CAR_Public/160615.mbx              C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, June 15, 2016, Vol. 18, No. 119




                            Headlines


3D SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
ADT LLC: Faces "Williams" Class Suit in Southern Dist. California
AERO PALLETS: Faces "Rubio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
AMARIN CORP: Court Granted Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orzel" Suit Claims

AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Fla. Over ADA Violation
ARKANSAS, USA: Faces Eighth Circuit Appeal in "Wilson" Class Suit
AT&T INC: Suit Challenging DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Pending
AT&T INC: Suit Related to Unlimited Data Plans Pending
AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Final Judgment Approving Settlement

AVON PRODUCTS: Poovathur Settlement Awaits Court Approval
BARNES AND NOBLE: Faces "Hartpence" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BEARGLASS INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
BETTER ALTERNATIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Tabor" Suit Says
BLUE CROSS: Appeals Court Voids $30MM Class Action Settlement

BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Rochon Genova Launches Abilify Class Action
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R)
BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R)
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Range Extenders
CASHCALL INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection

CAVIAR INC: Levin Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Sikora"
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Suit Ongoing in San Diego
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Class Action Pending in E.D.N.Y.
CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Brown" Suit Sent to Arbitration

CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Action Ongoing in Calif.
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit Moved to Tarrant, Texas
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners' Suits Ongoing in Pa. and Ohio
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 3 Lawsuits Filed in Oklahoma
CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Class Suit Over Senior Note Holders

CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Vehicle Sunroof Defect Class Action
CLARITY SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
COLOR SPOT: Faces "Olivares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
CORVALLIS, OR: Bid for Class Certification in "Smith" Denied
COMCAST CORPORATION: "Spencer" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania

COMMUNITY LOANS: "Cox" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
CULINART INC: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities
DEDICATED FLEET: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
DEVRY EDUCATION: To Defend Against Rayter-Herendeen Suit in Cal.
DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Class Suit in Early Stages

EAST COAST: "Schlegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
EMC CORPORATION: 15 Shareholder Class Actions Pending
EMCORE CORP: Offered Employees One Time Cash Payment
ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Sued in Delaware Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
ENVOY AIR: "Schroeder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages

EVENTBRITE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kubik" Suit Claims
FAIRLIFE LLC: "Kremmel" Suit Removed to S. District Illinois
FEDEX GROUND: "Carrow" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of New Jersey
FCA US LLC: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Faltermeier"
FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settles Class Action Over Huntington Merger

GENERAL MILLS: Class Certification in Environmental Case Reversed
GLENCORE LTD: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action, Aug. 24 Hearing Set
GRS MANAGEMENT: "Pena" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Young" Suit in D. Ariz.

HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly
HSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Pass" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Automated Calls
HUNTINGTON HONDA: "Schmitt" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law
INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
LAIDLAW & COMPANY: "Noel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages

LEGACY AIR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Bynum" Suit Claims
LONE STAR: Appeals From N.D. Texas Ruling in "Campos" Class Suit
M LOPEZ: Faces "Carreto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
MACY'S INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Merchandise Label
MAGNELL ASSOCIATE: Faces "Aceves" Class Suit in California

MCLANE SUNEAST: "Fenton" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid for Class Certification in "Huebner" Denied
MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Filgueiras" Suit Says
MILWAUKEE COUNTY: "Ruehs" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA
MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Nemes" Suit in E.D.N.Y.

NANOSPHERE INC: Sued in Illinois Over Proposed Sale to Luminex
NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Evans" Class Suit Removed to Idaho Dist. Ct
NEW BUFFALO CORP: Hopper Appeals From W.D. Ky. Ruling
NORMANDIE CLUB: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
NORTHSHORE PHYSICIAN: Faces Class Action Over Lien on HMO Fees

P.F. CHANGS: Bid for Voluntary Dismissal of "Phillips" Granted
PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Naparala" Suit Denied
PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Romig" Suit Denied
PERSHING LLC: "Ochoa" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Tex.
PETROBRAS: Prosecutor Goes After Three Senators Tied to Scandal

PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
PREMIER KINGS: Faces "Hardy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: "Graham" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
QUALITY PLUMBING: "Kiss" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
RICK'S FRONT: "Summers" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA

RIP CURL: Faces "Candelario" Class Suit in C. Dist. of California
SAINT-GOBAIN: Southern NH Residents Voice Frustrations at Meeting
SANDISK CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in "Giuliano" Antitrust Suit
SAR CALIFORNIA: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT

STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Cold Drinks, Suit Claims
STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Thorner" Suit Says
SUBARU: Class Action Settlement Expected to Be Finalized in July
SWIFT PORK: "Rocha" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
TEXAS, USA: District Court Ruling in "Steward" Suit Under Appeal

THERANOS INC: Sued Over Substandard Lab Policies & Procedures
TOMS SHOES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge in Fraud Case Tied to La Raza Council
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal Filed in 9th Circuit in "Lainer" Suit
UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unveils Software Improvements Amid Litigation

UGI CORP: Hawkins Appeals From C.D. California Ruling in 9th Cir.
UNITED STATES: Faces "Jerome" Suit in Northern District Indiana
UNITED STATES: Court Rules on Bids for Joinder in "Bell" Suit
UNITED STATES: Evideo Owners Appeal From Ruling in Patent Suit
VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Vehicle Emissions Class Action Underway

WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Reeves" Class Suit in S.D. California
WAL-MART STORES: "Smith" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
WEWORK: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
WHALENECK ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paez" Suit Says
ZACKS INVESTMENT: "Kerr" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.

ZEEBA ENTERPRISES: "Najera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
ZODIAC US: Sued in California Over Failure to Provide Meal Period


                            *********


3D SYSTEMS: Bid to Dismiss Consolidated Class Suit Pending
----------------------------------------------------------
3D Systems 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 Company's motion
to dismiss a consolidated class action lawsuit remains pending.

The Company and certain of its former executive officers have been
named as defendants in a consolidated putative stockholder class
action lawsuit pending in the United States District Court for the
District of South Carolina. The consolidated action is styled KBC
Asset Management NV v. 3D Systems Corporation, et al., Case No.
0:15-cv-02393-MGL. The Amended Consolidated Complaint (the
"Complaint"), which was filed on December 9, 2015, alleges that
defendants violated the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended (the "Exchange Act"), and Rule 10b-5 promulgated
thereunder by making false and misleading statements and omissions
and that the former officers are control persons under Section
20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Complaint was filed on behalf of
stockholders who purchased shares of the Company's common stock
between October 29, 2013, and May 5, 2015 and seeks monetary
damages on behalf of the purported class. Defendants filed a
motion to dismiss the Complaint in its entirety on January 14,
2016, which motion is currently pending.


ADT LLC: Faces "Williams" Class Suit in Southern Dist. California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against ADT LLC
d/b/a ADT Security Services.

The case is captioned Matthew Williams, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated, and the general public v. ADT LLC
d/b/a ADT Security Services, Case No. 3:16-cv-01268-JAH-JLB (S.D.
Cal., May 26, 2016).

ADT LLC d/b/a ADT Security Services provides residential and small
business electronic security, fire protection and other related
alarm monitoring services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Ashley R. Rifkin, Esq.
      ROBBINS ARROYO LLP
      600 B Street, Suite 1900
      San Diego, CA 92101
      Telephone: (619) 525-3990
      Facsimile: (619) 525-3991
      E-mail: arifkin@robbinsarroyo.com


AERO PALLETS: Faces "Rubio" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
-------------------------------------------------------------
Israel Rubio, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Aero Pallets, Inc. and Slats and Nails Pallets, Inc.,
Case No. 5:16-cv-01278 (N.D. Ohio., May 26, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Aero Pallets, Inc. is a designer and manufacturer of Aero-Caster
products, like air casters or air bearings mounted on Aero-Planks,
Aero-Pallets.

Slats and Nails Pallets, Inc. operates a freight shipping and
trucking company running freight hauling business from East
Sparta, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Hans A. Nilges, Esq.
      Shannon M. Draher, Esq.
      NILGES DRAHER, LLC
      4580 Stephen Circle, N.W., Suite 201
      Canton, OH  44718
      Telephone: (330) 470-4428
      E-mail: hans@ohlaborlaw.com
              sdraher@ohlaborlaw.com


AMARIN CORP: Court Granted Bid to Dismiss Securities Action
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amarin Corporation plc 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 on April 26, 2016, the
U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey granted a
motion to dismiss in favor of the Company and related defendants
in the putative consolidated class action lawsuit captioned In re
Amarin Corporation plc, Securities Litigation, No. 3:13-cv-06663
(D.N.J. Nov. 1, 2013). The class action was dismissed without
prejudice with leave for plaintiffs to file an amended complaint.
The lawsuit sought unspecified monetary damages and attorneys'
fees and costs alleging that the Company and certain of its
current and former officers and directors made misstatements and
omissions regarding the FDA's willingness to approve Vascepa's
ANCHOR indication and related contributing factors and the
potential relevance of data from the ongoing REDUCE-IT trial to
that potential approval. This is the second motion to dismiss
granted in favor of the Company and related defendants in this
litigation. The first motion to dismiss in this litigation was
granted in June 2015 in response to the original complaint and
related amendment. Should plaintiffs file another amended
complaint or appeal, the Company plans a vigorous defense. The
Company has insurance coverage that is anticipated to cover any
significant loss exposure that may arise from this action.


AMERICAN CORADIUS: Illegally Collects Debt, "Orzel" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Fraidy Orzel, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. American Coradius International, LLC, Case No. 1:16-
cv-02686 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's
unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

American Coradius International, LLC operates a debt collection
firm located at 2420 Sweet Home Rd #150, Amherst, NY 14228.

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


AMERICAN SIGNATURE: Faces "Gomez" Suit in Fla. Over ADA Violation
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Andres Gomez, on his own behalf, and on behalf of all other
individuals similarly situated v. American Signature, Inc., Case
No. 1:16-cv-21904-FAM (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), is brought
against the Defendant for violation of the Americans with
Disabilities Act.

American Signature, Inc. is a furniture company based in Columbus,
Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Scott Richard Dinin, Esq.
      SCOTT R. DININ, P.A.
      4200 NW 7th Avenue
      Miami, FL 33127
      Telephone: (786) 431-1333
      Facsimile: (786) 513-7700
      E-mail: srd@dininlaw.com


ARKANSAS, USA: Faces Eighth Circuit Appeal in "Wilson" Class Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Charles Isaac Wilson, Jr., filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit styled Charles Wilson, Jr. v. Wendy Kelley,
et al., Case No. 5:14-cv-00248-SWW, in the U.S. District Court for
the Eastern District of Arkansas - Pine Bluff.

The lawsuit arises from issues over prison condition.

The appellate case is captioned as Charles Wilson, Jr. v. Wendy
Kelley, et al., Case No. 16-2485, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.

Defendants-Appellees Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department
of Corrections, and Lindsey Williams are represented by:

          Charles Lyford, Esq.
          ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE
          200 Catlett-Prien Building
          323 Center Street
          Little Rock, AR 72201-0000
          Telephone: (501) 682-2007
          E-mail: charles.lyford@arkansasag.gov


AT&T INC: Suit Challenging DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
AT&T 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 Company continues to defend against
the litigation challenging DIRECTV's NFL Sunday Ticket.

More than two dozen putative class actions have been filed in the
U.S. District Courts for the Central District of California and
the Southern District of New York against DIRECTV and the National
Football League (NFL). These cases were brought by residential and
commercial DIRECTV subscribers that have purchased NFL Sunday
Ticket. The plaintiffs allege that (i) the 32 NFL teams have
unlawfully agreed not to compete with each other in the market for
nationally televised NFL football games and instead have "pooled"
their broadcasts and assigned to the NFL the exclusive right to
market them; and (ii) the NFL and DIRECTV have entered into an
unlawful exclusive distribution agreement that allows DIRECTV to
charge "supra-competitive" prices for the NFL Sunday Ticket
package. The complaints seek unspecified treble damages and
attorneys' fees along with injunctive relief. The first complaint,
Abrahamian v. National Football League, Inc., et al., was served
in June 2015. In December 2015, the Judicial Panel on
Multidistrict Litigation transferred the cases outside the Central
District of California to that court for consolidation and
management of pre-trial proceedings.

"We vigorously dispute the allegations the complaints have
asserted," the Company said.


AT&T INC: Suit Related to Unlimited Data Plans Pending
------------------------------------------------------
AT&T 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 Company continues to defend against
the litigation related to its Unlimited Data Plan Claims.

The Company said, "In October 2014, the FTC filed a civil suit in
the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
against AT&T Mobility, LLC seeking injunctive relief and
unspecified money damages under Section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act. The FTC's allegations concern the application of
AT&T's Maximum Bit Rate (MBR) program to customers who enrolled in
our Unlimited Data Plan from 2007-2010. MBR temporarily reduces in
certain instances the download speeds of a small portion of our
legacy Unlimited Data Plan customers each month after the customer
exceeds a designated amount of data during the customer's billing
cycle. MBR is an industry-standard practice that is designed to
affect only the most data-intensive applications (such as video
streaming). Texts, emails, tweets, social media posts, Internet
browsing and many other applications are typically unaffected.
Contrary to the FTC's allegations, which we vigorously dispute,
our MBR program is permitted by our customer contracts, was fully
disclosed in advance to our Unlimited Data Plan customers, and was
implemented to protect the network for the benefit of all
customers."

"In March 2015, our motion to dismiss the litigation on the
grounds that the FTC lacked jurisdiction to file suit was denied.
In May 2015, the Court granted our motion to certify its decision
for immediate appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit subsequently granted our petition to accept the
appeal, and the appeal is now pending before that Court while
limited discovery proceeds in the District Court. Oral argument on
the appeal is presently set for June 17, 2016. In addition to the
FTC case, several class actions have been filed also challenging
our MBR program. We vigorously dispute the allegations the
complaints have asserted."


AVON PRODUCTS: Awaits Final Judgment Approving Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 court has not yet
entered a final judgment approving the settlement of a shareholder
class action complaint.

On July 6, 2011, a purported shareholder's class action complaint
(City of Brockton Retirement System v. Avon Products, Inc., et
al., No. 11-CIV-4665) was filed in the United States District
Court for the Southern District of New York against the Company
and certain present or former officers and/or directors of the
Company. On September 29, 2011, the Court appointed LBBW Asset
Management Investmentgesellschaft mbH and SGSS Deutschland
Kapitalanlagegesellschaft mbH as lead plaintiffs and Motley Rice
LLC as lead counsel. Lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint,
and the defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on June
14, 2012. On September 29, 2014, the Court granted the defendants'
motion to dismiss and also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend
their complaint. On October 24, 2014, plaintiffs filed their
second amended complaint on behalf of a purported class consisting
of all persons or entities who purchased or otherwise acquired
shares of Avon's common stock from July 31, 2006 through and
including October 26, 2011.

The second amended complaint names as defendants the Company and
two individuals and asserts violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a)
of the Exchange Act based on allegedly false or misleading
statements and omissions with respect to, among other things, the
Company's compliance with the FCPA, including the adequacy of the
Company's internal controls. Plaintiffs seek compensatory damages
and declaratory, injunctive, and other equitable relief.
Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint on
November 21, 2014.

The parties have reached an agreement on a settlement of this
class action. The terms of settlement include releases by members
of the class of claims against the Company and the individual
defendants and payment of $62 million. Under the terms of the
settlement, approximately $60 million of the settlement was paid
by the Company's insurers and approximately $2 million was paid by
the Company (which represented the remaining deductible under the
Company's applicable insurance policy) into escrow.

On August 21, 2015, the court granted preliminary approval of the
settlement, and on December 1, 2015 the court held a hearing to
consider final approval of the settlement and expressed an intent
to grant final approval. However, the court has not yet entered a
final judgment approving the settlement. If the settlement is not
approved by the court, or is otherwise terminated before it is
finalized, the Company will be unable to predict the outcome of
this matter. Furthermore, in that event, it is reasonably possible
that the Company may incur a loss in connection with this matter,
which the Company is unable to reasonably estimate.


AVON PRODUCTS: Poovathur Settlement Awaits Court Approval
---------------------------------------------------------
Avon Products, 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 settlement of
Poovathur remains subject to court approval.

Between December 23, 2014 and March 12, 2015, two purported class
actions were filed in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of New York -- Poovathur v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 14-CV-10083) and McCoy et al. v. Avon Products, Inc.,
et al. (No. 15-CV-01828) asserting claims under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act ("ERISA") against the Company, the
Plan's administrator, benefits board and investment committee, and
certain individuals alleged to have served as Plan fiduciaries. On
April 8, 2015, the Court consolidated the two actions and
recaptioned the consolidated case as In re 2014 Avon Products,
Inc. ERISA Litigation, (No. 14-CV-10083). On May 8, 2015,
plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint, asserting claims for
alleged breach of fiduciary duty and failure to monitor under
ERISA on behalf of a purported class of participants in and
beneficiaries of the Plan who invested in and/or held shares of
the Avon Common Stock Fund between July 31, 2006 and May 1, 2014
and between December 14, 2011 and the present.  Plaintiffs seek,
inter alia, certain monetary relief, damages, and declaratory,
injunctive and other equitable relief. On July 9, 2015, Defendants
moved to dismiss the consolidated complaint. The parties have
reached an agreement on a settlement of this class action. The
terms of settlement include releases by members of the class of
claims against the Company and the individual defendants and
payment of approximately $6 million.

Under the terms of the settlement, approximately $5 million of the
settlement will be paid by the Company's insurer and approximately
$1 million will be paid by the Company (which represents the
remaining deductible under the Company's applicable insurance
policy). Certain documentation relating to the settlement has not
yet been finalized, and the settlement is subject to court
approval. If the settlement is not approved by the court, or is
otherwise terminated before it is finalized, the Company will be
unable to predict the outcome of this matter. Furthermore, in that
event, it is reasonably possible that the Company may incur a loss
in connection with this matter, which the Company is unable to
reasonably estimate.


BARNES AND NOBLE: Faces "Hartpence" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Christine N. Hartpence, individually and on behalf of those
similarly situated v. Barnes and Noble, Inc., Case No. 16050342
(Phil. Cmmw., May 26, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for
failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the Pennsylvania
Minimum Wage Act.

Barnes and Noble, Inc. is the largest retail bookseller in the
United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Thomas More Holland, Esq.
      THE LAW OFFICES OF THOMAS MORE HOLLAND
      1522 Locust Street, Grace Hall
      Philadelphia, PA 19102
      Telephone: (215) 592-8080
      Facsimile: (215) 592-8550


BEARGLASS INC: Faces "Hernandez" Suit Over Failure to Pay OT
------------------------------------------------------------
Ubaldo Hernandez, individually and in behalf of all other persons
similarly situated v. Bearglass Inc., Ira Lehman, Mark Zuckowitz,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02660 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 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 glass & mirror shop located at
399 20th St, Brooklyn, NY 11215.

Ubaldo Hernandez is a pro se plaintiff.


BETTER ALTERNATIVE: Fails to Pay Employees OT, "Tabor" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Tabor, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. A Better Alternative to Senior Care, Inc., Case No.
1:16-cv-01281 (N.D. Ohio., May 26, 2016), is brought against the
Defendant for failure to pay overtime compensation for hours work
in excess of 40 hours per week.

A Better Alternative to Senior Care, Inc. operates a home health
care business in Cuyahoga County, Ohio.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony J. Lazzaro, Esq.
      Chastity L. Christy, Esq.
      Lori M. Griffin, Esq.
      THE LAZZARO LAW FIRM, LLC
      920 Rockefeller Building
      614 W. Superior Avenue
      Cleveland, OH 44113
      Telephone: (216) 696-5000
      Facsimile: (216) 696-7005
      E-mail: anthony@lazzarolawfirm.com
              chastity@lazzarolawfirm.com
              lori@lazzarolawfirm.com


BLUE CROSS: Appeals Court Voids $30MM Class Action Settlement
-------------------------------------------------------------
JC Reindl, writing for Detroit Free Press, reports that a U.S.
appeals court has voided a $30-million settlement in a class
action  against Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan involving
price-fixing allegations, contending that key details of the
settlement were wrongly sealed and kept hidden from public view.

The U.S. 6th Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said
on June 7 that members of the aggrieved class -- estimated at 3
million to 7 million people -- had no ability to examine the facts
and reasoning behind the settlement and that the district court in
Detroit approved the settlement without "meaningful scrutiny."

The opinion tosses out the settlement and sends the underlying
class-action case back to U.S. District Court in Detroit "for an
open and vigorous examination of the settlement's fairness," the
opinion said.

The settlement, reached in June 2014 between Blue Cross and the
class-action plaintiffs, concerned allegations that The Blues
abused its dominant market position in Michigan by pressuring more
than 60 hospitals into contracts that were preferential to Blue
Cross and adverse to competing health insurers, while also raising
health care costs overall.

