behalf of themselves
individually and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v.
SKYWEST, INC. and SKYWEST AIRLINES, INC., Defendants, No. 15 C
02036 (N.D. Ill.).

The plaintiffs, Andrea Hirst, Molly Stover, and Emily Stroble Sze,
are former flight attendants with SkyWest Airlines, Inc.  They
brought the action on behalf of themselves and all other similarly
situated flight attendants who were paid hourly wages by SkyWest,
Inc. and SkyWest Airlines, Inc. (collectively, "SkyWest") within
the three years prior to the filing of the suit.  The plaintiffs
alleged that SkyWest's compensation scheme -- under which they
were not paid based upon the total hours they worked in a given
duty day but only for the number of block time hours they worked
when the aircraft's main cabin door was closed -- violates the
Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and the Illinois Minimum Wage Law
("IMWL").  The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint
under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and moved to
dismiss the IMWL claim under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction.

Judge Tharp granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice as to the
IMWL claims and the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief,
but granted the motion without prejudice as to the FLSA claims.
The judge gave the plaintiffs 21 days to file a Second Amended
Complaint.

A full-text copy of Judge Tharp's May 24, 2016 memorandum opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/iks6y8 from Leagle.com.

Andrea Hirst, Molly Stover, Plaintiff, represented by Adam Arthur
Edwards -- adam@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC, Amy
Elisabeth Keller -- aek@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Edward A. Wallace -- eaw@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace LLP,
Lisa Anne White -- lisa@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC,
Mark E Silvey, Greg Coleman Law PC, Tyler J. Story --
tjs@wexlerwallace.com -- Wexler Wallace Llp & Gregory F Coleman --
greg@gregcolemanlaw.com -- Greg Coleman Law PC.

Emily Stroble Sze, Plaintiff, represented by Amy Elisabeth Keller,
Wexler Wallace LLP, Tyler J. Story, Wexler Wallace Llp & Gregory F
Coleman, Greg Coleman Law PC.

Skywest Airlines, Inc., SkyWest,Inc., Defendant, represented by
Michael H. Cramer -- michael.cramer@ogletreedeakins.com --
Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Colleen Grace
DeRosa -- colleen.derosa@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins,
Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Michael D. Ray --
michael.ray@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak
& Stewart, P.C. & Rodney A. Harrison --
rodney.harrison@ogletreedeakins.com -- Ogletree Deakins Nash Smoak
& Stewart PC.


SMART CIRCLE: Faces "Gavidia" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
---------------------------------------------------------------
Frank Gavidia, on behalf of himself, those similarly situated, the
proposed Rule 23 Class, and on behalf of the general public v.
Smart Circle International LLC, Looped In Inc., Signals United
Inc., OnPoint OC Inc., Case No. 8:16-cv-00922 (C.D. Cal., May 20,
2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants own and operate a marketing company in California.

Frank Gavidia is a pro se plaintiff.


SOCIAL SECURITY: Objections Granted in Part in "Walker" Suit
------------------------------------------------------------
District Judge Richard A. Jones of the Western District of
Washington, overruled in part and granted in part defendant's
objection in the case RILEY WALKER, Plaintiff, v. CAROLYN W.
COLVIN, Defendant, Case No. C15-5252RAJ-JRC (W.D. Wash.)

Riley Walker filed a complaint seeking declaratory relief and a
review of the Social Security Administration's denial of his
application for supplemental security income benefits. Walker
alleges that additional information submitted to the Security
Administration's Appeals Council was not made a part of his
administrative record. According to Walker, the additional
information is relevant to help him demonstrate that the
administrative law judge assigned to his case is biased against
similarly situated plaintiffs.

Walker filed a motion to file an over-length brief that would
supplement his opening brief with a brief his counsel filed in
another matter, Seibel v. Colvin, Case No. C14-1973-TSZ. Walker
hopes to supplement his administrative record with essentially the
same materials that the Seibel plaintiffs sought to include in
their administrative records. Walker requested leave to append the
motion to remand filed in Seibel to his opening brief. Walker
argued that the Seibel motion explains why the materials omitted
from his administrative record should be submitted to the court.

Judge Creatura found Walker's arguments persuasive and made an
order granting Walker's motion to file an over-length brief.
Defendant was ordered to supplement his response to Walker's
opening brief with the response submitted in opposition to the
Seibel motion to remand.  Defendant objected to Judge Creatura's
order.

Judge Creatura granted defendant's request for modification of
Judge Cretura's order to the extent that Judge Cretura's order
allows plaintiff to supplement his opening brief with Seibel
motion to remand, and the corresponding reply. Plaintiff is
granted leave to file an amended opening brief, limited to 28
pages. Defendant is not required to supplement his response to
plaintiff's opening brief with his response to the Seibel motion
to remand. Defendant's response is also limited to twenty-eight 28
pages.

A copy of Judge Jones's order dated May 26, 2016, is available at
http://goo.gl/A0ShvLfrom Leagle.com.

Riley Walker, Plaintiff, represented by:

     William Joel Rutzick, Esq.
     SCHROETER GOLDMARK & BENDER
     810 Third Avenue, Suite 500
     Seattle, WA 98104
     Telephone: 206-622-8000
     Facsimile: 206-682-2305

Carolyn Colvin, Defendant, represented by Kerry Jane Keefe, US
ATTORNEY'S OFFICE and Nancy A Mishalanie, SOCIAL SECURITY
ADMINISTRATION


SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS: Wins Dismissal of Diversified Capital Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DIVERSIFIED CAPITAL INVESTMENTS, INC.,
Plaintiff, v. SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS, INC., et al., Defendants,
Case No. 15-cv-03796-HSG (N.D. Cal.), Judge Haywood S. Gilliam,
Jr. granted the defendants' motion to dismiss.

A full-text copy of Judge Gilliam's May 24, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/zYAGeN from Leagle.com.

A putative class action was brought under state law regarding the
defendants' termination of their commercial lease agreements with
the plaintiff and other similarly-situated lessors.

The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and dismissed
with leave to amend the plaintiff's breach of contract claim, and
dismissed without leave to amend the plaintiff's declaratory
relief claim.

Diversified Capital Investments, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by
Dominic R Valerian -- dvalerian@gallo-law.com -- Gallo LLP & Ray
Edwin Gallo -- rgallo@gallo-law.com -- Gallo LLP.

Sprint Communications, Inc., Nextel Communications, Inc., Nextel
of California, Inc, Defendant, represented by Allen Brooks
Gresham, II -- bgresham@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuireWoods LLP &
Sylvia Jihae Kim -- skim@mcguirewoods.com -- McGuire Woods LLP.


ST. LAWRENCE: Feb. 2017 Claim Form Submission Deadline Set
----------------------------------------------------------
Did you live at an Ontario institution for People with
Developmental Disabilities?

St. Lawrence Regional Centre
between April 1, 1975 - June 30, 1983

Oxford Regional Centre
between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1996 or in the "Mental
Retardation Unit" or "MR Unit" between Jan, 1, 1969 - March 31,
1974

Durham Centre for the Developmentally Handicapped
between April 1, 1974 - Sept. 28, 1986

Northwestern Regional Centre
between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1994

L.S. Penrose Centre
between April 1, 1974 - March 31, 1977

Midwestern Regional Centre
between Sept. 1, 1963 - March 31, 1998

Muskoka Centre
between Aug. 28, 1973 - June 30, 1993

Bluewater Centre
between April 1, 1976 - Dec. 20, 1983

D'Arcy Place
between Sept. 1, 1963 - Dec. 31, 1996

Adult Occupational Centre
between Jan. 1, 1966 - March 31, 1999

Prince Edward Heights
between Jan. 1, 1971 - Dec. 31, 1999

Pine Ridge
between Sept. 1, 1963 - Aug. 31, 1984


A Lawsuit Settlement Has Been Approved and You May Be Able To Get
Some Money.

There was a lawsuit about 12 Ontario institutions for people with
developmental disabilities.  The lawsuit is now over and there is
money for people who were harmed while living at any of these
institutions.  Check the dates beside the name of the place where
you lived.  If you lived there between those dates, then you can
now ask for money from the lawsuit.

How do I get this money?

You must fill in a Claim Form and send it to the claims office.
You must send the form by February 28, 2017.  The office will
check your form to decide whether they can pay you.

How much money could I get?

You could get up to:

   -- $2,000 if you were harmed or hurt at any of these
institutions.
   -- $42,000 if you write about how you were harmed or hurt.

How much you get depends on what you write in the form and how
many people send in forms.