The lawsuit arose from a 2010 Department of Justice complaint
against Blue Cross and ultimately alleged damages of more than
$13.7 billion. Blue Cross did not admit to any wrongdoing as part
of the $30-million now-voided settlement.

Much of that settlement amount was to go to expenses and lawyers,
with just $14.6 million going to the members.  The settlement was
approved by U.S. District Court Judge Denise Hood.

In its opinion issued on June 7, the appeals court chided the
district court for sealing too many legal filings and documents in
the case at the behest of Blue Cross and the original plaintiffs,
including plaintiffs' amended complaint, nearly 200 exhibits and
an expert's report that ultimately cost $2 million out of the
settlement amount.

The expert's report calculated the class-wide damages of the
alleged price-fixing scheme at $118 million, the June 7 opinion
said.

An objection to the settlement was brought by various members of
the class-action group. They argued the settlement was too small
and that too much of it would go to lawyers.

In addition, a group of 26 self-insured businesses with health
plans administered by Blue Cross sought to unseal the records in
the case.

"Class members who sought to object to the proposed settlement
thus had no ability to examine the bases of what they were
objecting to," the appeals court said.  "As a practical matter,
therefore, both the general public and the class were able to
access only fragmentary information about the conduct giving rise
to this litigation, and next to nothing about the bases of the
settlement itself."

Blue Cross spokeswoman Helen Stojic said the insurance company is
"reviewing the court's decision and are hopeful we can bring this
to resolution once again."

An attorney for the self-insured businesses, Bryan Walters of
Varnum in Grand Rapids, said they are pleased with the decision to
unseal the records.

"We continue to have very serious concerns about the fairness of
the proposed settlement," Mr. Walters said in a statement.  "We
look forward to the opportunity to review the record on behalf of
over 25 businesses we represent who objected to the settlement."

An attorney for the original plaintiffs in the class-action case
could not be reached for comment late on June 7.


BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB: Rochon Genova Launches Abilify Class Action
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Rochon Genova LLP on June 7 disclosed that it has commenced a
proposed national class action on behalf of Canadian users of the
prescription drugs Abilify and Abilify Maintena.

Abilify is an antipsychotic medication indicated for the treatment
of Schizophrenia, Bipolar I Disorder and Major Depressive
Disorder.  Since its approval in 2009, Abilify has become one of
the most widely prescribed antipsychotic drugs in Canada and
worldwide, with the number of Canadian prescriptions increasing
from approximately 3000 in 2010 to over 1 million in 2013.

Dopamine agonists such as Abilify and Abilify Maintena have been
scientifically linked to an increase in compulsive behaviours,
including compulsive gambling, binge-eating, compulsive
shopping/spending, and hypersexuality.  A safety review conducted
by the European Medicines Agency established a connection between
Abilify use and compulsive gambling, resulting in revisions to the
European product labeling in October 2012.  No warning was
included in the Canadian product monograph for Abilify until
November 2, 2015 when Health Canada confirmed the link between the
use of Abilify and an increased risk of compulsive gambling and
hypersexuality.

The proposed class action, filed with the Ontario Superior Court
of Justice, alleges, among other things, that the pharmaceutical
companies responsible for manufacturing and marketing Abilify and
Abilify Maintena -- Bristol-Myers Squibb, Otsuka Pharmaceuticals,
and Lundbeck -- knew, or ought to have known, that the drugs cause
or materially increase the risk of developing compulsive
behaviours, yet failed to disclose such risk.  The claim alleges
that the drug makers' failure to warn Canadians of these risks
resulted in significant harm to the plaintiffs and class members.

Joel Rochon, a partner at Rochon Genova LLP, stated, "Canadians
have a right to be informed about the risks associated with the
prescription medication that they use.  Failure to provide
adequate and timely warnings can have serious consequences.  In
this case, the plaintiff needlessly lost over $250,000 through
compulsive gambling, which ceased immediately after he stopped
taking Abilify."

The claims have not yet been proven in court.  For information
about the proposed class action please contact Jon Sloan at (416)
363-1867 or 1-866-881-2292.


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Five lawsuits have been filed in the Connecticut Superior Court on
May 25, 2016, for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operate a pharmaceutical company with its principal
place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield, Connecticut
06877.

The case are:

-- Alvin Behn v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Frank Blessing v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com

-- Bill Bousman v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


-- Floyd Boyer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


-- Michael Brown v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.;
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Brian J. Perkins, Esq.
      MEYERS & FLOWERS, LLC
      3 North Second Street, Suite 300
      St. Charles, IL 60174
      Telephone: (630) 232-6333
      Facsimile: (630) 845-8982
      E-mail: bjp@meyers-flowers.com


BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM: Faces 5 Suits in Conn. Over Pradaxa(R)
------------------------------------------------------------
Five lawsuits have been filed in the Connecticut Superior Court on
May 26, 2016, for damages suffered by the Plaintiff as a proximate
result of the Defendant's alleged negligent and wrongful conduct
in connection with the design, testing, and labeling, of
Pradaxa(R).

Pradaxa (R) is a direct thrombin inhibitor that is indicated to
reduce the risk of stroke and systemic embolism in patients with
non-valvular atrial fibrillation.

The Defendants operates a pharmaceutical company with its
principal place of business at 900 Ridgebury Road, Ridgefield,
Connecticut 06877.

The cases are:

-- Carolyn Gass, as surviving child and personal representative of
the estate of Dorothy Prince, Decedent v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Russell T. Abney, Esq.
      FERRER, POIROT WANSBROUGH FELLER DANIEL ABNEY & LINVILLE
      2100 RiverEdge Parkway, Suite 720
      Atlanta, GA 30328
      Telephone: (800) 521-4492
      Facsimile: (214) 526-6026
      E-mail: rabney@lawyerworks.com

-- John Evans and Katrina Evans v. Boehringer Ingelheim
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

-- Robert Hawkins v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

-- James Palmer v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and
Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

-- Timothy Taylor v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
and Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Neal L. Moskow, Esq.
      URY & MOSKOW, LLC
      833 Black Rock Turnpike
      Fairfield, CT 06825
      Telephone: (203) 610-6393
      Facsimile: (203) 610-6399
      E-mail: neal@urymoskow.com

         - and -

      Ellen A. Presby, Esq.
      NEMEROFF LAW FIRM
      2626 Cole Ave., Suite 450
      Dallas, TX 75204
      Telephone: (214) 774-2258
      Facsimile: (214) 393-7897
      E-mail: ellenpresby@nemerofflaw.com


BMW OF NORTH AMERICA: Sued in Cal. Over Defective Range Extenders
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dean Rollazo, Dr. Glynda Roberson, Brandon Redmond, and Adeel
Siddiqui, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly
situated v.  BMW of North America, LLC, and BMW AG, Case No. 8:16-
cv-00966 (C.D. Cal., May 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of all
owners or lessees of BMW i3 electric cars, which were sold by the
Defendants with defective Range Extenders.

The Defendants are engaged in the import and distribution of BMW
luxury/performance vehicles.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      Thomas E. Loeser, Esq.
      Jessica Thompson, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com
              toml@hbsslaw.com
              jessicat@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Lee M. Gordon, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      301 North Lake Avenue, Suite 203
      Pasadena, CA 91101
      Telephone: (213) 330-7150
      Facsimile: (213) 330-7152
      E-mail: lee@hbsslaw.com


CASHCALL INC: Accused of Wrongful Conduct Over Debt Collection
--------------------------------------------------------------
Herbert White, James Hayes, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated v. Cashcall, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-00311-HEH
(E.D. Va., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's unfair and
unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Cashcall, Inc. is in the business of providing personal and
business loans.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      James Wilson Speer, Esq.
      VIRGINIA PROVERTY LAW CENTER
      919 E Main Street, Suite 610
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 782-9430
      Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
      E-mail: jay@vplc.org

         - and -

      Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive, Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7570
      Facsimile: (703) 591-0167
      E-mail: aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com
              kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com

         - and -

      Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
       Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
      Susan Mary Rotkis, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
      763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
              lenbennett@clalegal.com
              srotkis@clalegal.com


CAVIAR INC: Levin Appeals N.D. California Ruling to Ninth Circuit
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Jeffry Levin filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit
styled Jeffry Levin v. Caviar, Inc., Case No. 3:15-cv-01285-EDL,
in the U.S. District Court for Northern California, San Francisco.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 6,
2016, Magistrate Judge Elizabeth D. LaPorte dismissed the putative
wage and hour class action.  The case was brought by restaurant
delivery drivers against Defendant Caviar, Inc.  The Court
previously granted a motion to compel arbitration of the
Plaintiff's individual claims, held that the class action waiver
was enforceable but the California Private Attorneys General Act
of 2004 waiver was not, and ultimately ordered the parties to
arbitrate the issue of the arbitrability of the PAGA claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Jeffry Levin v. Caviar, Inc.,
Case No. 16-15975, in the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Matthew David Carlson, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          466 Geary Street, Suite 201
          San Francisco, CA 94102
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail:  mcarlson@llrlaw.com

               - and -

          Shannon Liss-Riordan, Esq.
          Adelaide Pagano, Esq.
          LICHTEN & LISS-RIORDAN, P.C.
          729 Boylston Street
          Boston, MA 02116
          Telephone: (617) 994-5800
          E-mail:  sliss@llrlaw.com
                  apagano@llrlaw.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Simona Agnolucci, Esq.
          HOWARD RICE NEMEROVSKI CANADY FALK & RABKIN PC
          Three Embarcadero Center, Seventh Floor
          San Francisco, CA 94111-4024
          Telephone: (415) 434-1600
          E-mail: sagnolucci@kvn.com

               - and -

          Erin Meyer, Esq.
          Ashok Ramani, Esq.
          R. James Slaughter, Esq.
          KEKER & VAN NEST LLP
          633 Battery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111
          Telephone: (415) 391-5400
          E-mail: emeyer@kvn.com
                  aramani@kvn.com
                  rslaughter@kvn.com


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: Settlement Approval Hearing Held in "Sikora"
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the final
approval hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2016, in the "Sikora"
class action case.

On April 11, 2013, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the California Superior Court, Placer
County, alleging that the Company violated the California Labor
Code and California Business and Professions Code, by requiring
employees to purchase uniforms for work (Sikora v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No SCV0032820).  A similar
lawsuit covering a different time period was also filed in Placer
County (Reed v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc. et al;
Case No. SCV27073).  By stipulation the parties agreed to transfer
the Reed and Sikora cases to Los Angeles County.  Both cases (Case
Nos. SCV0032820 and SCV27073) were subsequently coordinated
together in Los Angeles County by order of the Judicial Council.
On November 15, 2013, the Company filed a motion to enforce
judgment and to preclude the prosecution of certain claims under
the California Private Attorney General Act ("PAGA") and
California Business and Professions Code Section 17200.  On March
11, 2015, the court granted the Company's motion in Case No.
SCV0032820. The parties participated in voluntary mediation on
June 25, 2015 and have executed a memorandum of understanding with
respect to the terms of settlement, which is subject to court
approval and is intended to be a full and final resolution of the
actions.

On January 29, 2016, the court granted the parties' Motion for
Preliminary Approval of Class Action Settlement.  The final
approval hearing is scheduled for June 3, 2016.  Based on the
current status of this matter, we have reserved an immaterial
amount in anticipation of settlement.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Masters" Suit Ongoing in San Diego
-------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company
intends to vigorously defend the "Masters" class action lawsuit.

On November 26, 2014, a former restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the San Diego County Superior Court,
alleging that the Company violated the California Labor Code and
California Business and Professions Code, by failing to pay
overtime, to permit required rest breaks and to provide accurate
wage statements, among other claims (Masters v. The Cheesecake
Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al; Case No 37-2014-00040278).  By
stipulation, the parties agreed to transfer Case No. 37-2014-
00040278 to the Orange County Superior Court.

On March 2, 2015, Case No. 37-2014-00040278 was officially
transferred and assigned a new Case No. 30-2015-00775529 in the
Orange County Superior Court.  The lawsuit seeks unspecified
amounts of fees, penalties and other monetary payments on behalf
of the Plaintiff and other purported class members.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based on the current
status of this matter, we have not reserved for any potential
future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Guglielmo" Class Action Pending in E.D.N.Y.
----------------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company
intends to defend against the "Guglielmo" class action lawsuit.

On May 28, 2015, a group of current and former restaurant hourly
employees filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court
for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company
violated the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Code, by
requiring employees to purchase uniforms for work and violated the
State of New York's minimum wage and overtime provisions
(Guglielmo v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc., et al;
Case No 2:15-CV-03117).

On September 8, 2015, the Company filed its response to the
Complaint, requesting the court to compel arbitration against opt-
in Plaintiffs with valid arbitration agreements. The plaintiffs
are seeking unspecified amounts of penalties and other monetary
payments.

"We intend to vigorously defend this action.  Based upon the
current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Brown" Suit Sent to Arbitration
----------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the court has
granted the Company's motion to compel individual arbitration of
Plaintiff's wage statement claim and stayed the PAGA claim until
completion of the individual arbitration.

On November 10, 2015, a current restaurant hourly employee filed a
class action lawsuit in the Marin County Superior Court alleging
that the Company failed to provide complete and accurate wage
statements as set forth in the California Labor Code.  On January
26, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint.  The
lawsuit seeks unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to
other monetary payments (Brown v. The Cheesecake Factory
Restaurants, Inc.; Case No. CIV1504091).

The Company said, "On April 18, 2016, the court granted our motion
to compel individual arbitration of Plaintiff's wage statement
claim and stayed the PAGA claim until completion of the individual
arbitration.  We intend to vigorously defend against this action.
Based upon the current status of this matter, we have not reserved
for any potential future payments."


CHEESECAKE FACTORY: "Tagalogon" Action Ongoing in Calif.
--------------------------------------------------------
The Cheesecake Factory Incorporated said in its Form 10-Q Report
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on May 5, 2016,
for the quarterly period ended March 29, 2016, that the Company
intends to defend against the "Tagalogon" class action lawsuit.

On December 10, 2015 a former restaurant management employee filed
a class action lawsuit in the Los Angeles County Superior Court
alleging that the Company improperly classified its managerial
employees, failed to pay overtime, and failed to provide accurate
wage statements, in addition to other claims.  The lawsuit seeks
unspecified penalties under PAGA in addition to other monetary
payments (Tagalogon v. The Cheesecake Factory Restaurants, Inc.,
Case No. BC603620).

"We intend to vigorously defend against this action.  Based upon
the current status of this matter, we have not reserved for any
potential future payments," the Company said.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners Suit Moved to Tarrant, Texas
--------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 Chesapeake is
defending numerous lawsuits filed by individual royalty owners
alleging royalty underpayment with respect to properties in Texas.

On April 8, 2015, Chesapeake obtained a transfer order from the
Texas Multidistrict Litigation Panel to transfer a substantial
portion of these lawsuits filed since June 2014 to the 348th
District Court of Tarrant County for pre-trial purposes.

On February 12, 2016, Chesapeake filed a motion to change venue
for several other lawsuits to Harris County, or alternatively, to
Tarrant County. The parties subsequently agreed to transfer such
other lawsuits to Tarrant County, with Chesapeake reserving the
right to request transfer of any other such lawsuits to Harris
County.

These lawsuits, which primarily relate to the Barnett Shale,
generally allege that Chesapeake underpaid royalties by making
improper deductions and using incorrect production volumes. In
addition to allegations of breach of contract, a number of these
lawsuits allege fraud, conspiracy, joint venture and antitrust
violations by Chesapeake.

"We expect that additional lawsuits will be filed by new
plaintiffs making similar allegations. The lawsuits seek direct
damages in varying amounts, together with exemplary damages,
attorneys' fees, costs and interest," the Company said.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Royalty Owners' Suits Ongoing in Pa. and Ohio
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 putative statewide
class actions in Pennsylvania and Ohio and purported class
arbitrations in Pennsylvania have been filed on behalf of royalty
owners asserting various claims for damages related to alleged
underpayment of royalties as a result of the Company's divestiture
of substantially all of its midstream business and most of its
gathering assets in 2012 and 2013. These cases include claims for
violation of and conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and one of the cases
includes claims of intentional interference with contractual
relations and violations of antitrust laws related to purported
markets for gas mineral rights, operating rights and gas gathering
sources.

"We have not accrued a loss contingency for any of the
Pennsylvania and Ohio matters seeking class certification," the
Company said.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: 3 Lawsuits Filed in Oklahoma
-----------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 in March 2016,
three putative class action lawsuits were filed in the United
States District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma against
the Company and other defendants. The lawsuits allege that, since
December 2007, and continuing through March 2012, the defendants
conspired to rig bids and depress the market for the purchases of
oil and natural gas leasehold interests and properties in the
Anadarko Basin containing producing oil and natural gas wells, in
violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act. The lawsuits seek damages,
attorney's fees, costs and interest, as well as enjoinment from
adopting practices or plans which would restrain competition in a
similar manner as alleged in the lawsuits.


CHESAPEAKE ENERGY: Defending Class Suit Over Senior Note Holders
----------------------------------------------------------------
Chesapeake Energy 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 a class action
lawsuit on behalf of holders of the Company's 6.875% Senior Notes
due 2020 (2020 Notes) and 6.125% Senior Notes due 2021 (2021
Notes) was filed in April 2016 in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York relating to the Company's December
2015 debt exchange, whereby the Company privately exchanged newly
issued 8.00% Senior Secured Second Lien Notes due 2022 (Second
Lien Notes) for certain outstanding senior unsecured notes and
contingent convertible notes. The lawsuit alleges that the Company
violated the Trust Indenture Act of 1939 and the implied covenant
of good faith and fair dealing by benefiting themselves and a
minority of noteholders who are qualified institutional buyers
(QIBs). According to the lawsuit, as a result of the Company's
private debt exchange in which only QIBs (and non-U.S. persons
under Regulation S) were eligible to participate, the Company
unjustly enriched itself at the expense of class members by
reducing indebtedness and reducing the value of the 2020 Notes and
2022 Notes. The lawsuit seeks damages and attorney's fees, in
addition to declaratory relief that the debt exchange and the
liens created for the benefit of the Second Lien Notes are null
and void and that the debt exchange effectively resulted in a
default under the indentures for the 2020 Notes and 2021 Notes.


CHRYSLER: Seeks Dismissal of Vehicle Sunroof Defect Class Action
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jenna Reed, writing for glassBYTEs.com, reports that Chrysler
vehicle owners who filed a nationwide class action lawsuit
alleging that a defect in their vehicles' sunroofs cause them to
leak have no grounds for their case, according to Chrysler.

Chrysler says the plaintiffs have never stopped using their
vehicles, and continued to drive the vehicles for years and for
tens of thousands of miles without incident.

The original lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of
New Jersey in 2014. Vehicles covered in the lawsuit include the
Jeep Patriot, Jeep Liberty, Jeep Compass, Jeep Commander, Jeep
Cherokee, Jeep Grand Cherokee, Chrysler Town and Country and
Chrysler 300.  The model years are 2009 to present.

Attorneys claim the alleged defect manifested during the warranty
period for all plaintiffs, who seek damages in addition to
injunctive and equitable relief and attorneys' fees.

Chrysler alleged that certain third-party dealers or independent
repair shops performed negligent, incomplete, or otherwise
improper repairs or inspections of some plaintiffs' vehicles, and
that these actions destroy the cause of the complaint.

Chrysler asked the court to dismiss the plaintiffs' class action
complaint with prejudice.


CLARITY SERVICES: Sued Over Fair Credit Reporting Act Violation
---------------------------------------------------------------
Elizabeth Jensen, Gwendolyn Jones, and Kathryn Greene, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated v. Clarity
Services, Inc., Charles Hallinan, and Timothy Ranney, Case No.
3:16-cv-00312-REP (E.D. Va., May 26, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Clarity Services, Inc. provides real-time credit reporting, fraud
detection and risk management solutions to lenders in the subprime
consumer market.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kristi Cahoon Kelly, Esq.
      Andrew Joseph Guzzo, Esq.
      KELLY & CRANDALL PLC
      4084 University Drive,Suite 202A
      Fairfax, VA 22030
      Telephone: (703) 424-7572
      Facsimile: (703) 591-1067
      E-mail: kkelly@kellyandcrandall.com
              aguzzo@kellyandcrandall.com

         - and -

      Craig Carley Marchiando, Esq.
      Leonard Anthony Bennett, Esq.
      CONSUMER LITIGATION ASSOCIATES
      763 J Clyde Morris Boulevard, Suite 1A
      Newport News, VA 23601
      Telephone: (757) 930-3660
      Facsimile: (757) 930-3662
      E-mail: craig@clalegal.com
              lenbennett@clalegal.com

         - and -

      James Wilson Speer, Esq.
      VIRGINIA PROVERTY LAW CENTER
      919 E Main Street,Suite 610
      Richmond, VA 23219
      Telephone: (804) 782-9430
      Facsimile: (804) 649-0974
      E-mail: jay@vplc.org

COLOR SPOT: Faces "Olivares" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Pascual Olivares, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. and Does 1-50, inclusive,
Case No. BC620758 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016), is brought
against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages in
violation of the California Labor Code.

Color Spot Nurseries, Inc. distributes bedding plants, vegetables,
herbs, and shrubs, to retail and commercial customers throughout
the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


CORVALLIS, OR: Bid for Class Certification in "Smith" Denied
------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ROBERT C. SMITH, et al, Plaintiffs, v. CITY
OF CORVALLIS, Defendants, Civ. No. 6:14-cv-01382-MC (D. Or.),
Judge Michael J. McShane granted in part and denied, in part, the
defendant's motion for summary judgment, and denied the
plaintiffs' motion to certify the class.

A full-text copy of Judge McShane's June 6, 2016 order is
available at https://is.gd/o0PzQW from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs Robert Craig Smith, Karen Albreacht, and Kimball
Craig are homeless individuals who brought the action against the
defendant City of Corvallis, alleging that the city's policies and
practices regarding the notification and execution of the city's
"clean ups" or "sweeps" of homeless encampments are illegal.  The
plaintiffs claimed that Corvallis has routinely confiscated and
disposed of the personal property of the homeless without adequate
notice, just compensation, or due process.  They alleged that
Corvallis' policies and practices violate their state and federal
constitutional rights, state and federal statutory law, and state
common law.

Corvallis denied the allegations and claimed that their policies
and practices are compliant with all statutory laws and the
Constitution.

Robert Craig Smith, Plaintiff, represented by Mark S. Davidson --
mdavidson@williamskastner.com -- Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC &
Teena M. Killian.

Karen Albreacht, Kimball Craig, Plaintiffs, represented by Mark S.
Davidson, Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC.

City of Corvallis, OR, Defendant, represented by Aaron Hisel, Law
Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates & Gerald L. Warren, Law
Office of Gerald L. Warren and Associates.


COMCAST CORPORATION: "Spencer" Suit Removed to E.D. Pennsylvania
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit entitled Wilbert Spencer, on behalf of
himself, individually, and all others similarly situated v.
Comcast Corporation, Comcast Cable Communications Management, LLC,
and Comcast Cablevision Communications, Inc., Case No. 160500509,
was removed from the Philadelphia CCP to the United States
District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 2:16-cv-02589-RBS to
the proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts job discrimination practices.

The Defendants operate a mass media company and is the largest
broadcasting and largest cable television company in the world by
revenue.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

The Defendant is represented by:

      Stephen J. Kastenberg, Esq.
      BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL
      1735 Market St., 51st FL
      Philadelphia, PA 19103-7599
      Telephone: (215) 864-8122
      Facsimile: (215) 864-8999
      E-mail: kastenberg@ballardspahr.com


COMMUNITY LOANS: "Cox" Settlement Deal Has Initial Okay
-------------------------------------------------------
Judge Clay D. Land preliminarily approved the parties' proposed
settlement agreement in the case captioned JASON M. COX, ESTEVAN,
CASTILLO, LEO THOMAS TOOKES, JR, and ALESIA LEWIS-VINSON,
Individually, and on behalf of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs, v. COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA, INC., ET. AL.,
Defendants, Civil Action No. 4:11-cv-00177-CDL (M.D. Ga.).

Judge Land appointed Garden City Group, LLC as Settlement
Administrator.

A fairness hearing shall be held on October 6, 2016 at 10 a.m.,
before Judge Land in the United States District Courthouse, 2nd
Floor, 120 12th Street, Columbus, Georgia.

A full-text copy of Judge Land's June 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/33RPJ3 from Leagle.com.

JASON M COX, Plaintiff, represented by JOHN R BEVIS, JAMES CAMERON
TRIBBLE, KYLE S FISCHER, FISCHER SCOTT, LLC & ROY E BARNES, BARNES
LAW GROUP LLC.

ESTEVAN CASTILLO, LEO THOMAS TOOKES, JR, Plaintiffs, represented
by JAMES CAMERON TRIBBLE, KYLE S FISCHER, FISCHER SCOTT, LLC, ROY
E BARNES, BARNES LAW GROUP LLC & JOHN R BEVIS.

ALESIA LEWIS-VINSON, Plaintiff, represented by SCOTT C CROWLEY,
JAMES CAMERON TRIBBLE, KYLE S FISCHER, FISCHER SCOTT, LLC, ROY E
BARNES, BARNES LAW GROUP LLC & JOHN R BEVIS.

COMMUNITY LOANS OF AMERICA INC, ALABAMA TITLE LOANS INC, GEORGIA
AUTO PAWN INC, Defendants, represented by CHRISTOPHER JON BOWERS,
COLIN R P DELANEY -- cdelaney@sgrlaw.com -- DAVID C NEWMAN --
dnewman@sgrlaw.com -- JAMES C CLARK, JR. -- jcc@psstf.com --
STEPHEN M FORTE -- sforte@sgrlaw.com -- WILLIAM PARKER SANDERS --
psanders@sgrlaw.com --  & WILLIAM L TUCKER -- wlt@psstf.com.

JOHN DOE, Defendant, represented by JAMES C CLARK, JR., WILLIAM L
TUCKER & JAMES C CLARK, JR..

JOHN DOE, 1-10, Defendant, represented by WILLIAM L TUCKER.

FAST AUTO LOANS INC, DELAWARE TITLE LOANS INC, IDAHO TITLE LOANS
INC, ILLINOIS TITLE LOANS INC, FAST AUTO AND PAYDAY LOANS INC,
SOUTHERN FAST LOANS OF LOUISIANA INC, MISSISSIPPI TITLE LOANS INC,
MISSOURI TITLE LOANS INC, NEW ENGLAND AUTO FINANCE INC, NEW
ENGLAND AUTO AND PAY LOANS INC, NEW MEXICO TITLE LOANS INC, NEVADA
TITLE AND PAYDAY LOANS, INC., PR AUTO LOANS LLC, TENNESSEE TITLE
LOANS INC, TEXAS TITLE AND PAYDAY LOANS LLC, TEXAS CAR TITLE AND
PAYDAY LOAN SERVICES INC, UTAH TITLE LOANS INC, WISCONSIN AUTO
TITLE LOANS INC, ROBERT I REICH, TERRY FIELDS, DAKOTA AUTO TITLE
LOANS INC, Defendants, represented by COLIN R P DELANEY, DAVID C
NEWMAN, JAMES C CLARK, JR., STEPHEN M FORTE & WILLIAM L TUCKER.


CULINART INC: N.Y. Suit Seeks to Recover Retained Gratuities
------------------------------------------------------------
Deborah Garcia, on behalf of herself and others similarly situated
v. Culinart, Inc., Culinart Group Inc.,Culinart Holdings, Inc.,
Joseph H. Pacifico, Thomas R. Eich, Michael Pitkewicz, and all
other related entities, Case No. 601978/2015 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., May
26, 2016), seeks to recover unlawfully retained gratuities owed to
the Plaintiff and other similarly situated persons who are
presently or were formerly employed by the Defendants.

The Defendants own and operate a dining service company with its
principal place of business at 175 Sunnyside Boulevard, Plainview,
New York 11803.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


DEDICATED FLEET: Sued in Cal. Over Inaccurate Wage Statements
-------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Mojica, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, and on behalf of the general public v. Dedicated Fleet
Systems, Inc., Osterkamp Transportation Group, and Does 1 through
10, inclusive, Case No. BC621739 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to provide employees
with accurately itemized wage statements.

The Defendants own and operate a trucking company located at 1350
Philadelphia St, Pomona, CA 91766.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Otkupman, Esq.
      Rita Leong, Esq.
      Kyle Dominguez, Esq.
      OTKUPMAN LAW FIRM
      21800 Oxnard Street, Suite 1160
      Woodland Hills, CA 91367
      Telephone: (818) 293-5623
      Facsimile: (818) 850-1310
      E-mail: Roman@OLFLA.com
              Rita@OLFLA.com
              Kyle@OLFLA.com


DEVRY EDUCATION: To Defend Against Rayter-Herendeen Suit in Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
DeVry Education Group 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 a putative class
action lawsuit was filed on January 29, 2016, by Alex Rayter and
Ryan Herendeen, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated, against DeVry Group and DeVry University, Inc. in the
United States District Court for the Northern District of
California claiming breaches of implied contract and the implied
covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of the
California Unfair Trade Practices Act, the California False
Advertising Act and the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act,
and negligent misrepresentations. The claims are based on
allegations substantially similar to the allegations in the FTC
lawsuit. The lawsuit seeks preliminary and permanent injunctive
relief against future violations of law, restitution, disgorgement
of profits, punitive damages, reimbursement of costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees, and such other relief as the court
deems proper. DeVry Group strongly believes DeVry University's
advertising complied with each of the various laws implicated in
this action and both DeVry Group and DeVry University intend to
vigorously defend themselves.


DIVERSICARE HEALTHCARE: Arkansas Class Suit in Early Stages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Diversicare Healthcare Services, 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 a lawsuit
remains in its early stages and has not yet been certified by the
court as a class action.

In January 2009, a purported class action complaint was filed in
the Circuit Court of Garland County, Arkansas against the Company
and certain of its subsidiaries and Garland Nursing &
Rehabilitation Center (the "Facility"). The complaint alleges that
the defendants breached their statutory and contractual
obligations to the patients of the Facility over the five-year
period prior to the filing of the complaints. On June 4, 2015, the
Supreme Court of Arkansas issued a ruling in a lawsuit against
another provider that may impact this action. In that case, the
Court ruled that a lawsuit against several facilities formerly
operated by Golden Living could proceed as a class action. The
lawsuit against the Company remains in its early stages and has
not yet been certified by the court as a class action. The Company
intends to defend the lawsuit vigorously.

Diversicare Healthcare Services, Inc. provides long-term care
services to nursing center patients in nine states, primarily in
the Southeast, Midwest, and Southwest.


EAST COAST: "Schlegel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
------------------------------------------------------------
Lawrence Schlegel, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. East Coast Assemblers, Inc., d/b/a National
Assemblers, Inc., and Glenn Schneider, Case No. 9:16-cv-80838-BB
(S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid minimum wages,
overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and costs and
reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act.

The Defendants operate a nationwide full service assembling
business with its principal office at 6586 Hypoluxo Road, Suite
145, Lake Worth, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450
      Doral, FL 33166
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


EMC CORPORATION: 15 Shareholder Class Actions Pending
-----------------------------------------------------
EMC 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 as of May 5, 2016,
fifteen putative shareholder class action lawsuits challenging the
Merger have been filed, of which thirteen were filed purportedly
on behalf of Company shareholders and two purportedly on behalf of
VMware shareholders. The lawsuits name various combinations of the
Company, its current and former directors, VMware, certain of
VMware's directors, Denali, Dell and Merger Sub, among others, as
defendants. The fifteen lawsuits seek, among other things,
injunctive relief enjoining the Merger, rescission of the Merger
if consummated, an award of fees and costs and/or an award of
monetary damages. The suits are:

1. IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Tucci,
Civ. No. 1584-3130-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/15/2015

2. Barrett v. Tucci,
Civ. No. 15-6023-A
Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County
10/16/2015

3. Graulich v. Tucci,
Civ. No. 1584-3169-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/19/2015

4. Vassallo v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 1584-3173-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/19/2015

5. City of Miami Police Relief & Pension Fund v. Tucci,
Civ. No. 1584-3174-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/19/2015

6. Lasker v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 1584-3214-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/23/2015

7. Walsh v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 15-13654
U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts
10/27/2015

8. Local Union No. 373 U.A. Pension Plan v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 1584-3253-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/28/2015

9. City of Lakeland Emps.' Pension & Ret. Fund v. Tucci,
Civ. No. 1584-3269-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/28/2015

10. Ma v. Tucci,
Civ. No. 1584-3281-BLS1
Mass. Superior Court, Suffolk County
10/29/2015

11. Stull v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 15-13692
U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts
10/30/2015

12. Jacobs v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 15-6318-H
Mass. Superior Court, Middlesex County
11/12/2015

13. Ford v. VMware, Inc.,
C.A. No. 11714-VCL
Delaware Chancery Court
11/17/2015

14. Pancake v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 16-10040
U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts
1/11/2016

15. Booth Family Trust v. EMC Corp.,
Civ. No. 16-10114
U.S. District Court,
District of Massachusetts
1/26/2016

Of the thirteen lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of Company
shareholders, nine were filed in Massachusetts state court, and
four in the United States District Court for the District of
Massachusetts. Eleven of the lawsuits initially advanced
substantially the same allegations that the Merger Agreement was
adopted in violation of the fiduciary duties of the Company's
directors. Certain of those lawsuits also alleged that the
Company, Denali, Dell, Merger Sub, Silver Lake Partners, LLC,
and/or MSD Partners, LLC aided and abetted the alleged breaches of
fiduciary duty by the directors.

On November 5, 2015, pursuant to a motion made by the Company and
its directors, the nine lawsuits then pending in state court in
Massachusetts were consolidated with and into the first-filed of
those actions, IBEW Local No. 129 Benefit Fund v. Joseph M. Tucci,
et al. That action, brought in the Business Litigation Session of
the Suffolk County Superior Court, named as defendants the Company
and each member of its Board of Directors (as constituted as of
October 12, 2015), Denali, Dell and Merger Sub.

The Company and its directors moved to dismiss the amended
complaint in the IBEW matter pursuant to provisions of the
Massachusetts Business Corporation Act, M.G.L. c. 156D, Sec. 7.40
et seq., and Rules 12(b)(6) and 23.1 of the Massachusetts Rules of
Civil Procedure, on the basis that the complaint asserts a
derivative action on behalf of the Company and should be dismissed
for failure to make the requisite pre-suit demand on the Company.
On December 7, 2015 the Court granted this motion and on December
24, 2015 the court entered judgment dismissing each of the
consolidated actions. On January 21, 2016, three of the plaintiffs
served notice that they will appeal this judgment. On April 29,
2016, the appeal was docketed in the Massachusetts Appeals Court
as case number 2016-P-0595. On May 2, 2016, the appellants filed
an application for direct appellate review in the Massachusetts
Supreme Judicial Court as Direct Appellate Review No. DAR-24347.

On January 11, 2016, following the state court judgment and a
motion by the Company and its directors to stay or dismiss the two
lawsuits then pending in the United States District Court for the
District of Massachusetts, the plaintiffs in those cases amended
their complaints to eliminate the initial claims based on
Massachusetts state law and substitute allegations that the
preliminary proxy statement/prospectus dated December 14, 2015
omits and/or misrepresents material information and that such
omissions and misrepresentations constitute violations of Section
14(a) of, and Rule 14a-9 under, the Securities Exchange Act of
1934. Two additional lawsuits have since been filed in the same
court advancing substantially the same proxy-disclosure-based
allegations.

Of the two lawsuits filed purportedly on behalf of VMware
shareholders, one was filed in Middlesex County Superior Court in
Massachusetts, and the other in Delaware Chancery Court. Both
generally allege that the Company, in its capacity as the majority
shareholder of VMware, and individual defendants who are directors
of the Company, VMware, or both, breached their fiduciary duties
to minority shareholders of VMware in connection with the Merger.
Both further allege that various combinations of defendants aided
and abetted these alleged breaches of fiduciary duties. The
Company, VMware, Denali, Dell, Merger Sub, and other defendants
have served or filed motions to dismiss the operative complaints
in both actions.

The outcome of these lawsuits is uncertain, and additional
lawsuits may be brought or additional claims advanced concerning
the Merger. An adverse judgment for monetary damages could have an
adverse effect on the Company's operations. A preliminary
injunction could delay or jeopardize the completion of the Merger,
and an adverse judgment granting permanent injunctive relief could
indefinitely enjoin completion of the Merger.


EMCORE CORP: Offered Employees One Time Cash Payment
----------------------------------------------------
EMCORE 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 Company has
offered current employees the opportunity to receive a one-time
cash payment in exchange for a release of all potential claims
related to the Mirasol lawsuit.

On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff Christina Mirasol ("Mirasol"), on
her own behalf and on behalf of a putative class of similarly
situated individuals composed of current and former non-exempt
employees of the Company working in California since December 15,
2011, filed a complaint against the Company in the Superior Court
of California, Los Angeles County. The complaint alleges seven
causes of action related to: (1) failure to pay overtime; (2)
failure to provide meal periods; (3) failure to pay minimum wages;
(4) failure to timely pay wages upon termination; (5) failure to
provide compliant wage statements; and (6) unfair competition
under the California Business and Professions Code Sec. 17200 et
seq. The claims are premised primarily on the allegation that
Mirasol and the putative class members were not provided with
their legally required meal periods. Mirasol seeks recovery on her
own behalf and on behalf of the putative class in an unspecified
amount for compensatory and liquidated damages as well as for
declaratory relief, injunctive relief, statutory penalties, pre-
judgment interest, costs and attorneys' fees.

In March 2016, the Company offered current employees the
opportunity to receive a one-time cash payment in exchange for a
release of all potential claims related to the Mirasol lawsuit.
The Company estimates that its potential future liability related
to all potential putative class members may range from $0.1
million to $4.3 million, including penalties and fines associated
with the claims at March 31, 2016. Based on the preliminary
responses received, the Company has accrued $0.1 million at March
31, 2016, which represents the best estimate within the range.
This amount has been recorded within Operating Expense for the
three and six months ended March 31, 2016.


ENBRIDGE ENERGY: Sued in Delaware Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Brinckerhoff, individually and as trustee of the Peter R.
Brinckerhoff Rev. TR U A DTD 10/17/97, and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Enbridge Energy Company, Inc.; Enbridge,
Inc.; Enbridge Energy Management, L.L.C.; Jerrey A. Connelly;
Rebecca B. Roberts; Dan A. Westbrook; J. Richard Bird; J. Herbert
England; C. Gregory Harper; D. Guy Jarvis; Mark A. Maki; John K.
Whelen; Enbridge Pipelines (Alberta Clipper) L.L.C. and Enbridge
Energy, Limited Partnership, Case No. 11314-VCS (Del. Ch. Ct., May
26, 2016), arises out of the Defendants' alleged breach of
fiduciary duties, specifically by causing the Partnership to
reacquire a substantial asset from the general partner in a
conflicted transaction, at an unfair price and on terms unfair to
the unaffiliated unitholders.

The Defendants own and operate the Lakehead pipeline system -- the
United States portion of a crude oil and liquid petroleum pipeline
system traversing portions of Canada and the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph R. Slights III, Esq.
      MORRIS JAMES LLP
      500 Delaware Avenue, Suite 1500
      PO Box 2306
      Wilmington, DE 19899-2306
      Telephone: (302) 888-6970.
      E-mail: llazarus@morrisjames.com


ENVOY AIR: "Schroeder" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
---------------------------------------------------------
K. Schroeder, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Envoy Air, Inc. and Does 1-100, inclusive, Case No.
BC621865 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid
wages, continuing wages, liquidated damages, civil penalties and
attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to the California Labor Code.
Envoy Air, Inc. is an air carrier based in Irving, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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

         - and -

      John P. Dorigan, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF JOHN P. DORIGAN
      600 Canterbury Lane
      Sagamore Hills, OH 44067
      Telephone: (330) 748-4475
      Facsimile: (330) 748-4475
      E-mail: jpdorigan@aol.com


EVENTBRITE INC: Has Made Unsolicited Calls, "Kubik" Suit Claims
---------------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Kubik, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Eventbrite, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01272-AJB-NLS (S.D
Cal., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of
using an artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message
without prior express consent of the called party.

Eventbrite, Inc. operates a company that permits users to sign up
for events electronically.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Abbas Kazerounian, Esq.
      Matthew M. Loker, Esq.
      KAZEROUNI LAW GROUP, APC
      245 Fischer Avenue, Unit D1
      Costa Mesa, CA 92626
      Telephone: (800) 400-6808
      Facsimile: (800) 520-5523
      E-mail: ak@kazlg.com
              ml@kazlg.com

         - and -

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


FAIRLIFE LLC: "Kremmel" Suit Removed to S. District Illinois
------------------------------------------------------------
Paulette Kremmel, individually and on behalf of all other
similarly-situated citizens of Illinois v. Fairlife, LLC, Case No.
16-L-241, was removed from the St. Clair County to the U.S.
District Court Southern District of Illinois (East St. Louis).
The District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-00583 to the
proceeding.

The Plaintiff asserts product-liability claims.