How do I get a Claim Form?

You can call the claims office:

Phone: 1-866-442-4465
TTY: 1-877-627-7027

You can also get the form online at www.Schedule1Facilities.ca

Can I get help with the form?

Yes. Your family member, support person or someone you trust can
fill in the form.  You can also call for help:

Phone: 1-866-442-4465
TTY: 1-877-627-7027

Can family members get money?

No. But estates of class members who lived at one of these
institutions and died after June 16, 2012 can ask for money.

Do you know someone who lived at one of these institutions?

Please share the information with them or their support person.


ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY: Settlement Hearing Scheduled for July 11
----------------------------------------------------------------
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION

KATHY DYER and MICHAEL
YELAPI, individuals,
Plaintiffs,

vs.

ST. PETERSBURG SURGERY
CENTER, LTD., et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 8:01-CV-787-T-MAP
CLASS ACTION

NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND HEARING

TO: All persons in the United States with disabilities as that
term is defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C.
Sec. 12102(2)) and the Rehabilitation Act (29 U.S.C.
Sec. 706(8)(b)) who have been and who were, prior to the filing of
the above-captioned Class Action Complaint and through the
pendency of the action, entitled to the full and equal enjoyment
of, or participation in, the goods, services, programs, benefits,
activities, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations
at Defendants' facilities located in the states of Alabama,
Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New
Mexico, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (the
"Facilities").

This notice is given pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and the
Court's order of February 25, 2016.  A hearing on the matters
hereinafter set forth is scheduled before the Honorable Mark A.
Pizzo, United States District Magistrate Judge, on the 11th day of
July 2016, at 11:00 AM in Courtroom 11B, in the Sam M.
Gibbons U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida
33602, (813) 301-5400.  You may be a member of the class of
persons defined above and covered by a proposed plan to make
certain modifications to the Facilities in order to settle certain
legal claims.  This notice describes your legal rights in
connection with the hearing and this lawsuit.  All settlement
members who do not timely object will be bound by the resulting
orders.

PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY

The following does not constitute findings or determinations of
the Court.

Description of the Litigation. This lawsuit is to require the
Defendants to bring the Facilities into compliance with the
Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. Secs. 12181 et seq.)
(the "ADA") and/or the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. Sec.
794) (the "Rehab Act").  No monetary damages of any sort are being
sought in this action.

Description of the Consent Decree. The parties to this lawsuit
have entered into a Second Amended and Restated Class Settlement
Procedure Agreement and Consent Decree, effective February 12,
2009 (the "Consent Decree"), under which the Facilities were
inspected in order to devise a plan by which Defendants will
modify the Facilities and their policies and practices in
order to enhance their accessibility to qualified individuals with
disabilities.  These proposed modifications are set forth in a
document called an Accessibility Compliance Report ("ACR"). ACRs
for the Facilities have been prepared and submitted to the Court
for approval.  The Consent Decree permits the Plaintiffs to
inspect the Facilities' modifications upon completion and resolve
any disputes that might arise with respect to whether the
modifications conform to the ACRs.  Class counsel's fees and costs
will be paid by Defendants, not by class members.  The
Plaintiffs have agreed that they will not, now or in the future,
seek further modifications of the facilities.  If the Court
approves the proposed ACRs, you will be forever barred from
contesting the fairness, reasonableness, or adequacy of
these proposed modifications, or from pursuing the claims against
Defendants.  Counsel for the Plaintiffs believes that the proposed
modifications set forth in the ACR are fair, reasonable, and
adequate.

The Hearing. The hearing will relate to the following Facilities:

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of North Alabama, 107
Governors Drive, Huntsville, AL 35801 HealthSouth Valley of the
Sun Rehabilitation Hospital, 13460 North 67th Avenue, Glendale
(Peoria), AZ 85304

HealthSouth Scottsdale Rehabilitation Hospital, 9630 East Shea
Boulevard, Scottsdale, AZ 85260

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Southern Arizona, 1921 West
Hospital Drive, Tucson, AZ 85704

Yuma Rehabilitation Hospital, a Partnership of HealthSouth & YRMC,
901 West 24th Street, Yuma, AZ 85364

HealthSouth Bakersfield Rehabilitation Hospital, 5001 Commerce
Drive, Bakersfield, CA 93309

HealthSouth Tustin Rehabilitation Hospital, 14851 Yorba Street,
Tustin, CA 92780

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Colorado Springs, 325
Parkside Drive, Colorado Springs, CO 80910

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Spring Hill, 12440 Cortez
Boulevard, Brooksville (Spring Hill), FL 34613

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Largo, 901 Clearwater Largo
Road North, Largo, FL 33770

HealthSouth Sea Pines Rehabilitation Hospital, 101 East Florida
Avenue, Melbourne, FL 32901

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Miami, 20601 Old Cutler
Road, Miami, FL 33189

HealthSouth Emerald Coast Rehabilitation Hospital, 1847 Florida
Avenue, Panama City, FL 32405

HealthSouth Sunrise Rehabilitation Hospital, 4399 Nob Hill Road,
Sunrise (Ft. Lauderdale), FL 33351

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Tallahassee, 1675 Riggins
Road, Tallahassee, FL 32308

HealthSouth Treasure Coast Rehabilitation Hospital, 1600 37th
Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960

Van Matre HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, 950 South Mulford
Road, Rockford, IL 61108

HealthSouth Deaconess Rehabilitation Hospital, 4100 Covert Avenue,
Evansville, IN 47714

MidAmerica Rehabilitation Hospital, 5701 West 110th Street,
Overland Park, KS 66211

Kansas Rehabilitation Hospital, 1504 SW 8th Avenue, Topeka, KS
66606

Wesley Rehabilitation Hospital, An Affiliate of HealthSouth, 8338
West 13th Street, Wichita, KS 67212

HealthSouth Northern Kentucky Rehabilitation Hospital, 201 Medical
Village Drive, Edgewood, KY 41017

HealthSouth Lakeview Rehabilitation Hospital of Central Kentucky,
134 Heartland Drive, Elizabethtown, KY 42701

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Alexandria, 104 North Third
Street, Alexandria, LA 71301

Fairlawn Rehabilitation Hospital, 189 May Street, Worcester, MA
01602

Rusk Rehabilitation Center, a Joint Venture of HealthSouth and the
University of Missouri-Columbia, 315 Business Loop 70 West,
Columbia, MO 65203

The Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis, 4455 Duncan Avenue, St.
Louis, MO 63110

The Rehabilitation Institute of St. Louis Milliken Hand Therapy, a
Partnership of BJC HealthCare and HealthSouth, 4921 Parkview
Place, Suite 6, St. Louis, MO 63110

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Tinton Falls, 2 Centre
Plaza, Tinton Falls, NJ 07724

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Toms River, 14 Hospital
Drive, Toms River, NJ 08755

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Henderson, 10301 Jeffreys
Street, Henderson, NV 89052

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Las Vegas, 1250 South
Valley View Boulevard, Las Vegas, NV 89102

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Altoona, 2005 Valley View
Boulevard, Altoona, PA 16602

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Regency Square, 2900 Plank Road,
Suite 2, Altoona, PA 16601

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Bedford, 5 Corporate Drive,
Suite 103, Bedford, PA 15522

Geisinger HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Berwick, 2202 West
Front Street, Berwick, PA 18603

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Lewistown, 105 First Avenue,
Burnham, PA 17009

Geisinger HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, 2 Rehab Lane,
Danville, PA 17821

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Meadowbrook Plaza, 177
Meadowbrook Lane, Duncansville (Altoona), PA 16635

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Erie, 143 East Second
Street, Erie, PA 16507

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Mechanicsburg, 175
Lancaster Boulevard, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055

Geisinger HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center of Milton, 155 South
Arch Street, Milton, PA 17847

HealthSouth Harmarville Rehabilitation Hospital, 320 Guys Run
Road, Pittsburgh (Harmarville), PA 15238

HealthSouth Nittany Valley Rehabilitation Hospital, 550 West
College Avenue, Pleasant Gap, PA 16823

HealthSouth Reading Rehabilitation Hospital, 1623 Morgantown Road,
Reading, PA 19607

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Sewickley, 303 Camp Meeting
Road, Sewickley (Pittsburgh), PA 15143

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Center-Tyrone, 1225 - 1227 Pennsylvania
Avenue, Tyrone, PA 16686

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of York, 1850 Normandie Drive,
York, PA 17408

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of San Juan, CMMS #340, P.O.
Box 70344, Rio Piedras (San Juan), PR 00936