Fairlife, LLC operates a health and wellness dairy company that
produces and markets premium-quality, value-added nutrition
products.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Matthew H. Armstrong, Esq.
      ARMSTRONG LAW FIRM LLC
      8816 Manchester Road, No. 109
      St. Louis, MO 63144
      Telephone: (314) 258-0212
      E-mail: matt@mattarmstronglaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Patrick D. Cloud, esq.
      Douglas R. Heise, Esq.
      HEYL, ROYSTER ET AL.
      105 West Vandalia St., Ste. 100
      P.O. Box 467
      Edwardsville, IL 62025
      Telephone: (618) 656-4646
      Facsimile: (618) 656-7940
      E-mail: pcloud@heylroyster.com
              dheise@heylroyster.com


FEDEX GROUND: "Carrow" Class Suit Removed to Dist. of New Jersey
----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Michael Carrow, Michael
Fennell, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Fedex Ground Package Systems, Inc., Case No. CAM-L-23-
00016, was removed from the Camden County Superior Court to the
U.S. District Court District of New Jersey (Camden). The District
Court Clerk assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-03026-RBK-JS to the
proceeding.

Fedex Ground Package Systems, Inc. provides business-to-business
package shipping and ground delivery services.


The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Anthony L. Marchetti Jr., Esq.
      MARCHETTI LAW, P.C.
      900 N. Kings Hwy, Suite 306
      Cherry Hill, NJ 08034
      Telephone: (856) 414-1800
      Facsimile: (267) 219-4838
      E-mail: amarchetti@marchettilawfirm.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Jeffrey I. Kohn, Esq.
      O'MELVENY & MEYERS, LLP
      Times Square Tower
      7 Times Square
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 326-2067
      E-mail: jkohn@omm.com


FCA US LLC: Court Rules on Discovery Dispute in "Faltermeier"
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned DAVID FALTERMEIER, Individually and on
Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiffs, v. FCA US
LLC, Defendant, Case No. 15-491-CV-W-DGK (W.D. Mo.), Judge Greg
Kays ruled on the parties' first discovery dispute which concerned
various interrogatories and requests for production (RFP) served
on the plaintiff by FCA US LLC.

Judge Kays ruled as follows:

          1. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory #7.

          2. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatories #8 and #15.

          3. Plaintiff shall answer Interrogatory #11 and comply
             with RFP #45.

          4. Plaintiff objection concerning RFP #50 is sustained.

A full-text copy of Judge Kays' June 6, 2016 order is available at
https://is.gd/Uy66xc from Leagle.com.

The case is a putative class action arising from alleged
violations of the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev.
Stat. Sec. 407.020, in connection with the sale of certain Jeep
vehicles. Plaintiff David Faltermeier alleges Defendant FCA US LLC
("FCA") made misrepresentations during a vehicle safety recall
about the safety of the vehicles' fuel tanks that have caused
Plaintiff and all other consumers who have purchased the recalled
vehicles since June 4, 2013, an ascertainable financial loss.

David Faltermeier, Plaintiff, represented by Christopher S. Shank,
Shank & Moore, LLC, David Lee Heinemann, Shank & Moore, LLC &
Stephen J. Moore, Shank & Moore, LLC.

FCA US LLC, Defendant, represented by Kathy Ann Wisniewski --
kwisniewski@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP, Scott
Harston Morgan -- smorgan@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn
LLP, Sharon B. Rosenberg -- srosenberg@thompsoncoburn.com --
Thompson Coburn LLP & Stephen A. D'Aunoy --
sdaunoy@thompsoncoburn.com -- Thompson Coburn LLP.


FIRSTMERIT CORP: Settles Class Action Over Huntington Merger
------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Nobile, writing for Crain's Cleveland Business, reports
that FirstMerit Corp. and Huntington Bancshares have settled a
class action lawsuit with FirstMerit shareholders who claimed the
directors of the former agreed to unfair terms in their sale to
Huntington, according to a company filing.

Terms of the settlement were not immediately disclosed.

According to FirstMerit, all defendants named in the suit, which
include FirstMerit chairman and CEO Paul Greig and other
directors, still deny "all of the allegations made by plaintiffs,"
but "have agreed to settle the actions in order to avoid the
costs, disruption, and distraction of further litigation."

Attorneys representing shareholders and the companies were not
immediately available for comment.

According to the original complaint, shareholders claimed that
directors ultimately breached their fiduciary responsibilities in
the merger agreement by accepting unfair terms in the deal, among
other issues including engaging in an "inadequate" sales process.
Court documents show that many of the complaints come "despite the
fact that (Greig) stands to make as much as $31.7 million" in the
deal.

The complaint requested "a variety of equitable and injunctive
relief including, among other things, enjoining the consummation
of the merger, directing the defendants to exercise their
fiduciary duties to obtain a transaction that is in the best
interests of FirstMerit and its shareholders, directing the
defendants to account to the plaintiffs and the purported class
for their damages, and awarding plaintiffs costs and attorneys'
fees."

Terms of the merger, which was announced in January, feature a mix
cash and stock sale consisting of 1.72 shares of Huntington common
stock, plus a fixed $5 in cash per share of FirstMerit stock
outstanding, ultimately representing a 32% premium over
FirstMerit's share price at the time.

In March, some observers of the deal told Crain's that the sale
price, which represented about a premium of 1.7 times tangible
book value for FirstMerit, was fair.

The settled case is one of five "substantively similar" cases
involving class action lawsuits by "alleged" shareholders,
according to an April filing by FirstMerit.

The merger, expected to close in the third quarter of the year,
will bring Huntington to about $100 billion in total assets,
creating the largest bank by market share in Ohio.


GENERAL MILLS: Class Certification in Environmental Case Reversed
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Alex Garel-Frantzen, Esq. -- agarel@schiffhardin.com -- and
Aphrodite Kokolis, Esq. -- dkokolis@schiffhardin.com -- of Schiff
Hardin LLP, in an article for The National Law Review, report that
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed
class certification in a case involving claims of alleged
environmental contamination.  Ebert v. General Mills, Inc. [1]
illustrates that class action requirements, like predominance of
common issues and cohesiveness of claims, can be difficult to
establish in the environmental context because issues of
liability, causation, and damages are individualized.  Ebert may
pose a significant obstacle for class certification in future
environmental cases.

In Ebert, landowners sued General Mills, alleging that the company
caused trichloroethylene (TCE) to be released from its former
industrial facility and that TCE vapors migrated into surrounding
residential areas, threatening the landowners' health and the
value of their properties.  The residents asserted five claims
against General Mills:

   -- Violation of the Comprehensive Environmental Response
Compensation and Liability Act;

   -- Violation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act;

   -- Private nuisance;

   -- Common law negligence; and

   -- Willful and wanton misconduct.

Plaintiffs later excluded personal injury claims and sought only
property damages and declaratory and injunctive relief requiring
General Mills to remediate the properties.

The district court certified a class for declaratory and
injunctive relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP)
23(b)(2) and for property damages under FRCP 23(b)(3).  The
district court bifurcated the action into two phases: first,
determining liability under FRCP 23(b)(2), and then, if General
Mills is found liable, determining damages under FRCP 23(b)(3).
The district court stated that "questions on individualized
exposure" would not be addressed as part of the class claims.

The Eighth Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that
individualized issues predominated and that the class claims were
not cohesive.  First, the Eighth Circuit determined that the
individualized issues in the case predominated over those issues
common to the class under FRCP 23(b)(3).  It noted that, to
resolve claims of liability, the district court would have to
analyze whether General Mills' actions caused the alleged vapor
contamination and subsequent damage on each individual property.
According to the court, "there likely will be a property-by-
property assessment of additional upgradient (or other) sources of
contamination, whether unique conditions and features of the
property create the potential for vapor intrusion, whether (and to
what extent) the groundwater beneath a property is contaminated,
whether mitigation has occurred at the property, or whether each
individual plaintiff acquired the property prior to or after the
alleged diminution in value."  Adjudication of these issues would
require different evidence depending on the class member.

The Eighth Circuit specifically took issue with the district
court's attempt to limit the effect of individualized issues
through bifurcation:  "[I]t is the deliberate limiting of issues
by this district court in this case that is problematic. . . .
Here, by bifurcating the case and narrowing the question for which
certification was sought, the district court limited the issues
and essentially manufactured a case that would satisfy the Rule
23(b)(3) predominance inquiry."

Second, the Eighth Circuit held that the claims lacked the
cohesiveness needed to proceed as a class under FRCP 23(b)(2)
because the issues were "highly individualized."  The court
concluded that "[r]emediation efforts on each of the affected
properties, should they be awarded, will be unique."  For example,
General Mills had installed customized vapor mitigation systems at
some, but not all, properties, and the results of TCE soil vapor
sampling varied by property.  Facts will often vary among
plaintiffs in class environmental claims because releases of
contaminants, by nature, are nonlinear.

[1] No. 15-1735, 2016 WL 2943193 (8th Cir. May 20, 2016).


GLENCORE LTD: Court Rules on Bids to Dismiss Antitrust Suit
-----------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned IN RE: ZINC ANTITRUST LITIGATION, No.
14-cv-3728 (KBF) and related actions (S.D.N.Y.), Judge Katherine
B. Forrest denied Glencore Ltd.'s and Pacorini Metals USA, LLC's
motions to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint as to
the plaintiffs' monopolization and attempted monopolization claims
under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, but granted the motions as to
the plaintiffs' illegal merger claim under Section 7 of the
Clayton Act.

A full-text copy of Judge Forrest's June 6, 2016 opinion and order
is available at https://is.gd/hWBloe from Leagle.com.

The complex antitrust action, as alleged in the operative Second
Amended Complaint, involves allegations that Glencore Ltd. and
Pacorini, two affiliates of global commodities conglomerate
Glencore plc, have monopolized or attempted to monopolize the
market for Special High Grade zinc or the market for selling such
zinc in the United States in violation of Section 2 of the Sherman
Act, 15 U.S.C. section 2, and that Glencore Ltd.'s acquisition of
Pacorini constituted an illegal merger in violation of Section 7
of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. section 18.

Duncan Galvanizing Corporation, Plaintiff, represented by
Christopher Lovell -- clovell@lshllp.com -- Lovell Stewart
Halebian Jacobson LLP, Linda P. Nussbaum --
lnussbaum@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C., Solomon B.
Cera -- scera@cerallp.com -- Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro
hac vice, Benjamin Martin Jaccarino -- bjaccarino@lshllp.com --
Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP, Bradley J. Demuth --
bdemuth@nussbaumpc.com -- Nussbaum Law Group, P.C. & Kimberly A.
Justice -- kjustice@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check,
LLP.

Galvanizers Company, Plaintiff, represented by Michael Benjamin
Eisenkraft -- meisenkraft@cohenmilstein.com -- Cohen Milstein
Sellers & Toll P.L.L.C., Solomon B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera &
Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group,
P.C..

Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc., Southwestern Wire, Inc.,
Plaintiffs, represented by Joseph H. Meltzer -- jmeltzer@ktmc.com
-- Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Solomon B.
Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice, Terrence
Scott Ziegler -- tziegler@ktmc.com -- Kessler Topaz Meltzer &
Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler Topaz
Meltzer & Check, LLP, Christopher Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian
Jacobson LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law Group, P.C..

Iowa Steel and Wire Co., Plaintiff, represented by Joseph H.
Meltzer, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Solomon
B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, Terrence Scott Ziegler,
Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, pro hac vice, Kimberly A.
Justice, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum,
Nussbaum Law Group, P.C..

Galvanizers Company, Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B. Cera,
Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, Kimberly A. Justice, Kessler
Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C..

Jasper Materials, Inc., Plaintiff, represented by Solomon B. Cera,
Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP & Linda P. Nussbaum, Nussbaum Law
Group, P.C..

Oklahoma Steel and Wire Co., Inc., Movant, represented by Solomon
B. Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice.

Duncan Galvanizing Corporation, Movant, represented by Solomon B.
Cera, Gold Bennett Cera & Sidener, LLP, pro hac vice & Christopher
Lovell, Lovell Stewart Halebian Jacobson LLP.

The London Metal Exchange Limited, Defendant, represented by
Margaret M. Zwisler, Latham & Watkins LLP, pro hac vice.

Glencore Ltd., Defendant, represented by Chelsea Rebekah McLean --
chelsea.mclean@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle
LLP, Eliot Lauer -- elauer@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost,
Colt & Mosle, LLP, Jacques Semmelman -- jsemmelman@curtis.com --
Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt and Mosle LLP & Michael Andrew Mix --
mmix@curtis.com -- Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle, LLP.

Pacorini Metals USA LLC., Defendant, represented by Jay B. Kasner
-- jay.kasner@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP, John H. Lyons -- john.h.lyons@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, John M. Nannes --
john.nannes@skadden.com -- Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
LLP & Tiffany Rider Rohrbaugh, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher &
Flom LLP.

The Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Defendant, represented by Menachem
David Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP & Yavar Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

Metro International Trade Services LLC, Defendant, represented by
Jennifer Hilda Blecher, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Menachem David
Possick, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP,Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, William Henry Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

JPMorgan Chase & Company, Defendant, represented by David William
Haller, Covington & Burling LLP, Henry Liu, Covington & Burling
LLP, John S. Playforth, Covington & Burling LLP, Mark David
Herman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice & Robert D.
Wick, Covington & Burling, L.L.P., pro hac vice.

Goldman Sachs International, GS Power Holdings LLC, Mitsi Holdings
LLC, MCEPF Metro I, Inc., Defendants, represented by Jennifer
Hilda Blecher, Sullivan & Cromwell, LLP, Richard C. Pepperman, II,
Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP, Suhana S. Han, Sullivan and Cromwell,
LLP, William Henry Wagener, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP & Yavar
Bathaee, Sullivan and Cromwell, LLP.

J.P. Morgan Ventures Energy Corporation, JP Morgan Securities plc
f/k/a JP Morgan Securities Ltd., Henry Bath LLC, Defendants,
represented by David William Haller, Covington & Burling LLP,
Henry Liu, Covington & Burling LLP, John S. Playforth, Covington &
Burling LLP, Mark David Herman, Covington & Burling, L.L.P. &
Robert D. Wick, Covington & Burling, L.L.P..


GOOGLE INC: Faces Privacy Class Action, Aug. 24 Hearing Set
-----------------------------------------------------------
Wendy Davis, writing for MediaPost, reports that Android users who
made purchases from Google's app store are asking to proceed with
a class-action against the company for allegedly disclosing their
names and other personal data to developers.

"Casting aside the express promises made in their own terms of
use, for years, defendants have routinely and systematically
disclosed to third-parties, their buyers' personal contact and
billing information -- including, names and email addresses --
which they now admit was not necessary to complete the
transactions or otherwise authorized for disclosure," lawyers for
the users write in a motion filed with U.S. District Court Judge
Beth Labson Freeman in San Jose, California.

The move marks the latest development in a lawsuit brought in 2013
by Illinois resident Alice Svenson.  She alleged in a potential
class-action that she purchased a $1.77 app that converts SMS
messages to emails.  Ms. Svenson, who bought the app from Google
Play, said Google shared her personal information with YCDroid,
the app's developer.

Ms. Svenson brought the case several months after Australian
developer Dan Nolan blogged that Google automatically shares app
buyers' personal information with developers.  His post drew
headlines, but Google said at the time it intentionally designed
its platform to enable app purchasers to buy them directly from
developers.

The privacy policy for Google Wallet said the company may disclose
information that is necessary to process transactions. Google
initially contended it was necessary to share users' data, because
the company doesn't process the purchase. (In 2014, Google revised
its practices.)

Ms. Svenson alleged that Google broke its contract by disclosing
her personal information to a third party.  Judge Freeman
initially threw out the lawsuit, ruling that Ms. Svenson hadn't
shown that she was injured by the alleged breach of contract.

Ms. Svenson subsequently revised her complaint to include
allegations that Google lessened the value of her personal
information by sharing it with YCDroid.  She added that there is a
"robust market" for that type of data, and that she -- and other
app purchasers -- were deprived of the ability to sell their data
themselves.

Last year, Judge Freeman said that Ms. Svenson's allegations about
the value of her data were sufficient to warrant further
proceedings in the case.

Ms. Svenson now is asking to be able to proceed on behalf of a
class of users who made app purchases of less than $300 between
March 1, 2012 and April 30, 2014.  The proposed $300 limit stems
from Google's "varied" policies regarding purchases over that
figure, according to the court papers.

Judge Freeman is slated to hold a hearing about the matter on Aug.
24.

Last year, U.S. District Court Magistrate Paul Grewal in San Jose
dismissed a separate lawsuit that also alleged Google violated app
purchasers' privacy by sending their names to developers.

Judge Grewal said the consumers couldn't proceed with their case
because they didn't allege they were harmed by Google.


GRS MANAGEMENT: "Pena" Suit Moved from Cir. Ct. to S.D. Fla.
------------------------------------------------------------
Enrique Pena, and other similarly situated individuals, the
Plaintiff, v. GRS Management Associates, Inc., a Florida Profit
Corporation, Joseph Gilbert, individually, and Mark J. Quinn,
individually, the Defendants, Case No. 16-010438-CA-01, was
removed from 11th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Miami-Dade, to
the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida
(Miami). The Southern District Court assigned Case No. 1:16-cv-
22005-RNS to the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Judge
Robert N. Scola, Jr.

GRS is a full-service property management company delivering
property management, financial management, and administrative
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Anthony Maximillien Georges-Pierre, Esq.
          REMER & GEORGES-PIERRE, PLLC
          Court House Tower
          44 West Flagler Street, Suite 2200
          Miami, FL 33130
          Telephone: (305) 416 5000
          Facsimile: (305) 416 5005
          E-mail: agp@rgpattorneys.com

The Defendants are represented by:

          Elizabeth Mercedes Rodriguez, Esq.
          FORD & HARRISON LLP, Suite 2150
          100 S.E. 2nd Street
          Miami, FL 33131
          Telephone: (305) 808 2100
          Facsimile: (305) 808 2101
          E-mail: erodriguez@fordharrison.com


GUGLIELMO & ASSOCIATES: Faces "Young" Suit in D. Ariz.
------------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Guglielmo & Associates PLLC. The
case is captioned Rosalind Young, on behalf of herself and others
similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Guglielmo & Associates PLLC,
the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01755-DLR (D. Ariz., June 3,
2016). The assigned Judge is Hon. Douglas L Rayes.

Guglielmo and Associates is a consumer debt collection law firm
located in Arizona, Utah, New Mexico and Nevada.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Russell Snow Thompson IV, Esq.
          Joseph Michael Panvini, Esq.
          Thompson Consumer Law Group PLLC
          5235 E Southern Ave., Ste. D106-618
          Mesa, AZ 85206
          Telephone: (602) 388 8898
          Facsimile: (866) 565 1327
          E-mail: tclg@consumerlawinfo.com
                  tclg@consumerlawinfo.com


HATTERAS FINANCIAL: Sued in N.C. Over Proposed Sale to Annaly
-------------------------------------------------------------
William Friedman, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Hatteras Financial Corp., David W. Berson, Benjamin M.
Hough, Michael R. Hough, Ira G. Kawaller, Vicki McElreath, Jeffrey
D. Miller, William V. Nutt, Jr., Thomas D. Wren, Annaly Capital
Management, Inc., and Ridgeback Merger Sub Corporation, Case No.
1:16-cv-00533 (M.D.N.C., May 26, 2016), is brought on behalf of
all public stockholders of Hatteras Financial Corp., seeking to
enjoin the proposed transaction pursuant to which Hatteras
Financial Corp. will be acquired by Annaly Capital Management,
Inc., through a flawed process and inadequate consideration.

Hatteras Financial Corp. is an externally managed mortgage real
estate investment trust (REIT) that invests in single-family
residential mortgage real estate assets.

Annaly Capital Management, Inc. is a mortgage real estate
investment trust (REIT) listed on the New York Stock Exchange.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Gary W. Jackso, Esq.
      RABON LAW FIRM, PLLC
      225 E. Worthington Avenue, Suite 200
      Charlotte, NC 28203
      Telephone: (704) 377-6680
      Facsimile: (704) 208-4645

         - and -

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Katharine M. Ryan, Esq.
      Richard A. Maniskas, Esq.
      RYAN & MANISKAS, LLP
      995 Old Eagle School Road, Suite 311
      Wayne, PA 19087
      Telephone: (484) 588-5516
      E-mail: kryan@rmclasslaw.com
              rmaniskas@rmclasslaw.com


HSI FINANCIAL: Faces "Pass" Suit in N.D. Ga. Over Automated Calls
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dallas Pass, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. HSI Financial Services, LLC f/k/a HSI Financial
Services, Inc., Case No. 1:16-cv-01704-TWT (N.D. Ga., May 26,
2016), seeks to stop the Defendants' practice of using an
artificial and prerecorded voice to deliver a message without
prior express consent of the called party.