AnMed Health Rehabilitation Hospital, an affiliate entity of AnMed
Health and HealthSouth Corporation, 1 Spring Back Way, Anderson,
SC 29621

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Charleston, 9181 Medcom
Street, Charleston, SC 29406

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Columbia, 2935 Colonial
Drive, Columbia, SC 29203

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Florence, 900 East Cheves
Street, Florence, SC 29506

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Rock Hill, 1795 Dr. Frank
Gaston Boulevard, Rock Hill, SC 29732

HealthSouth Chattanooga Rehabilitation Hospital, 2412 McCallie
Avenue, Chattanooga, TN 37404

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Arlington, 3200 Matlock
Road, Arlington, TX 76015

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Austin, 1215 Red River
Street, Austin, TX 78701

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Beaumont, 3340 Plaza 10
Boulevard, Beaumont, TX 77707

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital The Woodlands, 18550 I-45
South, Conroe (Shenandoah), TX 77384

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Fort Worth, 1212 West
Lancaster Avenue, Fort Worth, TX 76102

HealthSouth City View Rehabilitation Hospital, 6701 Oakmont
Boulevard, Fort Worth, TX 76132

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Humble, 19002 McKay Drive,
Humble, TX 77338

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Midland/Odessa, 1800
Heritage Boulevard, Midland, TX 79707

HealthSouth Plano Rehabilitation Hospital, 2800 West 15th Street,
Plano, TX 75075

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Institute of San Antonio (RIOSA), 9119
Cinnamon Hill, San Antonio, TX 78240

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Texarkana, 515 West 12th
Street, Texarkana, TX 75501

Trinity Mother Frances Rehabilitation Hospital, Affiliated with
HealthSouth, 3131 Troup Highway, Tyler, TX 75701

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Wichita Falls, 3901 Armory
Road, Wichita Falls, TX 76302

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Utah, 8074 South 1300 East,
Sandy, UT 84094

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Huntington, 6900 West
Country Club Drive, Huntington, WV 25705

HealthSouth Mountain View Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, 1160
Van Voorhis Road, Morgantown, WV 26505

HealthSouth Western Hills Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, 3
Western Hills Drive, Parkersburg, WV 26105

HealthSouth Southern Hills Rehabilitation Hospital, 120 Twelfth
Street, Princeton, WV 24740

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, 1736 East Main Street,
Dothan, AL 36301

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Gadsden, 801 Goodyear
Avenue, Gadsden, AL 35903

Regional Rehabilitation Hospital, 3715 Highway 280/431 North,
Phenix City, AL 36867

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital, a Partner with Washington
Regional, 153 East Monte Painter Drive, Fayetteville, AR 72703

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Fort Smith, 1401 South J
Street, Fort Smith, AR 72901

HealthSouth Rehabilitation Hospital of Jonesboro, 1201 Fleming
Avenue, Jonesboro, AR 72401

HealthSouth Cane Creek Rehabilitation Hospital, 180 Mount Pelia
Road, Martin, TN 38237

At the Hearing, the Court will address, as for each Facility: (1)
the merits of any objection to an ACR; (2) whether to approve the
ACRs as fair and reasonable, adequate and in the best interest of
the class members; and (3) determine such other matters as may be
appropriate.  Any class member wishing to object to an
ACR shall, not later than thirty (30) days prior to the date of
the hearing, file with the Court and serve parties' counsel: (a) a
written notice of intention to appear; (b) a written statement of
such person's specific objections to the ACR; and (c) the
grounds therefore or the reasons for such person's desire to
appear and to be heard, together with all papers, briefs or other
documents that such person desires the Court to consider.
Counsel to be served:

Settlement Class Counsel:

Kip Roth
Kip Roth, P.A.
8713 Whitehawk Hill Rd.
Waxhaw, NC 28173

Counsel for Defendants:

M. Jefferson Starling, III
Balch & Bingham LLP
P.O. Box 306
Birmingham, Alabama 35201

ANY PERSON WHO FAILS TO OBJECT IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED MAY BE
DEEMED BY THE COURT TO HAVE WAIVED SUCH OBJECTION, AND MAY, IN THE
COURT'S DISCRETION, BE PROHIBITED FROM RAISING OBJECTIONS AT THE
FAIRNESS HEARING.

IF YOU DO NOT OPPOSE THIS SETTLEMENT, YOU NEED NOT APPEAR,
OR FILE ANYTHING IN WRITING.

More Information. This Notice is only a summary. The full
Settlement Agreement, pleadings, and other documents in the case
may be inspected and copied at the Clerk's Office, United States
District Court for the Middle District of Florida, Sam M. Gibbons
U.S. Courthouse, 801 North Florida Ave., Tampa, Florida 33602, or
at http://www.hscsettlement.com


SUN RUN: Parties in "Pytel" Class Suit Dispute Remand Bid
---------------------------------------------------------
In the case, JEFFREY L. PYTEL, Individually and on Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. SUNRUN INC., LYNN JURICH,
BOB KOMIN, EDWARD FENSTER, JAMESON MCJUNKIN, GERALD RISK, STEVE
VASSALLO, RICHARD WONG, BEAU PEELLE, EREN OMER ATESMEN, REGINALD
NORRIS, WILLIAM ELMORE, FOUNDATION CAPITAL VI, L.P., FOUNDATION
CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CO. VI, LLC, CREDIT SUISSE SECURITIES (USA)
LLC, GOLDMAN, SACHS & CO., MORGAN STANLEY & CO. LLC, MERRILL
LYNCH, PIERCE, FENNER & SMITH INCORPORATED, RBC CAPITAL MARKETS,
LLC, KEYBANC CAPITAL MARKETS INC., and SUNTRUST ROBINSON HUMPHREY,
INC., Defendants, Case No. 3:16-CV-02566-HSG (N.D. Cal.), District
Judge Haywood S. Gilliam Jr., in San Francisco, signed off on a
stipulation providing that:

     1. Defendants shall file an opposition to Plaintiff's Motion
to Remand on or before June 2, 2016; and,

     2. Plaintiff shall file a reply to Defendants' opposition on
or before June 9, 2016.

Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remand this action on May 17, 2016.
The plaintiffs in five additional actions against Defendants filed
motions to remand those actions between May 17, 2016, and May 19,
2016.

The Plaintiff's motion to remand is scheduled to be heard in this
Court on July 28, 2016.

The Defendants have moved the Court for an Order relating the six
pending removed state court securities class actions to the
similar securities class action originally filed in federal court.

The plaintiffs in the six removed actions have opposed Defendants'
Motion to Relate, and instead requested that the Court relate only
the six removed state court securities class actions.

A copy of the Court's June 1 order is available at
https://is.gd/kBu0wU from Leagle.com.


SUNOCO INC: No Arbitration for "White"
--------------------------------------
Judge Paul S. Diamond denied Sunoco Inc.'s motion to compel
arbitration and stay the litigation of the case captioned DONALD
WHITE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v. SUNOCO INC., Defendant, Civ. No. 15-4595 (E.D. Pa.).

The putative class action concerns the availability of a five-cent
per gallon discount on fuel purchases made with a Sunoco Rewards
Credit Card.  Donald White proceeded against Sunoco, alleging
fraud, negligent misrepresentation, unjust enrichment, and
violations of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act.
Sunoco filed a Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Litigation,
relying on the underlying Cardholder Agreement that purportedly
requires the plaintiff to arbitrate any claims relating to his
Sunoco Rewards Credit Card account.

Judge Diamond concluded that the Agreement (and its arbitration
clause) governs only the plaintiff's relationship with Citibank,
the card issuer.

A full-text copy of Judge Diamond's May 24, 2016 memorandum is
available at https://is.gd/jD7yOM from Leagle.com.

DONALD WHITE, ON BEHALF OF HIMSELF AND ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY
SITUATED, Plaintiff, represented by DAVID J. STANOCH --
dstanoch@golombhonik.com -- GOLOMB & HONIK, P.C..

DONALD WHITE, Plaintiff, represented by KENNETH J. GRUNFELD,
GOLOMB & HONIK PC., RICHARD M. GOLOMB, GOLOMB & HONIK & RUBEN
HONIK, GOLOMB & HONIK, PC.

SUNOCO INC., Defendant, represented by KATHERINE L. VILLANUEVA --
katherine.villanueva@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP, SEAMUS
C. DUFFY -- seamus.duffy@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH LLP,
KATHRYN E. DEAL -- kathryn.deal@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE & REATH
LLP & MEREDITH C SLAWE -- meredith.slawe@dbr.com -- DRINKER BIDDLE
& REATH LLP.


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Used Aggressive Sales Tactics, Documents Reveal
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Elliot Spagat, writing for The Associated Press, reports that
Trump University gave employees detailed instructions on how to
entice people to enroll in its real estate seminars, from
targeting people making at least $90,000 a year and choosing words
of flattery that are most persuasive to picking music for the
gatherings: The O'Jays' "For the Love of Money."

The "playbooks" for the now-defunct business owned by Donald Trump
were unsealed on May 31 in a class-action lawsuit by customers who
say they were defrauded.  On May 27, a judge who has earned Mr.
Trump's scorn sided with attorneys for The Washington Post who
argued that the public had a right to know what was previously
confidential.

The documents outline how employees should guide customers through
"the roller coaster of emotions" once they have expressed
interest.

A 2009 playbook quotes a Yale University study that found the most
persuasive words in the English language are: you, new, money,
easy, discovery, free, results, health, save, proven, guarantee
and love.  "They share three characteristics: they are simple,
familiar and dramatic."

"The words 'I noticed' have a powerful subconscious effect on
people because they send a subliminal message to them that they
stood out in the crowd, that they are attractive or charismatic or
that they impressed you," the playbook continues.  "People love
recognition and attention."

Trump University offered a three-day seminar for $1,495, using it
as a springboard to sell more expensive "Trump Elite" packages for
up to $34,995 a year.

"You don't sell products, benefits or solutions -- you sell
feelings," according to the sales playbook.

Trump University's core customers are identified in the documents
as male heads of households between 40 and 54 years old with
annual household incomes of at least $90,000, a college education
and a net worth of more than $200,000.

During one-on-one conversations, "You may begin with some small-
talk to establish rapport but do not let them take control of the
conversation," a playbook reads.  "You must be very aggressive
during these conversations to in order to push them out of their
comfort zones. If they complain about the price, remind them that
Trump is the BEST!! This is the last real estate investment they
will ever need to make."

For those who have hit credit limits, employees are told to
suggest they dip into savings or identify other "seed capital."

Trump University is the target of two lawsuits in San Diego and
one in New York that accuse the business of fleecing students with
unfulfilled promises to teach secrets of success in real estate.
Plaintiffs contend that Trump University gave seminars and classes
across the country that were like infomercials, constantly
pressuring customers to buy more and, in the end, failing to
deliver.

Mr. Trump has maintained that customers were overwhelmingly
satisfied with the offerings -- a point that his attorneys
repeated after the documents were unsealed.  The documents
included testimony from several satisfied customers.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Drivers File Class Action Over Unpaid OT Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Darragh, writing for NJ.com, reports that a former Uber driver
from New Jersey is hoping to establish a class action lawsuit
against the low-cost car service, joining drivers from other
states charging that the company failed to pay them overtime.

According to a complaint filed in federal court, Jaswinder Singh
of Hazlet is asking the court to permit a class action on behalf
of those who worked as drivers for Uber Technologies or UberX, its
lowest-cost service.

The lawsuit says that Singh worked as a driver for UberX from Aug.
18, 2014 to Sept. 21, 2015.  In that time, it says,
Mr. Singh had to bear most of the expenses of his employment,
including payment of gas, tolls, his mobile phone and other
expenses for which he claims he should have been reimbursed.

In addition it says Mr. Singh "regularly worked at least 60 hours
per work week."  However, he was not paid an overtime premium for
the hours after 40 hours per work week.

The lawsuit says the failure to pay the overtime rate of one and a
half times pay for hours over 40 per week violates New Jersey's
wage laws.

A message to Uber's attorney, Paul C. Lantis --
plantis@littler.com -- of Littler Mendelson in Philadelphia, was
not immediately returned.

The San Francisco-based company recently has been sued in federal
courts in Arizona, Florida and elsewhere by other drivers seeking
back payment for uncompensated overtime hours.

The lawsuits were filed as Uber earlier this year settled
complaints from Massachusetts and California for up to $100
million, according to Uber's web site.  According to Uber, the
drivers in those states will remain independent contractors, not
employees.

"Uber has placed in motion, with its proposed $100-million
settlement, a rush to the courthouse by other drivers and class-
action lawyers for their piece of Uber," Richard Reibstein --
reibsteinr@pepperlaw.com -- head of the independent contractor
practice at Pepper Hamilton in New York, told The Los Angeles
Times.  "Uber had to anticipate that this would have occurred."

Uber's web site says the company now has more than 450,000
drivers.


UBER TECH: Plaintiffs Lawyer to Face Settlement Critics in Hearing
------------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that the plaintiffs
lawyer who struck a controversial $84 million settlement with Uber
Technologies Inc. were set confront the deal's critics on June 1
at a preliminary approval hearing in San Francisco federal court.

Since negotiating the settlement, Boston-based Shannon Liss-
Riordan has been blasted by accusations that she sold out the
class of California and Massachusetts drivers whose interests
she's supposed to be representing.

The fate of the deal now hangs with U.S. District Judge Edward
Chen of the Northern District of California, who rejected many of
the legal arguments Uber had hoped would block the case. Having
certified a class of more than 200,000 drivers and cast aside the
company's arbitration clause as unenforceable, Chen may demand an
in-depth explanation as to why Liss-Riordan now thinks it would be
prudent to avoid a trial.

The settlement, announced in April, could climb to $100 million if
Uber goes public or is bought out and sees its valuation climb.
The agreement also makes it harder for the company to terminate
drivers but will not change their status as independent
contractors.

At the time, Liss-Riordan referenced a decision by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to review Chen's class
certification order as a significant risk of proceeding with the
case. But the explanation hasn't satisfied her detractors who say
she accepted too steep a discount on claims that she herself has
said were potentially worth more than $800 million.

The harshest attacks on Liss Riordan have come from fellow
plaintiffs lawyers, many with pending cases against Uber that
would be side-swiped by the settlement.

Brian Kabateck of Kabateck Brown Kellner and Mark Geragos of
Geragos & Geragos argue that Liss-Riordan should be stripped of
her role as lead lawyer for the class. They represent Douglas
O'Connor, a former name plaintiff in the case, who stated in a
declaration to the court that he was pressured to consent to the
deal and now feels "utterly betrayed."

Uber's lawyers at Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher have remained silent on
whether Liss-Riordan should be taken off the case. They have,
however, reinforced the argument that absent a settlement drivers
may come away empty handed.

"Many objectors decry the monetary terms of the settlement as
insufficient," Gibson Dunn's Theodore Boutrous Jr., attorney for
Uber, said in May filing responding to the objections. "But these
objections generally do not account for, or even mention, the
substantial risk that there would be no recovery on these claims."

Liss-Riordan has come out swinging against the calls to have her
removed from the case, saying that attempts to vilify her are
being made by self-interested lawyers without expertise in labor
law. She's also suggested that the personal attacks on her are
"possibly sanctionable."

Wednesday will be a double-header for Liss-Riordan, who will also
appear before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria to make the case
for a $27 million settlement with Uber competitor Lyft Inc.
Chhabria had rejected an earlier settlement as too low.


UBER TECH: Judge Throws Tough Questions in Settlement Hearing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Hancock, writing for Law.com, reports that a federal judge had
tough questions on May 26 about the fairness of allowing
plaintiffs attorney Shannon Liss-Riordan to negotiate away a host
of other lawsuits pending against Uber Technologies Inc. in
reaching an $84 million settlement.

U.S. District Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of
California kicked off a contentious, nearly four-hour hearing on
preliminary approval of the Uber peace pact echoing criticisms
from other attorneys that Ms. Liss-Riordan had cut off their
claims and discounted them as worthless in the settlement.

"One could say there is something wrong when claims from another
case are . . . some might say hijacked . . . and on top of that,
given almost zero value," Judge Chen said.  "Isn't that troubling?
Shouldn't I be troubled by that?

In front of a packed courtroom, Ms. Liss-Riordan proceeded to
joust with a gaggle of fellow plaintiffs attorneys over that
point, contending that she had pursued the claims that had the
most likelihood of success rather than take a "kitchen sink"
approach.  She also reiterated that establishing a "global peace"
is common in similar settlements and was essential to getting Uber
to agree to the deal.

The settlement, which would bring Ms. Liss-Riordan at least $21
million in fees and possibly more, was reached on the basis of
cases that alleged Uber owed drivers compensation for tips it
collected and expenses like gas.  It did not resolve the question
that poses the biggest threat to Uber's business model: whether
drivers ought to be treated as employees or as independent
contractors.  Ms. Liss-Riordan at one point grew audibly upset in
fighting back against suggestions that she had simply abandoned
driver overtime claims that could be worth millions.  To the
contrary, she said, she had pursued those claims in front of Chen
-- only to have them rejected.