HSI Financial Services, LLC offers solutions for managing and
resolving healthcare accounts receivable.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Clifton Dorsen, Esq.
      James Marvin Feagle, Esq.
      SKAAR AND FEAGLE
      Suite B, 2374 Main Street
      Tucker, GA 30084
      Telephone: (404) 373-1978
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: cdorsen@skaarandfeagle.com
              jfeagle@skaarandfeagle.com

         - and -

      Justin Tharpe Holcombe, Esq.
      Kris Kelly Skaar, Esq.
      SKAAR & FEAGLE, LLP
      133 Mirramont Lake Drive
      Woodstock, GA 30189
      Telephone: (770) 427-5600
      Facsimile: (404) 601-1855
      E-mail: jholcombe@skaarandfeagle.com
              krisskaar@aol.com

HUNTINGTON HONDA: "Schmitt" Suit Seeks Wages Under Labor Law
------------------------------------------------------------
Joe Schmitt, Steve Millard, and Aridio De La Rosa, individually
and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, the
Plaintiffs, v. Huntington Honda, Inc.; N.R. Automotive, Inc.;
Westchester Autoplex, Inc.; Don Lia; Patricia Curtin; Dominick
Lia; and/or any other entities affiliated with or controlled by
Huntington Honda, Inc.; N.R. Automotive, Inc.; Westchester
Autoplex, Inc.; Don Lia; Patricia Curtin; and/or Dominick Lia, the
Defendant, Case No. 604149/2016 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., June 3, 2016),
seeks to recover compensation, including commissions and wages,
which they were deprived of, plus interest, attorneys' fees, and
costs.

According to the complaint, beginning in June 2010 and continuing
through the present, the Defendants have maintained a policy and
practice of deducting from Plaintiffs' wages by wrongfully
calculating the amount of commission payments owed to Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees in violation of New York
labor law.

Huntington Honda is premier Honda dealer providing a comprehensive
inventory.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Lloyd Ambinder, Esq.
          VIRGINIA & AMBINDER, LLP
          40 Broad Street, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10004
          Telephone: (212) 943 9080
          lambinder@vandallp.com


INGRAM MICRO: Faces "Scheiner" Suit Over Fiduciary Duty Breach
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Scheiner, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Ingram Micro Inc., Howard I. Atkins, David Barnes,
Leslie S. Heisz, John R. Ingram, Dale R. Laurance, Linda Fayne
Levinson, Scott Mcgregor, Carol Mills, Alain Monie, Wade
Oosterman, HNA Group Co., Ltd., Tianjin Tianhai Investment
Company, Ltd., and GCL Acquisition, Inc., Case No. 1238 (Del. Ch.
Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure
to satisfy their fiduciary duty to maximize stockholder value,
specifically by failing to take affirmative actions to explore all
strategic options available in order to obtain the highest
possible price for stockholders.

HNA Group Co., Ltd. is a conglomerate founded in 1993 as a local
aviation transportation operator.

Tianjin Tianhai Investment Company, Ltd. is a Shanghai-based
company principally engaged in marine transportation services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Seth D. Rigrodsky, Esq.
      Brian D. Long, Esq.
      Gina M. Serra, Esq.
      Jeremy J. Riley, Esq
      RIGRODSKY & LONG, P.A.
      2 Righter Parkway, Suite 120
      Wilmington, DE 19803
      Telephone: (302) 295-5310
      E-mail: sdr@rl-legal.com
              bdl@rl-legal.com
              gms@rl-legal.com
              jjr@rl-legal.com

         - and -

      Richard A. Acocelli, Esq.
      Michael A. Rogovin, Esq.
      Kelly C. Keenan, Esq.
      WEISSLAW LLP
      1500 Broadway, 16th Floor
      New York, NY 10036
      Telephone: (212) 682-3025
      E-mail: racocelli@weisslawllp.com
              mrogovin@weisslawllp.com
              kkeenan@weisslawllp.com


LAIDLAW & COMPANY: "Noel" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT Wages
---------------------------------------------------------------
Walter Noel IV, on behalf of himself and similarly situated
individuals v. Laidlaw & Company, Ltd., Case No. 1:16-cv-03975
(S.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages
and damages pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Laidlaw & Company, Ltd. provides investment banking and wealth
management services to institutions and individuals in the United
States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Walker G. Harman Jr., Esq.
      Edgar M. Rivera, Esq.
      THE HARMAN FIRM, LLP.
      220 Fifth Ave., Suite 900
      New York, NY 10001
      Telephone: (212) 425-2600
      E-mail: wharman@theharmanfirm.com
              erivera@theharmanfirm.com


LEGACY AIR: Does Not Properly Pay Employees, "Bynum" Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Drew Bynum and Keith Robertson, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. Legacy Air, Inc. and Does 1 through
20, inclusive, Case No. BC621716 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016),
is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay minimum and
overtime wages in violation of the California Labor Code.

Legacy Air, Inc. is a construction, commercial and residential
heating or air conditioning maintenance services company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Samuel A. Wong, Esq.
      Kashif Haque, Esq.
      Jessica L. Campbell, Esq.
      AEGIS LAW FIRM, PC
      9811 Irvine Center Drive, Suite 100
      Irvine, CA 92618
      Telephone: (949) 379-6250
      Facsimile: (949) 379-6251


LONE STAR: Appeals From N.D. Texas Ruling in "Campos" Class Suit
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Lone Star Wheel Components, Incorporated, and Jerry L.
Coffey filed an appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit styled
Acencion Calderon Campos v. Lone Star Wheel Components Inc, et
al., Case No. 3:13-CV-4088, in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas, Dallas.

The lawsuit alleges violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The appellate case is captioned as Acencion Calderon Campos v.
Lone Star Wheel Components Inc, et al., Case No. 16-10737, in the
US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Plaintiff-Appellee Acencion Adolfo Calderon Campos, and All Others
Similarly Situated Under 29 USC 216(B), also known as Adolfo
Calderon, also known as Campos Acencion, is represented by:

          Jamie Harrison Zidell, Esq.
          J.H. ZIDELL, P.C.
          6310 Lyndon B. Johnson Freeway
          Dallas, TX 75240
          Telephone: (972) 233-2264
          Facsimile: (305) 865-7167
          Email: zabogado@aol.com

Defendants-Appellants Lone Star Wheel Components, Incorporated,
and Jerry L. Coffey are represented by:

          R. Rogge Dunn, Esq.
          CLOUSE DUNN, L.L.P.
          1201 Elm Street
          Renaissance Tower
          Dallas, TX 75270-2140
          Telephone: (214) 220-3888
          E-mail: rogge@clousedunn.com


M LOPEZ: Faces "Carreto" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
----------------------------------------------------------------
Jose Carreto, Douglas Giovanni Mejia, Reilyn Taveras, Alvin J.
Tavarez, Jose Estevez Tortbio, Lorenzo Cabrera Gomez, Julio C.
Tavarez, and Juan Suero Jimenez, individually and on behalf of all
others similarly situated v. M. Lopez Contracting Corp., Mattias
Lopez, Maryann Ribaudo, and John Doe a/k/a Charlie, Case No.
CV162680 (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 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 construction company in New York.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Roman Avshalumov, Esq.
      Puja Sharma, Esq.
      HELEN F. DALTON & ASSOCIATES, PC
      69-12 Austin Street
      Forest Hills, NY 11375
      Telephone: (718) 263-9591
      Facsimile: (718) 263-9598
      E-mail: HFDalton6912@Gmail.com


MACY'S INC: Sued in N.D. Cal. Over Misleading Merchandise Label
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zohreh Farhang, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Macy's, Inc., Macy's West Stores, Inc. and
Bloomingdale's, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-02850 (N.D. Cal., May 26,
2016), arises from the Defendants' deceptive and misleading
labeling and marketing of merchandise they sell at their retail
stores, including outlet stores, in California and throughout the
United States.

The Defendants operate 900 stores in 45 states under names
including Macy's, Bloomingdales' and Bloomindale's Outlets, with
approximately 132 stores in California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Robert S. Green, Esq.
      James Robert Noblin, Esq.
      GREEN & NOBLIN, P.C.
      2200 Larkspur Landing Circle, Suite 101
      Larkspur, CA 94939
      Telephone: (415) 477-6700
      Facsimile: (415) 477-6710
      E-mail: gnecf@classcounsel.com

         - and -

      Kenneth G. Gilman, Esq.
      GILMAN LAW LLP
      8951 Bonita Beach Rd, S.E., Suite 525
      Bonita Springs, FL 34135
      Telephone: (239)221-8301
      Facsimile: (239)790-5150
      E-mail:  kgilman@gilmanlawllp.com


MAGNELL ASSOCIATE: Faces "Aceves" Class Suit in California
----------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Magnell
Associate, Inc. d/b/a Newegg.com, Newegg, Inc., and Does 1-50.

The case is captioned Darline J. Aceves, individually and on
behalf of other persons similarly situated v. Magnell Associate,
Inc. d/b/a Newegg.com, Newegg, Inc., and Does 1-50, Case No.
BC621725 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016).

Magnell Associate, Inc. is a computer wholesale and manufacturer.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 773-0323
      E-mail: dennisfmoss@yahoo.com


MCLANE SUNEAST: "Fenton" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to C.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Luke Fenton, an individual; on behalf of himself, all others
similarly situated, and the general public, the Plaintiff, v.
McLane/Suneast, Inc., a Texas corporation, and Does 1-100,
inclusive, the Defendant, Case No. CIVDS1605767, was removed from
San Bernardino County Superior Court, to the U.S. District Court
for the Central District of California (Eastern Division -
Riverside). The Central District Court assigned Case No. 5:16-cv-
01162 to the proceeding.

Originated in 1985 in Lakeland, Florida, McLane Suneast is engaged
in the convenience store business.

The Plaintiff appears pro se.


MIDLAND CREDIT: Bid for Class Certification in "Huebner" Denied
---------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned LEVI HUEBNER on behalf of himself and all
other similarly situated customers, Plaintiff, v. MIDLAND CREDIT
MANAGEMENT, INC. and MIDLAND FUNDING LLC, Defendant, No. 14 Civ.
6046 (BMC) (E.D.N.Y.), Judge Brian M. Cogan granted the
defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's
motion for class certification.

Huebner alleged that Midland Credit Management, Inc. (MCM) and
Midland Funding, LLC (MF) violated the Fair Debt Collection
Practices Act (FDCPA) by attempting to collect a $131 debt Huebner
allegedly owed Verizon.  Huebner argued that the defendants'
attempt to seek an explanation from him when they marked his debt
as disputed, as well as their failure to report his debt as
disputed, were both illegal.

Judge Cogan, however, found that the undisputed facts show the
defendants did nothing wrong in attempting to collect Huebner's
debt, even though Huebner attempted to entrap the defendants into
committing an FDCPA violation, and that the defendants did report
the debt as disputed.

A full-text copy of Judge Cogan's June 6, 2016 memorandum decision
and order is available at https://is.gd/hYcWkj from Leagle.com.

Levi Huebner, Plaintiff, represented by Gustavo Bruckner --
gfbruckner@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz LLP, Jacob T. Fogel, Jacob T.
Fogel, Jayne A. Goldstein -- jagoldstein@pomlaw.com -- Pomerantz
LLP, Leopold Gross, Law Offices of Leopold Gross, Perry Gattegno,
Steven Goldman, Steven Goldman & Elie C. Poltorak --
elie@poltoraklaw.com -- Poltorak PC.

Midland Credit Management, Inc, Defendant, represented by Matthew
Brady Johnson -- mbjohnson@mdwcg.com -- Marshall Dennehey Warner
Coleman & Goggin, Andrew M. Schwartz -- amschwartz@mdwcg.com --
Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin & Richard David Lane,
Jr. -- rdlane@mdwcg.com -- Marshall, Dennehey, Warner, Coleman &
Goggin.

Midland Funding LLC, Defendant, represented by Matthew Brady
Johnson, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin & Andrew M.
Schwartz, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin.


MIDLAND FUNDING: Illegally Collects Debt, "Filgueiras" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Josefa Filgueiras, on behalf of herself and those similarly
situated v. Midland Funding, LLC and Midland Credit Management,
Inc., Case No. 2:16-cv-03037-ES-JAD (D.N.J., May 26, 2016), seeks
to stop the Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect
a debt.

The Defendants operate a financial services company headquartered
at 8755 Aero Dr, San Diego, CA 92123.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


MILWAUKEE COUNTY: "Ruehs" Suit Seeks Compensation Under FLSA
------------------------------------------------------------
Cheryl Ruehs, 467 Herford Drive Wales, WI 53183, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v.
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Milwaukee County Courthouse 901 N.
9th Street, Room 105 Milwaukee, WI 53233, the Defendant, Case No.
2:16-cv-00657 (E.D. Wisc., June 3, 2016), seeks compensation for
all uncompensated work and other forms of relief including all
penalties, liquidated damages, and other damages permitted by law;
all other forms of relief permitted by law; and reasonable
attorneys' fees and costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards
Act (FLSA).

According to the complaint, the Defendant maintained unlawful
policies of willfully not compensating hourly for all work
performed and not compensating hourly employees for minimum wage
and overtime by maintaining policies that, among other things, (1)
failed to pay Named Plaintiff and others similarly situated, for
all hours, outside their regularly scheduled hours, that were
reported on supplemental timesheets and overtime reports, and (2)
failed to pay for unpaid meal periods.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Nathan D. Eisenberg, Esq.
          Erin F. Medeiros, Esq.
          THE PREVIANT LAW FIRM, S.C.
          310 West Wisconsin Ave, Suite 100 MW
          Milwaukee, WI 53203
          Tel: (414) 271 4500
          Fax: (414) 271 6308
          E-mail: nde@previant.com
                  efm@previant.com


MULLOOLY JEFFREY: Faces "Nemes" Suit in E.D.N.Y.
------------------------------------------------
A lawsuit has been filed against Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney &
Flynn. The case is captioned Aaron Nemes, on behalf of themselves
and all other similarly situated consumers, and Tamar Muss, the
Plaintiff, v. Mullooly, Jeffrey, Rooney & Flynn, the Defendant,
Case No. 1:16-cv-02861 (E.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016).

Mullooly, Jeffrey is debt collection agency in New York or New
Jersey.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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


NANOSPHERE INC: Sued in Illinois Over Proposed Sale to Luminex
--------------------------------------------------------------
Stourbridge Investments LLC, on behalf of itself and all others
similarly situated v. Erik Holmlin, Gene Cartwright, Jeff Randall,
Kristopher Wood, Michael McGarrity, Michael J. Ward, Nanosphere,
Inc., Luminex Corporation, Commodore Acquisition, Case No.
2016CH07228 (Ill. Ch. Ct., May 26, 2016), arising out of the
Defendants' decision to sell Nanosphere, Inc. to Luminex
Corporation at an inadequate and for an unfair price following a
grossly unfair process.

Nanosphere, Inc. develops, manufactures, and markets molecular
diagnostic tests that are designed to detect diseases earlier in
patients.

Luminex Corporation operates a biotechnology company based in
Austin, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Marvin A. Miller, Esq.
      MILLER LAW LLC
      115 S. LaSalle Street, Suite 2910
      Chicago, IL 60603
      Telephone: (312) 332-3400
      Facsimile: (312) 676-2676
      E-mail: mmiller@millerlawllc.com

         - and -

      Joshua M. Lifshitz, Esq.
      Edward W. Miller, Esq.
      LIFSHITZ & MILLER
      821 Franklin Avenue, Suite 209
      Garden City, NY 11530
      Telephone: (516) 493-9780
      Facsimile: (516) 280-7376
      E-mail: jml@jlclasslaw.com
              edmilleresq@aol.com


NATIONSTAR MORTGAGE: "Evans" Class Suit Removed to Idaho Dist. Ct
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Richard Evans, on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated v. Nationstar Mortgage,
LLC, Standard Guaranty Insurance, American Security Insurance, and
Harwood Service Company, LLC, Case No. CV16-098, was removed from
the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of State of
Idaho to the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho. The
District Court Clerk assigned Case No. 4:16-cv-00215-BLW to the
proceeding.

The complaint alleges violation of the Truth in Lending Act,
violation of the Idaho Racketeering Act, violation of the Idaho
Consumer Protection Act, Breach of Contract, Unjust Enrichment,
and Breach of Fiduciary Duty.

Nationstar Mortgage, LLC provides residential mortgage loan
services in the United States and consists of Nationstar Morgtage
and Solutionstar, a business which provides technology and data
enhanced solutions to the real estate market and companies engaged
in the origination and servicing of mortgage loans.

Standard Guaranty Insurance operates an insurance company
headquartered at 260 Interstate N Cir SE, Atlanta, GA 30339.

American Security Insurance operates an insurance company
headquartered at 5518 W Diversey Ave, Chicago, IL 60639.

Harwood Service Company, LLC operates a mortgage loan services
company located in Lewisville, Texas.

The Defendant is represented by:

      Kelly Greene McConnell, Esq.
      GIVENS PURSLEY LLP
      601 West Bannock Street P.O. Box 2720
      Boise, ID 83701-2720
      Telephone: (208) 388-1200
      Facsimile: (208) 388-1300
      E-mail: litigation@givenspursley.com

         - and -

      John B. Sullivan, Esq.
      Erik Kemp, Esq.
      Mary Catherine Sullivan Kamka, Esq.
      SEVERSON & WERSON
      A Professional Corporation
      One Embarcadero Center, Suite 2600
      San Francisco, CA 94111
      Telephone: (415) 398-3344
      Facsimile: (415) 956-0439
      E-mail: jbs@severson.com
              ek@severson.com
              mkk@severson.com


NEW BUFFALO CORP: Hopper Appeals From W.D. Ky. Ruling
-----------------------------------------------------
Shon Hopper, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, filed an appeal from a court ruling in his lawsuit
entitled Shon Hopper v. New Buffalo Corporation, Case No. 4:12-cv-
00100, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of
Kentucky at Owensboro.

The lawsuit arises from product liability claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Shon Hopper v. New Buffalo
Corporation, Case No. 16-5776, in the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          John C. Whitfield, Esq.
          WHITFIELD BRYSON & MASON
          19 N. Main Street
          Madisonville, KY 42431
          Telephone: (270) 821-0656
          Facsimile: (270) 825-1163
          E-mail: john@wbmllp.com

Defendant-Appellee New Buffalo Corporation, doing business as NB
Corp., is represented by:

          Norman Elliott Harned, Esq.
          W. Greg Harvey, Esq.
          HARNED, BACHERT & MCGEHEE
          P.O. Box 1270
          Bowling Green, KY 42102
          Telephone: (270) 782-3938
          E-mail: nharned@kerricklaw.com
                  gharvey@kerricklaw.com


NORMANDIE CLUB: Faces "Magana" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
----------------------------------------------------------------
Salvador Magana, on behalf of himself and all other similarly
situated v. Normandie Club Incorporated and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. BC621737 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is
brought against the Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages
in violation of the California Labor Code.

Normandie Club Incorporated operates an entertaining and gambling
casino in Los Angeles, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Michael Nourmand, Esq.
      James A. De Sario, Esq.
      THE NOERMAND LAW FIRM, APC
      8822 West Olympic Boulevard
      Beverly Hills, CA 90211
      Telephone: (310) 552-3600
      Facsimile: (310) 553-3603


NORTHSHORE PHYSICIAN: Faces Class Action Over Lien on HMO Fees
--------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Bilyk, writing for Cook County Record, reports that a
woman injured in a 2012 car crash has launched a class action
lawsuit against the Evanston-based doctors' practice which
provided her care following the crash, claiming the physicians
wrongly slapped a lien on the damages she might be paid by the
other driver involved in the crash, and has done the same to
others like her in the hope of collecting more than they should
under the terms of the contracts the doctors hold with HMO plan
providers.

Plaintiff Barbara Niehus, described as a resident of Cook County,
filed her complaint in Cook County Circuit Court against
NorthShore Physician Associates Inc., a group which formerly did
business as NorthShore University Health System Medical Group.
State records indicate the president of NPA is Gerald "J.P."
Gallagher.  Mr. Gallagher serves as chief operating officer at
NorthShore University Health System, according to the health
system's website.

Ms. Niehus' lawsuit also named debt collection company First
Recovery Group, of St. Peter, Mo., as a defendant in the action.

Ms. Niehus is represented in the lawsuit by attorney Daniel A.
Edelman, and the firm of Edelman Combs Latturner & Goodwin, of
Chicago.

According to the complaint, Ms. Niehus is a participant in the HMO
Illinois health insurance plan offered through Blue Cross Blue
Shield of Illinois.  The complaint said she had selected the
NorthShore Physician group as her primary care provider, under the
terms of her HMO plan.

Further, the complaint said she believes NPA and Blue Cross have a
contract, common under such HMO plans, under which Blue Cross pays
NPA an agreed set monthly fee, rather than fees for services
rendered for patients covered by HMO Illinois.

And Ms. Niehus' complaint said the terms of her plan under HMO
Illinois also stipulate that, should she require medical care
because she became ill or injured because of the actions or
negligence of another person, such as in a car crash, Blue Cross
is entitled to collect reimbursements from the other person for
expenses paid for their insured's medical care.  Further, the
plan's terms did not allow heath care providers, like NPA, to
pursue patients covered by HMO Illinois for further payment beyond
what Blue Cross paid them.

In 2012, Ms. Niehus said she was involved in a traffic crash, and
suffered injuries.  She said those injuries were treated at NPA
and through other medical specialists not affiliated with NPA, but
approved by Blue Cross.

The lawsuit said Ms. Niehus said she believed NPA was fully paid
for the care she received under the terms of her HMO plan.

However, in January 2016, Ms. Niehus said she received a letter
from First Recovery Group, asserting it was collecting nearly
$13,000 the physicians' practice claimed it was owed for "medical
benefits" provided to Ms. Niehus.  The letter demanded payment and
asserted the debt collector would put a lien on Ms. Niehus for a
share of whatever she might collect in court from the other driver
involved in the crash.

Ms. Niehus said that lien is "inconsistent with the HMO Illinois
medical benefits plan in which (she) was enrolled at the time of
the accident," as Blue Cross, "and not NPA, had the right to
recover medical payments from" the other driver.

The lawsuit said Ms. Niehus believes Blue Cross "did recover the
amounts it claimed to have paid for medical services provided to
treat (Niehus') injuries."

Her lawsuit said she believes NPA has similarly routinely placed
liens on others like her, "because they believe that they will
recover more by placing a lien on the patient's tort recovery than
they received as payments" under agreements with HMO plan
providers.

The complaint specifically alleged NPA and First Recovery violated
the HMO contract, and committed consumer fraud.

The lawsuit asked the judge to approve two classes of plaintiffs.
The first would include all HMO Illinois members who have
similarly faced liens brought by NPA in similar cases; the second
would include those from whom First Recovery has demanded payment
for medical services, which should have been the obligation of a
medical group under the terms of a HMO plan. The classes would
stretch back 10 years, the lawsuit said.

The complaint said Ms. Niehus and her attorneys believe the class
could include as many as 50 people.

Ms. Niehus has requested the court issue an injunction barring NPA
and First Recovery from continuing the alleged activity, and award
unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, plus attorney fees.


P.F. CHANGS: Bid for Voluntary Dismissal of "Phillips" Granted
--------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned ANNA MARIE PHILLIPS, Plaintiff, v. P.F.
CHANG'S CHINA BISTRO, INC., Defendant, Case No. 15-cv-00344-RMW
(N.D. Cal.), Judge Ronald M. Whyte granted the plaintiff's motion
for voluntary dismissal without prejudice as to the plaintiff and
without prejudice as to the putative class.  Judge Whyte, however,
denied the plaintiff's motion to deny costs to defendant and
ordered that the defendant may submit a bill of costs in
accordance with Civil Local Rule 54-1.

A full-text copy of Judge Whyte's June 6, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/vOjspS from Leagle.com.

In the class action lawsuit, Anna Marie Phillips alleged that P.F.
Chang's China Bistro, Inc. discriminated against her and other
customers with celiac disease or gluten allergies or intolerance.
On April 27, 2016, Phillips filed a motion for voluntary
dismissal, stating that for personal and private reasons, she is
unable to proceed with the litigation.  Phillips asserted that the
case is meritorious despite her inability to move forward.
Because Phillip's counsel is unable to find a substitute class
representative at the time, Phillips requested that the action be
dismissed with prejudice as to her and without prejudice as to the
putative class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
41(a)(2).  Phillips asserted that P.F. Chang's will suffer no
prejudice from the dismissal.  Additionally, Phillips requested
that the court deny attorneys' fees and costs to the defendant
because there is no threat that she will reinstitute the action
after it is dismissed with prejudice as to her.

Anna Marie Phillips, Plaintiff, represented by Anthony Joshua
Orshansky, CounselOne, PC & Justin Kachadoorian, CounselOne, PC.

P.F. Chang's China Bistro, Inc., Defendant, represented by Michael
K. Grimaldi, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP & Jon Peter
Kardassakis, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP.


PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Naparala" Suit Denied
----------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Norton denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned TED NAPARALA, SR., on behalf
of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Nos. 2:14-mn-00001-DCN, 2:14-cv-03465-DCN
(D.S.C.).

A full-text copy of Judge Norton's June 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/B293WI from Leagle.com.

Ted Naparala, Sr., who had previously purchased Pella
Corporation's ProLine and Architect Series windows, filed the
action against Pella in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin on May 20, 2014, bringing claims
for: (1) violation of the Wisconsin Deceptive Trade Practices Act;
(2) negligence; (3) breach of implied warranty of merchantability;
(4) breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular
purpose; (5) breach of express warranty; (6) fraudulent
concealment; (7) unjust enrichment; (8) violation of the Magnuson-
Moss Warranty Act (MMWA); and (9) declaratory relief.

Ted Naparala, Sr, Plaintiff, represented by Jonathan Shub --
jshub@kohnswift.com -- Kohn Swift and graft, pro hac vice, Scott A
George -- sgeorge@seegerweiss.com -- Seeger Weiss, Daniel K Bryson
-- dan@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson & Mason LLP, Matthew E Lee
-- matt@wbmllp.com -- Whitfield Bryson and Mason, pro hac vice &
Jeffrey A Leon -- jeff@qulegal.com -- Quantum Legal.

Pella Corporation, Defendant, represented by John P. Mandler --
john.mandler@faegrebd.com -- Faegre, Baker Law Firm - Minneapolis
Office, pro hac vice, Michael Tucker Cole --
mike.cole@nelsonmullins.com -- Nelson Mullins Riley and
Scarborough, Kevin L Morrow -- kevin.morrow@faegreBD.com -- Faegre
Baker Daniels, Mark J Winebrenner -- joe.winebrenner@faegrebd.com
-- Faegre Baker Daniels & Shane A Anderson --
shane.anderson@faegrebd.com -- Faegre Baker Daniels.


PELLA CORPORATION: Bid for Class Cert. of "Romig" Suit Denied
-------------------------------------------------------------
Judge David C. Norton denied the plaintiff's motion for class
certification in the case captioned JOHN ROMIG, JR., on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. PELLA
CORPORATION, Defendant, Nos. 2:14-mn-00001-DCN, 2:14-cv-00433-DCN
(D. S.C.).

A full-text copy of Judge Norton's June 3, 2016 order is available
at https://is.gd/doufPa from Leagle.com.

Plaintiff contends that Pella's Architect Series and Designer
Series aluminumclad casement windows manufactured from 1997-2007
suffer from a common defect -- an "inadequate water management
system" -- and that this defect is exacerbated by inadequate
application of wood preservative to the Windows.


PERSHING LLC: "Ochoa" Suit Moved from D.N.J. to N.D. Tex.
---------------------------------------------------------
Judith Ochoa, Wendy P. Eckert, and Brenda Gold, individually and
on behalf of others similarly situated, the Plaintiff, v. Pershing
LLC, the Defendant, Case No. 2:16-cv-02501, was transferred from
the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, to the
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (Dallas).
The Northern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01485-N to
the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. David C Godbey.

Pershing provides global financial solutions to advisors, asset
managers, broker-dealers, and family offices.

The Plaintiffs are represented by:

          James E. Cecchi, Esq.
          CARELLA BYRNE
          5 Becker Farm Road
          Roseland, NJ 07068
          Telephone: (973) 994-1700
          E-mail: jcecchi@carellabyrne.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Philip Andrew Goldstein, Esq.
          MCGUIRE WOODS LLP
          1345 Avenue of the Americas, 7th Floor
          New York, NY 10105-0106
          Telephone: (212) 548 2167
          E-mail: pagoldstein@mcguirewoods.com


PETROBRAS: Prosecutor Goes After Three Senators Tied to Scandal
---------------------------------------------------------------
Kenneth Rapoza, writing for Forbes.com, reports that Brazil's
judiciary is not giving up on going after the politicians who
helped bring a once mighty oil giant to its knees.

On June 7, Brazilian media reported that the country's General
Prosecutor, Rodrigo Janot, had asked the Supreme Court to arrest
three senators tied to the Petrobras scandal.  All three were
considered allies of the recently deposed Workers' Party and are
members of the big tent Democratic Movement Party.  The Supreme
Court has not yet responded to the call, but the move shows the
investigations into Petrobras are ongoing and heating up. This is
a healthy sign for a country that is plagued with political
paralysis.

Brazil's biggest oil firm was the source of a decades-old scandal
that had billionaire private sector firms colluding with the
ruling Workers' Party and other members of the coalition
government to rig countries and garner bribes for political
campaigns.  The scandal eventually led to the impeachment of
President Dilma Rousseff, who was chairwoman of the beleaguered
oil firm up until 2010 when she assumed the presidency.

The three senators were asked to step down following recently
revealed phone conversations showing their interest to remove
Ms. Rousseff from power in hopes of roadblocking the Petrobras
charges against them and their peers.  The threesome include
career politician and Brazil's first unelected leader post-
dictatorship Jose Sarney; Senate leader Renan Calheiros and former
Budget Minister Romero Juca.

Mr. Janot also asked for former House Speaker Eduardo Cunha to be
arrested until a trial date can be set.  He is accused of
laundering over $5 million in Petrobras bribe money into a Swiss
bank account.  He denies it. But Swiss bank authorities have
confirmed the accounts in his family's name.

News broke on June 7, but Mr. Janot had reportedly asked justice
Teori Zavascki, the Supreme Court judge in charge of politicians
facing Petrobras-related crimes, to arrest all four at some point,
according to Globo newspaper in Rio de Janeiro.  Someone inside
Mr. Janot's office leaked that information to the press, which is
sure to tick off those in the justice department and congress who
have grown wary of leaks.  In March, a leaked phone call between
Dilma and her predecessor Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva from someone
close to the civil investigations set off a firestorm of events.
Lula was rounded up by Federal Police and called in for
questioning, galvanizing the left in support of
Ms. Rousseff, which at the time was abysmal.  Some 68% supported
impeachment in March, down to 58% in June according to polling
firms Datafolha and Ibope.  The Lula leak took the ex-president
out of the hands of Sergio Moro, the federal judge handling the
Petrobras civil trials, and handed him over to Judge Zavascki.
That's kept Lula safe from Moro, who has been rounding up A-list
white collar criminals for over a year now.

Cunha orchestrated the impeachment against Ms. Rousseff in the
lower house.  Ms. Rousseff was impeached for breaking the budget
law, which is considered a crime of fiscal responsibility under
the constitution.  However, despite Ms. Rousseff blatant
bludgeoning of fiscal accounts without congressional approval, no
members of congress complained about it when given their reasons
for impeachment.  Moreover, leaked phone conversations are focused
firmly on stopping judicial momentum on Petrobras.

For her part, Ms. Rousseff is also under investigation by
Judge Zavascki for using Petrobras money to fund her 2014 re-
election campaign.

There is a chance that if Brazilian politicians are stripped of
their mandates they could be called in to testify or even be held
liable in the U.S. shareholder lawsuits against Petrobras.  The
first case goes to trial on Sept. 19 in New York.  At least a half
dozen U.S. states are part of a class action against the company
for misrepresenting its financials over the past five years. Part
of that misrepresentation includes the acquisition of the Pasadena
Refining System in Texas.  Ms. Rousseff was chairwoman of the
board and reportedly authorized payment three-times greater than
the market price.  Most of the money was laundered.  Ms. Rousseff
denies responsibility.

U.S. lawyers say they are considering suing Brazil politicians if
they have been found guilty in Brazil and stripped of the impunity
granted elected officials.

"We are seeking damages in the tens of billions," Jeremy
Lieberman, lead counsel of Pomerantz in New York says.  If
Petrobras settles out of court, it will likely be the greatest
bounty ever to shareholders in a class action. Enron delivered the
highest yet at $7.2 billion for misleading investors about its
businesses and assets.

There is no date yet for Ms. Rousseff's Senate hearing.

Brazilian prosecutor Mr. Janot stormed onto the Petrobras plot
line last year when he named names.  Known as "Janot's List", it
listed 48 congressional leaders he accused of taking bribes, based
on the testimony and police inquiries of nearly a dozen lobbyists
and construction magnates that were called in for questioning over
the last year by Brazil's Federal Police.  Of the 48 listed, six
were from the ruling Workers' Party and seven were from the
Democratic Movement Party.  The rest were from smaller allied
parties like the Progressive Party.  Neither Temer or Ms. Rousseff
were on the list.


PIER 1 IMPORTS: Faces Class Action Over Unpaid Wages
----------------------------------------------------
Wadi Reformado, writing or NOrcalRecord, reports that a Fresno
County woman alleges she is still owed wages from her former
employer.

Lauren Mathein filed a complaint on behalf of all others similarly
situated on Jan. 20 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of California against Pier 1 Imports Inc.; Pier 1 Imports
(U.S.) Inc. and Does 1 through 10 alleging violation of labor
codes, unlawful business practices and other counts.

According to the complaint, the plaintiff alleges that between
September 2014 and August 2015, she was not paid all of her earned
wages at the legal rate at the end of her employment.  The
plaintiff holds Pier 1 Imports Inc.; Pier 1 Imports (U.S.) Inc.
and Does 1 through 10 responsible because the defendants allegedly
did not provide itemized pay statements, failed to record all time
worked and other counts.

The plaintiff requests a trial by jury and seeks compensatory
damages, economic and special damages, all unpaid wages plus
liquidated damages, permanent injunction against the defendants
and restitution, interest, all legal fees and any other relief as
this court deems just.  She is represented by Stanley D. Saltzman
of Marlin & Saltzman LLP in Agoura Hills.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Case
number 1:16-cv-00087-DAD-SAB


PREMIER KINGS: Faces "Hardy" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime
--------------------------------------------------------------
Monica Hardy, Tamara Neely, and Rickey Williams, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated v. Premier Kings,
Inc. d/b/a Burger King, Case No. 7:16-cv-00878-JH (N.D. Ala., May
27, 2016), is brought against the Defendants for failure to pay
overtime wages in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

Premier Kings, Inc. owns and operates restaurant in Northern
District of Alabama.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Kevin W. Jent, Esq.
      WIGGINS, CHILDS, PANTAZIS & QUINN, LLC
      The Kress Building
      301 19th Street North
      Birmingham, AL 35203
      Telephone: (205) 314-0500
      E-mail: kjent@wigginschilds.com


PYRAMID HEALTHCARE: "Graham" Class Suit Removed to M.D. Florida
---------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit captioned Denise Graham, on her own
behalf and all similarly situated individuals v. Pyramid
Healthcare Solutions, Inc., Case No. 16-002912-CI, was removed
from the Pinellas County Florida to the U.S. District Court
Middle District of Florida (Tampa). The District Court Clerk
assigned Case No. 8:16-cv-01324-JSM-UAM to the proceeding.

The case alleges violation of the Fair Credit Reporting Act.

Pyramid Healthcare Solutions, Inc. offers treatment & care to
those dealing with alcohol & drug addiction, methadone addiction &
adolescent behavioral problems.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Andrew Ross Frisch, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      Suite 400, 600 N Pine Island Rd
      Plantation, FL 33324
      Telephone: (954) 318-0268
      Facsimile: (954) 333-3515
      E-mail: afrisch@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      C. Ryan Morgan, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      20 N Orange Ave Ste 1600
      Orlando, FL 32801
      Telephone: (407) 420-1414
      Facsimile: (407) 245-3401
      E-mail: rmorgan@forthepeople.com

         - and -

      Marc Reed Edelman, Esq.
      MORGAN & MORGAN, PA
      201 N Franklin St Fl 7
      Tampa, FL 33602-5157
      Telephone: (813) 223-5505
      Facsimile: (813) 257-0572
      E-mail: MEdelman@forthepeople.com

The Defendant is represented by:

      Grant David Petersen, Esq.
      OGLETREE DEAKINS NASH SMOAK & STEWART, P.C.
      100 N Tampa St Ste 3600
      Tampa, FL 33602-5867
      Telephone: (813) 289-1247
      Facsimile: (813) 289-6530
      E-mail: grant.petersen@ogletreedeakins.com


QUALITY PLUMBING: "Kiss" Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------
Leslie Kiss Jr., on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated v. Quality Plumbing Solutions LLC and Brian Ross, Case
No. 0:16-cv-61130-UU (S.D. Fla., May 26, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation, liquidated
damages, and costs and reasonable attorneys' fees under the
provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The Defendants operate a company that provides plumbing services
to residential customers throughout the State of Florida,
including in Broward County and Palm Beach County, Florida.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Keith M. Stern, Esq.
      Hazel Solis Rojas, Esq.
      LAW OFFICE OF KEITH M. STERN, P.A.
      8333 NW 53rd Street, Suite 450
      Doral, FL 33166
      Telephone: (561) 299-3703
      Facsimile: (561) 288-9031
      E-mail: employlaw@keithstern.com
              hsolis@workingforyou.com


RICK'S FRONT: "Summers" Suit Seeks Unpaid OT Wages Under FLSA
-------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Summers on behalf of himself individually, and all others
similarly situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Rick's Front Door
Refinishing, L.L.C., the Defendant, Case No. 4:16-cv-01563 (S.D.
Tex., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover unpaid overtime wages, and
for retaliation brought under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).

The action seeks equitable relief, compensatory and liquidated
damages, attorney's fees, taxable costs of court, and post-
judgment interest for Defendant's willful failure to pay overtime
wages, double damages and reasonable attorney fees from
Defendants.

The Defendant offers wood and fiberglass painting and Refinishing
services.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Joe Williams, Esq.
          THE LAW OFFICES OF JOE M. WILLIAMS
          & ASSOCIATES, P.L.L.C.
          810 Highway 6 South, Suite 111
          Houston, TX 77079
          Telephone: (832) 230 4125
          Facsimile: (832) 230 5130
          E-mail: joe@joewilliamslaw.com


RIP CURL: Faces "Candelario" Class Suit in C. Dist. of California
-----------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Rip Curl, Inc.

The case is captioned Plaintiff Lucia Candelario, individually and
on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Rip Curl, Inc.
and Does 1-10, inclusive, Case No. 8:16-cv-00963 (C.D. Cal., May
25, 2016).

Rip Curl, Inc. is a designer, manufacturer, and retailer of
surfing sportswear.

Lucia Candelario is a pro se plaintiff.


SAINT-GOBAIN: Southern NH Residents Voice Frustrations at Meeting
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kimberly Houghton, writing for New Hampshire Union Leader, reports
that residents infuriated about the water contamination problem in
southern New Hampshire unleashed their frustration during a
meeting on June 6 with representatives from a law firm considering
taking legal action.

"This is an environmental crisis, and we have all been damaged and
violated," said Charles Mower of Merrimack.

The June 6 meeting, hosted by Weitz & Luxenberg law firm of New
York, attracted about 100 citizens at Southern New Hampshire
University concerned about various levels of perfluorooctanoic
acid (PFOA) detected in private wells and the public water supply
at Merrimack Village District.

Although a separate law firm in Nashua has already filed a class
action lawsuit against Saint-Gobain in connection with the water
contamination, Weitz & Luxenberg and environmentalist Erin
Brockovich are investigating the problem as well and are exploring
additional legal options.

"As you know, it is not only in New Hampshire, it is all around
the Northeast and the country," Robin Greenwald, head of the law
firm's Environmental and Consumer Protection Unit, said of PFOA.

Ms. Greenwald said her firm was present in New Hampshire to learn
information from residents, hear their worries and collect data.

Private wells have detected PFOA contamination in Merrimack,
Litchfield, Bedford and Amherst.  The Merrimack Village District
has also detected PFOA in its public water supply, which is
distributed to 25,000 customers.

About 300 homes within the local communities are being provided
bottled water as a result of the water contamination issue.

"I am concerned that all of the attention is going to the private
wells," said Latasha Konopka of Merrimack, who uses Merrimack
Village District public water and is worried about the health
implications associated with PFOA.

Another woman who lives near Turkey Hill Road in Merrimack said
she decided to get her blood tested and it revealed high levels of
PFOA.  The woman, who declined to provide her name at the advice
of her attorney, said she has been using three antibiotics because
of an intestinal bacterial overgrowth.

"All of you should be demanding that blood testing is free.  The
state should be paying for it," said attorney Jared O'Connor --
joconnor@shaheengordon.com -- of Shaheen and Gordon law firm, who
assisted with the June 6 meeting.