"For me to be accused of saying there are not overtime claims so
I'm just going to walk away from them is just patently a
misrepresentation," she said, her voice growing louder.

Mark Geragos of Geragos & Geragos, who is now among the lawyers
now representing one of the litigation's original named
plaintiffs, countered that if Ms. Liss-Riordan didn't want to
pursue a kitchen-sink case, she "certainly shouldn't take the
kitchen sink settlement approach."  Throughout the hearing, Judge
Chen dug into the details, picking apart the deal's elements and
asking for clarification on certain parts of it.

In addition to the release issue, he seemed especially worried
about a component of the deal that would vacate an order he issued
December 23.  That order nullified Uber's latest arbitration
agreement until the company issued a new notice that drivers could
opt-out.  It never did that and both sides appealed that order for
different reasons.

Judge Chen said that vacating the order could disadvantage drivers
who want to opt-out of the settlement and sue Uber in court.
"Even if there's one of those [drivers], there's a due process
problem," Judge Chen said, rebuking Ms. Liss-Riordan after she
suggested that was a speculative problem.  He indicated that--if
nothing else--he's likely to reject that part of the settlement
even if it risks tanking the entire deal.

He also pressed Theodore Boutrous Jr., the Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher
partner representing Uber, on whether a mechanism of the
settlement that would increase its value to $100 million was
simply "window-dressing."  The $84 million settlement would jump
to $100 million if Uber goes public or is acquired and its
valuation climbs by one-and-a-half times its current amount.
Mr. Boutrous said it was "very likely" that drivers could get that
whole amount, citing Uber's strong business prospects.

Ms. Liss-Riordan would get $21 million in fees under the lower
amount, or $25 million if the settlement grows to its full value.
Her fee request, however, was not discussed during the hearing.

Many of the lawyers who lined up next to Ms. Liss-Riordan at the
lectern have called for her to be thrown off the case.  Judge Chen
gave no indication that he was prepared to do that, though he
asked whether there should have been a "democratic" process like
that typically used in multi-district litigation.  Ms. Liss-
Riordan successfully fought off an attempt to rope her cases into
an MDL earlier this year.

That effort, led by Napoli Shkolnik partner Hunter Shkolnik -- who
was also in the courtroom -- could have landed the case in federal
court in Texas.  That, Ms. Liss-Riordan contended, would not have
been in the best interest of the class.

"It would have been in my best interest," Judge Chen joked, in one
of a few light moments in the hearing.


UBER TECH: Faces "Spangenberg" Suit in California
-------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Uber
Technologies, Inc. and Does 1-50, Inclusive.

The case is captioned Samuel Ward Spangenberg, an individual, on
behalf of himself and all others similarly situated v. Uber
Technologies, Inc. and Does 1-50, Inclusive, Case No. CGC 16
552156 (Cal. Super Ct., May 21, 2016).

Uber Technologies, Inc. operates an online transportation network
company headquartered in San Francisco, California.


UNILIFE CORP: July 25 Class Action Lead Plaintiff Deadline Set
--------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Offices of Vincent Wong announce that a class action
lawsuit has been commenced in the USDC for the Southern District
of New York on behalf of investors who purchased Unilife
Corporation (NASDAQ:UNIS) securities between February 3, 2014 and
May 23, 2016.

Click here to learn about the case:
http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/unilife-corporation.There is no cost
or obligation to you.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period,
Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed
to disclose: (1) that the Company's former CEO and former Chairman
of the Board of Directors had violated the Company's policies and
procedures and had engaged in violations of law and regulation;
(2) that the Company lacked adequate internal controls over
accounting and financial reporting; (3) that, as a result of the
aforementioned, the Company would be unable to file its Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2016 by the
filing deadline; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, the
Company's financial statements, as well as Defendants' statements
about Unilife's business, operations, and prospects, were false
and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you suffered a loss in Unilife you have until July 25, 2016 to
request that the Court appoint you as lead plaintiff. Your ability
to share in any recovery doesn't require that you serve as a lead
plaintiff. To obtain additional information, contact Vincent Wong,
Esq. either via email vw@wongesq.com, by telephone at
212.425.1140, or visit http://www.wongesq.com/pslra/unilife-
corporation.

Vincent Wong, Esq. is an experienced attorney that has represented
investors in securities litigations involving financial fraud and
violations of shareholder rights.  Attorney advertising. Prior
results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

CONTACT: CONTACT:
Vincent Wong, Esq.
39 East Broadway
Suite 304
New York, NY 10002
Tel. 212.425.1140
Fax. 866.699.3880
E-Mail: vw@wongesq.com


UNITED FEDERAL: Joint Status Report in "Gunter" Due June 14
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case, TONYA GUNTER, individually, and on behalf of all
others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. UNITED FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION, DOES 1-5 inclusive and ROE CORPORATIONS 6-10 inclusive,
Defendants, Case No. 3:15-cv-00483-MMD-WGC (D. Nev.), Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb directed the parties to file a joint status
report on or before June 14, 2016.

Gunter and United Federal Credit Union tell the Court that the
case is a complex consumer class action that requires extensive
discovery not only with respect to written discovery, documents
production and depositions, but also to the defendant credit
union's customer account database, which as a result of several
mergers, involves multiple complex software platforms, requiring
substantial expert witness involvement.

United has gathered approximately 7,700 documents consisting of
approximately 450,000 pages that are responsive to the 63 requests
for production of documents that Plaintiffs propounded. Discovery
on class issues prior to the filing of a motion for class
certification has taken longer than expected, and indeed longer
than a typical complex credit union overdraft fee case, and
therefore, Plaintiff has granted an extension for Defendant to
respond to her request for production of documents and special
interrogatories from March 31 to May 27, 2016.

Because of this additional complexity and the volume of documents
with respect to discovery, the parties believe that they need
additional time before Plaintiff can prepare a class certification
motion. The parties submit these deadlines:

     1. June 16, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. - Telephone status conference
with the Court;

     2. August 31, 2016 - Deadline to add parties, conduct class
certification discovery, and to file a class certification motion;

     3. October 14, 2016 - Deadline for Defendant to file an
opposition to the class certification motion;

     4. November 18, 2016 - Deadline for Plaintiff to file a reply
to the opposition to the class certification motion.

If obstacles arise in meeting the deadlines, then the parties are
to discuss those issue with the Court by setting up a status
conference call with the Court or raising the issues at the
telephone status conference.

A copy of the Court's June 1 Order is available at
https://is.gd/ASDV9p from Leagle.com.

Tonya Gunter, Plaintiff, represented by Jae K Kim --
jkk@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro hac vice, James
Strenio -- James@kicklawfirm.com -- The Kick Law Firm, APC,
Richard D McCune -- rdm@mccunewright.com -- McCuneWright LLP, pro
hac vice, Taras Kick -- Taras@kicklawfirm.com -- pro hac vice,
Thomas A. Segal, The Kick Law Firm, APC, pro hac vice & Gregory G.
Gordon, Gregory G. Gordon, Ltd..

United Federal Credit Union, Defendant, represented by James A.
Kohl -- JKohl@howardandhoward.com -- Howard & Howard Attorneys,
PLLC & Robert W. Hernquist -- RHernquist@howardandhoward.com --
Howard & Howard Attorneys PLLC.



UNITED STATES: Indian Farmers Set to Get Settlement Payouts
-----------------------------------------------------------
Joshua Zaffos, writing for High Country News, reports that some
overdue support and payback are on the way for Native American
farmers and ranchers.  A $380 million settlement, issued by a
federal judge this April, will create a Native American-run $265
million endowed trust for nonprofit organizations working on
Indian lands.  It will also pay other money to families who sued
the U.S. Department of Agriculture for discrimination.

The settlement stems from a 1999 class-action lawsuit, filed by
Marilyn and George Keepseagle, ranchers from the Standing Rock
Sioux Tribe in North Dakota.  The case claimed the USDA Farm Loan
Program illegally discriminated against thousands of Native
American farmers and ranchers during the previous two decades,
denying them opportunities to receive farm loans, technical
assistance and other services routinely offered to white farmers
and ranchers.  Since many tribal farmers have only partial, or
fractionated, shares of parcels due to 20th-century Indian land
policies, families often lack land equity and struggle to get
loans or credit access for farming -- even without facing
discriminatory practices.  The Obama administration originally
settled Keepseagle v. Vilsack in 2010, agreeing to pay $680
million to class action claimants.


UNIVERSAL REALTY: Sued Over Family and Medical Leave Act Breach
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Waldron, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Universal Realty Management Corp. d/b/a The Cornfeld
Group, Case No. 0:16-cv-61090-BB (S.D. Fla., May 23, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for violation of the Family and
Medical Leave Act.

Universal Realty Management Corp. operates a property management
company located at 3850 Hollywood Blvd # 400, Hollywood, FL 33021.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      Keith Michael Stern, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      2300 Glades Road, Suite 360W
      Boca Raton, FL 33431
      Telephone: (561) 299-3844
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: hsolis@workingforyou.com
              employlaw@keithstern.com


VERIZON CALIFORNIA: Terms to Apply Prospectively, Judge Says
-----------------------------------------------------------
Justice Kathleen M. Banke of the Court of Appeals of California,
First District, Division One, affirmed the trial court's denial of
appellant's petition to compel arbitration in the case HEATHER
BRYDEN et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. VERIZON CALIFORNIA
INC., Defendant and Appellant, No. A143506 (Cal. Ct. App.)

Heather Bryden used long-distance telephone and internet services
provided by various Verizon California Inc. branded entities.
Bryden's long-distance service was governed by a Service Agreement
and a Calling Plan issued by Bell Atlantic Communications, Inc.
d/b/a Verizon Long Distance. Bryden's high-speed Internet service
was governed by Verizon Internet Access Terms of Service, issued
initially by GTE Net LLC d/b/a Verizon Internet Solutions and
later by Verizon Online LLC.

Deanna Gastelum, on her own behalf and on behalf of those
similarly situated, filed a class action complaint against Verizon
asserting certain late fees were unlawful penalties under Civil
Code section 1671 and violated California's Unfair Competition Law
(Bus. Prof. Code, Section 17200 et seq.) and Consumer Legal
Remedies Act (Civ. Code, Section 1750 et seq.). Bryden was added
as a second named plaintiff in the March 2014 third amended
complaint.

Verizon petitioned to compel arbitration of Bryden's claims based
on two agreements with arbitration provisions, a product guide
governing long-distance telephone service and the terms of use
governing high-speed internet service. The trial court denied
arbitration.

On appeal, Verizon does not take issue with the ruling as to the
product guide, but asserts arbitration is still required by the
internet terms, alone.

Justice Banke affirmed the trial court's order denying the
petition to compel arbitration.

A copy of Justice Banke's opinion dated May 31, 2016, is available
at http://goo.gl/FC2inHfrom Leagle.com.

The Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One
panel consists of Presiding Justice Jim Humes and Justices
Kathleen M. Banke and Sandra L. Margulies.


VITA COCO: Faces Class Action Over "Born in Brazil" Label
---------------------------------------------------------
Celia Ampel, writing for Daily Business Review, reports that Miami
lawyers are suing the makers of Vita Coco coconut water, alleging
packaging that says "Born in Brazil" is misleading because some
products are manufactured in other countries.

The class action aims to follow the success of another Southern
District of Florida lawsuit against Anheuser-Busch over its
marketing of Beck's Beer.  The company agreed last year to pay
about $20 million and change the beer's packaging to settle claims
that it led customers to believe Beck's was brewed in Germany
rather than St. Louis.

"The Southern District found that the term 'originated in Germany'
was deceptive and could reasonably mislead a consumer about where
the product was made," said Richard Segal, who is representing the
Vita Coco plaintiffs with Philippe Lieberman and Steve Silverman,
all of Kluger Kaplan in Miami.  "'Born in Brazil' is directly
analogous to 'originated in Germany.' "

The federal lawsuit against All Market Inc. covers unflavored Vita
Coco coconut water.  The plaintiffs claim the company used to make
its products in Brazil using Brazilian coconuts, but it bamboozled
customers into thinking they were still buying a Brazilian-made
drink after moving production to Sri Lanka, the Philippines and
other countries.

The packaging prominently displays the "Born in Brazil" wording,
while the manufacturing location information is in a harder-to-see
font, the complaint alleges.  In a four-pack, the country of
origin can't be seen until a customer buys the coconut water and
removes individual containers, Mr. Segal said.

The class action alleges the product is rendered worthless under
the Florida Food Safety Act and similar state laws across the
country because it is mislabeled.

Vita Coco spokesman Arthur Gallego said the company has openly
discussed its global sourcing and production on its website, in
the press and at events.  Each beverage's packaging complies with
all U.S. Food and Drug Administration guidelines and clearly
states the drink's country of origin, he said.

"The phrase 'Born in Brazil,' which has been used in one form or
another for approximately 10 years, is brand-centric copywriting,
literally referring to the origins of the company," Mr. Gallego
said in an email.

The company filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit May 13, arguing
no reasonable consumer would take "Born in Brazil" to mean the
product rather than the company was "born" there.

By contrast, the Beck's Beer case involved specific statements
that could be interpreted as objective fact, the motion argues.
That court found the combination of the phrases "Originated in
Germany," "Brewed under the German Purity Law of 1516" and "German
Quality" created a specific impression that the beer was brewed in
Germany under German law, which could be proven true or false,
according to the defense motion filed by Melissa Pallett-Vasquez
-- mpallett@bilzin.com -- and Lori Lustrin -- llustrin@bilzin.com
-- of Bilzin Sumberg Baena Price & Axelrod in Miami and O'Melveny
& Myers attorneys Scott Voelz -- svoelz@omm.com -- in Los Angeles
and Hannah Chanoine -- hchanoine@omm.com -- and Christopher
Cogburn in New York.

The attorneys referred a request for comment to Mr. Gallego.

"This lawsuit is an insult to both the consumers who take the time
to read food and beverage labels properly and the brands that work
so hard to be honest with them," Mr. Gallego said.

The company motion indicates some of the drink is still produced
in Brazil.


VIZIO INC: "Walsh" Class Suit Transferred to C.D. California
------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned John Walsh, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Vizio, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-10758, was transferred to the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California (Southern Division - Santa Ana).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-00895-JLS-KES
to the proceeding.

The case asserts product-liability claims.

Vizio, Inc. manufactures a series of Internet-enabled televisions
("Smart TVs"), which allow consumers to watch cable or satellite
programs, connect to Blu-ray or DVD players, and connect to the
Internet to view programs online through third-party services like
Netflix, YouTube, and dozens of other services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Henry Bates, Esq.
      CARNEY BATES & PULLIAM, PLLC
      2800 Cantrell Rd., Suite 510
      Little Rock, AR 72202
      Telephone: (501) 312-8500
      E-mail: hbates@cbplaw.com

         - and -

      Ethan R. Moore, Esq.
      OKURA & ASSOCIATES
      28 Grant Street
      Somerville, MA 02145
      Telephone: (978) 387-5208
      E-mail: ethan.r.moore@gmail.com


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Diesel-Related Settlement Talks Ongoing
---------------------------------------------------------
William Boston, writing for The Wall Street Journal, reports that
Volkswagen AG posted a profit in the first quarter, but earnings
plunged for its Volkswagen brand and in China, its biggest single
market, indicating how far the German car maker has to go in
recovering from its diesel-emissions scandal.

The world's largest car maker by sales is struggling with the
costs of the emissions-cheating affair.  The pressure comes as it
prepares to unveil in June a strategy review that is expected to
entail restructuring its global brands, overhauling corporate
governance and pushing into electric vehicles and mobility
services.

Volkswagen reported that profit for the quarter through March 31
fell 20% from a year earlier to EUR2.3 billion ($2.56 billion).
The drop was steeper than predicted by analysts.  Unit sales fell
1.2%, to 2.6 million vehicles, and sales revenue dropped 3.4%, to
EUR51 billion.

"We are satisfied overall with the start we have made to what will
undoubtedly be a demanding fiscal year 2016," Chief Executive
Matthias Mueller said.  "We once again managed to limit the
economic effects of the diesel issue and achieve respectable
results under difficult conditions."

Volkswagen faced a continued sales decline in the U.S. and a
massive sales erosion in Brazil and Russia, but the auto maker
said those markets may be hitting bottom.

In China, its Chinese joint ventures generated an operating profit
of EUR1.2 billion, down 27% from a year earlier. Volkswagen has
suffered in China because of a lack of budget models now in high
demand by Chinese consumers.

Overall, the company's operating profit before special items,
which is Volkswagen's main performance metric, fell 6%, to EUR3.1
billion for the first quarter.  The change represented a slight
decline in the company's operating return on sales, to 6.1%.

Exchange rates provided some relief.  Adjustments to diesel-
related provisions because of changes in the exchange rate of the
dollar against the euro provided a one-time gain of EUR309
million.

As a result, Volkswagen's operating profit after special items
rose 3.4% to EUR3.4 billion, a return of 6.8%, beating analyst
forecasts.

Volkswagen reported a record loss of EUR1.6 billion in 2015 after
it took a charge of EUR16.2 billion to cover technical repairs and
legal costs related to the disclosure in September that it rigged
nearly 11 million diesel engines to cheat on emissions tests.  The
company didn't take any new diesel-related provisions in the
latest quarter.

The company continues to negotiate a final settlement with U.S.
authorities and plaintiffs' attorneys in diesel-related class-
action lawsuits representing Volkswagen customers in the U.S.  The
federal judge overseeing the case said the talks were on track to
reach a settlement by June 21.

The diesel-testing scandal has battered Volkswagen's namesake
brand, which has lost market share in major regions of the world
and has had to spend heavily on incentives and loyalty programs to
win back customers.

Operating profit at the Volkswagen brand, which accounts for half
of the company's total revenue, plunged 86%, to EUR73 million,
resulting in a return on sales of 0.3%.

Frank Witter, the company's chief finance officer, said management
is committed to returning the brand's margins to 2% by year end,
but said it was "unrealistic to assume" they could reach the
company's target of 6% by 2018.

"The most important thing is that we have the underlying
structural improvements in the brand," he said.

Audi, Volkswagen's luxury-car maker, and sports-car brand Porsche
accounted for 70% of the car maker's operating earnings but just
39% of its revenue.

Chronic underperformance of the Volkswagen brand has sparked a
revolt by investors, who have been pressuring management to take
drastic action to boost earnings at the division.  Investors say
the division is overstaffed and inefficient and needs to cut jobs
in Germany, a move fiercely opposed by labor representatives.

Mr. Witter said management is well aware that they cannot blame
the diesel crisis for all of the division's troubles.

"It's not just diesel," Mr. Witter said.  "The situation is on our
radar and is one of the highest priorities in the organization."


VOLKSWAGEN GROUP: Faces "Gaudet" Class Suit in Dist. New Jersey
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc., Volkswagen of America, Inc., Volkswagen
Aktiengesellschaft, Audi Aktiengesellschaft, and Audi of America,
Inc.

The case is captioned Allan Gaudet, on behalf of himself and all
others similarly situated v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.,
Volkswagen of America, Inc., Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, Audi
Aktiengesellschaft, and Audi of America, Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-
02872-JLL-JAD (D.N.J., May 23, 2016).

The Defendants operate a company that is one of the world's
leading automobile manufacturers.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph G. Sauder, Esq.
      MCCUNE WRIGHT, LLP
      1055 Westlakes Dr
      Berwyn, PA 19312
      Telephone: (610) 727-3967
      E-mail: jgs@mccunewright.com


WAYFAIR INC: Court Junks "Dingee" Suit
--------------------------------------
Judge Denise Cote granted the defendants' motion to dismiss with
prejudice all counts in the case captioned GERALD DINGEE and
MICHAEL LAMP, Individually and on Behalf of all Others Similarly
Situated, Plaintiffs, v. WAYFAIR INC., NIRAJ SHAH, and MICHAEL
FLEISHER, Defendants, No. 15cv6941 (DLC)(S.D.N.Y.).

A full-text copy of Judge Cote's May 24, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/4P8Z3B from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs asserted that Wayfair Inc., an online retailer,
failed to disclose in connection with its initial public offering
that Overstock.com was a major competitor.  When an analyst firm
issued a report less than a year later declaring that Overstock
was a prime competitor of Wayfair and that the companies should be
valued similarly, Wayfair stock fell 11%.  The plaintiffs alleged
that they and others who purchased or otherwise acquired Wayfair
securities between October 2, 2014 and August 31, 2015 suffered a
loss when they bought at a price that was artificially inflated by
the defendants' failure to disclose Overstock's status as a
competitor.

Gerald Dingee, Michael Lamp, Plaintiff, represented by Erica
Lauren Stone -- estone@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm, P.A.,
Phillip C. Kim -- pkim@rosenlegal.com -- The Rosen Law Firm P.A.

Wayfair, Inc., Niraj Shah, Michael Fleisher, Defendant,
represented by James Ellis Brandt -- james.brandt@lw.com -- Latham
& Watkins LLP, Jeff G. Hammel -- jeff.hammel@lw.com -- Latham and
Watkins & Thomas James Giblin -- thomas.giblin@lw.com -- Latham &
Watkins LLP.


ZENITH EDUCATION: Faces "Latimer" Class Action in Georgia
---------------------------------------------------------
Charity Latimer, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Zenith Education Group, Inc., and Everest Institute,
Case No. 2016CV275504 (Ga. Super. Ct., May 20, 2016), is brought
on behalf of all students at one of Zenith's Everest campuses who
have been unable to complete their degree program as a result of
the Defendants' misstatements, misrepresentations, and omissions
about their plans to designate a school to be taught-out and
closed.

Zenith Education Group, Inc. is one of the largest nonprofit
career college systems in the United States.

Everest Institute is an affiliate of Zenith that offers various
degrees in the health care industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      E. Adam Webb, Esq.
      G. Franklin Lemond Jr., Esq.
      1900 The Exchange, S.E., Suite 480
      Atlanta, GA 30339
      Telephone: (770) 444-0773
      Facsimile: (770) 217-9950
      E-mail: Adam@WebbLLC.com
              Franklin@WebbLLC.com


ZUFFA LLC: Ordered to Produce Unredacted Milbank Email
------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned CUNG LE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ZUFFA, LLC,
et al, Defendants, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.), Judge
Peggy A. Leen granted the plaintiff's Motion to Challenge
Privilege Designation and ordered that Zuffa, LLC shall produce
the Milbank email to the plaintiffs unredacted of the paragraphs
in dispute with the exception of the last sentence of the disputed
paragraph two which may remain redacted from "and you had
expressed" through the end of the sentence.

A full-text copy of Judge Leen's May 26, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/UyGkbu from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Amended Antitrust Class
Action Complaint on December 18, 2015.  It is a civil antitrust
action under Section 2 of the Sherman Act for treble damages and
other relief arising out of allegations of Zuffa's anti-
competitive scheme to maintain and enhance a monopoly power in the
market for promotion of live elite professional Mixed Martial Arts
(MMA) fighter bouts and monopsony power of the market for live
elite professional MMA fighter services.  The named plaintiffs
brought suit on behalf of themselves and as a class action on
behalf of others similarly situated under Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure against Zuffa, operating under the
trademark Ultimate Fighting Championship or "UFC". Thee plaintiffs
claimed that the UFC has engaged in an illegal scheme to eliminate
competition from would-be MMA promoters by systematically
preventing them from gaining access to resources critical to
successful MMA promotions, including by imposing extreme
restrictions on UFC fighters' ability to fight for would-be rivals
during and after their tenure with the UFC.  The amended complaint
claimed that as part of its scheme, UFC controls not only fighter
careers, but also takes and expropriates the rights to their names
and likeliness in perpetuity.  As a result of this conduct, UFC
fighters are paid a fraction of what they would earn in a
competitive marketplace.

Cung Le, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy --
apurdy@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice,
Benjamin Doyle Brown -- bbrown@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager --
bschrager@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman &
Rabkin, Eric L. Cramer -- ecramer@bm.net -- Berger & Montague,
P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick
S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri --
jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac
vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law,
pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones -- jjones@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill --
krayhill@saverilawfirm.com -- Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro
hac vice, Don Springmeyer -- dspringmeyer@wrslawyers.com -- Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell --
jelwell@warnerangle.com -- Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler --
mweiler@saverilawfirm.com --  The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo -- mdellangelo@bm.net --
Patrick F. Madden -- pmadden@bm.net -- Berger & Montague, P.C.,
pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman -- rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com --
Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Robert Maysey -
- rmaysey@warnerangle.com -- Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice.

Nathan Quarry, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Benjamin Doyle Brown, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Eric L. Cramer, Berger
& Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office
of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University
of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice, Kevin Rayhill,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner
Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C.
Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac
vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro
hac vice & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek
PLC, pro hac vice.

Jon Fitch, Plaintiff, represented by Andrew Michael Purdy, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Benjamin Doyle Brown, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice,Frederick S.
Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice,Joseph
R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P.
Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice,
Justin C. Jones, Wolf Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Kevin
Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Don
Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,
Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo, Patrick F. Madden, Berger &
Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle
Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice.

Zuffa, LLC, Defendant, represented by John F. Cove, Jr., Boies
Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Marcy N. Lynch, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Stacey Grigsby, LEAD
ATTORNEY, pro hac vice, Donald Jude Campbell, Campbell and
Williams, J. Colby Williams, Campbell & Williams,Perry Grossman,
Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, pro hac vice, Richard J. Pocker,
Boies Schiller & Flexner, LLP, Steven Christopher Holtzman, Boies,
Schiller & Flexner LLP, Suzanne Jaffe Nero, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice & William A. Isaacson, Boies, Schiller &
Flexner LLP, pro hac vice.

Kyle Kingsbury, Luis Javier Vazquez, Consol Plaintiffs,
represented by Benjamin Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll
PLLC, pro hac vice, Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro,
Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro
hac vice, Frederick S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S.
Schwartz, pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco
School of Law, pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Wolf Rifkin Shapiro
Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm,
Inc., pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo,Patrick F. Madden,
Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard A. Koffman, Cohen
Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP, Jerome Elwell, Warner
Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice, Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Robert
Maysey, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice.

Mac Danzig, Gabe Ruediger, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Eugene
A. Spector, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Joshua P.
Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro hac vice,
William Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac
vice, Don Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin,
LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew Sinclair
Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Michael
C. Dell'Angelo.

Dennis Lloyd Hallman, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley
Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Eric L.
Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Joseph R. Saveri,
Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Wolf
Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin, LLP, Don Springmeyer, Wolf,
Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,Kevin Rayhill, Joseph
Saveri Law Firm, Inc., Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri
Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice & Michael C. Dell'Angelo.

Pablo Garza, Brandon Vera, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Andrew
Michael Purdy, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, pro hac vice, Benjamin
Doyle Brown, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice,
Bradley Scott Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin,
Eric L. Cramer, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Frederick
S. Schwartz, Law Office of Frederick S. Schwartz, pro hac vice,
Joseph R. Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Joshua P. Davis, University of San Francisco School of Law, pro
hac vice, Justin C. Jones, Wolf Rifkin Shapiro Schulman & Rabkin,
LLP, Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice,
Patrick F. Madden, Berger & Montague, P.C., pro hac vice, Richard
A. Koffman, Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, pro hac vice, Don
Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,
Jerome Elwell, Warner Angle Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac
vice, Matthew Sinclair Weiler, The Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc.,
pro hac vice, Michael C. Dell'Angelo & Robert Maysey, Warner Angle
Hallam Jackson Formanek PLC, pro hac vice.

Darren Uyenoyama, Consol Plaintiff, represented by Bradley Scott
Schrager, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman & Rabkin, Joseph R.
Saveri, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc., pro hac vice, William
Caldes, Spector Roseman Kodroff & Willis, PC, pro hac vice, Don
Springmeyer, Wolf, Rifkin, Shapiro, Schulman and Rabkin, LLP,
Kevin Rayhill, Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. & Michael C.
Dell'Angelo.


* Industry Groups Mull Suit Over Obama's Retirement Rule
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Ackerman and Leslie Scism, writing for The Wall Street
Journal, report that big business and financial industry trade
groups are taking to the courts to block a controversial Obama
administration rule shaking up the way Americans receive
retirement investment advice, having failed in their long-running
fight to stop the regulations in the bureaucracy, or in Congress.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, along with the Securities Industry
and Financial Markets Association, were preparing to file a
lawsuit as early as June 1, according to people familiar with the
matter.  As many as three other trade groups will likely also join
the lawsuit, these people said.

The groups are expected to target the primary means of enforcing
the heightened retirement-advice standards: a provision that
allows investors to file class-action lawsuits when they believe
an adviser runs afoul of the new rules.  Industry groups say that
will open the $14 trillion market up to expensive litigation, and
that the administration lacked congressional authority needed to
include such a provision in the rule.

The regulation is known as the fiduciary rule, because it requires
brokers working on retirement accounts to act as "fiduciaries" who
operate in the "best interest" of clients, a change that could
transform the way financial products are sold and advice is given.
Previously, brokers were required to give "suitable" guidance, a
looser standard. The rule was finalized by the Department of Labor
in April.

The broad rule is aimed at curbing billions of dollars in fees
paid annually by small savers who transfer money out of 401(k)s
and into individual retirement accounts, which aren't currently
bound by "fiduciary" protections.  There, savers may be working
with financial-product salespeople who earn more selling certain
products and don't have to put their clients' interests before
their own, unlike in 401(k) plans.

Opponents fought tooth and nail to kill the rule, which they say
unfairly tars stockbrokers and would backfire by making it harder
for small savers to get advice.  Labor officials scaled back
aspects of the rule from a 2015 proposal, including eased
paperwork burdens and compliance dates.  But industry groups said
the measure remains unduly burdensome.

Spokeswomen for the Chamber and Sifma declined to comment.

Officials at the department have said they are ready to combat
possible legal challenges from the industry.  "We are confident
that we have put together a rule that will survive all
challenges," Phyllis Borzi, an assistant labor secretary who
spearheaded the rule, told The Wall Street Journal earlier this
year.
Legal challenges were widely expected from the financial industry
after last-minute efforts to scuttle the rule failed.  While both
chambers of Congress have taken symbolic votes to block the
regulations in recent weeks, lawmakers failed to muster enough
votes to overcome a veto from President Barack Obama.

One of the core aspects of the new rule is the "best-interest
contract exemption," which allows brokers and advisers to receive
commissions and other types of compensation for selling specific
retirement products, as long as they enter into a contract with
the investor and pledge to act in the best interest of the
investor.

The contract specifically enables aggrieved retirement investors
to sue their advisers.  Because the government lacks an
enforcement mechanism to ensure that advisers are adhering to the
new rule, industry executives argue that the Labor Department has
effectively outsourced that role to the plaintiffs' bar.  The
Labor Department has said that "the rule expands the circumstances
in which" investors can sue their advisers.

Legal experts were split on the prospects of success for the
challenge.  Tamar Frankel, a longtime professor at Boston
University School of Law, said there is legal precedent under
which consumers' right to sue needs to be spelled out by Congress.
"Courts today are inundated with cases.  There is a tendency to
limit the access," she said.

But Mercer Bullard, a law professor at the University of
Mississippi and a vocal supporter of the rule, said the makeup of
the federal appellate court in Washington that may take up the
case has shifted in favor of federal regulators.  "It's very
likely the current court will ultimately decide in favor of the
Labor Department," he said.  "They're saying you can commit what
would otherwise be a prohibited transaction as long as your client
can sue you and you are a fiduciary."

Industry groups have a mixed record when it comes to challenging
regulators in court.  The Chamber in 2011 successfully blocked a
Securities and Exchange Commission rule designed to give investors
more power to oust corporate directors.  Sifma convinced a court
to overturn Commodity Futures Trading Commission trading
restraints the following year.  But Sifma lost a separate case in
2014 in which the Wall Street group challenged the ability of the
CFTC to impose its post-financial-crisis rules overseas.

More recently, a federal judge in March nullified a government
panel's designation of life insurer MetLife Inc. as "systemically
important," meaning its failure could harm the broader financial
system.  Separately, a federal appeals court is hearing a case to
curb the powers of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

The Labor Department regulation is likely to come under attack
from more than one legal challenge.  Some executives in the life-
insurance industry expect the American Council of Life Insurers
trade group to proceed with a lawsuit independently of the Chamber
and Sifma legal action, though it may zero in on the same legal
issue.

"In response to a decision by the ACLI Board of Directors, we
continue to explore a federal court challenge to the fiduciary
regulation," an ACLI spokesman said on May 31.  "Our strategic
decisions will be made based on further direction given by our
members."

Even more lawsuits also are possible, including from a trio of
life insurers specializing in a certain type of retirement-income
annuity.  Jim Poolman, executive director of the Indexed Annuity
Leadership Council, which represents three of the largest sellers
of "indexed annuities," said in an email on May 31 that his group
is "still discussing the rule, and potential legal strategies.

Legal experts and insurance-industry executives said that the
indexed-annuity sellers potentially might make due-process
arguments because the Labor Department substantially toughened
regulations for sales of these products between the proposed and
final versions of its rule.

The tougher treatment came as an apparent surprise to the stock
market.  Shares of American Equity Investment Life Holding, one of
the leading sellers of indexed annuities and part of the trio
considering a lawsuit, fell 15% on the day the Labor Department
rules were unveiled, while shares of many other life insurers with
more-diversified product lineups were flat to up.


                            *********

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  * * *