High levels of PFOA

Ms. Greenwald, whose law firm filed a class action lawsuit in
Hoosick Falls, N.Y., because of water contamination near a Saint-
Gobain facility there, said the highest level of PFOA reported in
southern New Hampshire is about 1,600 parts per trillion in
Merrimack.

The state has issued an emergency advisory of 70 ppt.

"There are some areas with extremely high levels of PFOA," she
said.

She explained that property owners, residents and businesses can
get compensated for property loss and medical problems associated
with water contamination -- especially if the source of
contamination is confirmed.

"I am not an alarmist. I don't know to the extent this is
impacting the communities here," said Ms. Greenwald, explaining
there are illnesses linked with PFOA, a chemical once used to make
Teflon.

Kim Olasz of Merrimack said he worked at Saint-Gobain for 18 years
until last summer.  He said he previously raised concerns about
disposal practices at the plant.

The spotlight is certainly on Saint-Gobain, agreed Greenwald, who
said regulators are likely visiting every Saint-Gobain plant in
the country investigating this matter.

According to the state Department of Environmental Services, the
Merrimack Saint-Gobain plant was sampling its own water when it
discovered low levels of PFOA in February.

"Saint-Gobain voluntarily went out and looked for
(perfluorooctanoic acid) at their Merrimack facility based on
situations in New York and Vermont, and were very quick to share
those results with the state," James Martin, public information
officer with the New Hampshire DES, said in March.

Saint-Gobain produces polymer products for the energy,
electronics, aerospace and automobile industries.

"We don't know what is going to happen.  We are afraid we are all
going to get stuck with the price tag," said Mr. Mower, founder of
Merrimack 4 AWL (air, water and land).

He criticized the Merrimack Village District, saying it is an
incompetent steward of the local water system.

Mower said DES officials have known there was PFOA leaving the
smokestacks at Saint-Gobain for more than a decade.

DES representatives have said that as a result of new air
monitoring technology that allowed for the detection of PFOA at
lower levels, state regulators worked with Saint-Gobain in 2006 to
reduce PFOA air emissions at the company's Merrimack facility.


SANDISK CORPORATION: Appeal Filed in "Giuliano" Antitrust Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the Ritz Estate, CPM
Electronics, Inc., E.S.E. Electronics and Mflash, Inc., filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit entitled Giuliano v.
SanDisk Corporation, Case No. 4:10-cv-02787-SBA, in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California.

The lawsuit arises from alleged violations of antitrust laws.  The
appellate case is captioned as Giuliano v. SanDisk Corporation,
Case No. 16-2166, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter on May 26, 2016, Sandisk
Corporation said in its Form 10-Q Report filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on May 2, 2016, for the
quarterly period ended April 3, 2016, that in the Ritz Camera
Federal Antitrust Class Action, the court has granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.

On June 25, 2010, Ritz Camera & Image, LLC ("Ritz") filed a
complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
California (the "District Court"), alleging that the Company
violated federal antitrust law by conspiring to monopolize and
monopolizing the market for flash memory products. The lawsuit
captioned Ritz Camera & Image, LLC v. SanDisk Corporation, Inc.
and Eliyahou Harari, former SanDisk Corporation Chief Executive
Officer, purports to be on behalf of direct purchasers of flash
memory products sold by the Company and joint ventures controlled
by the Company from June 25, 2006 through the present. The
complaint alleges that the Company created and maintained a
monopoly by fraudulently obtaining patents and using them to
restrain competition and by allegedly converting other patents for
its competitive use.

On February 24, 2011, the District Court issued an Order granting
in part and denying in part the Company's motion to dismiss, which
resulted in Dr. Harari being dismissed as a defendant. On
September 19, 2011, the Company filed a petition for permission to
file an interlocutory appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit (the "Federal Circuit") for the portion of the
District Court's Order denying the Company's motion to dismiss
based on Ritz's lack of standing to pursue Walker Process
antitrust claims. On October 27, 2011, the District Court
administratively closed the case pending the Federal Circuit's
ruling on the Company's petition.

On November 20, 2012, the Federal Circuit affirmed the District
Court's order denying SanDisk's motion to dismiss. On December 2,
2012, the Federal Circuit issued its mandate returning the case to
the District Court. On July 5, 2013, the District Court granted
Ritz's motion to substitute in Albert Giuliano, the Chapter 7
Trustee of the Ritz bankruptcy estate, as the plaintiff in this
case. On October 1, 2013, the District Court granted the Trustee's
motion for leave to file a third amended complaint, which adds CPM
Electronics Inc. and E.S.E. Electronics, Inc. as named plaintiffs.

On September 19, 2014, the District Court granted the plaintiffs'
motion for leave to file a fourth amended complaint, which adds a
cause of action for attempted monopolization and adds MFLASH as a
named plaintiff. The plaintiffs filed a motion for class
certification, and the Company filed a motion for summary judgment
as to all of the plaintiffs' asserted claims.

On May 14, 2015, the District Court granted in part and denied in
part plaintiffs' motion for class certification. On June 22, 2015,
the District Court denied the Company's motion for summary
judgment without prejudice to refile its motion once the class
notice has been approved and the period for class members to opt
out has expired.

After the opt-out period expired, the Company renewed its motion
for summary judgment. On April 29, 2016, the court granted the
Company's motion for summary judgment and entered judgment in
SanDisk's favor as to all of the plaintiffs' claims.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Alfred T. Giuliano, Chapter 7 Trustee of the
Ritz Estate, CPM Electronics, Inc., and E.S.E. Electronics are
represented by:

          Jason Scott Hartley, Esq.
          STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON, LLP
          550 West C Street, Suite 1750
          San Diego, CA 92101
          Telephone: (619) 400-5822
          E-mail: hartley@stuevesiegel.com

Plaintiff-Appellant MFLASH, INC.

          Steven Frank Benz, Esq.
          KELLOGG, HUBER, HANSEN, TODD, EVANS & FIGEL, PLLC
          1615 M Street, NW
          Sumner Square
          Washington, DC 20036
          Telephone: (202) 326-7900
          E-mail: sbenz@khhte.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Raoul D. Kennedy, Esq.
          SKADDEN, ARPS, SLATE, MEAGHER & FLOM LLP
          525 University Avenue
          Palo Alto, CA 94301
          Telephone: (650) 470-4550
          E-mail: RKennedy@skadden.com


SAR CALIFORNIA: "Perez" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Giselle Perez individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated and aggrieved, the Plaintiffs, v. Sar California Holdco,
Inc., a California corporation; Sar Figueroa Food, Inc., a
California corporation; Sar Fox Hills Food, Inc., a California
corporation; Sar Valley Plaza Food, Inc., a California
corporation; Sarku Slnordhoff, Inc., a California corporation;
Sarku SL Nordhoff Food, Inc., a California corporation; Sarku
Japan, a business entity of unknown form; and Does 1-50,
inclusive, the Defendants Case No. BC622660 (Cal. Super. Ct, June
3, 2016), was filed against the Defendants for failure to pay all
wages due to discharged and quitting employees, failure to
indemnify employees for necessary expenditures and/or losses
incurred in discharging their duties, failure to provide accurate
itemized wage statements, and failure to maintain required
records.

The complaint seeks to recover wages and penalties from unpaid
wages earned and due, including, but not limited to, unpaid
minimum wages, unpaid and illegally calculated overtime
compensation, illegal meal and rest period policies, and interest,
attorneys' fees, costs, and expenses, pursuant to the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants maintain offices and facilities and conduct
business in, and engage in illegal payroll practices or policies
in, the County of Los Angeles, State of California.

The Defendants are engaged in the food business industry.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Matthew J. Matern, Esq.
          Dalia Khalili, Esq.
          Roy K. Suh, Esq.
          MATERN LAW GROUP
          1230 Rosecrans Ave., Suite 200
          Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
          Telephone: (310) 531-1900
          Facsimile: (310) 531 1901


SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE: Suit Seeks to Recover Unpaid OT
---------------------------------------------------------------
Yvonne Leyva, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. Southern California Permanente Medical Group and Does
1-50, Case No. BC621718 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 26, 2016), seeks to
recover unpaid overtime wages pursuant to the California Labor
Code.

Southern California Permanente Medical Group operates a medical
center located at 7373 West Ln, Stockton, CA 95210.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Dennis F. Moss, Esq.
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 773-0323
      E-mail: dennis@dennismosslaw.com

         - and -

      Ari E. Moss, Esq.
      Jeremy F. Bollinger, Esq.
      LAW OFFICES OF ARI MOSS
      15300 Ventura Blvd., Ste. 207
      Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
      Telephone: (310) 982-2984
      E-mail: ari@arimoss.com
              jeremy@arimoss.com


STARBUCKS CORPORATION: Falsely Marketed Cold Drinks, Suit Claims
----------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander Forouzesh, individually and on behalf of all others
similarly situated v. Starbucks Corporation and Does 1 through 10,
inclusive, Case No. BC621572 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016),
alleges that Starbucks engaged in the practice of misrepresenting
that its cold drinks have more fluid ounces than it actually
delivers and charges the customer for.

Starbucks Corporation is the largest coffee retailer in the world,
with more than 23,000 stores in over 60 countries and with over
3,000 stores in the United States.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Justin Farahi, Esq.
      Raymond M. Collins, Esq.
      FARAHI LAW FIRM, APC
      22760 Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 230
      Torrance, CA 90505
      Telephone: (310) 774-4500
      Facsimile: (424) 295-0557


STATEBRIDGE COMPANY: Illegally Collects Debt, "Thorner" Suit Says
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Sidney Thorner and Arlene Thorner, on behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated v. Statebridge Company, LLC, Case No.
3:16-cv-03020-MAS-TJB (D.N.J., May 26, 2016), seeks to stop the
Defendant's unfair and unconscionable means to collect a debt.

Statebridge Company, LLC is a mortgage loan servicer. A portion of
the business involves the collection of debts.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Joseph Gentilcore, Esq.
      DIEHL LAW LLC
      PO Box 43098
      Philadelphia, PA 19129
      Telephone: (267) 614-6515
      E-mail: jogentilcore@gmail.com

SUBARU: Class Action Settlement Expected to Be Finalized in July
----------------------------------------------------------------
Kelly Choate, writing for PAhomepage, reports that Subaru owners
may be part of a class action lawsuit and entitled to a
settlement, but is that the best option?

PAhomepage's I-Team caught up with Schuylkill County Realtor Helen
Miernicki, who told the agency a Lemon Law case is the way to go.

For the past two years, Helen said her 2014 Subaru Forester was
guzzling synthetic oil.

Those receipts were adding up, and the inconvenience was impacting
her job as a realtor.

Ms. Miernicki said Subaru gave her every excuse in the book, even
blaming her driving habits and telling her to keep oil in her
trunk.

This case affects more than 665,000 Subaru owners with Crosstrek,
Forester, Legacy, Outback, and Impreza models from 2011 to 2015.

A pending settlement would give owners of those vehicles an
extended warranty for oil-related problems.

But Ms. Miernicki opted out of the class action case and filed a
Lemon Law complaint on the advice of her Attorney Robert
Silverman.

If you're part of this class action case, you have until June 13th
to opt out.

If you do nothing, you will automatically become part of the
settlement, which will prevent you from filing a Lemon Law
complaint.  The settlement is expected to be finalized in July.


SWIFT PORK: "Rocha" Suit Seeks Monetary Damages Under Labor Code
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ricardo Rocha, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Swift Pork Company, a Delaware
corporation, and Does 1-100, inclusive, the Defendants, Case No.
BC622797 (Cal. Super Ct., June 3, 2016), seeks monetary damages,
including full restitution from Defendants' unlawful, fraudulent
and/or unfair business practices, pursuant to the California Labor
Code, California Business and Professions Code, and Wage Orders
issued by California Industrial Welfare Commission.

Swift is an American food processing company.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Kevin T. Barnes, Esq.
          Gregg Lander, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF KEVIN T. BARNES
          5670 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1460
          Los Angeles, CA 90036-5664
          Tel.: (323) 549 9100
          Facsimile: (323) 549 0101
          Email: Barnes@kbarnes.com

               - and -

          Sahag Majarian II, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF SAHAG MAJARIAN, II
          18520 Ventura Boulevard
          Tarzana, CA 91356
          Telephone: (818) 609 0807
          E-mail: SahagII@aol.com


TEXAS, USA: District Court Ruling in "Steward" Suit Under Appeal
----------------------------------------------------------------
Defendants Greg Abbott, Kyle L. Janek and Jon Weizenbaum filed an
appeal from a court ruling in the lawsuit titled Eric Steward, et
al v. Greg Abbott, et al., Case No. 5:10-CV-1025, in the U.S.
District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio.

Greg Abbott is the Governor of the state of Texas.  Kyle L. Janek,
M.D., is the Executive Commissioner of the Texas Health and Human
Services Commission.  Jon Weizenbaum is the Commissioner of the
Texas Department of Aging and Disability Services.

The appellate case is captioned as Eric Steward, et al. v. Greg
Abbott, et al., Case No. 16-90019, in the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Respondents are represented by:

          Casey A. Burton, Esq.
          SIDLEY AUSTIN, L.L.P.
          2001 Ross Avenue
          Dallas, TX 75201
          Telephone: (214) 969-3533
          E-mail: casey.burton@sidley.com

               - and -

          Garth Anthony Corbett, Esq.
          ADVOCACY, INCORPORATED
          7800 Shoal Creek Boulevard
          Austin, TX 78757-1024
          Telephone: (512) 454-4816
          E-mail: gcorbett@advocacyinc.org

               - and -

          Deborah A. Dorfman, Esq.
          CENTER FOR PUBLIC REPRESENTATION
          22 Green Street
          Northhampton, MA 01060
          Telephone: (413) 586-6024

The Defendants-Petitioners are represented by:

          Matthew Hamilton Frederick, Esq.
          DEPUTY SOLICITOR GENERAL
          OFFICE OF THE SOLICITOR GENERAL
          209 W. 14th Street
          Austin, TX 78701
          Telephone: (512) 936-6407
          E-mail: matthew.frederick@oag.state.tx.us


THERANOS INC: Sued Over Substandard Lab Policies & Procedures
-------------------------------------------------------------
Casey Jones, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated v. Theranos, Inc., Case No. 5:16-cv-02835 (N.D. Cal., May
26, 2016), seeks to stop the Defendant's practice of using
substandard laboratory policies and procedures, failing to honor
the promises it made about testing accuracy and quality,
concealing and obscuring the truth about the invasiveness of the
tests, providing inaccurate test results to patients and not
correcting those results when possible after a reasonable person
would understand the results were or could be erroneous, and
misrepresenting the technological advances that Theranos allegedly
developed.

Theranos, Inc. operates a health-technology and medical-
laboratory-services company based in Palo Alto, California.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Shana E. Scarlett, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      715 Hearst Avenue
      Berkeley, CA 94710
      Telephone: (510) 725-3000
      Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
      E-mail: shanas@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Steve W. Berman, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300
      Seattle, WA 98101
      Telephone: (206) 623-7292
      Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
      E-mail: steve@hbsslaw.com

         - and -

      Robert B. Carey, Esq.
      HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
      11 West Jefferson, Suite 1000
      Phoenix, AR 85003
      Telephone: (602) 840-5900
      Facsimile: (602) 840-3012
      E-mail: rob@hbsslaw.com


TOMS SHOES: Faces "Jones" Suit Over Failure to Pay Overtime Wages
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Nyisha Jones, individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated v. TOMS Shoes, LLC, TOMS Shoes Holdings I, TOMS Shoes
Holdings II, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive, Case No. ______
(Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the Defendants
for failure to pay overtime wages in violation of the California
Labor Code.

The Defendants design and manufacture shoes and apparel.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Steven Weinberger, Esq.
      LAYFIELD & BARRETT, APC
      7135 E. Camelback, Rd. Suite 230
      Scottsdale, AR 85251
      Telephone: (480) 771-3602
      Facsimile: (480) 771-3603
      E-mail: s.weinberger@lavfieldbarrett.com

         - and -

      Bradford T. Child, Esq.
      CHILD & MARTON, LLP
      1055 West 7TH Street, 33rd Floor Penthouse
      Los Angeles, CA  90017-2795
      Telephone: (213) 627-3113
      Facsimile: (213) 623-9237
      E-mail: btchild@childmarton.com


TRUMP UNIVERSITY: Judge in Fraud Case Tied to La Raza Council
-------------------------------------------------------------
Jerome R. Corsi, writing for WND.com, reports that the federal
judge presiding over the Trump University class action lawsuit is
a member of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association, a group
that while not a branch of the National Council of La Raza, has
ties to the controversial organization, which translates literally
"The Race."

U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who has been criticized by
Donald Trump as a "hater" appointed by President Obama who should
be recused from the case, listed his membership in the "La Raza
Lawyers of San Diego" on a judicial questionnaire he filled out
when he was selected to be a federal judge.  He was named in a
brochure as a member of the selection committee for the
organization's 2014 Annual Scholarship Fund Dinner & Gala.
Meanwhile, the San-Diego based law firm representing the
plaintiffs in the Trump University case, Robbins Geller Rudman &
Dowd, was listed as a sponsor of the event.

WND reported the San Diego firm paid $675,000 to the Clintons for
speeches, and the firm's founder is a wealthy San Diego lawyer who
served a two-year sentence in federal prison for his role in a
kickback scheme to mobilize plaintiffs for class-action lawsuits.

Get a first-hand account of the Democratic Party presidential
front-runner's character in "Hillary The Other Woman."  Then take
action with the Hillary Clinton Investigative Justice Project and
let others know, with a bumper sticker calling for "Hillary for
prosecution, not president."

While critics of Trump have argued that the San Diego La Raza
Lawyers' association is not affiliated with the National Council
of La Raza, consider the following:

The San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is a member of the La
Raza Lawyers of California, affiliated with the Chicano/Latino Bar
Association of California.

On the website of the La Raza Lawyers Association of California,
at the bottom of the "Links & Affiliates Page," the National
Council of La Raza is listed.

The website of the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association is joint-
listed as San Diego's Latino/Latina Bar Association.
On the "endorsements" page, the combined website lists the
National Council of La Raza as part of the "community," along with
the Hispanic National Bar Association,, a group that emerged with
a changed name from the originally formed La Raza National Lawyers
Association and the La Raza National Bar Association tracing its
origin back to 1971.

Further, while the San Diego La Raza Lawyers Association and the
National Council of La Raza are legally separate incorporated
entities, the two groups appear to have an affiliation that traces
back to the emergence of MEChA, the Moviemento Estudiantil
Chicanos de Atzlan.

MEChA is a 1960s radical separatist student movement in California
that espoused the mythical Aztec idea of a "nation of Aztlan,"
comprising much of the southwestern United States, including
California.

As David Horowitz points out on his website Discover the Networks
that La Raza, Spanish for "the race," also has roots in the early
1960s with a "united front" organization, the National
Organization for Mexican American Services, NOMAS.  The group
initially was funded by the Ford Foundation, and subsequently by
George Soros' Open Society Institute and the John D. and Catherine
T. MacArthur Foundation.

In 1968, the Southwest Council of La Raza was organized with Ford
Foundation funding.  In 1972, the group changed its name to the
National Council of La Raza and opened an office in Washington,
D.C.


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Appeal Filed in 9th Circuit in "Lainer" Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiff Marisa Lainer filed an appeal from a court ruling in the
lawsuit titled Marisa Lainer v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No.
2:15-cv-09925-BRO-MRW, in the U.S. District Court for Central
California, Los Angeles.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on Feb. 16,
2016, the Plaintiff seeks to put an end to the Defendant's alleged
practice of making unsolicited calls to the Class members'
wireless telephones.

The appellate case is captioned as Marisa Lainer v. Uber
Technologies, Inc., Case No. 16-55778, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

The Plaintiff-Appellant is represented by:

          Todd M. Friedman, Esq.
          LAW OFFICES OF TODD M. FRIEDMAN
          324 S. Beverly Drive
          Beverly Hills, CA 90212
          Telephone: (877) 206-4741
          E-mail: tfriedman@attorneysforconsumers.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          Tiffany Cheung, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          425 Market Street
          San Francisco, CA 94105-2482
          Telephone: (415) 268-7000
          E-mail: tcheung@mofo.com

               - and -

          Kelsey Marie Stricker, Esq.
          MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
          707 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite # 6000
          Los Angeles, CA 90017
          Telephone: (213) 892-5274
          E-mail: KStricker@mofo.com

               - and -

          Adam Sevell, Esq.
          PAUL HASTINGS LLP
          515 South Flower Street
          Los Angeles, CA 90071
          Telephone: (213) 683-6000
          E-mail: adamsevell@paulhastings.com


UBER TECHNOLOGIES: Unveils Software Improvements Amid Litigation
----------------------------------------------------------------
Ben Rosen, writing for, reports that tensions have been building
between Uber and its drivers, especially as the ride-hailing
company decreased drivers' earnings and continued to classify them
as independent contractors, rather than recognizing them as
employees.  Drivers protested and filed two class-action lawsuits
against the company.

On June 6, Uber seemed to be making efforts to quell driver
complaints, announcing a series of software improvements intended
to improve drivers' experiences.

"[We] have heard from drivers like you that there are plenty of
things we can do to make driving more empowering and worth your
while," wrote Uber in a blog post.  "We are rolling out a number
of features and rewards in more cities to help you get the most
out of your time on the road."

"Many drivers say they choose Uber because they want to be their
own boss, set their own schedule, and get work at the touch of a
button," it added.  "That's the beauty of the on-demand economy:
you define the work you do, it doesn't define you."

rivers can soon pick up only those passengers on the way to a
drivers' destination, pause the app if they need a break, and
receive their earnings instantly, as well as receive pay if a
passenger is more than two minutes late.

The announcement signals a shift in the ever-evolving shared
economy, as Uber has started to address the vulnerabilities its
drivers say they are exposed to as independent contractors.  The
conditions experienced by Uber's workforce -- as well as those
experienced by workers in other peer-to-peer services -- have
created a number of outstanding labor issues.  The June 6
announcement seems to be an effort on Uber's part to meet drivers
halfway.

Chief among the new software improvements are drivers' ability to
both pick up only those passengers on their way to their own
destinations and to pause the app.  Although the driver
destination feature has been piloted in a number of cities,
drivers in a dozen more cities will be able to take advantage of
it.  Drivers will be able to use the feature twice a day, such as
on their way to and from work.

"Driver destinations is all about making it easier to fit work
around your life -- not the other way around," writes Uber.

The second feature serves the same end.

"Need lunch or coffee or a breath of fresh air, or ready to call
it a day? Now you'll be able to just hit pause -- literally -- to
stop new requests from coming in while you're completing your last
trip."

Previously, drivers were forced to cancel user requests to be
picked up.  Now, drivers can simply pause the program and restart
it once they're ready.  Uber will pilot this feature this month.
These changes, as well as several others, seem to be Uber's
attempt to keep drivers happy.

Two surveys of Uber drivers released this winter offered different
views into drivers' satisfaction.  A survey Uber conducted in
December found 81 percent of drivers were satisfied with their
overall experiences, and more than 90 percent were both satisfied
with the flexibility their schedule offered them and their work
life-balance.  But an independent, amateur survey by Harry
Campbell, author of the blog The Rideshare Guy, found only 48
percent of drivers were satisfied.

And drivers have long battled their status as independent
contractors, saying it leaves them vulnerable.  Uber doesn't have
to pay its drivers' insurance or Social Security, as well as other
benefits such as workers' compensation or sick days.  Nor do Uber
employees have the right to form unions.

The conflict came to a head in two class-action lawsuits Uber
settled with drivers.  The company has also approved a pseudo-
union group that will provide some benefits to New York drivers.


UGI CORP: Hawkins Appeals From C.D. California Ruling in 9th Cir.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Linda Hawkins and Temi Treibatch filed an appeal from a
court ruling in their lawsuit styled Linda Hawkins, et al. v. UGI
Corporation, et al., Case No. 2:14-cv-08461-DDP-JC, in the U.S.
District Court for the Central District of California, Los
Angeles.

The lawsuit arises from product liability claims.

The appellate case is captioned as Linda Hawkins, et al. v. UGI
Corporation, et al., Case No. 16-55796, in the United States Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

Plaintiffs-Appellants Linda Hawkins and Temi Treibatch are
represented by:

          David E. Bower, I, Esq.
          BOWER LAW GROUP PC
          600 Corporate Pointe, Suite 1170
          Culver City, CA 90230
          Telephone: (213) 446-6652
          E-mail: dbower@bowerlawgroup.com

Defendants-Appellees UGI Corporation, Amerigas Propane, Inc.,
Amerigas Propane, L.P., and Amerigas Partners, L.P., DBA Amerigas
Cylinder Exchange, is represented by:

          Gordon Cooney, Jr., Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          1701 Market Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103-2921
          Telephone: (215) 963-4806
          Facsimile: (215) 963-5001
          E-mail: gordon.cooney@morganlewis.com

               - and -

          Joseph Duffy, Esq.
          MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS LLP
          300 South Grand Avenue
          Los Angeles, CA 90071-3132
          Telephone: (213) 612-2508
          E-mail: joseph.duffy@morganlewis.com

Defendants-Appellees Ferrellgas Company, Inc., Ferrellgas, L.P.,
DBA Blue Rhino LLC, Ferrellgas, Inc., Ferrellgas Partners Finance
Corp., Ferrellgas Finance Corp. and Ferrellgas Partners, L. P.,
are represented by:

          Niall E. Lynch, Esq.
          LATHAM & WATKINS LLP
          505 Montgomery Street
          San Francisco, CA 94111-6538
          Telephone: (415) 391-0600
          E-mail: Eniall.lynch@lw.com


UNITED STATES: Faces "Jerome" Suit in Northern District Indiana
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Barack Obama,
Commander in chief, United States of America and Rosa G Rios,
Treasurer of the Treasury, United States of America, and any other
similarly situated persons.

The case is captioned Curtis Jerome v. Barack Obama,
Commander in chief, United States of America and Rosa G Rios,
Treasurer of the Treasury, United States of America, and any other
similarly situated persons, Case No. 1:16-cv-00179-JTM-SLC (N.D.
Ind., May 25, 2016).

Curtis Jerome is a pro se plaintiff.


UNITED STATES: Court Rules on Bids for Joinder in "Bell" Suit
-------------------------------------------------------------
In the case captioned GERALD E. BELL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE
UNITED STATES, Defendant, No. 13-455L (Fed. Cl.), Judge Patricia
Campbell-Smith granted the motions for joinder filed by the
plaintiff Joe Metz, and denied the motions for joinder filed by
the plaintiffs Bell Brothers, G.P., and Gerald E. Bell and Duane
V. Bell.

A full-text copy of Judge Campbell-Smith's June 6, 2016 opinion
and order is available at https://is.gd/A0JFyw from Leagle.com.

The plaintiffs own real property in the state of Texas, along the
Mexican border, near the Rio Grande River.  It was undisputed that
defendant holds easements that entitle it to build and maintain a
structure on the plaintiffs' property for the purpose of flood
control.  What was disputed is whether the structure built by the
defendant falls within the scope of the easements it holds.  The
plaintiffs argued that the defendant's structure is a "border
fence" that falls outside the scope of the easements and thus, has
effected an uncompensated taking of their property.  The defendant
acknowledged that the structure serves the dual purposes of flood
control and border defense, but maintains that the structure
nonetheless falls within the scope of the easements.

The plaintiffs filed their complaint on July 3, 2013, in which
they asserted a Fifth Amendment takings claim.  On May 4, 2016,
the plaintiffs filed three separate motions for joinder of five
additional plaintiffs under Rules 15 and 20.  Plaintiff Bell
Brothers, G.P. also previously filed a motion for joinder.

GERALD E. BELL, DUANE V. BELL, JOE METZ, NEUHAUS & SONS, BELL
BROS., Plaintiffs, represented by Roy Robert Brandys --
brandys@barronadler.com -- Barron & Adler, LLP.

USA, Defendant, represented by John Pershing Tustin, U.S.
Department of Justice.


UNITED STATES: Evideo Owners Appeal From Ruling in Patent Suit
--------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs Evideo Owners, Mauro Didomenico, Douglas Buerger, Craig
Linden, Realvirt LLC and Paul Barous filed an appeal from a court
ruling in the lawsuit entitled Evideo Owners v. US, Case No. 1:15-
cv-00413-LKG, in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

As previously reported in the Class Action Reporter on June 1,
2015, Mauro Didomenico sued the Government over the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Office's controversial and recently shuttered
"sensitive" patent applications program, which he says delayed
patent applications and saddled filers with excessive costs.

The appellate case is captioned as Evideo Owners v. US, Case No.
16-2149, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Plaintiffs-Appellants are represented by:

          Patrick Richard Delaney, Esq.
          DITTHAVONG & STEINER, P.C.
          44 Canal Center Plaza
          Alexandria, VA 22314
          Telephone: (703) 519-9951
          E-mail: pdelaney@dcpatent.com

The Defendant-Appellee is represented by:

          David Allen Foley, Jr., Esq.
          U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
          PO Box 480
          Ben Franklin Station
          Washington, DC 20044
          Telephone: (202) 307-0346
          Facsimile: (202) 307-0345
          E-mail: david.a.foley@usdoj.gov


VOLKSWAGEN AUSTRALIA: Vehicle Emissions Class Action Underway
-------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas Oriti, writing for ABC, reports that Australian drivers
involved in a legal dispute against Volkswagen have accused the
auto giant of ignoring them.

A class action is underway involving thousands of drivers, after
revelations that cars were fitted with emissions cheating
software.

Alister Dalton, the lead applicant in the VW class action, who
owns two Volkswagen cars, told PM: "You buy a vehicle on a
presumption and a pretence that they've been promoted as
mechanically sound, that they can do what they say they do.

"The fact that now we've got possible emissions going into the
atmosphere . . . you feel cheated."

Mr. Dalton said he had hardly heard from the company since the
software used to cheat vehicle emissions tests was uncovered last
September.

"We've had a couple of letters, but they're no different to
probably what any other owner has received, and it's very scant
information that we receive, very generic," he said.

"I probably have more contact with the local dealership when I go
and get my car serviced than dealing with Volkswagen Australia."

The legal dispute also includes Skoda and Audi models built by the
motoring giant.

For the lead applicant in the Audi case, Robyn Richardson, it is
the uncertainty that bothers her most.

"I do have a sense of guilt about driving the vehicle that I'm
driving," Ms Richardson said.

"It weighs on my mind that I'm omitting these toxic fumes by
driving the vehicle . . . I'm anxious for Audi to resolve this as
quickly as possible."
Process moving faster in United States

In an "in-principle" deal with the United States Justice
Department, Volkswagen has offered to buy back almost 500,000 cars
there.

More details are expected to be made public later this month, but
the proposal also includes funding for an environmental
remediation fund and compensation for car owners.

Ms. Richardson, a lawyer herself, said she was not sure why
Australian drivers were being treated differently.

"I'm concerned about their conduct in Australia and the litigation
thus far, but I'm ultimately optimistic that there will be a
resolution to the matter," she said.

A spokesman for Volkswagen Australia said that the situation here
was different to the United States.

He said the company was actively communicating with customers and
working with the Government in relation to a technical solution.
That solution involves updating the software free of charge to
customers.

The spokesman confirmed that Volkswagen, Audi and Skoda were
defending the class actions and participating in the process
required by the Federal Court to prepare those cases for trial.

Jason Geisker from Maurice Blackburn lawyers is representing the
drivers.

"They're not prepared to pay any compensation, and they say
they've done nothing wrong," he said.

"They say they've not breached the law, and they say they have no
case to answer."

Lawyers meet with foreign engineers

Lawyers involved in the class action met with engineers from
overseas in Sydney on June 8, to canvas outstanding technical
issues in the case.

The "expert conferral", as it has been described by Maurice
Blackburn, comes after orders from the Federal Court in April.

"What they're saying now is they now only have to pass testing
regimes in the laboratory," Mr. Geisker said.

"Therefore on a technical argument, they're trying to suggest to
consumers that once they've passed the test in the laboratory, the
vehicles can operate completely differently on the open road and
that there's no contravention."

The issue of emissions cheating software is expected to be raised
at a meeting of EU Transport Ministers underway in Luxembourg.

The case in Australia will return to the Federal Court in July.


WAL-MART STORES: Faces "Reeves" Class Suit in S.D. California
-------------------------------------------------------------
A class action lawsuit has been commenced against Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc.

The case is captioned Nancy Reeves, Rhonda Lorenz, Michael Wills,
and Michelle Walker, on behalf of herself and all others similarly
situated v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Case No. 3:16-cv-01253-AJB-JLB
(S.D. Cal., May 26, 2016).

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. is a retail corporation that operates a
chain of hypermarkets, discount department stores and grocery
stores.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Theodore H. Chase, Esq.
      AUDET AND PARTNERS, LLP
      221 Main Street, Suite 1460
      San Francisco, CA 94105
      Telephone: (415) 568-2555
      Facsimile: (415) 568-2556
      E-mail: tchase@audetlaw.com


WAL-MART STORES: "Smith" Class Suit Removed to N.D. California
--------------------------------------------------------------
The class action lawsuit styled Myrica Smith, as proxy for the
California Labor and Workforce Development Agency, and on behalf
of herself and all others similarly situated v. Wal-Mart Stores,
Inc., Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Does 1 through 100,
inclusive, Case No. RG16809707, was removed from the Superior
Court of California, County of Alameda to the U.S. District Court
California Northern District (San Francisco). The District Court
Clerk assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-02832 to the proceeding.

The case asserts Civil Rights Violation.

The Defendants operate a chain of hypermarkets, discount
department stores and grocery stores.

Myrica Smith is a pro se plaintiff.


WEWORK: Faces Class Action Over Unfair Labor Practices
------------------------------------------------------
Nathan McAlone, writing for Business Insider, reports that the
National Labor Relations Board, an independent government agency
tasked with investigating unfair labor practices in the US, has
found "merit" in certain charges against $16 billion "co-working"
startup WeWork.

The charges were brought by former WeWork employee, Tara Zoumer,
who alleges that she was fired after flagging potential labor
violations and refusing to sign an arbitration agreement.

Ms. Zoumer also filed a lawsuit against WeWork in San Francisco
Superior Court, which has since been ordered into arbitration in
New York.

WeWork will have the opportunity to settle the matter before a
formal complaint is filed by the NLRB.

"The goal is always to reach a settlement that is acceptable to
the charging party, the charged party, and the Agency," according
to the NLRB.  WeWork had until June 10 to counter.

A WeWork spokesperson provided this statement to Business Insider:
"This charge has no merit.  Our employees are our lifeblood and we
firmly believe our policies are fair and lawful."

The case

Ms. Zoumer worked for WeWork from March to November 2015, as an
associate community manager, during which time she alleged
violations of California's labor code, including a lack of
overtime and meal breaks due to a misclassification.  When she
brought these issues up with her managers at WeWork, she was told
to not talk with her coworkers about them, and then asked if she
wanted to resign, Ms. Zoumer says.

After Ms. Zoumer spoke with her WeWork superiors, she claims they
made all US employees sign new employment documents, which
included what she and her attorney characterize as an "unlawful
mandatory arbitration agreement."

Ms. Zoumer says she was fired by WeWork after refusing to sign
this agreement, which would have waived certain rights, including
her right to a class-action claim.

These kinds of arbitration agreements, especially those that strip
class-action rights, are controversial.  The NLRB considers them
to be in violation of the National Labor Relations Act, but there
have been conflicting rulings from the courts.

A person close to WeWork, who asked not to be identified
discussing a legal matter, said that though the majority of
federal courts were on WeWork's side -- in favor of these
arbitration agreements -- this fight could eventually go to the
Supreme Court because of the differences in lower court rulings.

What does that mean for WeWork?
"Because the settlement offered by the NLRB requires that WeWork
eliminate their class waiver and arbitration agreement, I do not
anticipate they will accept the settlement terms, and I expect a
complaint will issue," Ms. Zoumer's attorney, Ramsey Hanafi, told
Business Insider.

Here is the NLRB's response to Ms. Zoumer's charges, which
designates whether they were found to be with or without merit.
These were included in an email to Ms. Zoumer, from NLRB Field
Attorney Lelia M. Gomez:

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating
the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities,
including her refusal to sign the Employer's Employment Dispute
Resolution Program and Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-
Solicitation Agreement.-- MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by terminating
the Charging Party because of her protected concerted activities,
including her activities attempting to enlist other employees in
pursuing a wage class lawsuit.-- NO MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act, when on October
21, 2015, West Coast Director Chia Donati instructed employees
that they could not discuss their rights, wages, and/or other
terms or conditions of employment.-- MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an
Employment Dispute Resolution Program that includes a
class/collective action waiver, prohibits access to the National
Labor Relations Board; and includes a confidentiality provision
that precludes employees from discussing their wages, hours, and
or other terms/conditions of employment.-- MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by implementing
an Employment Dispute Resolution Program in retaliation for the
Charging Party's protected concerted activities.-- NO MERIT

The Employer violated Section 8(a)(1) of the Act by maintaining an
Invention, Non-Disclosure, and Non-Solicitation Agreement that
includes a confidentiality provision that classifies personnel
data as proprietary information.-- MERIT.


WHALENECK ENTERPRISES: Fails to Pay Workers OT, "Paez" Suit Says
----------------------------------------------------------------
Juan Paez, Ramon A. Jimenez, and Rafael Luna, individually and on
behalf of those similarly situated v. Whaleneck Enterprises d/b/a
The Boathouse Restaurant and Lindsay Magili, Case No. 2:16-cv-
02673-ADS-ARL (E.D.N.Y., May 26, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to pay overtime wages for work in excess of
40 hours per week.

The Defendants own and operate The Boathouse Restaurant located at
3000 Whaleneck Dr., Merrick, NY 11566.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

      Saul D. Zabell, Esq.
      ZABEL & ASSOCIATES, PC
      1 Corporate Drive, Suite 103
      Bohemia, NY 11716
      Telephone: (631) 589-7242
      Facsimile: (631) 563-7475
      E-mail: SZabell@laborlawsny.com


ZACKS INVESTMENT: "Kerr" Suit Moved from Super. Ct. to S.D. Cal.
----------------------------------------------------------------
John Kerr, individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, the Plaintiff, v. Zacks Investment Research, Inc., an
Illinois corporation, and Does 1-50, inclusive, the Defendant,
Case No. 37-02016-00015206-CU-MC-CTL, was removed from Superior
Court, San Diego County, Central Division, to the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego). The
Southern District Court assigned Case No. 3:16-cv-01352-GPC-BLM to
the proceeding. The assigned Judge is Hon. Gonzalo P. Curiel.

Zacks is an investment research firm focusing on stock research.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Zachariah Paul Dostart, Esq.
          DOSTART HANNINK & COVENEY LLP
          4180 La Jolla Village Drive, Suite 530
          La Jolla, CA 92037
          Telephone: (858) 623 4200
          Facsimile: (858) 623 4299
          E-mail: zdostart@sdlaw.com

The Defendant is represented by:

          Lisa S. Yun, Esq.
          Shannon Z. Petersen, Esq.
          SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON LLP
          12275 El Camino Real, Suite 200
          San Diego, CA 92130
          Telephone: (858) 720 8900
          Facsimile: (858) 509 3691
          E-mail: lyun@sheppardmullin.com
                  spetersen@sheppardmullin.com


ZEEBA ENTERPRISES: "Najera" Suit Seeks Unpaid Wages Under FLSA
--------------------------------------------------------------
Marcelo Najera, on behalf of himself and others similarly
situated, the Plaintiffs, v. Zeeba Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a Sea
Tile Cafe, Ronald Siegel, and Akbarali Himani, the Defendants,
Case No. 1:16-cv-04142 (S.D.N.Y., June 3, 2016), seeks to recover
unpaid wages and minimum wages; unpaid overtime compensation;
reimbursement of expenses related to unlawfully requiring
Plaintiff to purchase the tools of his trade; liquidated damages;
prejudgment and post-judgment interest; and attorneys' fees and
costs, pursuant to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New
York Labor Law.

According to the complaint, the Defendants knowingly and willfully
operated their business with a policy of not paying either the
FLSA minimum wage or the New York State minimum wage to Plaintiffs
and other similarly situated employees.

Zeeba owns and operates a restaurant known as Seattle Cafe, which
employed Plaintiff as a delivery person, food preparer, and
general helper/cleaner.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

          Justin Cilenti, Esq.
          Peter H. Cooper, Esq.
          CILENTI & COOPER, PLLC
          708 Third Avenue - 6th Floor
          New York, NY 10017
          Telephone: (212) 209 3933
          Facsimile: (212) 209 7102


ZODIAC US: Sued in California Over Failure to Provide Meal Period
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Kyle Cuzick, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Zodiac U.S. Seat Shells, LLC, Zodiac Cabin &
Structures Support, LLC, and Does 1-50, inclusive, Case No.
RG16817063 (Cal. Super. Ct., May 25, 2016), is brought against the
Defendants for failure to provide employees with meal periods,
rest periods, and failure to pay premium wages for unprovided
meals and rest periods.

The Defendants own and operate a company that manufactures airline
seats headquartered in Gainesville, Texas.

The Plaintiff is represented by:

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






                            *********

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

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

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

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

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

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



                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *